By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the March 5 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 03-05-21

Victorville City Councilwoman Rita Ramirez, the Democratic political figure who has garnered solid success as the holder of nonpartisan elected offices in San Bernardino County over the last two decades and has been among the forefront of Democrats in their effort to break the GOP’s hold on county partisan offices, was ignominiously removed from the city council this week on a 3-to-2 vote of her council colleagues.
The ostensible reasons cited for bouncing Ramirez from the council were recent unexcused absences from city council meetings as well as an allegation that she was not actually residing in Victorville.
The move, however, was rich with political and racial overtones, and complicated by the consideration that neither the mayor nor the city attorney afforded Ramirez, during the course of the March 2 meeting, an opportunity to marshal evidence of her residence in the city nor acknowledged that the city had issued a notice of cancellation of the council’s convocation on February 16, the final meeting Ramirez was alleged to have missed, and that City Clerk Charlene Robinson indicated that Ramirez was in attendance at the February 16 meeting. At two separate points during the March 2 meeting when Ramirez’s colleagues either attempted to elicit from Ramirez documentation or evidence to refute the charges of non-residency that had been lodged against her or referenced the potential existence of such materials, the mayor pointedly foreclosed the inquiry and shut off the microphone of the council member who cited the documentation.
Throughout the meeting, which was conducted remotely and electronically as a video teleconference, Ramirez was not provided with a video link-up as were the mayor and the three other council members, along with the city manager, the city clerk, the city attorney, 11 other staff members and the police chief, who was acting as the virtual meeting’s sergeant-at-arms.
Ramirez’s removal now sets the stage for the Republican Party to reclaim primacy on the city council, just three months after, for the first time in Victorville’s 59-year history, its city council was composed of a Democratic majority. A key vote in ousting Ramirez came from one of the council’s Democratic members, an African American, who last month resigned from the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee because she believes the committee’s Hispanic members have, in her words, engaged in racist acts which disenfranchised blacks politically. Ramirez was an active and influential member of the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee.
Councilwoman Liz Becerra, the primary advocate for Ramirez’s removal, who asked that City Attorney Andreas De Bortnowsky investigate Ramirez’s residency at the February 16 meeting, presented a prima facie case indicating that Ramirez has not for some time physically resided in Victorville.
“Since being elected and prior to being elected, I’ve been concerned about being represented by a council member who does not live in the city,” Becerra said. “I’ve done my own research, but I’ve also asked the city attorney.”
de Bortnowsky indicated that a case to remove Ramirez from office would come down to the issues of “residency in the city and extended absences.” He said the case against Ramirez was more clearly cut with regard to the issue of non-residency than unexcused absences.
“Basically, with respect to the residency requirement, there seems to be some evidence – in fact, yes her residency has moved out of the City of Victorville,” de Bortnowsky said. “With respect to absences of meeting, that’s a little bit more complicated. The complicated issue on that is whether or not there is absence without permission, and so that becomes an issue of fact.”
The entire circumstance is nuanced by the consideration that Ramirez had three amputations beginning in January 2020, first her middle toe, then her left foot and then her lower leg, followed by the spread of the coronavirus in the medical facilities in which she was recovering, then further complications late last year during which amputation of her right foot seemed imminent but was evaded by medical treatment that required another extended hospitalization. Throughout that ordeal and her multiple hospital and recovery facility stays, her sons repeatedly brought her to a family home she had built with her former husband in Twentynine Palms 47 years ago, where her grown children could better care for her and monitor her progress. Initially, at least, the city had accommodated Ramirez by installing communications equipment at the Twentynine Palms residence that allowed her to participate in the city council meetings remotely.
Citizens must go through a relatively elaborate process to remove a council member from office, de Bortnowsky said, one which provides the official being removed a formalized set of protections, including a court trial. In its official capacity, a city council need not adhere to that formalized process, but can proceed on its own authority to remove a council member, he said.
“If a private person wants to challenge the ability of a city council person to hold office,” de Bortnowsky said, the person doing the challenging goes to the California Attorney General’s office for a quo warranto finding, one that determines if the circumstances are such “to see if they have grounds” to remove the elected official from office. If the grounds exist, then the individual making the challenge can go to court to get a verdict that the official be removed from office, he said.
“With respect to city council’s [action to remove a council colleague] they don’t necessarily have to follow that same quo warranto proceeding. They actually can go right to a trial if they determine that’s appropriate,” de Bortnowsky said. Moreover, a city council can, if it chooses, de Bortnowsky said, simply apply its own authority to make the removal, which can be contested after the fact by the removed official in an appeal to the California Attorney General’s Office.
de Bortnowsky told the council it could “make a finding and determination based on statutory proceedings that the position is in fact vacated and proceed [with the removal from office], essentially then allowing the person that vacated the position to then seek a quo warranto action.”
Councilwoman Blanca Gomez asked about the city conducting a trial, her question seemingly aimed at what allowance Ramirez would be provided in presenting evidence to controvert the allegation that she was not a city resident.
de Bortnowsky told the council, “In order to essentially challenge a person’s right to hold office you have the ability to go into a Superior Court to initiate a trial.” A private individual without the authority of the government, de Bortnowsky said, “must first approach the attorney general’s office for the quo warranto proceeding. The city can go directly to make a determination in accordance and as a matter of law based on those statutes that the position is vacant, if the facts support a finding that there is no residency or that there has been extended absences.”
Gomez asked de Bortnowsky how his conclusion that Ramirez was not living in Victorville was reached. He said he “checked with the city clerk as to the extended absences. With respect to the residency requirements, I have been aware of the agenda postings where the address of Council Member Ramirez has been posted as a Twentynine Palms address. So I did a little bit of investigation myself and confirmed that in fact seems to be the address she has been attending the meetings from for almost the last year.”
Gomez asked why the Twentynine Palms home was the only property connected to Ramirez referenced in his report, seeking to explore if de Bortnowsky had sought any evidence to suggest Ramirez was living in Victorville. Mayor Debra Jones abridged Gomez’s input at that point, and foreclosed de Bortnowsky from explaining what effort he made to find support of the proposition that Ramirez was living in Victorville.
In her allotted time to address the subject, Ramirez said, “I have answered all the questions pertaining to my election. As to the question of my absence and the question of my legal residence,” she said her official domicile could be established as being in Victorville, “which can be checked with the registrar of voters.”
Then, apparently based upon de Bortnowsky’s assertion that he had carried out an investigation into her residency, she said, “The question that I have is [why is it that] only Liz Becerra is listed on the questionnaires or information pertaining to the absence and to the ownership of my home?”
The direction of Ramirez’s question, which suggested that the effort to unseat her was more broadly based than on Becerra’s inquiry, prompted a reaction from Jones which, observers of the meeting noted, betrayed that Jones was not merely presiding over a fact-finding proceeding, but herself angling to see Ramirez removed from the council.
She at that point asked de Bortnowsky.  “Is one of the tests of residency where you are claiming a property tax exemption?” Then, seemingly self-conscious over the impression her question may have made, Jones broke from her stated intention to follow precise procedure in allowing members of the council to provide their comment in a strict order, going out of her way to question de Bortnowsky and the city manager, in so doing seeking to dispel the notion that the hearing that evening was a set-up with a predetermined outcome. She asked de Bortnowsky, “Did you or Mr. Metzler in any way prompt Council Member Becerra to request tonight’s agenda item?”
“No,” said de Bortnowsky.
“No,” said Metzler.
Jones then allowed Becerra to move in for the kill.
Becerra said that Ramirez claimed her Victorville residency to be at 16893 Glennaire Avenue, property that is registered to Juan Romero as the owner. “This is the same address used by Ms. Denise Wells,” whom Becerra pointed out, was appointed to the planning commission by Ramirez. Ramirez, Becerrra said, was using Well’s address as her address. Becerra continued, “Rita Ramirez Dean is the registered owner of house on Two Mile Road in Twentynine Palms, acquired in January 1974. At this location, Council Member Ramirez claims a homeowner’s exemption, which is provided only to owners that use their property as a principal residence.” Dean is Ramirez’s married name.
Furthermore, Becerra said, “In December 2019, Council Member Ramirez was hospitalized and returned to her home, again in Twentynine Palms some time between March and April [2020]. Since April 21st of 2020, Council Member Ramirez has continued to live at [the] Twentynine Palms home [and] has participated in the council meetings from that location. Verification of this can be supported by public records showing her Twentynine Palms address as noticed in the April 21st [2020] council agenda as the location open to the public so she could participate remotely. Public records show Council Member Ramirez’s printed agenda is delivered by Fed Ex since May of 2020 to her Twentynine Palms home. Public records show the staff has traveled to her Twentynine Palms home since April of 2020 to facilitate her participation in our city council meetings here in the city of Victoriville. On February 3 of this year, Denise Wells submitted her letter of resignation from the planning commission, moving from the Glennaire address. That happened on February 28. Madame Mayor, we can only say that Councilwoman Ramirez has not lived in the city of Victorville longer than a year. We owe the public, we owe the voters the right to have Victorville representation.”
Thereafter, statements from members of the public were heard.
Miguel Soto, Jr. accused Ramirez of “not just lying to the public but really stalling progress within our city.”
Paul Marsh said, “We now have one council member who hasn’t attended one meeting – any council meetings – at least since the beginning of the year. This can no longer be ignored. What we have now in an incomplete government body.”
Romero Rodriguez said he believed the case made against Ramirez consisted of “hearsay. I understand Ms. Ramirez was ill. She was taking care of herself. Maybe she needed to take care of herself over there because she didn’t have the luxury of taking care of herself here. She’s an older lady. It’s a lot of lack of respect to treat her this accord… whether she lives part-time here, or whatever.”
Maggie Martin said, “It’s been known for a long time that she is not now or previously been a legitimate Victorville resident.” Martin also said that Ramirez had celebrated Thanksgiving at her home in Twentynine Palms.
Brandon Dixon said Becerra had provided a “germane and concise presentation” that was “definitely relevant and needs to be considered to make sure the best interests of the local residences (sic) is taken as a primary interest.”
DeAnn Hudgens said, I am concerned that Council Member Rita Ramirez has shown negligence in performing her duty and responsibility as an elected council member. She has not attended any meetings, either in person or electronically since December 15, 2020. I have not heard any reasons why she would be excused for nonattendance. Although she is not attending any meetings she is still receiving her monthly stipend and health insurance from the taxpayers of the city. We, the residents of Victorville, are entitled to full-time council members to conduct the business of the city.”
Ruth Cordova said “It is clear the council has met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the elector, Council Member Rita Ramirez, has acted in clear violation of the law, oath of office and the United States Constitution, and has failed to represent the people of the city of Victorville. Council Member Rita Ramirez has imposed significant liability on the people in furtherance of compelling city employees and comrade council members to pose as actors and accomplices by harboring an elector for ten full months, nearly one full year.”
Denise Wells told the council, “I totally disagree with any actions to remove Rita Ramirez from her city council seat. She has been nothing but an asset to the City of Victorville, which I know personally, and will continue to be so. I suggest that before you take any legal against her, review your actions and what you have said against her before you try to enforce any actions that remove her from her seat.”
Angel Esparza said the council had “an obligation to remove Ms. Ramirez from this council. I believe Council Member Ramirez has vacated her position as a council member.”
