Though the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department is not saying so, the human remains found last week in Yucca Valley are almost certainly those of Lauren Cho, who had gone missing more than three months previously, sources close to the situation have told the San Bernardino County Sentinel.
The body of a woman consistent with that of five foot three inch tall Cho was found on Saturday, October 9, less than four miles from where she had disappeared.
On October 10, the sheriff’s department publicly announced, “On Saturday, October 9, 2021, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department conducted an additional search and rescue operation in the ongoing search for Lauren Cho, who was reported missing on June 28, 2021. During the search, unidentified human remains were located in the rugged terrain of the open desert of Yucca Valley. The remains were transported to the San Bernardino County Coroner’s Division where staff will work to identify the remains and determine a cause of death. The identification process could take several weeks. No further information will be released until the identity of the deceased has been confirmed.”
Cho went missing on June 28, 2021. According to Cody Orell, who has been variously described as her boyfriend, ex-boyfriend and companion, she reportedly walked away from the grounds of a bed & breakfast inn, dubbed “The Whole,” and owned by Tao Ruspoli, upon which a bus the couple had purchased and in which she and Orell were living had been parked.
After Cho did not return, Orell and some friends attempted to find her, and when they could not locate her, he contacted the sheriff’s department, roughly three hours after she had left. Based upon publicly available documents, it is not clear what time Cho was last seen.
According to the sheriff’s department, “Cho has been missing since June 28, 2021, at approximately 5:10 p.m. when she reportedly walked away from the residence where she was staying in the 8600 block of Benmar Trail.” That would mean, taking into consideration that Orell notified authorities some three hours after Cho’s disappearance, Orell’s call came in just around sundown, which was at 8:08 p.m. on June 28. There is an indication, however, that the 5:10 p.m. reference in the sheriff’s department statement pertains to the time Orell’s call came in, which means that Cho had disappeared sometime shortly after 2 p.m., at which point the cloudiness that had hung over Yucca Valley that morning had burned off and the temperature had climbed to around 102 degrees.
Investigators attempted to follow all traces leading from the bed & breakfast inn, located in the 8600 block of Benmar Trail in Morongo Valley just outside and slightly south of the middle of the westerly town limits of Yucca Valley. They were unable, however, to pick up Cho’s trail, despite the consideration that she was reported to have been wearing footwear with a very distinctive sole pattern. The investigators networked with her family and friends in an effort to discover leads, all to no avail.
On July 24, 2021, sheriff’s department fixed wing aircraft conducted aerial searches of the remote mountain terrain near the scene of her last known whereabouts.
On Saturday, July 31, 2021, at 6:00 a.m., detectives assigned to the Morongo Basin Station and a search and rescue team executed a search warrant on the entire premises of the bed and breakfast inn. During the search warrant service, seven canines searched the last known location where Cho was seen and surrounding areas for evidence.
Investigators with San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Specialized Investigations Division were brought in to assist the Morongo Basin Station in the effort to locate Cho, a 30-year-old whose official residence was listed as being in New Jersey, in September.
Parsing the sheriff’s department’s October 10 release, the statement that the “identification process could take several weeks” is suggestive of a delay in definitude about Cho’s demise, but potentially misleading. It belies that Cho’s corpse would be relatively easy to identify if decomposition and ravaging by animals had not taken place. She had several distinctive tattoos and body piercings. The statement that the “remains were located in the rugged terrain of the open desert of Yucca Valley,” while not specifying the exact location, suggests that the body was not buried, which is suggestive of misadventure rather than foul play. Nevertheless, the Sentinel has learned, the sheriff’s department, in the person of Detective Shaunna Ables, is pursuing the possibility that Cho’s death was a homicide.
It is for that reason that specific information, including the precise location of where the body was found, is not being released.
Foremost among the subjects/suspects Ables is cataloging through is Orell.
Cho, 30, had cultivated her artistic talents in the arenas of music, painting and vegetarian culinary. A singer who in her youth had toured Europe as a choir member, she was employed in New Jersey as a high school music teacher. Having grown discontented in that profession, amid COVID restrictions in the winter of 2020, she left the teaching profession and embarked on a trip across the United States with Orell. Upon reaching California, they went to the community of Bombay Beach, a small settlement Cho had heard about on the shore of the Salton Sea that was a refuge of artists and bohemians, which included in the mix some trust fund babies. While there, Orell hit upon the idea of purchasing a bus and converting it into living quarters, and Cho signed onto the idea, convinced it could be converted into a traveling restaurant from which they could further explore the world and she could realize her dream of being a culinary artist. At Bombay Beach they met Ruspoli, an aspiring filmmaker/musician who was making his way in the world by operating rustic bed & breakfast inns in out-of-the-way places that appealed to artists. Both the vacation rental Ruspoli ran in Bombay Beach and The Whole in Morongo Valley had become draws for those fancying themselves as members of the avante-garde and artists.
Orell and Cho purchased a surplus school bus and had driven it along with their traveling vehicle to The Whole, where they were working to transform it into a mobile bistro.
At the same time, according to Orell, Cho was experiencing mood swings and what he told sheriff’s investigators in June was “mental stress.” At one point, they ceased being an item, it seemed, and Cho considered Orell to be her ex-boyfriend. Orell told the sheriff’s department that Cho was “dating” others, yet they continued to live together in the bus at The Whole. Orell had arranged with Ruspoli for Cho to work as a chef at the bed & breakfast inn, and Cho was reportedly able to support herself in this fashion, with at least some of the guests at the bed & breakfast inn willing to pay upwards of $200 for the private group vegetarian meals she prepared for them and those in their entourages.
Orell indicated to the sheriff’s department that on the day of Cho’s disappearance, she was upset and had even made statements to the effect that she was contemplating hurting herself. He thought she might have left to meet someone else, Orell told the sheriff’s department, although he was not able to say whom, precisely. Cho could have taken their traveling car to do so, but she did not. When she walked off from The Whole, she was wearing Doc Martens hiking boots and headed toward hilly terrain separating Yucca Valley and Morongo Valley, generally in the direction of Hoopa Road, and she did not have her phone or any water with her.
Others with whom Cho had contact the previous days said she seemed to be in good spirits, although one of Cho’s and Orell’s mutual acquaintances at The Whole, Jeff Frost, confirmed that Cho was in the doldrums when she left and that she had simply walked off into the desert, leaving her belongings behind.
Meanwhile, Orell, bereft of his girlfriend, must endure that loss, and await the revelation of the forensic findings relating to the grisly discovery on October 9, and any further inquiries by investigators.
The Sentinel left phone messages with Detective Ables, but has not spoken with her this week.
-Mark Gutglueck

Alan Hostetter, the former Fontana Assistant Police Chief who federal prosecutors say participated in the January 6 insurrection in Washington D.C., has asked U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to allow him to represent himself in the case being presented against him, court records show.
Lamberth, after sternly warning Hostetter that he runs a severe risk by serving as his own attorney, conditionally ruled that the former lawman turned political activist/agitator can do so. Hostetter, after more than four months of delays in the case, is now seeking a speedy trial.
Hostetter has experienced considerable success in thrilling and motivating crowds of people who share his political philosophy that holds the federal government is involved in a grand conspiracy to foreclose the rights of the American people through false claims that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a mortal threat. With the guidance of a so-called standby counsel, a court-appointed attorney paid for by the government to scrutinize his motions, responses to motions and in-court performance, Hostetter believes he can use his rhetorical talent to prevent a jury of his peers from convicting him of the charges lodged against him.
Hostetter engaged in obstructing an official proceeding, entering a restricted building, disorderly conduct within a restricted building and disorderly conduct within a restricted building in order to disrupt or impede the government so to prevent attendance at an official proceeding, according to Channing D. Phillips, the acting United States Attorney in the District of Columbia.
The federal indictment of Hostetter further describes how a nonprofit he set up, the American Phoenix Project, which he said was intended to stand as a beacon of truth in the torrent of misinformation that was accompanying the COVID-19 “panic” to prevent Americans’ Constitutional rights from being violated and to educate the masses with regard to vaccines while counteracting intentional misrepresentations by the mass media, was misused to engage in political activities in defiance of federal tax law. Though the American Phoenix Project was cataloged by the Internal Revenue Services as a tax-exempt organization, Hostetter and his associates utilized the nonprofit’s media arm to support Donald Trump and assert that the November 2020 election had been stolen from the ex-president. Federal tax law prohibits anyone speaking on behalf of a nonprofit to support a political candidate or oppose a political candidate.
According to the federal government, Hostetter physically threatened those who maintained that Joseph Biden’s election last year was legitimate.
The American Phoenix Project was, Phillips said, “a platform to advocate violence against certain groups and individuals that supported the 2020 presidential election results.”
Initially, Hostetter was represented by attorney Bilal Essayli, who in the immediate aftermath of his client’s June indictment said that while Hostetter “used strong language” in many of his public pronouncements, “that doesn’t make him a criminal.” Hostetter and five others from Southern California he was indicted with – Russell Taylor, Erik Scott Warner, Felipe Antonio “Tony” Martinez, Derek Kinnison and Ronald Mele – “didn’t commit any acts of violence,” Essayli insisted. “They had an opportunity to go into the Capitol. They didn’t do that. They just wanted to voice their opinion that they objected to the certification of the election, as did many members of Congress also place their objections.”
Essayli said a “distinction should be drawn from those who forcibly entered the Capitol or committed damage from the peaceful protesters that were outside of the Capitol protesting.” Moreover, Essayli asserted, Phillips and others in the Justice Department did not include any charges relating to the misuse of the American Phoenix Project as a nonprofit.
At this point, according to Hostetter, despite the excellent advocacy Essayli has engaged in on his behalf, he can no longer pay for it. If Essayli takes the matter to trial, Hostetter maintains, he will be driven into bankruptcy.
Hostetter also suggested that he will not “play nice” when the case goes to trial, but intends to illustrate that there is a huge conspiracy afoot that involves secret societies such as the Freemasons as well as Yale fraternities Book & Snake and Skull & Bones which have wormed their way into control of the federal government, and that he fully intends, in mounting his defense, to illustrate corruption within the Federal Bureau of Investigation by showing that FBI informants and agents were embedded in the protest groups and militias that came to the nation’s capital in January, and that those agents and informants led, sparked and encouraged the violence that occurred as part of the government conspiracy to discredit the movement in protest against takeover of the government by liberal forces and Joseph Biden’s theft of the election from Donald Trump.
Though Judge Lambert sought to discourage Hostetter from seeking to represent himself by quoting the adage that “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client,” he said he would not and could not prevent Hostetter from doing so as long as Hostetter submits an affidavit or a sworn statement that he cannot afford to pay for such representation.
Hostetter indicated he would do so.
The prospect of that had federal prosecutors salivating on a number of levels.
Hostetter, who left the Fontana Police Department after he achieved the rank of assistant chief there to take on the post of police chief with the La Habra Police Department, retired in 2010 after a 24 year law enforcement career that began when he went to work for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in 1986. Through the California Public Employees Retirement System, he is currently receiving an annual pension in excess of $158,000. In 2020, records show, he collected a pension of $155,820.48. Pensions through the California Public Employees Retirement System are subject to an annual cost of living adjustment of up to 3 percent.
Individuals who knew Hostetter previously, including ones who served as police officers with him, have concerns about his mental state. Previous to going to work in law enforcement, Hostetter, after graduating from high school in 1982, joined the Army, training as an infantryman. He was stationed at Fort Hood in Texas with the 1st Cavalry Division and did a tour of duty with the 3rd Infantry Division in Aschaffenburg, West Germany. Upon becoming a policeman, he went on to become a graduate of the 212th session of the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy at Quantico, Virginia; Class 38 of the California Police Officers Standards and Training Command College; and Class 105 of the Sherman Block Supervisory and Leadership Institute.
After his retirement, he took up yoga as a means of maintaining flexibility, suppleness and muscle tone. He immersed himself in the discipline, becoming a self-styled yogi, and was a dedicated teacher of a type of yoga focused on healing and relaxing centered around stretches and poses known as asanas and vinyasas and breathing exercises known as pranayama, augmented by the use of hypnotic sound created by American Indian flutes, Tibetan bowls and Aboriginal didgeridoos, which are used to create a “sound bath” surrounding practitioners. In January 2017, he created Alpha Yoga of Orange County, which catered mostly to senior citizens and the wives of wealthy businessmen in San Clemente, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano. Hostetter’s transformation was profound, as he talked about eliminating everything other than “good vibes” and seeking out spiritual fulfillment, getting in touch with his own soul and how yoga could make such cosmic realizations for others possible. Hostetter made a remarkable physical changeover as well, having gone from the clean cut military/police officer model he had typified in his 20s, 30s and early 40s to a bearded and long-haired guru hippy type.
In a very short period of time, immediately after the advent of the COVID-19 crisis, Hostetter made an abrupt retransformation from the left to the right, remaking himself as a conservative political activist. In April 2020, he abruptly closed down Alpha Yoga of Orange County, instead diverting practically all of his time and energy into the American Phoenix Project, a nonprofit organization, of which he was the founder and director, vowing it would “move America forward as we come out of this national ‘shelter-in-place’ nightmare… fight back against the corruption and abuse taking place at all levels of government, local to national… reform the main stream media entirely… reform social media platforms… educate the public regarding vaccinations and vaccination programs.” At rally after rally he would address the crowds that showed up, worshiping Donald Trump as “The greatest president and political leader this country has ever had.”
The government has videos of many of his public appearances and speeches.
Prior to the Washington, D.C. protests, Hostetter can be heard on an audio recording at a rally characterizing Democrats as “elected whores,” criminals who through a crooked electoral process had stolen the election to put their kingpin Joseph Biden in the White House, an act tantamount to treason, he said, which “patriots” would not stand for. Those members of Congress directly participating in the theft – meaning the Democrats – and the ones passively allowing it to happen – meaning the Republicans who were RINOs or Republicans In Name Only – would suffer the fate of being “tie[d] to a fucking lamppost,” he said.
In a video of Hostetter shot while he was on the U.S. Capitol’s upper West Terrace on January 6, he can be seen and heard proclaiming that the people had “taken back their house” even as rioters were occupying the building.
The government has also obtained text messages and other electronic communications passed between Hostetter and others indicted with him prior to the January 6 insurrection.
On December 28, 2020, Warner initiated a group text message thread in which he, Mele, Kinnison and Martinez discussed logistics and expenses for their upcoming cross-country road trip. On December 29, Hostetter and Taylor texted each other regarding travel and whether they would bring firearms.
A Telegram chat involving all of the defendants included Taylor stating, “I am assuming that you have some type of weaponry that you are bringing with you and plates as well.”
In a video posted to the internet, Hostetter maintains, “I have never been more sane, more happy, more optimistic and more excited about what I’m about to embark on, defending myself and exposing these crimes against me and those crimes against this country.”
According to Hostetter, “I never ever engaged in any act of violence. I never destroyed one piece of property. I never even entered the Capitol building. I think I maybe got a little too close in their eyes, and sang the national anthem a little too loud, maybe a little off key. What happened January 6 was a total false flag staged event,” he said, meaning that Deep State operatives had infiltrated the ranks of President Trump’s supporters and had engaged in illegal actions for which President Trump’s supporters and those resisting and protesting the theft of the election were now being blamed. As a result of that false flag activity, Hostetter said, he and his fellow defendants were “under the microscope from the Deep State.” Nevertheless, he insisted, “We patriot warriors will prevail.”
-Mark Gutglueck

