FBN 20230012488
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
VENDOR2VENDOR 950 N DUESENBERG DR, APT 8208 ONTARIO, CA 91764: BRIDGETTE A BENTLEY 950 N DUESENBERG DR, APT 8208 ONTARIO, CA 91764
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 1833 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729
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/ BRIDGETTE A BENTLEY, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/19/2023
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 J2526
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 December 29, 2023 and January 5, 12 & 19, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
VICTOR M. GUITRON
NO. PROVA 2400005
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VICTOR M. GUITRON:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by EMILY S. GUITRON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that EMILY S. GUITRON 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 February 13, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F3 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: JANUARY 3, 2024
ANGELINE GARCIA, 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.
Attorney for Emily S. Guitron:
Jennifer M. 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 on Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 5, 12 & 19, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JANICE JEAN LaROCQUE aka JANICE JEAN DIETL
CASE NO. PROVA2300382
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JANICE JEAN LaROCQUE aka JANICE JEAN DIETL: a petition for probate has been filed by ANNE COLLIGEN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANNE COLLIGEN be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available
for examination in the file kept by the court
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held February 14, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F2 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2023
NYCOLE PATTERSON, 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.
Attorney for Anne Colligen:
R. SAM PRICE
SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
454 Cajon Street
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Phone (909) 328 7000
Fax (909) 475 9500
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 5, 12 & 19, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: FRANK A. VIRAMONTES
CASE NO.  PROVA2300218
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of FRANK A. VIRAMONTES: a petition for probate has been filed by PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES 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 February 29, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F1 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: OCTOBER 25, 2023
DiAnna Verdugo, 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.
Attorney for Philip A. Viramontes
Tyler H. Brown
SBN 259620
BROWN & BROWN
Attorneys at Law
10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 490
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 982-5086
tylerbrown@brownandbrownllp.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2024.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2400062
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JEANETTE H. GLOVER filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JEANETTE H. GLOVER to JEANETTE GLOVER
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: 02/26/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S28
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: 1/04/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2024.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2400033
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: YI JIANG GONONG SHE filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ALAN ZOAN SHE to ALAN S ASHER
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: 02/14/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S24
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: 1/03/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2024.

FBN 20230012805
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
RX BOTTLE 9339 CHARLES SMITH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: SOLGREAT INC 9339 CHARLES SMITH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California under the number 4650128.
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/ PETER CHENGJIAN PAN, President
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/29/2023
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 J5842
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 January 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2024.

FBN 20230012616
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
LOOKING GLASS THERAPY SOLUTIONS 921 N MILLIKEN AVE #1190 ONTARIO, CA 91764: LOOKING GLASS THERAPY SOLUTIONS 921 N MILLIKEN AVE #1190 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: NOVEMBER 6, 2023.
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/ DR. BRANDON McQUEEN, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/21/2023
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 J7527
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 January 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ELLA MITCHELL
CASE NO. PROSB-220-1655
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ELLA MITCHELL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ELLA MITCHELL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SHASTA MITCHELL be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available
for examination in the file kept by the court
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held January 25, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F3 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
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.
Shasta Mitchell
3947 Acapulco Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92407
Phone (909) 235-7642
shastamitchell1120@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 12, 19 & 26, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RONALD DONALD ALVAREZ
CASE NO. PROVA 2400003
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RONALD DONALD ALVAREZ:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DONNA ARELLANO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DONNA ARELLANO 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. F-2 at 9:00 a.m. on February 7, 2024
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F2 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
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 Donna Arellano:
ANTONIETTE JAUREGUI (SB 192624)
1894 S. COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
ajprobate@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 12, 19 and 26, 2024.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2400010
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: MAMOON JAMAL MATLAB filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ELYAS MAMOON MATLAB to ADAM MAMOON MATLAB
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: 02/27/2024
Time: 08:30 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 SBCS Ontario in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Filed: 01/02/2023
Brianna Johnson, Deputy Clerk of the Court
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 12, 19, 26 and February 2, 2024.

FBN 20240000243
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
SUPREME CONSTRUCTION GROUP 7083 OREGON STREET FONTANA, CA 92336
ALEX FERNANDEZ
Business Mailing Address: 7083 OREGON STREET 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: JANUARY 10, 2024.
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/ ALEX FERNANDEZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/10/2024
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 J7550
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 January 12, 19, 26 and February 2, 2024.

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2216158
NOTICE TO LIZZETH ZARAGOZA-MARTINEZ
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons 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 West 3rd St, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, Branch Name: San Bernardino Justice Center
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
REA STELMACH, Esq. (SBN 296671)
SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU, LLP
11835 W OLYMPIC BLVD, SUITE 855E
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
213-226-6922
DATE (Fecha): 09/13/2022
Clerk (Secretario), by Paola Iniguez
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 12, 19 & 26 and February 2, 2024.

AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE & REGISTERED SECURITIES
REG’D NO: 104-77-188182
In North America }
} SS
Land of California. }
“Equality if Paramount and Mandatory by Law”
[WITH TRUST] To all to whom these presents shall come, Greetings:
I, (Sur-name) Rucker, (Given name) Damion-Lewis, a living and original natural man, Affiant (hereinafter Registered Owner), being duly sworn, declare and state that I am of the age of majority and legally competent and have firsthand knowledge of the facts stated herein and believe these facts to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also depose and say that I am the Registered Owner of the record and the holder of the Certificated Security and / or Certificate No: 0190-058517 whose name also appears on the face of the instrument as DAMION LEWIS RUCKER (Estate / Trust) by reference to the Official Certificate of Live Birth (Title), recorded and filed dated July 11, 1977, in the Office of the Clerk, County of Los Angeles, Land of California, as the same name appears to be held for safekeeping by State Registrar of Titles. Said Certificate is a Valid Trust Instrument and further describes the same property that is an active Trust / Estate conveyed unto Affiant (Registered Owner) as set forth in the above-mentioned Certificate of Title and all financial assets, accounts, registered securities, entitlements, real and other personal property that are associated with said Trust / Estate (whether now owned or hereafter acquired), further described in the attached Form UCC 1 and Addendum under Notice of Claim. Affiant (Registered Owner) is the one legally entitled and duly authorized to act, appoint, assign, conveyed, and / execute said Trust / Estate no other parties are allowed without consent from Entitlement Holder / Registered Owner.
[AND IT IS SO ORDERED]
In Witness Whereof, said Affiant (Owner) has hereunto set his hand and seal.
Done this 29th day of December, 2023
BY: Damion-Lewis Rucker
Entitlement Holder / Registered Owner
Affiant Sur-name Rucker: Given name: Damion-Lewis,
Address: 10808 Foothill Blvd., Suite 160-406
Rancho Cucamonga, CA ZIP Exempt Non-domestic, without the UNITED STATES
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel January 12, 19, & 26 and February 2, 2024.

FBN 20240000235
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
BODHI HOME 7265 TRIVENTO PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701: STEPHANIE H CHIU
Business Mailing Address: 3045 S ARCHIBALD #H134 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/ STEPHANIE H CHIU, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/09/2024
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 J7550
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 January12, 19 & 26 and February 2, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RONALD P. JOHNSON
CASE NO. PROVA2400011
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RONALD P. JOHNSON : a petition for probate has been filed by DAVID ALLEN JOHNSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DAVID ALLEN JOHNSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available
for examination in the file kept by the court
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held March 26, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F2 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: JANUARY 4, 2024
NYCOLE PATTERSON, 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.
Attorney for David Allen Johnson:
R. SAM PRICE
SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
454 Cajon Street
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Phone (909) 328 7000
Fax (909) 475 9500
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January19 & 26 and February 2, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Barbara Joan Jordan, aka Barbara J. Jordan, aka Barbara Jordan Case NO. PROVA2400028
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Barbara Joan Jordan, aka Barbara J. Jordan, aka Barbara Jordan A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Bonnie Jean Settle in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Bonnie Jean Settle 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. F1 at 09:00 AM on 02/20/2024 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 17780 Arrow Boulevard, Fontana, CA 92335, Fontana District-Probate Division
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Amy M. Stover:
954 Main Street Fortuna CA 95540
Telephone No: (707) 725-4426
Published in the SBCS Ontario on:
01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Gerald Raymond Heard Case NO. PROVA2400014
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Gerald Raymond Heard A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DeJuan K. Ogilvie in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DeJuan K. Ogilvie 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. F3 at 09:00 AM on 02/21/2024 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 17780 Arrow Blvd., Fontana, CA. 92335, Fontana Superior Court
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
DeJuan K. Ogilvie:
1136 River Crest Court Stockton CA 95206
Telephone No: (209) 507-3981
Published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga on:
01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2328935,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Rachel Caryn Espinoza Gonzalez filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Rachel Caryn Espinoza Gonzalez to Rachel Caryn Hidalgo, 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: 02/20/2024, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: S 24The 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 SBCS ? Ontario in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 01/08/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Ontario on 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024, 02/09/2024

FBN 20240000354
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
FOREVER YOUR MUSE 5179 SAGEBRUSH TERRACE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407: RUBI DE SANTIAGO
Business Mailing Address: 5179 SAGEBRUSH TERRACE 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: JANUARY 03, 2024.
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/ RUBI DE SANTIAGO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/12/2024
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 J5842
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 January 19 & 26 and February 2 & 9, 2024.

FBN 20230012660
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
NAILS BY DIANA 1004 W RALSTON ST ONTARIO, CA 91762: DIANA JAIMES 1004 W RALSTON ST ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: December 26, 2023
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/ DIANA JAIMES, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/27/2023
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 J7550
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 January 19 & 26 and February 2 & 9, 2024.

FBN 20240000507
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
RM ACADEMY 13673 SMOKESTONE ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739: RAISA TEXEIRA ESPARZA
[and]
MICHELLE L LIMO
Business Mailing Address: 13673 SMOKESTONE ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
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/ RAISA TEXEIRA ESPARZA, General Partner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/18/2024
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 J7550
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 January 19 & 26 and February 2 & 9, 2024.

FBN 20240000235
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
BODHI HOME 7265 TRIVENTO PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701: STEPHANIE H CHIU
Business Mailing Address: 3045 S ARCHIBALD #H134 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/ STEPHANIE H CHIU, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/09/2024
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 J7550
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 January12, 19 & 26 and February 2, 2024.

FBN 20230012633
The following person is doing business as: A&S CLEANING SERVICES. 1891 BROCKSTONE DR PERRIS, CA 92571
COUNTY OF BUSINESS RIVERSIDE
ANA M DESALINAS 1891 BROCKSTONE DR PERRIS, CA 92571.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANA M DESALINAS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 22, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202301MT

FBN 20230012602
The following person is doing business as: NEW HORIZONS DIGITAL NETWORK; M & T MANAGEMENT. 10808 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 160-832 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
QUALITY HOME HEALTH, INC. 7182 ACORN PLACE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 STATE OF INCORPORATION CA ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 2617786
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 ONOH, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 21, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202302MT

FBN 20230012318
The following person is doing business as: NENA’S GENERAL CLEANING. 655 PERRIS ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
NORA N HERNANDEZ 655 PERRIS ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 14, 2023
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/ NORA N. HERNANDEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 14, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202303MT

FBN 20230011963
The following person is doing business as: SHOP & GO. 1183 N ARROWHEAD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1694 MASSACHUSETTS AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ANGEL D REYES MORALES 1694 MASSACHUSETTS AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOV 29, 2023
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 D REYES MORALES
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 04, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202304MT

FBN 20230012430
The following person is doing business as: K@RO DIVERSE SHOP. 14596 STONECRESS ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92394
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CAROLINA GUTIERREZ 14596 STONECREST ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92394.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 18, 2023
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/ CAROLINA GUTIERREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 18, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202305MT
FBN 20230012582
The following person is doing business as: SMOKIE JAY’S. 48878 OCOTILLION RD JOHNSON VALLEY, CA 92285
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SHOLONDA M JACKSON 48878 OCOTILLION RD JOHNSON VALLEY, CA 92285.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 19, 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/ SHOLONDA M JACKSON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 20, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202306MT