Without any discussion of how the council was going to proceed with a determination of facts, or a comparison of the evidence or an opportunity for Ramirez to provide any response to, or documentation concerning, the assertions made or claimed evidence against her, Mayor Jones asked for a motion.
Becerra said, “I believe Council Member Ramirez has vacated her position as a council member and after hearing from the city attorney, his analysis and what I put before you, I motion and I hereby find and determine based on the evidence on record that Council Member Ramirez’s seat is hereby declared vacated for the lack of residency pursuant to Government Code 36502, 243 and 244.”
Immediately, Councilwoman Gomez made a substitute motion to table the matter indefinitely. No second was made to that motion.
Mayor Jones inquired of Becerra if, and confirmed from her that, her motion was intended to make the requisite findings that Ramirez’s residence was not in Victorville. Jones asked if there was a second of Becerra’s motion. When an extended silence ensued with no second to Becerra’s motion forthcoming, Jones seconded it.
Ramirez asserted, “I have been in Victorville since 2015. My address was Lennaire until the first of this month, when Denise Wells notified me she was moving to Palmdale. She is my former campaign manager and we shared a friendship. I have a domicile in Victorville. I also am an owner of the family home that was built in 1974. I have been going to that home for Thanksgiving. That is where my sons celebrate Thanksgiving. As for quote unquote unexcused absences, since January of 2020, my leg has been amputated and my life was saved. As of December 3 [2020], I notified the city manager, the city clerk and the mayor by text that I was in the hospital, trying to save my foot. My doctor said it would not be amputated, otherwise I would be a double amputee. I was sent by the hospital because of the fact 15 people tested positive [for COVID-19] and one died. They asked my son to bring me to the family home in 29 [Palms]. I did not go back to Victorville because I didn’t want in any way or form to bring the disease to my best friend, Denise Wells. I am totally isolated in my family home to protect all those that I love and to protect myself. I have not missed a meeting since the day you went on Zoom, and the only day I missed it, in December, was because I was requested by my doctor to go to Fontana on the 23rd of December. I celebrated Christmas in the hospital. New Year’s Day and New Year’s Eve I had two surgeries that saved my foot from amputation, and I was put on a wound vacuum for ten days. Therefore, when I notified the city, the city manager, the city clerk and the mayor about my absence, I told them there was no reception in the hospital for a Zoom meeting and no one could come in, because only patients were allowed. I have done everything proper. I have an address that you can check with the registrar of voters that I have a domicile in Victorville. I am renting because I wanted to buy a house, but because of the pandemic it is very difficult. On the other hand, my home, which is my family home, was built when I got married, and I’m here to save myself and not to bring it [COVID-19] to anyone. This home belongs to my sons, and I have not lived in this home since 2015. When I won the [Congressional] primary in 2016, I also ran in 2018, and I was asked to run for the city [council]. I said that I would… because Victorville…”
At that point, Jones as mayor cut Ramirez off.
Gomez said, “The audience has been stacked against one council member. We have intent and action. How can a city council member or the city council determine intent? That’s a legal term. I did ask if any of you spoke with Rita. What laws, provisions or authority govern a local body of government to detect or interpret the mindset and the intent of another through interpretive means using a city attorney? How did a public record establish intent? Let’s address the elephant in the room. This council is making room to appoint Ryan McEachron, who can by no chance of his own be elected. If staff participates in the Twentynine Palms address, what presumes that there are no gaps, where there’s hospitalization, where there’s been a monopoly of information to direct the misinformation and gaps for personal interests? Unfortunately, there’s a lot of ignorance and a lot of misfacts and a lot of facts that haven’t been brought up to balance the misinformation that has been presented to this council. It is the judges who are the triers of fact, not the legislators.”
Councilwoman Leslie Irving said, “This is a very awkward position as an elected council person for the City of Victorville I find myself in. I want to be fair to my colleague, Councilwoman Ramirez, but I also want to make sure that I do the right thing by the citizens of Victorville. So clearly, the question is… If I just looked at the evidence, it sounds as if my colleague has been away from the city of Victorville, even if I consider that she had two different residencies, places of residence, she’s been gone from Victorville for more than 51 percent of the time. More importantly, I zeroed in on the concept of domicile. The question is, you can have more than one residence but you can’t have more than one domicile, and whatever your primary domicile is is what your primary residency is, and there is a test.” The test is: Can you demonstrate clear[ly] and convincingly by documentation that tethers you, or puts you in a domicile in Victorville? Do you have documents or deeds for a home here? Do you have a rental agreement with utility bills? I don’t know that, but based on what I see before me, I don’t see those kinds of documents. Even if so, you mentioned in your correspondence to the council that you left your place of residency here in Victorville because it was not ADA [Americans With Disabilities Act] compliant. At that time you went to your home, as I understand it. The councilwoman went to a place of rehabilitation and then she went to her place of residency, her domicile, which by virtue of what she said is her family home. I would say that probably lots of government documents… you received mail there, you paid taxes from that place, did you file your taxes for that place, all of your family heirlooms and pictures and things that are of value [are there], so when you decided to leave because the place where you were living wasn’t ADA compliant, you went back to your primary domicile. That’s what it sounds like to me based on your own comments, so I’m guided by that and I’m looking desperately to be wrong and I want to entertain that if I’m wrong, please correct me, but I have a duty to be fair to the citizens of Victorvillle, but I also want to be fair to you. So my question is: Do you have any of those documents – utility bills, tax returns, a rental agreement, something that legally places you in a domicile in Victorville?”
Mayor Jones cut short Irving’s inquiry at that point. “This is the time for comments,” she said.
“Those are my comments,” Irving responded. “It’s a question. I don’t hear a response, but I will stop there. That’s my train of thinking.”
Thereafter, Mayor Jones ushered the city council toward a vote without providing Ramirez with an opportunity to provide or make arrangements to provide any of the documentation Irving had referenced in her comments before she was cut off by Jones. This prompted Gomez to say, “She does have that documentation that was asked for. You just never asked for it.”
Mayor Jones then directed City Clerk Charlene Robinson to prevent Gomez from continuing. “Madam Clerk, will you please mute the member,” Jones ordered.
Jones then sought to provide a justification for not considering the documentation relating to Ramirez’s claim to residency at the 16893 Glennaire Avenue residence, including her driver license, voter registration documentation and utility bills, which Jones based on Gomez speaking out of turn. “The chair will explain why Member Gomez is out of order. She’s not gained recognition of the chair. It is the chair’s opportunity to comment. She has already commented, and we’re not at that place any longer where she can speak as to the pending motion,” Jones said.
Jones then read into the record a statement she had written or which had been written for her, one prepared prior to the meeting that presaged the vote she was about to make.
“I’ve listened carefully to every comment, every question, and taken into account differing views,” Jones read. “I’ve examined the information and evidence before us with the bright light of the law. Member Becerra has produced legal documents and Member Ramirez has produced a letter. On the issue of residency, I find the various documents produced by Council Member Becerra, especially the homeowners exemption, which was one of the tests of residency, and the other statements contained in the staff report to be persuasive, not so with the personal letter submitted by Dr. Ramirez. That correspondence in my view is problematic on many levels and characterizes or assumes as fact that which is not.”
Jones then had the council proceed to the vote. She did not give Ramirez an opportunity to make a showing of her rental agreement or any other documentation.
The council then voted 3-to-2, with Jones, Becerra and Irving prevailing and Gomez and Ramirez dissenting, to remove Ramirez from the council.
The vote was rife with political implication.
From the time the maiden Victorville City Council consisting of Mayor Willard Wade, Mayor Pro Tem Joseph B. Campbell, Dr. William E Oyler, Don Doran and Gladys Butts was sworn in on September 27, 1962, there had been majority Republican rule in Victorville until the December swearing in of Becerra, Irving and Gomez following the November election, when Becerra and Irving were elected to the council for the first time. Gomez, as an incumbent, was reelected. Gomez, a Democrat, and Ramirez, also a Democrat, prior to the election were outnumbered by the three Republicans who were previously on the council – Jones, Jim Cox and Gloria Garcia. Thus, Becerra and Irving replaced Cox, who opted out of running again, and Garcia, who finished ninth in a field of 22 vying for three council positions. Since Irving is a Democrat and Becerra a Republican, the Democrats picked up a net of one on the council, shifting the balance thereon to 3-to-2 in favor of the Democrats, an historic turnaround in Victorville.
Early last month, however, Irving, who was already a member of the San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee, had a significant falling out with members of her own party when her effort to be elected to the California Central Committee failed in the face of a concerted and coordinated effort by Latino and Latina San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee members to promote Hispanic candidates for the prestigious statewide party position. In a huff, Irving tendered her resignation from the San Bernardino County Central Committee, in doing so leveling the charge that members of the party had engaged in racist acts.
While municipal elected offices are officially considered nonpartisan in nature in California, in San Bernardino County political affiliation is a primary consideration in any electoral context. With the removal of Ramirez, an opportunity now exists for the Republicans to reassert primacy on the city council and control over Victorville’s government. The question comes down to whether the city council, now equally divided 2-to-2 between Democrats and Republicans, can come to a consensus over an appointment, and whether that appointment will be a Republican or a Democrat.
Indications are that Jones and the Republicans are making overtures to Irving, who has burned multiple bridges with her former compatriots in the Democratic Party, to convince her to support either of two Republican former councilmen who ran in the November election, Ryan McEachron and Eric Negrete. McEachron, a one-time mayor of Victorville who served on the council for eight years before he was displaced in 2016 by Gomez, ran neck-and-neck with Irving in the 2020 race before finishing closely behind her in fourth place. He has solid Republican credentials. Negrete, who finished far off the pace in 14th place in November, was on the council for four years from 2014 until 2018, when he was toppled by Ramirez. Negrete at one point was being eyed as candidate for the state legislature with the eventual potential of being a breakthrough Hispanic Republican candidate for governor.
Informed speculation is that an appeal is being made to the highly politically ambitious Irving, who two decades ago successfully ran for city council in Compton but was never seated after allegations surfaced and a Superior Court Judge ruled that she had engaged in election fraud by registering non-citizens to vote and then casting their votes for herself. The overture to Irving is reportedly one which would elevate her to the post of mayor as early as next December in exchange for her vote in support of McEachron or Negrete. Sources once close to Irving say she is leaning toward returning control of the city to a Republican council majority despite her lifelong identification as a Democrat. On December 8, a month and five days after the November 3, 2020 election and one week after the results were certified, Becerra nominated Irving to the position of mayor pro tem and Irving was confirmed to that honorific in a vote of the council from which Gomez was locked out of the teleconference meeting and was prevented from participating.
During her now-abbreviated political career, Ramirez proved herself to be even more politically ambitious than Irving.
Prior to her election to the Victorville City Council in 2018, Ramirez was a member of the Copper Mountain Community College District Board of Trustees from 1999 until 2001 and again from 2008 until 2012. She vied for Assembly District 65 in 2004 and 2006, the 41st Congressional District in 2008 and Congress in the 31st Congressional District in 2012. She won the Democratic Primary for Congress in the 8th Congressional District in 2016, losing to the Republican incumbent, Paul Cook, in the November general election. She again vied unsuccessfully for Congress in the 8th District in the 2018 primary. That November, she successfully ran for the city council in Victorville. Last year, while she was yet hospitalized, she ran for First District county supervisor against Paul Cook, who opted out of running for reelection to Congress to do so. Ramirez finished second in that race, which featured four total candidates.

