Enamorados To Remain Jailed At Least Until After Christmas

The eight Enamorados taken into custody in predawn raids in both San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties on December 14 remain locked up after court hearings before Judge Shannon Faherty Monday morning. It does not appear that the octet, who are accused of incorporating violence into their social activism in support of the dispossessed within Southern California’s Latino community, bear any prospect of leaving jail before Boxing Day, December 26.
Multiple levels of irony attend the current circumstance of the eight Enamorados, as there is a constant discrepancy, it seems, between both intent and outcome as well as perception and reality when it come to the group and its highly controversial leader.
Edin Alex Enamorado holds himself out as a do-gooder, justice crusader, upholder of civil rights and protector of Hispanics, immigrants and the impoverished. His followers seek to emulate him and follow in what they consider to be his enlightened and benevolent path. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and now the county district attorney’s office, however, maintain that the Enamorados ratchet their guardianship of the indigent up into assaults upon the innocent, using spurious justifications in doing so.
Edin Enamorado and his namesake zealots maintain that they are surrounded by cruel and inhumane racists who are exploiting their Latino sisters and brothers and that in the face of such incivility they are engaged in a mission of righteousness by striking down upon those who are victimizing the oppressed. According to the district attorney’s office, the Enamorados have themselves crossed the line into intolerance by physically assailing individuals who have not at once adhered to their conception of what the social order should be and, on other occasion, on the basis of ethnicity, such that they are engaging in racism and bigotry.
While Edin Enamorado and the Enamorados assert they are free speech advocates who test the boundaries of expression to protect the civil liberties that form the basis of our Constitutional rights, others say they often overwhelm those who enunciate a philosophy that differs from their own with obloquy and sometimes with brutal force.
A primary constituency of the downtrodden that Edin Enamorado and his cohorts have taken up the cause for are immigrants, both illegal and legal. A manifestation of illegal immigrant culture is street or sidewalk vending, as many new arrivals do not have the skill or training to function within other sectors of the U.S. Economy. It is known that Edin Enamorado, sometimes accompanied by others, sometimes on his own, has over the last couple of years advocated on behalf of sidewalk/street vendors in Los Angeles, Pomona, Upland, Fontana, Riverside, Santa Ana, Long Beach, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Woodland Hills, Huntington Park, San Bernardino and Moorpark. Those efforts go, quite often, beyond mere advocacy and include providing what Edin Enamorado refers to as “security,” in which he or other Enamorados act as bodyguards, warding off anyone – including racist citizens, municipal or county code enforcement officers, police or other officials – who might hassle, interfere with the vendors or prevent them from operating. Enamorado will take down their phone number so he can monitor how they are doing, provide them with his phone number so he can be rallied to assist them when they need help warding off the racists who bedevil street vendors and he will provide them with chemical agents such as mace or bear spray for the vendors to use if he and his crew cannot arrive on time to deal with some untoward situation.
The Enamorados at least occasionally take up the causes of those they consider to be unfortunate victims of prejudice beyond street vendors or immigrants. One such effort took place on September 24, a protest targeting the San Bernardino County sheriff’s station in Victorville, one undertaken on behalf of 16-year-old Victor Valley High School Student Faith Jeffers. On September 22, Jeffers had been in attendance at the high school football game between Victor Valley and Big Bear at Ray Moore Stadium. After the conclusion of the game, a brawl broke out in the parking lot outside the stadium, during which Jeffers was involved in a physical altercation with another girl. Two sheriff’s deputies attempted to intervene in the melee, one of whom got between Jeffers and her combatant. When Jeffers bent at the hip and reached toward deputy’s service belt, prompting him to reach down to secure the weapons and devices there, another deputy approached Jeffers from behind, lifted her and with some degree of force threw her to the pavement before both deputies turned their attention to subduing the other girl. Jeffers was injured and briefly hospitalized. A video of the incident went viral, sparking outrage. Edin Enamorado led a party of roughly 40 Enamorados, most of them from lower San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County, to Victorville on that Sunday, as they carried placards calling for justice and paraded in the vicinity of the sheriff’s station located on Amargosa Road and in the surrounding block including Palmdale Road, McArt Road and the parking lot of the nearby Destiny Christian Center. Edin Enamorado used his bullhorn to exhort the crowd and demand that the deputy who had injured Jeffers be identified, fired and prosecuted. He sometimes 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.