FBN 20230012473
The following person is doing business as: GRECO O’BRIEN & ASSOCIATES. 1401 E SANTO ANTONIO DR APT #167 COLTON, CA 92324
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
BOBBY G WINSTON 1401 E SANTO ANTONIO DR APT #167 COLTON, CA 92324.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ BOBBY G WINSTON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 19, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202307MT

FBN 20230012471
The following person is doing business as: WOW AUTO SALES. 1505 1/2 W 9TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DMMF, INC. 1505 1/2 W 9TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 STATE OF INCORPORATION CA ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 3748377
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/ DANI MHANA, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 19, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202308MT

FBN 20230012458
The following person is doing business as: THE TINT SURGEONS. 9214 SIXTH AVE HESPERIA, CA 92345;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DANIEL S. VALERO ARELLANO 9214 SIXTH 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/ DANIEL S. VALERO ARELLANO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 19, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202309RC

FBN 20230012690
The following person is doing business as: PACIFIC COMMERCIAL POOL SERVICES; PACIFIC POOLS. 1250 WALNUT AVE MENTONE, CA 92359
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PACIFIC POOL BUILDERS INC. 37220 OAK VIEW ROAD YUCAIPA, CA 92399 STATE OF INCORPORATION CA ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 4646526
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 26, 2023
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/ WILLIAM J. COLLAZO, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 27, 2023
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 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024 CNBB52202310MT

FBN 20230011879
The following person is doing business as: PLATINUM COMMUNITY SERVICES. 7909 MIDHURST DR HIGHLAND, CA 92346
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MASSAI J BATES 7909 MIDHURST DR HIGHLAND, CA 92346.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MASSAI J BATES, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: NOVEMBER 30, 2023
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 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024 CNBB1202402MT

FBN 20240000002
The following person is doing business as: RIVAS TAX GROUP. 1944 CLARK MOUNTAIN RD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410;[ MAILING ADDRESS PO BOX 1877 COLTON, CA 92324];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ANGELICA B RIVAS 1944 CLARK MOUNTAIN RD 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/ ANGELICA B RIVAS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 03, 2024
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 01/05/2024, 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024 CNBB1202401MT

FBN 20240000078
The following person is doing business as: TUTIS PARTY RENTALS. 1097 SANTOS ANTONIO DR UNIT 10 COLTON, CA 92324
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
LOURDES M DIAZ
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/ LOURDES M DIAZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/04/2024
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202401MT

FBN 20230012794
The following person is doing business as: STOP 5 MARKET. 1505 W 9TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DFFM, INC. 1505 1/2 W 9TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 STATE OF INCORPORATION CA ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 3748377
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/ DANI MHANA, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 29, 2023
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202402MT

FBN 20230012796
The following person is doing business as: ALCOHOL LICENSE PRO. 285 S DUPONT AVE STE #101 ONTARIO, CA 91761
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
YNA-IT, INC 2834 HAMMER AVE #512 NORCO, CA 92860 STATE OF INCORPORATION CA ARTICLES OF INCORPORATON 3478374
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/ TIANY CVARGAS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 29, 2023
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202403MT

FBN 20240000091
The following person is doing business as: STRAINS DISPENSARY; STRAINS 16600 KOALA RD BLDG B ADELANTO, CA 92301
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
HIGH DESERT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED 16600 KOALA RD BLDG B ADELANTO, CA 92301 STATE OF INCORPORATION CA ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 3841279
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/ WAHEED ABDULLA, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 05, 2024
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202404MT

FBN 20230012721
The following person is doing business as: PRECISION BUSBAR WORKS. 4277 RAQUEL CT SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAURICIO HINOJOSA 4277 RAQUEL CT 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/ MAURICIO HINOJOSA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 28, 2023
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202405CV

FBN 20230012723
The following person is doing business as: GOMEZ TRANSPORTS. 1991 MESA ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOSE A. GOMEZ TRANSPORTS 1991 W MESA ST 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/ JOSE A. GOMEZ TRANSPORTS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 28, 2023
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202406CV

FBN 20230012720
The following person is doing business as: KING’S KEEPER. 3922 COMPTON STREET CHINO, CA 91710;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
HER RELOADS LLC 3922 COMPTON STREET CHINO, CA 91710 STATE OF ORGANIZATION CA ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION 201618210307
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/ JAMES ANTHONY CASTILLO, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 28, 2023
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202407CV

FBN 20240000134
The following person is doing business as: MY PIZZA OR NOTHIN. 2411 S VINEYARD AVE # E ONTARIO, CA 91761;[ MAILING ADDRESS 2411 S VINEYARD AVE #E ONTARIO, CA 91761];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
KHALED M IBRAHIM
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/ KHALED M IBRAHIM, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 05, 2024
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202408MT

FBN 20240000086
The following person is doing business as: GOD’S VARSITY. 9348 LEDIG DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701;[ MAILING ADDRESS 9348 LEDIG DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DIAMOND ANDREWS
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/ DIAMOND ANDREWS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 05, 2024
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202409MT

FBN 20240000152
The following person is doing business as: DISCOUNT AUTO REPAIR & TIRES. 160 W. HIGHLAND AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405;[ MAILING ADDRESS 25586 LOREN WAY MORENO VALLEY, CA 92553];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CHRISTINA M PEREZ
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOV 01, 2023
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/ CHRISTINA M PEREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 08, 2024
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202410MT

FBN 20230012724
The following person is doing business as: KING’S CONCRETE PUMPING. 19314 CRICKET CT BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
LUIS R GONZALEZ ROJAS 19314 CRICKET CT BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316.
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 R GONZALEZ ROJAS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 28, 2023
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202411MT

FBN 20240000057
The following person is doing business as: CLASS ACT BOOKKEEPING; AA BUSINESS SERVICES 11767 AUBURN AVE YUCAIPA, CA 92399;[ MAILING ADDRESS 11767 AUBURN AVE YUCAIPA, CA 92399];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ANDREW A GRIGOLEIT
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 A GRIGOLEIT, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 04, 2024
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202412MT

FBN 20230012528
The following person is doing business as: JM CONVEYORS AND MORE. 13502 BENT WOOD ST HESPERIA, CA 92344
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JUAN M BARAJAS 13502 BENT WOOD ST HESPERIA, CA 92344.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JUAN M BARAJAS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 19, 2023
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202413MT

FBN 20240000297
The following person is doing business as: COMPADRES AUTO WHOLESALE. 17694 VALLEY BLVD STE B FONTANA, CA 92316;[ MAILING ADDRESS 17694 VALLEY BLVD STE B FONTANA, CA 92316];
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GIOVANNY MORENOS
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: SEP 11, 2023
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/ GIOVANNY MORENOS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: JANUARY 11, 2024
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 01/12/2024, 01/19/2024, 01/26/2024, 02/02/2024 CNBB2202414MT