The hopes a growing contingent of Upland residents intent on municipal retiree pension reform were dashed this week when a forum that was originally touted as a strategy session on how the city could come to terms with the fiscal crisis brought on by the city’s too-generous stipends to its former employees was commandeered and dominated by four entities with a financial interest in preserving the city’s existing relationship with the public employees’ retirement system at the heart of the problem.
By the end of the workshop held on Tuesday afternoon, Upland’s city manager, assistant city manager and two consultants had diverted the city council’s focus from reducing the amount of money the city is paying to its pensioners to borrowing money through a bond issuing scheme to continue to provide those inflated benefits.
Upland, which was in such severe financial straits in 2012 that its auditor at that time expressed doubts about it being able “to continue as a going concern,” has, with the recovering national, state and local economy of the last few years, come to the point where it is no longer teetering on the brink of bankruptcy’s abyss. Nevertheless, hefty  salaries and benefits that city officials provided to city employees throughout the first decade of the current century persist and their drain on the public treasury continues to haunt the city in the third decade of the Third Millennium.
The City of Upland is a participant in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. In the 2001/2002 time frame, Upland’s municipal officials, reacting to assurances from California Public Employees’ Retirement System analysts and advisors that the state pension system’s coffers were superfunded, granted employees far more liberal retirement benefits than they had previously received. Because the pension fund was heavily invested in the stock market at that time and the market was in the midst of what is referred to as the dotcom bubble, the pension fund stood at 140 percent of what it needed to meet its obligations at that time.
Based on this confidence, which was later shattered when technology stocks plunged in value and ultimately led to the 2007-to-2014 economic downturn commonly referred to as the Great Recession, many elected municipal officials throughout the Golden State, including those in Upland, caved into the demands by employee unions that they share the wealth and not only up city employees’ salaries but their benefits including pensions.
John Pomierski was elected Upland Mayor in November 2000, and dominated Upland politics for the next decade. In short order, Pomierski, who had been backed by deep-pocketed developmental interests, used his power of beguilement and manipulation along with his forceful personality to take command of the city even beyond that normally accorded to the mayor, giving others involved in the operation of the municipality the option of going along with him or being disenfranchised. With the exception of Ray Musser, Pomierski ultimately forged an alliance with all of the city council’s members, including Tom Thomas, whom he had bested in the 2000 mayoral race. His team included Michael Libutti and Ken Willis, first elected to the council in 1998 and 2000, respectively. When Libutti, a prosecutor in the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, was elevated to the Superior Court in 1982, he was replaced by Brendan Brandt. Pomierski formed a political bond with Brandt as well.
Early on, Pomierski was shaking down those with interests in the decision-making process at City Hall, and pocketing bribes. Despite widespread whispering about what was going on, Pomierski held his political coalition together. Developmental interests had united behind Pomierski because of his readiness and ability to force, cajole or simply invite the other members of the Upland City Council, who collectively held the city’s ultimate land use authority, to accommodate those developers’ efforts to obtain building entitlements. Pomierski served as a conduit of political donations originating with those developmental interests to other politicians. This formed the basis of and strengthened the bonds of Pomierski’s coalition.
After the 2004 election in which Pomierski was reelected mayor over a strong challenge by his lone rival on the city council, Ray Musser, the level to which Pomierski was engaged in corruptions of his office was growing too intense to ignore. In March 2005, then-City Manager Mike Milhiser departed, followed a few short weeks later by then-Police Chief Marty Thouvenell, both of whom were concerned about the destruction remaining affiliated with Pomierski might have on their reputations. Pomierski then induced the city council to hire his hand-picked replacement for Milhiser, Robb Quincey, and he elevated a captain in the police department, Steve Adams, to police chief, moves intended to facilitate his depredations and insulate him from any accountability.
Thereafter there were no restrictions of any effect on Pomierski. He obtained the city council’s acquiescence in conferring upon Quincey a contract which provided him with a guarantee that he would receive the same percentage increase in his salary and benefits that were provided to the members of the police department. Thereafter, he arranged to have Quincey designated to represent the city in its negotiations with the police officers’ union. During the slightly more than five-and-a-half years that he served as city manager, Quincey was provided with eight raises that boosted his combined salary and benefits from less than $260,000 per year to $425,000 per year, making him the second-highest paid city manager in California. Meanwhile, the members of the police department saw their salaries and benefits escalate significantly, such that their silence and investigative inactivity with regard to Pomierski’s activities was secured. Because he had concerns that the occasional knowledge about his bribetaking and other illegal activities that existed among city staff might not contain itself, Pomierski made arrangements to increase employee salaries generally at City Hall and had the city go to a four-day work week, which bought the acquiescence of city employees in what he was doing. Pomierski experienced no obstruction from anyone at City Hall in the graftfest he was involved in, and it was only after the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office took notice and a federal grand jury indicted him in 2011 that the gravy train he was riding screeched to a halt. In 2012, Quincey, was arrested and charged by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office with three felonies consisting of unlawful misappropriation of public money, gaining personal benefit from an official contract, and giving false testimony under oath. Quincey’s lawyer would later work out with prosecutors a plea deal for him on a reduced charge.
Despite Pomierski’s personal downfall, the generosity toward city employees that had been a key ingredient in his recipe for self-enrichment persists a decade after his political demise. Even while Pomierski was in office, that generosity with taxpayer money had the effect of escalating dramatically the city’s pension costs, and when financial challenges descended upon the city while he was still mayor in 2007, it precipitated a pension debt situation the city is still staggering under.
The economic downturn of 2007 and the ensuing seven-year financial slump devastated the California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s fiscal position. To the advantage of the system itself and all of the public employees participating in it, however, a provision in the contractual arrangements between the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the cities participating in it requires that when CalPERS does not meet its investment goals, the difference is made up by the governmental entities that are the system’s constituents. That advantage to California’s governmental employees simultaneously redounded to the detriment of the cities and other governmental entities that are its participants in CalPERS.
The full implication of that one-sided guarantee was not fully recognized until the Great Recession took hold, at which point cities and counties participating in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System were called upon to make substantial payments beyond what they normally made to CalPERS. Those disbursements were made out of those counties’ and cities’ operating funds, often referred to in individual cases as that particular county’s or city’s general fund. This meant that money that otherwise was used for basic operations such as paying salaries, purchasing and carrying out maintenance on city vehicles, fueling those vehicles, providing care and upkeep of city parks, trimming trees, creating or renewing infrastructure such as paving roads, maintaining sidewalks, curbs, gutters and culverts, water and sewer lines, providing services and the like was in short supply. That translated into layoffs and resultant manpower shortages and service reductions, along with delays in constructing new infrastructure, the deterioration of existing infrastructure and the deferring of purchasing new equipment and vehicles and the neglect of maintenance and servicing to city assets.
The difference between the total amount of benefits owed to all of a city’s current employees & retirees and the value of the financial assets devoted to that city’s pension plan is referred to as an unfunded liability.
As of June 2012, the City of Upland had an $88,994,066 unfunded pension liability. That debt had reached $99,976,917 as of June 30, 2019, and then climbed more steeply thereafter, hitting $112,039,675 as of mid-fiscal year 2019-20 and $120,920,721 as of June 30, 2020. Unofficial documentation available to the Sentinel suggests that as of this month, Upland’s unfunded pension liability has climbed to $130,185,277.
At present, $8,996,364 of the city’s current annual $43,559,950.78 general fund budget is utilized in paying off its pension debt, such that 20.65 percent of the city’s operating costs are devoted to paying those who are no longer actively working for the city.
Projections are that by 3032, with more and more of the city’s current employees joining the rolls of the city’s retirees drawing pensions at ever higher and higher rates, the city will be expending close to 50 percent of its operating budget on paying pensions to former city employees, resulting in the city drastically reducing the municipal services it provides.
A significant factor in the pension debt crisis consists of the very generous terms contained in the formulas for those pensions. Generally speaking, employees are eligible to retire at the age 55 or 60 and begin to draw a yearly pension equal to two percent of their highest annual pay, including salary and overtime, multiplied by the number of years they were employed in the public sector in California. Thus, a city employee who retires at the age of 55 who was paid $100,000 per year who had been employed with the city for 30 years would be eligible to draw an annual pension of $60,000 per year [$100,000 X .02 X 30] for the remainder of his/her life. Upon that former employee’s death, his or her spouse/widow/widower would be eligible to continue to draw a pension equal to half that amount, $30,000, for the rest of her/his life. The higher one goes up the municipal employment totem pole in Upland, the more generous the formula. Senior administrative employees such as the city manager are eligible to draw a pension equal to his/her highest annual salary and add-on or overtime pay during that year times two-and-a-half percent times the number of years that person was employed in the public sector in California. Thus, a city manager paid $250,000 per year who retires at 60 after a 35-year career as a public employee in California would receive an annual pension of $218,750 [$250,000 X .025 X 35] for the rest of his/her life, with his/her surviving spouse eligible to collect $109,375 yearly for the remainder of his/her life.
In the case of police officers, they are eligible to retire at the age of 50 and receive a pension of three percent times their highest level of pay multiplied by the number of years they have worked as government employees in California.
Within certain circles involving Upland residents who are tuned in to the circumstance of their city’s looming pension crisis, there has been serious discussion over what steps could be taken to diffuse the situation or to in some fashion ameliorate it to reduce the onerous burden of the city’s escalating pension costs and the resultant impact on ongoing and future municipal operations and thereby the quality of life in the City of Gracious Living. The options for achieving this cost reduction are limited, given the reality of the contractual obligations the city took on in committing to participate in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
One potential solution or partial solution to the dilemma consists of altering future employee contracts to reduce the level of benefits guaranteed to city personnel going forward. Another consists of maintaining the level of benefits as they are but shifting the cost of participating in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System from the city to the employees themselves, meaning those employees – through payments deducted from their wages – and not the city and its taxpayers will cover the cost of making annual payments the city is currently making to CalPERS. A contemplated solution is capping pension amounts at what might be considered to be a reasonable maximum – perhaps $100,000 annually, for example – that would still provide the means for retirees to live in dignity without breaking the public treasury. Another option would be for the city to pull out of CalPERS altogether, paying off its debt to the state retirement system, and instituting a municipal employee 403 (B) retirement system for those city workers which they pay for themselves, perhaps with some modest city contribution, similar to 401 (K) programs available in the private sector. Another option would be for the city to utilize the legal leverage available to it and uniformly revoke the past salary and benefit increases provided to city employees under the Pomierski regime and as part of the negotiations engaged in by Quincey, based on the statutory principle that any contractual arrangement entered into by a public agency as a consequence of a conflict of interest is rendered null and void and is therefore unenforceable.
