Faced with the prospect of having to either relocate her residence or duke it out with a sister Democrat to remain in the California Legislature, State Senator Connie Leyva has opted out of running for reelection this year.
Leyva, who was originally elected in 2014 in Senate District 20 with 62.4 percent of the vote and returned to office in 2018 with an even more impressive 69.5 percent voter support, could have sought reelection under the state’s current term limit rules that allow a state senator to serve three terms. This year’s redistricting, however, changed the boundaries of the 20th Senate District, including removing Chino, where Leyva lives, from it entirely. Instead, Chino now falls within the newly-drafted Senate District 22, which also includes Ontario, Pomona, West Covina, and Baldwin Park, the home of incumbent District 22 Senator Susan Rubio, also a Democrat.
Leyva made no mention of Rubio nor how her district had been reapportioned out from under her in announcing her departure.
“For the past seven years… I have worked on and passed groundbreaking legislation to empower survivors of rape and sexual assault, strengthen enforcement of wage theft violations, expand career technical education programs that lead to well-paying jobs, ban secret settlements in cases of workplace harassment and discrimination, increase access to safe and equitable reproductive health care, reduce truck pollution, and protect California’s environment,” she said.
”COVID-19 has allowed us to reevaluate our priorities and what truly matters in our lives,” she said. “I thank my family, friends, staff, colleagues and everyone that has supported Team Leyva through this journey.  Our work is certainly not over and I will continue delivering over the next few months on the vital legislative and constituent work that Californians have come to expect from our team.”

Robert Rodriguez on Monday, January 3 was sentenced to 270 days in county jail on his two misdemeanor convictions on trespassing and disturbing a public meeting growing out of his association with Victorville Councilman Blanca Gomez, one of Victorville Mayor Debra Jones’ political rivals.
Rodriguez was with Gomez at the Panera Bread bakery-café on June 2, 2021 when he became involved in an argument over his having vaped inside the café premises. The sheriff’s department was summoned, and he and Gomez were cited for interfering with the operation of the business.
On July 6 at the Victorville City Council meeting Rodriguez was asked to leave when officials felt he was interfering with the conduct of the meeting.
At the July 20 Victorville City Council meeting, he was arrested when his video-recording of the proceedings antagonized Mayor Jones, particularly when he aimed his camera at her husband, Ernest Jones, who was also present.
Gomez was arrested along with Rodriguez on July 20 and charged with him on November 1. Rodriguez did not waive his right to a speedy trial and endured an 18-day jury trial between December 2 and December 28. Conspiracy to disturb a public meeting and two resisting arrest charges against him were dropped. The interfering with a business charge was converted to trespassing and he was convicted on that charge. He was convicted on the charge of disturbing the July 20 meeting, but was acquitted on the charge of disturbing the July 6 meeting.
Gomez waived her right to a speedy trial. She was arraigned on Tuesday January 4 with her attorney, Raj Maline, entering not guilty pleas for her before Judge Scott Seeley on six charges relating to the June 2 and July 20 incidents.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2129331
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: ESTEBAN GUADALUPE ACUNA filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ESTEBAN GUADALUPE ACUNA to ESTEBAN ACUNA
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: 01/24/22
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino
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: October 8, 2021
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 12/17. 12/24, 12/31, 2021 & 01/07, 2022.
ABANDONMENT OF A FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
NUMBER 20210012224
The following entity was doing business as: THE BELAIRE APARTMENT HOMES 8255 VINEYARD AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: WC WOODSONG LLC 2082 MICHELSON DRIVE, 4TH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92612
Registered with the State of Delaware
Mailing Address: 2082 MICHELSON DRIVE, 4TH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92612
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
The original FBN Number was FBN 20180007520 The date of filing was 06/27/2018
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JANUARY 23, 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/ MICHAEL B EARL
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/13/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I1327
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 & 01/07/2022
AMENDED NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARCUS MARCELL McCOWEN
CASE NO. PROSB2100727
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARCUS MARCELL McCOWEN:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CLEAFERSE McCOWEN JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CLEAFERSE McCOWEN JR. be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9:00 a.m. on FEBRUARY 7, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: James Lee, Esquire
100 N. Euclid Avenue, Second Floor
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone No: (909) 608-7426
Email address: mail@wefight4you.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 24 and 31, 2021 & January 7, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LENA V. MORRIS aka LENA VANDORA MORRIS
CASE NO. PROSB2101046
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LENA V. MORRIS aka LENA VANDORA MORRIS:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by ALISON D. MORRIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ALISON D. MORRIS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests that the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The wills 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 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
December 8, 2021
Brittney Spears, Deputy Court Clerk
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: December 8, 2021
Attorney for Alison D. Morris
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 24 and 31, 2021 & January 7, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DAVID AMADO MARTINEZ
CASE NO. PROSB2101039
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DAVID AMADO MARTINEZ:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by SALLY MICHELLE ORTEGA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SALLY MICHELLE ORTEGA be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37P at 9:00 a.m. on JANUARY 18, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: December 6, 2021
Brittney Spears, Deputy Court Clerk
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 24 and 31, 2021 & January 7, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ESPERANZA BARRON OROPEZA
CASE NO. PROSB2101105
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ESPERANZA BARRON OROPEZA:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ELIZABETH CHACON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ELIZABETH CHACON be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on JANUARY 27, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: December 20, 2021
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy Court Clerk
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 24 and 31, 2021 & January 7, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: EDWARD LEWIS CLARK
CASE NO. PROSB2100861
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EDWARD LEWIS CLARK:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DANNIELLE GAILYNN OWENS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DANNIELLE GAILYNN OWENS be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on JUNE 6, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 24 and 31, 2021 & January 7, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF SYLVIA CORRALEZ
Case No. PROSB2100955
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of SYLVIA CORRALEZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Christina Bailey in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Christina Bailey be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A HEARING on the petition will be held on Feb. 14, 2022 at 9:00 AM in Dept. No. S36 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.
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 petitioner:
RICHARD A RODGERS ESQ SBN 210196
SHANE DIGIUSEPPE &
RODGERS LLP
3125 OLD CANEJO ROAD
THOUSAND OAKS CA 91320
CN983114 CORRALEZ Dec 31, 2021, Jan 7, 14, 2022