By Mark Gutglueck
All eight of the Enamorados charged with incorporating violence into their social and political activism have been bound over for trial following the conclusion of their extended three-week preliminary hearing process, which entailed seven days of courtroom sparring that included five days of testimony.
Only one of the eight, whom investigators and prosecutors either falsely or erroneously alleged had participated in activities taking place outside San Bernardino County on September 3 of last year, has been granted bail. The other seven remain jailed and will presumably remain in custody until their trial, which is unlikely to begin in March.
The Enamorados, a self-styled group of social justice advocates led by their eponymous leader, Edin Alex Enamorado, have taken up the cause of protecting the downtrodden principally in Southern California, primarily relatively newly arrived and generally undocumented Latinos, in what they say is an effort to protect them from the racist Anglo establishment that treads upon the rights of society’s disenfranchised. In particular over the last several years, the Enamorados have sought to run interference for the region’s burgeoning number of street vendors, largely unskilled illegal immigrants who have arrived from Mexico or in some cases Central America and have sought to make a living using pushcarts or tables and canopies or in some cases food trucks from which they sell merchandise or food. These street vendors, or sidewalk vendors as they are sometimes referred to, set up their temporary operations on sidewalks or in the parking lots of existing businesses. In a significant number of cases, the vendors select as their selling venue well-traveled areas within the urban environment where they are likely to find or appeal to a sufficient number of customers to generate what is for them a livable income. Often, this entails locating in front of, next to, near or even in the parking lot of a business, such as a retail establishment, grocery store or restaurant. This has created tension between these conventional entrepreneurs and street vendors, as store and restaurant owners functioning out of brick-and-mortar establishments must contend with substantial overhead and a host of requirements and expenses such as mortgage or lease payments, permits and licensing, property tax, insurance, the collection of sales tax, inspections, the payment of payroll tax and employee medical coverage and the like, which street vendors are either not subject to or which they can relatively easily avoid. Thus, many traditional business owners have grown to resent the street and sidewalk vendors who mill about their places of business, often in competition with them for the same customers, offering products comparable to their own or what is on their menu at a cost or price below what they can afford to offer their customers. This has led to confrontations between many of those business owners and the vendors, with the business owners insisting that the vendors stay out of their parking lots and seeking as well to prevent the vendors from setting up their carts, tables or canopies near their restaurants or stores.
Until recently, the Enamorados made a practice of making contact with street vendors, sometimes after those vendors had encounters with those unhappy with their presence and in some cases in advance of the hostility the Enamorados anticipated those street vendors were going to experience. When the Enamorados made contact with those street vendors, they typically armed them with pepper spray or chemical mace with which to “protect themselves,” and provided them with their phone numbers so that the Enamorados could be contacted. In many cases, the Enamorados would swoop onto the scene, sometimes during and sometimes after, a confrontation between a business owner or business employee and a street vendor, standing up for the street vendor.
In many cities throughout Southern California, there have long been previously existing regulations pertaining to street/sidewalk vending. In still others, with the influx of undocumented immigrants flooding urban areas with their pushcarts, tables and canopies, city officials have moved to codify such regulations, banning them outright or subjecting them to licensing, permitting and inspection. The Enamorados have taken the position that such requirements are a violation of the impoverished class’s human and constitutional rights and are steeped in a racist attitude on the part of the establishment and the bigots that embody it. They have acted, in those cases where they have had adequate forewarning, to oppose those city officials in the passage of any ordinances pertaining to street vending. Moreover, they have sought to confront health department inspectors, code enforcement officials or police officers when they have acted to enforce existing laws, rules and regulations pertaining to vendors in the field as those acting in their official capacities are in the process of citing the vendors or forcing them to depart.
In their roles as social justice crusaders, the Enamorados used tactics that relied on a formula developed by Edin Enamorado, one that consisted of equal parts of a presumption of moral superiority, making accusations of racism, profanity, rapid fire questions and assertions without allowing the interlocutor an opportunity to respond, immediately dismissing any response those being engaged with manage to get in edgewise, browbeating, insults and threats. Key elements of Enamorado’s approach are surrounding the target with a physically intimidating support network, the use of surprise, verbal domination and videography to capture indelible moving sound images of the individual being confronted, in an attempt to provoke an untoward or intemperate remark or reaction. Routinely, videos of these confrontations were uploaded onto social media platforms Edin Enamorado controlled. Some of those depict an individual being confronted or in other cases bystanders to the protests the Enamorados engaged in growing impatient at being blocked or hemmed in or harangued and then reacting, whereupon the subject would be ganged up upon and physically assaulted by those present.
Up until relatively recently, the Enamorados’ focus had been not exclusively but generally limited to the greater Los Angeles area, within the city itself and mostly confined to Los Angeles County.
Edin Enamorado had grown up in Cudahy, where his participation in gang activity had been a primary influence upon him in his formative years. Enamorado was arrested multiple times and is a verified convicted felon. After serving a prison sentence and being paroled, he served three years’ probation, subsequent to which he sought to have his criminal record expunged and succeeded in having his list of convictions sealed from public view. Yet extant records show an arrest by the Vernon Police Department on May 30, 2014 on burglary and grand theft charges.
Enamorado maintains that two events pushed him out of his association with street gangs, those being the birth of his first child and the murder of his then-girlfriend by another gang that may have been focused upon her because of her connection to him. From that point on, he says, he has switched his intensity from gangbanging in pursuit of unsavory, selfish and illegal goals to seeking social justice to benefit the community. He remained, however, locked in on his home turf, initially in the area of Cudahy and its immediate surroundings until he spread gradually out to the whole of the greater Los Angeles area.
His initial restriction of his activism to Los Angeles County might have been either by chance or design. He and eventually his followers were naturally active in the area they knew best. Still, the aggressive form of advocacy the Enamorados engage in has for its practitioners certain risks. Those risks stretch from the immediate reaction physically confronting others could have to the legal implications of doing so. In 2020, George Gascón, the district attorney in San Francisco from 2011 until 2019, was elected district attorney in Los Angeles County, assuming that office in 2020. Gascón, described by many as a liberal and progressive, was elected on a reformist platform, which held that in many respects the authority of the governmental establishment has been wrongfully overapplied against the disadvantaged of society. This aligned with the deeply held beliefs of Edin Enamorado and the other Enamorados that America, i.e., North America, was and therefore still is the land of the indigenous people of the Americas and that European colonizers usurped the land and resources that rightly belong to those indigenous tribes. Since the rich white descendants of those Europeans continue to engage in the domination of Latinos or La Raza through their capitalistic system and hoard the wealth and goods they are accumulating by continuing to exploit those who are less fortunate and not well-fixed financially, according to the Enamorados, they are morally justified in taking back what was taken from them and protecting, by whatever means necessary, the Latino and immigrant population that is being assailed, formally or informally, officially or unofficially, by agents of the white-controlled government such as the police or municipal code enforcement officers or white bigoted bullies who insult, assault or interfere in any way with street vendors or sidewalk vendors.
Beginning roughly two years ago, the Enamorados began to branch out, taking up the cause of street vendors or immigrants in places as far away as San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Francisco and Las Vegas.
At some point within the last two years, Enamorado and Wendy Luján, who is also considered a leader within the Enamorados and is variously described as Edin Enamorado’s wife, his partner, his fiancé or his girlfriend, relocated to Upland. Accordingly, that move to the Inland Empire at least partially refocused the attention of the Enamorados to various places in San Bernardino County and Riverside County where it was perceived that the dispossessed Hispanic population was not getting a fair shake.
The physical relocation to San Bernardino County appears to have been a fateful move, one that resulted in the bubble of protection or immunity that Edin Enamorado and his followers had presumed encompassed them having burst, leaving them exposed to the vicissitudes of a far more strict application of the law than had been the case in Los Angeles County.
Earlier this year, the Enamorados had made a brief foray to San Diego to look into the action of some San Diego State University students who had been rude and insulting to a street food vendor who had set up an operation near the university. One of the students involved, the Enamorados determined, was Breanna Peelman, the daughter of Upland Police Sergeant Nick Peelman. The Enamorados cited a connection between the incident in San Diego involving Peelman’s daughter and Peelman’s role in the department’s 2013 encounter with an 18-year-old Hispanic, Christian Rodriguez, who was shot nine times, remarkably without dying, after the officers mistook a flowerpot fragment in his hand as a gun. After Enamorado and Luján took up residency in Upland, the Enamorados undertook protest efforts aimed at having Nick Peelman bounced off the Upland Police force. That effort included holding nighttime rallies on the residential block in neighboring Rancho Cucamonga, where Sergeant Peelman lives. Using his trademark bullhorn, Enamorado exhorted a group of Enamorados who had accompanied him there to voice their disapproval of what he called Peelman’s bigotry. Complaints from Peelman’s neighbors brought the Enamorados, generally, and Edin Enamorado, specifically, to the attention of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which serves as the contract police department in Rancho Cucamonga.
When Upland residents objected to the Enamorados’ characterization of Peelman, the police department and the entire city and Upland community as racist, Edin Enamorado organized protests outside some of their homes, at one point following the 93-year-old father of one of those residents from one of his son’s home to the home of another of his sons who also resided in Upland. At one point, when a congregation of more than 30 Enamorados swarmed a residential neighborhood in northern Upland, given that the residence of District Attorney Jason Anderson and his family was nearby, the Upland Police Department felt it necessary to send a contingent of officers to shadow the group from a distance and monitor the circumstance using a magnifying video camera and a parabolic listening device.
The Enamorados grew progressively more bold with their actions and protests in San Bernardino County.
On September 24, Edin Enamorado led a group of Enamorados to Victorville to protest an incident that had occurred in the parking lot outside Ray Moore Stadium in the immediate aftermath of a football game between Victor Valley and Big Bear high schools the evening of September 22 when a sheriff’s deputy was videotaped slamming a 16-year-old girl, Faith Jeffers, a student at Victor Valley High, as the deputy and one of his colleagues sought to break up a fight that had broken out between Jeffers and another girl.
The protesters rallied in the area around the Victorville Sheriff’s Station on Amargosa Road near Palmdale Road. With his trademark bullhorn in hand, Edin Enamorado led a party of roughly 40 Enamorados, most of them from lower San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County, as they carried placards calling for justice and paraded in the vicinity of the sheriff’s station and along the highly visible stretch of Palmdale Road between Amargosa Road and McArt Road. Exhorting the crowd and demanding that the deputy who had injured Jeffers be identified, fired and prosecuted, Enamorado used his cell phone to videorecord the protest, which was also being memorialized for posterity by at least three other Enamorados using shoulder-held, handheld or tripod-mounted video cameras.
As the protest was ongoing, a couple in a relatively late model Hyundai had gone into the car wash proximate to the sheriff’s station near the intersection of McArt Road and Palmdale Road. Upon attempting to leave, the woman, who was driving, was unable to pull onto Palmdale Road from the car wash parking lot’s exit because of the traffic flow on Palmdale Road coupled with the constant stream of protesters moving in both directions on the sidewalk and gutter of the roadway. Despite the Hyundai’s obvious presence and the driver’s intent to leave, the protesters remained disregardful of the car and its occupants as most were engaged in making a show of protest to the motorists passing by on Palmdale Road.
The occupants of the Hyundai exhibited patience initially, but after more than two minutes, the woman sounded the Hyundai’s horn. This had no appreciable impact on the protesters, who continued to file in front of the car, such that the driver could not move the car forward without running into and possibly injuring one or more of the protesters. A further wait ensued, at which point the woman sounded the horn once more and the man opened the door on the passenger’s side of the car. As he emerged, he was immediately engaged by three of the Enamorados, at least one of whom referred to him as a “bitch” and accused him of opening the door on one of the woman protesters. One, then two, and then a third Enamorado began to rain blows on the man, who attempted to defend himself while he was angled away from the car and then knocked to the ground. As he attempted to get to his feet, he was pepper sprayed.