T.S. No. 19-20763-SP-CA Title No. 191072098-CA-VOI A.P.N. 1061-201-33-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 04/04/2005. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Monica C Banacky, a widow Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 04/14/2005 as Instrument No. 2005-0260110 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 10/28/2021 at 12:00 PM Place of Sale: At the North Arrowhead Avenue entrance to the County Courthouse, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $601,414.96 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 5070 Via Serena Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 A.P.N.: 1061-201-33-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 19-20763-SP-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. Date: 09/16/2021 National Default Servicing Corporation c/o Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., its agent, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92108 Toll Free Phone: 888-264-4010 Sales Line 855-219-8501; Sales Website: www.ndscorp.com By: Rachael Hamilton, Trustee Sales Representative 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CPP351474
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2123514
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  Ashley Williams; Dewayne Cannon filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Elijah harlem Williams to Dewayne Kevin Cannon Jr.
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: 11/8/2021
Time: 9:00 AM
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
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: 9/8/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/24/2021, 10/1/2021, 10/8/2021, 10/15/2021
SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CVMV2000661
NOTICE TO JASLAYA EBONY WALKER; JESSICA WALKER; and Does 1 to 10
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
DANIEL KINCAID
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):
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT
13800 HEACOCK ST., STE D201, MORENO VALLEY, CA 92553
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):
WILLIAM C. KENNEDY, ESQ., SBN: 076992 LAW OFFICE OF KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES 3576 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 304
RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
Telephone: 951-784-8920
DATE (Fecha): 12/3/2020
Clerk (Secretario), by V. Reyes
Published in the The San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 9/24/2021, 10/1/2021, 10/8/2021, 10/15/2021

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210009661
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: ETE Solar, 1155 S. Milliken Ave, Suite E, Ontario, CA 91761, Earthtech Enterprise Inc, 3400 Cottage Way, Ste G2 3450, Sacramento, CA 95825
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Vanessa Pan
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/23/21
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).
09/24/21, 10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210009528
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: ANOKI, 12824 Coriander Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Natively Inc, 12824 Coriander Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Dana Green
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on:09/20/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 08/30/21
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).
09/24/21, 10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21

FBN 20210009751
The following person is doing business as: BLUE SKY MASSAGE 1964 W. NINTH ST. SUITE C UPLAND, CA 91786: MING LI 1962 CANOPY LANE LA VERNE, CA 91750
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/ MING LI
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/241/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021
APN: 0225-391-01-0-000 T.S. No.: 20-60065-ca Property Address: 6116 ROBERTS PL, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 2/22/2007. UNLESS
YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank, check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, or savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale.

Trustor: TRACIE GREATHOUSE Duly Appointed Trustee: DIRECT DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC Recorded 2/23/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0117710 in book , page of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, Date of Sale: 10/25/2021 at 1:00 PM Place of Sale: Near the front steps leading up to the City of Chino Civic Center, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 Amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $114,929.09 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 6116 ROBERTS PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 A.P.N.: 0225-391-01-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale.
NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call (714) 986-9342 or visit this Internet Website www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 20-60065-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. For sales conducted after January 1, 2021: NOTICE TO TENANT: You may have a right to purchase this property after the trustee auction pursuant to Section 2924m of the California Civil Code. If you are an “eligible tenant buyer,” you can purchase the property if you match the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. If you are an “eligible bidder,” you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, 48 hours after the date of the trustee sale, you can call (714) 986-9342, or visit this internet website www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 20-60065-CA to find the date on which the trustee’s sale was held, the amount of the last and highest bid, and the address of the trustee. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 15 days after the trustee’s sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 45 days after the trustee’s sale. If you think you may qualify as an “eligible tenant buyer” or “eligible bidder,” you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase. Date: 9/13/2021 Trustee Sales Information: Sale Line: (714) 986-9342 www.superiordefault.com by: Gisela Clark, Authorized Signatory for Trustee Direct Default Services 3670 N Rancho Drive, Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89130 TS# 20-60065-ca SDI-21894) Published: 10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21
OTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
AGNOLIA DAVIS
Case NO. PROSB2100347
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of AGNOLIA DAVIS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by WHITNEY DAVIS in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that WHITNEY 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 in Dept. No. S37 at 9:00 a.m. on October 28, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd St, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, Branch Name: San Bernardino Justice Center
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:
THOMAS M. ALEXANDER, JR.
THOMAS ALEXANDER LAW OFFICES
226 E. SIXTH STREET,
BEAUMONT, CA 92223
Telephone No: (310) 860-7678
Published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL on:
10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: BERNARD ANTHONY SIOW SR.
CASE NO. PROSB2100583
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of BERNARD ANTHONY SIOW SR.:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TAYLOR FRANCES SIOW in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TAYLOR FRANCES SIOW be appointed as personal representatives 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 NOVEMBER 22, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANASTACIA BARRIOS GONZALES
CASE NO. PROSB2100675
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANASTACIA BARRIOS GONZALES:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PHILLIP GONZALES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PHILLIP GONZALES be appointed as personal representatives 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 26, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: EVAMARIE D. SUMNER
CASE NO. PROSB2100635
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EVAMARIE D. SUMNER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by AUBREY MINA SUMNER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that AUBREY MINA SUMNER be appointed as personal representatives 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 20, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARY LOU BARAJAS
CASE NO. PROSB2100554
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARY LOU BARAJAS:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LISA MARIE ECTOR in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LISA MARIE ECTOR be appointed as personal representatives 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on NOVEMBER 1, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARY LOU BARAJAS
CASE NO. PROSB2100554
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARY LOU BARAJAS:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LISA MARIE ECTOR in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LISA MARIE ECTOR be appointed as personal representatives 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on NOVEMBER 1, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: HEINZ LINSER
CASE NO. PROSB2100676
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of HEINZ LINSER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CARA RENEE MORRIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CARA RENEE MORRIS be appointed as personal representatives 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 26, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

FBN 20210009543
The following person is doing business as: MC BODY CONTOURING 141 W FOOTHILL BLVD SUITE C UPLAND, CA 91786 MARMIA ENTERPRISES INC 15407 ROCKWELL AVENUE FONTANA, CA 92336
Mailing Address: 15407 ROCKWELL AVENUE FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
State of Incorporation: CALIFORNIA C4785478SN
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 9/03/2021
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/ MARICEL DELA CUESTA CALILAO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
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 D5511
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 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

FBN 20210009748
The following person is doing business as: CHOSEN COFFEE COMPANY 1173 S CACTUS AVE #37 RIALTO, CA 92376: JULIAN J ESTRADA 1173 S CACTUS AVE #37 RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ JULIAN J ESTRADA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/03/2021
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 I1327
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 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