Proximate to the sheriff’s station between Amargosa Road and McArt Road facing onto Palmdale Road are some commercial concerns, including a car wash. That afternoon, as the protest was ongoing, a couple in a relatively late model Hyundai had gone into the car wash. 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.
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. They took four of the Enamorados into custody at that time: David Chávez, 27, of Riverside, who was arrested on suspicion of assault with a caustic chemical and unlawful assembly; Wendy Luján, 40, who is described variously as Edin Enamorado’s partner or wife, who was arrested on suspicion of assault with a caustic chemical, obstructing a peace officer, battery and unlawful assembly; 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.
Edin Enamorado at that point avoided, narrowly, arrest. In the confusion that ensued as several brawls broke out while the arrests were being effectuated the deputies were too distracted to identify Edin Enamorado as the leader of the protest. Nor did the arresting officers have any real sense of who the Enamorados are or their roles as primary participants in the protest and accompanying violence. 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 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.” of. It 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.
The sheriff’s department investigation that ensued in short order brought Edin Enamorado into focus, helped along in part by his utterances to the media and other public forums in the immediate aftermath of Chávez, Luján, Alba and Freeman arrests when he assigned blame for what had occurred to the driver of the Hyundai, who, he said, “tried to run over protesters” and her passenger, who, Enamorado asserted “hit a woman” and then assaulted Luján, who, Enamorado indignantly insisted, had merely “defended herself.”
Investigators at that juncture had identified Enamorado as the prime mover of the group he heads. Thereafter, they located the video of the assault which offered a visual and verbal contrast to what Enamorado claimed to have occurred. This led the investigators to explore the activities of the Enamorados and their leader in multiple other venues, which were likewise documented in posted videos.
As investigators delved into the circumstance, they became aware of further incidents involving the Enamorados and Edin Enamorado specifically, and began trading notes with the police agencies in Los Angeles, Pomona, Upland, Fontana, Riverside, Santa Ana, Long Beach, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Woodland Hills, Huntington Park, San Bernardino and Moorpark, and their dealings with him. Along the way there had been a handful of missteps and miscues, including opportunities to observe or even dialogue with/interview/interrogate Enamorado directly when he was placed into the department’s custody and then quickly cite released following his arrest by the Fontana Police Department on October 24 and then again on November 16, both outgrowths of Enamorado’s confrontations with the Fontana City Council, in particular Mayor Acquanetta Warren.
The department had an array of investigative options available to it, including access to some of the Enamorados and their associates who had been arrested by the department or other agencies who were therefore vulnerable to compromise by means of deals that could be cut with them in exchange for cooperation to include providing inside information known only to the Enamorados themselves. The department has also cultivated its own undercover operatives, including Hispanic officers capable of assuming the persona and traits of the barrio. By last month, the Sentinel is told, the department had effectively penetrated the Enamorados with at least one undercover officer and two informants.
As the cases against Chávez, Luján, Alba and Freeman based on their September 24 arrests progressed, Edin Enamorado appears to have taken stock of how the extended video of the protests in Victorville that day including the assault on the couple in the Hyundai represented evidence of criminal activity by both him and his associates, and he removed it from his social media platform. That, investigators and prosecutors believe, is a demonstration of what they term “consciousness of guilt” on Enamorado’s part. Despite his scrubbing of the video, investigators had already secured a reprint.
In addition, an exploration of the various posting Edin Enamorado has made going back for some time allowed investigators to get an accurate profile of the formula he uses in his crusade against racism and prejudice. This approach toward shaping opinion and influencing those he comes into contact with as often as not consists of real time physical confrontation, a recipe that has as its ingredients a presumption of moral superiority, making accusations of racism, profanity, rapid fire questions and assertions without giving his interlocutor an opportunity to respond or otherwise immediately dismissing any response made, browbeating, insults and threats. In such circumstances, the intent is not to achieve an exchange of information or views but rather to relentlessly intimidate, provoke and generate more heat than light. Key elements of Enamorado’s tactics are being surrounded by a physically intimidating support network, the use of surprise, verbal domination and videography to capture indelible moving sound images of the individual being confronted, which in many, though not all, cases will result in an untoward or intemperate remark or reaction. Routinely, videos of these confrontations are uploaded onto a variety of social media platforms Enamorado controls. Some of those depict an individual being confronted or in other cases bystanders to the protests Enamorado’s group has mounted growing impatient at being blocked or hemmed in or harangued and then reacting, whereupon the subject is ganged up upon and physically assaulted by those present.