It is calculated that use of one or a combination of some or all of those options to substantially reduce the City of Upland’s pension costs could in relatively short order deflate the city’s unfunded pension liability to somewhere between one-half or two-thirds of what it is presently, rendering the city’s finances into a far more manageable state, eliminating the future prospect of bankruptcy and heading off the impingement on city services that are threatening to drop the City of Gracious Living to Third World standards. Among that circle of Upland residents, there was hope that under the guidance of Greg Bradley, who was elected Upland treasurer in November 2020, the city would develop the collective will of its citizenry and political leadership to explore those options.
This week, on March 2, the city council held an afternoon workshop/special meeting to discuss management of the city’s pension costs and the accruing and growing pension fund liability.
Much to the chagrin of those anticipating a change in the city’s approach to its pension funding dilemma, the workshop confined itself to essentially preserving the CalPERS status quo and exploring a debt financing solution that, if used, will defer the city’s pension costs to a future generation of Uplanders and potentially be of near term financial benefit to those advising the city.
The upshot of Tuesday afternoon’s meeting was that the city should eschew any effort toward pension reform and instead reach for the nostrum of pension obligation bonds.
Governments issue pension obligation bonds, known by the acronym POBs, and use the proceeds of the sale of the bonds to cover their pension debt. The bond purchasers are then paid back by the city a certain percentage of the bond value over a given period, typically 30 to 40 years. This strategy is based on the hope, or gamble, that the pension funds’ investment returns will prove to be higher than municipal bond interest. Many governments have used pension obligation bonds successfully in reducing their pension liability, but POBs have also contributed to major municipal bankruptcies. Pension obligation bonds have inherent risks, which can and have proven devastating. One potential disadvantage consists of the possibility that investment returns in the underlying pension fund, in the case of Upland the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, will fall short of the bond interest. Pension obligation bonds are credit negative and impact a city’s debt capacity, potentially using up borrowing capability that could be used for other purposes. Moreover, pension obligation bonds are complex instruments that carry considerable risk, as they may incorporate the use of guaranteed investment contracts, swaps, and/or derivatives, which must be intensively scrutinized, as such embedded products and variables can introduce counterparty risk, credit risk and interest rate risk. The Government Finance Officers Association has issued a general caveat against them, stating it “recommends that state and local governments do not issue pension obligation bonds.”
Those in favor of pension obligation bonds maintain that the potential downsides of pension obligation bonds can be reduced, mitigated or virtually eliminated through caution and appropriate legal frameworks.
City of Upland officials first became intrigued with pension obligation bonds last year when financial advisor Suzanne Harrell gave them a sales job. Harrell’s firm, Harrell & Company, stood to profit if the city resolved to issue the bonds and used her company in doing so. Out of concern that the city might not have been getting the straight scoop from Harrell because of her financial stake in the city’s eventual decision, city officials sought out other experts to orient them with regard to this relatively obscure means of financing. For this week’s discussion, the city turned to two others, Julio Morales, a managing director with Urban Futures, and Ira Summer, an actuary who is well versed in public pension statistics.
As it turned out, both Morales and Summer and their companies, have a potential financial interest in the city issuing pension obligation bonds as well. Since under most likely scenarios, the issuance of POBs consists of maintaining the status quo between the city and CalPERs, neither Morales nor Summer engaged in any serious or meaningful discussion of the city’s parallel options, such as ending its relationship with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System beyond precluding the concept by advising that it was undoable or prohibitively expensive. Nor did Morales or Summers engage in a dialogue relating to switching the burden of defraying pension costs to the city’s employees or altering the terms of the city’s employee benefit packages either through negotiation or on the basis of the illegality of the circumstances by which those benefits were derived, offered and accepted.
Morales acknowledged that in the current economic circumstance, over the last several years pension funds dependent upon stock market and other investment returns have been about 75 percent funded.
Morales shot down the concept of the city moving out of its contractual arrangement with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and switching to a 403 (B) program, saying that CalPERS would not allow employees in its system to withdraw. He further said that CalPERS would not allow a city that currently has its employees in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to hire new employees who were not automatically enrolled in the retirement system. Without making any citation to his authority for saying so, Morales indicated that doing so would be a violation of California law.
Morales said it was not impossible for the City of Upland to leave CalPERS, but that it would cost more than paying off its current unfunded liability, which he put in the neighborhood of $120 million. Rather, he said, Upland could not buy its way out of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System for anything less than $490 million.
While Morales did not advertise pension obligation bonds as a silver bullet that would slay the pension debt vampire, he continually offered them as a key component of a multi-element solution to the unfunded pension liability challenge.
And though he acknowledged that the issuance of POBs would create new debt that would result in a bill to pay down that debt, he said payment of that bill would “avert a worse bill,” such that the city and its council would find itself and themselves “in a better position than you would have been.”
Admitting the city could take the approach of having its employees pay more of their pension costs, Morales said the best that would do is have some impact “around the margins” of the mounting debt issue. He repeated a mantra to the effect that it is futile for the city to try to get out of its relationship with CalPERS or strive to lessen its actual payments into the system, but should instead seek to use bonds to reduce the cost of financing its pension debt. Doing so at this point, he explained, would escalate the savings the city is to potentially reap, given the historically low interest rates in the financial marketplace at present.
He referenced the “California Rule,” a legal precedent that bars public employers from revoking any benefits given to public employees in the past without compensating them with an offsetting improvement in benefits going forward.
“You cannot undo these formulas,” Morales intoned in talking about the pensions that public employees are guaranteed through CalPERS.
Assistant City Manager Steven Parker paid perfunctory homage to the concepts of reforming the city’s employee benefit and pension cost situation, but did not delve too deeply into the subject and dwelt more with regard to other cost saving efforts the city could make to improve its overall financial position.
Parker said the city at present is purposed to establish a pension fund stabilization element/plan into the city’s upcoming 2021-22 budget, and he mentioned bargaining with city employees in upcoming contract negotiation to take on more of the pension cost. He touted outsourcing moves the city had made in the past, such as those of the fire department, library and animal control service division, which had frozen in place the city’s pension costs for those employees moved off the municipal payroll. His statements raised the specter, obliquely rather than overtly, of the shuttering of the police department in favor of contracting law enforcement services out to the county sheriff’s department. He did not make direct reference to the police department, though for many that implication was obvious as the police department represents the major expense within the city’s general fund budget.
Parker said the California League of Cities has suggested the issuance of pension obligation bonds as a possible way of stabilizing pension costs.
Also participating in the forum was Ira Summer, a specialized consulting pension fund accountant who works in the arena of public pension administration and financing. Parker introduced Summer as being a principal or officer with an outfit, Dove Invest. The Sentinel, after conducting an exhausting search, could find no reference to Dove Invest. Summer is shown as a “consulting actuary and president with Public Pension Professionals.” Precisely what Summer’s angle with regard to Upland’s potential issuance of pension obligation bonds was unclear.
As part of the forum, the council heard comments. The only comment provided was that by Lois Sicking Dieter, a former mayoral candidate. She expressed skepticism about the efficacy of issuing public obligation bonds, likening their use to “using a credit card to pay off another credit card.”
At one point in the proceedings, Summer belittled Sicking Dieter’s analogy.
Also participating in a very limited role was Greg Bradley, as treasurer, who was in some measure responsible for pushing the subject matter of the unfunded pension liability into Tuesday’s workshop. Other than a preliminary statement, his participation was light, and his engagement in the proceedings was similar to that of the city council, which generally observed the presentation that was made mostly by Morales and guided by Parker. Morales, Summer and Parker entertained a few questions from the council, which emanated primarily from Councilwoman Janice Elliott, who has training as a certified public accountant.
The general upshot of the presentation was that public pension obligation bonds would save the city money. The council ultimately complied with Morales’ suggestion that it make a preliminary application for the issuance of the bonds without actually committing to do the issuance, to cut down on any delay should the council ultimately decide to use the POB option. Timely action now, he said, would help to ensure the bonds could be issued while interest rates remain low, giving the city the full advantage of that market condition.
Also participating, to a very limited degree, was City Manager Rosemary Hoerning, who told the city council that pension obligation bonds were “a nice tool to have in your back pocket.” Hoerning’s major input came toward the end of the meeting, during which she took on responsibility for gearing up for the potential issuance of the bonds.
For many, the degree to which Morales, Summer, Parker and Hoerning came across as discouraging pension reform and stampeding the council toward issuance of the bonds was troubling from the standpoint of the real or potential personal financial stake the four have in the city forsaking pension reform and issuing the bonds.
Urban Futures has long been involved in an advisory or consultancy role in Upland municipal operations. A major portion of the firm’s work consists of advising the city with regard to and then making the arrangements for debt refinancing. In doing so, Urban Futures stands to gain fees pursuant to the ancillary services it provides relating to the refinancing. Given the financial stake Urban Futures has in these refinancings, questions have arisen about the integrity of that advice.
Moreover, in this circumstance, Urban Futures, or at least some of its employees, have an interest in discouraging any options that might pertain to Upland exiting the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
Steve Dukett from 2018 until 2019 served as Upland’s contract development services manager after having served, more than a decade prior to that, as an Upland municipal employee, in the post of development services manager. Dukett is one of three managing partners with Urban Futures. In addition to his work for Urban Futures, Dukett draws a significant amount of his personal income from CalPERS. Dukett served stints as the redevelopment or development director with the cities of Redlands, Upland, Hesperia, Ontario, Lancaster and San Bernardino. He was briefly, in the late 1990s, the interim city manager in Hesperia. His employment in Upland took place during the reign of then-Mayor John Pomierski. At present he pulls a $173,071.80 public pension consisting of $119.863.44 per year provided to him by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System based on his 29.43 years with various municipal entities, as well as $53,208.36 from the retirement system Los Angeles County has for its public employees based on the 12.42 years he worked there, including within the county administrative office.
Parker did not clarify how Urban Futures and Summer will be involved in the issuance of the pension obligation bonds, should that eventuality come to pass.
Parker emphasized that at present the city is utilizing both Urban Futures and Summer for advisory and informational services, but he pointedly did not rule out that they might have roles related to the bond issuances.
Both Hoerning as city manager and Parker as assistant city manager are to be beneficiaries – major beneficiaries – of the CalPERS system. Hoerning is on a trajectory to receive upon her retirement a pension through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System somewhere in the neighborhood of $205,000 to $210,000 per year. If Parker, as is anticipated, ultimately accedes to a city manager position in either Upland or elsewhere, he is likewise on track to receive a public pension equal to or greater than that of Hoerning.
-Mark Gutglueck