FBN 20210009264
The following person is doing business as: RADICAL 66 8401 COTTONWOOD AVE. APT #209 FONTANA, CA 92335: RADRAGE L.L.C. 8401 COTTONWOOD AVE. APT #209 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Registered with the State of California: 202122910336
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/ RASHAD HERD
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/03/2021
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 D5511
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 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.
FBN 20210009567
The following person is doing business as: COLD STONE VICTORIA GARDENS 12451 NORTH MAINSTREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739: ALL PROFIT ENTERPRISES LLC 12451 NORTH MAINSTREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
Mailing Address: 2783 ATHENS RIDGE DR HENDERSON, NEVADA 89052
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Registered with the State of California: 201023810103
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JANUARY 1, 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/ WESLEY KIM
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
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 D5511
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 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WALTER PHILLIP HALL
CASE NO. PROSB2100691
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of  WALTER PHILLIP HALL:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON MARK HALL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON MARK HALL be appointed as personal representatives 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-35 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 26, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CHRISTINA MARIA FERREIRA.
CASE NO. PROSB2100733
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHRISTINA MARIA FERREIRA:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TANYA MARIE WASHINGTON and JONATHAN ANTHONY FERREIRA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TANYA MARIE WASHINGTON and JONATHAN ANTHONY FERREIRA be appointed as personal representatives 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-35 at 9:00 a.m. on November 15, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WILLIAM H. COOPER.
CASE NO. PROSB2100717
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of WILLIAM H. COOPER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CHERYL L. COOPER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CHERYL L. COOPER be appointed as personal representatives 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 November 4, 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
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: VALTON BERISHA
CASE NO. PROPS2100320
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VALTON BERISHA:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by BRIKENA BYTYQ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BRIKENA BYTYQ 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 OCTOBER 29, 2021 2021 at 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.
March 3, 2021
Bridjae Houston, Deputy
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: September 3, 2021
Attorney for Brikena Bytyq
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 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: NANCY ANN STERLING
CASE NO. PROSB2100699
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of NANCY ANN STERLING:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by JASAIRE ROE’SHELL COMEGER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASAIRE ROE’SHELL COMEGER 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 NOVEMBER 10, 2021 2021 at 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: September 3, 2021
Attorney for Jasaire Roe’shell Comeger
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 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2125667
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  BRIAN GAZCON GUTIERREZ  filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BRIAN GAZCON GUTIERREZ to  BRIAN GAZCON
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: NOVEMBER 16, 2021
Time: 9:00 AM
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
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: 9/8/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2122384
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  ALEXIS NOUR KHALAF filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ALEXIS NOUR KHALAF to  ALEXIS NOUR BOCANEGRA
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: NOVEMBER 4, 2021
Time: 9:00 AM
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
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: 9/21/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.

NOTICE OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
[Probate Code Sec. 103OO]
Case No.: PROPS2100264
In Re: THE ESTATE OF FRED EDWARD CARLSON
Notice is given that Lilian Black and Ruth Dysart, as Personal Representatives of the
Estate of Fred Edward Carlson will set at private sale subject to confirmation by the Superior Court of San Bernardino, on or after November 10, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. at Superior Court of San Bernardino 247 W. Third Street, San Bernardino CA, Department S36P, the following real property of the Estate: 406 N. 6th Avenue, Upland, CA 91786.
The terms and conditions of sale are: All cash, the amount of the sale is $510,000.00. The required amount of the first overbid is $526,500.00. At least ten percent (l0%) of the amount bid must be paid with the offer, and the balance must be paid on close of escrow after confirmation of sale by the Court. Bids or offers for this property must be made to the Court at the time and date shown above.
The sale is subject to confirmation of the Court.
A hearing on the petition will be held NOVEMBER 10, 2021 2021 at 9:30 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.
S/ / Lilian Black, Personal Representative
S/ Ruth Dysart, Personal Representative
S/ James Lee, Esquire, Attorney for Lilian Black and Ruth Dysart
Dated: October 7, 2021
James Lee, Esq. SBN: 110838
LA W OFFICE OF MARC E. GROSSMAN
100 N. Euclid Avenue
Second Floor
Upland, CA 91786
Jim@wefight4you.com
Tel: (909)608-7426
Fax: (909)949-0119
Attorney for Lilian Black and Ruth Dysart
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.
FBN 20210010241
The following person is doing business as: FILM AND FLORALS 8246 KINLOCK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 BRIGITTE N SUMMERS 8246 KINLOCK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 10/04/2021
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/ BRIGITTE N SUMMERS
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/06/2021
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 I1327
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 on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.

FBN 20210010330
The following person is doing business as: CAFE WANG 2316 D ST LA VERNE, CA 91750 F W MINGLI, INC. 2316 D ST LA VERNE, CA 91750
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The state of incorporation is California. Registration Number: C3620494
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 10/01/2016
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/ FANG WANG
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2021
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 I5199
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 on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Marina Eugenia Polanco
Case NO. ProsB2100620
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Marina Eugenia Polanco
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Pamela A. Hernandez in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Pamela A. Hernandez 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. S36 at 9:00 a.m. on 21-Oct-21 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd St. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, San Bernardino District – Probate
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:
Cicely T. Ray
4740 Green River, Suite 314
Corona, CA 92880
Telephone No: 951-735-2488
Published in the San Bernardino Sentinel on:
10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2122384
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  Alexis Nour Khalaf filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Alexis Nour Khalaf to Alexis Nour Bocanegra
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: 11/4/2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
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: 9/21/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/14/2021, 10/21/2021, 10/28/2021, 11/4/2021
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
ANTON TONI KUDJER, JR.
NO. PROSB 2100751
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANTON TONI KUDJER, JR.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PATRICIA JEAN KUDJER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PATRICIA JEAN KUDJER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedents 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. S35 at 9 a.m. on NOVEMBER 9, 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.
Filed: SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
Jennifer Saldana, Court Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Patricia Jean Kudjer:
Jennifer Daniel
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel October 15, 22 & 29, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ VILLALPANDO aka RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, CASE NO. PROPS 2000851
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ VILLALPANDO aka RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, JR. be appointed administrator to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests that 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.
The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S35 at SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on November 9, 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.
Filed: July 23, 3021
Sabrina Felix, Deputy
Attorney for the Petitioner: MARY M. BADER 9227 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 368 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 945-2775 Fax: (909) 945-2778
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/`15, 10/22, 10/29, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2126021
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: NAOMI RUTH DANIEL filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
NAOMI RUTH DANIEL to RUTH NAOMI DANIEL
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: 11/22/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
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: September 9, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/15, 10/22, 10/29 & 11/5, 2021

FBN 20210010365
The following person is doing business as: GUZMAN DESIGN BUILD 1027 W JACARANDA ST ONTARIO, CA 91762 JONATHAN GUZMAN 1027 W JACARANDA ST 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: 10/01/2021
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/ JONATHAN GUZMAN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/12/2021
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 I5199
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 on 10/15, 10/22, 10/29 & 11/05, 2021.
FBN 20210009434
The following person is doing business as: GERMAN’S AUTO REPAIR 544 W. 1ST ST. RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 2075 W. RIALTO AVE. SPC 7 SAN BEERNARDINO, CA 92376]; SARA T RAMIREZ 2075 W. RIALTO AVE. SPC 7 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92376
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/ SARA T. RAMIREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/16/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202112IR

FBN 20210008915
The following person is doing business as: A OMEGA BRAND 16331 CONSTUCTION CIRLE IRVINE, CA 92606;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); A OMEGA TERMITE & CONSTRUCTION CORP. 8502 EAST CHAPMAN AVE SUITE 203 ORANGE, CA 92869
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/ VICTOR HERRERA, SECRETARY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/26/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202111IR

FBN 20210009242
The following person is doing business as: CHINO CONCRETE PUMPING 14414 FROSTBURG AVE CHINO, CA 91710;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 1301 S. GIBBS ST. POMONA, CA 91766]; MIGUEL A RODRIGUEZ-IBANEZ 1301 S. GIBBS ST. POMONA, CA 91766
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 26, 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/ MIGUEL A. RODRIGUEZ-IBANEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/09/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202110IR

FBN 20210009358
The following person is doing business as: MAG INVESTMENTS SOLUTIONS 6713 HOMAN ST CHINO, CA 91710;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);JAIME E MILLAN DEL SALTO 6713 HOMAN ST 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/ JAIME E. MILLAN SALTO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/14/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202109MT

FBN 20210009448
The following person is doing business as: SUNRISE PLUMBING 300 W OLIVE ST SUITE B COLTON, CA 92324;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);ANDREW J BORCSA 300 W OLIVE ST SUITE B COLTON, CA 92324
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/ ANDREW J. BORCSA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/16/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202108MT

FBN 20210009185
The following person is doing business as: TIP TOP TREE CARE 11217 MARYVNE ST EL MONTE, CA 91733;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);PEDRO SANDOVAL JR. 11217 MARYVINE ST EL MONTE, CA 91733
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 04, 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/ PEDRO SANDOVAL JR., OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/08/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202107IR

FBN 20210009494
The following person is doing business as: AA & A KINGS 1027 E. ACACIA STREET ONTARIO, CA 91761;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO)[ MAILING ADDRESS 1038 ALLEN AVE, APT. 3 GLENDALE, CA 91201];ALBERT VARDUMYAN 1027 E ACACIA ST ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 29, 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/ ALBERT VARDUMYAN., OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/17/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202106AC

FBN 20210009129
The following person is doing business as: GGG & SOA TRANSPORT. 925 S RIVERSIDE AVE APT. #5 RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);GERARDO G JR GALVEZ 925 S RIVERSIDE AVE APT #5 RIALTO, CA 92376.
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/ GERARDO G JR GALVEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/03/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202105IR

FBN 20210009329
The following person is doing business as: ALPHA RUNNERZ TRANSPORT. 1769 N VISTA AVE RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); EDWARD VALENZUELA 1769 N VISTA AVE RIALTO, CA 92376.
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/ EDWARD VALENZUELA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/13/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202104IR

FBN 20210009343
The following person is doing business as: J & J FASHION. 516 W FLORA ST SANTA ANA, CA 91762;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701];( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CRISTAL LOPEZ 516 FLORA ST 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: 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/ CRISTAL LOPEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/13/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202103CV

FBN 20210009073
The following person is doing business as: HANDMADE PAPER ART. 10155 CLOVER DR OAK HILLS, CA 92344; [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ERNESTO AVIÑA 10155 CLOVER DR OAK HILLS CALIFO, 92344.
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/ ERNESTO AVIÑA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/01/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202102CV

FBN 20210009101
The following person is doing business as: MARISCOS LUMBRE. 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CHRISTIAN A MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701; ARTURO JR O MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701; REBECCA MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701
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/ CHRISTIAN A MARQUEZ, PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: SEPTEMBER 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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202101CV

FBN 20210009649
The following person is doing business as: UNALIKE DETAILING. 7739 SOMERSET LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); RICKY D VAN 7739 SOMERSET LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346; TIANA S VAN 7739 SOMERSET LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346.
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/ RICKY D VAN, HUSBAND
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/23/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202113MT

FBN 20210009753
The following person is doing business as: A.K.A GENERAL CONSTRUCTION. 15678 SAN JOSE AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); GUSTAVO ESPINOZA RUEDA 15678 SAN JOSE AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709.
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/ GUSTAVO ESPINOZA RUEDA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/24/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202111IR

FBN 20210009743
The following person is doing business as: BEAM’S AUTO SERVICE. 1863 W LADDS CT #B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
NICHOLAS L COLEMAN 1863 W LADDS CT #B 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/ NICHOLAS L COLEMAN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202110MT

FBN 20210009683
The following person is doing business as: COZY STAY 1890 W 13TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); GERALD D CAROLINA 1890 W 13TH 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/ GERALD D. CAROLINA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/23/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202109MT

