China’s strategic business decision earlier this year to radically restrict the export of the rare earth element yttrium, making a substance necessary in the manufacture of a number of modern, high tech products hard to come by as global supplies of the scarce metal dwindle, is accelerating the comeback of the Mountain Pass Mine, located in the extreme northeast corner of San Bernardino County.
On April 4, 2025, China imposed export controls on scandium, yttrium, samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium and lutetium, causing significant disruption to global supply chains for industries reliant on those materials.
In the case of yttrium, it is an indispensable component in certain speciality alloys.
A specialty alloy is a metal mixture designed to have specific, enhanced properties, extending to superior strength, corrosion resistance, or heat tolerance generally unavailable in standard alloys. In the case of yttrium, the speciality alloys created from it have application in the aerospace industry, the production of renewable energy, in making semiconductors and in certain types of engines. Thin metal composed of yttrium alloys fashioned into turbine blades is able to function and maintain its integrity in high temperature environments. Yttrium is also a key component in coatings that shield against high temperatures.
Because of the Chinese export restrictions, a shortage in yttrium resulted in an escalation in its cost, whereupon the production of certain products have ground to or toward a halt.
On October 31, President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Busan, South Korea, at which time Trump, placed into a position of weakness by the situation, had to gingerly inquire about China’s readiness to end, or at least reduce, the restrictions, so to restore the flow of the rare earth metals to many segments of U.S. and international industry. Jinping’s responses, while cordial, were less than encouraging, and a resolution of the supply chain hold-up was not arrived at. Meanwhile, certain specialized U.S. industries are bracing for an extended shutdown until an alternative source of rare earths can be established. Continue reading →

Less than a month since Jashanpreet Singh plowed his Freightliner into the backs of multiple vehicles on the 10 Freeway west of the I-215 Interchange, killing three and injuring four others, California officials are preparing to revoke 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses the Golden State had granted immigrants and then previously extended in defiance of a federal mandate that the licenses be rescinded.
There has been rancorous partisan bickering between Republicans and the supporters of President Donald Trump, on one side, and Democrats and the supporters of California Governor Gavin Newsom, on the other, over the substantial surge of foreign-born truck drivers in the United States in the last quarter century. At present, roughly 18 percent – 639,000 – of the 3.55 million truck drivers in the United States migrated to the United States. That 639,000 figure is more than twice that of the roughly 310,000 truck drivers from outside the country who were employed as commercial transporters in 2000.
Figures are inexact, but anecdotal information and data extrapolated from incomplete statistics compiled by 21 of the 49 states in North America indicate no more than 22 percent of those drivers – 140,580 – have become naturalized citizens and that approaching 41 percent of those truck drivers – 261,990 – are in the country illegally or as undocumented aliens, as a mere 37 percent of the drivers, other than the ones who have naturalized, roughly 236,430, have visas allowing them to be in or remain in the country.
According to the federal government, three states in particular – California, Washington and New Mexico – have proven to be too lenient in granting foreigners commercial truck driving licenses.
Beginning in May, the Trump Administration’s Transportation Department, under the leadership of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, took steps to enforce a requirement that truckers speak and read English proficiently. According to the Transportation Department, achieving minimal literacy on the part of truck drivers was a necessary element in a program to improve road safety following incidents in which drivers’ ability to read signs or speak English may have contributed to traffic deaths.
In August, three people were killed when the driver of a semi-truck, Harjinder Singh, attempted to perform an illegal U-turn on the Florida Turnpike in St. Lucie County. Harjinder Singh, who is not believed to be of blood relation to Jashanpreet Singh, like Jashanpreet Singh entered the U.S. illegally and obtained a commercial driver’s license from California, according to the U.S. Marshals office.
A nationwide commercial driver’s license audit by the federal government initiated the following week determined that licenses were issued improperly in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Washington.
Subsequently, the State of Florida sued the states of California and Washington over their issuance of commercial drivers licenses to Harjinder Singh. Continue reading →

San Bernardino County this week found itself claiming another title of unwanted distinction, as a Texas-based personal injury law firm’s completion of statistics of traffic mishaps nationwide over the last three years found that the span of Interstate 15 within the county qualifies as the most dangerous stretch of highway in the United States.
Dallas-based Angel Reyes & Associates performed a comprehensive examination of the most recently available data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine which highways in America have had the highest number of fatal crashes over a 36-month period. It has now released a list of the top 100 highways ranked in descending order based upon the number of deaths.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the 80 deaths on I-15 in San Bernardino County, a primarily desert route over which, on average, 207,811 Southern California residents travel to Las Vegas every week, with nearly two-thirds of those on Fridays and weekends, amidst constant freight hauling trucks and heavy passenger vehicle traffic on the weekends, makes it far and away the most dangerous highway in America.
I-15 stretches from San Diego at its southern end moves northward through San Diego and Riverside counties and then makes a 189-mile run through San Bernardino County to Nevada, cutting through a 29-mile tip of Arizona and then stretching northward through Utah, Idaho and Montana, terminating upon crossing into the Canadian province of Alberta. Continue reading →

