California Style

Cargo pants are that proven comfort item that can keep you cool and protected while at work or having fun under the hot California sun. The cargo seems to be trending as of late, available in thick-to-thin linen materials. They are perfect for on the go, a day trip, or even the office job. If you’re headed on a hike or the lake, wear them with your favorite tank top. Headed to the beach? Complement them with a bikini top or swim suit of choice. For the office, top them off with a minimal T-shirt, ballet flats, and light sweater, if needed. The colors are open – from basic army green to white. It’s super fun to wear the cargo and both gals and guys look great in them. Really this piece is utility-like, and perfect for the storm we’re all weathering. Throw a pair on, and your ready to conquer the day. Stay safe and enjoy!

“The older I get and the harder it is to maintain a six pack, the more I wish I wore a tactical vest and cargo pants like Roman Reigns.” -Randy

July 24 Sentinel Legal Notices

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL AND TRAILER
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel and trailer at lien sale at said address below on:
08/14/2020 9:00 am
VESSEL
89VIP, VVNVR017H889, CA
DATE OF SALE-08/14/2020
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
LOCATION OF SALE-17565 CATALPA ST, HESPERIA, CA 92345
TRAILER
16709AB, 4JS2307, VANSO
To be sold by VIP #1 AUTOBODY CENTER & TOWING 17565 CATALPA ST, HESPERIA CA 92345
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 24, 2020
NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the Stte of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle[s] at lien sale at said address below on:
Friday August 14, 2020 9:00 am
Year of car/ Make of car/ Vehicle I.D. No.#/ License No. (State)
1964 Chevrolet Pickup C254SZ34336
S54554 CA
To be sold by Elizabeth Corona 15613 Boyle Avenue Fontana, CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 24, 2020
NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL AND TRAILER
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel and trailer at lien sale at said address below on:
08/14/2020 9:00 am
VESSEL
89VIP, VVNVR017H889, CA
DATE OF SALE-08/14/2020
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
LOCATION OF SALE-17565 CATALPA ST, HESPERIA, CA 92345
TRAILER
16709AB, 4JS2307, VANSO
To be sold by VIP #1 AUTOBODY CENTER & TOWING 17565 CATALPA ST, HESPERIA CA 92345
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 24, 2020
NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the Stte of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle[s] at lien sale at said address below on:
Friday August 14, 2020 9:00 am
Year of car/ Make of car/ Vehicle I.D. No.#/ License No. (State)
1964 Chevrolet Pickup C254SZ34336
S54554 CA
To be sold by Elizabeth Corona 15613 Boyle Avenue Fontana, CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 24, 2020

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS 1923157
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO DEMANDADO): JOHN SULLIVAN
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL CONTRADEMANDANTE):
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino Civil Division 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino Justice Center.
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s  attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del contrademandante, o del contrademandante que no tiene abogado, es):
REA STELMACH, Esq., (State Bar No. 296671)
SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU, LLP
11630 CHAYOTE STREET, SUITE 3, LOS ANGELES, CA 90049  213-226-6922
DATE (Fecha): AUGUST 2, 2019
Clerk (Secretario), by Melissa Perez, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in San Bernardino County Sentinel: 7/3, 7/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020
SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (Número del Caso):
CIVDS1928059
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): GWAY INVESTMENTS, a partnership; JEFF J GWAY, an individual and partner of GWAY INVESTMENTS; LILLIAN GWAY, an individual and partner of GWAY INVESTMENTS AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTÁ DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): PAC-VAN, INC.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 días, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versión. Lea la información a continuación.
Tiene 30 DÍAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefónica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y más información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede más cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida al secretario de la corte que le dé un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin más advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisión a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación de $10,000 ó más de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is (El nombre y dirección de la corte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF San Bernardino, SAN BERNARDINO, CENTRAL, 247 West 3rd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is (El nombre, la dirección y el número de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Law Offices of Gary A. Bemis APC, Gary A. Bemis 92508, 3870 La Sierra Ave., Suite 239, Riverside, CA 92505
DATE (Fecha): SEP 18 2019
Debra Pedrosa, Clerk (Secretario)
(SEAL)
7/3, 7/10, 7/17, 7/24/20
CNS-3375598#
Published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL July 3, 10, 17 & 24.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER  CIVDS2010780
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Leonidas Norca Gomero Zevallos filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Leonidas Norca Gomero Zevallos to Norca Gomero
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 08/05/2020
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: June 10, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005724
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Quick Call Notary, 919 W H St, Ontario, CA 91762, David M. Coronado, 919 W H St, Ontario, CA 91762, Denise A. Vega, 919 W H St, Ontario, CA 91762
Business is Conducted By: A Married Couple
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ David Matthew Coronado
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/25/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20
FBN 20200005769
The following person is doing business as: NEEDLES PIONEER CEMETERY MUSEUM [and] AHA 417 F STREET (AKA NO 1 GRANDVIEW) NEEDLES, CA 92363 ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE ASSOCIATION – AHA 417 F ST NEEDLES, CA 92363
DLN: 26053745001669 CCN:
Mailing Address: 420 E ST NEEDLES, CALIF 92363
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ RUTH MUSSER-LOPEZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/26/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/03, 7/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020.
FBN 20200005185
The following person is doing business as: DRUM SYNC ACADEMY 9559 CENTER AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 KYLE M SCHWEIKHARD 10350 BASELINE RD SPC 25 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 90701
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ KYLE SCHWEIKHARD
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/09/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 1/06/2011
County Clerk, Deputy D5
511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/03, 7/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020.
FBN20200004994
The following person is doing business as: INLAND PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, 9655 MONTE VISTA AVENUE, SUITE 402, MONTACLAIR 91763; ELBERT CHANG M.D. INC; 1131 COOKE AVENUE, CLAREMONT, CA 91711; JOSE A.M. SANTIAGO MD INC , 2772 ARBOR LANE, ONTARIO, CA 91762, GENE S. HONG, M.D .,INC, 794 VIA ESPIRITO SANTOS, CLAREMONT, CA 91711; ALI SALEM MD INC. JOHN KIM D.O. INC., 9043 SALEM MD INC., 9043 SYCAMORE AVE., MONTACLARE, CA 91763; RICK SIRIRATSIVAWONG MD INC, 9043 SYCAMORE AVE., MONTACLARE, CA 91763; NICOLAAS GROBLER, JR., M.D., INC; 7833 SIERRA VISTA STREET, RANCHO, CA 91730; SHAHRAM KHORRAMI, M.D. INC, 3219 SILVER MAPLE DRIVE, YORBA LINDA, CA 92886; ATIF QADEER, MD INC, 5554 ALMADA ST., CHINO HILLS, CA 91709, JOHN KIM D.O., INC. 3196 MARIGOLD CIR., DIAMOND BAR, CA, 91765
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN. 21, 2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ELBERT CHANG, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/01/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 06/19/2020, 06/26/2020, 07/03/2020 & 07/10/2020 CNBB25202001MT

FBN20200004994
The following person is doing business as: TM ROOFING, 26405 APACNETL TRAIL, RIM ROREST, CA 92378; P.O. BOX 4176, BLUE JAY, CA 92317 LUIS A. MARTINEZ, 26405 APACETL TRAIL, RIM ROREST, CA 92378
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LUIS A. MARTINEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/04/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 06/19/2020, 06/26/2020, 07/03/2020 & 07/10/2020 CNBB25202001MT
FBN20200004994
The following person is doing business as FLIP MASTER; 6315 COMPTON AVE., RIALTO, CA 92377; HIGH HORIZONZ, LLC. 6315 COMPTON AVE., RIALTO, CA 92377
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ALEXANDER AYALA, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/08/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 06/19/2020, 06/26/2020, 07/03/2020 & 07/10/2020 CNBB25202003MT

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005383
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lexi Global, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784, Lexi Global Corporation, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Raul Saldana
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 25, 2020
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 7/3/20, 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF AVA RUTH CROWELL
Case No. PROPS2000346
To all heirs, benefi-ciaries, creditors, con-tingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of AVA RUTH CROWELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Kenith Crowell in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Kenith Crowell be appointed as personal representative to admin-ister the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representa-tive will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the pro-posed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 4, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Dept. No. S36 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contin-gent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
ROMBOUD S. RAHMANIAN ESQ SBN 264707
LAW OFFICE OF
ROMY S RAHMANIAN APLC
33 E HUNTINGTON DR
ARCADIA CA 91006
CN970620 CROWELL Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 10,17 & 24, 2020.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF JOSE VELAZCO RODRIGUEZ aka JOSE VELASCO
Case No. PROPS2000387
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of JOSE VELAZCO RODRIGUEZ; JOSE VELAZCO; JOSE VELASCO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JOSE VELASCO JAUREQUI aka JOSE VELASCO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JOSE VELASCO JAUREQUI aka JOSE VELASCO be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representa-tive will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the pro-posed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 18, 2020 at 1:30 PM in Dept. No. S-37 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contin-gent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
JOSEPH R. DONNINI, ESQUIRE SBN 184644
LEGAL VALUE FIRM, APLC
4641 TORRANCE BLVD.
TORRANCE, CA 90503
(320) 499-9535
team@legalvaluefirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 10, 17 & 24, 2020.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
LA CHERRY
NO. PROPS 2000378
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LA CHERRY aka LA CULBERSON CHERRY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LILLIE MAE KEEL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LILLIE MAE KEEL be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9 a.m. on JULY 28, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/10, 7/17 & 7/24, 2020
FBN 20200005597
The following person is doing business as OAK TREE LEGAL SERVICES 5861 PINE AVE, SUITE B-10 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709: ALEJANDRO MARRERO 5861 PINE AVE, SUITE B-10 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ALEJANDRO MARRERO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/19/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/10, 7/17, 7/24 & 7/31, 2020.
FBN 20200005446
The following person is doing business as ELITE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 1619 E OAK HILL CT ONTARIO, CA 91761: MOSES VENEGAS 1619 E OAK HILL CT ONTARIO, CA 91761
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ MOSES VENEGAS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/17/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/10, 7/17, 7/24 & 7/31, 2020.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005353
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: The Auto Nest, 869 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite O, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 46338 Durango Dr., Temecula, CA 92592, YMH Inc., 46338 Durango Dr., Temecula, CA 92592
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Yasir Tunuli
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/12/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 6/8/20
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005349

The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Full Spectrum Home Savers, 6673 Logan Ave, Fontana, CA 92336, Steven A. Campos, 6673 Logan Ave, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Steven Campos
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/12/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005365
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Highway Bumpers, 15172 Macadamia Ct, Fontana, CA 92335, Edgar Guerra, 15172 Macadamia Ct, Fontana, CA 92335
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Edgar Guerra
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/12/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).