FBN 20210009642
The following person is doing business as: SUPERIOR FORKLIFT TRAINING 1235 E. FRANCIS ST SUITE #G ONTARIO, CA 91761; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); AMANA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 1235 E. FRANCIS ST SUITE #G ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOV 17, 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/ IBRAHEEM A. SALIM, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202107MT

FBN 20210009643
The following person is doing business as: LOLAH’S BARBER AND BEAUTY 731 W HIGHLAND AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); LOLAHS B&B LLC 731 W HIGHLAND AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
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/ PAOLA GONZALES, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202106MT

FBN 20210009589
The following person is doing business as: DIVINE LIFE. 30245 FRONTERA DEL SUR HIGHLAND, CA 92346; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARINO );
RESHMI S. KAPPATTIL 30245 FRONTERA DEL SUR 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: 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/ RESHMI S. KAPPATTIL, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202105MT

FBN 20210009609
The following person is doing business as: ARCHES & BEAUTY. 3116 ACACIA AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); EVELYN GONGORA 3116 ACACIA AVE 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/ EVELYN GONGORA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202104CH

FBN 20210009576
The following person is doing business as: AIZE PRINCESS IDEMUDIA. 800 E. WASHINGTON ST. APT 740 COLTON, CA 92324
; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ) ; AIZE P IDEMUDIA 800 E. WASHINGTON ST. APT 740 COLTON, CA 92324.
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/ AIZE P IDEMUDIA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202103IR

FBN 20210009629
The following person is doing business as: ZEBASTIAN’S CAR WASH. 17312 FOOTHILL BLVD. UNIT A FONTANA, CA 92335; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 8181 PALMETTO AVE. APT 115 FONTANA, CA 92335]; JUAN C PARDO ARIZA 8181 PALMETTO AVE. APT 115 FONTANA, CA 92335; JOHANNA A YEPES OVALLE 8181 PALMETTO AVE. APT 15 FONTANA, CA 92335.
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/ JUAN C PARDO ARIZA, HUSBAND
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202102IR

FBN 20210009372
The following person is doing business as: SPARTAN TOWING L.L.C. 2155 ½ OGDEN ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 2407; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); SPARTAN PAINTING L.L.C. 2155 ½ OGDEN ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
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: AUG 24, 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/ EMMANUEL PALOMARES, OWNER/ MANAGER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/15/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202101MT

FBN 202100010081
The following person is doing business as: FVA CLEANING SERVICES. 775 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. SPC 26 RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ANGELICA M VIRAMONTES-DORADO 775 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. SPC 26 RIALTO, CA 92376.
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/ ANGELICA M VIRAMONTES-DORADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/04/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202107IR

FBN 2021000831
The following person is doing business as: JOHNSON’S TRANSPORT SERVICES. 3107 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ONTARIO, CA 91761; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); JOHNSON’S TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC 3107 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ONTARIO, CA 91761; 3107 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ONTARIO, CA 91761; .
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/ KAMISHAN N. JOHNSON, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/28/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202106IR

FBN 20210009960
The following person is doing business as: ERIK’S BARBER COMPANY. 2587 W. ESPERANZA ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ERIK PEREZ 2587 W. ESPERANZA ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410.
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/ ERIK PEREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/30/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202105IR

FBN 20210009909
The following person is doing business as: RHINO TEX, INC. 15080 HILTON DR FONTANA, CA 92336; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO) ; RHINO TEX, INC 15080 HILTON DR FONTANA, CA 92336; 15080 HILTON DR FONTANA, CA 92336; .
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/ RUSSELL A. COLEMAN, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/29/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202104MT

FBN 20210009840
The following person is doing business as: PIGFORD LANDSCAPING. 11428 KEYON WAY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701: ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ): CHRISTOPHER PIGFORD 11428 KENYON WAY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701.
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/ CHRISTOPHER PIGFORD, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/28/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202103MT

FBN 20210009473
The following person is doing business as: ALICE DARLENE DESIGNS. 5375 WALNUT AVE #1573 CHINO, CA 91708; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ALICE D BILLS 5375 WALNUT AVE #1573 CHINO, CA 91708.
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/ ALICE D BILLS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/30/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202102MT

FBN 20210009826
The following person is doing business as: J. CERVANTES ROAD SERVICE, INC. 15957 RANDALL AVE #3 FONTANA, CA 92335; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); J. CERVANTES ROAD SERVICE, INC 15957 RANDALL AVE #3 FONTANA, CA 92335 .
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/ JAVIER CERVANTES LANDA, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/28/2021
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 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202101IR

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the late final edition of the October 8 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 10-08-21

By Mark Gutglueck
Panicked paralysis has gripped Rialto City Manager Marcus Fuller and Rialto City Attorney Eric Vail, as they are dealing with a thorny issue involving their political masters and unsuccessful candidates for the city council going back nearly two decades.
Central to the matter are blackmail and election-swaying efforts by members of the fire and police departments who were seeking to gain leverage in contract negotiations with the city. It is further alleged that former high ranking city officials were knowledgeable of and perhaps even involved in the extortion and efforts to impact voting in Rialto’s municipal elections and votes made by the city council.
Fuller and Vail are furiously seeking to bring the matter to a quiet close before it breaks into a full-blown scandal. A public airing of the seamy details of what occurred, Fuller and Vail fear, would carry with it a substantial possibility that the city’s taxpayers will take an estimated $25 million to $30 million hit.
At the basis of the contretemps is that Rialto Councilman Ed Scott, who is currently the city’s mayor pro tem, has filed claims totaling $1.15 million against the city where intermittently over the last quarter of a century he has been a member of the city council for nearly 19 years, including the last seven.
According to one of those claims, Rialto police officers and & firefighters have accessed the State of California’s law enforcement database on multiple occasions to obtain confidential information which was used in an attempt to prevent his election and reelection to office as well as for political purposes in opposing the electoral or re-electoral efforts of other members of the city council.
Additional information gleaned by the Sentinel indicates that others competing for berths upon the Rialto City Council or the mayor’s position were similarly subjected to having their profiles and personal information contained in what is supposed to be a restricted governmental data base accessed and used for either political purposes or to dissuade them from engaging in public advocacy or taking certain official actions.
The allegations made by Scott came in one of the two claims for damages he filed with the city this year, and which exists in the form of a sworn statement together with a narrative submitted as an attachment to the claim lodged with the city.
In Rialto, as is the case with all other cities or governmental entities in California, an individual who has suffered damages as a consequence of the action or negligence of the city or governmental entity or its employees must lodge a claim with that entity before initiating legal action against it. The governing board of the jurisdiction, as in the case of a city its city council, can then acknowledge the claim as valid and pay either the claimed amount of damages or a negotiated amount to settle the claim and avoid a lawsuit. Once a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit against the city. In the vast majority of cases, claims against cities are rejected, and in the vast majority of the cases where rejections are made, the claimants do not follow up with a lawsuit.
Scott filed two claims against the city, one pertaining to police department and fire department personnel accessing information pertaining to him in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System and another unrelated claim which hinges on the city’s issuance of a permit for what Scott maintains was botched work on an electrical connection on property he owns in the city. The city council acknowledged receipt of the two claims, but neither accepted nor rejected them. Instead, the claims have been passed along to Eric Vail, Rialto’s interim city attorney who has been serving in that capacity since the departure of Fred Galante as city attorney in March 2020.
According to the narrative attached to one of Scott’s claims, filed on August 13, “On February 16, 2021 I made a verbal complaint to Rialto Police Chief Mark Kling that I had been informed that a confidential informant, a whistleblower who is a current employee of the City of Rialto, had been told by a member of the Rialto Fire Department that he had been involved in investigating myself to determine my residency and property I owned in Kernville, California and other information related to my personal life and background. In addition, I informed Sean Greyson, acting city manager and fire chief, that such an allegation had been made about the Rialto Fire Department.”
According to Scott’s narrative, Greyson spontaneously identified for him “the only person in the fire department who would have CLETS [California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System] access and would have done this. The name of this person shall not be disclosed at this time; however, the whistleblower has named the same individual as the person who told them they had done this. I have direct knowledge that for a person in [the] Rialto Fire Department to have been able to run my information [he] would [have] had to [have] requested it be done by going to a Rialto police sergeant [or individual of] higher rank or another agency. Additionally, it can only be done for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a case number assigned to it. None of this exists.”