San Bernardino County is bailing the Needles Unified School District out of a $2,025,764 financial crisis with what is anticipated to be two loans, provided in August and this month, in that amount.
Just as the 2025-2026 school year was to begin, on August 5, 2025, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved County Treasurer Ensen Mason making a $1,274,347 temporary transfer of funds to the Needles Unified School District, after certifying the district had a need for the monetary infusion as a result of a delay of property tax revenues, which apparently came about as a consequence of the inability of a substantial number of homeowners in the impoverished community being delinquent on paying their taxes.
The Needles Unified School District consists of five schools – Chemehuevi Valley Elementary School, Monument Peak School, Needles High School, Needles Middle School and Vista Colorado Elementary School. There are 918 students currently enrolled in schools in the district.
In the 2025, i.e., the 2024-25 school year, the most recent year for which financial figures are available, the district had a planned annual budget of $19,856,618 in revenues and $19,361,927 in expenditures.
In recent years, however, the district has had difficulty in meeting its financial goals.
The $19,856,618 it was scheduled to receive in the 2024-25 budget consisted of $14,399,934 in state-provided Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) money, $2,412,844 is other state funds, $911,600 in local funds, and $2,132,240 is federal funds. While the revenue was consistent with the budget, expenditures were not kept in line with what was allotted for most of the district’s educational and other program.
In 2023-24, for example, the district had budgeted $3,009,517 in expenditures for high needs students, while actual expenditures for high needs students turned out to be $3,139,198. Over the years, this deficit spending was defrayed by movement of money out of the district’s reserves.
It appears that as of 2025-26, the district’s reserves are depleted. Continue reading →

Tom Bunton has left as San Bernardino County Counsel after serving in the role of the county government’s top lawyer for less than four years.
Bunton, who was formerly assistant county counsel with the County of San Diego, assumed the county counsel post in San Bernardino County in January 2022.
The office of county counsel is the county’s stable of staff attorneys.
Those manning crucial posts within San Bernardino County government have been thrown into a tizzy over reports, none of which could be confirmed at press time, that County Counsel Tom Bunton is on his way out as the county’s top in-house lawyer.
Laura Feingold, who was elevated by Bunton to the position of chief assistant county counsel 20 months previously, last month assumed the position of consigliere to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors last month.
On the agenda for a closed door executive session of the board of supervisors that took place prior to the public portion of the board’s June 18, 2025 meeting was an item worded thusly: Public Employee Appointment (Government Code section 54957) Title: County Counsel.
That seemed to imply that a change in who was to hold the position of county counsel was in the offing, but no official action was announced following that closed session. Officially, at least, Bunton remained as county counsel, though at times during the year, Feingold took his place during open board meetings.
Previously, at a meeting of the board on April 1, the supervisors, in a closed session engaged in evaluations of the job performance of both Bunton and County Chief Executive Officer Luther Snoke. When the board emerged from that closed session, there was no report of any action taken. If an elected body takes action during a closed session, under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law, a report of that action is supposed to be made. In most jurisdictions in California, as is the case in San Bernardino County, the primary counsel for the agency – in this case, Bunton – makes that announcement. Since Bunton and Snoke were the subject of the evaluations on April 1, they were most likely not present during the April 1 closed session as is normally the case, although that is not publicly known to absolutely be the case. As there was no report out from the meeting, it is unknown, precisely whether Bunton was given a positive evaluation in April. He remained as county counsel in the intervening time. Thereafter, the June 18 evaluation apparently took place, but the rules of confidentiality that attend such evaluations prevent any public disclosure of the evaluation’s upshot. Nevertheless, by late May, there were rumors extant within county governmental circles that Feingold’s stock was on the rise. Continue reading →

The Justice Department announced today that it filed legal action against Governor Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber for the State of California’s newly adopted redistricting plan enacted with the passage of Proposition 50.
The lawsuit alleges that the plan mandates racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Proposition 50 amends the California Constitution, allowing the legislature to draw a new congressional-district map. Substantial evidence, including that in the legislative record and public statements, indicate that the legislature created a new map in which Latino demographics and racial considerations predominated, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
“The race-based gerrymandered maps passed by the California legislature are unlawful and unconstitutional,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California. “The U.S. Department of Justice is moving swiftly to prevent these illegal maps from tainting our upcoming elections. California is free to draw congressional maps, but they may not be drawn based on race.”
“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”
“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Prop 50,” said Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. “Californians were sold an illegal, racially gerrymandered map, but the U.S. Constitution prohibits its use in 2026 and beyond.”
The Department’s motion to intervene in Tangipa, et al. v. Newsom, et al. is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Assistant United States Attorney Julie A. Hamill of the Civil Division’s Civil Rights Section and Trial Attorneys David Goldman, Joshua R. Zuckerman, and Greta Gieseke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division are representing the United States in this matter.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon has been recused from this case. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jesus A. Osete will represent the Department on this matter.

