ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2523501
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JORDAN HECTOR MARTINEZ filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: JORDAN HECTOR MARTINEZ to CAMILO MARTINEZ
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: 10/10/2025, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: S 14
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.
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on August 22 & 29 and September 5 & 12, 2025.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2523412
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: DEBORAH HERNANDEZ ARIZAGA filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: DEBORAH HERNANDEZ ARIZAGA to DEBORAH HERNANDEZ
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: 09/30/2025, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: S 17
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: 08/19/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Abrianna Rodriguez, Deputy Clerk of the Court
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on August 22 & 29 and September 5 & 12, 2025.

Continue reading →

In an action of significant implication, the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency’s board of directors, by a 15-to-11 ratio of those participating, on Wednesday, September 3, opted out of extending the Gold Line light rail transportation system into San Bernardino County.
The decision was one of historic proportion, as the dedicated commuter line, which links up nearly all of Los Angeles County from west to east, has established itself as among the premier light rail systems in the country alongside those in Portland, Boston and San Francisco. The efficiency of the Gold Line, which is also referred to as the A Line, with its dual tracks and frequent arrivals and departures, has substantial enough ridership levels that it has mitigated freeway clogging by reducing volume on them by thousands of cars per day on the west side of the San Bernardino County/Los Angeles County Line.
After construction of the Gold Line was initiated in 1994, its first phase was completed in 2003. Currently, service runs from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to Azusa. An extension of the dual tracks has now been laid entirely Azusa to Pomona, which will become operative upon the completion of testing and inspection.
While conceptually, there had always been the vision of having the Gold Line eventually run from Los Angeles to Palm Springs, more than a decade ago, serious discussion with regard to arranging the extension of the Gold Line from its eventual easternmost station in Los Angeles County in Claremont eastward in gradual extensions, first to the Montclair Transit Center in Montclair and then to Ontario International Airport in Ontario. Between 2015 and 2019, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s predecessor, San Bernardino Association of Governments, known by its acronym SanBAG, had committed to completing the first phase of the intercounty transportation system, obtaining a $41 million State of California Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program grant to go toward the completion of the first phase of that extension to Montclair. Continue reading →

The Yucaipa City Council’s August 25 vote to approve the long-gestating update of the city Freeway Corridor Specific Plan and a parallel proposal to construct two large warehouses within that designated area has triggered an effort by residents of the local area to seek a referendum rescinding that action.
The previously applicable development standards and blueprint for land use and its intensity in the 1,242 acres along the freeway and surrounding areas in Yucaipa was adopted in November 2008 as the Freeway Corridor Specific Plan. The planning document allowed for the construction of up to 2,447 residential units on 424.7 acres and up to 4,585,779 square feet of nonresidential uses on 242.7 acres within the 1,242-acre area.
In recent years, a handful of projects that were proposed and approved, taken together with development proposals on within the 1,241-acre expanse prompted calls for the specific plan’s adjustment. Almost one year ago, the Palmer, Robinson, and Issa families sought permission to construct warehouses along Live Oak Canyon.
Then-Mayor Justin Beaver, Councilman Chris Venable and then-Councilman Matt Garner balked at the proposal, while then-Councilman Bobby Duncan and then-Councilman Jon Thorp were willing to let the projects proceed. Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
Political corruption figure Bill Postmus has reemerged as a participant in San Bernardino County government’s land use and decision-making processes that bear upon the provision of taxpayer subsidizations to investors and sponsors of development proposals at various locations throughout the county.
The lack of transparency of the competitive process for the assistance programs, the nature of Postmus’s criminal convictions which included bribery, the business model of Postmus’s current operation, Postmus previous success in obtaining questionable favorable decisions for himself and his clients and the casual manner in which the county’s highest-ranking administrative and political figures have welcomed him into the application process involving decisions upon which millions of dollars are riding has created concern about the integrity of those public officials.
In the mid-1990s, Postmus, having grown up in the Victor Valley and graduated from Redlands University with a business degree, surveyed the social landscape of the High Desert, concluding that the region’s predominant political conservatism presented him with a magnificent career opportunity. Reinventing himself as an earnest advocate for Christian family values and a rock-ribbed Republican, he went to work for then-Assemblywoman Kathleen Honeycutt, and together with Keith Olberg, his Redlands University acquaintance Brad Mitzelfelt and Honeycutt’s son, Tad, founded the High Desert Young Republicans. After Olberg acceded to a position in the Assembly, the Young Republicans’ focus next turned to preparing Postmus for political office. After he achieved an appointment to the Victorville Planning Commission and wangled being selected as that panel’s chairman, he vied successfully in 2000 for First District County supervisor. As the fifth youngest supervisor in county history, Postmus intensified his activism on the part of the Republican Party, ensuring again and again that those political donors who showed generosity toward him and his fellow Republican officeholders. In 2004, he had consolidated his political hold by being selected as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the third-youngest in county history, while simultaneously being made chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee. That year he was handily reelected to the board of supervisors. Continue reading →

By Carlos Avalos
A comprehensive complaint filed with the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller-Tax Collector, Ensen Mason, has revealed what appears to be a systematic pattern of educational fraud, constitutional violations, and civil rights abuses spanning multiple school districts under County Superintendent Ted Alejandre’s oversight. The allegations, if substantiated, represent one of the most serious cases of educational funding manipulation in recent California history.
The complaint centers on alleged Constitutional violations of Article IX, Section 5 of the California Constitution, which guarantees free public education. The districts in question, Etiwanda, Alta Loma, and Upland, are accused of operating what amounts to a “pay-to-play” public education system that directly contravenes this fundamental constitutional principle.
These practices also raise serious Federal Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection issues, as the alleged fee structure creates a two-tiered system where access to educational opportunities depends on a family’s ability to pay. This practice is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
The Etiwanda School District’s CLOUDS Preschool Program serves as the primary example of these alleged violations. According to the complaint, the Illegal Fee Structure in the program charges families a $75 non-refundable registration fee and $360 monthly tuition. There are also double-dipping concerns. While collecting these fees, the district simultaneously uses taxpayer-funded staff, facilities, and administration. The complaint states students are reportedly excluded until payments are current, violating free education guarantees. Continue reading →