Scott’s narrative attached to the claim continues, “Since making a complaint, I have been advised by the Rialto Police Department that there is an ongoing investigation into this and that in fact my information has been run several times for reasons not for legitimate law enforcement purposes, under my various names and nicknames and that it has been referred to the district attorney of San Bernardino County. These acts, while unknown specifically to me until a whistleblower came forward on February 16, 2021 and later confirmed by the Rialto Police Department, were illegal acts [perpetrated] under a previous police chief and administration. Based on information I have received I believe that other members of the city council may have had similar acts committed against them.”
Scott wrote, “I believe this behavior to be in violation of my civil rights under the Constitution [of the] United States and the Constitution of the State of California and its codes. I also believe that it was done for the intended purpose of manipulating elections and contracts negotiated by City of Rialto management and then ratified by the Rialto City Council. This is a pattern of conduct which has not been uncommon in the City of Rialto and was discovered in prior years by the FBI as a result of improper acts within the Rialto Police Department. Additionally, these illegal investigations may have been used to attempt to influence lawsuits against the City of Rialto.”
Scott stated, “These illegal acts have created a hostile environment for me and others. Additionally, being a person with severe health problems it has caused my life to be stressful and created an environment of fear. As a result of this behavior, I have been hospitalized on several occasions.”
The claim alleged Scott had suffered $1 million in damages.
Four months and three weeks prior to the lodging of that claim, on March 22, 2021, Scott had filed another claim, one related to misfeasance in the city’s building department.
According to the narrative submitted with that claim, “On September 24, 2020 Chief Building Official Trang Huynh sent a letter to Daniel Courtright at 142 S Riverside Ave, Rialto California 92376 stating that construction activity had occurred at the above address, which is owned by myself G Edward Scott. The installation of a new electrical service was done with the owner’s (G Edward Scott) approval. Additionally other work was performed without owner’s approval of permits or engineering, including but not limited to new air conditioning and electrical work and piercing a shear wall. The City of Rialto issued a permit for new electrical service 100 amps to 200 amps without owner’s approval or engineering and allowed substandard and unsafe installation work to be performed in violation of [the] state building code. The City of Rialto allowed an untrained and uncertified permit technician to issue permits and the former chief building official failed to properly supervise that employee and failed to follow California building codes. Additionally [the] building inspector failed to require permits for [the] air conditioner which was connected to [a] new electrical panel. On September 25, 2020 the City of Rialto red-tagged 1425 Riverside Ave for failure [to] correct and unsafe conditions.”
The narrative goes on to state, “These damages have created a situation where owner is unable to make corrections and repairs as he does not have possession of [the] building and the inability to market and sale [the] building at market rate.”
The claim seeks a total of $150,000, $75,000 to, according to Scott “bring the building back to code” and $75,000 for “lost market value.”
The claim filed on March 22 was considered by the city council at its April 13 meeting. The claim filed on August 13 was considered by the city council at its September 14 meeting.
The minutes of the March 22 and September 14 meetings leave unclear what action the council took regarding Scott’s claims. According to Rialto City Clerk Barbara McGee, the council received the claims but did not accept them nor reject them. She referred further questions with regard to the status or processing of the claims to acting City Attorney Eric Vail.
In response to a host of questions the Sentinel posed to him, Vail in an email wrote, “I am not able to offer comments on open claims, investigations or ongoing legal actions.”
With his terse response, Vail bypassed the substance of the Sentinel’s inquiry, including where he now stands in laying out for the city council how it should ultimately respond to the claims, the actions cited in them, in particular those pertaining to the unauthorized use of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, and the validity of the claims.
That the city has not processed the claims after the time that has elapsed since their filings is an indication that there is some validity to the contents of each, and that their substance is both engaging and troubling. An alternate reading of the delay is that Vail’s faculties as city attorney have been overmatched by the consideration that the claim was filed by one of his political masters.
The Sentinel’s inquiry of Vail included if his examination of Scott’s August 13 claim had determined whether information relating to Scott contained in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System was accessed by members of the Rialto Police Department on multiple occasions and if that access had been made as the consequence of a legitimate investigation or legitimate investigations. The Sentinel asked Vail how many investigations of Councilman Scott there had been, what issues they had delved into and what the parameters of that investigation was or those investigations were. Vail was also queried as to who had accessed the database, whether more than one of the department’s officers had accessed the system with regard to Scott and if any of the investigations into Councilman Scott were legitimate.
Vail’s response to the Sentinel foreclosed answers to those questions, as well as to how high within the police department knowledge about the investigation or investigations into Councilman Scott went, whether the police chief had knowledge of the investigation or investigations and whether the police chief had given a green light to the investigation[s]. Vail’s non-response further left unanswered what the outcome[s] of the/those investigation[s] had been and whether Scott was determined to have been engaged in some form of illegal action/activity/comportment that would have warranted criminal charges being filed against him or whether he had been cleared by the investigation[s]. Vail additionally left unanswered whether any report with regard to the investigation or investigations had been generated and provided to the district attorney’s office.
Ultimately, Vail’s determination of the validity of Scott’s claims, in particular the one relating to the alleged misuse of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System data bank, could have tremendous consequence for the city and its taxpayers.
If Vail ascertains that Scott’s claim is essentially accurate and on that basis advises the mayor and city council to settle the claim in Scott’s favor, given the indication in the claim that other members of the city council were likewise the victims of city employees’ misuse of the confidential information compiled with regard to them in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, a settlement with Scott might very well invite claims from the other members of the council. Thus, if Scott comes in for a $1 million payday, so too could Mayor Deborah Robertson, Councilman Rafael Trujillo, Councilman Andy Carrizales and Councilwoman Karla Perez.
Further, if as the circumstance and Scott’s claim suggest, the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System was being used by city employees for political use and to influence the outcome of city elections, the number of those whose constitutional and privacy rights were violated could extend to 28 others yet living going back two decades, those being former Rialto council members and mayors as well as those who vied for those offices. Those would include Mayor Grace Vargas, Councilman Joe Baca, Jr., Councilman Ed Palmer, Councilwoman Winifred Lee Hanson and Councilman Kurt Wilson, as well as candidates Andrew Karol, Theresa Schneider, Michael Taylor, Stacy Augustine, Ana Gonzalez, Nicholas Nieblas, Lynn Hirtz, Jesse Aguayo, David D. Phillips, Lindsey Fretter, Kevin Moore, Joe Britt, Steve Miller, Sarmad Syed, June Hayes, Joe Sampson, John Sanchez, Big Mark Ferretiz, Clifford Friedeck, Dale Estvander, Pamela Whyte, Albert Roman and Victor Edinburgh.
The timeline on the alleged misuse of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System is not clear. Scott was first elected to the city council in 1996. He left the council in 2000 as a consequence of his unsuccessful run for county supervisor that year. He returned to the council in 2004, was reelected in 2008, and left the city council in 2012 as a consequence of his unsuccessful run for mayor against Robertson. He was elected to the council in 2014 and reelected in 2018.
Using the $1 million Scott is seeking as a baseline, the city would conceivably be on the hook for $33 million if his claim succeeds and evidence surfaces to show that city employees, either on their own or in conjunction with union activity, made consistent use of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System in researching Rialto’s politicians. A city effort to bar recovery by former officeholders or council/mayoral hopefuls on the basis of the statute of limitations could be overcome if those seeking such recovery demonstrate that the discovery of the violation of their rights and privacy did not come until Scott’s current uncovering of what had occurred.
Many consider Scott’s claims against the city of which he is a councilman of long standing and currently the mayor pro tem to be in poor form. Indeed, as one of the city’s highest ranking officials responsible for its oversight and monitoring how it is run, his claim in some respects can be seen as an acknowledgment of his own lack of diligence. Moreover, that he made such a claim against the city could be used against him politically next year, when his current term expires and he must stand for reelection to remain in office. Given the health issues he referenced in his claim, he may not seek reelection in 2022. Whatever his future political intent, with his claim relating to the police department’s/fire department’s use of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System to violate his constitutional and privacy rights, he appears to have opened a can of worms that from the standpoint of City Hall and the interest of Rialto’s taxpayers might better have remained sealed.
Within the circle of those involved in civic affairs in Rialto there is discomfiture with the manner in which Vail has not moved decisively to foreclose Scott’s claims by advising the council to simply reject them. In the view of at least some, Vail showed more deference for Scott’s political status than was prudent by holding off on and continuing to delay a decision on the matter of the claims. One individual aware of the circumstance characterized the temporizing that has gone on with regard to the claims as “gutless,” saying that Vail should have long ago managed the crisis by seeing that the claim relating to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System was rejected, thereby putting the burden on Scott to marshal whatever proof he believes he has, which would include exposing those who have provided him with the information upon which his claim is based.
The Sentinel this week made an effort to obtain from Scott further detail with regard to the claims and the narratives contained as attachments in them. Scott had not responded by press time.