On Wednesday, March 3, the San Bernardino City Council elected to back a comprehensive and energetic proposal by the Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group consortium to redevelop the long-languishing 43-acre Carousel Mall site at the city’s core.
The mall, a portion of which includes the Harris’ building first established in 1927 and which has existed in the form of a modern mall since 1972, is proximate to San Bernardino City Hall, which has itself been shuttered for seismic considerations since 2017.
The proposal by Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group first publicly previewed in January was more elaborate than the mere mall makeover the city had sought for the project. In addition to transforming the mall into a post modern urban landscape involving mixed commercial and residential uses, the plan calls for creating an artificial stream that will accompany an arbor-like riverwalk rich in vegetation and some 1,000 trees through the downtown area, which includes currently existing municipal and county offices, the Mexican and Guatemalan consulates, the city’s banking district, retail and office/professional uses, the city’s entertainment section, as well as State of California offices that include the 11-story modern 2014 courthouse and the city’s/county’s historic 1926 courthouse.
The synergy envisioned in Renaissance Downtowns USA/ICO Real Estate Group team’s plan was a factor in its selection by the city council, but not the only one.
The two companies, which have cooperated on projects previously, were among 11 separate entities competing to get the right to serve as the master developer/redeveloper of the mall property. After the competition began in earnest, they combined their efforts and eight of the others involved in the selection process were shunted aside by the city, leaving them to go toe-to-toe with the Chinese-based conglomerate, Shanghai Construction Group, known by its acronym SCG. When it was revealed that SCG was filtering money to Mayor John Valdivia and his electioneering fund through various SCG corporate affiliates and subgroups, suspicions were raised. Valdivia, in a ham-handed way, then sought to promote and militate on behalf of SCG, at one point inveigling City Manager Robert Field into assisting him in doing so. After it was learned that Valdivia was seeking to hide the money he was receiving from SCG and that Field was militating with him to get an internal city staff recommendation to proceed with SCG’s redevelopment plan, there was a firestorm of controversy centered around charges that Valdivia is on the take and that he was corrupting Field and the city’s top ranking employees. Council Members Ben Christmas-Reynoso and Kimberly Calvin took a lead in questioning what Valdivia was up to, and citizen outrage at Valdivia’s action escalated. In that atmosphere, it became impossible for Field to return a recommendation in favor of SCG.
Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, city staffers provided a recommendation that the city council reject both bids to redevelop the Carousel Mall property and rather include the mall property into a yet-to-be-determined downtown revitalization effort.
Some 56 residents weighed in on the project in prerecorded messages played during Wednesday’s meeting. None of those sounded a recommendation for the SCG proposal. Many of those callers excoriated Valdivia over the appearance of his having taken money from SCG in return for rigging the selection process in that company’s favor. Most of the callers who recommended a choice between the competing developers sided with Renaissance and ICO, although there was a fair smattering who suggested that the competition be re-initiated from scratch.
Ultimately, council members Theodore Sanchez, Sandra Ibarra, Fred Shorett, Ben Reynoso, Kimberly Calvin and Damon Alexander voted in favor of accepting the proposal by Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group, and allowing both to serve as the mall’s combined master redeveloper. Councilman Juan Figueroa, Valdivia’s most steadfast ally on the council and who himself has been spotted cavorting with SCG principals and corporate officers and has taken money from them, voted in opposition to selecting Renaissance Downtowns USA and ICO Real Estate Group.
-Mark Gutglueck