The incident was captured on video from at least three perspectives. Among those who can be seen in one of the video depictions hitting the man is Edin Enamorado, who does so with his left fist while holding and continuing to video with his cellphone in his right hand.
The man succeeded in getting up but as he was staggering, he was knocked to the ground once more and kicked while he was down. Off camera, shortly after the man came out of the car, Edin Enamorado could be heard belittling him for being less than a man for hitting the woman with his car door. After the man was pepper sprayed and on the ground for the second time, Edin Enamorado can be heard remarking that he had gotten what he deserved.
As it was ongoing, the incident was livestreamed to Enamorado’s YouTube page.
From their nearby vantage, deputies saw the assault and roughly two minutes later they came to the spot of the assault, whereupon a shoving match ensued between two of the deputies and two of the Enamorados. Within minutes, at least eight deputies had arrived. Narrowly, Edin Enamorado avoided arrest, but the deputies took two of the Enamorados – David Chávez, 27, of Riverside, who was arrested on suspicion of assault with a caustic chemical and unlawful assembly along with Wendy Luján, 40, who was arrested on suspicion of assault with a caustic chemical, obstructing a peace officer, battery and unlawful assembly – into custody at that time along with two other protesters, Victor Alba, 30, of Victorville, who was arrested on suspicion of obstructing a peace officer, battery and unlawful assembly; and Wayne Freeman, 36, of Moreno Valley, who was arrested on suspicion of obstructing a peace officer and unlawful assembly.
Upon her booking, Luján provide her jailers with a Pomona address rather than her actual residence in Upland, which sheriff’s department’s investigators, as a result of their their subsequent investigation, now believe was an effort to protect Edin Enamorado, with whom she cohabits, from being connected to what had occurred that day.
Edin Enamorado uploaded an extended video of the protest including the assault of the couple in the Hyundai to a social media account on TikTok he controls under heading “Edin Enamorado is going live.” The video was presented to the public within a context in which it was suggested that what had occurred was a demonstration of the noble efforts of the Enamorados to stand up to racism. The posting did not dwell on the consideration that the passenger of the Hyundai who was assaulted is Hispanic.
With his advent in San Bernardino County, Enamorado espoused similar causes as he had taken up elsewhere. When the City of Fontana in October undertook to pass a sidewalk/street vendor regulation ordinance and the following month sought to augment the ordinance with $232 vendor cart/merchandise impound fee, the Enamorados showed up en masse at the city council meetings where those matters were on the agenda on October 24 and November 14 to register their objections, in both cases resulting in disruptions which prompted Mayor Acquanetta Warren to clear the council chambers of the public before the council voted on the matter behind closed doors.
At both meetings, Hispanic entrepreneurs based in Fontana, including members of the Latino Small Business Alliance were present to voice support for the ordinance and the impound fee. Some of those who spoke at the October 24 meeting were subjected to threats and intimidation by a few of the Enamorados when they left the speaker’s podium to return to where they were sitting in the gallery. This prompted some of those who returned on November 14 to decline to provide their names when addressing the council in support of the impound fee out of fear of retribution.
On October 24, after the crowd had been excluded from the council chamber prior to the council’s vote, Edin Enamorado rallied with several of those present in the City Hall parking lot and directed them to accompany him to the 14200 block of Lauramore Court in northern Fontana where Mayor Warren lived, whereupon they marched up and down the block between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., awaiting Warren’s arrival, with Enamorado using his trademark bullhorn to regale Warren’s neighbors with a lecture about what a racist community Fontana is. When Warren, driving her Mercedes-Benz, arrived home, she quickly ducked inside to a void a physical confrontation. The police arrived shortly thereafter and after having a patrol car make its way in one direction and then back on Lauramore Court informing those assembled that theirs had been declared an unlawful assembly, prompting most there to take their leave, a group of at least seven officers in riot gear emerged from a SWAT van, marching abreast down the street to usher any remaining stragglers out of the neighborhood. When Edin Enamorado and another individual, described as his bodyguard, did not depart, they were taken into custody and booked into the West Valley Detention Center at 11:26 p.m. on disturbing the peace charges. Edin Enamorado was cite released the next morning at 8:48 a.m.
After the October 24 meeting, the City of Fontana sought a temporary restraining order against Enamorado to keep him from coming within 100 feet of Mayor Warren or her home. On October 27, Superior Court Judge Ron Gilbert denied the request for that civil harassment temporary restraining order.
At the November 14 Fontana City Council meeting, a large number of Enamorados turned out, with several making an effort to identify those among the Latinos present who were there to support rather than oppose the adoption of impound fee. Those so identified were derided with the slur “coconut,” signifying that they were brown on the outside but white on the inside. Several were threatened with physical violence.
Also on the agenda to be considered at the November 24 meeting were multiple land use decisions, including four warehouse projects. Disruptions throughout hearing for the impound fee proposal prompted Warren to again exclude the public from the council chamber prior to the council discussion and vote, by which the imposition of the fee was approved. The council adjourned that portion of the meeting pertaining to the land use issues until the next morning at 7:30, which resulted in large numbers of those who had hoped to weigh in on those issues to have to forego doing so.
Edin Enamorado was arrested in Apple Valley on December 10 when several Enamorados conducted a protest outside the home of an Apple Valley woman to protest what they said was a racist rant she had engaged in while within a Disneyland restroom when she encountered a woman speaking Spanish to her son.
The way in which he and the Enamorados had been able to carry off their protests in Rancho Cucamonga at Peelman’s home and in Upland around the homes of Peelman’s defenders, that he had avoided arrest in Victorville on September 24 and that he had been cite released after only brie incarcerations following his two arrests in Fontana on October 24 and November 15 and Apple Valley on December 10 lulled Edin Enamorado into a state of complacency, instilling in him a belief that he and the Enamorados would be able to effectuate in San Bernardino County the same brand of societal reform he had come to pride himself as carrying out in Los Angeles County, doing so with impunity, or relative impunity, as the arrests followed by a cite release without any prosecutorial follow-up were little more than a temporary nuisance to him. Relatively shortly after the Victorville protest, one of the Enamorados who was present and had participated in the assault on the Hyundai passenger, Guillet Acevedo, contacted Enamorado, telling him he thought he should take down the video, given that law enforcement might be monitoring the websites and social media accounts he controlled in the aftermath of the arrests of Chávez, Luján, Alba and Freeman. Shortly thereafter, Chávez, who was facing possible charges at that point over his arrest on September 24, texted Enamorado, “Hey bro, could you take down the video. It’s incriminating me.”
Enamorado responded by making several passes at editing the video, cutting out the passages which depicted the gross violence against someo0ne who was, in essence, a bystander, and altering the video and its context to emphasize the righteousness of the protest against the physical abuse of Jeffers and the aggressive reaction of the deputies who responded to the protesters’ confrontation with the Hyundai driver and passenger at the car wash.
Acevedo’s and Chávez’s requests and Enamorado’s reaction came too late. Sheriff’s Department investigators had already begun monitoring the Enamorados social media postings and communications, had ascertained that Enamorado was their leader, were giving him especially close scrutiny and had begun to secure copies of the videos and other materials that were being uploaded to various websites and social media accounts. Those materials would form the partial basis of warrants the investigators would obtain, which led to further discoveries. While other Enamorados, the adherents to their philosophy, their followers and those who saw Edin Enamorado as a hero and a champion of society’s outcasts looked at many of those videos and saw him and his compadres bravely standing up to the bullies, bigots and abusers who had their jackboots on the throats of the sidewalk vendors, the investigators and the deputy prosecutors they were networking with saw prima facie and undeniable evidence of the Enamorados engaging in physical assaults.
Armed with the information they were gleaning from the various postings the Enamorados were making, the investigators gathered a gradually wider and taller window on the activities the group was engaged in. The investigators reached out to other law enforcement agencies that had contact with the Enamorados and Edin Enamorado in particular, including those in San Diego, Santa Ana, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Moorpark, Pomona, Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, Upland, Fontana and Riverside, as well as the sheriff’s department’s own stations in Rancho Cucamonga and Apple Valley.
Simultaneously, the search warrants the investigators obtained allowed them to access and pore over records of phone contacts, text messages and eventually emails and other communications between the Enamorados. It was apparent that Edin Enamorado and to a lesser extent Wendy Luján were the coordinators of the group’s various activities, and that virtually all of the group’s members responded to  calls to action, going to where Enamorado and Luján vectored them.
The September 24 event in Victorville had triggered the investigation. When San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Sergeant of Detectives Tony Romero and Detective Alejandro Duran had sought from cellular providers data on the Enamorados’ phone contacts and text messages, they arbitrarily set September 1 as the date back to which they requested the information. As it turned out, the Pomona Police Department had passed along that the Enamorados were involved in two separate incidents and a what appeared to be a related contact with the department on September 3. Cross-referencing the phone activity of Enamorados, the investigators learned that Edin Enamorado had gone from his residence in Upland to Pomona early in the day, had returned to Upland and once more returned to Pomona, at which point both of the assaults the Enamorados had engaged in that day took place.
By November, investigators had identified eight Enamorados they had established as having engaged in some order of violence during public protests, demonstrations and activities carried out to “protect” street vendors, and by December were constantly tracking their whereabouts in real time, using the global position data on their cell phones. Assembling the cases they felt could be made against Enamorado, Luján and the six others, the sheriff’s department obtained arrest warrants, which they served in the early morning of December 14. At 3:20 a.m. Fernando López, 44, was taken into custody at 3560 East Gage Avenue in Bell. Enamorado, 36, and Luján were arrested at 3:55 a.m. at the apartment they shared at 1610 West Arrow Route in Upland. David Chávez, 28, who had been arrested previously by the department along with Luján on September 24 in Victorville, was arrested at his residence located at 3863 Del Air Street in Riverside. At 4:08 a.m., Vanessa Carrasco, 40, was arrested at her 742 West Sunkist Street residence in Ontario. At 4:10 a.m., sheriff’s deputies took Gullit Eder Acevedo, 30, into custody at his domicile at 2855 Fremontia Drive in San Bernardino. Stephanie Amésquita, 33, was arrested at her 1936 Magnolia Avenue address in San Bernardino at 4:22 a.m. At 4:46 a.m., sheriff’s deputies took Edwin Peña, 26, into custody at 1809 West 11th Street Unit 310 in Los Angeles.
All eight were jailed without being eligible for bail release and Judge Shannon Faherty at their December 18 arraignment refused to release any of them on their own recognizance nor discontinue the no bail hold they are under.
Upon being arraigned, the seven charges Enamorado was arrested on were upped to 16; the two charges used to justify Luján’s arrest were increased to 14; Chávez’s three counts likewise were expanded to 14, Carrasco’s three charges became 14 Acevedo three, López, arrested on three charges, saw nine added to bring the total number of counts to a dozen; Amésquita’s two charges morphed to nine, Peña’s three charges became 14 and Acevedo was accused at arraignment with participating no just in the three he had been arrested on but four. All eight, in addition to other charges, were charged with conspiracy, under the theory that in going to the three places – two in Pomona and one in Victorville – where the assaults took place, coordinated ahead of time to go there.
The arrests and the revelation of the charges prompted reactions from the Enamorados’ defenders to the effect that prosecutors were criminalizing protest and constitutionally permitted activities. Moreover, when it was revealed that two of the three incidents involved had taken place in Pomona, those defenders cried foul in that the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s authority did not extend across the county line.
All eight were initially represented by Christian Contreras. He was substituted out by all of the defendants except Luján.
Meanwhile, their supporters put up money of their own and sought donations from the public at large to bankroll the defense for what was soon billed as “The Justice Eight.” Enamorado was able to retain Nicolas Rosenberg. Representing Lujan was Christian Contreras. Chávez’s attorney was Edwin S Salguero Arsany Said represented Peña. Defense Counsel Dan Eugene Chambers represented Gullit “Jaguar” Acevedo. Damon Alimouri represented Carrasco. Erick Hammett represented López. Amesquita was reprsented by Mauro Quintero.
At a pre-pretrial hearing before Judge Melissa Rodriguez on December 26, the no-bail hold was continued for all eight but at the pretrial hearing on December 28, Judge Rodriguez consented to granting Acevedo alone in the amount of $40,000, conditional upon his wearing an electronic ankle monitor, having no direct or indirect contact with his seven co-defendants, having no access to social media and engaging in no social media posting, having no contact with any of the alleged victims in the case, their families, homes or workplaces and possessing no weapons or explosive devices.