The already apparent discrepancy between the attitude of a substantial portion of Redlands residents and the city’s municipal and political establishment with regard to the accelerated development of the city in the near term was given a crystal clear demonstration at the planning commission meeting on September 28.
Measure U, the controlled-growth initiative passed by Redlands voters overwhelmingly in 1997, was a companion piece to Proposition R passed in n 1978 and Measure N passed in 1987, all of which were intended to reduce growth to manageable levels. Measure R put a limit on the annual growth rate, followed by further refinements and restrictions put in place under the auspices of Measures N and U, such that no more than 400 residential dwelling units can be approved or constructed within the city annually, and the city council is not empowered to suspend, waive or rescind those provisions.
Last year, in a ploy to water down the restrictions in Measure U, Measure R and Measure N, the pro-development city council place Measure G on the ballot. Measure G called for eliminating the collective Measure R, N and U requirements that:
* A four-fifths vote of the city council is needed to approve residential densities exceeding 18 dwelling units per acre;
* A four-fifths vote of the city council is needed to approve residential buildings exceeding two stories or 35 feet in height;
* The need for developers to ensure that the level of traffic flow that exists at the intersections proximate to their projects prior to the construction of their projects be maintained after the projects are completed;
* The requirement that the voters of the city rather than the city council be solely authorized to establish any new land use designations in the city;
* The proponents of certain new development projects prepare a socioeconomic‐cost/benefit study before approval of those projects;
* Certain residential subdivision projects be subject to competitive review for issuance of building permits
* The developers of new projects pay 100 percent of the development impact fees that are imposed on those projects; and
* No more than 400 residential dwelling units be constructed within the city in any year.
In the March 3, 2020 election, Measure G was soundly defeated, with 14,407 residents or 64.88 percent opposing it and 7,798 voters or 35.12 percent supporting it.
Despite that, the Redlands Planning Commission, acting at the behest of the politicians who appointed them, voted unanimously twice within 12 minutes on September 28 to recommend to the city council that it grant dual exemptions to Measure U, and allow an out-of-town developer to erect buildings of density and height that exceed the more modest intensity standards city residents have repeatedly expressed as being their preference in the construction that is allowed to take place in the city of 71,707.
The planning commission’s September 28 votes with regard to one three-acre so-called mixed-use project and another 1.49-acre residential project are not binding, but they represent a recommendation that the city council grant Measure U exemptions on both of the projects which lie within the city’s downtown area. Those votes were the second and third such recommendations made by the planning commission with regard to aggressive development proposals in the downtown area in the last six months. In April, the Redlands Planning Commission made a recommendation that Village Partners Ventures LLC be allowed to transform the largely vacant 11.15-acre Redlands Mall into a melange of mixed-uses including residential, retail, office professional quarters, restaurants, recreational facilities and a six-story parking structure around a pedestrian plaza and swimming pool, with multi-story residential buildings of three, four and five vertical levels. The following month, the Redlands City Council approved Village Partners Ventures’ request for the Measure U exemption for its proposed project, citing the planning commission’s recommendation.
On September 28, the planning commission took up Vantage One Real Estate Investment’s proposal to construct 138 apartments and three restaurant buildings on about three acres at 212 and 216 Brookside Avenue, the former sites of the long-shuttered San Bernardino County Superior Court Redlands Courthouse Annex and the city’s former police station, safety hall and city council chamber, as well as two homes. The property lies across Brookside Avenue from the U.S. Post Office. Vantage One acquired the properties from the city in 2017, after which the city granted the company’s request for a zone change to allow it to be developed commercially. In the three years since, Vantage One has revamped its original plan to transform the acreage into a dual purpose property that will cover both commercial and residential use. Of note is that in addition to the commercial component, consisting of three restaurants, the developer is seeking to place more than 45 units of housing per acre onto the land, an intensity of use far beyond anything that currently exists in the city.
Vantage One also sought permission to undertake an even more intensive use of just under an-acre-and-a-half of property some 750 feet north of the mixed use proposal, one that would place 100 units per acre at the northeast corner of Redlands Boulevard and Eureka Street, on property located at 200 West Redlands Boulevard. That project, consisting of 149 apartment units on 1.49 acres of ground, is to supplant a 40,000 square foot furniture store. The commission also approved Vantage One’s Measure U exemption request for the apartment complex. According to Vantage One, it will squeeze onto less than an acre-and-a-half the 149 multifamily units described, variously, as studio models and one-bedroom units ranging from 516 to 829 square feet, as well as a parking structure which will feature 220 parking spaces. Despite the placement of living quarters for some 250 people as well as an area adequate for them to park their cars on an expanse of land that in other areas of the city would accommodate no more than six to eight single family residences, the project will include, Vantage One maintains, an outdoor lounge, shade structures, a dog park and a private bar area, a center plaza with an outdoor pool, two spas, a game room and a fitness room as well as public and private open space.
In both cases, the developer is requesting that the city council ultimately make a finding that the proposed projects are exempt from Measure U. The basis for those exemptions relates to the projects falling within the city’s controversial Transit Villages Specific Plan Area.
The Transit Villages Specific Plan calls for encouraging future development within the core areas of the city, in particular downtown, the area between Tennessee Street and New York Street and near the University of Redlands, where stops on the Redlands Passenger Rail Project are to be located. The Redlands Passenger Rail Project, slated for completion as early as next year, is to link Redlands to San Bernardino and the Metrolink rail system running from San Bernardino to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles and back. The Transit Villages concept calls for constructing high density, multi-story housing within walking distance of the three railway stops in Redlands to discourage the residents who live there from using their personal vehicles such that they instead utilize the train system that is being developed in Southern California to allow those living in the inland areas to commute westward toward or into Los Angeles in the morning to work and return home by rail in the late afternoon or evening.
The element of the Transit Villages Specific Plan that calls for creating a dense living environment in Redlands’ downtown area and allowing for high-rise apartments as well as parking structures clashes with many preservationists’ idea of keeping the city’s historic downtown intact. Moreover, the concerted efforts of a group of Redlands residents, who are determined to prevent any further development of structures of more than three stories, are out of sync with the Transit Villages Specific Plan.
Though the documentation presented to the planning commission did not specify the height of the structures on either of the projects, in the case of the Brookside Avenue development, the structures are likely to be three, four and five stories. To accomplish the erection of 149 units, a parking structure and promised amenities on the 1.49 acres on Redlands Boulevard, it is doubtful the buildings would be anything less than seven or eight stories.
The height of buildings in Redlands is a hotly contested issue. Those in favor of keeping buildings close to the ground appear to have the upper hand numerically. Nevertheless, the establishment at City Hall has other ideas.
In September, the grassroots group Friends of Redlands, working in conjunction with another collection of residents, Redlands for Responsible Growth Management, began gathering signatures to force a vote on what the allowable height limit on Redlands buildings is to be. The proposed Friends of Redlands’ initiative calls for disallowing buildings taller than two stories next to single-story homes without the consent of the owner of the single-story home, limiting the height of buildings downtown to no more than 50 feet, and the permitting of buildings to a height of no more than 62 feet – tantamount to four stories – in the area around New York Street. The initiative would further require that the city council unanimously approve making any density intensifications on projects, and it would layer greater parking provision requirements on developers seeking project approvals. To qualify the initiative for the ballot in 2022, the petitioners needed ten percent of Redlands’ 42,000 voters to affix their signatures to the ballot application. To force the election to be held this year, within 109 days of the requisite number of signatures being verified, Friends of Redlands needed 15 percent of the city’s voters – 6,409 – to sign the petition.
On June 7, 2021 Friends of Redlands and Redlands for Responsible Growth Management provided City Clerk Jeanne Donaldson with three huge boxes containing petitions calling for a special election to stop tall and dense development to which 7,715 signatures were affixed. It is not clear what Donaldson’s count determined, though there has been no indication the vote is to be held this year. Rather, it appears the referendum on high rises is to be decided with a vote held next year that will coincide with the regularly scheduled municipal election and the gubernatorial general election.
It appears that city officials are militating to get multiple projects pertaining to development downtown – including Vantage One’s three-acre three-, four- and five-story project on Brookside, its 1.49-acre seven- or eight-story project on Redlands Boulevard and Village Partners Ventures LLC’s 11.15-acre three-, four-, five- and six-level project on the Redlands Mall site approved before the height restrictions can be voted upon by the city’s residents.
Of note is that citizen activists advocating low growth and controlled growth in Redlands have become suspicious about the role the planning commission plays in providing support and a rationale for the city council’s more aggressive development stance. When confronted about their actions encouraging more intensive building activity in the city than a vocal contingent of citizens want, council members on occasion have said that their votes merely reflect the desire and direction of the community as embodied in the planning commission’s votes and recommendations. Nevertheless, what has loomed into view is that the planning commission very often modulates its action in conformance with the city council’s expectations, including ones that are expressed privately between members of the council and the commission, outside the scrutiny and earshot of the public. This circular rationale has led some to conclude that graft is a component of the city’s land use decision-making process.
During the planning commission’s discussion before the votes taken on the Vantage One projects, Planning Commission Chairman Conrad Guzkowski, perhaps purposefully or perhaps inadvertently, put on display the level to which he and his colleagues are intent on facilitating high rise and intensely dense development downtown.
Acknowledging that Vantage One has not yet fleshed out what the projects are to entail, Guzkowski indicated, even before the commission took its votes, that he and his colleagues were set on clearing the way for the multi-story projects intended to house upwards of 100 to 150 people per acre to take place.
“It is very clear to me,” said Guzkowski, “and I hope it is to all of you, that we’re not acting upon a specific project, but we’re really considering how the idea of the redevelopment of that mall – as at least was being depicted to us – how that fits into the property, its location and its relevance and proximity relationship to the downtown transit infrastructure that is being developed.”
Guzkowski suggested that what Vantage One is doing is merely to layer in more intensive development on top of what has already been set forth by Village Partners Ventures LLC.
“We worked our way through all of that and then it went on to council and that record is well established,” Guzkowski said. “So now we come to these two items. Here it comes, and now we have something of a generalized description of how this property might move forward. The advantage on this one is we have some history to it. We’ve had a rezoning request on it, for example, so it’s not as if it’s a stranger to this commission, but again the question that was coming up was ‘What is it we’re struggling with and what is it we’re being asked to do with respect to Measure U, to not only be faithful to Measure U, be encouraging of development to take place in the city, particularly on properties that we are desperate or at least feel strongly, some or hopefully most of us, feel need to be developed in a new fashion to move forward?’ How do we make all that happen without jumping out in front of ourselves on a specific project approval? So, that’s where I was struggling with it. In working with staff, what I actually did was draft a suggestion on how to make sure that we were communicating to all sides who had strong opinions on this, whichever side that might be, as to how Measure U applies to future development in the Transit Village and downtown specifically here, how does it relate, and so we are communicating what we are really trying to tackle here. This is my interpretation on this. I am not saying it should be yours. So I drafted it, and staff has helped to refine it. The issue here is to say we’re adopting the resolution, which is finding and recommending to the council that the subject property – we are dealing with the property and its future development – but it’s the property that’s meeting the threshold criteria that’s identified for exemption, in the staff report for exemption from Measure U, and specifically category D. It’s by virtue of its location within a quarter mile of the downtown transit station and that it provides for that threshold, at least that threshold density of 20 units to the acre.”
The category D exemption Guzkowski cited pertains to allowing greater density and greater height on buildings than would otherwise apply to meet the goal of large numbers of people living near the railway stations as envisioned in the Transit Villages areas.
“So we’re not here – This is me speaking again – We’re not here to say ‘Whatever is being proposed there in this illustration is now suddenly what we’re going to be by implication sanctioning or suggesting is what we want to see in the future,” Guzkowski said. “What we’re saying is the developer in this particular application is demonstrating that the property that they’re proposing to develop in the future and to submit applications for meets those thresholds, and that is the extent of the action we are taking today. No bias as to future action, no bias as to not allowing but rather say, ‘Yes, that property meets that threshold.’”
Guzkowski at that point broke into a suggestion of how his colleagues should vote.
“I hope you’re reading in a similar kind of fashion,” he said.
Guzkowski was barely able to contain his enthusiasm for packing as many residents into the downtown area as possible.
“That’s the magic behind what you are seeing here,” he said. “It appears to me that we’ll have at least a 20-to-the-acre density on the residential. That is a threshold test that is all I believe we are being asked to do. And I think that’s faithful to the job at hand, pursuant to Measure U.”
Ultimately, Guzkowski and his colleagues voted unanimously to recommend that the city council allow 26 studio apartments, four studio apartments with a den, 71 apartment units with one bed and one bathroom, 25 units with one bedroom, one bathroom and one den and nine units with two bedrooms and two bathrooms and three units with two bedrooms, two bathrooms and one den, along with three restaurants proposed as ranging from 3,450 to 3,505 square feet into what was called the Redlands City Center located on Brookside Avenue. They thereafter voted unanimously to approve the building of 149 multifamily units to include studio and one-bedroom units ranging between 516 square feet and 829 square feet and an accompanying parking structure at the site on Redlands Boulevard.
The hearing for the Brookside project began 57 minutes and 41 seconds into what was overall a two hour two minute and 21 second meeting. The hearing for the Brookside project concluded and the vote was taken at one hour 29 minutes and 43 seconds into the meeting. The commission immediately afterward took up the Redlands Boulevard project, and the voting on it was completed at one hour 41 minutes and 37 seconds into the meeting.
-Mark Gutglueck