7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005870
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Goosehead Insurance, 473 E Carnegie Dr Ste 200, San Bernardino, CA 92408, Maria Montoya, 2997 Aztec Drive, Riverside, CA 92509-1980
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Maria Montoya
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/01/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 09/20/19
County Clerk, s/ H7178
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005383
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lexi Global, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784, Lexi Global Corporation, 1770 N Laurel Ave, Upland, CA, 91784
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Raul Saldana
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/15/20

I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 25, 2020
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20
FBN 20200002833 The following person is doing business as: NEW ENGLAND DWELLING 711 S DATE AVE RIALTO, CA KADESHA P ENGLAND 711 S DATE AVE RIALTO, CA This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ Kadeshaa England This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/03/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2020 County Clerk, Deputy NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/20/20, 3/27/20, 4/3/20, & 4/10/20 Corrected: 4/17/20, 4/24/20, 5/01/20 & 5/08/20 Corrected: 7/10/20, 7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20

FBN20200005758
The following person is doing business as: GONZALEZ CONSTRUCTION, 7461 LYNWOOD WAY, HIGHLAND, CA 92346; GONZALEZ CONSRUCTION, INC. 7461 LYNWOOD WAY, HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LOURDES GUTIERREZ-PELAYO, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/25/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202001MT
FBN20200005757
The following person is doing business as: LOYALTY INK; 17264 FOOTHILL BLVD. UNIT C, FONTANA, CA 92335; ADRIANA RENOVA; 17264 FOOTHILL BLVD. UNIT C, FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ADRIANA RENOVA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/25/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202002MT
FBN20200005825
The following person is doing business as: BENSON METAL POLISH & RESTORATION; 936 MONTE VISTA AVE., UPLAND, CA 91786; ELVIS MARTINEZ; 936 MONTE VISTA AVE., UPLAND, CA 91786
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ELVIS MARTINEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/30/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202003MT

FBN20200005823
The following person is doing business as: A.P.M.; 1515 ARROW SPACE #55, UPLAND, CA 91786; ASAEL PINTO MEJIA; 18308 GHEN ST., AZUSA, CA 91702
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ASAEL PINTO MEJIA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/30/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202004MT
FBN20200005821
The following person is doing business as: OPERATION PATROL SERVICES; 2575 PLEASANT WAY, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; JOSE Z MEDINA, 2575 PLEASANT WAY, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; JUAN M. MEDINA, 2575 PLEASANT WAY, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOT APPLICABLE
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE Z. MEDINA, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/30/2020
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/10/2020, 07/17/2020, 07/24/2020 & 07/24/2020 CNBB28202005MT
SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS 1933574
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO DEMANDADO): SHARON VODEN
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL CONTRADEMANDANTE):
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino Civil Division 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino Justice Center.
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s  attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del contrademandante, o del contrademandante que no tiene abogado, es):
MORANI STELMACH, Esq., (State Bar No. 296670)
SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU, LLP
11630 CHAYOTE STREET, SUITE 3, LOS ANGELES, CA 90049  213-226-6922
DATE (Fecha): NOVEMBER 6, 2019
Clerk (Secretario), by Angeline Garcia, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in San Bernardino County Sentinel: 7/17, 7/24, 7/31 & 8/7, 2020

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200006061
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Cozy Penguin Creations, 14191 Redondo Court, Fontana, CA 92336, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3594, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729, Dawnae B. Maldonado, 14191 Redondo Court, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Dawnae B. Maldonado
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/9/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200006093
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: San Bernardino County Sentinel, 22797 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313, City News Group, Inc., 22797 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Margie Miller
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/10/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200006125
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Bashe Beauty; Topthrd, 250 N College Park Dr, Apt E18, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 17309 Crocker Ave, Carson, CA 90746, Jessica Jaiyeola, 17309 Crocker Ave, Carson, CA 90746
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Jessica Jaiyeola
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/13/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 5/20/20
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005826
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Fine Art Advisory, 404 New York Street, #8338, Redlands, CA 92375, Sharon Klotz, 404 New York Street #8338, Redlands, CA 92375
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Sharon Klotz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/30/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
7/17/20, 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JERRY RAY GARCIA
NO. PROPS 2000389
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JERRY RAY GARCIA
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by RENEE RAQUEL GARCIA FULKERSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that RENEE RAQUEL GARCIA FULKERSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on AUGUST 19, 2020 at the San Bernardino Justice Center, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner:
R. SAM PRICE, ESQ.
SBN 208603
300 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 475-8800
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 7/24, 7/31 & 8/07, 2020
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS20131174
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner AMBER MARIE WALL filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
AMBER MARIE WALL to MIA MARIE WALL
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/01/2020
Time: 9 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 24, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/07/20 & 8/14/20
Present name Amber Marie Wall
New name Mia Marie Wall
Case number: CIV DS 20131174
Court hearing: September 1, 2020

FBN 20200006155
The following person is doing business as CCQ VENTURES 9321 TRYON ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: CHONA C. QUERUBIN 9321 TRYON ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ CHONA C. QUERUBIN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/13/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: June 27, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy l1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/24, 7/31, 8/7 & 8/14, 2020.

FBN 20200004501 The following person is doing business as: BEYOND BELLA SKIN CARE 10601 CHURCH ST. SUITE 101 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 GINA L SMITH 542 E BONNIE BRAE CT. ONTARIO, CA 91764 Mailing Address: 542 E BONNIE BRAE CT. ONTARIO, CA 91764-1803 This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ GINA SMITH This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/13/2020 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: 04/27/2020 County Clerk, Deputy D5511 NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 5/22/20, 5/29/20, 6/05/20 & 6/12/20.

Corrected on 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20, 8/14/20

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Estelle Leverett
Case NO. PROPS21901235
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Estelle Leverett
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DeOundra Nauls, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DeOundra Nauls be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S36P at 8:30 a.m. on August 31, 2020 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino- Probate Division
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioner:
Christian U. Anyiam, Esq., Anyiam Law Firm
357 W. 2nd Street, Suite 16,
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Telephone No: 909-383-9500
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on:
7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2012974
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Hanaa Yakoub filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
An Habashi to Ann Sadek; Andro Sadek to Andrew Sadek
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/09/2020
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 15, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20, 8/14/20
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2013437
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner DYLAN PYTKOMUNSON filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
DYLAN PYTKOMUNSON to DYLAN LEE MUNSON
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 08/31/2020
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Department: S-17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: June 17, 2020
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/24/20, 7/31/20, 8/7/20, 8/14/20
FBN 20200006141 The following person is doing business as: C.W.I INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS. 22387 BLACK BEAUTY TRAILWILDOMAR, CA 92595The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL. The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.s/ JUAN L GARCIA, OWNER, 22387 BLACK BEAUTY TRAIL WILDOMAR, CA 92595Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/13/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/24/2020, 07/31/2020, 08/07/2020, 08/14/2020 CNBB30202002IR

FBN 20200006023 The following person is doing business as: SILENCE NO MO. 17963 PASSIONFLOWER LNSAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL. The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.s/ BARBARA A HARRIS, OWNER, 17963 PASSIONFLOWER LN SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/07/2020I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/24/2020, 07/31/2020, 08/07/2020, 08/14/2020 CNBB30202001L