Previously, upon being challenged, would assert that he and his organization started from a position of rectitude – the eradication of racism – and proceed from there. His was a just cause, he insisted, and those who stood with him moral crusaders. Those who opposed him and the Enamorados by his side were opposed to civil rights and freedom of speech, he said, and he vowed retribution in the form of legal action in which he had the U.S. Constitution on his side such that he would bankrupt those who opposed him.
Christian Contreras, at attorney specializing in civil rights and criminal defense, who is billed by his law firm as “one of the top-rated attorneys in the nation,” has on more than one occasion moved to backed Enamorado.
In October, when the Enamorados led by Edin Enamorado surfaced in Fontana to oppose that city’s imposition of an ordinance to regulate street/sidewalk vendors and physically intimidated some of the supporters of the ordinance, including referring to some members of the Latino Small Business Alliance and other Hispanics in the city who supported it as “coconuts – brown on the outside but white on the inside,” who deserved to “be fucked up” and launched pointed personal attacks on Mayor Acquanetta Warren and then conducted protests around her home until after 11 p.m. at night, the city went to court to obtain a temporary restraining order, logged as a “petition to prevent workplace violence” filed for on October 27 against Edin Enamorado specifically, to enjoin him from coming within 100 feet of Warren. On October 27, Superior Court Judge Ron Gilbert denied the request for that civil harassment temporary restraining order.
Nevertheless, sheriff’s department investigators delving into the activity of the Enamorados and several instances involving Enamorado himself by last month had come to the conclusion that what may have started out as protected exercisions of First Amendment rights at expression of opinion or the petitioning of the redress of grievances against the government had crossed the line from speech to criminal, and in some cases, felonious violence. Moreover, in the production of videos intended as much or more for the consumption of his followers as the public at large, the application of that violence is featured as standard method of approach in the Enamorados comportment. The capturing of that ethos on video in which Enamorado sought for himself and the Enamorados he has spawned to be seen as avenging angels inflicting upon the community’s racists the punishment they deserve represents, in the hands of prosecutors, the evidence to make the case against those who have now been arrested and charged.
Sheriff’s investigator, after identifying those depicted in the video evidence now in their possession, obtained arrest and further search warrants for Enamorado and seven of his associates.
The raids were carried out with clock-like precision in the early morning hours of December 14.
One team arrived at 3560 East Gage Avenue in Bell at 3:20 a.m., at which point they awoke Fernando López, 44, and took him into custody on suspicion of violating PC 422(A), threatening to engage in a crime with the intent to terrorize; PC 244, assault by throwing acid; and PC 236, false imprisonment.

At 3:55 a.m., another sheriff’s team in Upland went to the apartment at 1610 West Arrow Route that Enamorado shares with Wendy Luján. They were both taken into custody, Enamorado, 36, on suspicion of violating PC 22801(a), being a prohibited person in possession of pepper spray; PC 182, conspiracy; PC 236, false imprisonment; PC 422, making criminal threats; PC 245, assault with a deadly weapon; PC 29800(a) (1) being a felon in Possession of a firearm; and PC 207 – kidnapping, and Luján, 40, on suspicion of violating PC 182, conspiracy; and PC 236, false imprisonment.
At 4:05 a.m., deputies burst in upon David Chávez, 28, who had been arrested previously by the department along with Luján on September 24 in Victorville, at his residence located at 3863 Del Air Street in Riverside, taking him into custody on suspicion of violating PC 182, conspiracy; PC 236, false imprisonment; and PC 244, assault with chemical agents.
At 4:08 a.m., at her 742 West Sunkist Street residence in Ontario, Vanessa Carrasco, 40, was arrested on suspicion of violating PC 422(A), threatening to engage in a crime with the intent to terrorize; PC 236, false imprisonment; and PC 182 (A) (1), conspiracy to commit a crime.
At 4:10 a.m., sheriff’s deputies moved on Gullit Eder Acevedo, 30, at his domicile at 2855 Fremontia Drive in San Bernardino, arresting him on charges of violating PC 245.2, use of a deadly weapon on an operator of a motor vehicle; PC 236, false imprisonment; and PC 182.5 conspiracy to commit a gang-related felony.