Once the preliminary hearing had begun in earnest before Judge Zahara Arredondo , the prosecution called Pomona Police Detective Travis Johnson, Pomona Police Officer Edgar Rodriguez, Pomona Police Officer Juan Ruiz, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Mark Valencia, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Jonathan Ortega, prosecution witness Blake Foyle, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Detective Alejandro Duran, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Detective Eric Rebollar.
During the preliminary hearing, District Attorney Jason Wilkinson and Deputy District Attorney John Richardson elicited from Johnson, Rodriguez, Ruiz, Valencia, Ortega, Foyle, Duran and Rebollar testimony to provide an outline of the case fleshed out with enough detail to convince Judge Arredondo that there is sufficient grounds to proceed to trial all eight of the defendants.
According to the Wilkinson/Richardson narrative as related by those witnesses and snippets of both video and text evidence the investigators have accumulated, in early September, after Edin Enamorado learned that a security guard at El Super Market at the northeast corner of Indian Hill Avenue and Holt Boulevard in Pomona had a confrontation with some street vendors there, he appealed to his followers on social media to find out who he was. On the morning of September 3, Enamorado traveled from his residence in Upland to the Pomona Police Department headquarters located within the Pomona Civic Center to demand that the department take action against the security guard, who was identified by investigators as “John Doe 1.” Enamorado livestreamed that exchange with two police officers outside the entrance to the police station lobby, during which he was critical of the department’s failure to arrest the security guard, to his Instagram channel. In that video, Enamorado tells the police, in the midst of assailing them for not dealing with the security guard that “We’ll be holding him accountable.” That video was presented as evidence during the preliminary hear.
After that exchange with the officers, Enamorado returned to Upland, according to testimony, where, at 2:43 p.m., he received a message from an individual identified as “Big Guppy 420” who was apparently monitoring El Super.
“He’s here,” Big Guppy 420 related to Enamorado, who responded, “I’m on my way.” While he was yet in Upland, Enamorado phoned Luján ast 2:45 p.m. and arrangements were made to alert the other Enamorados that the security guard – John Doe 1 – was at El Super and that they should go there at once, according to testimony and evidence presented. Video footage of the confrontation between the Enamorados and John Doe 1, extrapolated both from videos the Enamorados had recorded and later posted to social media and security video from El Super, was presented in court. On one of the videos made by the Enamorados, one of them can be heard saying “Spray his dumb ass.”
Another video passage, taken inside El Super, shows the security guard on the sprawled on the floor, blinded by pepper spray. He manages to get to his feet, mak his way toward one of the store’s cash registers, where three of the Enamorados are kicking him and raining blows down upon him.
Defense attorneys countered that evidence with a video provided in which John Doe 1 is in his vehicle, surrounded Enamorados. As he is being challenged, he guns the accelerator, driving off quickly. According to the defense, as he did so, he used a spray device of his own, a pepper gun, which he fired at Edin Enamorado out the open passenger side window.
According to the prosecution, after the mid-afternoon September 3 incident between the Enamorados and the security guard, Pomona Police arrived and arrested Luján. Thereupon, the Enamorados sojourned to the Pomona Police headquarters to object to her arrest and get her out of custody. A Pomona resident, identified as John Doe 2, came to the police station, intending to file an unrelated police report. Unbeknownst to any of those there – both the Enamorados and the Pomona resident – the police station was shuttered day because of the Labor Day holiday. The resident, unable to get into the police headquarters lobby because of the protesters milling about in front of the station, perceived his inability to file the report he had come to make was because police personnel had locked the entrance because of the protest. Words were exchanged between the resident and some of Enamorados. When John Doe 2 went back to his car, he was accompanied by several of the Enamorados. Further words were exchanged, and the resident threw an open Gatorade bottle at them as he was about to drive off. The Enamorados mistakenly took the liquid in the bottle to be urine. Edin Enamorado told one of the Enamorados to determine where John Doe 2 lived. The resident lived roughly a mile from the Pomona Civic Center and shortly after his place of residence was determined, someone can be overheard on Edin Enamorado’s livestream video of the protest outside the police station say that they were going to John Doe 2’s home. About half of the Enamorados engaged in the protest peeled off and went to the man’s home. There they found him seated in his vehicle.
Enamorado challenged him to fight. Someone else could be heard on one of the videos of that confrontation telling John Doe 2 “I will beat you every day if you don’t get out of the car.” When he did get out of the vehicle, John Doe was forced to his knees, where he groveled before his tormentors, pleading with them not to harm him.
According to prosecutors, the Enamorados engaged in multiple threats to inflict great bodily harm upon John Doe 2, which were capped by Carrasco humiliating him yet further by implying that they could have easily killed him. “We let you live,” Detective Duran quoted Carrasco as telling him.
Prosecutors presented a stills from a video showing Enamorado, accompanied by Luján, showing him firing a gun at a shooting range.
Rosenberg, Enamorado’s defense attorney, acknowledged that prosecutors had succeeded in previewing evidence that was damaging to the defendants, some more than others, with his client having been the one most seriously maligned by the evidence and testimony put on the record by the prosecution, including video of Enamorado physically assaulting John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 and testimony that he was challenging John Doe 2 to a fight. Nevertheless, the defense was able to bring critical scrutiny to portions of the prosecution narrative and undercut some of the evidence, while bringing into question or outrightdisproving other elements of the case.
The defense’s most compelling of evidence and testimony to contradict the prosecution was that which pertained to Gulitt Acevedo, known as Jaguar. He is prominently seen in the videos of the assault of John Doe 3, the passenger who exits from the Hyundai while his wife at the wheel is unable to drive the car out of the car wash parking lot because of the constant stream of protesters on the sidewalk in front of her. It is not in dispute that Acevedo was in Victorville on September 24. Prosecutors had also alleged that he had been in Pomona on September 3 and had taken part in the violence perpetrated against John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.
Acevedo’s attorney, Dan Chambers, however was able to convincingly controvert three primary allegations against his client and substantially ameliorate a fourth. Chambers presented virtually unassailable evidence that Acevedo was not in Pomona or Los Angeles County on September 3 but rather in Santa Ana in Orange County. Moreover, Chambers successfully divorced his client from the allegation that he had pepper sprayed John Doe or that he had been present to surround and therefore falsely imprison John Doe 2. Indeed, Chambers credibly argued, Acevedo had not used, possessed, received, owned or purchased any pepper spray, mace, tear gas or chemical agent.
As a consequence three of the four counts against Acevedo – those pertaining to his participation in the conspiracies to assault John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 were dropped. And Chambers was able to convince Judge Arredondo that Acevedo had not so much accosted John Doe 3 but gotten into a scuffle with him, such that it was appropriate to reduce the Penal Code 245(A)(4)-F charge, pertaining to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, a felony, to Penal Code 245(a)(4)-M, misdemeanor assault, in that what Acevedo did was unlikely to result in great bodily injury.
Acevedo was already the defendant with the fewest charges against him and had already been granted bail release by Judge Rodriguez. The dismissal of all of the charges against him but the reduced assault count prompted Judge Arredondo to but him on a separate track from the rest of the defendants, so that he is not to be tried with them. Instead, he is scheduled to have his case heard separately by Judge Enrique Guerrero in Victorville Department 6.
Duran said that the investigative team had spent well in excess of 1,000 man-hours examining between 5,000 to 10,000 text messages between the defendants. Several of the defense attorneys pressed Duran as the lead detective on the case as to whether any planning among the defendants to assault any the defendants took place in advance during their phone messaging. Duran said the messages examined did not contain any such explicit discussions.
The defense attorneys dwelt upon the charge of conspiracy that had been lodged against the defendants, noting that Edin Enamorado had livestreamed the encounters and that he had some 200,000 followers on Instagram. They sought from him whether he considered the openness with which they acted to be consistent with the secrecy or stealth that normally attends a conspiracy.
Duran was also grilled about the suggestion made by Sheriff Dicus at the December 14 press conference that Edin Enamorado’s objective in making his social media postings was to generate income. Rosenberg and one of the other defense attorneys asked about Enamorado’s move to “demonetize” his YouTube channel, implying that the social media postings were not producing a revenue stream for the Enamorados generally or Enamorado specifically. Duran acknowledged having no specific information about the profitability of the Enamorados’ efforts.
Contreras induced from Duran a concession that Luján did not get close to John Doe 2 and that there was no evidence, video or otherwise, that she assaulted John Doe 1 or John Doe 2.
Rosenberg sought to obtain from the law enforcement witnesses acknowledgments that those represented by the prosecution as victims in the case – John Doe 1, John Doe 2 and John Doe 3 – had acted or reacted unreasonably, aggressively, provocatively or illegally, despite having to present exhibits or evidence in doing so that demonstrated the Enamorados acting equally or more aggressively or provocatively.
Most particularly, Rosenberg was harshest in his characterization of John Doe 1, whom he referenced as a “liar,” prior to playing an en extended passage of a video taken of John Doe 1 in a confrontation with a street vendor that took place near the Pomona El Super without the presence of the Enamorados at some point prior to the September 3 incident. That video did not depict, as John Doe 1 had claimed, according to Rosenberg, that the security guard had been choked. Nor did other video snippets of John Doe 1 in his clashes with the Enamorados capture any use racial epithets by the Enamorados toward the security guard, who is African American. Duran indicated that the security guard was himself armed with pepper spray and that he might have used it. Duran, nevertheless, in reference to the selective presentation of the evidence and video exhibits, did not concede that John Doe 1 had been untruthful in his statements to investigators. Nor did Duran confirm with any of his answers Rosenberg’s postulation that John Doe 1 had himself used the September 3 incident to generate money for himself through either social media postings or employment enhancement.
Duran deflected Rosenberg’s suggestions that John Doe 3 had brought the beating he was given during the September 24 encounter in Victorville upon himself by his own aggressive action as he emerged from the Hyundai and thereafter by stating that what he saw in the video was the man assuming “a defensive posture” in the face of being assailed by no fever than a half dozen protesters.
“The actions of these groups, despite their message, tear at the fabric of our society,” according to San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Jason Wilkinson.
The surrounding of the vehicles and forcing the victims to different locations than where they willingly wanted to go constituted kidnapping and/or false imprisonment, according to Wilkinson. Edin Enamorado’s call or instructions to the others to go to the locations where the violent acts occurred followed by the arrival of the Enamorados at those places in one demonstration that a conspiracy had taken place, Wilkinson stated. Furthermore, Enamorado’s request that other Enamorados determine the whereabouts or find the home address of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, the Enamorados then complying by producing that information, after which that information was acted upon by the perpetration of violence against those victims is a further indication of the conspiracy, according to Wilkinson.
Alimouri, Carrasco’s attorney, contested the characterization of what had taken place as a conspiracy, saying that the violence that was exhibited against John Doe 1 at El Super and John Doe 2 at his home was spontaneous rather than premeditated.
While stating, “I am very sensitive to any kind of discrimination against street vendors” and that she disliked “any discrimination against anyone,” Judge Arredondo said she could “not disregard what has been heard and seen at this hearing. I hold everyone accountable.”
Arredondo said she found the treatment the Enamorodos accorded John Doe 2, in which he was surrounded, ordered out of his car, allegedly assaulted and forced to make an apology, to be particularly egregious. “That’s one of the most offensive things that can happen to a person,” Judge Arredondo said.
With regard to Edin Enamorado, Judge Arredondo granted Rosenberg’s motion to dismiss two of the sixteen counts against him, one of the three Penal Code [PC] 22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas charges and PC594(B)(1)- felony vandalism involving $400 or more worth of property, based on the district attorney’s office proffering insufficient evidence to prove them. She held Enamorado to answer on charges of PC182(A)(1)-felony conspiracy to commit a crime; two charges of PC422(A) – felony threats to engage in criminal action likely to result in death or great bodily injury; three counts of PC236 – felony false imprisonment; PC207(A) – felony kidnapping; three counts of PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; two counts of PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas; one count of PC22810(A) – misdemeanor possession of tear gas by a convicted felon; and one count of PC29800(A)(1) – felony possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Judge Arredondo granted Contreras’s motion to dismiss one of the three Penal Code [PC] 22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas charges and PC594(B)(1)- felony vandalism involving $400 or more worth of property against Luján, based on the district attorney’s office proffering insufficient evidence to prove those charges. She held Luján to answer on charges of PC182(A)(1)-felony conspiracy to commit a crime; two counts of PC422(A) – felony threats to engage in criminal action likely to result in death or great bodily injury; three counts of PC236 – felony false imprisonment; PC207(A) – felony kidnapping; three counts of PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; and two counts of PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas.
Judge Arredondo granted Salguero’s motion to dismiss one of the two Penal Code [PC] 22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas charges and the PC594(B)(1)- felony vandalism involving $400 or more worth of property charge against Chávez, but held him over to answer to PC182(A)(1) – felony conspiracy to commit a crime; two counts of PC422(A) – felony threats to engage in criminal action likely to result in death or great bodily injury; three counts of PC236 – felony false imprisonment; PC207(A) – felony kidnapping; three counts of PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; and two counts of PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas.
Judge Arredondo granted Quinteros’s motion to dismiss one of the two Penal Code [PC] 22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas charges and the PC594(B)(1)- felony vandalism involving $400 or more worth of property charge against Amesquita. Judge Arredondo rejected another motion by Quintero to reduce one of the charges against Amesquita, assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury from a felony to simple misdemeanor assault. The judge held Amesquita to answer for PC182(A)(1)-felony conspiracy to commit a crime; PC422(A) – felony threats to engage in criminal action likely to result in death or great bodily injury; two counts of PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; two counts of PC236 – felony false imprisonment; and one count of PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas.
Judge Arredondo granted Hammett’s motion to dismiss one of the two Penal Code [PC] 22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas charges and the PC594(B)(1)- felony vandalism involving $400 or more worth of property charge against López, but otherwise held López to answer for PC182(A)(1)-felony conspiracy to commit a crime; two counts of PC422(A) – felony threats to engage in criminal action likely to result in death or great bodily injury; two counts of PC236 – felony false imprisonment; PC207(A) – felony kidnapping; two counts of PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; one count of PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas; and one count of PC22810(A)- misdemeanor possession of tear gas by a convicted felon.
Judge Arredondo granted Alimouri’s motion to dismiss one of the two Penal Code [PC] 22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas charges and the PC594(B)(1)- felony vandalism involving $400 or more worth of property charge against Carrasco, while simultaneously holding her to answer for PC182(A)(1)-felony conspiracy to commit a crime; two counts of PC422(A)- felony threats to engage in criminal action likely to result in death or great bodily injury; three counts of PC236 – felony false imprisonment; PC207(A) – felony kidnapping; three counts of PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; and two counts of PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas.
Judge Arredondo granted Said’s motion to dismiss one of the two Penal Code [PC] 22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas charges and the PC594(B)(1)- felony vandalism involving $400 or more worth of property charge against Peña. Peña was yet held to answer for PC182(A)(1)-felony conspiracy to commit a crime; two counts of PC422(A)- felony threats of engaging in criminal action likely to result in death or great bodily injury; three counts of PC236 – felony false imprisonment; PC207(A) – felony kidnapping; three counts of PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; and two counts of PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas.
Enamorado, Luján, Chávez, Amesquita, López, Carrasco, Peña are set for arraignment on the information and charges sustained by Judge Arredondo on January 19 at 8:30 a.m. in Victorville Department 4 before Judge Debra Harris, who is scheduled at this point to oversee their trial collectively.
Judge Arredondo granted Chambers’ motion to dismiss the PC182(A)(1) – felony conspiracy to commit a crime; the PC22810(G)(1) – felony unlawful use of tear gas and PC236 – felony false imprisonment charges against Acevedo, entering a ruling that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on those counts. Judge Arredondo further granted Chambers’ motion to reduce or modify the PC245(a)(4) – felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury to PC245(a)(4)- misdemeanor assault. Acevedo immediately entered a not guilty plea to the reduced charge. Judge Arredondo continued Acevedo’s bail release and terminated the requirement that he submit to global position system monitoring in the form of an ankle bracelet. He is to be tried separately from the other seven defendants and is set for a pretrial hearing on January 17 in Victorville Department 6 before Judge Enrique Guerrero.
Judge Arredondo continued the court’s previous finding there is “clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the protection of the public safety” if Enamorado, Luján, Chávez, Amesquita, López, Carrasco, Peña were to be released either singly or collectively and that “there are no less restrictive means to protect the public.” She denied the motions of Rosenberg, Contreras, Salguero Quintero, Hammett, Alimouri and Said that Enamorado, Luján, Chávez, Amesquita, López, Carrasco, Peña be granted bail or recognizance release. The combination of Judge Arredondo’s decision to sustain the lion’s share of the charges as filed and deny the seven bail, coming at the end of a nearly three-week long preliminary hearing process combined with what the court minutes characterized as “boisterous statements on the record” by “defense counsel” for Carrasco, i.e., Alimouri, provoked an outpouring of short-lived rage within the courtroom, which was packed with the Enamorados’ supporters. The court minutes described Alimour’s comments as “causing commotion with defendants and commotion with the audience. Defense first objects to waiting for a Bail O[wn] R[ecognizance], then withdraws objection. Defense counsel reserve on the Bail O.R. Motion and request to trail matter to the next hearing date.”
Enamorado, who had managed for most of the weeks-long hearing to hold his well-recognized temper in check, thundered “This is not fair. Even the murderers get out on bail!”
Unstated in court was the consideration that the investigators with the sheriff’s office, through the use of undercover operatives and deals they have cut with other Enamorados whose activities have been investigated but who have not at this stage been criminally charged, are continuing to investigate the defendants’ actions relating to further potential charges. Releasing any of the defendants at this point would potentially subject the Enamorados who are cooperating with authorities to interference that would compromise the investigation.
Judge Arredondo’s ruling with regard to the seven defendants who will go to trial in front of Judge Harris represented a setback for them on multiple levels. Judge Arredondo was a deputy public defender with the San Bernardino County Public Defender’s Office for fifteen years before she was elevated to the bench by Governor Gavin Newsom last year. As such it was thought she would be more inclined toward skepticism with regard to the prosecution’s case than had been either of the other two magistrates involved, Judge Faherty and Judge Rodriguez, both of whom were former deputy prosecutors. In particular, some thought it was possible that Judge Arredondo would either dismiss those aspects of the case stemming from the action that occurred across the county line in Pomona, as there was and perhaps remains a question as to San Bernardino County Superior Court being the proper venue for crimes or alleged crimes committed outside the county. During the preliminary hearing, Arredondo indulged the prosecution theory that the phone contact that took place between Edin Enamorado while he was in Upland, which is within San Bernardino County, and the other Enamorados in encouraging them to meet up with him in Pomona, where the planned encounter with John Doe 1 and the unplanned encounter with John Doe 2 occurred, constituted acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, providing an important part of the framework for the case. Her ruling to allow the conspiracy charges to stand against seven of the eight defendants has perpetuated a huge portion of the case that the Enamorados on trial, their defense attorneys and their supporters thought might be thrown out.
The defense attorneys and Rosenberg in particular were banking on the events that had transpired in Pomona be deemed outside of San Bernardino County Superior Court’s jurisdiction and therefore being dismissed entirely or transferred to the Pomona Courthouse for trial. Thereafter, because of limitations on court space in Pomona and the anticipated length and intensity of the trial, it was thought that a change of venue to the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles would provide a far more favorable setting for the defendants than San Bernardino County and Victorville in particular.
Judge Arredondo’s ruling was thus disappointing to the defense attorneys for the seven and her remarks about the humiliation of John Doe 2 at the hands of the Enamorados more troubling still.
Rosenberg has indicated that a request to change the venue to Los Angeles County is yet to be forthcoming.
Chambers, the one attorney of the eight representing the Enamorados who was able to make substantial inroads in the case against his client, cited what he called “sloppy” investigative work by the detectives handling the case as a primary reason for Acevedo being arrested charged in the first place and then having three of the four charges lodged against him thrown out and the remaining charge reduced.
“They tried to rope my client into this conspiracy, and it fell flat,” Chambers, a former prosecutor, said. “There was no evidence to connect him to Pomona because he was nowhere near Pomona on September 3. There was no evidence to connect him to the others who were in Pomona. He never had pepper spray.”
Chambers said that change of venue motions “almost never succeed.”
He said the matter will likely proceed to trial in Victorville and that in order to defend the case, the defense attorneys will need to engage in astute lawyering “on the facts” to illustrate to the jury that the investigators are engaged in “overreach and taking a shotgun approach.”

