By Hermann Hesse

There was once a young man by the name of Ziegler, who lived on Brauergasse. He was one of those people we see every day on the street, whose faces we can never really remember, because they all have the same face: a collective face.

Ziegler was everything and did everything that such people always are and do. He was not stupid, but neither was he gifted; he loved money and pleasure, liked to dress well, and was as cowardly as most people: his life and activities were governed less by desires and strivings than by prohibitions, by the fear of punishment. Still, he had a number of good qualities and all in all he was a gratifyingly normal young man, whose own person was most interesting and important to him. Like every other man, he regarded himself as an individual, though in reality he was only a specimen, and like other men he regarded himself and his life as the centre of the world. He was far removed from all doubts, and when facts contradicted his opinions, he shut his eyes disapprovingly.

As a modern man, he had unlimited respect for not only money, but also for a second power: science. He could not have said exactly what science was, he had in mind something on the order of statistics and perhaps a bit of bacteriology, and he knew how much money and honour the state accorded to science. He especially admired cancer research, for his father had died of cancer, and Ziegler firmly believed that science, which had developed so remarkably since then, would not let the same thing happen to him.

Outwardly Ziegler distinguished himself by his tendency to dress somewhat beyond his means, always in the fashion of the year. For since he could not afford the fashions of the month or season, it goes without saying that he despised them as foolish affectation. He was a great believer in independence of character and often spoke harshly, among friends and in safe places, of his employers and of the government. I am probably dwelling too long on this portrait. But Ziegler was a charming young fellow, and he has been a great loss to us. For he met with a strange and premature end, which set all his plans and justified hopes at naught.

One Sunday soon after his arrival in our town, he decided on a day’s recreation. He had not yet made any real friends and had not yet been able to make up his mind to join a club. Perhaps this was his undoing. It is not good for a man to be alone.

He could think of nothing else to do but go sightseeing. After conscientious inquiry and mature reflection he decided on the historical museum and the zoo. The museum was free of charge on Sunday mornings, and the zoo could be visited in the afternoon for a moderate fee.

Wearing his new suit with cloth buttons he was very fond of it  he set out for the historical museum. He was carrying his thin, elegant, red-lacquered walking cane, which lent him dignity and distinction, but which to his profound displeasure he was obliged to part with at the entrance.

There were all sorts of things to be seen in the lofty rooms, and in his heart the pious visitor sang the praises of almighty science, which, here again, as Ziegler observed in reading the meticulous inscriptions on the showcases, proved that it could be counted on. Thanks to these inscriptions, old bric-a-brac, such as rusty keys, broken and tarnished necklaces, and so on, became amazingly interesting. It was marvellous how science looked into everything, understood everything and found a name for it oh, yes, it would definitely get rid of cancer very soon, maybe it would even abolish death.

In the second room he found a glass case in which he was reflected so clearly that he was able to stop for a moment and check up, carefully and to his entire satisfaction, on his coat, trousers, and the knot of his tie. Pleasantly reassured, he passed on and devoted his attention to the products of some early wood carvers. Competent men, though shockingly naïve, he reflected benevolently. He also contemplated an old grandfather clock with ivory figures which danced the minuet when it struck the hour, and it too met with his patient approval. Then he began to feel rather bored; he yawned and looked more and more frequently at his watch, which he was not ashamed of showing, for it was solid gold, inherited from his father.

As he saw to his regret, he still had a long way to go till lunchtime, and so he entered another room. Here his curiosity revived. It contained objects of medieval superstition, books of magic, amulets, trappings of witchcraft, and in one corner a whole alchemist’s workshop, complete with forge, mortars, pot-bellied flasks dried-out pig’s bladders, bellows, and so on. This corner was roped off, and there was a sign forbidding the public to touch the objects. But one never reads such signs very attentively, and Ziegler was alone in the room.

Unthinkingly he stretched out his arm over the rope and touched a few of the weird things. He had heard and read about the Middle Ages and their comical superstitions; it was beyond him how the people of those days could have bothered with such childish nonsense, and he failed to see why such absurdities as witchcraft had not simply been prohibited. Alchemy, on the other hand, was pardonable, since the useful science of chemistry had developed from it. Good Lord, to think that these gold-makers’ crucibles and all this magic hocus-pocus may have been necessary, because without them there would be no aspirin or gas bombs today!

Absentmindedly he picked up a small dark-coloured pellet, rather like a pill, rolled the dry, weightless little thing between his fingers and was about to put it down again when he heard steps behind him. He turned round. A visitor had entered the room. Ziegler was embarrassed at having the pellet in his hand, for actually he had read the sign. So he closed his hand, put it in his pocket and left.

He did not think of the pellet again until he was on the street. He took it out and decided to throw it away. But first he raised it to his nose and sniffed it. It had a faint resinous smell that he found rather pleasing, so he put it back in his pocket.

Then he went to a restaurant, ordered, leafed through a few newspapers, toyed with his tie, and cast respectful or haughty glances at the guests around him, depending on how they were dressed. But when his meal was rather long in coming, he took out the alchemist’s pill that he had involuntarily stolen, and smelled it. Then he scratched it with his fingernail, and finally naïvely giving into a childlike impulse, he put it in his mouth. It did not taste bad and dissolved quickly; he washed it down with a sip of beer. And then his meal arrived.

At two o’clock the young man jumped off the street car, went to the zoo, and bought a Sunday ticket.

Smiling amiably, he went to the primate house and planted himself in front of the big cage where the chimpanzees were kept. A large chimpanzee blinked at him, gave him a good-natured nod, and said in a deep voice: “How goes it, brother?”

Repelled and strangely frightened, Ziegler turned away. As he was hurrying off, he heard the ape scolding: “What’s he got to be proud about! The stupid bastard!”

He went to see the long-tailed monkeys. They were dancing merrily. “Give us some sugar, old buddy!” they cried. And when he had no sugar, they grew angry and mimicked him, called him a cheapskate, and bared their teeth. That was more than he could stand; he fled in consternation and made for the deer, whom he expected to behave better.

A large stately elk stood close to the bars, looking him over. And suddenly Ziegler was stricken with horror. For since swallowing the magic pill, he understood the language of the animals. And the elk spoke with his eyes, two big brown eyes. His silent gaze expressed dignity, resignation, sadness, and with regard to the visitor a lofty and solemn contempt, a terrible contempt. In the language of these silent, majestic eyes, Ziegler read, he, with hat and cane, his gold watch and his Sunday suit, was no better than vermin, an absurd and repulsive bug.

From the elk he fled to the ibex, from the ibex to the chamois, the llama, and the gnu, to the wild boars and bears. They did not all insult him, but without exception they despised him. He listened to them and learned from their conversations what they thought of people in general. And what they thought was most distressing. Most of all they were surprised that these ugly, stinking, undignified bipeds with their foppish disguises should be allowed to run around loose.

He heard a puma talking to her cub, a conversation full of dignity and practical wisdom, such as one seldom hears among humans. He heard a beautiful panther expressing his opinions of this riffraff, the Sunday visitors, in succinct, well-turned, aristocratic phrases. He looked the blond lion in the eye and learned of the wonderful immensity of the wilderness, where there are no cages and no human beings. He saw a kestrel perched proud and forlorn, congealed in melancholy, on a dead branch and saw the jays bearing their imprisonment with dignity, resignation and humour.

Dejected and wrenched out of all habits of thought, Ziegler turned back to his fellow men in despair. He looked for eyes that would understand his terror and misery; he listened to conversations in the hope of hearing something comforting, something understandable and soothing; he observed the gestures of the visitors in the hope of finding nobility and quiet, natural dignity.

But he was disappointed. He heard voices and words, he saw movements, gestures and glances, but since now saw everything as through the eyes of an animal, he found nothing but a degenerate, dissembling mob of bestial fops, who seemed to be an unbeautiful mixture of all the animal species.

In despair Ziegler wandered about. He felt hopelessly ashamed of himself. He had long since thrown his red-lacquered cane into the bushes and his gloves after it. But when he threw away his hat, took off his shoes and tie, and shaken with sobs pressed against the bars of the elk’s cage, a crowd collected and the guards seized him, and he was taken away to an insane asylum.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2205209
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JIEYING YU filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JIEYING YU to EILEEN JIEYING YU
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: May 2, 2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S-17
The address of the court is
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415,
San Bernardino District-Civil Division
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: 03/21/2022
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/25, 4/1, 6/8 & 4/15, 2022.
FBN20220002407
The following person is doing business as: MOUNTAIN SURF COMPANY 39031 WATERVIEW DR BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315:
THOMAS BRADLEY 39031 WATERVIEW DR BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315
[and]
JENNA BRADLEY 39031 WATERVIEW DR BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 120821 BIG BEAR LAKE,CA 92315
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MARCH 1, 2022
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/ THOMAS BRADLEY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/15/2022
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 3/25, 4/01, 4/08 & 4/15, 2022.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2200319
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: DIRKE LAINE EDMOND filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
DIRKE LAINE EDMOND to DIRKE DURRETT LAINE EDMOND 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: 06/21/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West Third Street, 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: 01/26/2022
Judge of the Superior Court: JOHN M PACHECO
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022

NOTICE OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AT PRIVATE SALE CASE NO. PROPS 2100493
In the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino: In the matter of the Estate of Elton A. Rayburn SR., aka ELTON RAYBURN aka ELTON ANTHONY RAYBURN aka ANTHONY RAYBURN, SR., Decedent
Notice is hereby given that the undersigned will sell at Private Sale, to the highest and best bidder, subject to confirmation of said Superior Court, on or after the 25th day of April, 2022, at 9:00 am in the office of the San Bernardino County Superior Court Department S35, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, California, 92415-0212, all of the right, title and interest of said decedent at the time of his death, in and all the certain real property, situated in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California, particularly described as Assessor’s Parcel No.0146-152-15. More commonly known as 1572 Belle Street, San Barnardino, California, 92404.
Term of sale are cash in lawful money of the United States on confirmation of sale, or part cash and balance upon such terms and conditions as are acceptable to the personal representative. Ten percent of amount bid to be desposited with bid. Bids or offers to be in writing and will be received at the office of the attorney for the personal representatives at any time after first publication hereof and before date of sale.
Dated: March 16,2022
Angela Dietrich
Personal Representatives of the Estate
RICHARD G. ANDERSON, ESQ.
ANDERSON & LEBLANC, A.P.L.C.
1365 West Foothill Boulevard, Suite 2
Upland, CA 91786
(909) 949-2226 Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220002761
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: LEVEL UP REALTY GROUP, 10390 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 250,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: JORGE J BARAJAS 10390 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 250, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/JORGE A BARAJAS, OWNER/REALTOR This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 03/30/2022
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/16/20222
County Clerk,
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).
04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2204630
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Anthony Keao Alani filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Anthony Keao Alani to Aizek Xyniir 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: 05/02/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West Third Street, 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: 03/17/2022
Judge of the Superior Court: John M. Pacheco
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/1/2022, 4/8/2022, 4/15/2022, 4/22/2022

SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (Numero del Caso): 20STCV49727
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
RODRIGO FRANCISCO MANUEL
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTÁ DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
MACK GOLDSBURY and JANET GOLDSBURY
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a 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 any 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.courtinfoca.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 despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papales legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formalo legal correcto si desea que procesan su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion 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 la quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la crote 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 corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado immediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is:
(El nombre y direccion de la corte es):
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles 90012
The name, address, and telephone number of the plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
J. Derek Pakiz, Esq. (SBN 140605)
THE REEVES LAW GROUP
200 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Ana, CA 92701
800-644-8000
877-491-7860
Date: December 30, 2020
Sherri R. Carter, Clerk
By: /s/ R. CLIFTON, Deputy
Published in the San Bernardino Sentinel on 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
(Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)
To: RODRIGO FRANCISCO MANUEL
Plaintiff: MACK GOLDSBURY seeks damages in the above-entitled action,
as follows:
1. General damages
a. Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $0
b. Emotional distress $0 c. Loss of consortium $0
d. Loss of society and companionship (wrongful death actions only) $20,000,000
e. Other (specify) $0
f. Other (specify) $0
g. Continued on Attachment 1.g.
2. Special damages
a. Medical expenses (to date) $0
b. Future medical expenses (present value) $0
c. Loss of earnings (to date) $0
d. Loss of future earning capacity $0
e. Property damage $0
f. Funeral expenses (wrongful death actions only) $ According to Proof
g. Future contributions (present value) (wrongful death actions only) $ According to Proof
h. Value of personal service, advice, or training (wrongful death actions only) $ According to Proof
i. Other (specify) $0
j. Other (specify) $0
k. Continued on Attachment 2.k.
3. Punitive damages. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek punitive damages in the amount of (specify) when pursuing a judgment in the suit filed against you. $0
/s/ Marc B. Thompson, Esq. (SBN 229842)
SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/,01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
(Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)
To:RODRIGO FRANCISCO MANUEL
Plaintiff: JANET GOLDSBURY seeks damages in the above-entitled action,
as follows:
1. General damages
a. Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $0
b. Emotional distress $0
c. Loss of consortium $0
d. Loss of society and companionship (wrongful death actions only) $20,000,000
e. Other (specify) $0
f. Other (specify) $0
g. Continued on Attachment 1.g.
2. Special damages
a. Medical expenses (to date) $0
b. Future medical expenses (present value) $0
c. Loss of earnings (to date) $0
d. Loss of future earning capacity $0
e. Property damage $0
f. Funeral expenses (wrongful death actions only) $ According to Proof
g. Future contributions (present value) (wrongful death actions only) $ According to Proof
h. Value of personal service, advice, or training (wrongful death actions
only) $ According to Proof
i. Other (specify) $0 j. Other (specify) $0
k. Continued on Attachment 2.k.
3. Punitive damages. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek punitive
damages in the amount of (specify) when pursuing a judgment in the suit filed against you. $0
/s/ Marc B. Thompson, Esq. (SBN 229842)
SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: THERESA MARKOWSKI
CASE NO. PROSB2200401
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of THERESA MARKOWSKI has been filed by JANE LaFOUNTAIN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JANE LaFOUNTAIN 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 MAY 3, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S35 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: March 21, 2022
Rebecca Hernandez, Deputy Court Clerk
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: March 21, 2022
Attorney for Jane LaFountain:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 8, 15 & 22, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
DAVID JOHN MITCHELL
NO. PROSB 2200063
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DAVID JOHN MITCHELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by NICOLE CRUZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that NICOLE CRUZ 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. S36 at 9 a.m. on MAY 4, 2022 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: APRIL 1, 2021
Cesar Marin, Court Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Nicole Cruz:
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 April 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: VELIA DELGADO CASE NO. PROSB2200410
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VELIA DELGADO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ERIC ANDREW DELGADO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ERIC ANDREW DELGADO 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 MAY 9, 2022 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 April 8, 15 & 22, 2022.

NOTICE OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AT PRIVATE SALE CASE NO. PROPS 2100264
In the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino: In the matter of the Estate of FRED EDWARD CARLSON, Decedent
Notice is hereby given that LILLIAN BLACK and RUTH DYSART as Personal Representatives of the Estate of FRED EDWARD CARLSON will set at a private sale of real property, subject to confirmation by the Superior Court, on or after the 3rd day of May, 2022, at 9:00 am at the San Bernardino County Superior Court Department S36P, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, California, 92415-0212, of 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 $475,000.00. The required amount of the first overbid is $499,750.00. At least ten percent (10%) of the amount bid must be paid with the offer, and the balance must be paid on the close of escrow after the confirmation of the sale by the Court.
Dated: March 17, 2022
LILLIAN BLACK
Personal Representatives of the Estate
RUTH DYSART
Personal Representatives of the Estate
JAMES LEE, ESQUIRE SBN: 110838
LAW OFFICE OF MARC E. GROSSMAN
100 N. EUCLID AVE, SECOND FLOOR
Upland, CA 91786
jim@wefight4you.com
Telephone: (909) 608-7426
Fax: (909) 949 0119
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 & 04/22/2022
NOTICE OF PUBLIC SALE OF ABANDONED PERSONAL PROPERTY
(Unlawful Detainer)
In the matter of Christopher and Gayle Garcia, Plaintiffs v. Samantha Foster, Defendant, Superior Court Case LLTVA2102894, County of San Bernardino, State of California.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 1988 et.seq. of the California Civil Code, the undersigned will sell at public auction by competitive bidding on April 29, 2022 at 1:15pm at the front entrance to the Ontario Police Department, 2500 S Archibald Ave, Ontario, CA 91761 the abandoned personal property described below. The premises where said property has been stored is located at 1431 North Elderberry Ave, Ontario, CA 91762, County of San Bernardino.
Property: containers, briefcase, jewelry boxes, electronics, metal/cardboard boxes, nightstands, clothing, dresser, jewelry, cabinets, VHS tapes & player, cable box, TV’s, art, mirrors, lamps, clocks, radios, phones, trash cans, typewriter, hats, office supplies, toys, beds, bedding, plants, shoes, photos, iron, umbrella, tools, suitcases, books, bookcases, stereos, chairs, desks, computers, printers, monitors, microphone, collectibles/figurines, cd’s, baskets, rugs, modem/router, scale, towels, cages, carpet/floor cleaners, games, exercise equip, loose change, tables, candles, cosmetics, fans, sculptures, cords/cables, DVD’s & player, cleaning supplies, patio furn, bbqs, decorative items, washer, dryer, ladder, heaters, tape recorder, stools, refrigerator, microwave, kitchen appliances, fire ex, wine rack, wine, pots/pans, food, wigs, dishes, glasses, toiletries, flatware, utensils, electronics, cart, karaoke machine, CD’s, dolly, exercise equip
Dated: April 15 and 22, 2022
All States for Christopher and Gayle Garcia
Published in the San Bernardino Sentinel on April 15 and 22, 2022

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2204133
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: RAMON ROSAS filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ALEX JAY DIAZ to ALEX JAY ROSAS 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: 05/17/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West Third Street, 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.
Filed: 02/14/2022
Judge of the Superior Court: JOHN M PACHECO
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2022.

FBN FBN20220003079
The following person is doing business as: ELEV8 SPORTS PERFORMANCE 12223 HIGHLAND AVE STE 106 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA: NICOLE M WALKER 27658 BIG BEND DR MENIFFEE, CA 92585
Mailing Address: 27658 BIG BEND DR MENIFFEE, CA 92585
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/ NICOLE M WALKER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04//05/2022
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 J2534
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 April 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2022.
For your security we disabled links in this email. If you believe it is safe to use, mark this message as not spam.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2203506
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  FREDDIE ZERMEÑO LOPEZ JR filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
FREDDIE ZERMEÑO LOPEZ JR to FREDDIE CUAUHTÉMOC ZERMEÑO,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: 05/03/2022
Time: 09:00 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: 03/22/2022
Judge of the Superior Court: JOHN M PACHECO
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2123357
NOTICE TO LUIS CARDENAS, ELIZABETH CARDENAS, NOELLA GABRIELA CARDENAS
(AVISO DEMANDADO): YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: TAYLOR STRICKLAND
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TAYLOR STRICKLAND
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):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
247 W. THIRD STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415 The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
MATTHEW F. JANOWICZ (SBN: 253518)
TARDIFF & SALDO LAW OFFICES
P.O. BOX 1400
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406
Telephone: 805-457-4578
DATE (Fecha): 09/03/2021
Clerk (Secretario), by JUSTIN MANASSEE
Published in the The San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 04/08/2022,
04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022

AMENDED FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20220000641
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: OUTSTANDING CONSULTING SERVICES, 8651 FOOTHIL BLVD SPC 106, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Mailing Address: , TAMMO WILKENS, 8651 FOOTHILL BLVD SPC 106, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/TAMMO WILKENS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 01/31/2022
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/02/2022
County Clerk,
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
02/04/2022, 02/11/2022, 02/18/2022, 02/25/2022; 03/11/2022, 03/18/2022, 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022; 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022
FBN20220001810
The following person is doing business as: EPITOME CONSTRUCTION [and] EPITOME LANDSCAPING [and] EPITOME STAGING [and] EPITOME CONSULTING 1632 WILSON AVE UPLAND, CA 91784: GEO COE LLC 1632 WILSON AVE UPLAND, CA 91784
Mailing Address: 318 BALLENA DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
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/ Geoffery T. Huang
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/02/2022
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 3/04, 3/11, 3/18 & 3/25, 2022. Corrected on 4/08, 4/15, 4/22 & 4/29, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION FOR LETTERS OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION WITH GENERAL POWERS
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 special administrator to administer the estate with general powers.
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. S35P at SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on MAY 3, 2022 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.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MARY M. BADER 9227 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 368 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 945-2775 Fax: (909) 945-2778
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DOROTHY ANN RUCKER CASE NO. PROSB2200483
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DOROTHY ANN RUCKER
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LATASHA SHAVONDA MAXWELL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LATASHA SHAVONDA MAXWELL 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-35P at 9:00 a.m. on MAY 12, 2022 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 April 15, 22 & 29, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: TIMOTHY LEE GUHIN
CASE NO. PROSB2200386
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of TIMOTHY LEE GUHIN has been filed by MARY TRACEY GUHIN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARY TRACEY GUHIN be appointed as personal representative 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.
A hearing on the petition will be held MAY 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36P at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: MARCH 21, 2022
Brittney Spears, Deputy Court Clerk
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: March 21, 2022
Attorney for Tracey Guhin:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Phone (909) 328 7000
Fax (909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 15, 22 & 29, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DOLORES MORENO aka MARIA DOLORES MORENO LEIJA
CASE NO. PROSB2200486
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DOLORES MORENO aka MARIA DOLORES MORENO LEIJA has been filed by JEANETTE MORENO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JEANETTE MORENO be appointed as personal representative 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.
A hearing on the petition will be held MAY 19, 2022 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.
Filed: APRIL 5, 2022
Amy Gamez-Reyes, Deputy Court Clerk
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: April 5, 2022
Attorney for Jeannette Moreno:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Phone (909) 328 7000
Fax (909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 15, 22 & 29, 2022.
FBN20220002993
The following person is doing business as: G-MAN’S COLLECTIBLES & SERVICES 16555 ATHOL STREET APT 107 FONTANA 92335: EDUARDO R GUDINO
16555 ATHOL STREET APT 107 FONTANA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: December 6, 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/ Eduardo Gudino
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/05/2022
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 J2534
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 4/22, 4/29, 5/6, & 5/13 2022.