At 4:22 a.m., sheriff’s deputies rushed upon Stephanie Amésquita, 33, at her 1936 Magnolia Avenue place of residence in San Bernardino, arresting her on charges of PC 236, false imprisonment; and PC 22810(G)(1), illegal use of tear gas.
At 4:46 a.m., sheriff’s deputies raided the premises of Edwin Pena, 26, at 1809 West 11th Street Unit 310 in Los Angeles, taking him into custody on suspicion of having violated PC 245.2, use of a deadly weapon on the operator of a motor vehicle; PC 422(A), threatening to engage in a crime with the intent to terrorize; and PC 236, false imprisonment.
All eight were initially held without bail based on concerns the judge had for the safety of the public. On December 18, they were then arraigned in the Victorville Courtroom of Judge Shannon Faherty.
Faherty arraigned Enamorado on the seven charges he had been arrested on along with nine others. At present, Enamorado is charged with one count of conspiracy; two counts of threatening to engage in an assault that will result in in death or great bodily injury; three counts of false imprisonment; one count of kidnapping; three counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; three counts of unlawful use of tear gas; one count of vandalism involving destruction of property worth $400 or more; one count of possession of tear gas by a convicted felon; one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Faherty arraigned Luján on the two charges she was arrested on and 12 further ones prepared against her by the district attorney’s office. She is now charged with one count of conspiracy; three counts of unlawful use of tear gas; three counts of assault by a means likely to result in great bodily injury; one count of vandalism to property worth $400 or more; three charges of false imprisonment; one charge of kidnapping; and two counts of threatening to engage in an assault that would be likely to produce great bodily injury.
The three charges against López were transformed such that the direct reference to an acid attack was wrapped into an assault charge and he was hit with a total of 12 counts at his arraignment. At present, he is charged with one count of conspiracy; two counts of threatening to engage in an assault that would be likely to produce great bodily injury; two counts of false imprisonment; one charge of kidnapping; two counts of assault by means likely to result in great bodily injury; two counts of unlawful use of tear gas; one count of vandalism to property worth $400 or more; and one count of possession of tear gas by a convicted felon.

Chávez, who had been arrested on suspicion of three charges was arraigned on one count of conspiracy; two counts of threatening to engage in an assault that would be likely to produce great bodily injury; three counts of false imprisonment; one charge of kidnapping; three counts of assault by means likely to result in great bodily injury; three counts of unlawful use of tear gas; and one count of vandalism to property worth $400 or more.
Carrasco was arraigned on 14 charges precisely the same as those levied against Chávez: one count of conspiracy; two counts of threatening to engage in an assault that would be likely to produce great bodily injury; three counts of false imprisonment; one charge of kidnapping; three counts of assault by means likely to result in great bodily injury; three counts of unlawful use of tear gas; and one count of vandalism to property worth $400 or more.
Gullit Acevedo was arraigned on four charges that were recontexted from the three charges he was arrested on. Those four charges are one count of conspiracy; one count of unlawful use of tear gas; one charge of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury; and one charge of false imprisonment.
Amésquita at her arraignment saw the two charges she was arrested on expanded to nine. She was arraigned on one count of conspiracy; a single count of threatening to engage in an assault that would be likely to produce great bodily injury; two counts of false imprisonment; two counts of assault by means of force likely to result in great bodily injury; two counts of unlawful use of tear gas; and one count of vandalism to property worth $400 or more.
Pena saw the three charges the sheriff arrested him on zoom to 14 counts alleged by the district attorney’s office and for which he was arraigned by Faherty. He was arraigned on one count of conspiracy; two counts of threatening to engage in an assault that would be likely to produce great bodily injury; three counts of false imprisonment; one charge of kidnapping; three counts of assault by means of force likely to result in great bodily injury; three counts of unlawful use of tear gas; and one count of vandalism to property worth $400 or more.
All charges leveled against the defendants are felonies.
Faherty continued the no bail hold on each until December 26, at which point they are to appear before Judge Zahara Arredondo.
Enamorado is incarcerated at the High Desert Detention Center in Adelanto, which is operated by the sheriff. Chávez is housed at the High Desert Detention Facility. Acevedo, who is also known as Jaguar Arreola, is housed at the High Desert Detention Facility. López, who is also known as Patino, is housed at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, which is closer to Los Angeles, making it easier for his family to visit him.