A small but determined cadre of reform-minded residents is intent on determining if voters in Chino Hills are ready to embrace term limits for members of the county’s southwesternmost city.
On Tuesday night’s city council meeting, John Bruner addressed the council. He said the group he represents intends “to start a conversation about term limits. We understand the conversation will be entirely one-side. For good reason you won’t offer a reply.”
Bruner continued, “Mayor, this is why you have received many letters from residents asking that you put the issue on the public hearing agenda during the February meeting. We hope you consider the conversation important enough to grant the opportunity to the residents of Chino Hills. Tonight our members will offer a glimpse into a few of the positive outcomes that can be realized through the city’s adoption of term limits. We want to emphasize that no member of our group is here to provide solutions. Rather, our goal is to create a discussion by which we can determine the importance of term limits as a way to preserve and invigorate the governance in our city.”
Bruner acknowledged the initiative to introduce term limits in Chino Hills could be seen by the mayor and city council as a political threat.
“We understand why by your initiative the council may not bring this subject to floor, but for many reasons, the time has come to explore the possible benefits and adverse effects of this change,” he said. “Given the sensitivity of the issue, the only way the city can reach a consensus is to let residents vote this November on the issue. Residents know that you can put anything on the ballot that you choose. To get input from all sides, we have selected the council’s public hearing process as a tool to bring sunlight and credibility to this idea. Mayor, the council will offer their input, but the decision is 100 percent yours. You make it and you live with it. Using whatever administrative procedure is appropriate, we sincerely hope you add this issue to February’s agenda.”
Elaine Anderson said “We believe term limits needs to be addressed and discussed. Term limits can improve accountability to residents by encouraging elected officials to be more responsive to public input. Mayor, I know you have encouraged residents to call you and bring issues and concerns to you. We appreciate that encouragement. We’d be grateful if you and the city council would consider an open discussion regarding term limits, so we can all look at the perceived benefits and opportunities, as well as any perceived downsides to such a proposal.
Von Stiegel said he recognized that the concept involved a challenge to the individual council members’ continuing tenure in office but asked the to “keep an open mind about term limits. The Chino Chills district and citizen can be protected by term limits to eliminate decades of council member tenure and electeds’ election coffers, thus making it easier for new candidates with newer ideas to incorporate into council positions. This would include diversity and new thought direction. Many cities have incorporated term limits and are functioning quite well. An example of what can happen without term limits can be enormously unhealthy. I point to our own federal government. Let’s be honest. How many of you have thought to yourself, ‘Why can’t we get rid of these people? They just keep coming back with the same old problems and questions.’ We all know the reasons why we have that. It’s because they don’t want to vote in term limits, either.”
Stiegel said, “I also truly feel that by adding term limits we might add some voter excitement to the city.”
He said many residents were apathetic and completely uninvolved in city government. Stiegel said he asked some of those residents why they did not take an interest in civic affairs or attending council meetings or vote. He said, “The answer, 90 percent of the time, is “‘It don’t matter, Von. Nothing ever changes.’”
Doug McCormick asked the council to put a discussion of term limits on the agenda for a future council meeting, “so there can be an open and public discussion that may or may not lead to a ballot initiative supporting a term limit proposal. While I’ve loved living in the City of Chino Hills for the past 30 years and I understand that the various city councils have done great things for the city since its incorporation, I think the fact that most of our current and past city council members have hung on to their offices for numerous terms is a direct result of a system that stifles an introduction of fresh ideas and change. Be it campaign finance, political influence, district gerrymandering, name recognition, the system favors incumbents. It perpetuates the status quo. One way to combat this political malaise is term limits.”
McCormick said, “The voters of California overwhelmingly voted in favor of term limits for the executive and legislative branch. San Bernardino County voted for term limits for county supervisors and voters for various neighboring cities have overwhelmingly voted in favor of term limits for their city councils. I think the time has come for the City of Chino Hills to have an open and honest discussion of the pros and cons of term limits for our city council seats. Personally, I hope this decision would lead to a ballot measure, so that voices of the public can be heard and not ignored. I think the current city council should step up and take the lead by doing what’s necessary to open this discussion in the form of a council meeting agenda item.”
Sherry Anderson told the council, “I believe many residents of our beautiful Chino Hills community are apathetic” and too caught up in the minutiae and intensity of their lives to get involved with members of the city council who represent their own district but are out of touch with the other four-fifths of the city. A way of making the council answerable and accountable to the city’s residents to encourage them to meet with individuals outside their own districts is needed, she said.
“Transparency is the key to great governance, as is the process for term limits, so that the community has a chance for new leadership on a regular basis,” she said.
While none of the term limit advocates spoke with specificity about precisely what the limitations would be, in general, the limits that have been put in place in local jurisdictions have been two to three four-year terms. The members of the board of supervisors are now and have been, since 2006, subject to three terms of a four-year duration, such that they are capped at 12 years in office, with the potential of extending that to as much as one day less than 14 years if an individual is appointed to fill an open supervisorial post for less than two years, in which that officeholder is eligible to run for three full terms after such an appointment is conferred upon him or her.
Under California’s Government Code, term limits that are adopted cannot apply to terms served prior to the advent of the limits and apply “prospectively only.” That is, in California, term limits are operative only after they have been put into effect. In this way, the tenure in office limitation is not applicable to any of the terms served by officeholders who were serving previous to the term limits being adopted. In this way, any of the terms served by an incumbent officeholder are not considered a served term in the tally of terms that particular elected official is limited to and do not count against their time in office. Thus, if Chino Hills were to incorporate term limits into its municipal code, the current incumbents or any of those who have served on the city council in the past would be subject to the limits going forward and have the limits apply to terms to which they are elected in the future only and not to those they have already served or are currently serving.
Since its incorporation in 1991, Chino Hills has been, along with Loma Linda and Montclair one of the more politically stable cities in San Bernardino County. In that time, it has had 13 members of its city council, a remarkably limited degree of turnover in its elected decision-makers over a period of three decades. Perspectives on whether that is a positive attribute or not vary. There is something to be said for having seasoned leaders in place who do not have constantly learn the ropes and regauge the orientation and attitudes of their colleagues. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that personalities and relationships that remain locked into place for too long can create a stodgy atmosphere that can only be changed with the infusion of new blood.
At present, Councilman Peter Rogers, who lives in District 2, is the longest serving member on the council, having been elected in 2006 and re-elected in 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022. He has served as appointed mayor four times, in 2009, 2013, and 2018, and 2023.
Councilman Art Bennett, a resident of District 3, has served on the Chino Hills City Council since 2008, having been appointed and then facing no opposition in that year’s election. He was re-elected in 2012, 2016, and 2020. He has served three terms as mayor in 2012, 2016, and in 2020.
Mayor Cynthia Moran, who lives in District 5, was first elected to the Chino Hills City Council in 2012 and re-elected in 2016 and 2020. She is currently serving her third term as mayor, having served previously as Mayor in 2015 and 2019.
Councilman Ray Marquez was elected to the city council in a special election in 2013 and re-elected in 2014, 2018, and 2022. He served as mayor in 2017 and 2022.
Councilman Brian Johsz was appointed to the Chino Hills City Council in 2017 and was then elected to in 2018 and reelected in 2022. He served a single term as appointed mayor in 2021.
City council members in California can impose term limits on themselves, according to  California Government Code Section 36502(b). In practical terms, however, as most politicians have ambition to remain in office, only rarely have California officeholders at any level subjected themselves to a limitation on their time in office.
Similarly, a city council has the authority to place a measure impacting its particular municipality on the ballot by means of a majority vote. In California, citizens can request from the county election official the placement of a measure to be voted upon by those in a particular jurisdiction, but can only do so by collecting sufficient signatures of registered voters within that jurisdiction – specified as equal to 8 percent of the number of voters in that jurisdiction who voted in the last gubernatorial election. Thus, to qualify a referendum for the ballot, proponents of such a measure would need to affix at least 1,563 signatures of Chino Hills voters to their petition.
That is not a daunting task but would require a degree of work and coordination. Rather than have to go to that effort, the proponents, who are calling themselves “Term Limiters,” are hoping that they can get the city council to open a discussion of the matter at a city council meeting in February and then inspire enough of their fellow citizens to show up at the meeting to endorse the concept, thereby convincing the council that it should spare them the need to do the heavy lifting themselves by gather the signatures and use its authority to ask the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters to put the measure on the November 2024 ballot.
What the term limit proponents are asking is that the members of the council, in effect, pull the political rug out from underneath themselves.
In an effort to determine how realistic that request is, the Sentinel phoned Mayor Moran but was unable to get a response. Thereafter, the Sentinel sent emails to all five council members. The emails inquired whether the mayor and each individual council member believed such a signature gathering effort by the term limit advocates would be likely to succeed.
The Sentinel noted that one of those advocates indicated that the group will continue to ask the city to provide that shortcut to getting the referendum on term limits on the ballot until the council either agrees to do so or gives what was termed a “clear” indication it will not do so. The Sentinel was told that if the council chooses not to facilitate putting the matter before the city’s voters, then a core of determined individuals are resolved to take it upon themselves to do what needs to be done to get the measure on the ballot through the signature gathering process.
The Sentinel asked the mayor and council whether as incumbent politicians, whether each considered term limits to be ill-advised as applies to the Chino Hills City Council. The Sentinel asked the mayor and each of the council members if they will support assisting the term limit advocates in their quest to place the question of whether the governance of Chino Hills should be subjected to term limits or whether they felt that the Term Limiters, if they are to effectuate the change they are advocating, should do it the hard way by completing the daunting gauntlet of gathering sufficient signatures and then carrying out a convincing enough campaign to get a majority of the city’s voters to side with them.
The Sentinel asked the mayor and each of the city council members point blank if they are opposed, in concept and philosophy, to term limits and if so, why. The Sentinel asked each of them if they considered imposing term limits on the city’s officeholders to be a bad idea and, if so, that they provide a cogent reason why the city should not impose a limitation on the number of years a single individual can hold such a significant decision-making position in the city with regard to municipal affairs. In particular, the Sentinel asked, if each of them believed their status as officeholder for the duration of time each has been in office gave them any special insight on how the city is benefited by having political leaders with extended tenures in office. The Sentinel asked each if the advantage of experience, in their individual view, outweighs the opportunity to provide the community with leadership that involves a fresh view of the world uninhibited by the encrustation that attends being for an extended time a personification of the establishment.
The Sentinel asked the mayor and the city council, if they indeed felt that allowing city council members to remain in place for an indefinite period of time to be beneficial to the city, whether they had confidence that the advantage of preserving individuals with experience in office is sufficiently recognized by the city’s residents, such that the voters would take that into consideration if they were allowed to vote on having the city council subject to term limits or not. The Sentinel asked the council and the mayor whether they believed the voters in Chino Hills could be trusted to make the right decision if they were called upon to vote with regard to whether the city should subject its elected leadership to term limits.
The Sentinel asked the mayor and council whether they would, as had been requested, place the matter on the council agenda for one of your meetings in February to allow for a full-dimensional public discussion of this issue.
Neither Mayor Moran nor council members Johsz, Bennett nor Rogers responded by press time.
Councilman Marquez told the Sentinel he respected the advocates for term limits but did not believe that at present they had the adequate organization to coordinate a signature gathering effort to qualify a term limit referendum for the upcoming November ballot, and that as such, they were entirely dependent upon the mayor and city council to bring about the vote they are seeking.
Marquez said that he thought the downside of term limits, particularly in the case of municipal governance outweighed whatever benefit they might provide.
“We already have term limits,” Marquez said. “It’s called an election. I’m a believer in making use of the control over government we already have. Every two years, there is an election with either two or three of the current officeholders running. If the residents of the city are unhappy with the people on the council, that’s the opportunity their best opportunity to make a change.”
Those seeking to limit the tenure of the city council should consider what they are proposing, Marquez said. “I believe we already have knowledgeable and good people on the council, ones with different talents. If they can no longer run, who will we get in their place?”
Marquez said certain advantages accrue to the city by having leaders who understand how government works and know what they are doing. He cited the example of the State of California Department of Housing and Economic Development’s initial insistence that the city clear the way for the approval of more than 4,000 dwelling units during the state’s current eight-year ongoing Regional Housing Needs Assessment planning cycle. “We were able to have a dialogue with Sacramento through the Southern California Association of Governments, or regional joint powers planning authority, and reduced that number from 4,000 to 3,729. That is something that newly elected members of the council probably wouldn’t have had the understanding or knowledge to do.”
He noted that after ten years of participation on the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency Board of Directors, consisting of a representative from each of the county’s 22 cites and two incorporated towns and the five members of the county board of supervisors.
“It takes a while to get into those positions,” he said. “It took me that long to be able to get into a leadership position where the city will now have a little more reach in controlling our transportation destiny. If we had term limits, I would not have been able to do that and no one from Chino Hills would ever have that opportunity. There is a real advantage to our city and its residents by having someone from our council in that role or other regional joint powers leadership capacities. Having someone who knows the ins and outs of government opens up possibilities for the city I think those who want term limits don’t appreciate.”
It is Marquez’s perception that the impetus for imposing term limits arises from what he said was “the passion of a core group over a singular topic. They are upset over the removal of Bob Goodwin from the Public Works Commission.”
Goodwin, who had been rewarded with an appointment to the Chino Hills Public Works Commission after he had led a successful effort a decade ago to prevent Southern California Edison from construction high tension electrical towers from Tonner Canyon across Chino Hills to the Riverside County boundary, was ignominiously bounced from the commission by a 4-to-1 vote of council, with Marquez dissenting, in October after he questioned the city council’s vote to expend taxpayer money to erect a shrine to the city’s mayors within City Hall.
“I disagreed with that vote, but I don’t see how term limits is going to be a solution to that,” Marquez said. “I think the questions should be, “Have the people we have in place now done a good job? Should they be kept in office? Are we happy with our city?”
Nevertheless, Marquez said, he wasn’t absolutely opposed to giving the city’s residents a chance to determine whether term limits should be applied in Chino Hills. “I’m willing to go to any of their meetings, if they’ll have me,” Marquez said. “I’d like to show up and explain to them how I see it. I think they’re sincere and I am just as interested in hearing from them about why they think I should reconsider my position.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Having been outmaneuvered last year when they sought to recall three of their city council members, a group of Yucaipa activists have revived the effort to remove two of those elected city leaders from office.