Lawyer Says Valdivia’s Woes Are An Outgrowth Of His Drive To Save SB

By Mark Gutglueck
The repeated, exaggerated and progressively more monstrous portrayals of Mayor John Valdivia as a victimizer are a gross perversion of the truth, one that is depriving the City of San Bernardino of what is perhaps its last hope of achieving recovery rather than slipping into bankruptcy for the second time in a decade and from which the once-grand county seat will likely see itself disincorporated, the mayor’s lawyer this week told the Sentinel.
Valdivia, who was first elected to the city council representing the Third Ward in 2011, in 2018 successfully challenged incumbent Mayor Carey Davis. Valdivia, upon acceding to the position of mayor in December 2018, appeared to have transitioned into the central political personage in the city, and indeed for the next year headed the ruling coalition on the council which consisted, at least initially, of First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez, Second Ward Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra, Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel, Sixth Ward Councilwoman Bessine Richard and, after he was elected to replace Valdivia in the Third Ward council position in a specially-held election in May 2019, Juan Figueroa. The only consistent opposition Valdivia faced during his first year as mayor was that offered by Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett and Seventh Ward Councilman Jim Mulvihill, who did not possess sufficient political muscle with their two votes to resist the agenda that Valdivia was pursuing.
Early this year, however, Valdivia’s platform of political primacy was yanked out from under him when two of the six staff members at City Hall assigned exclusively to the mayor’s office, senior customer service representative Mirna Cisneros, 30, and Karen Cervantes, 24, who was Valdivia’s mayoral assistant, simultaneously and abruptly resigned on January 29. Their dual departures from the city were followed with their public statements, offered at a press conference held in front of City Hall, as to why they felt leaving the city’s employ was necessary. Cisneros and Cervantes had retained attorney Tristan Pelayes, a former San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy and one-time mayor of Adelanto who is now a principal in the law firm of Pelayes & Yu, to represent them prior to their resignations. While they were working for the city in roles that were directly answerable to Valdivia, they said, the mayor had subjected them to unwanted sexual advances, innuendo and crude remarks, sought to press them into compromising circumstances, insisted that they perform tasks outside their job assignments, and either sought to involve them in or acknowledged to them his skirting of the law pertaining to the use of public funds as well as his violation of the reporting requirements imposed on public officials relating to the reception of donations, money or services. Cisneros said that Valdivia had pressured her to work on political campaigns while she was serving in her capacity as a city employee, and that the mayor suggested that she should use the vacation time she had accrued to work on the now-concluded campaigns of two of the candidates in this year’s city council races Valdivia had endorsed, Juan Figueroa and Bessine Richard. According to Cisneros, Valdivia accepted gratuities from individuals with business before the city that verged on or crossed the line into bribetaking.
On February 27 at another press conference called before San Bernardino City Hall, Pelayes announced that four others, including a city commissioner and three other employees of the mayor’s office had been mistreated by Valdivia. Three of those, Jackie Aboud, a 23-year-old part-time field representative for Valdivia, Don Smith, a 25-year-old part-time legislative aid and field representative, and Alissa Payne, 36, who in October 2019 was nominated by Valdivia and then appointed to both the Arts and Historical Preservation Commission and the San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, were featured at the press conference. The fourth individual who was not identified or in attendance at the February 27 press conference, was Valdivia’s chief of staff, Matt Brown.
Aboud, who had worked as a field representative for Valdivia from April 2019 until she was fired on January 6, said she had been provided with no training and was subjected to a circumstance which suggested that she was not hired for legitimate work in serving as a liaison between Valdivia and his constituents but rather as Valdivia’s courtesan. “He told me I needed to spend time with him after hours and invest in a friendship with him if I wanted to reach my career goals,” Aboud said. “He also told me that my job was not to serve the community but to serve him and meet his personal needs.”
According to Aboud, Valdivia was self-centered and abrasive, and his ego-driven ambition prevented him from being of service to his constituents. She said the mayor slighted the city’s residents in the Fourth and Seventh Ward because they were represented by his two rivals on the council, Shorett and Mulvihill. Valdivia was vindictive and mean, Aboud said, taking recourse in threatening her with termination, belittling her in front of others and constant bullying.
Smith, in his capacity as Valdivia’s legislative aid and field representative, claimed that Valdivia ordered him to work extra hours while not paying him overtime, and dangling before him promises of promotion that never manifested. He claimed Valdivia had employed him to engage in running personal errands that had nothing to do with serving the residents of San Bernardino.
Smith said, “He [Valdivia] routinely threatened my job as a means to bully me” and “told me my job was on the line if I didn’t do what he wanted. Even though I was not on call, he would call me and tell me to immediately report to work on days/times I wasn’t scheduled. Anytime I questioned him, he again would tell me that I needed to do what I was told because he gave me the opportunity.”
Smith signed an affidavit in which he stated that he had accompanied Valdivia to a 1 a.m. meeting at a restaurant with Danny Alcarez during which Alcarez delivered to Valdivia an envelope stuffed with cash, made in exchange for Valdivia’s assistance in securing for Alcarez and other tow truck business operators placement on the city’s tow service franchise.
Payne stated, “I was subjected to inappropriate conduct and manipulation by the mayor. He went as far as offering to provide me an apartment, would tell me how to vote and what to say or do at the commission meetings, asked me to meet him alone in the evening after hours, and promised – guaranteed – me a seat on the city dais as the Second Ward council member.”
Payne said Valdivia made inappropriate sexist comments, subjected her to unwanted physical touching, and had “invited me to attend a dinner event as his personal guest where he was persistently trying to get me intoxicated, which I declined, and put his arm around me several times, touching my lower back and making me extremely uncomfortable. The mayor was preying on me.”
Payne claimed that “council members were not only aware but enabled his behavior.”
A week after the February 27 press conference Matt Brown was revealed as Pelayes’ sixth client lodging accusations against the mayor. Brown hired on as Valdivia’s chief of staff in August 2019. Brown was less vocal than the other five, but according to Pelayes, Brown had retained his firm after he grew concerned that Valdivia would retaliate against him for having sought to shield Cisneros, Cervantes and Aboud from Valdivia by encouraging them to file grievances over their treatment by Valdivia with the city’s human resources division.
The accusations first leveled by Cisneros and Cervantes and reinforced by Aboud, Smith, Payne and Brown precipitated Valdivia’s decline in authority. Whereas throughout much of 2019 Valdivia was able to consistently rally at least four votes of support for the items that came before the council which he championed, by this spring it became clear that Sanchez, Ibarra and Nickel had defected from the Valdivia camp, and on major issues of import to the mayor, they would join with Shorett and Mulvihill in frustrating Valdivia’s plan of action or intended direction.
Shortly after the accusations against Valdivia by Cisneros and Cervantes surfaced, the city through the firm of Best Best & Krieger, which employs the two lawyers who serve in the capacity of city attorney and deputy city attorney, Thomas Rice and Sonia Carvalho respectively, sought to initiate an investigation of the accusations. There were suggestions, however, that Best Best & Krieger, the employees of which represent Valdivia as do they represent the entirety of the council, were ill-suited to carry out the investigation, so Carvalho arranged to have the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore oversee the investigation. For reasons that were not clear, however, Liebert Cassidy and Whitmore begged off from having to carry out the investigation directly, as J. Scott Tiedemann, a managing partner with the firm, directed the city to hire Los Angeles-based attorney Carla Barboza to do that work. Barboza, who was to receive $350 per hour, was initially contracted to investigate the Cisneros and Cervantes claims, at a not-to-exceed cost of $50,000. That investigation bogged down, however, when Pelayes asked and then insisted that one of his investigators or his firm’s lawyers be granted access to the interviews with both claimants and witnesses. When the city refused, Pelayes instructed his clients not to submit to the questioning by Barboza. This had the effect of shortcircuiting the investigation, as those with the information most pertinent to the issues being investigated were not interviewed.
In the meantime, in April, the city council considered Valdivia’s request that the city, in addition to conducting what it claimed was an “independent” investigation of Valdivia’s conduct, pay for his legal defense in the face of the claims made against him and whatever findings against him the city’s investigation might turn up. Deputy City Attorney Sonia Carvalho suggested that the council could authorize Valdivia to select an attorney at his own discretion for whose work representing the mayor the city might then defray an initial maximum expenditure of $50,000. In the alternative, Carvalho said, she could select an attorney for Valdivia who would likewise be provided with an initial $50,000 retainer. Carvalho then provided the city council with a list of four attorneys she thought might be suitable for structuring Valdivia’s defense, one being Patrick “Kit” Bobko, who had agreed to work on the mayor’s behalf at a rate of $250 to $330 per hour; Michael Zweiback, who committed to working on the case in conjunction with other members of his firm at a “blended” rate of $400 per hour; Gerald Sauer, who was willing to work the case at a cost of $495 per hour; and Sonya Goodwin, who stood ready to go to bat for Valdivia for $450 per hour. Valdivia, who had been provided with an early preview of the attorneys Carvalho had suggested, communicated with Zweiback directly, informing him that he was intent on having Zweiback’s firm represent him, as was indicated in an engagement letter sent to him at his city office from the firm of Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman dated March 11, 2020.
When the city council on April 15 considered the request that the city pay for Valdivia’s legal representation, councilmembers Figueroa and Richard were in favor of having the city defray Valdivia’s defense costs and Councilman Shorett indicated that he would support having Valdivia represented by the city attorney’s office without any outside counsel being paid for. Councilwoman Ibarra wanted the council to outright refuse to have the city pay for Valdivia’s defense. Ultimately however, a motion to table, that is suspend, a decision on having the city pay for Valdivia’s legal defense was made by Councilman Nickel, which was passed with the support of councilmen Sanchez, Shorett, Nickel and Mulvihill.
In May, after some three months of investigation, Barboza had yet to provide any written report to the city that had been passed along to the council, but was requesting another $30,000 to complete the investigation. Having nothing by which to gauge the process of the investigation, the city council declined to authorize the payment of the requested $30,000. By June, however, at which point both Aboud and Smith had officially filed claims against the city and were thus signaling their intent to file lawsuits, the city council signed off on paying Barboza another $18,000 to move forward with her investigation.
Reports and insinuations from all quarters pertaining to Valdivia have in recent weeks and months intensified to include accusations that he has been taking bribes and payoffs relating to a number of issues pertaining to business licensing, project approvals and franchise contracts before the city. Moreover, there are suggestions that Valdivia is raging out of control with regard to his personal comportment, exacerbated by his descent into alcoholism and illicit drug use.
Since the city council’s non-action in April which denied Valdivia legal indemnification, a legal fund on Valdivia’s behalf has been set up, into which reportedly some $45,000 had been collected by the end of June, said to have come from sources that have likewise contributed to his political campaigns in the past.
Valdivia used that money to retain not Zweiback and Zweiback’s firm as had been his previous intent, but rather Rod Pacheco.
The choice of Pacheco as his legal representative is a rather apt one in Valdivia’s case on several score.