Luján, Amésquita and Carrasco are incarcerated at West Valley Detention Center.
While Judge Faherty cited concerns about the safety of the public that would be endangered if the defendants were to be released in continuing the no bail hold on all eight defendants, the actual reason keeping Enamorado, Luján, Chávez, Carrasco, Acevedo, Amésquita, López and Pena is the investigators’ concern that if they were to be released – most particularly, Enamorado – evidence that the department has yet to discover and gather in terms of postings to the internet on various social media accounts will be taken down or removed. It has been the casual, indeed cavalier and naively brazen, manner in which Enamorado publicly shared his exploits in “protecting” and “shielding” vulnerable victims of racism Enamorado saw it as his calling to serve, action that on multiple occasions devolved into out-and-out physical confrontations and assaults, that has allowed the sheriff’s department to put the case it has now handed over to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office together.
All eight of the Enamorados are currently represented by the San Bernardino County Public Defender’s Office. There is a motion pending before the court to have the public defender’s office substituted out and Christian Contreras substituted in as Edin Enamorado’s defense attorney, but that motion was yet pending before the court. A previous effort by the Sentinel to determine whether Contreras, who has unofficially been representing the Enamorados in general and Edin Enamorado in particular since their arrests, or anyone from his law firm, has made any headway in identifying who the informants among the Enamorados are went unanswered earlier this month. Similarly, the Sentinel has not been able to ascertain from Contreras or the public defender’s office whether the Enamorados legal team will seek to suppress the videos that Edin Enamorado had recorded of his and the Enamorados’ activities in the fight against prejudice and racism that crossed the line into occasional violence as evidence in the cases against Enamorado, Luján, Chávez, Carrasco, Acevedo, Amésquita, López and Pena and at trial.

California Civil Rights Department Suit Vs. Ralphs Tests If Criminal History Can Be Hiring Criterion

Just how exacting an employer in California can be in setting the standards for its employees will be determined when a lawsuit filed Thursday by the State of California’s Civil Rights Department against the Ralphs grocery store chain goes to trial.
In that suit, the California Civil Rights Department maintains that Ralphs corporate executives went too far when it included questions about job candidates’ criminal histories on the company’s job applications and then utilized admissions of what the civil rights division deems “minor offenses” as the basis for screening out those would-be employees.
The lawsuit is poised to re-raise questions and resurrect controversy that accompanied the passage of the Fair Chance Act, Assembly Bill 1008, passed into law by the California Legislature and signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2017.
The Fair Chance Act, authored by Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), was intended to to ensure that California residents with criminal convictions who are seeking employment are fairly considered for jobs. When it went into effect on January 1, 2018, it prohibited most California employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal history as part of a job application and it further disallowed businesses from conducting background check on applicants until after a job offer was made to that specific individual.
An exception existed in the law if under another law or governmental regulation the employer was required to run a background check for the specific job applied for. The larges number of jobs given such specific exceptions were one in finance or requiring coordination with governmental agencies. In considering an applicant’s criminal history, employers are required, under the Fair Chance Act, to take into account various factors such as the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that passed since the offense or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought.
There was, among certain industries or sectors, some reservation about the new law in 2018 and the governmental intrusion into the workplace. It was pointed out that for some companies, strict hiring standards had proven to be a critical element of their formula for success, that the standards had existed for a considerable length of time, indeed, decades in some cases; that the standards were drawn from governmental practices and standards, as the convictions themselves were imposed by the state government in the form of its penal code, passed by the legislature, and convictions handed down by its courts.
Under the law, an employer could make a “conditional offer” of employment and then carry out a background check, but only with the employee’s written permission. A legitimate question then applied as to whether the employer could terminate the employee for refusing to submit to the background check.