At the height of the 2022 election season in Yucaipa, during which longtime incumbents David Avila and Greg Bogh had opted out of seeking reelection to their positions on the city council in, respectively, the First District and the Second District and during which Mark Taylor, Erik Sahakian, Sherilynn Long and Matt Garner were competing to replace Avila and Nena Dragoo was in a head-to-head contest to succeed Bogh, the city council on October 23, 2022 took up a discussion of whether to extend then-City Manager Ray Casey’s contract. That night, Avila, Bogh, Third District Councilman Bobby Duncan, Fourth District Councilman Justin Beaver and Fifth District Councilman Jon Tharp voted unanimously to extend Casey’s tenure with the city through June 30, 2024, conferring on him a salary and benefits that made put him among the top 20 highest remunerated city managers in California. On November 8, 2022, Garner and Venable were victorious. They were sworn in as members of the council the following month during a council meeting that was largely ceremonial in nature and did not involve much in the way of substantive action.
Unbeknownst to the electorate, prior to the election a discussion had taken place between then-candidate Garner and both Beaver and Duncan in which they had discussed jettisoning Casey as city manager in the event that Garner’s election bid was successful. At some point after Garner was elected but before he was sworn into office in December 2022, the trio had confirmed that commitment.
On January 9, 2023, the first substantive meeting of the Yucaipa City Council with Garner and Venable as members, was held. After adjourning into a closed session conducted outside the scrutiny of the public shortly after the meeting began, Beaver, Duncan and Garner pressured Casey into resigning and moved to conduct a vote to terminate City Attorney David Snow. The vote to accept Casey’s resignation was 3-to-2, with Beaver, Duncan and Garner prevailing and Thorp and Venable dissenting. The council then voted 5-to-0 to fire Snow. At that point, Steven Graham, the city attorney with the City of Canyon Lake in Riverside, materialized and began functioning as Yucaipa’s City Attorney. The council then voted 4-to-1, to offer the position of city manager to Mann, who at that time was the city manager of Canyon Lake, a member of the Yucaipa Water District Board of Directors, and the principal in Mann Communications. Mann, like Graham, had been present on the civic center grounds throughout the meeting.
Nearly two score Yucaipa residents who had been alerted at the last minute that something was in the offing, had shown up at the meeting, several of whom had hoped to be able to talk the council out of getting rid of Casey, a Princeton-educated civil engineer with extensive public works experience in governmental and municipal settings and construction experience in the private sector. He had served as Yucaipa’s city engineer/director of public works for five years beginning in 2003 before he was promoted to the position of city manager in 2008. The crowd’s efforts at intercession had been to no avail, and Casey abruptly joined the ranks of the unemployed or retired or both.
With Mann and Graham on hand for the meeting and Graham assuming the role of city attorney on the spot without any forewarning, there were immediate accusations that a violation of The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law, had taken place. The Brown Act prohibits a quorum of an elected governmental body or an appointed governmental body with decision-making authority from meeting, discussing any matter to be decided or voted upon or coming to a consensus in any way about a matter to be voted upon outside of a public forum. The Brown Act allows less than a quorum of an elected body – as in the case of the five-member Yucaipa City Council, two members – to meet and discuss some contemplated action to be voted upon, but it prohibits either of those two members from engaging in a “serial” meeting of a quorum, whereby one of those members then separately meets with another member to discuss the upcoming action or vote.
Residents who were opposed to what was tantamount to Casey’s sacking reasoned that a Brown Act violation had to have taken place, as Graham was on hand for the meeting before he was hired as city attorney and, likewise, Mann was immediately present, in anticipation of the action the council ultimately took.
The council majority would eventually form a response to the Brown Act violation accusation that held no such violation had occurred since the collusion with regard to Casey’s force exit and Snow’s firing had taken place prior to Garner being sworn in as a member of the city council, such that when that plotting took place, the three did not constitute a quorum of the city council.
For those upset at Casey’s departure, that defense was one that relied on a distinction without a difference and constituted an admission of duplicity on the part of the three, given Beaver and Duncan’s October 23 vote to extend Casey’s contract and Garner’s failure to inform the community of his intention with regard to the city manager prior to his election.
Moreover, many Yucaipa residents believed that the sacking of Casey was merely a ploy to hire Mann, the principal in Mann Communications, which according to that company’s website functions in the main as a representative of developers and development interests seeking to move building proposals past the planning process and get them approved. The website stated “Chris Mann has been an active partner in numerous development projects in California, Nevada and Arizona. Having worked both as an elected official and as a developer, he uniquely understands the development process from both the public and private perspectives. Understanding the practices and motivations of each side better than most, he is able to provide tremendous value to the entire development process, making Mann Communications an invaluable member of any project team.” As such, according to the website, Mann was able to ensure that “elected officials are… provided the political cover they need in order to support good projects.”
A good cross section of Yucaipa residents who had come to believe that Casey had an intense and intimate understanding of the need for matching any incoming development with adequate infrastructure, the cost for which had to be defrayed either by the developer or the city’s taxpayers and that he was capable of serving as not only an honest broker between pro-development and anti-development forces and sentiments within the community but advocating for and insisting that project proponents be financially responsible for the infrastructure and off-site improvements that must accompany their development efforts. Looking at the fashion in which Casey had been cashiered in favor of Mann, they became convinced that having someone who worked for accepted money from developmental interests take on the assignment of having ultimate oversight of the city’s land use decision-making authority would result not only in unbridled growth taking place in their city which had traditionally sought to refrain from becoming indistinguishable from scores or even hundreds of other cities in Southern California that are now composed, practically, of wall-to-wall houses, but that in allowing the aggressive development to occur which would obliterate the city’s largely rural nature, the city’s residents, rather than the developers reaping a profit, would be called upon to pay for the infrastructure to accommodate the “stack and pack” subdivisions that were to be built. Circumstance led them to the ineluctable conclusion that Beaver, Duncan and Garner were on the take and that Mann was their henchman.
A recall committee formed, and some 193 city residents lent their names as sponsors of the effort, with 62 residents of District 4 signing the notice of the intention to circulate the recall petition against Justin A. Beaver, 67 residents of District 3 signing the notice of the intention to circulate the recall petition against Bobby Dean Duncan and 64 residents of District 1, signing the notice of the intention to circulate the recall petition against Councilmember Matthew Gabriel Garner.
Reasons given for seeking the recall against each of the three were that they had acted to terminate Casey and had violated the Brown Act in doing so.
In the aftermath of Casey’s departure and the hiring of Mann, Mann replaced the city clerk who had been in place under Casey, Kimberly Metzler, with his own choice, that being Ana Sauceda, whom he had previously promoted to city clerk when she was employed at the City of Canyon Lake.
To protect his political masters on the city council, Mann formulated a strategy of hiring the Los Angeles-based Sutton Law Firm, using city money, to represent Sauseda as plaintiff, acting in her capacity as the city’s chief elections officer, in a lawsuit challenging the validity of the recall effort. According to the suit as authored by two of the Sutton Law Firm’s attorneys, Bradley W. Hertz and Eli B. Love, the recall proponents could not prove their allegation that a Brown Act violation had occurred with the forced departure of Casey and that the recall proponents’ separate accusations against Beaver, Duncan and Garner that each had acted toward terminating Casey and Snow was not true since no single one of them had such authority and that the actions to relieve Casey of his city manager’s post and fire Snow were ones taken collectively by the entire city council body. The lawsuit was presented as adhering to recently passed law, AB 2584, allowing Sauseda to contest the accuracy of the stated grounds for a recall. Sauseda’s suit, was filed against all 193 of the recall proponents.
Simultaneously, Mann had Joseph Pradetto, whom he had hired to serve as Yucaipa’s director of governmental affairs and official spokesperson, intensify the intimidation level against the recall proponents by putting out as statement that intimated the recall proponents were liable for arrest under the auspices of California Elections Code section 18600, which gives governmental authorities such as Mann and the city council to have citizens arrested who engage to prosecute as a “misdemeanor offense” those who “circulate or obtain signatures on a recall petition that intentionally misrepresent or make false statements.”
Faced with the distraction of the lawsuit and stood off by Pradetto’s threat to have them jailed for persisting with the recall effort, recall proponents fell far short of gathering, by the August 16 deadline, the minimal 1,826 valid signatures from among District 1’s 7,303 registered voters to qualify a ballot item on recalling Garner, the minimal 1,478 valid signatures of the 5,912 registered voters in District 3 to qualify a ballot item on recalling Duncan and the minimal 1,623 valid signatures from among the 6,492 registered voters in District 4 to qualify a vote on recalling Beaver.
Nevertheless, several of the recall proponents approached the San Bernardino County Grand Jury, lodging a complaint with regard to all that had occurred, doubling down on the accusation that a Brown Act violation had occurred and accusing the council majority, aided by Mann, Sauseda, Pradetto and the Sutton Law Firm in interfering in the political process and the recall proponents’ exercise of their First Amendment Rights.
The grand jury on December 15 released a report on its investigation and findings, which stated, “The original complaint was that there was a violation of the Brown Act. The grand jury found no violation. However, there appears to be a violation of the public’s trust. Since the new council term began in 2023, the Yucaipa City Council has developed a reputation among many residents of ignoring the concerns of the public and of fostering an atmosphere of mistrust, disdain, anger, resentment, lack of transparency and appearances of conflicts of interest.”
Less than a month later, the Yucaipa residents that were thwarted in the 2023 recall effort reformulated their approach. Dispensing, at least for the time being, with targeting Beaver, they have embarked on dual efforts to remove Garner and Duncan from office.
In the notice to circulate the petition to recall Garner, the proponents give the grounds for removing him from office as “Matt Garner apparently lied to voters because he voted to approve Serrano Estates after campaigning to “stop high density projects and protect our rural way of life. Matt Garner ignores the opinions of Yucaipa residents about development and lacks transparency on questionable expenditures, in our opinion. Matt Garnr voted to replace our competent, successful, honest, and long-time City Manager Ray Casey with Chris Mann, who we believe to be a political operative and less qualified to be our city manager, without the city conducting a transparent executive search to find a replacement for the city manager. As concerned citizens of Yucaipa, we believe Yucaipa residents have no confidence in Matt Garner and that the only way to safeguard city funds, prevent corruption, and preserve Yucaipa’s hometown charm is to remove Matt Garner from office.”
In the notice to circulate the petition to recall Duncan, the proponents give the grounds for removing him from office, stating, “As concerned citizens of Yucaipa, we believe that Yucaipa residents have no confidence in Bobby Duncan and that the only way to safeguard city funds, prevent corruption, and preserve Yucaipa’s hometown charm is to remove Bobby Duncan from office. Bobby Duncan ignores the opinions of Yucaipa residents and lacks transparency on questionable expenditures, in our opinion.
Bobby Duncan voted to replace our competent, successful, honest, and long-time City Manager
Ray Casey with Chris Mann, who we believe to be a political operative and less qualified to be our city manager, without the city conducting a transparent executive search to find a replacement for the city manager.”
The Sentinel was unable to reach Garner or Duncan by press time.
Mann told the Sentinel, “Per Elections Code Section 11042.5, it is the city clerk who has the authority to make a determination as to whether or not to seek a writ of mandate and injunctive relief prohibiting the circulation of recall petitions until such time as the statements of reasons/grounds for the recall efforts are deleted or amended so they are not false or misleading. Thus, while I have opinions on the on the accuracy of the statements made in the notices, it is not my decision to make. I will exert no pressure one way or the other on the city clerk, as I believe it would be inappropriate for me to do so.”
Mann said, “Since you asked my opinion, I do find a number of the statements made to be factually questionable and misleading.  Whether those concerns rise to a level that warrants a legal challenge is entirely up to the city clerk.
For example, recall proponents state, “Matt Garner apparently lied to voters because he voted to approve Serrano Estates after campaigning to ‘stop high density projects and protect our rural way of life.’” It is true that Councilman Garner voted for the Serrano Estates project. However, this statement is misleading as it insinuates that Serrano Estates is a high-density project. I’m not aware of any city where half-acre and quarter-acre lots are considered high density. Yucaipa’s development code defines high density as 20-24 dwelling units per acre, which would in practice translate to a 3-story apartment or condominium building. Serrano Estates contains only half-acre lots (2 dwelling units per acre) and quarter acre lots (4 dwelling units per acre). These are sizable single-family lots by any reasonable definition. Yet, the average voter reading the statement submitted by recall proponents would be misled into believing that Councilman Garner voted for a high-density project, such as apartments or condos, in the North Bench area of Yucaipa.  This is just not the case.”
While Mann’s assertion about the overall density of the Serrano Estates project as was discussed last year is accurate, the city council last year proposed rezoning the North Bench to allow ‘cluster housing,’ that is, up to four homes on each one-acre lot and multi-resident units such as condos and apartments. Residents are concerned that the “open space” on the remainder of the Serrano Estates could be, at a future date, developed into more housing.
Mann continued, “Case law has established that simply stating an accusation as an opinion is not sufficient to avoid having defamed someone, and does not prevent a statement from being misleading. The notices filed for both Councilman Garner and Councilman Duncan contain such statements, expressing as opinion insinuations of corruption and fiscal mismanagement without referencing any actual specific incidents or providing evidence of any kind.  In actuality, neither Councilman Duncan nor Councilman Garner have been found [to have engaged in] any wrongdoing whatsoever.”
Mann said, “I cannot comment about Mr. Casey’s performance as city manager. Based on the city’s financial situation and the state of the organization at City Hall that I inherited when I took over as city manager, I will let people draw their own conclusions. Naturally, I take issue with the statements recall proponents made about me. While I suppose one could make an argument that I had been a political operative at one point in my career based on my previous work owning and operating a public relations firm, this has certainly not been the case for many years.”
Yucaipa residents maintain that Mann was involved in promoting Garner’s campaign in 2022, particularly in slamming the candidacy Sherilynn Long.
“I was also disappointed that recall proponents called my qualifications into question,” Mann said. “By doing so, they discount my 25 years of experience working in and with local government, as well as the fact that my four years of experience as a city manager prior to taking the job in Yucaipa were four more years of city manager experience than my predecessor had when he was appointed. In addition, qualifications for a job involve much more than simply the number of years someone has done the job. Hypothetically speaking, I would take someone who has, in short order, proven themselves to be highly effective and successful in the profession over someone who has, over many years, driven an organization to the brink of financial ruin and destroyed employee morale.”
Mann propounded, “On a positive note, in recent weeks this group of residents and I have been able to open a dialogue and we seem to be making progress toward a more productive working relationship. I suspect and choose to believe that they had already drafted, printed and began getting signatures on the notices of intention prior to this positive development. I’d like to think that their statements, at least as they pertain to me, might read differently had they been written today. While I am disappointed in the approach recall proponents took with their statements on the notices of intention and believe there is a likelihood that petition signers and voters will be misled by them, I do acknowledge that the statements submitted this time were very different and scaled back from the statements the same recall proponents submitted with their last effort. I appreciate that it appears there was at least an attempt to not run afoul of the Elections Code this time around.”
Mann said, “I do not envy the city clerk’s position here. She must balance the free speech rights of recall proponents with her responsibility to protect voters by ensuring that false and misleading information is not distributed on official, taxpayer-funded elections documents.”
The Sentinel inquired with Sauseda by email as to whether she will allow the recall effort to proceed. She did not respond by press time.
Jim Penman, the former San Bernardino City Attorney, was retained by the recall proponents.
In an open letter to Yucaipa voters dated November 30, 2023, he stated that he had read the notice of intent to circulate the recall petition regarding Duncan. Penman wrote, “It is my legal opinion that this notice, including the grounds for the recall are truthful, accurate and not misleading. It is my further legal opinion that should a petition be filed with the Superior Court of the State of California requesting an injunction to prohibit the circulation of such a petition for the recall of Yucaipa City Council Member Bobby Duncan that said request for injunctive relief would be denied because the grounds for the recall as stated in the notice are true and are not misleading.”
-Mark Gutglueck