FBN 20220002471
The following person is doing business as: KIDS FRM THE CORNER PRINTING CO. 106 W. PENNSYLVANIA AVE APT 1606 REDLANDS, CA 92374
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
JABIN J VILLA 106 W. PENNSYLVANIA AVE APT 1606 REDLANDS, CA 92374.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JABIN J VILLA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202208IR

FBN 20220002003
The following person is doing business as: B & J PACKAGING. 14755 FOOTHILL BLVD FONTANA, CA 92336
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
BARAKAT BARAKAT 14755 FOOTHILL BLVD FONTANA, CA 92336.
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/ BARAKAT BARAKAT, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 07, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202207CH

FBN 20220002002
The following person is doing business as: HUSHH… MEDICAL AESTHETICS. 421 E CITRUS AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
BESTCARE CLINIC A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 421 E CITRUS AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373; 421 E CITRUS AVE REDLANDS, CA 92373; .
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/ PHILIP KIM, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 07, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202206CH

FBN 20220002475
The following person is doing business as: AUTO GLASS PROS. 287 W EASTON ST RIALTO, CA 92376
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
JUAN G BACA CAMORLINGA 287 W EASTON ST 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/ JUAN G BACA CAMORLINGA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202205MT

FBN 20220001894
The following person is doing business as: A HOME AWAY FROM HOME PET BOARDING. 10591 LEE AVENUE ADELANTO, CA 92301
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
HIGH DESERT ROTTS, LLC 10591 LEE AVENUE ADELANTO, CA 92301; 10591 LEE AVENUE ADELANTO, CA 92301; .
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/ GUILLERMO PADILLA JR, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 03, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202204MT

FBN 20220002217
The following person is doing business as: L&A TAXES EXPERTS. 108 ORANGE ST SUITE #11 REDLANDS, CA 92373
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
ALEJANDRA COLIN 108 ORANGE ST SUITE #11 REDLANDS, CA 92373.
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/ ALEJANDRA COLIN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 09, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202203MT

FBN 20220002478
The following person is doing business as: LUXE PLAY WORLD. 10163 CARRISSA AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
LUIS F MONTOYA DELGADO 10163 CARRISSA AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345.
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/ LUIS F MONTOYA DELGADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202202CV

FBN 20220002442
The following person is doing business as: KCHIS KITCHEN. 1316 N LASSEN AVE ONTARIO, CA 91764311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
KRISTIAN ROMERO 1316 N LASSEN AVE ONTARIO, CA 91764.
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/ KRISTIAN ROMERO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 03/25/2022, 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022 CNBB12202201IR

FBN 20220002478
The following person is doing business as: LUXE PLAY WORLD 10163 CARRISSA AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701 ]; LUIS F MONTOYA DELGADO 10163 CARRISSA AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 01, 2022
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LUIS FERNANDO MONTOYA DELGADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202201SB

FBN 20220002471
The following person is doing business as: KOCHIS KITCHEN 1316 N LASSEN AVE ONTARIO, CA 91764 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701 ]; KRITIAN ROMERO 1316 N LASSEN AVE ONTARIO, CA 91764
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/ KRISTIAN ROMERO OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202202SB

FBN 20220002521
The following person is doing business as: LONGSTREET LANE RESIDENTIAL CARE 7398 LONGSTREET LANE FONTANA, CA 92336 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; GIFTED HEALTH INC 7398 LONGSTREET LN 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/ TAMEKA DYCE-WATSON, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 11, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202203MT

FBN 20220002663
The following person is doing business as: WOW WHOLESALE 1435 N WATERMAN AVE STE D SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DANI MHANA 1434 N WATERMAN AVE STE D SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
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/ DANI MHANA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 25, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202204MT

FBN 20220002475
The following person is doing business as: AUTO GLASS PROS 287 W EASTON ST RIALTO, CA 92376 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; JUAN G BACA CAMORLINGA 287 W EASTON ST 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/ JUAN G. BACA CAMORLINGA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202205MT

FBN 20220002748
The following person is doing business as: B & A PAINTING 1015 DEBORAH ST UPLAND, CA 91784 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; EUN S AN 1015 DEBORAH ST UPLAND, CA 91784; VINCENT T LEE 1015 DEBORAH ST UPLAND, CA 91784
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOV 29, 2005
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/ EUN S. AN, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 29, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202206MT

FBN 20220001886
The following person is doing business as: ALL PRO CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 657 W 34TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; MIKEL J GUSTAFSON 657 W 34TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 22, 2022
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/ MIKEL J GUSTAFSON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 03, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202207MT

FBN 20220002601
The following person is doing business as: OLIVAR READY MIX 11153 SPRUCE AVE BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; T.B.C. TRANSPORT,INC. 11153 SPRUCE AVE BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ CELIO OIVAR, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 24, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202208IR

FBN 20220002598
The following person is doing business as: PALACIOS BARBERSHOP & BEAUTY SALON 15191 7TH ST. #10 VICTRVILLE, CA 92395 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; MARIAN DEL ROSARIO P MENENDEZ 15191 7TH ST. #10 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MIRIAN DEL ROSARIO PALACIOS MENENDEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 24, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202209SD

FBN 2022000256
The following person is doing business as: BACKYARD AUDIO & TINT 127 W. OLIVE ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1136 W. KING ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 ]; MOISES MEJIA 1136 W. KING 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/ MOISES MEJIA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 22, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202210IR

FBN 20220002527
The following person is doing business as: DATASKIP 222 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. #109B ONTARIO, CA 91786 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO;[ MAILING ADDRESS 12150 CASPER CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739]; MSM PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT 12150 CASPER CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
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/ MICHAEL MARTINEZ, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 22, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202211IR

FBN 20220002472
The following person is doing business as: ALL AROUND AUTO GLASS 5509 B ST CHINO, CA 91710 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; JESUS A DIAZ 5509 B 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/ JESUS A. DIAZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202212IR

FBN 20220001955
The following person is doing business as: KIDS FUN CUTS 9359 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO;[ MAILING ADDRESS 7770 ARROYO VISTA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730]; SUSIE ROMERO 9359 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; MAXIMO H ROMERO 9359 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE F RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SUSIE ROMERO, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 07, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202213IR

FBN 20220001912
The following person is doing business as: BEAUTIPRO 14911 MERRILL AVE FONTANA, CA 92335 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; KENRY T ALVAREZ 14911 MERRILL AVE FONTANA, CA 92335; ENRIQUE VACA RIVEROS 14911 MERRILL AVE 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: AUG 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/ KENDRY T. ALVAREZ, WIFE
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 04, 2022
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 04/01/2022, 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022 CNBB13202214IR

FBN 20220002764 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
The following person is doing business as: ROBLES PRODUCE 1336 OAK ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; MARGARITA ROBLES 1336 OAK ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; FRANCISCO GUERRERO 1336 OAK ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 03/28/2017. Original File# 20170003598
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 26, 2004
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/ MARGARITA ROBLES, WIFE
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 17, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202201MT

FBN 20220002828
The following person is doing business as: OMO MOTORSPORTS 1471 E HIGHLAND CT ONTARIO, CA 91764 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; ANDREW P GALLARZO 1471 E HIGHLAND CT ONTARIO, CA 91764
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 P. GALLARZO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202202MT

FBN 20220002826
The following person is doing business as: A & M TAX SERVICE 12598 CENTRAL AVE UNIT #115 CHINO, CA 91708 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 2022 CHINO, CA 91708 ]; AMANDA J RUIZ 12598 CENTRAL AVE UNIT #115 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: FEB 01, 2022
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/ AMANDA J. RUIZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202203MT

FBN 20220002841
The following person is doing business as: MANTRA INDIAN CUISINE 990 N ONTARIO MILLS DR UNIT H ONTARIO, CA 91764 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [ MAILING ADDRESS 8023 BLUFF VIEW LN EAST VALE, CA 92880 ]; MANTRA RESTAURANT II CORPORATION 990 N ONTARIO MILLS DR UNIT H ONTARIO, CA 91764
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 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/ SUMIT SHARMA, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202204MT

FBN 20220002842
The following person is doing business as: G.T.O REMODELING AND DESIGN 3432 JUNE ST APT A MUSCOY, CA 92407 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; LUIS F RIOS LUNA 3432 JUNE ST APT A MUSCOY, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LUIS F. RIOS LUNA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202205MT

FBN 20220002807
The following person is doing business as: AAG ROLL OF TRANSPORT 10733 LEMON GRASS AVE FONTANA, CA 92337 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; ANGEL GUILLEN RAYA 10733 LEMON GRASS AVE FONTANA, CA 92337
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/ ANGEL GUILLEN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202206IR
FBN 20220002478
The following person is doing business as: ISHA HOLISTIC BEAUTY 948 N MOUNTAIN AVE #938-SUITE 114 ONTARIO, CA 91762 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; HILDA C VASQUEZ 948 N MOUNTAIN AVE #938-SUITE 114 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/ HILDA C. VASQUEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 25, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202207MT

FBN 20220002515
The following person is doing business as: FUNITURE CITY 5065 N MONTCLAIR PLAZA LN MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701 ]; FURNITURE AVE, INC 1351 WEST 17TH STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92706
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 11, 2022
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/ FARIS ESCHEIK, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 22, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202208CV

FBN 20220002832
The following person is doing business as: TONY’S PROFESSIONAL TOUCH 1225 PUMALO ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701 ]; ANTHONY D CABALLERO HERNANDEZ 1225 PUMALO ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 22, 2022
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/ ANTHONY DIEGO CABALLERO HERNANDEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202209FA

FBN 20220002860
The following person is doing business as: QUEEN NAILS 250 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701 ]; NGUYEN M HOANG 250 W FOOTHILL BLVD 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: JAN 02, 2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ NGUYEN M HOANG, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202210RC

FBN 20220002859
The following person is doing business as: QUEEN NAILS 250 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [ MAILING ADDRESS W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701 ]; SON H LE 250 W FOOTHILL BLVD 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: JAN 02, 2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SON H LE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202211RC

FBN 20220002070
The following person is doing business as: COCINA DONA ROSARIO 11145 HESPERIA RD. HESPERIA, CA 92345 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DANIEL H GALVAN 1084 COUNTRYSIDE DR WALNUT, CA 91789
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/ DAVID H, GALVAN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 08, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202212MT

FBN 20220002583
The following person is doing business as: J &B PACKAGING 14755 FOOTHILL BLVD FONTANA, CA 92336 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; BARAKAT BARAKAT 14755 FOOTHILL BLVD FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 01, 2022
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/ BARAKAT BARAKAT, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 24, 2022
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 04/08/2022, 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022 CNBB14202213CH

FBN 20220002957
The following person is doing business as: ROYAL BITES CUISINE OF INDIA 9928 SIERRA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO;[ MAILING ADDRESS 16576 OEGASYS BAY PL FONTANA, CA 92335 ]; TALWINDER SINGH 9928 SIERRA AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 21, 2022
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/ TALWINDER SINGH, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 04, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202201IR

FBN 20220002966
The following person is doing business as: VIDEO STAR 17 1392 E. DAVIDSON ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DALIA E VAZQUEZ GONZALEZ 1392 E. DAVIDSON ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
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/ DALIA E. VAZQUEZ GONZALEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 04, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202202IR

FBN 20220002973
The following person is doing business as: GAME STAR 25 1392 E. DAVIDSON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; ISIDORO GONZALEZ ALMADA 1392 E. DAVIDSON ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
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/ ISIDORO GONZALEZ ALMADA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 04, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202203IR