Under the act, employers cannot require an applicant to provide a specific type of evidence demonstrating rehabilitation, though applicants are free to provide evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances voluntarily at any time during the hiring process, extending to their conduct during incarceration, employment history since the conviction or sentence completion, community service, and other rehabilitative efforts. Applicants are also at liberty to disclose whether trauma, domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, duress, or other similar factors contributed to the offense or conduct. Further, applicants can identify if a disability, such as a past drug addiction or mental impairment, contributed to the offense or conduct. The applicant can also inform the prospective employer whether the likelihood of harm arising from similar conduct could be sufficiently diminished or eliminated by a reasonable accommodation made by the employer or whether the disability has been mitigated or eliminated by treatment. Employers cannot refuse to accept any evidence provided by the applicant. The act calls upon potential employers to “carefully evaluate” such information and give applicants a fair chance to demonstrate their qualifications and readiness for the role they are applying to assume.
Critics of the law asserted that employers should reasonably be allowed to know whether those they are to employ have been rehabilitated.
Employers with fewer than five employees were not subject to the Fair Chance Act.
Since 2018, the California Civil Rights Department has been inundated with thousands of complaints from job applicants who said they were subjected to unlawful questions. The department launched more that 300 investigations into alleged discrimination in which employers discriminated against potential employees based on their criminal history. In something like 70 of those, settlements were obtained.
Ralphs, which employs roughly 25,000 at its 185 stores and warehouses in California, was clearly subject to the law, according to the State of California. No settlement was reached with the company and the state filed what is the first lawsuit based on the act against it.
According to the lawsuit, Ralphs employment applicants were provided with a application in which they were asked to disclose their criminal history but told doing so was not required. Nevertheless, there were instructions relating to completing the portion of the application with instructions that were so involved the applicants were, essentially, fooled into responding or inveigled into responding against their will.
According to the suit, “The instructions provide detailed, superfluous instructions concerning how to report convictions, after telling applicants that they do not need to answer the question. Additionally, by suggesting specific convictions that should not be reported in California, the instructions necessarily suggest that other convictions should be reported.”
Between 2018 and 2022, more than 70 percent of Ralph’s applicants in California answered the questions relating to criminal history, according to the suit.
The grounds then used for denying employment were based on issues that had, or should have had, no bearing on the fitness of the applicants for the positions they wanted to work, according to the State of California Civil Rights Department. should Candidates “lost their job offers based on convictions for a single misdemeanor count of excessive noise,” according to the department. “Other applicants who had convictions from other states for simple cannabis possession were also disqualified.”
Ralphs uses an online application methodology that involves an electronic application which entails a format involving multiple question including those related to criminal history. It uses an evaluative algorithm that bypasses human or personalized assessment, selecting and/or rejecting applicants merely on a standardized scoring basis, which the California Civil Rights Division maintains is illegal.
The company further failed to make adequate disclosure to rejected applicants of its reason for denying them employment.
More than three out of four of those job applicants with Ralphs who had the job offers they had previously been extended rescinded were not given an opportunity or the means to contact the company to appeal the decision, as required under the Fair Chance Act. Those given contact information soon learned that the phone number they were provided terminated at a fax machine, according to the lawsuit.
Ralphs has done nothing to undo its denial of employment to hundreds of applicants on account of their di minimus and stale criminal histories, which under the law does not stand as sufficient reason to deny them employment, according to the lawsuit.
“These types of convictions, and hundreds more like them, do not bear any direct and adverse relationship with the duties of any job at a grocery store, including the grocery clerk positions that are the vast majority of the positions Ralphs denied on the basis of conviction history,” the lawsuit states.
“They were not legitimate grounds for a decision by Ralphs to withdraw a conditional offer that had already been made based on the applicant’s application and interview.”
Multiple candidates allegedly lost job offers based on convictions for a single misdemeanor count of excessive noise. Others who had convictions for simple cannabis possession in states where it remains illegal were also disqualified, according to the suit.
Ralphs has not made any statement in reaction to the lawsuit. That the Department of Civil Rights was moved to file suit rather than come to a settlement might be interpreted as an indication the company will opt to go to court and perhaps argue that it is within its rights to not want to employ pot smokers or those who have demonstrated themselves as discourteous enough toward their neighbors or fellow citizens as to disturb their tranquility. It is anticipated that Ralphs will, if it goes to court to defend against the suit, to employ whatever protocols or algorithms it has developed in conjunction with its business model in evaluating applicants for their future employment potential.
The lawsuit seeks from Ralphs monetary damages for applicants who were denied employment or lost hiring opportunities because of Ralphs’ policy. The department als wants Ralphs to be enjoined hereinafter to comply with the Fair Chance Act.