Like Valdivia, Pacheco is a Republican, which is a relative rarity among Hispanic politicians in California. A half of a generation before Valdivia, Pacheco made his entry into politics in a rather spectacular fashion. After having acceded to a position of high rank within the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office under then-Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask, Pacheco in 1996 made a successful run for the California Assembly, becoming the first Latino Republican elected to the Assembly in more than a century. He was elected leader of the Republican caucus, marking the first time in the state’s history that a Hispanic legislator had risen to that position. Because the Republicans surrendered their majority hold on the Assembly in the 1996 election, Pacheco narrowly missed out on becoming the first Hispanic California Assembly speaker. After being termed out of the legislature, he returned to the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, where in 2006, he was elected district attorney, serving a single four-year term. He is now in private practice.
More than sharing with Valdivia being a Latino Republican politician who cuts across the grain by functioning in an environment wherein most Hispanic politicians are mainstreamed into the Democratic Party, Pacheco spent his formative years in San Bernardino, and is intimately familiar with its institutions, its lay of the land, its residents, its body politic and its movers and shakers. This, perhaps, leaves him uniquely qualified to serve as Valdivia’s advocate.
Pacheco told the Sentinel, “I have read the newspaper accounts and I have gone over the complaints very closely and I would say the majority of this, I would say 95 percent of the allegations, certainly a lot of them, are what the city’s own investigator, Ms. Barboza, said were ‘bad boss allegations,’ and when she said that she laughed. I would concur with that conclusion. What the people who are complaining are saying is that they were told to do their jobs and made to work hard.”
According to Pacheco, “The one employee who at the beginning started this [Cisneros] and inspired the rest of the allegations said it came down to ‘He [Valdivia] expected me to work hard.’ That’s the overwhelming majority of the accusations. Of course he expected the people who worked for him and for the city to work hard.”
Pacheco said the sexual harassment accusations do not hold up.
“I don’t know why the rest of the accusations are being made, but of course, those are the statements that really stirred things up,” Pacheco said. “He [Mayor Valdivia] commented on her [Cisneros’s] shoes and asked if they were Jimmy Choo shoes, which are very expensive and are famous for being fashionable with women. I didn’t know that myself, but had to ask my wife. Apparently, Mayor Valdivia is ahead of the rest of us men there. So he asked her about her shoes and, oh my gosh, he was sexually harassing her. Well, that is not sexual harassment, neither factually nor legally. When I was with the district attorney’s office, I handled sexual assault cases. I was a founding member of the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office Sexual Assault Team. I know that area of the law. I know what sexual assault looks like. I know what sexual harassment looks like, and these allegations do not encompass anything close to that.”
Mayor Valdivia is being pilloried for intrepidly going where most politicians would shy away from, taking on a political assignment that is fraught with risk, Pacheco said. Pacheco pointed out that San Bernardino is in what many people consider to be a municipal death spiral. In 2012, the city filed for Chapter Nine bankruptcy protection, emerging from that status in 2017. Things remain touch and go in the 218,000 population city, as it is being dogged by deficit spending that is rapidly eating up the reserves it managed to salt away during the 2012-to-2017 period while it was under the umbrella of bankruptcy protection.
“I grew up in San Bernardino,” Pacheco said. “I was raised there. I moved there when I was six. My father was in the Air Force and he was stationed at Norton Air Force Base. I went to college in San Diego, but I remained very close to San Bernardino. It was a wonderful city. It was called ‘A City On The Move.’ There was a lot going on in San Bernardino. It was the first city to have two malls. It was, then, a much better city than the one I live in now, Riverside. Now, they’ve flipped. That great city of my childhood has gone into the tank. It is very different now. Now you have a mayor, John Valdivia, who like former Mayor Valles is trying to save it.”
Judith Valles was San Bernardino Mayor from 1998 until 2006.
“Mayor Valles made efforts and had what I would call modest gains,” said Pacheco. “But the city has fallen into an abyss, and it is not a regular effort that is going to fix things. You are not going to turn things around working nine to five. It is going to require a Herculean effort. This is not the time for half measures any more. Public safety has become a real problem. For years, San Bernardino was the murder capital of California. San Bernardino has a lot of problems and this mayor is ready to make a lot of extra effort. As mayor, John Valdivia has the desire to put forth that effort. He is a Type A person who wants to run the city right and he is demanding that people who work for him or work in the city do what they are being asked to do. That is the only way that things are going to be turned around. The hardest hit cities are the poorest cities. Rich people can sustain it or walk away and start over. The poor have the greatest difficulty, and San Bernardino is filled with the poor. It is really unfortunate that the one person in the city working hardest to make a change is now being subjected to this. The city has really fallen apart and these people who have filed the complaints about having to work hard shouldn’t be working for the city. They should go get a job where they can take it easy. What John Valdivia has taken on is a massive amount of work.”
The reports that Valdivia is on the take and receiving bribes and kickbacks do not hold up, Pacheco said.
“I am familiar with those false allegations,” Pacheco said. “They are abjectly false. Don Smith signed an affidavit. Don Smith doesn’t provide any evidence, and I am not familiar with any other evidence to that effect.”
The demonization of John Valdivia at the local level is a reflection of the contentious nature of political discourse at the national level, in which all elements along the political spectrum are engaged in a scorched earth strategy of leveling anyone or anything seen as being out of step with one faction’s or the other’s immediate goal of taking absolute control of the office or the position of power being vied over, Pacheco said.
“What is of concern to me is there is a mob mentality not just in San Bernardino but in the United States that is feasting on people,” Pacheco said. “It has nothing to do with underlying philosophy or politics. You will see it happen to people, no matter what side they are on politically. It is a mob mentality. You have members of the city council – some, not all of them – who have been very aggressive in attacking the mayor. I’m not sure what their motivation is. Maybe they think that this will make them look better in comparison to him. It may be political or it may be personal, but they are publicly stoking the flames based on falsehoods, saying the mayor should resign, trying to drive him out of office. It is ugliness. It is unfortunate. The city must be saved, and they are going after the one person who is committed to saving the city. I have watched the city’s leadership since I was a kid. The one other mayor that was trying hard was Mayor Valles. And now the city has John Valdivia. They have not had true leadership in the city for a long, long time. Mayor [Robert] Holcomb presided over the glory days. When he left the city began to deteriorate slowly but surely over time.”
Pacheco said, “In San Bernardino, public safety is in a shambles. You have severe underemployment. Sixty percent of the people are on unemployment or are receiving public assistance. The city is falling apart. It is not just on the west side anymore, like it was when I was a kid, but everywhere.”
Pacheco continued, “What is going on is the city council members are grabbing a hold of a false claim and running their mouths, saying, ‘Well, the mayor needs to resign.’ How dare they? Why don’t they do their jobs for the people in the city?”
Pacheco dismissed accusations that Valdivia has a problem with alcohol and with other intoxicants, and is an illicit drug user.
“That is laughable,” Pacheco said. “It is weird. I can I read in the claims where he went here and then we went there. He mention shoes. It’s ‘One time, he mentioned my shoes.’ They say that is sexual harassment. They say they were somewhere and that he had a drink, so that means he was obviously intoxicated.”
The goal is to discredit the mayor using innuendo and suggestion, none of which is steeped in fact or evidence, Pacheco said. Valdivia’s accusers are making a case against him because that is their way to riches, he said. “They are trying to drive the city to pay them off,” Pacheco said. “What was their motive in having a sequence of press conferences? Why not just have one press conference where they have their say? Why did they have four? Why were people who were not even government employees taking part?”
Pacheco took issue with Payne, who changed her story, he said.
“She was at the first press conference and the San Bernardino Sun talked to her. She was quoted as saying ‘I’m here to be supportive of the person in the press conference, even though I have never been harassed myself.’ A month later, she filed a claim saying she had been sexually harassed. How is that credible? There could not be a greater contradiction. Some people will do anything for money.”
Those gunning for Valdivia have ulterior motives, Pacheco said.
“They are trying to drive him out of office,” Pacheco said. “I was hired to make sure he was treated fairly. There have been efforts to hamstring him from the beginning. He tried to hire an attorney, and the city wouldn’t hire an attorney for him. They have not done anything to investigate this. Mr. Pelayes has not let them interview anyone who filed the claims. The only one interviewed was Don Smith. Mr. Pelayes previously denied them access to him and would not allow him to be interviewed, but he was a city employee and the city told him he had to cooperate, and then Mr. Pelayes gave in and had him interviewed.”
Pacheco pointed out that the city is paying Barboza $350 an hour to serve as an investigator and paying J. Scott Tiedemann of Liebert Cassidy and Whitmore $600 an hour to oversee what is going on when no real investigation is possible.
“The city keeps throwing money at this,” Pacheco said. “The city should spend its time and money elsewhere. The accusers don’t want to be cooperative. If they want to sue the city and mayor, they will have to go to court and I can cross examine people and find out if what is in the complaint is true. This does not resemble a court proceeding in the least. I don’t get to cross examine people. I can’t put anyone on the stand. If I were the city, I would say to Mr. Pelayes, ‘If someone wants to interview your client, you are supposed to allow inquiries to be made. That is called discovery.’ He refuses absolutely for the people who are making these accusations to be questioned. There is a fundamental issue of fairness there. Mr. Tiedemann hired an investigator named Barboza. We asked Tiedemann in writing for the documents he has. He has refused. He said this is just an interim report that is going to go to the city council, which means it is a public document. We have a right to the interviews they have before we go down the road. This is unfair and it is designed to be an ambush.”
The city has no substance to hang its hat on when it comes to knowing what is true and what is false with regard to the accusations made by Pelayes’s clients, Pacheco said.
“They have no one to interview, but Tiedemann and Barboza got extra money from the council. I don’t know why they did that. You’d have to ask them. This is an investigation that does not have to be done. Why do you need more money? That money would be better spent on parks or job training. They need to revive the city and its economy, like the mayor is trying to do. I go to courthouses all over Southern California. In Santa Ana, in San Diego, in Riverside, I have to park four blocks away. In Los Angeles, I have to park in a parking lot eight blocks away and it costs me $40. The San Bernardino Courthouse is the only courthouse I can park right in front of. There is no business there. Nothing is going on around the courthouse. It is sad. The only one trying to do anything about that is Mayor Valdivia, and they are trying to run him out of office. The others say they are working on it and that they have the same good intent. This isn’t about intent. It is about results. San Bernardino is a mess. The city needs to be saved.”
The matter has been playing out for too long, Pacheco said. “We’re now moving toward eight months after this first came up,” he said. “These claims were made in January. During that time, Mr. Pelayes said you are not interviewing my client. The city has no one to interview.”
Pacheco said, “John Valdivia is the mayor of a city that has huge problems. When I was a younger man, before I was district attorney but was with the prosecutor’s office, I was trying murder cases, death penalty cases. That is serious work. It is hard work. You can’t do an average amount of work when you are working a death penalty case. You can’t come in at nine and leave at five. Not everybody is up to that. A lot of prosecutors never try a death penalty case. They can try misdemeanors. They can try some felonies. But a murder case is different. It is the same in working for a city. Some cities, like San Bernardino, are a challenge. And in those cities there are people who just should not be there. They may not be up to it. They may not be willing to do the work for other reasons. People were asked to work by the mayor and they couldn’t do it. And he gave them a hard time about it. This isn’t Beverly Hills or Pasadena or Santa Barbara. This is San Bernardino.”