First Lady Jill Biden is likely to encounter a protest demonstration when she touches down at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms next Wednesday, the Sentinel has learned.
Mrs. Biden has committed to redouble the Joining Forces program, an effort she undertook with then-First Lady Michelle Obama in 2011, which was dedicated to work “hand-in-hand with the public and private sector to ensure that service members, veterans, and their families have the tools they need to succeed throughout their lives.”
After touring military bases in Washington State on Tuesday, March 9, Mrs. Biden is scheduled to sojourn to Southern California where her first stop is to be the Marine Corps Air
Ground Combat Center on March 10.
A wife of a Marine at the Twentynine Palms facility was recently subjected to a series of racist epithets, and a contingent of that woman’s supporters, including members of the Needles Democratic Club, intends to make the circumstances known to Mrs. Biden.
-Mark Gutglueck

The Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees, which stands as one of the most ethnically/racially diverse elected bodies in San Bernardino County, this week knuckled under to a demand that the district alter its traditional at-large board elections to ones in which trustees are to be elected by ward or sub-district. That threat implied that minority members living within the jurisdiction of the district are not adequately represented on the board.
The threat to sue the district came from Kevin Shenkman of the Malibu-based law firm of Shenkman and Hughes. In 2014, Shenkman sent a similar letter to the City of Highland. Highland responded by agreeing to hold a vote to see if the city’s residents were amenable to making the change to district elections. When the voters rejected the concept, Shenkman and several other lawyers and law firms, including R. Rex Parris, Milton Grimes and Matthew Barragan, proceeded with a lawsuit against Highland, where despite more than 39 percent of the residents of that city being Latino, no Hispanics were serving on the city council. The attorneys used a provision of the California Voters Rights Act to ensure, they maintained, that so-called protected minorities were not disenfranchised in the political process. That provision allowed them to allege that what is referred to as racially or ethnically polarized voting had occurred in certain cities or towns, and to then request that the city or town in question revamp its voting system such that wards or voting districts were created in which the residents of that ward or district would have exclusive voting rights to elect from within that ward or district a representative to the city council. If a city without resistance simply conformed with the request and adopted a by-district voting system, the attorney making the request was then entitled to recover from the city a $45,000 fee for having brought the city into what was characterized as compliance with the goals of the California Voting Rights Act.
If any of those towns or cities resisted the request, the attorney or attorneys representing an individual of standing challenging that particular municipal entity could then file suit under the terms of the California Voting Rights Act, and upon prevailing in demonstrating racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting in the city or town had occurred, be eligible to recover the entirety of the legal fees involved in the filing of the action.
In the case of Highland, despite making a finding that the socio-economic-based rationale presented by the plaintiff’s attorneys to support the need for ward elections was irrelevant and that the plaintiff’s assertion that district voting was the only way to cure the alleged violation of the Voting Rights Act was false, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge David Cohn mandated that Highland adopt a ward system.
Lawyers using the California Voting Rights Act function from a distinct advantage, in that if a lawsuit they file fails and it is determined that racially-polarized or ethnically polarized voting did not occur, the plaintiff is not subject to having to pay the prevailing party’s legal fees.
After their victory over Highland, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan, the latter then being a staff attorney representing the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, threatened lawsuits under the California Voter Rights Act against the cities of Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino Hills, Chino, Fontana, Hesperia, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Twentynine Palms, Upland and Yucaipa, as well as the towns Apple Valley and Yucca Valley. Despite the consideration that Barstow, Chino Hills, Chino and Redlands historically had fielded or at that point included Hispanic members on their city councils and that Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana historically or at that point had both Latino and African-American members of their city councils, all of those cities and all of those towns, while grumbling that Shenkman, Parris, Grimes, and Barragan were using the law to shake them down, complied with the demands for shifts to district or ward systems, with each of those municipalities paying the lawyers $45,000, an alternative preferable to having to sustain the expense of fighting the matter in court with no prospect of recovering its costs even if it prevailed.
Ironically, in case after case in San Bernardino County, the cities and towns that were forced to adopt district voting or ward maps gerrymandered them in a way that provided the incumbent council members an advantage by placing them into districts that did not include other incumbents, and by timing the elections in such a way that their districts held elections at the end of the electoral cycle terminating with the elapsing of the close of the term the incumbents held as a result of their most recent at-large elections. In none of those cases did Shenkman, Parris, Grimes and Barragan intervene, and the gerrymandering was allowed to proceed. In some of the cases, protected minority representation was lost as a consequence of the redistricting. This is an indication, Shenkman’s, Parris’s, Grimes’ and Barragan’s detractors say, that the lawyers were not in fact interested in ending racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting but were rather seeking a $45,000 payday.
The Chino Valley Unified School District Board currently consists of Donald Bridge, Andrew Cruz, Christina Gagnier, James Na and Joe Schaffer. Cruz is Hispanic. Na is ethnically Chinese. The remaining three are Caucasian. Within the last five years, the board had two Latina members, Sylvia Orozco and Irene Hernandez-Blair. While there would have been a substantial likelihood that the district would have prevailed if it had contested the assertion in Hughes’ letter that the district’s at-large election system resulted in minority vote dilution in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, the expense of doing so would have been extensive.
In a report to the board dated March 4, Superintendent Norm Enfield said “to avoid potential legal challenges” he recommended the district “begin the process of establishing trustee areas for elections to the board of education.”
The board voted unanimously along the lines of Enfield’s recommendation.
-Mark Gutglueck

San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Gilbert Ochoa has ruled in favor of conservation groups and found the Marina Point Development on the shores of Big Bear Lake lacks valid permits.
Nearly seven years after a petition and complaint challenging the project was filed, the court’s ruling makes clear that unless San Bernardino County issues new approvals, the project construction cannot move forward. The project threatened habitat for bald eagles and other wildlife.
“We’re thrilled that the truth of the situation has finally been set straight and the court has upheld the law,” said Roman Silberfeld, chairman of the board for Friends of Big Bear Valley. “We are happy to help protect our beautiful rural community and majestic natural resources with this action.”
Friends of Big Bear Valley and the Center for Biological Diversity filed the original complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court in June 2014. The suit challenged the county’s issuance of demolition permits even though the underlying approvals for the project had expired. County code sets a five-year deadline from the date of project approval for concrete steps toward that project’s timely completion to be taken. Marina Point did not take the necessary steps to keep the permit alive, according to the ruling issued last week.
“To obtain a new approval, this project will now have to perform proper environmental review, as should have been required two decades ago,” said Sandy Steers, the executive director of Friends of Big Bear Valley. “The bald eagles and other species and unique habitats detrimentally impacted by this project can finally be protected.”
The Marina Point Development project was approved in 1991, based on an environmental review from 1983. The court of appeal has ruled that the 1991 environmental review was deficient. When work on the project began again in 2014 after years of delay, conservation groups took notice and filed a legal challenge. The Law Offices of Babak Naficy represented the conservation groups.
“I am delighted that this long-running saga has finally come to an end and the good guys prevailed,” said Naficy.
The now-expired project was a condominium complex consisting of 19 three-story condominium buildings on 12 acres of undeveloped lakefront, along with an expansive 175-boat slip private marina, clubhouse, restaurant and other shared facilities.
“Marina Point threatened the long-term survival of Big Bear Lake’s iconic bald eagles, a pair of which now nest year-round within a mile of the project site,” said Aruna Prabhala, a Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney. “As the lake’s shoreline gets more and more developed, and bald eagle habitat is lost, it’s become increasingly important that we preserve foraging and nesting areas.”
Friends of Big Bear Valley is a locally based, nonprofit environmental education organization with over 130,000 members and online activists dedicated to protecting and preserving the unique and irreplaceable natural habitat of Big Bear Valley.