It is anticipated that California Water Resources Board officials and lawyers with that agency will have fully examined documentation, water use records and historical litigation rulings contesting the propriety of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians ongoing diversion of water in the Bunker Hill Water Basin by September 12.
Based upon preliminary analyses conducted by a network of environmentalists and consumer advocates in the East San Bernardino Valley, arrangements by which the San Manuel Tribe has been utilizing water historically available from land in the foothills above Highland and San Bernardino did not include provisions for the quantity of water being taken to be quantified. That ran afoul of stipulations made in the settlement of lawsuits relating to water rights in the Bunker Hill Basin litigated more than nine decades ago and sustained in subsequent legal actions involving the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, extending to one legal action more than five decades ago that was settled in 1969. Those legal actions were resolved with or sustained restrictions on the use of that water which limit or prohibit its diversion during years of overdraft, that is, when more water is being taken out of the water table than is being replenished by rainfall.
In the early 1930s, the Del Rosa Mutual Water Company, which was a provider of water in and around San Bernardino, was represented by attorney Ralph Swing, in a major water rights lawsuit brought against D.J. Carpenter, Isabel Turner, George Mason, J.B. Jeffers, L.R. McKesson, the National Thrift Corporation of America, the National Thrift Corporation, California Consolidated Water Company and California Consumers Company, the Arrowhead Springs Company and Arrowhead Springs Corporation that was settled by a stipulation of those rights on October 19, 1931. Continue reading →

By Richard Hernandez
Federal officials acknowledge there has been a lull in anti-illegal immigration law enforcement in most of Southern California since U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s July 12 ruling which prevented federal immigration officials from conducting “roving patrols” aimed at finding and detaining those who fit what the Donald Trump Administration maintains is a logically-derived and therefore constitutional profile of individuals likely to be in the country illegally. Nevertheless, federal officials say their effort to ascertain the citizenship status and deport those who do not have current visas or permission to be in the country will in a very short time resume with even more intensity than before.
After hearing the July 10 testimony of Sean Skedzielewski, counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice, who offered a defense of the aggressive immigration enforcement activities the federal government had initiated in early June and explaining what grounds the government was using to determine whom agents stopped and what constituted reasonable suspicion about those who had been arrested, Judge Frimpong said there was a “mountain of evidence,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. According to Judge Frimpong, using race, ethnicity, language, accent, physical whereabouts or employment as a basis for immigration enforcement runs afoul of the 4th Amendment and its prohibition barring unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. She said the available evidence indicated the federal government was engaged in racial profiling in that they were using race, the work people were engaged in, their location, and their language to form “reasonable suspicion,” to detain those arrested on charges of being in the country illegally.
That “reasonable suspicion” was unreasonably derived, the judge said.
Judge Frimpong ordered the Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. She further issued an order that such detaining cease forthwith and issued a secondary order that those in custody at Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s downtown B-18 detention facility be given 24-hour access to lawyers and a phone line unmonitored and untapped by the government. Continue reading →

After a delay of more than a week, Jake and Rebecca Haro were arraigned in Riverside Superior Court on September 4 on one charge each in the murder of their son and filing a false police report.
The arraignment took place 21 days after Rebecca, bearing a blackened right eye, reported that she had been knocked unconscious in the parking lot of the Yucaipa Big 5 sporting goods store while she was changing the diaper of her 7-month-old son, Emmanuel, as he lay on the backseat of the family car, whereupon she came to and discovered that he was gone. That report had triggered a frenzied search for the child and his alleged abductor, one that ranged through contiguous Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Kern counties. Within 48 hours, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s detectives delving into the matter found inconsistencies in the story Rebecca and her husband told and retold them, and their focus shifted. The investigation of the Haros intensified when it was learned that Jake had been arrested in 2018 along with his then wife, Vanessa Avina, when it was learned that their then-six week old daughter, Carolina Rose, had recently suffered a broken rib and had five other partially healed broken ribs, a healing skull fracture, bleeding of the brain, a neck injury and a healing broken leg bone. The case against both Avina and Jake dragged on for five years, during which time their marriage ended in divorce and the child, who was left severely disabled for life as a result of her injuries, was adopted by Avina’s sister. In 2023, Haro and Avina were convicted of willful abuse of a child, with Jake Haro having been given a four-year sentence that was suspended in lieu of probation. At the time of Emmanuel’s disappearance, Jake was facing the potential of having that probation revoked after he had been caught in possession of a firearm.
The missing child/kidnap investigation, which was yet being conducted by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, shifted to one in which the premise was that the parents were involved in the disappearance of their son. Continue reading →

NOTICE TO CITY OF YUCAIPA CITIZENS
REGARDING ORDINANCE NO. 460
On Monday, August 25, 2025, the City Council of the City of Yucaipa did consider and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 460, relating to the City’s Municipal Code.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REPLACING ORDINANCE NO. 394 TO THE YUCAIPA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENTS
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: Thorp, Venable, Beaver, Miller and Woolsey
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: None
You may wish to examine the full text of this Ordinance, which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office.
/s/ Ana V. Sauseda, MMC
City Clerk
City of Yucaipa
Published September 5, 2025 in the San Bernardino County Sentinel