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARINA EUGENIA POLANCO
CASE NO. PROSB2100620
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARINA EUGENIA POLANCO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PAMELA A. HERNANDEZ , in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PAMELA A. HERNANDEZ, 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 in SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT-PROBATE 247 W. THIRD STREETin Dept. S36 at 9:00 AM on 1/25/2022.
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:
CICELY T. RAY
4740 GREEN RIVER ROAD, SUITE 314, CORONA, CA, 92880
951-735-2488
Published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL on:
12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 1/7/2022

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2131227
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JOAN BRAVO SANCHEZ filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JOAN BRAVO SANCHEZ to MARTHA JOAN BRAVO SANCHEZ
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: 1/24/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S-17
The address of the court is
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415,
San Bernardino District-Civil Division
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 10/28/2021
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 12/24, 12/31, 2021 and 1/7 & 1/14, 2022.
FBN 20210012541
The following entity is doing business as: ESOTERIC PUBLICATIONS 7615 ETIWANDA AVENUE, SUITE 534 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739: MICHAEL JOURDAIN 7615 ETIWANDA AVENUE SUITE 534 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: December 3, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MICHAEL JOURDAIN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I1327
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 12/24, 12/31, 2021 and 1/7 & 1/14, 2022.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210011826
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: PUFF AND UP SMOKE AND VAPE SHOP, 1705 E. WASHINGTON ST , 122A, COLTON, CA, 92324,
SAN BERNARDINO
Mailing Address: , PUFF AND UP INC
Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/DEEP SHANKAR SUBEDI
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 11/24/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 3/28/2017
County Clerk,
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 1/7/2022, 1/14/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210012095
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: FRESHENUP, 1705 E. WASHINGTON ST STE 111, COLTON, CA, 92324,
SAN BERNARDINO
Mailing Address: 23175 GLENDORA DR, GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313, PUFF AND UP INC
Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/DEEP SHANKAR SUBEDI
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 12/6/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/22/2021
County Clerk,
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 1/7/2022, 1/14/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210012527
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: GVK CONSULTANCY, 8279 HIGHRIDGE PL, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA, 91730,
SAN BERNARDINO
Mailing Address: , GVKCONSULTANCY.COM LLC
Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/KAVITHA PEDDI
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 12/21/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk,
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 1/7/2022, 1/14/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210012330
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: MBA BAGGA ENTERPRISES LLC, 15091 KITFOX LN, VICTORVILLE, CA, 92394,
SAN BERNARDINO
Mailing Address: 15091 KITFOX LN, VICTORVILLE, CA, 92394, MBA BAGGA ENTERPRISES LLC
Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/RAGHBIR BAGGA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 12/15/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk,
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 1/7/2022, 1/14/2022
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DOROTHY JO MIMS-MOYLE
CASE NO. PROSB2101125
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DOROTHY JO MIMS-MOYLE:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARJORIE E. MASON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARJORIE E. MASON be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on JANUARY 31, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel December 31, 2021 and January 7 & 14, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: Angel Rosales
CASE NO. PROSB2100936
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Angel Rosales:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by Alma Moreno in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Alma Moreno be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held DECEMBER 20, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
November 12, 2021
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: November 12, 2021
Attorney for Alma Moreno
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 3, 10 & 17, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JANE BLEDSOE aka EVELYN JANE BLEDSOE.
NO. PROSB 2101083
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JANE BLEDSOE aka EVELYN JANE BLEDSOE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JENNIFER FEJZIC in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JENNIFER FEJZIC be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on JANUARY 20, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: DECEMBER 15, 2021
Cesar Marin, Court Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Jennifer Fejzic:
Jennifer Daniel
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel December 31, 2021 and January 7 & 14, 2022.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2131872
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: CHELSEA MAE CARINO MOLINA filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
CHELSEA MAE CARINO MOLINA to CHELSEA MAE CARINO MOLINA-TIANGCO
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: 2/15/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S-16
The address of the court is
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415,
San Bernardino District-Civil Division
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 12/28/2021
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 12/24, 2021 and 1/7, 1/14 & 1/21, 2022.