Claim Made By Hundreds Of Former Airman Threatening To Reveal Depth Of Nuclear Contamination At Shuttered Air Force Base

Over a thousand people, hundreds of whom no longer live in Victorville or California, embarked on a course of action last month that carries with it the prospect of forcing a long-in-the-coming reckoning of the cavalier comportment of the U.S. Department of Defense and in particular the U.S. Air Force in their stewardship of a now-discarded relic of the Cold War located in San Bernardino County’s High Desert. That action also carries with it the possibility that the City of Victorville, which in the 1990s competed so hard against the City of Adelanto to successfully obtain from the Department of Defense annexation and civilian use conversion rights to long-shuttered George Air Force Base to create what is now known as Southern California Logistics Airport, may come to rue its bureaucratic victory over its neighboring municipality as the ecological nightmare it has inherited becomes ever clearer.
The Military Accountability and Transparency Alliance, known by its acronym MAATA and which numbers among its members more than 1,500 Air Force veterans or their spouses who once served or resided at George Air Force Base, on June 30 lodged an administrative claim against the federal government relating to its members’ exposure to toxic chemicals, substances and radiation while at the base. The federal government has the option of responding positively to the claim and seeking to redress to the satisfaction of the claimants the issues and problems raised and referenced in the complaint or rejecting the claim. Upon the claim being rejected, the claimants then have the legal right to sue the government.
The reports of nuclear contamination at the former George Air Force Base near Victorville are legion.
In late August 1973, Frank Vera, a then-20-year-old airman stationed at the base, was motorcycling at an extreme corner of what was then the base grounds, in an authorized recreational area for the base’s personnel, when he came across a mostly-buried metal barrel in what was known as the base’s “southeast disposal area.” Curious, Vera pried the top off the barrel, which appeared to be filled with a substance Vera would later describe as roughly the consistency of powdered porcelain that was a light brownish red or tan in color. Shortly after he began digging into the barrel using his hands and a stick, he passed out.
Vera awoke in the base’s infirmary, bleeding from every orifice in his body. His heartbeat would race for minutes at a time, exceeding 200 beats per minute, and then precipitously drop, to as few as 30 per minute. Likewise, his blood pressure was librating radically, at one minute ranging into the neighborhood of 200/170 and then dropping, reaching standard systolic and diastolic pressure and continuing to decline as low as 60/40 before zooming upward again.
Vera has had extreme health challenges ever since. He had reached what was considered his full adult height, 5 foot 11 inches, more than a year previously, at the age of 19. After his encounter with the barrel, however, he began to experience further growth, reaching a height of 6 foot 3 inches, although his growth was not even, such that one leg grew significantly longer than the other, causing a pronounced unevenness in his pelvic region that would make walking difficult for him.
Furthermore, Vera experienced a variety of physical ailments including hematological damage, neurological damage, further skeletal damage, pulmonary emphysema and chronic lymphatic conditions.
As early as 1975, female personnel at George and the wives of airmen serving at the base were being advised that they should not become pregnant while living on the base grounds.
In a June 2018 Military Times article by Tara Copp, female Airman Kate Kelly, who was stationed at George in 1975 and worked on the George flight line, related that she “fell ill almost immediately upon arriving at George,” experiencing chronic vaginal and urinary tract infections, which base medical personnel treated with antibiotics. According to Copp, Kelly “ultimately had three miscarriages and was never able to have children.”
Additionally, according to Copp, Kelly met her former husband, Ronald Holdren, who was stationed at George. Holdren died in 2008, according to Copp, of multiple myeloma, a cancer that forms in plasma cells.
Copp’s June 2018 Military Times article further related the unfortunate experience of Lisa McCrea, a military wife, who resided on George Air Force Base with her husband while he was stationed there from 1987 to 1991. According to Copp’s Military Times article, when McCrea was 19, she was pregnant and “in her second trimester began to bleed. She’d miscarried. By the time her husband got her to the base emergency room, he had to carry her in, she’d lost so much blood.”
Over the years, after a host of doctors diagnosed Vera as suffering from radiation exposure, the Air Force engaged in a curious round of denial with regard to the former airman’s efforts to actuate the provision of care the Pentagon had designated as appropriate for what were designated as “atomic veterans.” When Vera’s physicians sought to verify that Vera had absorbed nuclear material by means of a body radioactive content analysis, the Department of Defense refused authorization of the tests on the grounds of national security. When Vera pushed beyond that, at one point the Air Force directly maintained that no weapons grade materials were ever present at George Air Force Base.
That claim was problematic.
Built as the Victorville Army Airfield in 1941, just prior to the United States’ entrance into World War II, what would later become George Air Force Base was utilized for training Army Air Corps pilots during the war. It was placed on standby status in September 1945, shortly after hostilities in that conflict concluded. In 1950, three years after the Army Air Corps was reconstituted as the Air Force, the base was reactivated in June of that year and renamed in honor of Brigadier General Harold Huston George.
Over the years George was a key component for the training of fighter pilots sent into aerial combat during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, as well as being a primary base for the Western Air Defense Force. As such it was home to the 1st Fighter-Interceptor Wing, the 94th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 27th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 71st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 94th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 452nd Light Bombardment Wing, the 116th Fighter-Bomber Wing, 131st Fighter-Bomber Wing, the 21st Fighter-Bomber Wing, the 456th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 518th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 327th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 329th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the 413th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 831st Air Division, the 31st Tactical Fighter Wing, the 355th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 431st Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, the 32nd Tactical Fighter Wing, the 32nd Tactical Fighter Squadron, the 479th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 479th Fighter-Bomber Wing, the 479th Fighter-Day Wing, the 479th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 131st Fighter-Bomber Wing, the 35th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 434th Tactical Fighter Squadron, the 434th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, the 435th Combat Crew Training Squadron, the 4435th Tactical Fighter Replacement Squadron, the 4452nd Combat Crew Training Squadron, the 20th Tactical Fighter Squadron, the 21st Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, the 21st Tactical Fighter Squadron, the 4535th Combat Crew Training Squadron, the 561st Tactical Fighter Squadron, the 563rd Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, the 563rd Tactical Fighter Squadron, the 39th Tactical Fighter Squadron, the 35th Tactical Training Wing, the 35th Tactical Wing, the 37th Tactical Training Wing, the 32rd/8th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, the 562nd Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, and the 561st Tactical Fighter Squadron.
Among the aircraft deployed at the base were F-51 Mustangs, Douglas B-26 Invaders, North American F-86 Sabres, Republic F-84 Thunderjets, F-102s, A F-106s, F-4 Phantoms and F-105s.
George Air Force Base was officially decommissioned in December 1992.
Throughout the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, George Air Force Base was a key element of the strategy and facilities intended to provide an umbrella over Central and Southern California, Arizona and Southern Nevada to prevent the Soviet Union’s atomic and nuclear weaponry from raining down onto American soil. Planes such as the F-102 Delta Dagger, the F-105 Thunderchief, the F-106 Delta Dart and the F-4 Phantom, with ordnance such as the Genie nuclear air-to-air missile affixed to their undercarriages, would take off from George, and fly in a patrol pattern at 30,000 feet or higher, from which perch they could be vectored into position by ground-based radar control with access to the distant early warning radar system or satellite-based radar profiles of any incoming aircraft or missiles to attempt to launch their interceptor missiles to prevent a successful attack on the U.S. mainland.
Ultimately, with the political ascendancy of Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union in the 1980s and the Glasnost which he espoused eventually reaching fruition, a thaw in the Cold War occurred, bringing with it the de-erection of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany and ultimately the fragmenting of the Soviet Union. In 1992, the Department of Defense made good on the tentative plans that had been floated as early as 1987 to decommission George Air Force Base.
In short order, the two cities closest to it, Victorville and Adelanto, engaged each other in what turned into a seven-year-running battle, costing Adelanto over $25 million in administrative and legal fees and expenses, and Victorville more than $30 million, to take control of the base property. Victorville, adroitly led by then-Mayor Terry Caldwell, an attorney, and Jim Cox, who had been city manager since 1969, networked with the County of San Bernardino, the Town of Apple Valley and the City of Hesperia in the guise of the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, a joint powers agency, to draw up a competing reuse plan to what Adelanto was proposing. Equally importantly, Victorville, where the city council was composed of a majority of Republicans, cultivated a close relationship with the area’s Congressman, Republican Jerry Lewis, outmaneuvering Adelanto, which had leadership that was predominantly associated with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Department of Defense awarded the lion’s share of the base – about 75 percent – to the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, which then deferred to Victorville in allowing it to annex the base property. The federal government maintained title to what was variously referred to as “strategic” or “problematic” land.
Along the way, the Air Force and the Department of Defense acknowledged that the base was beset with a host of contamination issues. Most prominent among the chemicals the federal government said permeated the base’s tarmac, the soil and the groundwater below it was a solvent used in servicing the planes throughout the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and into the early 1990s – trichloroethylene, known by its acronym, TCE. In addition, the Air Force readily admitted, there were other heavy industrial solvents that had been used at the base along with jet fuel ingredients such as ethylene dibromide, benzene and naphthalene, as well as chlorinated pesticides like dieldrin and aldrin. Even prior to the base being decommissioned, the Department of Defense in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 had the base property declared an EPA Superfund site.
By the Spring of 2016, the Department of Defense/Air Force had had spent $101 million in Superfund money augmented by funding from the Pentagon’s base closure budget to engage in soil and water table remediation on and beneath the former base grounds. Since that time, at least $22 million of the remaining budgeted $53 million projected to complete the job has been expended.
Nevertheless, the Air Force and the Pentagon, even after the Cold War had drawn to a close, were reluctant to make full disclosure of the nuclear policy and military strategy and tactics that had been employed by the U.S. military. Denise Caron, the civilian Air Force employee who in 1993 was overseeing the clean-up of George, publicly stated that no radioactive materials had been present on the base. “We didn’t have a nuclear mission at George,” she asserted. “We didn’t use nukes. We didn’t use tactical nukes.”
Caron’s assertions resulted in a number of former airmen at the base coming forward to contradict her statements, including some who offered documentary and photographic evidence to back up their claims.
Vera, rebuffed by the Air Force, utilized the Freedom of Information Act to obtain internal Air Force documents disclosing a nuclear weapons testing decontamination center, referred to in Air Force parlance as a “hot washdown” facility, had been in place at George in the 1960s. The decontamination center was an inherent element of the Department of Defense’s efforts to obtain data by having planes purposefully fly into the mushroom clouds produced by thermonuclear explosions during atomic and nuclear weapons tests to photograph the internal environment of and area in the aftermath of an explosion and to collect samples of radioactive debris. The information Vera obtained pertained to, according to the documentation, “Nevada Test Site (NTS) training operations,” with cloud debris sampling flights staged from George Air Force Base.
Vera further obtained information generated during an Office of Special Investigations (O.S.I.) investigation undertaken at the base in 1989 and 1990, which was aimed at determining if weapons-grade materials had been disposed of at the base. The investigator heading that inquiry was Christian Filipiak. The standards applied in that investigation required that findings of radioactive contamination not be reported until radioactive contamination readings from a single well were confirmed by two subsequent readings. According to Filipiak, who retired shortly after the investigation at George was completed, the wells at George that showed the presence of radiation were capped in each case after a second sampling showing radioactive contamination was drawn, thus circumventing any mandated report of that contamination.
In December 1993, Caron asserted that the O.S.I. investigation had determined no weapons grade materials had ever been disposed of at the base. Filipiak, however, contradicted Caron, stating publicly that the parameters of the report, as dictated by the Air Force and the Department of Defense, had steered the investigation away from such a conclusion by limiting the scope and content of both the investigation and its report.
In 1994, then-Hesperia Councilman/Mayor Theron Honeycutt related to the publisher of the Sentinel who was then working as a reporter with the Victorville Desert Mountain Express that his company had been hired by the Air Force to go onto George and “cap,” i.e., fill with gravel and then cover with concrete, several existing wells.
Caron’s claims were discredited under an avalanche of data, including lab tests ordered by then-congressmen George Brown and Jerry Lewis and performed by Helgeson Scientific Services, which involved gamma radiation counts showing enriched uranium-235 and other unidentified radionuclides, believed to be Americium and strontium, had been present on the base. Also surfacing were surveys of water drawn from test wells showing the presence of radionuclides in the water table below the base.
The Air Force has continued to avoid publicly and directly addressing the issue of radioactive contamination at the base. Evidence has emerged over time that indicates both its military and civilian leaders have known for decades that nuclear contamination on the base property is a realty. That evidence is most stark in those areas where the Department of Defense has had to cooperate with state government agencies involved in certifying the livability of the former base property.
Nearly five years ago, Linda Stone of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board told the Sentinel, “The water board has information regarding radiological waste at Site RW009, located in the covered portion of the southeast disposal area of the former facility on land currently owned by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, south of Air Expressway Blvd. The Air Force issued a final remedial action completion report [for] Radioactive Disposal Site RW009 in November 2013. The water board deferred review of the radiological issues to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on EPA’s expertise on human health risks. The EPA accepted the document and the Air Force’s request for no further action at RW009.”
In the body of the text for the remedial action completion report, the Air Force sought to downplay the seriousness of the contamination issue at the southeast disposal area. Page 2-4 of that document states “Site characterization activities were performed in 1994 and served to investigate the potential for the presence of low-level radioactive wastes. These activities determined background levels of total gamma radiation and quantified radionuclide concentrations. All excavated materials were radiologically screened via a material sorting plant and sampled for analysis where necessary. All soils which represented background were backfilled. This investigation thoroughly explored Site RW009 areas suspected of containing radioactive materials, and two radioactive sources were identified, a 2.3-microcurie cesium-137 source and an electron tube (vacuum tube) containing thorium and uranium. These items were disposed via destructive testing at an off-site analytical laboratory. The identification of very few radioactive materials indicated that large-scale disposal of radioactive waste did not occur at IRP Site RW009. This work demonstrated that no known radiological contamination remained and that the IRP Site RW009 disposal site was suitable for removal as an impacted site from the southeast disposal area.”
Stone further told the Sentinel, “The report also described two groundwater sampling events for radiologic constituents. The first event (1986) found gross alpha activities exceeded the maximum contaminant levels for drinking water in two of five wells at the site. The second event (1987) found all radiologic samples were below maximum contaminant levels in all five wells. Based on the data showing that the groundwater met drinking water standards, the water board did not require additional groundwater investigations for radiological constituents.”
More recently, documentation long buried by the Air Force has surfaced, including a secretive 1979 investigation by Dr. John Sabol, then the Air Force chief of environmental and contract programming. Sabol’s findings demonstrated that larger quantities of radioactive waste were dumped in the disposal area than the Air Force has officially documented or acknowledged and that the intensity of radiation exceeds that which would have been a product of discarded x-ray machines or 1950s and 1960s era electronic vacuum tubes.
In 2015, when the Sentinel approached Don Gronstal, then the environmental coordinator with the Air Force Civil Engineer Center overseeing the Air Force remediation effort at George whose office is at McClellan Air Force Base in Northern California, Gronstal agreed to field any questions put to him relating to the environmental circumstance at the former George Air Force Base, but requested that those questions be put in writing. After the Sentinel did as requested, Gronstal broke off all further contact with the Sentinel, and never responded to the questions.
In publicly available documents, the Air Force has acknowledged groundwater at, around or below the base is “contaminated with jet fuel, trichloroethylene, pesticides and nitrates. Soil is contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons, dioxins, construction debris, medical wastes, pesticides, semi-volatile organic compounds and various inorganic compounds.”
One telling indication is that the Air Force has closed off six spots on the former base grounds that will be inaccessible even after the bulk of the rest of the base has been fully transferred to Victorville. It is believed at least two of those are “hot spots” where radioactive materials were discarded and where radioactivity is still present in the soil and water. There have been unconfirmed reports that contractors working for the federal government have done extensive excavation in those areas that are to remain as federal property.
In 2016, in an article authored by Dan Ross which was published by both the Sentinel and Truthout, an independent reporting organization, the experience of Terrine Crooks, originally from New Hampshire, who had joined the Air Force and was stationed at George Air Force Base beginning in the summer of 1980, was related.
Crooks met her husband at George. Toward the end of 1981, she became pregnant. Her son, Brian, was born 13 weeks prematurely in April 1982. Within three months of his birth, Brian sustained multiple brain hemorrhages, thereafter developing, according to Ross’s report, an array of ongoing health conditions and disabilities, including cerebral palsy. Upon reaching the age of 30, Terrine Crooks’ own health deteriorated, and she endured endometriosis, uterine fibroids and heavy bleeding during menstruation, necessitating she have a hysterectomy at the age of 31. At the age of 40, she had a bilateral mastectomy.
Ross reported how Terrine Crooks eventually related her health challenges to her toxic exposure while in the military, whereupon she made a claim to the Veteran’s Administration. In 2014, Crooks prevailed, with the Veteran’s Administration making a finding that her medical conditions were “at least as likely as not” caused by her military service. George Air Force Base was mentioned in the ruling. In 2016, Crooks and her husband were yet caring for their 34-year-old son at their home in Florida, according to Ross.
It has turned out that well over a thousand servicemen and servicewomen who were stationed at George, along with their wives and husbands and offspring, have had similar experiences. A catalyst for that realization was when former Air Force personnel once stationed at George and their spouses, ones who had moved to far-flung locations all over the country after leaving the military, in an effort to preserve their friendships created an informal and loosely knit internet and telephone social club. The more they interacted in this forum, the more they came to learn that many, indeed most of them, were bedeviled with what they eventually came to believe or recognized were the aftereffects of their shared experience in the military, in particular at George Air Force Base. Many of the women suffered from a plethora of conditions that included ovarian cysts and uterine tumors, had undergone hysterectomies, and had experienced miscarriages at a rate ten times higher than the national average. Their children had an inordinate number of birth defects. Those women and their husbands were dealing with multiple maladies of a similar nature, including leukemia and multiple lymphomas, rare cancers and peripheral neuropathy.
Born of their interaction was the Military Accountability and Transparency Alliance. Based on their collective belief that they are living with the devastation wrought by toxic chemical and radiation exposure while they were living at George Air Force Base, the alliance’s members filed their claim on June 30.
Much is riding on whether the Department of Defense/Air Force will recognize the claim or whether it will be rejected, necessitating that the matter go to trial. A trial would very likely entail much of the hidden documentation of what was buried at George Air Force Base – physically, literally and figuratively – being unearthed. That will have implications for more than just those former airmen and their spouses and children. A revelation of the true extent of the contamination at Southern California Logistics Airport could mean that the aerodrome, for so long considered a desirable asset that Victorville was willing to spend more than $30 million to secure, might become a liability.
Multiple municipal water supply wells are threatened by the contamination at George, including wells supplying water to a federal prison facility built on land that was formerly part of the base, and which is to remain as federal property. It is unclear who – the federal government or the City of Victorville – will need to defray the cost of any remediation of the airport property to which the city has already taken title.
-Mark Gutglueck