FBN 20220002970
The following person is doing business as: ADAMS FLEET SERVICES 5104 MARQUETTE AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; JOSEPH P ADAMS JR 5104 MARQUETTE AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSEPH P. ADAMS JR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 04, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202204IR

FBN 20220002971
The following person is doing business as: LOGOS EQUIPMENT BIBLE INSTITUTE I.E. 10822 YOLO ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; MICHAEL R EDWARDS 10822 YOLO ST 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/ MICHAEL R. EDWARDS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 04, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202205IR

FBN 20220002945
The following person is doing business as: JUICE TO LIVE 13480 BETSY ROSS CT FONTANA, CA 92336 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; RICHARD L GAPKO 13480 BETSY ROSS CT FONTANA, CA 92336
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/ RICHARD L. GAPKO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 04, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202206IR

FBN 20220002943
The following person is doing business as: GLORY TO GLORY JANITORIAL 1121 S CAMPUS AVE ONTARIO, CA 91761 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; JEANETTE M RAMOS 1121 S CAMPUS AVE 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: 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/ JEANETTE M. RAMOS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 04, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202207MT

FBN 20220002890
The following person is doing business as: @MYFRIENDSHOUSE 3033 S ARCHIBALD AVE UNIT #57 ONTARIO, CA 91761 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; JEVITA R WEBSTER 3033 S ARCHIBALD AVE UNIT #57 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: 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/ JEVITA R. WEBSTER, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 01, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202208MT

FBN 20220002812
The following person is doing business as: ALLEN ST TOWING & STORAGE 422 S. ALLEN ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; SAN BERNARDINO TOWING & TRANSPORTATION LLC 422 S. ALLEN ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
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/ MICHAEL D. DRANEY, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: MARCH 31, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202209IR

FBN 20220003127
The following person is doing business as: TEQUILA AUTO WRECKING 1617 WALNUT ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; JESUS CADENA 1617 WALNUT 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/ JESUS CADENA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: APRIL 06, 2022
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 04/15/2022, 04/22/2022, 04/29/2022, 05/06/2022 CNBB15202210CH

Clicking on the blue portal below will allow you to download a PDF that is a genuine replica of the April 8 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 04-08-22

Over the last fifteen years, hundreds of landowners who have lost their property in tax lien sales in San Bernardino County have seen the equity they accrued through those now-defunct ownerships vanish in what some have characterized as seizures tantamount to wholesale theft either carried out or overseen by government officials.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that anyone being tried for a capital crime first be indicted, prevents anyone once exonerated of a crime from being tried again, guarantees due process to everyone being subjected to the government’s system of justice and prohibits the government from compelling anyone to testify against himself. The Fifth Amendment offers American citizens further assurance that no “private property [can] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
As in other states, California provides in its laws that taxes can be imposed upon its citizens. With regard to property tax, the taxing authority codified in California’s statutes allows government authorities to seize the property of those in arrears on their property tax for five years or more and to sell that property and use the proceeds to cover the unpaid taxes owed, late penalties on that owed tax and the incidental costs of conducting the sale of the property, which entails the holding of an auction in which the property goes to the person making the highest bid. California law is less than explicit as to what is to be done with the proceeds of such a sale in excess of the delinquent taxes, penalties/fines and sale costs. Among a large segment of the state’s citizenry, it has long been presumed that the Fifth Amendment provision preventing private property being taken for public use without just compensation applies when such tax lien sales take place. Nevertheless, California law relating to tax lien sales contains a chapter allowing the bypassing of the requirement that the amount of money obtained in a tax sale of a property above what is needed to pay the delinquent taxes must be returned to the original landowner.
The subject of tax lien seizures of property and their subsequent sales process to satisfy tax delinquencies is contained in chapters 7 and 8 of the California Revenue and Tax Code.
Chapter 7 delineates a precise process by which properties that have more than five years of tax delinquencies are subject to seizure by the county and are to be prepared for a sale to the highest bidder for the purpose of satisfying the payment of the property owner’s past due taxes. Under that process, a property owner losing his house or land is, at least theoretically, entitled to all proceeds from the auction sale that exceed taxes/penalties due plus costs.
Chapter 8, however, is entirely mute with regard to requirements that the constitutional rights of a homeowner who is delinquent on his or her property taxes be protected. In San Bernardino County, as well as in some other California counties, this latitude in the law has resulted in the constitutional protections that are supposed to be in place for property owners being ignored when entities such as public agencies seek to obtain property for operational purposes or land trusts and affordable housing nonprofits utilize the authority provided to them in Chapter 8 to pull certain desirable properties from the auction process to reserve those properties for “special public purposes.” Those purposes, ostensibly, are intended to assist a nonprofit organization rehabilitate the property in order to sell or rent it to, or otherwise use it to serve, low-income persons. In the case of vacant property, nonprofit organizations can use Chapter 8 to dedicate the land to conservation, to public use or to construct residential dwellings on the property and sell or rent them to low-income persons.
When a property doesn’t sell, it’s reoffered in a secondary tax sale with lower thresholds. If it still doesn’t sell, it’s added to the tax sale the following year. As long as the property stays in the Chapter 7 process, its erstwhile owner stands the prospect of recovering, within a fair and Constitutional framework, some or all of the equity he or she accrued in the property. When Chapter 8 is applied, however, the landowner sees the land he or she once owned entirely subsumed by the nonprofit that claims it.
The county tax collector, in the face of a public entity or nonprofit organization requesting under the provisions of Chapter 8 of the Revenue & Tax Code to remove a property from the tax sale auction process, is obligated by law to go along with that request. The board of supervisors typically then enters into an agreement for the purchaser to buy the property for only the tax due and a processing fee, at a price that current San Bernardino County Treasurer-Tax Collector/Auditor-Controller Ensen Mason said amounts to “pennies on the dollar.”
Mason characterized what is going on as an abuse of the governmental process and the authority of the board of supervisors.
“The property owners get nothing for the value of their equity,” Mason said. “Chapter 8 allows county boards of supervisors to confiscate real estate from property owners with zero compensation. Counties up and down the state have been taking advantage of this law to steal tons of real estate.”
Mason said, “What is done with this property falls into a few categories. In our county, the primary beneficiaries have been two land trusts. They acquire the land and lock it up so nobody can use it for anything. In other counties, there has been fraud and abusive profit taking. Three purchases being attempted in our county fall into this category.”
According to Mason, a common ostensible but often false rationale for engaging in the property diversions relates to “affordable housing.”
The Sentinel has identified Wright Housing Corporation and Cross-Roads Housing as two of the entities that have been engaged in picking up the properties at prices far below their value.
The Wright Housing Corporation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded in 2019 and dedicated to low-income housing assistance involved in housing development, construction and management.
Kenneath Joseph Letourneau, a real estate agent based in Bellflower, is the principal in the Wright Housing Corporation, the company’s founder, chief executive officer and sole board member. Letourneau runs the Wright Housing Corporation out of a post office box within a United Parcel Service Store in Suite 107 at 13536 Lakewood Boulevard in Bellflower. Letourneau, using the variant spelling of his first name as Kenneth, is an agent with Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California Properties, located at 16911 Bellflower Boulevard in Bellflower. The Wright Housing and Bellflower Berkshire Hathaway offices are within the 90706 Zip Code.
The Wright Housing Corporation is scheduled on Tuesday, April 12, to obtain through a tax lien sale a home in Yucca Valley for $24,300; a home in Twentynine Palms for $11,400; and a home in Hesperia for $61,800.
Cross-Roads Housing has been in existence since 1997. It bills itself as a faith-based organization on a “mission to help families with healthy food, gang resistance and youth mentoring programs,” and is involved in housing development, construction and management that “builds, rehabilitates, manages and/or provides rental housing for low-income individuals and families, older adults and people with disabilities and which makes purchasable housing available to low or moderate income families by offering lower priced housing and/or affordable payments plans, by arranging for interest or mortgage subsidies or by involving eventual owners in the construction process, including sweat equity.”
The principals in Cross-Roads Housing are Gregg Bynum and Shannon Bynum, who made $192,000 and $38,000 respectively in 2019, but did not file a tax return. They have claimed zero revenue and assets for Cross-Roads Housing. There are three addresses for Cross-Roads Housing on record, one being 5133 Santa Ana Street in Cudahy, CA 90201, the other 2006 East 103rd Street in Los Angeles, CA 90002; and 2434 East 124th Street in Compton, CA 90222. The Cudahy address is an apartment complex.
Cross-Roads Housing recently acquired a three-acre property in Apple Valley for $2,350 through a tax lien purchase.
San Bernardino County has been able to bypass the requirement in Chapter 7 of California’s Revenue Tax Code that it make a reasonable effort to sell the properties disposed of through tax lien sales at what is at least half the market rate and then take steps to ensure that those who lose their property in a tax-lien sale be provided with the difference between the sale price and the total of past-due taxes owed, penalties and reasonable sales costs in large measure because those losing their homes do not have the financial means to hire legal representation to ensure their rights are not violated.
The county acting in this fashion, Mason said, “removes any opportunity for the owner to receive the equity. Besides being immoral, it violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
That is not Mason’s opinion. Rather, that principle was enunciated in the 1884 United States Supreme Court Decision in United States vs. Lawton and in other cases from around the country much more recently.
In United States vs. Lawton, the US Supreme Court held that when property is taken for non-payment of taxes, the property owner is entitled to proceeds that exceed taxes owed. Justice Samuel Blatchford wrote the majority opinion in United States vs. Lawton, stating, “To withhold the surplus from the owner would be to violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and deprive him of his property without due process of law or take his property for public use without just compensation.”
In 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court held in the case of Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland County that Michigan’s tax foreclosure law that did not provide for the return of excess proceeds from tax foreclosure sales to a former property owner violated the Michigan State Constitution’s taking clause. The court ruled that after paying the tax debt, government must return the surplus profits to the former owner.
In a May 2021 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio, applying the reasoning of Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase that “a law that takes property from A and gives it to B . . . is against all reason and justice,” ruled that when Montgomery County sold a home located in Dayton, Ohio that Alana Harrison had inherited from her mother to satisfy an outstanding tax bill her mother had not paid, the county violated Harrison’s rights when it did not return to her the difference between the sale price of the home when sold at auction and the taxes owed plus court costs, and fees to be collected by the sheriff, county auditor, and county recorder for processing the property seizure and holding the auction.
The precedent set in United States v. Lawton is applicable to all of California, including San Bernardino County. The Michigan and Ohio cases, while not considered precedent for California courts or the 9th U.S. Circuit Court which holds authority over San Bernardino County, those cases very likely presage what would occur if a similar case were to be litigated here.
Mason this week said that it was his position “that tax sales without benefit of a public auction confiscate a taxpayer’s property without potential for realization of potential excess proceeds, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
He said that on April 12, when the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors next meets, he will address the board and publicly call for eliminating the taxing loophole the California legislature has conferred upon counties and other governmental entities “that allows taxing agencies and non-government organizations to purchase tax-defaulted properties without bidding on them at a public tax sale.”
Mason on Tuesday will ask the board of supervisors to deny Chapter 8 sales of 36 tax-defaulted parcels. Those include the sales of the three aforementioned tax-defaulted parcels to The Wright Housing Corporation for the price of $97,500 plus the cost of notice; the sales of two tax-defaulted parcels to the Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency for the price of $6,100 plus the cost of notice; the sales of 27 tax-defaulted parcels to The California Desert Land Conservancy doing business as Mojave Desert Land Trust for the price of $68,800 plus the cost of notice; and the sales of four tax-defaulted parcels to the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust for the price of $180,950 plus the cost of notice.
The three tax-defaulted properties the Wright Housing Corporation is requesting are improved, single-family residences, one in Yucca Valley, one in Twentynine Palms and a third in Hesperia, which are intended for use as low-income housing.
The property coveted by the Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency consists of a five-acre parcel located in Johnson Valley and another 1.25-acre spread, located in Yucca Valley, both undeveloped. The intended use for those parcels is for future capital improvements, including but not limited to water storage reservoir(s), pipelines, and appurtenances to serve as alternative water sources for current residents, as well as for a potable water production well to service projected growth and to supply blending water for the reduction of total uranium produced by other wells within the agency’s boundaries.
The 27 tax-defaulted parcels the California Desert Land Conservancy doing business as Mojave Desert Land Trust is seeking to lay claim to through the Chapter 8 sale are vacant and undeveloped lots, located in the northern portion of San Bernardino County. The intended use for those parcels is to preserve wilderness open space habitat and for general public recreational use.
Three of the four parcels the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust has requested to take possession of through the Chapter 8 process are in Skyforest, contiguous to each other with a combined total acreage of 44.39. The fourth parcel is in the Deep Creek Area and is approximately 0.06 of an acre. The intended use for those parcels is to preserve natural open space and wildlife habitat, which is consistent with the goals and policies of San Bernardino County’s Countywide Plan. The acquisition of those parcels is also intended to further the objectives of the community’s preservation of open space and conservation of wildlife and riparian habitat in their respective areas.
Mason said he will “ask the board to deny such so-called Chapter 8 sales” from this time forward.