As we roll into spring, I am reminded of John Kennedy Jr. rollerblading through New York with his dog on a leash, with a newspaper and sneakers in his other hand. And, he was so “HOT” about it. Now gone and still “HOT!”

Guess what? Roller skates are in, and a whole lot of fun, too. We’ve all been stuck inside due to the quarantine, but lets face it, California weather is gorgeous and one good reason to come back to life by rolling out on skates. I’ve been paying attention, and Wow! Some people move great on and in skates. I was motivated to relive my youth. It’s been maybe 9 years since I last skated, but I did my research and got a pair of Moxi Skates.

I have taken it easy by rolling in my house. Recently, I got out to the bike trail. I started out slowly on a sunny day. I must say my crazy idea has inspired others to do the same. While you’re wondering if you still can or why you’re not, just get out there rollerskating. Take a pause and take the leap.
Skating dates back to the 1700s, but I can relate best to the 1970s, since that is where it began for me. You can pick up skates in different brands. Based on reviews I’ve read, here are some suggestions: Impala Skates, Chaya Skates, Moxi Skates, and let’s not forget the original-traditional Chicago Brand Skates. There’s a lot of distancing with roller skating and you feel free doing it. One thing to remember is to start easy and basic. Some tips: Widen your legs, go slightly forward, moderately bend the knees, and wear pads. Is there fashion in this comeback trend? Absolutely! Some fashion tips: Shorts, striped knee socks, overalls, bell bottoms, spandex, and skirts. It’s all mix and matchable, and for spring you can make it colorful.

I recently heard that every Thursday from 6 pm to 9 pm there are Rollerskate And Date events. There is more information on the Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/vaultofupland/. Use your creativity and get on the rollies.
Have fun with the activity which is great for spring, summer, and any time, as long as the weather permits. Until next time – Keep rolling!

“Let the Good Times Roll” -The Cars

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
CASE NO. PROPS 2001007
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TERRI A. DAVIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TERRI A. DAVIS 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 JULY 1, 2021at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S37 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.
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Terri A. Davis:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/19/21, 2/26/21 & 3/05/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN C. CRUZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2100133
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUAN C. CRUZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DOMINIC CRUZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DOMINIC CRUZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
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-35 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 5, 2021 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 February 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2028679
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III to Efrain Angel Rodriguez
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: 03/17/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
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: Feb., 03, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2100792
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO DEMANDADO): The COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a charter county: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a public agency; MICHAEL A. RAMOS, in his individual capacity; JAMES HACKLEMAN, in his individual capacity; HOLLIS “BUD” RANDLES, in his individual capacity; ROBERT SCHREIBER, in his individual capacity: COLONIES PARTNERS, L.P, a California Limited Partnership; JEFFERY BURUM, an individual; ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2020 SETTLEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND COLONIES PARTNERS. L.P. AND JEFFERY BURUM; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
THE RED BRENNAN GROUP, a non-profit corporation.
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 is 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):
247 West Third Street,
San Bernardino, CA 92415
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 demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
Aaron D. Burden, Esq.
P.O. Box 130370,
Carlsbad, CA 92013
Telephone: (619) 988-2663
DATE (Fecha): 01/26/2021
Clerk (Secretario), by Elisabeth Martinez, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21
FBN 20210000965
The following person is doing business as TAMAR COUNSELING SERVICES 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786: DEBORAH J VINALL 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786
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/ DEBORAH J.VINALL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: August 10, 2010
County Clerk, Deputy 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). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/19, 2/26, 3/05 & 3/12, 2021.
FBN 20210001168
The following entity is doing business as ALLWISE RESIDENTIAL HOME II 9995 GENEVA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 ALLWISE COMPANION CARE INC 14299 POINTER LOOP EASTVALE, CA 92880
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION registered with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA C4167976
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/ WENDELL USON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/05/2021
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 February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.
FBN 20210000553
The following entity is doing business as NOTARY EAGLE: EMIGDIA’S NOTARY SERVICES 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
Mailing Address: 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
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/ EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/20/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 16, 2021
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 February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000959
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lucifer’s Garage; Satan’s Henchmen; Heathen, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Heathen Nation LLC, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
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 A. Lancaster
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2021
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).
02/12/21, 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: TRACY ALAN POWELL
CASE NO. PROPS 2100144
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of TRACY ALAN POWELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MICHELLE MERRIAM in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MICHELLE MERRIAM 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 APRIL 1, 2021at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 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.
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Michelle Merriam:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328-7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/26/21. 3/05/21 & 3/12/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANGEL PATRON
CASE NO. PROPS 2100150
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANGEL PATRON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by VIONICA REYES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that VIONICA REYES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 5, 2021 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 February 26, March 5 & March 1, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
EARL WILLIAM BALE
NO. PROPS 2100132
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EARL WILLIAM BALE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PATTY K. WHALEY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PATTY K. WHALEY 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. S35 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 30, 2021 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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Patty K. Whaley
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
RUTH DIANNE STACEY
NO. PROPS 2100153
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RUTH DIANNE STACEY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JENNIFER SHOEMAKER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JENNIFER SHOEMAKER 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. S35 at 9 a.m. on APRIL 6, 2021 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.
In Pro Per Petitioner: Jennifer Shoemaker
2276 Cedar St.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Telephone No: (951) 662-1589
Email address: evilwitchsbrew@yahoo.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF::
JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2000419
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON 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 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
SELYNO RAZO, Deputy Clerk
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2100107
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON 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 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210001697
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: My Serenity Mental Wellness, 12223 Highland Avenue Ste 106-466, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Johana Montes De Oca, 12223 Highland Avenue Ste 106-466, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
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/ Johana Montes De Oca
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/22/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/04/2021
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).
02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000878
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Code With Nano, 1486 Moonridge Ct, Upland, CA 91784, Monica G. Say, 1486 Moonridge Ct, Upland, CA 91784
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/ Monica G. Say
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/28/2021
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).
02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

FBN 20210000366 The following person is doing business as: DANK WAYZ 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761 BRIAN J PATTISON 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761 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/ BRIAN J. PATTISON This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/14/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 8, 2021 County Clerk, Deputy I2443 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 1/22, 1/29, 2/5 & 2/12, 2021 & Corrected on 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2101401
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Antonio Javier Sezati filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Antonio Javier Sezati to Sean Miramontes
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: 04/05/21
Time: 9:00 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: Feb., 04, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF CINDY LORRAINE MILLER aka CINDY L. MILLER aka CINDY MILLER
Case No. PROPS2100163
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of CINDY LORRAINE MILLER aka CINDY L. MILLER aka CINDY MILLER
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Jessica Perez in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Jessica Perez 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.
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 on April 5, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. No. S35 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 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:
ROBERT L COHEN ESQ
SBN 150913
LAW OFFICES OF
ROBERT L. COHEN
8081 ORANGETHORPE AVE
BUENA PARK CA 90621
CN975850 MILLER
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 5,12 & 19, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
FELIPE DEJESUS CAMPIRAN
NO. PROPS 2100158
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of FELIPE DEJESUS CAMPIRAN
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ALYSSA L. SLAUSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ALYSSA L. SLAUSON 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 9 a.m. on MARCH 30, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: FEBRUARY 22, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Alyssa L. Slauson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel March 5, 12 & 19, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2000419
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON 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 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
SELYNO RAZO, Deputy Clerk
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2100107
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON 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 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ARNOLD EUGENE BYRD
CASE NO. PROPS 2100141
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ARNOLD EUGENE BYRD
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DEBRA KAY HANES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DEBRA KAY HANES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
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-35 at 9:00 a.m. on MARCH 9, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 29, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: BARBARA JEAN CAREY
CASE NO. PROPS 2100169
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of  BARBARA JEAN CAREY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PAUL EUGENE VAN TIFFLIN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PAUL EUGENE VAN TIFFLIN 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 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 6, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: FEBRUARY 17, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CHERYL D. WILLIAMS
CASE NO. PROPS 2100198
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHERYL D. WILLIAMS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ERIKA MARIE MILLET in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ERIKA MARIE MILLET 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 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 19, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: FEBRUARY 10, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LEO ESPINAR JR., CASE NO. PROPS2100187
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of LEO ESPINAR
JR., and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both:
A petition has been filed by JOHNNY RAY ESPINAR in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that JOHNNY RAY ESPINAR be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of LEO ESPINAR JR. Decedent died intestate. (The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.)
The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S37 at SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on April 15, 2021 at 09:00 AM.
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 deceased, 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 subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Petitioner: JOHNNY RAY ESPINAR
21215 MULTNOMAH RD.
APPLE VALLEY, CA 92308
Telephone: 760-589-5027
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on March 5, MARCH 12 & March 19, 2021.