County Supervisors Seek Charter Reform In The Face Of Measure To Cut Their Pay

Less than three months after the Red Brennan Group, a citizens advocacy coalition, qualified a ballot measure in San Bernardino County that would, if passed in November, transform the members of the county board of supervisors into part-time rather than full-time local legislators, the current board members have used their own authority in an effort to sidetrack that referendum by placing before voters a county charter revision package that will obviate the citizen group’s measure even if it manages to pass.
At stake for each of the supervisors is roughly $200,000 per year, the difference between the approximately $260,000 in salary and benefits they are currently paid by the taxpayers in their elected capacity and the $60,000 in total compensation they would receive if the voters approve the Red Brennan Group’s ballot proposal.
Unwilling to see their pay cut, the supervisors this week struck back, beginning the arrangements to put onto the November ballot what they are representing as a county charter reform measure which would have the practical effect of locking into place a salary and benefit level that is comparable to that which they are already receiving.
The diversionary ploy the board of supervisors in conjunction with the top county staff are employing mirrors in multiple respects the same tactic the board utilized in 2012 when tax reform advocate Kiernan “Red” Brennan, for whom the Red Brennan Group is named, qualified what was designated as Measure R for the ballot that year.
Measure R sought to make the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors a part-time governing body, reducing board members’ salary and benefit packages from what was for some of the board members as high as $308,000 in 2012 to $60,000 annually, while simultaneously reducing the budget for the staff of each of the supervisors to $300,000. Kiernan and his associates managed a very successful promotional campaign for Measure R, which prompted the board of supervisors, acting at the last minute in July 2012, to qualify what was designated as Measure Q for the November 2012 ballot. In practical terms, Q was a competing measure to R, one which called for a five percent reduction in the annual salary of board supervisors, but did not impact their benefit and retirement packages or their staffing levels. Adapting the Measure R advocates’ calls for reform, the proponents of Measure Q did not in any overt fashion campaign against Measure R, but rather expounded in generic terms what they represented as Measure Q’s “sensible” and “moderate” approach for achieving salary reduction for the supervisors, dropping what at that time was their $158,000 annual salaries to $151,100. Measure R passed overwhelmingly in November 2012, garnering 326,939 or 64.25 percent of the 508,846 total votes cast with regard to the initiative. Meanwhile, Measure Q passed as well, with 344,226 votes or 67.28 percent of the 511,595 votes cast relating to it. As they covered the same topic, with the passage of both Measure Q and Measure R, the measure receiving the most votes was the one enacted. In this way, county officials succeeded in keeping the terms of the reform proposed by Kiernan Brennan from being put into place.
Brennan died in 2013. Those involved with him in his government reform efforts founded the Red Brennan Group shortly thereafter, dedicating it to reducing the depth, breadth and cost of government while aiming at improving its efficiency.
In 2017, the Red Brennan Group undertook petition drives to qualify two countywide initiatives, one aimed at reducing members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to part time status and imposing on that panel’s members a commensurate reduction in pay, and another more comprehensive measure dubbed the “Leadership Accountability Initiative.”
That measure called for reversing the county’s 2010 move which changed the title and authority of the county chief administrative officer to the county chief executive officer, which had also conferred on the post higher pay. The Leadership Accountability Initiative eliminated the chief executive officer post and reestablished the county administrator position, pegged compensation of elected officials – supervisors, sheriff, district attorney, treasurer/auditor/controller and assessor – to a multiple of the median family income in the region, and eliminated increased accrual of retirement benefits by elected officials. The initiative further sought to restrict bloat within the county’s governmental structure by placing a per capita limit on the number of county employees. It also required the supervisors to use every legal means available to ensure county government employee pay and benefits were equal to private industry pay and benefits in the San Bernardino County jurisdiction.
After the initiative proposals were submitted in 2017 to the county’s stable of in-house lawyers, known as the office of county counsel, the county sued the initiatives’ proponents, claiming the initiatives violated the California Constitution, the current legal authority of the supervisors, and the single subject rule for initiatives. In its lawsuit, the county contended it therefore should not be required to complete its ministerial duty of providing a ballot title and summary for the initiative proposals.
At that point, the Red Brennan Group postponed its efforts, consulting with legal authorities before proceeding. Following that legal guidance and a delay of nearly two years, it resumed its efforts, and began circulating a petition last year to force a referendum on a measure to reduce the total compensation of each of the members of the board of supervisors to $5,000 per month. The group gathered 75,132 signatures, which were affixed to copies of the petition. Those documents, consisting of 10,121 pages, were handed over to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office on March 20.
According to Registrar of Voters Bob Page, a “3% random sample,” of the signatures, consisting of 2,255, were examined. Of those, 1,840 were found to be the valid signatures of registered county voters and 415 were what Page deemed “insufficient.” He found among the valid signatures one duplicate. Thus, he projected, were the full 75,132 signatures to be examined, 60,228 would be determined to be valid. The three percent sampling standard can be used to certify an initiative petition drive, Page indicated, if the sampling projection shows that more than 110 percent of the required number of voter signatures have been attained. The 60,228 signatures is equal to 112.1 percent of the 53,725 signatures needed to qualify a countywide initiative. “Therefore,” Page said, “the petition has been signed by the requisite number of qualified electors needed and based thereon is deemed sufficient.”
The language of the Red Brennan Group’s initiative states: “The total compensation of each member of the board of supervisors shall be five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per month, which amount shall include the actual cost to the county of all benefits of whatever kind or nature including but not limited to salary, allowances, credit cards, health insurance, life insurance, leave, retirement, memberships, portable communications devices, and vehicle allowances. This compensation shall be in full compensation for all services by the respective member of the board of supervisors.”
Furthermore, the initiative, if passed, would limit board members from serving more than six years on the board altogether, allowing them one elected term of four years, while permitting them to also serve an additional half term of up to two years if the officeholder is appointed or elected to the unexpired term of another officeholder who left office.
In the meantime, at the behest of the board of supervisors, the county’s top-ranking  personnel, including County Chief Executive Officer Gary McBride, County Chief Operating Officer Leonard Hernandez and County Counsel Michelle Blakemore and their staffs cast about to find some administrative flaw or legal fault in the process that the Red Brennan Group pursued in qualifying the measure for the November election to justify disqualifying the measure from appearing on the ballot. Similarly, county staff sought to summon up sufficient facts to support a determination that the measure might adversely impact the county’s operations or have a fiscal impact on the county which could be used as a pretext to prevent the voters from considering it.
The board of supervisors declined to certify it for the ballot at its meeting on May 19, initiating that process at the board’s June 9 meeting after county staff could not find legally adequate grounds to keep it off the ballot.
Their body language indicated the supervisors were not enthusiastic about placing a measure before the voters that would potentially reduce by roughly three-quarters the remuneration they are to receive in their elected capacities in the future. Still, most of the board members were content to allow senior county staff members bad-mouth the proposal by mentioning the drawbacks passage of the measure might have. Supervisor Dawn Rowe on May 19 groused that, given the $60,000 cap on both salary and benefits/expenses, if the measure passes, she would be reduced to nearly “minimum wage,” when her costs for commuting from her home in Yucca Valley to San Bernardino on a weekly basis were factored in.
Supervisor Josie Gonzales, who is to leave office at the end of the year after four terms in office, on June 9 made the most pointed criticism of the measure, personalizing her statement to suggest that those wanting to reduce the amount of money the supervisors were paid lacked decency.
“I would welcome anyone who would like to come and join me and shadow me on a day to demonstrate the depth, the intensity, the great responsibility that this job brings,” Gonzales said. “It’s not just a fancy title. It is an extremely difficult job that challenges the very character, the integrity, the will to serve to the max. I am appalled, and I will say this because I will not be around when all this is happening, at the cheapness, at the crass way, the lack of respect that this office is being treated by the group that is behind this issue. This is wrong. If you do not like your electeds, if you don’t like your governmental representatives, I’ve said it once and I’ve said it a hundred times and I’ll say it again, then vote them out of office.”
In reference to that element of the Red Brennan Group’s proposed measure which called for reducing the supervisors to part-time status, Board Chairman Curt Hagman said, “This is not a part-time position if you are going to be engaged in and serve the people that you have the honor to represent.”
Though they acceded to putting the Red Brennan Group’s proposed measure before the voters, the board members were not willing to surrender to the measure’s proponents the momentum relating to the struggle over determining how much supervisors are to be paid. When the item relating to the Red Brennan Group’s initiative came back to the board this week, on Tuesday, July 14, for the second requisite ratification of it being placed on the November ballot, the board had a “reform” proposal of its own to put before the voters. That item was represented on the agenda as “a study session regarding the proposed revised county charter.” One of the options the agenda gave the board was “to replace the current county charter with the proposed revised county charter and place the revised county charter on the ballot for the November 3, 2020 election.”
The board, indeed, did just that, maintaining that putting the proposed new charter in front of the voters in November was the natural outgrowth of a long process. In doing so, Board Chairman Hagman made a handful of material misrepresentations, including stating that the county had held multiple “workshops” on revising the charter. In actuality, the county had not held any such workshops in which the public participated in framing the discussion. More accurately, the board of supervisors held a single “study session” with regard to the proposed charter alteration on October 29, 2019. No members of the public participated in that discussion.