Three decades after Colton’s residents voted to expand their city council from four council members elected at-large along with a mayor to six council members representing six districts and a mayor elected at-large in an effort to provide better representation to its residents, the city this year is returning to a council composed of four members representing four districts overseen by a mayor.
The previous change to enlarge the panel, which was effectuated in 1994 pursuant to the passage of Measure W in 1992, brought with it a paradigm shift that went beyond the numerical expansion, resulting in political convulsions in what was then San Bernardino County’s 12th largest city that reverberated around the then-roughly 14-square mile city for more than a decade-and-a-half. It now appears that the contraction that is to take place is on the brink of creating, or has already resulted in, political enmities that will once again roil the community, which now ranks as the county’s 14th largest city.
Colton, originally a railroad town, was the second incorporated city in the county after San Bernardino, officially taking form as a municipal entity on July 11, 1887, which was more than a year before the December 3, 1888 official creation of Redlands, four years ahead of the December 10, 1891 incorporation of Ontario, nearly 19 years ahead of the 1906 apparition of Upland, a little shy of 23 years before the advent of Chino as a city and 26 years ahead of Needles.
The 1893 secession of Riverside County from San Bernardino County limited, to some degree, Colton’s ability to expand, as the Riverside County border was created just to its south. Nevertheless, Colton developed as a dynamic transportation adjunct to the adjacent county seat of San Bernardino, such that all roads and rail lines to virtually everywhere else ran through Colton, for which it was dubbed “The Hub City.”
Colton was a harbinger of the future in more ways than one, perhaps the foremost of which was that it was the one place in San Bernardino County as well as Southern California where the long somnolent Hispanic political giant first awakened. Early Hispanic members of the city council included John Perez, Pasqual Oliva and Pete Luque.
By the 1970s, the council included Abe Beltran and Frank Gonzales, who as kids in the 1940s had run the streets of South Colton together, despite their three-and-a-half-year age difference. In the 1970s, as previously, five members of the council were elected at-large, and the council selected from among its ranks who would serve one-year or two-year terms as mayor. Beltran, who was first elected to the council in 1970, was selected to serve as mayor in 1976. Gonzales was first elected to the council in 1972. In the 1980s, direct mayoral elections began, initially with two-year terms, by which point Beltran and Frank Gonzales were political rivals, with Gonzales besting Beltran in the contesting for the mayoral post. Beltran left the council in 1984, but returned in 1990.
By 1994, Colton had made the transition from two-year to four-year mayoral terms as well as from four at-large to six district council seats, which had initially included both two-year and four-year races to set the sequencing of the respective district offices. This shifted the Hub City’s political dynamics. George Fulp, who had three times previously sought unsuccessfully to run for the Colton Joint Unified School Board, ran for mayor. Frank Gonzales by that point had a well-developed political machine, one strengthened by his skillful use of political patronage, and no one but George Fulp fully anticipated what would come next. Knowing that Beltran would again be seeking to unseat Gonzales, Fulp persuaded Jesse Valdivia, who was otherwise nonpolitical, to run for mayor as well, promising to buy him a pick-up truck if he did so. With three Latino candidates in the race, the Hispanic vote was diluted and split three ways. This allowed Fulp, the only Caucasian in the race, to eke out a narrow victory over Gonzales.
Unrecognized by a large segment of those in Colton at that time was that the bombastic Fulp was an unrepentant, indeed raging, alcoholic. Empowered by his election as mayor, he took to drinking himself into a state of incandescence, liberally spraying himself with cologne to mask the tell-tale alcohol vaporific that oozed from his pores and engulfed him, and then gallivanting about the city in his bright-red late-model Cadillac, confident that the police would not stop, cite, ticket nor arrest him for being under the influence, given his new-found political preeminence. Throwing his authority around, engaging in confrontations with residents as well as city staff members from the lowest levels right up to the city manager and verbally sparring with members of the council during the course of meetings, Fulp amassed enemies at a prolific pace. This triggered an unprecedented, for Colton, effort to recall him from office, which succeeded with a special measure placed on the November 1996 ballot. Ultimately, 53.52 percent of those who went to the polls voted in favor of his removal from office and 46.48 percent  were opposed. In the contest between Gonzales and Karl Gaytan to replace Fulp, Gaytan prevailed.
That same year, San Bernardino County District Attorney Dennis Stout and Assistant District Attorney Dan Lough had devoted considerable prosecutorial office resources in targeting Beltran, whose re-electoral prospects were damaged by the investigations and leaks relating to them. He was voted out of office and replaced by Kelly Chastain.
By late 1999 and early 2000, both the FBI and investigators with the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office were focusing on entrenched political corruption in San Bernardino County, including within Colton. In August 2001, Beltran, Gaytan, former City Councilman James Grimsby and then-Councilman Don Sanders were indicted by a federal grand jury for accepting bribes from businessmen doing business in and around Colton.
In the summer of 2006, Colton First District Councilman Ramon Hernandez was arrested and charged with 24 felony counts of misappropriation of public funds. While that case was pending against him, he was defeated in the November 2006 race by David Toro.
Also in the November 2006 election, Mayor Deidre Bennett was running for reelection against Third District Councilwoman Kelly Chastain. Bennett, who had been the city’s Fifth District Councilwoman from 1992 until 2001, was selected to serve as mayor in 2001, after Betty Cook, another longtime councilwoman, who had been promoted to mayor to succeed Gaytan after his indictment and resignation from office, suffered a stroke within days of being chosen for the mayoral honorific and died shortly thereafter. Bennett and Chastain had been allies since Chastain’s election in 1996, and Chastain had supported Bennett when she successfully ran for mayor as the incumbent in 2002. A widespread report in 2006 was that Chastain’s challenge of Bennett was not a serious one, and that she was in the contest against her friend merely to ward off anyone else who might run a hard-hitting campaign against Bennett. That report had some degree of credibility, because Chastain had most recently been reelected as Third District Councilwoman in 2004, and thus she would remain on the council at least until 2008 if her mayoral bid was not successful that year. No other opponent declared against Bennett and Chastain did not run an aggressive campaign. As it turned out, the race came right down to the wire, and neither Bennett nor Chastain received a majority of the vote. Rather, Chastain, with 3,235 votes or 49.93 percent, was declared the winner and Bennett, with just nine fewer votes than Chastain, 3,226 votes or 49.79 percent, came in second. The real difference in the race was that 18 voters, or 0.28 percent, voted for neither Bennett nor Chastain, casting votes for write-in candidates.
The result of that race embittered Bennett toward Chastain, her erstwhile ally and close political associate. Two years later, in 2008, Bennett, who was itching to get back into the Colton political game, ran once more for her former position on the city council, to again represent the Fifth District. In doing so, she had to compete against another of her allies, John Mitchell, her longtime advisor whom she had succeeded in having appointed to replace her when she moved into the mayor’s post in 2001 and whom she supported when he ran, unopposed, to remain as Fifth District councilman in 2004. Bennett won that contest and returned to the council. The wicked vicissitudes of politics in Colton, however, left Bennett estranged from both Mitchell and Chastain, both of whom had been key to her early political success.
In 2010, David Zamora defeated Chastain in her effort to remain as mayor. Bennett sustained herself in office in 2012, gaining reelection as Fifth District Councilwoman. Chastain has not been able to reignite her political career in Colton. In 2016, she failed in her effort to defeat Frank Navarro for council in the Third District.
In 2017, Councilman Luis González, saying he had done considerable research into the matter, floated the idea of reducing the city council to four councilors and a mayor. He said most of the county’s cities with a larger population than Colton had fewer council members. He said the move would reduce costs. He said the city’s voters should be extended the opportunity, in a ballot measure, to decide whether they wanted to reduce the size of the council.
Councilmen David Toro and Isaaac Suchil said they did not think it a good idea, and Toro said that if the residents wanted to make the reduction, they should seek that out by qualifying the measure for the ballot without the assistance of the city council
The concept died at that time.
The following year, however, the issue was explored once more. The council, again with Toro and Suchil opposed, voted to put what that November was designated as Measure R on the ballot. In the November 2018 election, Colton voters considered Measure R, which asked if “Starting with the November 8, 2022 election, shall the Colton City Council be reduced in number from 6 members with an at-large mayor to 4 members with an at-large mayor, and shall members of the Colton City Council be elected by 4 districts?”
Measure R passed with 5,321 votes in favor and 4,469 opposed, a margin of 54.35 percent to 45.65 percent.
At present, the Colton City Council consists of Mayor Frank Navaro, First District Councilman David Toro, Second District Ernest Cisneros, Third District Councilman Kenneth Koperski, Fourth District Councilman Luis González, Fifth District Councilman John Echevarria and Sixth District Councilman Isaac Suchil.
In accordance with the terms of Measure R, in the November 2020 election, districts 3, 5 and 6 were up for election, but only for 2-year terms. Districts 1, 2, and 4 were not up for election in 2020. In the upcoming November 2022 election, all districts in Colton will be contested, with the new districts 3 and 4 being conducted with 4-years at stake and districts 1 and 2 involving 2-year terms. Thus, by 2024 the elections for the districts will be staggered, with district 1 and 4 candidates competing in elections corresponding with U.S. Presidential elections and districts 3 and 4 being held in connection with the California gubernatorial elections.
As a consequence of the district conflations, councilmen Toro and Cisneros now live within the new District 1. Councilman Koperski lives in District 2. Councilmen González and Suchil reside in the new district 3. Councilman Echevarria resides in District 4,
It is assumed that Koperski is running this year. No challenger against him has surfaced. It is known that Echevarria intends to run. No opponent for him has yet materialized.
There are indications that both Toro and Cisneros will run, but there is no official word on that. There is no past history of bad blood or rivalry between Toro and Cisneros. Over the last several months, the two men have appeared to be, during council meetings, eyeing one another warily.
That González and Suchil will cross political swords is at this point a foregone conclusion. Both are political animals. Suchil was first elected to the council representing District 6 in 2004. He failed to gain reelection in 2008, having lost to Alex Perez in that contest. He avenged that loss to Perez in 2012, however, and also beat González in that race, when González was then a District 6 resident. Suchil gained reelection in 2016 and again in 2020. González was first elected to the council in 2014, after he relocated from District 6 to District 4.
Like all politicians, both González and Suchil have devoted plenty of time and effort doing their damnedest to signal to the world what great guys they are.
Suchil is a 30-year law enforcement veteran, now retired. He was a deputy with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department from 1987 until 2017, having patrolled the streets early on and then serving as a bailiff in the court system during his more mature years. He has an associate’s degree in public administration from San Bernardino Valley College. Prior to becoming a councilman, he served as a member of the Colton Planning Commission and the Colton Parks & Recreation Commission. He was a member of the Colton Joint Unified School District Citizens’ Oversight Committee on Measure G, monitoring the expenditure of bond money on educational purposes. As a councilman during what is approaching four terms in office, he has served on multiple committees within the city, including those formed to retain businesses in Colton, recruit a city manager and suggest political reform measures. Additionally, he has served as a member of several boards for governmental adjuncts and regional joint powers authorities, including the Agua Mansa Industrial Growth Association and the Colton/San Bernardino Regional Tertiary Treatment & Water Reclamation Authority. He has been the secretary/treasurer of the Inland Empire division of the California League of Cities and a member of the league’s legislative task force. He was the co-chairman of the Inland Valley Development Authority.
Suchil touts his success in bringing Richardson’s Recreational Vehicle Center and the sales tax revenue from the sales of big-ticket items sold there to what had been the vacant K-Mart location in south Colton, the progress he has made in conjunction with the Union Pacific Railroad toward removing an obsolete and dangerous bridge on Barton Road and the relocation of a trucking company formerly located on Barton Road to Agua Mansa Road.
González has a Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati and has 40 years experience as a music and history teacher. He is effective in drawing attention to himself, and other members and elements of the community. He writes the “City Talk” column for the Colton Courier, which features information about the individuals he chooses to honor with variously “Employee Spotlight” recognition or “Community Impact” awards, given, respectively, to Colton city workers and/or city volunteers or entrepreneurs he feels merit that recognition. This “feel good” approach has generated a fair amount of good will. He is also the founder/sponsor of the Colton Area Museum Day and the Colton Youth Leadership Program.
González is also the president for Historical Society of Colton and is often involved conducting workshops for young people involved in various undertakings.
As a councilman, has now served more than seven years, and has striven to be answerable to residents who find themselves at odds with City Hall, while simultaneously seeking to bridge build in a way that will allow those residents distrustful of city workers and city officials, and city officials who have gotten off on the wrong foot with citizens, to come to some mutually beneficial solutions.
Both Suchil and González have channeled through alliances they have each had over their time on the council, and each has now established support from residents or business interests that previously opposed each. Suchil once had supporters who now indicate they will stand with González in this year’s election. There are Colton residents who once praised González as forthright and understanding, someone who best exemplified the most service-oriented and sincere of the council’s members who now, nonetheless, say they will vote for Suchil. Similarly, some of those who once opposed Suchil now side with him over González in the upcoming election.
Both González and Suchil have been criticized by Colton residents who say they have experienced shoddy service or treatment from city employees, and that one or the other or both councilmen have been and remain more interested in kowtowing to the city’s employees than making certain that municipal services are provided to the city’s residents and taxpayers.
The Sentinel was approached by someone who said González had misused his authority as an elected official with influence at City Hall to have the city’s code enforcement division seize property he owned, and he alleged González intended to swoop in and obtain the property for himself at a sharply discounted rate. Others have told the Sentinel that Suchil has become vindictive about criticism leveled at him and his performance as a city councilman, and he has used the city’s code enforcement division as a cudgel against them to silence them.
Word is that both Suchil and González are loading up to go negative in this year’s District 3 council race.
González is prepared to call into question Suchil’s strongest suit, that being his credentials as a law enforcement officer. González is arming himself with information to demonstrate that Suchil’s performance as a sheriff’s deputy was lackluster and filled with questionable acts and misjudgments, the Sentinel is informed. Suchil is confident that a side-by-side comparison of his accomplishments and performance on the council compared to that of González will redound to his reelection, those supporting him say.
-Mark Gutglueck