“The Fair Chance Act is about giving every Californian an opportunity to thrive,” said Civil Rights Department Director Kevin Kish. “We can’t expect people to magically gain the economic and housing stability needed to reintegrate into their communities and stay out of the criminal legal system without a fair chance at steady employment, particularly when the job has nothing to do with a past offense.”

Newsom Pressuring, & Big Wigs Ready, To Commit Homeless To Straitjacketed Drugging

Civil liberties advocates in San Bernardino County are on their toes, acutely regardful of how local government officials might be willing to use California Governor Newsom’s promotion of aggressive use of conservatorship authority to round up, narcotize and institutionalize those whose mental state can in any way be questioned might be used to silence local government critics.
According to the governor’s office, conservatorships are a tool in the government’s panoply to be used in reducing the number of homeless in the state. Newsom encouraged the legislature to expand such authority, whereupon State Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) obliged him with Senate Bill 43, which allows local authorities to appoint a conservator for anyone deemed to be “experiencing a serious mental illness or severe substance use disorder and most at-risk of harm to themselves.” The threshold for taking such action is not high. If two or more governmental officials concur that someone falls into such a category, the individual can be apprehended, handcuffed until placed into a straitjacket and then kept straitjacketed until he or she has been administered anti-psychotic medication. Individuals refusing to take the medication prescribed for them willingly can be forcibly drugged.
Five medications likely to be prescribed to the county’s homeless are old school Thorazine; Serioquel, also known as Quetiapine; Risperidone, also known as Risperdol; Haldol, also known as Haloperidol; and Stelazine. Continue reading

Sheriff’s Department Deployment Of Body Cameras Nearly 90 Percent Complete

Almost 1,800 of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s 2,007 deputies have now been outfitted with body-worn cameras.
Within the next three months, all of the department’s deputies working in the field and the department’s multiple detention facilities will be wired up for real time sound and video. That electronic record of their action from their perspective will be permanently uploaded and recorded to a data bank accessible to the department.
The modernization comes after a series of delay, that were both unanticipated and imposed by the department’s command echelon. Just over a decade ago, two of San Bernardino County’s municipal law enforcement agencies – the Rialto Police Department and the Chino Police Department – made body cameras standard gear for their police officers. The San Bernardino and Fontana departments purchased and deployed them for their officers in 2016. In the years since, a number of other police departments in San Bernardino County as well as throughout Southern California have acquired the devices and put them into routine use. At present, every sheriff’s department in Southern California is utilizing the cameras, which in addition to being capable of video recording can also pick up sound out to a distance of 33 to 40 feet.
The cameras, worn on the uniforms, belts or eyeglasses of the officers, are distinct from vehicle cameras, which have been in vogue with many police departments for some two decades. The sheriff’s department operates a number of helicopters, most of which have been able to capture video footage for more than three decades. Continue reading

December 22 SBC Sentinel Legal Notices

SUMMONS
In the matter of ZHICONG KONG, Plaintiff
vs.
ZIMENG LIU, Defendant
Case No. CV0023644
Department Number 2
In the Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Humboldt
To: ZIMENG LIU
The State of Nevada sends greeting to the above-named defendant:
You are hereby SUMMONED and required to serve upon the plaintiff, ZHICONG KONG, whose address is 400 Brush Street, Unit 310, Las Vegas, NV 89107, an Answer TO THE COMPLAINT which is herewith served upon you, within 21 days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service.
In addition, you must file with the Clerk of this Court, the address for which is shown below, a formal written answer to the complaint, along with the appropriate filing fees, in accordance with the rules of the Court. If you fail to do so, judgement by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. This action is brought to recover a judgment dissolving the contract of marriage exiting between you and the Plaintiff.
Date: 10/26/2023
Tami Rae Spero, Clerk of the Court
Humboldt County Courthouse
50 West 5th Street
Winnemucca, NV 89445
(775) 623-6343
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel December 1, 8, 15 & 22, 2023.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CHARLES RICHARD LLOYD
CASE NO.  PROVA2300306
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHARLES RICHARD LLOYD has been filed by ANSEL HALL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
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 FOR PROBATE requests that ANSEL HALL 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 23, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F3 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: DECEMBER 6, 2023
Taylor McKernan, 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 Ansel Hall:
Jeffrey R. Loew, Esquire
SBN 216808
Loew Law Group, A Professional Corporation
1650 Borel Place, Suite 123
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone (650) 397-8700
jloew@loewlawgroup.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 8, 15 & 22, 2023.