San Bernardino County and its sheriff’s department have parted ways with the City of Hesperia over their shared defense against the federal government’s 2019 lawsuit alleging the city and the department discriminated against African Americans and Latinos with the 2017 passage and subsequent enforcement of Hesperia’s “Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance.”
Throughout the first 31 months that the case was being litigated, the city and county shared the same law firm, Aleshire & Wynder, as their legal representative. Aleshire & Wynder is the firm in which Hesperia City Attorney Eric Dunn is a founding partner. With the city and sheriff’s department, which provides contract law enforcement services to the city, as well as the county represented by the same firm, the defense being put on was, at least ostensibly, coordinated and complimentary, with no showing of inconsistent or conflicting assertions of fact or legal theory as the case was progressing toward trial. In July, however, the county filed for a substitution of attorney, replacing Aleshire & Wynder with the law firm of Lynberg & Watkins. Thereafter, attorneys with Lynberg & Watson, asserting that a conflict between the sheriff’s department and the city had existed from the initiation of the litigation onward that Aleshire & Wynder failed to disclose and deal with forthrightly, sought to have the court, in the person of Federal Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., remove Aleshire & Wynder as the city’s legal representative in the case.
At this point, some 34 months after the federal lawsuit was filed and less than five-and-a-half months before the matter is scheduled to go to trial on March 22, 2022, the contretemps between the city and the county has thrown the defense of both into disarray. With 80 filings already made in the case, some of them quite substantial, it will be a daunting, and expensive, task for the lawyers that will be representing the county, the city and the department to come up to speed with regard to the issues dealt with so far while contending with new filings by the government. Compounding that, the possibility that the two primary defendant agencies – the city and the sheriff’s department – will be sniping at each other both before and during the trial renders doubtful that the matter will ultimately be resolved positively for either the city or the county. Accordingly, the city is looking to settle the case by negotiation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office perhaps as early as next week.
In December 2019, the U.S. Justice Department, through the Civil Rights Section in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office and the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, filed a lawsuit alleging that the City of Hesperia and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department misused the City of Hesperia’s so-called Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance, which was in effect between January 1, 2016 and its amendment on July 18, 2017, to unfairly banish from the city African American and Latino renters in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance required all rental property owners to evict tenants upon notice by the sheriff’s department that the tenants had engaged in any alleged criminal activity on or near the property. The federal lawsuit alleged that the sheriff’s department exercised its substantial discretion in enforcement to target African American and Latino renters and areas of Hesperia inhabited in the main by racial and ethnic minorities. The U.S. Attorney’s Office maintained in its suit that although the ordinance purported to target “criminal activity,” the sheriff’s department notified landlords to begin evictions of entire families – including children – for conduct involving one tenant or even non-tenants, evictions of victims of domestic violence, and evictions based on mere allegations and without evidence of criminal activity.
The federal lawsuit alleged that the city, with substantial support from the sheriff’s department, enacted the ordinance with the intent of addressing what one city councilmember called a “demographical problem” – the city’s increasing African American and Latino population. The ordinance resulted in the evictions of numerous African American and Latino renters.
The lawsuit was based on an investigation and charge of discrimination by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which found that African American and Latino renters were significantly more likely to be evicted under the ordinance than white renters, and that evictions disproportionately occurred in parts of Hesperia where the majority of homeowners or renters were members of a racial or ethnic minority. According to the complaint, the Department of Housing and Urban Development determined that African American renters were almost four times as likely as non-Hispanic white renters to be evicted because of the ordinance, and Latino renters were 29 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white renters to be evicted. Sheriff’s department data showed that 96 percent of the people the sheriff’s department targeted for eviction under the ordinance in 2016 had lived in census blocks where racial and ethnic minority members constituted a majority of the residents.
Citing statements by city officials who expressed a desire to reverse “demographic” changes in Hesperia and persuade recent arrivals from Los Angeles County to get “the hell out of our town,” the lawsuit alleged that city officials enacted the ordinance to drive African American and Latino renters out of Hesperia.
Included among the plaintiff’s attorneys involved in the case are Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, Head of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Sameena Shina Majeed, Deputy Chief of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section R. Tamar Hagler, Acting Deputy Chief of the Federal Coordination and Compliance Section Anna Medina, trial attorneys Aurora Bryant, Christopher D. Belen, Abigail A. Nurse and Alyssa C. Lareau, Acting United States Attorney in Los Angeles Tracy L. Wilkison, Chief of the Los Angeles Civil Division David Harris, Chief of the Los Angeles Civil Rights Division Karen Ruckert, Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Nickell and Assistant United States Attorney Katherine M. Hikida
In July, lawyers with Aleshire & Wynder raised an unspecified issue they thought might represent a conflict between the city and the sheriff’s department, and sought to withdraw from representing the county entities, those being the sheriff’s department and the county itself.
The county’s new legal representatives, lawyers Shannon L. Gustafson and Amy R. Margolies with Lynberg & Watkins, on August 18 filed a motion to disqualify Aleshire & Wynder as Hesperia’s counsel.
According to that motion, “On October 22, 2019, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, but after HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] issued its charge of discrimination, a precursor to this lawsuit, the county defendants tendered their defense pursuant the contract between the city and the county for law enforcement services in the City of Hesperia, defendant city accepted the tender, setting forth that, ‘The city will accept the tender of defense of the County of San Bernardino in the matter of the discrimination charge.’ Thereafter, all defendants (city, county and sheriff) were collectively represented by city defendant’s attorneys, the law firm Aleshire & Wynder, LLP since the filing of this action by plaintiff. However, on July 6, 2021, more than 19-months into this litigation, Aleshire & Wynder notified the county defendants that an actual conflict of interest exists between the city and the county and abruptly dropped county defendants as clients, indicating that Aleshire & Wynder would no longer represent the county or the sheriff’s department due to the conflict; but, elected to remain as counsel for city defendants. Based on Aleshire & Wynder’s position that it would no longer represent them, the county defendants were forced to retain new counsel and a request for approval of substitution of counsel was filed on July 14, 2021, and approved by the court on July 22, 2021. On July 28, 2021, shortly after being confirmed as counsel of record, new defense counsel pursuant to Central District Local Rule 7-3 initiated the meet and confer process with Aleshire & Wynder, setting forth the county defendants’ position that the conflict of interest required the disqualification of Aleshire & Wynder. The parties met and conferred several times between July 28, 2021 and August 5, 2021 to attempt to resolve the conflict and were unable to do so. Aleshire & Wynder therefore requested time to meet with the Hesperia City Council to request permission to voluntarily withdraw and indicated that they would do so at the next available meeting on August 17, 2021. The county defendants therefore agreed to wait until after this meeting with the sincere hope that Aleshire & Wynder would do the right thing, given its former representation of the county. However, on August 18, 2021, San Bernardino County Counsel was informed that a voluntary withdrawal would not be filed. The county defendants have therefore made a good faith effort pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 to request that Aleshire & Wynder voluntarily withdraw, given its ethical obligations to its former client. It is now evident that this motion is the only recourse the county defendants have to seek disqualification of Aleshire & Wynder for the reasons stated herein. County defendants make their motion on the grounds that city defendant’s counsel has violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 by failing to obtain the informed written consent of each client as there was a potential conflict of interest from the beginning of the representation.”
Furthermore, according to Gustafson and Margolies, Aleshire & Wynder are responsible “for creating an actual conflict of interest in violation of California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 when it ceased representation of the county defendants. Here, by electing to represent all defendants (city, county and sheriff’s department) at the outset, and, for the last nineteen months, Aleshire & Wynder created an actual conflict of interest and sought to avoid this conflict by abruptly dropping county defendants like a hot potato, something the law prohibits. This tactic is a violation of Aleshire & Wynder’s most sacred duties of confidentiality and loyalty. Furthermore, these violations have interfered with the orderly administration of justice and the progress of this case. Accordingly, county defendants request that Aleshire & Wynder be disqualified from continuing to represent any party in this case and for ancillary relief.”
It has not been publicly disclosed what the conflict referenced consisted of. There is some overlap between the sheriff’s department and the city with regard to issues featured in the case. Aside from the sheriff’s department serving as Hesperia’s de facto police department under a contract to provide law enforcement services, the matter is complicated by the consideration that in 2015, Nils Bentsen was the commander of the Hesperia sheriff’s station and was thus serving as what was essentially Hesperia’s police chief. Bentsen was in large measure the architect of the Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance, which was drafted over an extended period of time in 2015 and enacted by the city council in November 2015. The following month, Bentsen was appointed by the city council to assume the position of city manager, which he formally filled in January 2016 after his retirement from the sheriff’s department. The city did not implement the ordinance and its provisions until Bentsen moved into the city manager’s post. In this way, Bentsen is a central figure in the federal suit in his capacity as both a sheriff’s department and city employee.
On September 16, the court granted the motion to disqualify Aleshire & Wynder as the city’s legal representative, and Aleshire & Wynder submitted its withdrawal intention the following day, but remains, technically, as Hesperia’s legal counsel until the city retains another firm, which it must do under court mandate by October 26. Meanwhile, on October 14, Aleshire & Wynder is scheduled to engage with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in a settlement conference aimed at bringing the Justice Department’s action against the city to a conclusion prior to trial.
The seriousness with which the situation is viewed by the county was demonstrated by the board of supervisors having been given a briefing on the matter during its closed session with the office of county counsel, the county’s stable of in-house attorneys, during its meeting on Tuesday, October 5.
-Mark Gutglueck