The State of California has filed suit against virtually all of the entities involved in seven state-and-federally-funded projects in five cities, including ones involving the County of San Bernardino and the City of Redlands, to house the homeless.
While the difficulties that surfaced with regard to the financing and administration of the projects in question were primarily the result of what the state alleges was fraud, defaults and failure to perform on the part of the Los Angeles-based contractor employed by the five cities to make conversions of existing hotels or motels into permanent residential quarters, the governmental entities that took the lead in undertaking the projects together with the Santa Monica-based nonprofit those cities brought into serve as both the service provider to the homeless living within the facilities and property manager of the conversions as well as 18 other entities that became involved in the properties including lenders, law firms, foreclosure companies and title companies have also been sued.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and his office are serving as the legal representatives of the California Department of Housing and Community Development in the suit. Several of representatives of the entities caught up in the legal action have asserted that they and at least some of the other parties named as defendants in the suit engaged in no actual wrongdoing, willfully or unwilfully, and that being subjected to the bother and expense of the lawsuit based upon the negligence or willful wrongdoing of one or perhaps more of their co-defendants will result in some of those entities and perhaps other governmental entities deciding to refrain from undertaking homeless assistance projects in the future because they do not want to run the risk of having to expend city or county resources on a worthwhile undertaking only to be faced with state-mandated punishment if one of the participants in the effort does not live up to its part of the bargain.
The auspices under which the projects that are at the center of the legal contretemps is that of the Homekey Program, what Governor Gavin Newsom touts as California’s nation-leading homeless housing initiative. The cities of Thousand Oaks, Salinas, King and Redlands, as well as the County of San Bernardino actively sought, and ultimately were selected by the California Department of Housing and Community Development to receive, Homekey grants, which consisted of money available through the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund, which in turn had been established by the federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Essentially Thousand Oaks, King, Redlands the County of San Bernardino proposed to make a single conversion and the City of Salinas was seeking to carry out three conversions of previously existing hotels or motels into residences for the homeless. In all seven cases, the cities. county contracted with Los Angeles-based Shangri-La Industries, LLC to complete the conversions and Santa Monica-based Step Up on Second, a nonprofit, to manage the facilities. In turn, Shangri-La, in return for the four cities and the county eventually passing through to them the state and federal funds, undertook the project, securing loans from PMF CA Real Estate Investment Trust, Qualfax, BMO Harris Bank, California TD Specialists, PPRF Real Estate Investment Trust, Lone Oak Fund, Arixa Institutional Lending Partners, LLC; Fairview Loan 123 LLC; 310 Real Estate Investment Trust, Medalist Partners Asset-Based Private Credit Fund III Commercial Real Estate LLC. Medalist Partners Asset-Based Real Estate Investment Trust III and Pacific Western Bank. Further involved were the Tullius Law Group and the Law Firm of Foley & Lardner, the Fidelity National Title Corporation and Chicago Title Company.

Read the entire article by obtaining a print copy of the Sentinel, available at newsdealers and bookstores throughout the county, including Newsboy in Ontario and Barnes & Noble in Rancho Cucamonga.

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

A shape with the body of a lion and the head of a man