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 has been filed by PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
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 FOR PROBATE requests that PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES 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 December 13, 2023 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 December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230012053
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
ATKINSONS’ 3045 S. ARCHIBALD H238 ONTARIO, CA 91761: DAMION K. ATKINSON 3045 S. ARCHIBALD H/238 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/ DAMION K ATKINSON
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/06/2023
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 December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230011975
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
UNLIMITED ME CONSULTING GROUP 9459 PEACH AVENUE HESPERIA, CA 92345: MARVIN ESPINOZA 9459 PEACH AVENUE 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/ MARVIN ESPINOZA, Principal Consultant
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/04/2023
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 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 December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230011371
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
LUCHOS PERUVIAN RESTAURANT 9047 ARROW RTE 190 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: LUIS E DE LA CRUZ 9047 ARROW RTE 190 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: January 9, 2018.
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 E. DE LA CRUZ, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/14/2023
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 J4019
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 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSM2327691
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Brianna R. Rojas filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Andre Alexander Hernandez to Andre Alexander Hernandez Melendrez 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: 01/16/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S32
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.
Dated: 11/15/2023
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Ontario on 12/08/2023, 12/15/2023, 12/22/2023, 12/29/2023

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2328952
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Milton Alfredo Gonzalez filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Milton Alfredo Gonzalez to Milton Alfredo 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: 01/30/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S26
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.
Dated: 12/01/2023
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel Ontario on 12/15/2023, 12/22/2023, 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024

FBN 20230012239
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
VINEYARD INSURANCE SERVICES 22617 HIGHWAY 18 APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307: GOLDEN STATE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. 22617 HIGHWAY 18 APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 3157 APPLE VALLEY, CA 91307.
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DECEMBER 4, 2004.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ AMBER SCHWING
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/13/2023
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 J3256
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 15, 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WILLIAM ALLAN ARNOLD
CASE NO. PROVA 2300329
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of WILLIAM ALLAN ARNOLD
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ROBERT W. ARNOLD in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ROBERT W. ARNOLD 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-1 at 9:00 a.m. on January 31, 2024
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F1 – 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 Robert W. Arnold:
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 December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5, 2024.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2329923
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner KASSIDY NICOLE WILLIAMS filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
KASSIDY NICOLE WILLIAMS to KASSIDY NICOLE BROWN-WILLIAMS
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: 2/1/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S23
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West 3rd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
To appear remotely, check in advance of the hearing for information about how to do so on the court’s website. To find your court’s website, go to www.courts.ca.gov/find-my-court.htm
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: December 21, 2023
Sylvia Guajardo, Deputy Clerk of the Court
Gilbert Ochoa, Judge of the Superior Court
ALICIA BROWN, on behalf of her minor child
12505 MELODY DRIVE
RANCHO Cucamonga, CA 91739
Telephone No: (909) 646-0309
alicianicole309@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012304 ABANDONMENT OF A FICTICIOUS BUSINES NAME
The following person was doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as: GAMESTOP 4994 3935 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE C1 CHINO, CA 91710: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
The business was conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the STATE OF MINNESOTA under the number 1969245.
The date of the current filing for this business was 11/16/2020. The original file number was FBN20200010532.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUGUST 7, 2003
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/ MARK ROBINSON, Secretary
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 J3256
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 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012302
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
GAMESTOP #1994 3817 GRAND AVE. SUITE A CHINO, CA 91710: GAMESTOP, INC. 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of Minnesota under the number 1969245.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: August 7, 2003.
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/ MARK ROBINSON, Secretary
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/14/2023
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 J3256
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 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012515
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
PAPR FOUNDATION 454 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE 2ND FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401: PAPR FOUNDATION 454 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE 2ND FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of CALIFORNIA under the number 5366875.
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/ KAREN J. SHOVEY, Secretary
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 J2523
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 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012624
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
SIX POINT STAR TRANSPORT 17450 ARROW BLVD. FONTANA, CA 92335: CARRIE C SANDOVAL 17450 ARROW BLVD. FONTANA, CA 9233
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/ CARRIE C SANDOVAL
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 J4019
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 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.