The Sentinel has received an unconfirmed report that there has been a break in the Lauren Cho missing person case.
Cho went missing on June 28, 2021, at approximately 5:10 p.m., when she reportedly walked away from the residence where she was staying in the 8600 block of Benmar Trail in Yucca Valley.
Investigators followed all traces and networked with her family and friends in an effort to discover new leads.
On July 24, 2021, sheriff’s department fixed wing aircraft conducted aerial searches of the remote mountain terrain near the scene of her last known whereabouts.
On Saturday, July 31, 2021, at 6:00 a.m., detectives assigned to the Morongo Basin Station and a search and rescue team executed a search warrant in the 8600 block of Benmar Trail. During the search warrant service seven canines searched the last known location where Cho was seen and surrounding unincorporated areas for evidence.
Investigators with San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Specialized Investigations Division were brought in to assist the Morongo Basin Station in the effort to locate Cho, a 30-year-old resident of New Jersey in September.
Based on present indicators and the circumstance, the outcome appears to be grim.

As the first round of the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic permeated across the globe, beginning in March 2020, schools in San Bernardino County as in all of California discontinued in-class instruction, going to a remote learning model, familiarizing students like never before with electronic forums such as Zoom, and engaging in on-line learning sessions. Those measures were taken out of an abundance of caution, as the coronavirus in its earliest version and initial permutations were proving fatal among a portion of the population.
In general, medical masks were recommended and in time became de rigueur and ultimately mandatory in public places and businesses which were not hit with closure orders. A segment of the population questioned the seriousness of the pandemic, dismissing COVID-19 as just another version of the flu and a not very serious one at that, and claimed that the circumstance was the outgrowth of a governmental hoax perpetrated to trigger panic and hysteria within the population to grease the way for a set of oppressive government-imposed restrictions.
As it turned out, those below the age of majority, most specifically those of junior high school and elementary school age, proved to be particularly resistant to the affliction. Nevertheless, schools remained closed to the end of the 2019-20 school year and throughout the first semester of the 2020-21 school year. Selectively, certain schools began reopening in the spring of 2021, and the lion’s share of school districts throughout California and San Bernardino County prepared for the reopening of schools with the initiation of the late summer/fall semester of the 2021-22 school year.
By the end of 2020, an experimental and, by traditional medical standards, untested vaccine was available. With the dawn of 2021, the vaccine, by virtue of its relatively benign showing within the limited element of the population that braved it, became more widely available and was distributed without cost to the adult population willing to receive it.
In April 2021, just as a significant portion of the adult population was immunized, the Delta version of the coronavirus/COVID malady, the first substantial transmogrification of the disease, hit.
School openings in many venues continued, while in virtually all others, planning toward public school opening with the advent of the 2021-22 school year continued.
Paradoxically, the Delta variant turned out to be far more impactful upon its youthful infectees than the original version of the condition, such that a small percentage of infants, toddlers, children, adolescents and young adults became seriously ill upon contracting the pathosis. Some died.
In this way, the prospect of across-the-board school reopenings and the proximity of millions of students with one another, many of whom were now recognized as vulnerable to the potentially fatal virus, gave public health officials, school officials and government officials tremendous pause as the beginning of the school year in August approached.
The California Public Health Department issued an order, which was refined and updated after the initiation of school in most districts statewide on September 1, mandating that everyone within an enclosed school setting, adults and children over the age of 2 in pre-school through high school, wear a mask. There were limited specified exemptions extending to those with medical conditions or disabilities that made wearing a mask impractical or risky. An exemption applied to everyone during mealtime.
A cross section of parents objected to the mandate, stating it was unnecessary, that it was an imposition on the students, that it ran contrary to the independence of action and thought that should be a principle in American life and which those parents were attempting to instill in their children, that it was an abridgment of the students’ rights, and an effort on the part of the government to brainwash the students and cow them into conformance with government-issued orders and the surrendering of their rights.
A month later, the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom, who had easily outdistanced an effort to remove him from office during a statewide recall vote on September 14, upped the ante. State officials announced on October 1 that in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration giving approval for the administration of the vaccine to students of junior high school and high school age, students 12 years of age and up will be required to be vaccinated as early as January 1, 2022 and no later than July 1, 2022 in order to attend school. Those officials likened the move to the precautions long in place that require children be vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella before they can begin school and the more recent requirement that they be vaccinated against pertussis. Some parents expressed disappointment that the order did not immediately extend to kindergarten and grade school students. California officials added that the state will require the COVID vaccine for students in kindergarten through sixth grade upon the federal government giving approval for the provision of the vaccine to children between the ages of 5 and 11,
Some, however, remain highly skeptical of the government’s move to protect the population from either the original coronavirus pandemic – COVID-19 – or its mutations or intensifications, such as the Delta variant.
According to some of those railing against the government’s COVID precaution mandates, the entire effort is a conspiracy by government in conjunction with the major corporations on the planet to bring about “a great reset” which is to move everyone to a worldwide cashless society system tied directly to vaccine passports that in the near future will further entail the addition of a carbon tax to track and trace everywhere that people travel. This will lead to restrictions on permissible movement by the population, these conspiracists maintain. The governmental establishment has been lying about the COVID crisis all along, and is continuously changing its story to effectuate the eventual enslavement of the vast majority of the human population, those who advocate against accepting the restrictions propound. The anti-vaxxers have put out that the government is using manufactured fear to control the populace. All of this is part of a “new-world agenda” to take people’s cars away from them, those saying the COVID pandemic is a hoax maintain, and they assert that the death rates from COVID-19 were and are greatly exaggerated or non-existent. Each piece of the COVID doomsayers’ story does not stand up to common sense or science, the government’s critics hold. Those advocating resistance to the government-imposed restrictions cite early government misstatements minimizing the seriousness of the coronavirus and its spread and that it would not jump from China where it was first detected to the United States, which was quickly and abruptly followed by a reversal that included mandates, martial law and lockdowns, which, they say, was accompanied by governmental assertions that a two-week shutdown of commerce and socializing would stem the spread. The government continuously extended the lockdown in an effort to “flatten the curve” of the rise in the spread of the disease, followed by the creation of a game plan that called for ending the crisis with the advent of a vaccine, those taking issue with the government’s action say. The hospitals were not filled with the sick and dying during the pandemic as the government claimed, the conspiracists maintain, and reports to that effect were “fake news” put out by the mainstream media which was in lockstep with the government. Emergency field hospitals set up to handle an overflow of emergency patients went largely unused, according to those who question the story put out by the government. The public, kept in the dark by virtue of being in lockdown, was unable to discern that there was in reality no crisis as the government’s false narrative claimed because they could not check out for themselves how empty the hospitals actually were, those who deny the government’s sense of alarm say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed the way that death due to coronavirus was calculated, those rejecting the governments representations report. Constantly rising COVID deaths claimed by the government were in reality deaths from other causes such as heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes or other life-threatening co-morbidities, they say.
In San Bernardino County, a manifestation of this distrust came at the September 16 Chino Joint Unified School District Board meeting. Board member Andrew Cruz, who was backed by his board colleague James Na, sought to gain majority board support for a resolution that much, if not all of the public effort at the state and local levels to arrest the progress of COVID-19 and its current mutation, the Delta variant, represents “government overreach.”
Cruz’s resolution opposed California’s COVID-19 vaccination mandates, and iterated his belief that “the use of coercion as a means to make individuals submit to vaccination is unacceptable” and that “the district opposes statewide vaccination mandates that put employment at risk and compromise personal freedom.”
There were elements in the crowd who concurred with Cruz, most particularly a group bearing the name Parent Association of Chino Valley, the members of which celebrate “Christian, conservative and family values,” while claiming more than 1,000 members in Chino and Chino Hills. Those with Parent Association of Chino Valley who spoke emphasized that school district staff and the majority of the board they characterized as “liberals” were not listening to their concerns about how the imposition of the mandates were violations of their rights and their children’s rights, and that state and local officials were not considering the potential hazard of the vaccines developed to fight the coronavirus. Some demanded to know whether the district would accept liability if any of their children were harmed by the vaccine.
Within the crowd at the September 15 Chino school board meeting there was an even more numerous contingent of parents who supported the state and local district establishment’s strategy to use masking and eventual vaccination to reduce the spread of the virus and prevent the contagion from hurting or even killing their children.
Ultimately, Cruz’s effort to pass his resolution failed. While it garnered his colleague James Na’s vote, it was opposed by Board President Joe Schaffer, Don Bridge, and Christina Gagnier.
In the fall of 2020 moving into the winter, the original version of the deadly coronavirus – COVID-19 – hit what was once thought to be its deadliest crescendo.
According to San Bernardino County’s Department of Health, as of Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 170,855 of the county’s residents had contracted confirmed cases of COVID-19. As of December 21, 2020 a total of 1,375 county residents had perished from the disease from the onset of the outbreak in February 2020. As of Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 1,407 deaths of county residents had been attributed to the disease. Over the next two days there were 13 COVID-19-related deaths and a jump of 3,246 in the number of those with confirmed cases of the contagion countywide. Those numbers were a respite from what had occurred in the weeks previously. A serious advance of the syndrome took place between December 14 and December 21 inclusive, when 134 of those with the affliction died. That included 52 deaths over a 48-hour period on December 19 and 20. Deaths wholly or partially attributable to COVID-19 in San Bernardino County reached their apex on December 16, when 63 people died. As of Christmas Day 2020, over the previous four days, 55 deaths from the coronavirus had been recorded, a clip of thirteen-and-a-half people per day. That represented a weekly average of 94.5 deaths. Months before that, during the seven days of August 2 to August 9, 2020, inclusive, 129 people died in San Bernardino County.
Yet the statistics for all of 2020 in San Bernardino were tame, compared to what has been ongoing in the last nine-and-one-quarter months.
Following the close of 2020, there was for more than three months a gradual drawdown in the number of COVID-19 deaths, followed by a lull in the crisis, which some attributed to the substantial vaccination rate.
Nevertheless, the advent of the Delta variant has pushed the Coronavirus-affiliated death rate beyond what it had been previously. During the first ten months of the crisis, from February until Christmas 2020, there had been 1,420 virus-related deaths in San Bernardino County, such that the county’s residents were dying from COVID-connected-or-influenced conditions at a rate of roughly 4.25 per day.
As of today, October 8, there have been 5,556 total confirmed COVID-19/Delta variant related deaths in San Bernardino County since the disease penetrated the county in February 2020.
From Christmas Day 2020 to today, San Bernardino County residents have found themselves dying, from the ravages of the original version of COVID-19 and any variants including the more deadly Delta version, at a rate of 14.41 per day. That includes the dip in deaths in the months of January to March span, and the acceleration in morbidity that began in April with the local advent of the Delta variant.
External data is as alarming, particularly as pertains to children.
Across the country, where last year at this time pediatric COVID-19 cases accounted for well under 5 percent of the pandemic’s reach, at present nationwide, 25 percent of the cases are those infecting children. Over 243,000 children are known to have come down with COVID-19 in one of its various forms, including the Delta variant, between September 2 and September 9, 2021, the latest accounting period on children currently available. That represents the second highest number of cases among children in a single week since the pandemic began, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
While hospitalization of children for the condition was previously so rare as to be practically unheard of, as of September 29, 2021, 2.4 percent of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States were children. At this point, Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska and Iowa have discontinued reporting on childhood COVID cases. There have been, as of today, 520 childhood COVID-19 fatalities and rising throughout 46 reporting states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico.
At its September 14 meeting, the Morongo Valley Unified School District Board convened at Joshua Tree Elementary School in Joshua Tree. On the agenda for that meeting was a presentation of the district’s COVID-19 protocols that were to be enunciated by Superintendent Doug Weller and assistant superintendents Sharon Flores, Mike Ghelber, and Amy Woods. The policy extends to a universal masking mandate for kindergartners to 12th grade students that came from on high in Sacramento to schools throughout the state. Woods’ intent was to explain how the district’s failure to enforce the mask requirement would breach not only a legal duty, but also the primary responsibility of educators to protect students. Violation of mandatory public health guidance puts the health and safety of students, staff and their families needlessly at risk, Woods eventually stated, and would carry with it significant legal and financial risks.
Before that, or any official action could be gotten to, however, the board had to deal with a show of protest with regard to that protocol. Present at the meeting was a beefed-up security detail, consisting of San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Sergeant Omar Lastra and deputies Elizabeth Gonzalez and Jose Perez. The trio had been dispatched to the meeting because of reports that parents ready to contest the policy were to be in attendance.
As part of the protest, those parents had refused to don masks. That was problematic because part of the state’s and the district’s COVID protocol is that whenever anyone – children or adults – are indoors on school grounds, they are required to wear masks.
Inside the Joshua Tree Elementary multipurpose room were unmasked parents awaiting the arrival of the school board so that they could make clear their belief that a matter of principle is involved, one pertaining to freedom and the maintenance of rights to be free from government mandates for masking or vaccination or anything else. They were itching to make a case that masks and vaccine represent a health risk – ones that were as grave as the coronavirus itself. There are side effects to the vaccine, they said, and it has not been shown to be safe for children. Moreover, the masks reroute carbon dioxide back into the noses and mouths of those wearing masks, they said.
The standoff continued as the school board members refused to come into the meeting room while the unmasked adults were present. Also present in the room were parents who were not part of the protest and who were masked.
Sergeant Lastra told the protesters that there would be no meeting if those present did not mask up. After a roughly 20 minute delay, with Lastra, Gonzalez and Perez glaring at them, the protesters relented. They did not put on masks, but left.
Some of the protesters, citing principle, said they simply could not put masks on and knuckle under to an illegal and unconstitutional mandate. One, who was prepared to confront the school board members with Benjamin Franklin’s adage that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” suggested the school board and the district staff were cowardly in their unwillingness to be confronted by the protesters.
-Mark Gutglueck

Panicked paralysis has gripped Rialto City Manager Marcus Fuller and Rialto City Attorney Eric Vail, as they are dealing with a thorny issue involving their political masters and unsuccessful candidates for the city council going back nearly two decades. Central to the matter are blackmail and election-swaying efforts by members of the fire and police departments who were seeking to gain leverage in contract negotiations with the city. It is further alleged that former high ranking city officials were knowledgeable of and perhaps even involved in the extortion and efforts to impact voting in Rialto’s municipal elections.

Fuller and Vail are furiously seeking to bring the matter to a quiet close before it breaks into full-blown scandal. A full public airing of the seamy details of what occurred, Fuller and Vail fear, carries with it a substantial possibility that the city’s taxpayers will take an estimated $25 million to $30 million hit.

At the basis of the contretemps is that Rialto Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott has filed claims totaling $1.15 million against the city where intermittently over the last quarter of a century he has been a member of the city council for nearly 19 years, including the last seven.

According to one of those claims, Rialto police officers and & firefighters have accessed the State of California’s law enforcement database on multiple occasions to obtain confidential information which was used in an attempt to prevent his election and reelection to office as well as for political purposes in opposing the electoral or re-electoral efforts of other members of the city council.

Additional information gleaned by the Sentinel indicates that others competing for berths upon the Rialto City Council or mayor were similarly subjected to having their profiles and personal information contained in what are supposed to be restricted governmental data bases accessed and used for either political use or to dissuade them from engaging in public advocacy.

The claims made by Scott came in sworn statements lodged with the city.

In Rialto, as is the case with all other cities or governmental entities in California, an individual who has suffered damages as a consequence of the action of the city or its employees, must lodge a claim with that entity before taking legal action in court against the governmental entity. The governing board of the jurisdiction, as in the case of a city its city council, can then acknowledge the claim as valid and pay either the claimed amount of damages or a negotiated amount to settle the claim and avoid a lawsuit. Once a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit against the city. In the vast majority of cases, claims against cities are rejected, and in the vast majority of the cases where rejections are made, the claimants do not follow up with a lawsuit.

In the case of the claims filed by Scott, one of which pertained to the city’s issuance of a permit for what Scott maintains was botched work on an electrical connection on property he owns in the city unrelated to the police department and fire department personnel accessing information pertaining to him in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the city council acknowledged receipt of the claims but neither accepted nor rejected them. Instead, the claims have been passed along to Vail, the city’s interim city attorney who has been serving in that capacity since the departure of Fred Galante as city attorney in March 2020.

According to the claim, “On February 16, 2021 I made a verbal complaint to Rialto Police Chief Mark Kling that I had been informed that a confidential informant, a whistle blower who is a current employee of the City of Rialto, had been told by a member of the Rialto Fire Department that he had been involved in investigating myself to determine my residency

and property I owned in Kernville, California and other information related to my personal life and background. In addition, I informed Sean Greyson, acting city manager and fire chief, that such an allegation had been made about the Rialto Fire Department.”