FBN 20210002262
The following person is doing business as FP CO 10622 BRYANT ST SCPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399: FREDERICO A. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SCPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 [and] GIGLYOLLA P. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SCPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE
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/ FREDERICO A PALMA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/4/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 4, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I137
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 3/5/ 3/12, 3/19 & 3/26, 2021.

FBN 20210002262
The following person is doing business as FP CO 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399: FREDERICO A. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 [and] GIGLYOLLA P. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE
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/ FREDERICO A PALMA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/4/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 4, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I137
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 3/5/ 3/12, 3/19 & 3/26, 2021.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210001826
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: J Designs By BJ, 1218 SO. Cypress Avenue,, #A, Ontario, CA 91762, Bobbie Gibbs, 1218 SO. Cypress Avenue #A, Ontario, CA 91762
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/ Bobbie Gibbs
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/01/20
County Clerk, s/ E2485
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).
03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 3/19/21, 3/26/21
FBN 20210000017 The following person is doing business as BEL AIR BLVD 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 JASMINE HENDERSON [and] JANAYA HENDERSON 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 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/ JASMINE HENDERSON This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/04/2021 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 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021 & Corrected on 03/05/21, 03/12/21, 03/19/21, 03/26/21
FBN 20210000437
The following person is doing business as: DIVINE’S BODY ART PAINTING 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324; MARIA O OSORIO-LOPEZ 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ MARIA D. OSORIO-LOPEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
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 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202104MT
FBN 20210001179
The following person is doing business as: TAQUERIA EL GORDITO FELIZ 4857 S. TANGERINE WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762; DIEGO A PLASENCIA 4857 S. TANGERING WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 02, 2021
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/ DIEGO A. PLASCENCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202101

FBN 20210001221
The following person is doing business as: LA MODELO MIX MIXHELADAS 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; JOSE MAGANA JR 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 923316
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 03, 2001
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 MAGANA JR., OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202102

FBN 20210001486
The following person is doing business as: RENDON CUSTOM CABINETS & MILLWORK 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 N. EDGEMONT DR. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; KEVIN T RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; ANSELMO RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; MOISES RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ KEVIN T. RENDON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202103

FBN 20210001484
The following person is doing business as: HENRY’S JUNK REMOVAL 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MILES H BRODERSON 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 20, 2019
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/ MILES H. BRODERSON, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202104

FBN 20210001487
The following person is doing business as: JACTIVE 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; JACQUELINE A SOTO 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JACQUELINE SOTO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202105

FBN 20210000976
The following person is doing business as: PARKER LANE 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; FELONDA PARKER 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; SHAWNA LANE 7828 N. HAVENA AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ FELONDA PARKER, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202106IR

FBN 20210000979
The following person is doing business as: DAPRINTPLUG 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; PRINTCO SUPPLY, INC. 15345 ANACAPA RD UNIT B VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JONATHAN GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202107IR

FBN 20210000980
The following person is doing business as: KILO’S TOWING & TRANSPORT 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ MAILING ADDRESS 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; KILO KUSTOMZ MOTORSPORTS, INC. 2501 GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ SANDRA L. GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202108IR

FBN 20210000714
The following person is doing business as: WWW.HUMBLEGRAPHICS.COM 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATE EYE LLC 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
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: N/A
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/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/17/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202109

FBN 20210001613
The following person is doing business as: ENERGIA TERAPIA PSYCHIC 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395; LILIAN VILLEDA 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ LILIAN VILLEDA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/18/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202110

FBN 20210000570
The following person is doing business as: SOLYART BARBERSHOP 800 E. LUGONIA AVE. SUITE D REDLANDS, CA 92374; SLEIMAN I MOUSSA 800 E. LUGONIA AVE SUITE D MOUSSA, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: SEP 11, 2015
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/ SLEIMAN I. MOUSSA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/21/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202111IR

FBN 20210000555
The following person is doing business as: THE BIRRIA FACTORY 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346; MARCO A CHAVEZ 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 01, 2021
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/ MARCO A CHAVEZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/20/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202112IR

FBN 20210000828
The following person is doing business as: A MIRROR IMAGE WINDOW TINT 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346; BENJAMIN P MUNOZ 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: APR 28, 2011
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/ BENJAMIN P. MUNOZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202113IR

FBN 20210000804
The following person is doing business as: MOUNTAIN HIGH WATER STORE 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; AUDELINA D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; RENE D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ AUDELINA D. MONTERROSO, WIFE Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202114MT

FBN 20210000857
The following person is doing business as: A-C FLOWERS 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017; ANA C MARTINEZ MENDEZ 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ ANA C. MARTINEZ MENDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/28/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202115MT

FBN 20210000619
The following person is doing business as: LOPEZ TRUCKING 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; MARIA D ESPINOZA 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; LUIS A LOPEZ 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: OCT 01, 2016
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/ MARIA D ESPINOZA, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202116MT

FBN 20210000636
The following person is doing business as: RICH AND FAMOUS BARBERSHOP 5480 PHIADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710; CHARLIE GARCIA 5480 PHILADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ CHARLIE GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202117MT

FBN 20210000835
The following person is doing business as: CALDEZ HOMES 580 W 33RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; JEFFREY SANDEZ 580 W 33RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ JEFFREY SANDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
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 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202118MT

FBN 20210001244
The following person is doing business as: KARE 12478 MAMMOTH DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392; KARELY CARRILLO ROMAN 12478 MAMMOTH DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ KARELY CARRILLO ROMAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202101EM

FBN 20210001486
The following person is doing business as: RENDON CUSTOM CABINETS & MILLWORK 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE # 112 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 N. EDGEMONT DR. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; KEVIN T RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; ANSELMO RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALLD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ KEVIN T. RENDON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202102IR

FBN 20210001257
The following person is doing business as: B & B TRUCKING 821 WINDSONG LN SAN JACINTO, CA 92582; LOUIS BROWN III 821 WINDSONG LN SAN JACINTO, CA 92582
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ LOUIS BROWN III, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/09/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202103IR

FBN 20210001253
The following person is doing business as: GOMAR TRANSPORTAT 1231 W. 19TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411; RODRIGO A GOMAR-MARTINEZ 1231 W. 19TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ RODRIGO A. GOMARR-MARTINEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/09/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202104IR

FBN 20210001484
The following person is doing business as: HENRY’S JUNK REMOVAL 32390 AVE D. #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MILES H BRODERSON 32390 AVE D. #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 20, 2019
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/ MILES H. BRODERSON, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/04/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202105IR

FBN 2021001156
The following person is doing business as: LET’S GO 3200 E. GUASTI RD. SUITE 746 ONTARIO, CA 91761;[ MAILING ADDRESS 12442 LIME PL. CHINO, CA 91710]; DUNAMIS ALLIANCE LLC 12442 LIME PL. CHINO, CA 91710
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: DEC 13, 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/ JAMES TUTHILL, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/05/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202106IR
FBN 20210001041
The following person is doing business as: ACE PLUS TUTORING 1419 NORTHVIEW PLACE REDLANDS, CA 92374; ADRIAN N CRUZ 1419 NORTHVIEW PLACE REDLANDS, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ ADRIAN N. CRUZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/02/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202107MT

FBN 20210001050
The following person is doing business as: LA COCINA DE YAYA 372 W 32RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; IDALIA C BAHENA 372 W 32RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ IDALIA C. BAHENA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/02/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202108MT

FBN 20210001151
The following person is doing business as: H & M TRANSPORTATION 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 10253 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92374]; HENRY P CERVANTEZ 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324; MICHAEL A NEGRETE 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
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/ HENRY P. CERVANTEZ, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/04/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202109IR

FBN 20210001609
The following person is doing business as: WWW.HUMBLEGRAPHICS.COM; HUMBLE MEDIA 1266 N. MOUNT AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATE EYE LLC 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
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: N/A
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/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/17/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202110IR

FBN 20210001870
The following person is doing business as: AUTO PARTS SOLUTION 17460 ORANGE WAY FONTANA, CA 92335; MASALVA LLC 13581 FOXGLOVE WAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
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: N/A
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/ ABEL A. SALVADOR, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/24/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202111IR

FBN 20210001817
The following person is doing business as: THERAVILLE COUNSELING SERVICE A LCSW CORP. 155 W. HOSPITALITY LN. SUITE 245 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 559 BEAUMONT, CA 92223]; THERAVILLE COUNSELING SERVICES, A LICENSED CLINICAL WORKER CORP. 155 W. HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 245 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 02/24/2020
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/ CRYSTAL V. BURNS, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/23/2021
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 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202112IR