On Tuesday, Hagman said, “Back in July of ‘19, almost a year ago, this board established an ad hoc committee, assigning myself and Supervisor Rutherford to explore revising the county charter. Basically, I said it back then, this is a living document that needs to be updated on a regular basis, especially with all the state codes and stuff. What we try to do is work with the different groups to try to make a flexible living document, ‘cause there’s so many mandates from both the federal and state government. What the county does for the most part is we’re the operators of what the federal government and/or the state government tells us to do and the funding streams that comes with this. I know there’s been a lot of misconception about the growth of county government. That is directly due to the jobs that were given to us by both the state and the federal government, with the funding sources to say, ‘Do this.’ Most of – the majority of – our budget is considered to be that special funding stream. Soon after the July 2019 meeting, county counsel, human resources, the registrar of voters started research of various options. I know, Janice [Rutherford], that you have taken the lead on this for many years, even prior to when I got on the board, so it’s more like a five or six year quest than a year quest on this. Afterward, county counsel, human resources, ROV [the registrar of voters] reviewed the input from our workshops we had [on] this, and the public continued to work on the advised county charter. We have been meeting, county staff and the select committee, at least monthly if not multiple times a month, especially these attorneys up here have been working diligently on it. So, thank you for your efforts on it. We circulated the draft back to the board on June 30th. July 10th we circulated another draft with the input that we got, and we’re back up to this meeting. I know this has been a passion for open government.”
Rutherford likewise sought to assure the public that the sudden placement of the new charter proposal on the ballot for November had organically grown out of prior discussions, obliquely implying the charter reform measure had nothing to do with the Red Brennan Group’s initiative.
“Since last year the board has had a renewed interest,” Rutherford said, in the form of the charter, which she said is “a century old and did not reflect how we county governments operate in modern California.” She said the current charter contains “outdated language about how we do [a] budget and the courts, to the sexism inherent in a lot of the language.”
Of the newly drafted charter, Rutherford said, “The changes you are looking at today reflect several things. They bring up those modernizations, take out the language that isn’t needed anymore in California because no counties do those things anymore, corrects the sexism, allows for how modern counties function, but also increases transparency, opportunities for public involvement and oversight and the flexibility for the board to change things by ordinance that the voters might wish just to acquire that [we] have a law about without locking it into the charter that a hundred years from now the board at that time doesn’t say, ‘Why did these people do this?’ So, it really is a completely revised and modern document, with the goals. I think those of you who follow my colleagues and I understand that we are committed to transparency and good governance, and that’s what we are trying to embody in this document. So, I’ve been talking to folks about it and taking feedback for the better part of my time as a supervisor.”
In their statements with regard to the new charter, neither Rutherford nor Hagman mentioned the provision that would lock in the supervisors’ salaries at 80 percent of that of a Superior Court Judge, which in practical terms would preserve the roughly $260,000 per year in salary and benefits they are now receiving.
Rutherford sought to diffuse any criticism that the board was rushing forward with the charter change without having first obtained the input of county residents.
“We had certainly intended as the subcommittee and as this board to have greater opportunity for public involvement, and that is something that COVID [the coronavirus pandemic and its accompanying restrictions on public forums] has stolen from us. Nonetheless, we’ve had the information available on-line, and I know the chairman and I have both taken lots of emails, had phone calls, and folks who have had questions and that we have worked with. I look forward to the discussion today and hearing what the public brings to share with us today.”
During his presentation detailing the changes to the charter, Supervising Deputy County Counsel Kenneth C. Hardy explained that currently the members of the board of supervisors each receive total compensation equal to the average of the total compensation paid to the supervisors in Orange, San Diego and Riverside counties. The supervisors in Orange and Riverside Counties receive compensation equal to 80 percent of a Superior Court Judge, while supervisors in San Diego County receive compensation equal to 90 percent of a Superior Court judge.
The new charter would give the San Bernardino County Supervisors a salary that stands at 80 percent of that provided to a Superior Court judge and benefits equal to what San Bernardino County pays its department heads, Hardy said. Hardy also said the new charter would limit the supervisors from serving more than three full four-year terms with the proviso that they could additionally serve up to half of a four-year term in a case in which the board member was appointed or elected to replace a predecessor who resigned from the board.
Unspoken through most of Hardy’s presentation but hanging over it was the suggestion that the board had rushed him and other members of county staff to present the newly drafted charter this week so the county could meet the deadline to have the county registrar of voters, who serves as the county’s elections officer, place the charter change measure on the ballot as an alternative to the Red Brennan Group’s proposal. Despite himself, Hardy made a Freudian slip at a point between 2 hours 30 minutes and 37 seconds and 2 hours 30 minutes and 40 seconds into the meeting video which demonstrated the degree to which the charter revision measure had been driven by the Red Brennan Group’s proposal. After having referenced how a supervisor might have his or her salary reduced if he or she were to take a larger benefit package or were to include his or her family members into the provision of benefits offered by the county, Hardy, through his use of language inadvertently revealed that the charter revision is being undertaken to prevent the supervisors’ salaries from being reduced.
“I think this is one of those unintended consequences situations here. The…” Hardy said, at which point he caught himself as he recognized that his use of the term “unintended consequences” was a reference to the proposal to reduce the supervisors’ total compensation to $60,000 per year as opposed to the total compensation of more than a quarter of a million dollars per year contained in the charter version he was previewing. There followed a four second awkward silence as he sought to refocus the sense of his presentation away from any reference to the Red Brennan Group’s reform initiative.
Speaking to the board of supervisors on Tuesday were Natalie Zuk and Tom Murphy of the Red Brennan Group.
Zuk said, “The charter rewrite proposed by the board is bad history repeating itself. Voters should not fall for it. In 2010, the board on its own authority and in violation of the county charter off-loaded executive responsibility for running the county. These duties were delegated to a non-elected chief executive officer. The board also reduced its meeting schedule to nearly half the available opportunities.”
Zuk continued, “In 2012, via initiative, Mr. Red Brennan asked a simple question – if supervisors are no longer responsible for day-to-day management of the county, why are they still compensated at a full-time rate? The result was Measure R, a small government proposal signed by 73,000 registered voters by which elected supervisors would be designated as part-time with commensurate pay. 327,000 citizens cast a vote in favor of this measure – 64 percent of the voters in the county. So why was it never implemented?”
Zuk answered her question, “Because also in 2012, this board placed a competing measure on the ballot. Measure Q was decidedly not a small government effort. Marketed as a ‘transparency’ measure, the proposal claimed to reduce the board’s annual salary but had no impact on benefit and retirement packages, and did nothing to restrict staffing levels. This board’s action muddied the waters for voters. Measure Q also passed and was controlling after the election. The small government proposal was never implemented.”
Zuk said the board was seeking to do this year what had been done in 2012.
“As I mentioned, today’s proposal is bad history repeating itself,” Zuk said. “A small government initiative is again already approved for the November ballot. Over 70,000 county voters signed a petition setting elected supervisor pay roughly equal to what normal county households earn. This small government initiative also sets term limits at one four-year term of service. A one-term supervisor compensated the same as most households in the county will have different incentives to govern. This approach will allow elected representatives freedom to exercise courage to restrain government’s ever-expanding appetite for the citizens’ tax dollars.”
Zuk told the board, “Rather than courageously acknowledging that proponents have a legitimate political position, and allowing a clear and straightforward vote on the small government proposal, this board once again stirs its self-interest into the mix and muddies the waters for voters.”
At that point Zuk was cut off. The Red Brennan Group subsequently told the Sentinel that the final two sentences to Zuk’s presentation ran along the lines of, “By placing a ‘charter rewrite’ on the ballot, this board again proposes to retain a compensation package that will exceed normal county households by nearly four times, and allow supervisors to serve for 12 long years. If the board today does not reject this proposed revision measure, the voters will in November.”
Murphy, the president of the Red Brennan Group, then addressed the board.
“Quickly passing through the draft charter indicates there is really much ado about nothing for the citizens of San Bernardino County,” Murphy said. “Term limits are still 12 years. Elected official compensation remains largely out of balance when compared to most people living in the county. The CEO position is codified in the charter, so taxpayers are now obligated by the charter to pay for a pretty high-paying job that the current charter requires the chair of the board to do. Interested voters when they read quickly through this thing will probably say, ‘It’s kind of the same old stuff. It removes some of the offensive language, so yeah, let’s just sign off on it.’ We think that’s a bad idea because we believe this document contains a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing. The operative phrase is a simple sentence in Section 102. To quote ‘The powers mentioned in the preceding section can be exercised only by the board of supervisors.’ Here’s what that looks like in practice: Under your rights as a California citizen, let’s say you want to submit an initiative requiring the county to control its budget. ‘Sorry,’ the county says, ‘the budget is under the exclusive power of the board of supervisors.’ And rather than granting you your ballot title and summary so you can then try to go out and convince 70,000 voters to sign your petition, you get sued. You go to court.”
Murphy said, “Ask Dave Gates and Gage Bruce, county residents who were sued because they submitted a petition that the county deemed unconstitutional, because it was under the exclusive power of the board. Ask Eli Whitely. Eli believed county employees ought to fill out a time-card and the information should be readily available on-line. His right to submit this initiative is still in court a year-and-a-half later. I believe it is at the appeals court level now.”
Murphy said, “We appreciate the effort to redo the charter, but at some level we believe the draft charter is about power and more power for the expanding county government and less for its citizens.”
The Sentinel’s request that the clerk of the board provide the email communications relating to the charter change proposal that Rutherford referenced as having been submitted to the board were not forthcoming from the county by press time.
Queried by the Sentinel with regard to his misrepresentation that the county had held workshops relating to the proposed charter change, Hagman declined to respond. The Sentinel further offered all five members of the board an opportunity to speak to the perception that the charter revision was a ploy to forestall the Red Brennan Group’s effort to reduce their pay. All five spurned that offer.
Supervisor Rutherford did provide a return email to the Sentinel in which she stated, “I’ve been thinking about reforming our outdated county charter since shortly after I was elected in 2010.” Rutherford in the return email bypassed all inquiries about the element in the charter revision relating to setting the supervisors’ pay level.
None of the supervisors responded to questions asking their reaction to a suggestion at compromise which consisted of incorporating into the new charter a provision setting their compensation at 40 percent of that provided to a Superior Court judge.
-Mark Gutglueck