Less than a month after the Ontario City Council voted to approve a development plan intended to benefit one of the 175,265-population and 50.01-square mile city’s most powerful and politically well-connected families while simultaneously citing overriding considerations that allowed it to disregard what city staff said were 16 negative environmental impacts that could not be adequately redressed, an environmental group on March 30 went to court to prevent the project from proceeding.
The Borba Family owns the lion’s share of 219.39 acres located within what was formerly the Chino Agricultural Preserve that are at the center of the legal dispute which must now wend its way through the San Bernardino County Superior Court.
Pete Borba, the progenitor of the Borba Dynasty, came to the Chino Valley from the Azores in the 1920s. A dairyman, he acquired land upon which alfalfa could be grown and Holsteins, Guernsey and Jerseys raised and milked. Along the way he established his sons Pete, Joe, George and John as dairymen and businessmen in their own right. His daughter, Mary, married into a dairying family.
George, who was born in 1932, would distinguish himself as an overachiever in a family of overachievers. He became both a director and president of the California Milk Producers Cooperative and the Los Angeles Mutual Dairymen Association, as well as a member of the Challenge Creamery Association. He was president of the California Milk Marketing Agency and an influential member of the Alliance of Western Milk Producers. For 22 years George Borba was a director of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. He was a founder of Chino Valley Bank, later known as Citizens Business Bank, and he was chairman of the board for both Chino Valley Bank and Citizens Business Bank as well as CVB Financial Corp. for 38 years.
The next generation of the Borba Family included George’s niece Joan Borba, who was both a San Bernardino County Municipal Court judge and later a Superior Court judge, and her sister, Joleen Borba, an agricultural attorney of note. The George Borba Family Trust numbers as its beneficiaries George Borba’s widow, Dolores; George Borba, Jr. and his wife Jennifer; George Borba’s daughters Kim Borba, Linda Gourdikian, Cynthia Podmajersky and Victoria Rynsburger, whose husband, Andrew Rynsburger, is the scion of a long-established Chino Valley dairy dynasty.
In the late 1950s, the Chino Valley had become a haven to dairy farmers, many of them of Dutch or Portuguese descent, who flocked there with their herds when they were displaced by the urbanization of southeast Los Angeles and north Orange counties. By the mid-1960s, Chino Valley was the most intensive milk-producing area in the world. The Chino Agricultural Preserve was formed in 1968 under the auspices of California’s Williamson Act – a 1965 law that was intended to preserve California farmland and to serve as a hedge against urban sprawl. The law granted substantial tax breaks to property owners agreeing to restrict their land to agricultural uses for at least 10 years. Within the preserve’s 17,000-acre confines were just under 400 dairies and 400,000 cows. With $800 million in annual dairy production in 1976, the relatively compact Chino Valley region alone was within the entire state of California a close third in milk output behind the much more expansive Tulare and Merced counties.
By 1970, Chino Valley was the source for most of Southern California’s milk as well as a major supplier of cheese for a much larger geographical area.
By the mid-1980s, growing numbers of dairy farmers in the preserve wanted out, as the local industry was itself being subjected to the same pressures that had been brought to bear on dairyman who had been forced to pull up the stakes of their Los Angeles County and Orange County operations two decades before. Land speculators and developers eyeing the property and envisioning it as residential subdivisions supported politicians at the municipal and county levels intent on adhering to a dairy-busting agenda that in time spelled the end of the preserve as a lasting entity.
In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, the county’s land use professionals were seeking to examine the desirability of maintaining the preserve’s dairies as a hedge against the region’s burgeoning urbanization and to determine if the scaled-down local dairy industry had a reasonable prospect of sustaining itself in the changing environment. At the same time, the county’s elected leadership was heavily influenced by developmental interests, the major providers of political contributions. With a few exceptions, the supervisors leaned in favor of breaking up the preserve.
In 1986, the county took the first step toward deconstructing the Williamson Act’s applicability in the Chino Valley. By 1997, half of the dairies that had been operating in the preserve at its peak had left. The jousting between Ontario and Chino over annexation of the preserve had begun.
In 1999, while there were still 140 dairies operating in the Chino Valley, the city of Ontario annexed nearly 8,200 of the 15,200 remaining acres in the preserve. Chino laid claim to the other 7,000. The county, for the most part, alternately passively and actively accepted the inevitability of the pending urbanization. Ontario drew up master plans for development of the preserve property into 31,000 homes, 5 million square feet of retail space and 5 million square feet of industrial space.
Chino designated over 400 acres for industrial development and earmarked 2,000 acres for new residences, with complementary plans for commercial development.
Some of the dairies in the area continued to operate. By 2015, there were roughly 60 left. Today that number has dwindled to around 30.
The Borbas, in the form of the George Borba Family Trust and George Borba Jr., are the owners of many of the 219.39 acres bordered by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Merrill Avenue to the south, the future extension of Campus Avenue to the west and Grove Avenue to the east. Also owning property within that quadrangle are Pocamo, LLC; the County of San Bernardino, the Rudy Haringa Trust and Gerben Hettinga. At this point, and for the last two years, the Borbas, Pocamo, the Haringa Trust and Hettinga have resolved to see the property developed. When Ontario annexed the land, the 219.39 acres had been zoned to accommodate low- and medium-density residential homes and commercial centers and a large business park. For the Borbas and the others, however, developing the property residentially presents certain challenges.
At some point, an entity known as Euclid Land Venture entered the picture. Reports abounded that Euclid Land Venture was an arm of the Borba Family. However, Rudy Zeledon, Ontario’s planning director, told the Sentinel that Euclid Land Venture and the Borba Family are separate entities and that upon the full filing and recording of the entitlements on the land, the property will be sold by the Borba Family to Euclid Land Venture.
Despite its lack of current immediate ownership, Euclid Land Venture is functioning as the prime mover, the applicant pursuing the project’s overarching specific plan approval. Euclid Land Venture is seeking to develop the property not as single-family homes but rather as warehousing and distribution centers, with some minor commercial and very light manufacturing concerns mixed in. Developing the property in that fashion would prove far more expeditious, the Borba family calculates, than as houses.
To oblige the Borba family, the city, at the instruction of the city council, opened up a pathway for a substantial makeover in what had previously been intended for the property.
On January 25, when the Ontario Planning Commission convened to determine whether it should recommend that the city council give approval to the South Ontario Logistics Center project and its specific plan, a litany of high-powered entities went on record as being against the project. Those included Anthony Noriega, the director of District 5, League of United Latin American Citizens of the Inland Empire; Evan Marshall, of Californians United for a Responsible Economy; Irene Chisholm; Sean Silva, a member of Californians United for a Responsible Economy; Raymond Smith; Lois Sicking Dieter, an engineer employed in the analysis of air pollution by the California Air Resources Board; along with representatives of several labor organizations, including Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 398, the District Council of Ironworkers and Teamsters Local 1932. The opposition of the labor unions was significant. Labor unions have a well-established pattern of supporting development projects in Southern California.
That the unions had come out against the South Ontario Logistics Center represented a dilemma for the city council. There was one exception to the blanket union opposition to the project at the January 25 planning commission hearing. Juan Olmedo, a representative of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, said he wanted to “speak in support of the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan.” Olmeda’s presence at the January 25 meeting would later prove to have significance.
To avoid the appearance that the council members were selling their votes to assist the Borba family in obtaining the zone changes and land use standard alterations that matched with their expectations of how they could best profit in the development of their property, the council majority, through City Manager Scott Ochoa, pressured the director of the community development department, Scott Murphy and Ontario’s assistant planner, Alexis Vaughn, to provide the planning commission with the basis upon which to make a recommendation that the specific plan be given go-ahead. The planning commission serves as a community sounding board and decision-making panel on land use and development issues. In some cases, the planning commission is entrusted with the city’s ultimate land use authority. In others, it is called upon to review project proposals or matters relating to the city’s planning process to make a recommendation to the city council that it can consult or rely upon in making its analysis and the final decision relating to those projects or actions. The seven members of the commission nonetheless are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council. And while the planning commission is often relied upon to work its way through development proposals and make a straightforward and honest evaluation of whether the prospective projects that come before it meet the city’s development and land use standards and whether they will be a positive attribute to the community, in those cases where political considerations apply – in particular where a project proponent or landowner has a favorable relationship with members of the city council – it is commonly understood that the planning commission need not strictly apply the development standards normally used if such an analysis would result in a vote by the commission that is detrimental to an entity that is in good standing with city staff’s political masters. In such cases where the planning commission has the final land use authority, it will virtually always vote to approve a project proposed by the city council’s major political donors, supporters or associates. In those cases where the planning commission does not have final land use authority, it can be counted upon to tailor its recommendation to provide political cover to the council in approving a project or otherwise taking action favorable to the council members’ benefactors.
That is what occurred on January 25, when after considering documentation in the environmental impact report for the South Ontario Logistics Center outlining that the project would result in no fewer than 16 negative impacts relating to the categories of traffic congestion, noise, global climate change, cultural resources, air quality and agricultural resources and that none of those impacts could be fully mitigated to a level of “less than significant,” the planning commission nonetheless unanimously voted to recommend that the city council allow the conversion of the property to industrial and business park use.
That provided the city council with political cover in making its call in favor of the Borba Family when it convened on March 1 to consider the project.
At the March 1 meeting, the city council took a number of controversial steps, which included approving the scope and terms of the project, certifying the environmental impact report prepared for what is to be constructed under the aegis of the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan, adopting a statement of overriding considerations, approving the mitigation, monitoring and reporting arrangements for the development of the land, okaying an amendment to the general plan which provided for a change in zoning on the property, modifying the land use element of the policy plan in the city’s general plan, changing the city’s land use map to alter the low-medium density residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre) zoning on 157.06 acres and business park zoning on 62.36 acres specifying a maximum floor area ratio of 0.55 to zoning allowing 184.22 acres of industrial buildings and 35.17 acres of business park with a floor area ratio of 0.6 and ignoring entirely a torrent of calls for reestablishing the abandoned agricultural zoning on the property. In addition, by approving the conversion of 71.58 percent of the 219 acres into what is primarily industrial uses, the city council agreed to intensify the density of residential development elsewhere in the city to make up for the number of units that would have eventually been built on the Borba property if the zone change had not been granted.