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB 2520534
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner HOURIG KALAJIAN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ISABELLA ALINA ESCOBAR to MAGNOLIA ISABELLA ESCOBAR
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: December 5, 2025, Time: 8:30 AM, Department: S 26
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, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 10/06/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy Clerk of the Court
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on October 24 & 31 and November 7 & 14, 2025.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER SIV SB 2527849,
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner Ariel Ocampo filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Ariel Ocampo to Alenah Nicole Canales-Rivera,
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 11/13/2025, Time: 09:00 AM, Department: S29The 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: 10/02/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Ontario on 10/24/2025, 10/31/2025, 11/07/2025, 11/14/2025

FBN20250009770
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
JOSEPH W. BRADY, INC.
[and] THE BRADCO COMPANIES
[and] BRADCO DEVELOPMENT
[and] BRADCO DIVERSIFIED
[and] BRADCO HIGH DESERT REPORT
[and] MOJAVE RIVER VALLEY REAL ESTATE GROUP
12402 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SUITE B-6 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395: JOSEPH W. BRADY, INC. 12402 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. SUITE B-6 VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
Business Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 2710 VICTORVILLE, CA 92393
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California under the number 1564782
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: December 4, 1989.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/  JOSEPH W. BRADY, President
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/15/2025
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 K4866
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 October 24 & 31 and November 7 & 14, 2025.

Continue reading →

San Bernardino County this week found itself claiming another title of unwanted distinction, as a Texas-based personal injury law firm’s completion of statistics of traffic mishaps nationwide over the last three years found that the span of Interstate 15 within the county qualifies as the most dangerous stretch of highway in the United States.
Dallas-based Angel Reyes & Associates performed a comprehensive examination of the most recently available data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine which highways in America have had the highest number of fatal crashes over a 36-month period. It has now released a list of the top 100 highways ranked in descending order based upon the number of deaths.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System, the 80 deaths on I-15 in San Bernardino County, a primarily desert route over which, on average, 207,811 Southern California residents travel to Las Vegas every week, with nearly two-thirds of those on Fridays and weekends, amidst constant freight hauling trucks and heavy passenger vehicle traffic on the weekends, makes it far and away the most dangerous highway in America.
I-15 stretches from San Diego at its southern end moves northward through San Diego and Riverside counties and then makes a 189-mile run through San Bernardino County to Nevada, cutting through a 29-mile tip of Arizona and then stretching northward through Utah, Idaho and Montana, terminating upon crossing into the Canadian province of Alberta.
For the vast majority of its duration through San Bernardino County, I-15 is a divided highway, with only minor segments that are not yet upgraded to interstate highway standards and which involve traffic moving in opposite directions being side-by-side. Nevertheless, the relentless cavalcade tourists, commuters, semi-tractors and trailers, dangerous desert conditions featuring extreme heat and blinding sun glare, occasional steep grades, together with high speed limits for passenger vehicles which tempt some drivers into aggressively seeking to overtake the cars and trucks ahead of them routinely creates hazards that manifest into fatal mishaps. According to the California Highway Patrol, the I-15 long ago established itself as one of the Golden State’s most dangerous corridors, with especially risky conditions around Victorville and Barstow and between the two cities, a stretch with hundreds of potholes and numerous examples of uneven pavement, along with the corridor from Barstow to Baker, where the seemingly interminable straight alignment promotes speeding. A manifestation of daytime summer heat can be tire blowouts.
The amount of traffic at peak times on late Friday afternoon and early evening headed northeast to Las Vegas and on Sunday afternoon and evening headed west to Southern California  leads to dense traffic, congestion  and at times substantial and unpredictable surges in volume. In the latter case, this can be exacerbated by driver impairment and fatigue, brought on by drinking, high-intensity gambling and late nights or a lack of sleep over the preceding two days.
The closest deadly competitor to the I-15’s 80 fatalities was the I-10 Freeway in Maricopa County in Arizona, with 57 deaths. The I-10 Freeway in San Bernardino County’s neighbor to the south, Riverside County, captured the dubious third-place prize, with 54 deaths.
San Bernardino County managed to score another place on the traffic fatality registry, as the I-10 in San Bernardino County ended up in a seven-way tie for 41^st on the list, with 26 motorists who met his or her end there.
The I-15’s status as not just a long-distance means of travel but a commuter route for those living in the many of the cities, towns and communities between the Cajon Pass and Barstow, where there are weekday rush hours in the morning and night as residents there commute to and from work in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, contribute to the overall problem. The differing attitudinal, awareness and patience factors between drivers familiar with the routes they take every day and those setting out or returning from Sin City revelry can prove problematic on the highway, where the goal is to reach or exceed 60 miles per hour and maintain that momentum.