New County Democratic Central Committee Chair Anticipated

While it is not yet official, it appears that Chris Robles, who has dominated the Democratic Party in San Bernardino County as the chairman of the county central committee since he wangled election to the position of local party chairman in 2012, is about to be deposed.
The results of an informal poll of San Bernardino County Central Committee members taken over the last several days indicates that sufficient support for Kristin Washington throughout the central committee has manifested to virtually ensure that she will outdistance Robles for chairmanship of the local party when the committee holds a zoom meeting tomorrow, July 18, at which its election of officers, which takes place every four years in July, is held.
Robles was elected by the central committee to serve as chairman in 2012, largely on the strength of his professional experience as a campaign consultant. The belief was that he would bring his expertise to bear in the service of all Democratic candidates across the spectrum in San Bernardino County, from those running for Congress, to those seeking legislative posts in Sacramento to county and city candidates, even though local races are not considered to be partisan ones.
In 2009, the number of registered Democrats in San Bernardino County eclipsed the number of registered Republicans, and the gulf between the parties has widened in favor of the Democrats ever since, until at present they hold a commanding lead over the GOP in terms of registration. At present, 428,643 of the county’s 1,042,158 registered voters, or 41.1 percent are Democrats, and 308,721 or 29.6 percent are Republicans. Nevertheless, San Bernardino County remains one of the last bastions of Republicanism in the State of California, as the Party of Lincoln claims the lion’s share of San Bernardino County’s seats in the California Legislature as well as four of five positions on the county board of supervisors. In 17 of the county’s 24 municipalities, the Republicans represent a majority of the those holding positions on the city or town councils.
Robles was reelected to the central committee chairman’s spot in 2016, but within a year, a number of the central committee members had grown disenchanted with him, and an effort to remove him as chairman ensued. That effort failed, as Robles made skillful use of parliamentary procedure and the alliances he had made among the committee’s executive board to stave off that coup attempt.
At this point, however, Washington, who is the chairwoman of the Redlands Area Democratic Club, has gained the trust of a solid majority of the central committee’s members. She has campaigned for the central committee chair post by asserting that she intends to endorse and elect Democrats through coordinated grassroots efforts, increase party transparency by improving communications internally and with voters, build coalitions throughout the county to amplify the party’s efforts and enhance party visibility throughout the county.
Two important strides made by Washington in her ongoing effort to take control of the county party have been the defection from the Robles camp by Jim Gallagher, whom Robles had installed years ago as a member of the committee’s executive board, and the defeat of Mark Westwood in March in his race to remain as a member of the the central committee. Westwood, whom Robles had also installed onto the executive board, was very active and determined in his previous efforts to keep Robles in charge of the county party.
Washington is running for chair as a part of a slate, which also features Stacey Ramos as a candidate for first vice chair, Gallagher as second vice chair, Leslie Irving as third vice chair, Nancy Glenn for secretary, Martina Ortega as treasurer, and Nicholas Christensen as corresponding secretary.
Adding to Washington’s advantage is that she is endorsed by Assemblyman James Ramos and former San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee Chairwoman Nancy Ruth White.
The meeting at which the selection of the chair is to occur is scheduled for tomorrow at 1 p.m.

County Coronavirus Numbers Advancing At Alarming Clip

The COVID-19 pandemic this week continued its intensification throughout San Bernardino County, as the total number of confirmed cases since the tracking of the virus began in March hit 23,238, with 315 deaths attributed to the disease. Known cases increased by 4,963 since July 10, the highest single week jump in the disease yet, surpassing the previous county record of 4,599 set last week, between July 3 and July 10. There is concern that those already dire numbers are even worse, as a shortage of testing supplies that commenced last week resulted in the cancellation of tests that were to take place on July 8, July 9 and July 10. As there is a several day lag between the time of testing and the reporting of results, it is possible that the increase in the infection numbers reported this week would have been far higher if the tests that were cancelled late last week had been carried out.
A further indication of how serious the situation has become is reflected in San Bernardino County’s inclusion in an order issued today by Governor Gavin Newsom curtailing plans by virtually all of San Bernardino County’s school districts to conduct classroom instruction on a rotating basis involving all or most students with the onset of the 2020-21 school year.
Newsom ordered schools in San Bernardino County and 29 other counties in the state to switch to remote learning, meaning instruction will take place on-line, with the schools closed and students remaining at home.

County Municipal Races In 22 Cities & Towns In The Early Stages Of Shaping Up

As of today, there is limited information available as to who will be vying in San Bernardino County’s municipal elections this year.
The City of Loma Linda already held its city council election on March 3, corresponding with the California Presidential Primary Election. San Bernardino held an election that day in four of its wards, as well, where as a result there will be runoffs in two of wards in the election to be held on November 3. In the Fifth Ward, incumbent Henry Nickel is being challenged by Ben Reynoso. In the Seventh Ward, incumbent Jim Mulvihill is vying against Damon Alexander.
The filing period for open positions on councils for the county’s 20 remaining cities and its two incorporated towns opened on July 13 and will run through August 7. Phone calls were placed this morning to get an as up-to-date list as possible of those who had taken out candidacy papers thus far.
As the city halls in Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Adelanto, Twentynine Palms, Fontana, Colton, Montclair, Rialto, Victorville and Highland are closed on Fridays, no information on those cities’ races was obtained.
In the cities of Hesperia, Grand Terrace, Yucaipa, Chino Hills and Barstow, the Sentinel failed to make useful contact with the custodians of those cities’ electoral rosters. Big Bear has a policy of not releasing the names of those taking out candidacy papers until those papers are returned.
In Needles, no one has taken out papers as of this morning.
In the Town of Yucca Valley’s District 2, incumbent Jeff Drozd has taken out papers as has Melvin Costa. In District 4, incumbent Robert Lombardo has pulled papers along with Jeff Brady and Myra Kennedy.
In Redlands’ District 2, incumbent Eddie Tejeda has taken out papers as did Jonathan Grau. In District 4, Joshua Hall has taken out papers.
In the Town of Apple Valley, District 1 incumbent Larry Cusack and District 2 incumbent Art Bishop have taken out papers to run again.
In Chino, incumbent Mayor Eunice M. Ulloa and challenger Christopher E. Hutchinson have taken out mayoral nomination papers, incumbent Paul A. Rodriguez and Christopher A. Flores have pulled papers for District 1 and in District 4 former Police Chief Karen C. Comstock and Anthony M. Honore have retrieved nomination papers.
In Ontario, incumbent Debra Porada and challengers Elvia Rivas and Celina Lopez have obtained nomination papers for the city council. Incumbent Jim Milhiser and challenger Michael Fillpot have in their possession nomination papers for treasurer, and incumbent City Clerk Sheila Mautz has pulled papers, as well.