The city council made a further key sidestep on March 1, one which consisted of neutralizing the intensive lobbying against the project by union members. With multiple unions having gone on record on January 25 before the planning commission as being opposed to a project that would result in the creation of large numbers of warehouses in which automation would limit the number of jobs and which would offer positions that would not be likely to pay much beyond minimum wage, efforts were made offstage to convince the leadership of those unions to have their members stand down and not participate at the hearing before the city council. Simultaneously, efforts were made to have members of the single union that had expressed support for the project, the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, to show up en masse on March 1.
Indeed, that is what occurred. Moreover, during the meeting, whenever a member of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters came to the podium to speak in favor of the project, Mayor Paul Leon, who was presiding over the meeting, from his position on the dais choreographed the union members’ show of support by instructing them to collectively stand up with the verbal cue, “All rise.”
The members of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters reiterated the theme that the project would provide them with construction jobs paying respectable wages that would allow them to take care of their families. Virtually all of the members of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters present were clad in orange shirts, such that the spectacle of them standing up on unison, which was repeated several times, had an immense psychological effect, making everyone in the council chamber acutely conscious of the dominant presence of the union contingent.
During the March 1 meeting, an issue discussed was the zoning on the property. At the time of the annexation of the 8,200 acres of the 15,200 of acres in the preserve into Ontario, the zoning on the vast portion of the land had been redesignated from agricultural to residential. The action contemplated and ultimately granted by the city council on March 1 was to change the zoning again, this time to light industrial use. Before the council took that action, however, there were calls and suggestions by some of those opposed to the project that if the city council felt altering the zoning was called for, it should redesignate it for agricultural use. Both Councilman Alan Wapner and Councilman Jim Bowman and ultimately Mayor Leon seized upon that as an effort by the project proponents to deny the Borbas’ property rights. At one point, in seeking to justify certifying the environmental impact report prepared for the project, adopting the statement of overriding considerations, approving the mitigation, monitoring and reporting arrangements for the development of the land, signing off on amending the city’s general plan, granting a change in zoning on the property, modifying the land use element of the policy plan in the city’s general plan and ultimately changing the city’s land use map to alter it from low-medium density residential acreage and business park property to industrial use and denser business park buildings, Councilman Alan Wapner purposefully and artfully misinterpreted what the residents were saying as demands that either the Borbas and the other landowners be prohibited from selling the property or that the city purchase the property and utilize it as farmland.
“Certainly, you can’t expect the City of Ontario to pay taxpayers’ money – hundreds of millions of dollars – to buy a piece of land to grow crops,” Wapner said. “If folks are interested in a certain type of land use, then they have the opportunity to come forward and buy the land for the land use that they want.”
At the same time, the council suggested that the property could no longer be used for agricultural purposes because of the concentration of nitrate contamination in its soil.
Throughout the run-up to the hearing at which the project was approved, over 1,000 community members submitted comments and statements of opposition to the project.
On March 30, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, represented by the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, filed a lawsuit against the City of Ontario and the Ontario City Council. The suit calls upon the San Bernardino County Superior Court to rescind the project, general plan amendments, zone changes and the specific plan’s environmental impact report on grounds that the environmental impact report failed to adequately address the project’s impacts on air quality, its pollution and contamination of the soil and water table, threats to public health and the loss of lands designated for agricultural use, together with the failure to identify mitigation measures to offset those impacts.
According to the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice’s interim executive director, Ana Gonzalez, “This project violates the right of the community to live free from environmental harm. These lands are restricted to agricultural use and the community’s voices were ignored. To preserve environmental justice and equity, it is crucial that these communities receive transparency about the impacts that this rezoning can have on their health and wellbeing. The draft environmental impact report prepared for the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan failed to disclose that parcels identified for phase 2 development were originally acquired with Proposition 70 funds, and are currently restricted for agricultural preservation, agricultural and wildlife education or wildlife habitat, or for open space conservation purposes.”
Proposition 70 was passed by voters statewide in 1988 to provide bond funding to pay for the preservation of agricultural lands and open space. San Bernardino County purchased some of the property adjoining that owned by the Borba family, which is included within the 219.39-acre project area, using Proposition 70 money provided it in the form of grants by the State of California.
“Additionally, responses to the draft environmental impact report comments fail to fully disclose all potentially significant impacts and the lack of implementation of mitigations to reduce impacts,” Gonzalez said. “In fact, the draft environmental impact report’s claim that there are no feasible mitigation measures misconstrues the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of feasibility and violates the basic principles of the California Environmental Quality Act, and comments which raise the concern that the project would convert farmland to nonagricultural use were not adequately addressed. The final environmental impact report failed to satisfy the informational requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, to provide an accurate, stable and finite project description, to provide an adequate discussion of feasible mitigation measures for the project’s significant agricultural impacts and failed to adequately analyze and mitigate the project’s other potentially significant impacts, including impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons, implementation of the project prior to a proper environmental analysis will irreparably harm the environment, and will result in significant and unmitigated adverse impacts to the community’s health, safety, and welfare.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Redlands city officials’ indulgence of the development community’s push for the intensification of density in the ongoing urban transition of that city’s once stately downtown is propelling the 71,707-population city toward a state of civil unrest.
Historically, Redlands, which was incorporated as a city in 1888, has been considered San Bernardino County’s most refined city, what many considered an idyllic blending of upscale homes and orange groves. With the gradual and eventually wholesale destruction of the citrus industry that began regionally in the 1950s and accelerated in the decades thereafter, Redlands residents more than those of any other local cities pushed back against the urbanization trend, passing controlled-growth initiatives Proposition R in 1978, Measure N in 1987 and Measure U, all of which were intended to reduce growth to manageable levels.
Despite that sentiment among a sizable contingent of the populace and the force of law the measures provided in limiting development, members of the city council have over the last two decades proven determined to clear the way for landowners and the builders they work with to construct projects that will more than double, triple and quadruple the density of residential and commercial land use, while compacting these improvements in smaller and smaller spaces near the city’s downtown core.
Whereas downtown Redlands had features such as La Posada Hotel, the Casa Loma Hotel, the Alvarado Hotel, the Fox Theater, the Orley Building and the Mitten Building, the city council and planning commission are now accommodating projects that will put three, four, five and six story apartment buildings and parking structures downtown, allowing for up to 100 residential units to the acre. The concept promoted by city officials is to convert the city’s historic train depot into one modernized to handle large numbers of working commuters using the yet-to-be-fully-realized-and-actuated regional rail system to travel daily to Los Angeles and other Southern California destinations, and transform the downtown area into a series of high-rise apartments to house individuals who travel most often not by car, but use public transportation. There is some debate as to whether these residents will be families or mostly unmarried individuals or couples without children. Though urban planners say these downtown denizens will not often use their own personal vehicles, the city yet plans to make places for their cars, which will generally be parked in structures as high as six and seven stories.
There has been substantial citizen resistance to this plan, but so far those proposing projects in keeping with this vision in Redlands have been warmly received by the city council, the planning commission, city administration and the city’s planning division.
Next week, on Tuesday April 12, the planning commission is to consider a proposal by VPV State Street Village, LLC to redevelop 11.5 acres of the now mostly dormant Redlands Mall site with a mixed use project that includes residential and commercial uses within five new multi-tenant buildings. The project calls for demolishing existing on-site buildings and improvements; constructing five mixed-use buildings up to four stories high; building up to 700 multifamily dwelling units, i.e., apartments and condominiums, to include studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom, and live/work units; constructing an approximately 6,000 square-foot recreational amenity building including a pool and other private courtyards for residents; building up to 71,778 square-feet of commercial floor area on ground floors to include retail and restaurant uses, as well as a rooftop restaurant; constructing up to 12,328 square feet of office space on upper floors; establishing a pedestrian plaza totaling approximately 22,742 square-feet on Third Street; constructing a five-level above-ground parking structure with 686 spaces; and constructing two subterranean parking garages with 269 and 225 spaces. Included in the plans are public and private open space areas to involve landscaping, shade trees, street trees, and pedestrian improvements; and related site improvements to include sidewalks, driveways, landscape, lighting and street lights, storm drains, flood prevention features, and public and private utility connections.
A cross section of Redlands residents are hopping mad about what is being proposed. Some have suggested that city officials, including members of the city council, the planning commission and city staff have conflicts of interest growing out of the intensification of density in the downtown area. An allegation, unverified by the Sentinel, is spreading that the city manager has a sibling involved in the local real estate market who will profit if the project to be considered Tuesday is approved.
City officials want to discourage the prospect of an untoward incident during the hearing. On the basis that an overflow and angry crowd is expected in the city’s meeting chamber, the city has already moved to limit seating, and is forcing all others who want to participate in the hearing to utilize Zoom, an online audio and web conferencing platform, to do so. The police department has been put on alert and will have officers paid overtime on standby in and near City Hall to deter any acts of civil disobedience or acts of violence toward the commissioners or planning staff.
-Mark Gutglueck

Assemblywoman Eloise Gómez Reyes has authored legislation that if passed would prevent any warehouse/logistics projects of more than 100,000 square feet yet to be built from being located within 1,000 feet of existing houses.
In the cities of Fontana, Upland, San Bernardino and Ontario, as well as within the unincorporated community of Bloomington, there has been considerable controversy over the political leadership in those respective places permitting the construction of droves of warehouses and distribution centers. Such projects, their detractors maintain, involving intensive truck traffic that is unduly burdensome on those who live in their shadow.
Increasingly, some elected officials, local residents and futurists are questioning whether warehouses constitute the highest and best use of the property available for development in the region. And while logistics facilities in modern times must be part of any land use mix, there is an argument to be made that there is a need to maintain a balance between such operations – or at least the quarters for such operations, as many of them stand empty – and other types of development. In refuting the assertions of the sponsors and proponents of warehouses that they constitute positive economic development, those against their proliferation decry the relatively poor pay and benefits provided to those who work in distribution facilities, the large diesel-powered semi-trucks that are part of those operations with their unhealthy exhaust emissions, together with the bane of traffic gridlock they create.
Over the last two decades, Southern California, the Inland Empire and San Bernardino County have experienced explosive growth, a continuation of the post-World War II trend that continued unabated for the last half of the 20th Century. Whereas previously, residential expansion outpaced both commercial and industrial growth, warehouse development has over the last decade-and-a-half come to hold more than its own in terms of construction activity.
Southern California, which involves large port facilities in San Pedro and Long Beach, lands massive amounts of merchandise from manufacturers in Asia brought across the Pacific Ocean by ship. That cargo is offloaded onto trains and trucks and distributed throughout much of the country. In this way, the Inland Empire has become a major logistics hub.
In this atmosphere, warehouse developers and the owners of property to be converted to warehousing can make a quick buck. Consequently, they have proven to be significant donors of money to the campaign war chests of politicians who hold sway over the Inland Empire’s cities, as well as the county board of supervisors, which has ultimate land use authority over the unincorporated areas of the county, such as Bloomington. Warehouse proponents reportedly have targeted Upland Mayor Bill Velto as an easy mark, believing money slipped to him will perpetuate his unquestioning support of warehouse development. That quid pro quo is being hidden, those within shouting distance of Upland City Hall say, by City Clerk Carrie Johnson not posting any campaign finance disclosure documentation relating to Velto for nearly 18 months, even as Velto has had multiple meetings with entities pursuing the construction of logistics projects.
In Ontario, the entire city council – Councilwoman Debra Dorst-Porada and councilmen Alan Wapner, Jim Bowman and Ruben Valencia – and Mayor Paul Leon have received substantial money from the development community pursuing warehouse and logistics project development. Having accepted money from those interests, Leon, Dorst-Porada, Wapner, Bowman and Valencia have consistently voted to allow warehouse projects in their 50.01-square mile city to proceed and have not been able to muster the resolve or strength of character to resist warehouse proposals even in those cases where a prospect of a higher and better use of the property in question existed, their detractors maintain.
Rancho Cucamonga City Councilman Ryan Hutchinson is an advocate of intensive warehouse development.
In Fontana, Mayor Acquanetta Warren has taken more than $100,000 in donations from warehouse developers. Both her admirers and opponents apply the sobriquet “Warehouse Warren” when referring to her. Warren has an unquestioned command over the three other members of her ruling council coalition – councilmen John Roberts, Phil Cothran Jr and Pete Garcia. Warren has vectored money from the warehouse industry to Roberts, Cothran and Garcia through her own campaign fund and has succeeded in getting warehouse project proponents to contribute directly to them. Garcia, who is employed by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, has voted right down the line with Warren on warehouse project approvals, even as the agency that employs him is taking action against ten transportation/trucking companies, several engaged in warehouse operations in some respects indistinguishable from the projects he voted to approve.
In July, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a civil action against the City of Fontana’s approval of a warehouse project to be located at the corner of Slover and Oleander avenues in southwest Fontana. In April 2021, the planning commission, in accordance with Warren’s dictate, applied to the project one of the least exacting forms of environmental certification that exists, a mitigated negative declaration, in giving it go-ahead. There followed an appeal of that approval to the city council, which heard it in June. Warren, Roberts, Cothran Jr. and Garcia rejected the appeal and upheld the planning commission, whereupon Bonta the following month filed suit, asserting that the city’s limited environmental review of the project and its failure to appropriately analyze, disclose, and mitigate the project’s environmental impacts violates the California Environmental Quality Act.
“Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Fontana is required to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce harmful air pollution and other significant environmental impacts of the Slover and Oleander Warehouse project,” Bonta said. “Plain and simple: Everyone has the right to breathe clean air where they live and where they work. I am committed to standing up for communities who live at the intersection of poverty and pollution. Fontana residents shouldn’t have to choose between economic development and clean air. They deserve both. Unfortunately, the City of Fontana cut corners when it approved the Slover and Oleander Warehouse Project. We’re going to court to compel the city to go back and take a hard look at the environmental impacts of this project – and do all it can to mitigate the potential harms to local residents and workers – before moving forward.”
According to Bonta, “The Slover and Oleander Warehouse Project will be constructed in a low-income south Fontana neighborhood that suffers from some of the highest pollution levels in all of California. Over 20 warehouses have already been built within a mile of the project site, in an area that encompasses two public high schools and serves as home to hundreds of Californians. Collectively, these warehouses generate thousands of daily heavy-duty diesel truck trips. As a result, local residents and workers suffer from some of the highest exposures statewide to fine particulate matter, which are inhalable microscopic particles that travel deep into human lungs and are linked to increased risk of premature death, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and asthma attacks. They are also heavily exposed to ozone and toxic chemicals that can cause a wide array of other concerning health problems.”
In the lawsuit, Bonta maintains the City of Fontana violated the California Environmental Quality Act in its approval of the Slover and Oleander warehouse project by failing to prepare an environmental impact report despite substantial evidence that the project will have significant environmental impacts, and that the city did not disclose the existence of dozens of other industrial warehouses in the area. The city further did not disclose, Bonta asserted, that the city has approved and is planning additional warehouse developments within blocks of the project, and it did not account for those nearby warehouses in its cumulative air quality analysis.
In San Bernardino, Mayor John Valdivia, after receiving substantial campaign contributions from both landowners and developers with an interest in warehouse development, thwarted an effort by Fifth District Councilman Ben Reynoso to have the city initiate an initial 45-day moratorium on the permitting of new warehouse construction in the county seat, which might have been extended for as long as two years. Reynoso sought the time-out from warehouse construction to allow San Bernardino, which since 2015 has approved 26 warehouse projects entailing acreage under roof of 9,598,255 square feet, or more than one-third of a square mile, translating into 220.34 acres, to consider a revamping of its general plan and making a determination on how much more warehousing, if any, the city wants to accommodate.
Reynoso obtained the consent of four of his colleagues – First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez, Second Ward Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra, Sixth Ward Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin and Seventh Ward Councilman Damon Alexander – to impose the moratorium. Their five votes on the seven-member San Bernardino City Council were insufficient to suspend warehouse development. California law requires that such a ban be passed by a four-fifths vote of a governmental entity’s legislative body. In San Bernardino, where the mayor is not empowered to vote, that meant six of the seven members of the council had to sign off on the moratorium. Third Ward Councilman Juan Figueroa, a firm and fast political ally of Mayor John Valdivia, was unwilling to support a moratorium. Nor would Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett, who has built his political career by professing to be pro-development and has been the recipient of money from the development community, support a moratorium.
Thus, though Reynoso had solid majority support on the council, he has been unable to put the warehouse moratorium in place.
In Chino and Colton, however, city leaders there have embraced holding off on further warehouse construction.
In May 2021, the City of Colton, by a unanimous vote, gave city staff direction to study the advisability and long-term implication of allowing any remaining fast-depleting undeveloped land in the city to be converted into warehouses, distribution centers or similar uses, simultaneously imposing the moratorium on warehouse construction. It has since extended the moratorium while the city studies the issue.
In October, Chino imposed a 45-day ban on constructing more warehouses in the once-agriculturally-oriented city.
Gómez Reyes, who is now the California Assembly majority leader, recently authored and introduced Assembly Bill 2840, which is aimed not at stopping warehouse development, she said, but rather imposing on it conditions intended to prevent warehouses from having undesirable consequences on those who must live near them.
Under AB 2840, local governments, in exercising their land use authority, would be restricted from allowing any subsequently built logistics projects of 100,000 square feet or more from being any closer than 1,000 feet from homes, schools, health care centers, playgrounds and other places where the inhabitants or those who frequent them are sensitive to or at risk of exposure to air pollution, including vehicle exhaust and diesel fumes. AB 2840 would prevent existing warehouses currently covering less than 100,000 square feet from expanding to 100,000 square feet or more if there are homes, churches, schools or the like nearer than 1,000 feet.
Also taken up in AB 2840 are concerns that warehouses do not make sound and reliable employment venues. The bill calls for a “skilled and trained workforce” to be employed in constructing the warehouses. The bill further mandates that a “set percentage of jobs created by the qualifying logistics use project shall go to local residents.” The bill does not say precisely what that percentage is.
Reyes’ 47th Assembly District includes Bloomington, Colton, Grand Terrace, Fontana, Muscoy, Rialto and part of San Bernardino.
AB 2840 is somewhat similar to legislation Gómez Reyes introduced last year, AB 1547, which had sought a buffer between warehouses and homes that was three times greater, at 1,000-yards between the boundary of the site and sensitive land uses such as schools, parks and residential neighborhoods. AB 1547 had also called for requiring on-site equipment such as forklifts and other dock machinery to be powered by zero emission technology. AB 1547 has not been enacted.
Warehouses are encroaching on residential neighborhoods, Gómez Reyes said. She said local governments are not doing their part in providing safeguards for residents, such as making sure the diesel trucks and other pollution-spewing machinery remains at a safe distance from those living, playing and attending school or other social events.
“If California is going to meet its environmental goals, we must develop environmental standards for warehouse developments, which often are built near already disadvantaged communities and account for nearly half of NOx [nitrogen oxide] emissions.” Gómez Reyes said.
Nitrogen oxides are a major component in air pollution, particularly nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). They contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain, as well as affecting tropospheric ozone.
The Inland Empire has more than 1.1 billion square feet of warehouse space, the equivalent of nearly 23,000 football fields. Some warehouse projects have been constructed within 100 feet of homes, despite warnings from air regulators about the health dangers of people living that close to warehouse developments due to truck pollution.
Some 70 percent of the cargo that moves through the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports moves via heavy diesel trucks through the South Coast Basin, with 40 percent of those trucks making delivery stops at warehouses, distribution centers, and logistics facilities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
-Mark Gutglueck