FBN 20210012060
The following person is doing business as: STALWART TOOL COMPANY 18154 PINE AVE FONTANA, CA 92335: LUIS ANGEL LEYVA 18154 PINE AVE FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LUIS ANGEL LEYVA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/06/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I1327
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 12/24, 2021 and 1/7, 1/14 & 1/21, 2022.
ABANDONMENT OF A FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
NUMBER 20210012224
The following entity was doing business as: THE BELAIRE APARTMENT HOMES 8255 VINEYARD AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: WC WOODSONG LLC 2082 MICHELSON DRIVE, 4TH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92612
Registered with the State of Delaware
Mailing Address: 2082 MICHELSON DRIVE, 4TH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92612
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
The original FBN Number was FBN 20180007520 The date of filing was 06/27/2018
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JANUARY 23, 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/ MICHAEL B EARL
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/13/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I1327
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 & 01/07/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210012086
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: REDLANDS SOURDOUGH COMPANY, REDLANDS SOURDOUGH CO, RSCO, 426 WEST OLIVE AVE, #6, REDLANDS, CA, 92373,
SAN BERNARDINO
Mailing Address: , REDLANDS SOURDOUGH COMPANY LLC
Business is Conducted By: AN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/NEANDER TABINGO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 12/6/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk,
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
12/31/2021, 1/7/2022, 1/14/2022, 1/21/2022

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-FBN20210012035
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: FLAMES OF FIRE FINANCIAL SERVICES & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, FLAMES OF FIRE APOSTOLIC & PROPHETIC MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL, R R LINDSAY MINISTRIES, 1274 S WATERMAN AV, 118, SAN BERNARDINO, CA, 92408,
SAN BERNARDINO
Mailing Address: 12672 LIMONITE AV, #3E-714, EASTVALE, CA, 92880, REGINA L LINDSAY
Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/REGINA R LINDSAY
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of SAN BERNARDINO on: 12/3/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 10/13/2021
County Clerk,
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
12/31/2021, 1/7/2022, 1/14/2022, 1/21/2022

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: KENNETH LEON CAPLE aka KENNY LEON CAPLE
CASE NO. PROSB2101136
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of KENNETH LEON CAPLE aka KENNY LEON CAPLE has been filed by TAMARA CAPLE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TAMARA CAPLE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held JANUARY 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: December 28, 2021
Amy Gamez-Reyes, Deputy Court Clerk
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: December 8, 2021
Attorney for Tamara Caple:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 7, 14 & 21, 2022.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: DELICIA VARELA
CASE NO. PROSB2100790
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of DELICIA VARELA has been filed by ANGELA MARIE VEGA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANGELA MARIE VEGA to be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held FEBRUARY 2, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: January 3, 2022
Amy Gamez-Reyes, Deputy Court Clerk
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: December 8, 2021
Attorney for Angela Marie Verga:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 7, 14 & 21, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: PATRICIA A. BRAUN
CASE NO. PROSB2200001
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of PATRICIA A. BRAUN has been filed by KATHRYN M. SESSIONS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KATHRYN M. SESSIONS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held FEBRUARY 2, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S35 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: January 3, 2022
Amy Gamez-Reyes, Deputy Court Clerk
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: December 8, 2021
Attorney for Kathry M. Sessions:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 7, 14 & 21, 2022.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JIA JIA
CASE NO. PROSB2100428
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JIA JIA has been filed by TAMARA CAPLE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TAMARA CAPLE be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held JANUARY 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: December 28, 2021
Amy Gamez-Reyes, Deputy Court Clerk
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: December 8, 2021
Attorney for Tamara Caple:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on January 7, 14 & 21, 2022.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2200086
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: SARBJIT KAUR filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
SARBJIT KAUR to SARBJIT KAUR RANDHAWA
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: 2/17/2022
Time: 09:00 AM
Department: S-17
The address of the court is
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino,
247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415,
San Bernardino District-Civil Division
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 01/06/2022
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/7, 1/14, 1/21 & 1/28, 2022.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
NAME .
STATEMENT FILE NO
· 20210009057
The following penon(s) b(are)
doing busioess as: XSA,lnvtstigative Services, 153S, ‘N Third Ave, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address
154 W.’ Foothill Blvd, STE;:
A3SS, Upland, CA91786, Kurt Donbam, 1535 N Third Ave, Upland, CA 91786
Business, is Conducted By: An
Individual Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, t DECLARE THAT ALLINFORMATION IN nns STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
A registrant who declares as true information, which he or sbe knows to’be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code i79l3) I am also aware that all information 0n this statement b«omes Public Record upon fi;iing ..
sf,KurtDonham
This statement was filed with
the County ClerkofSan Bernardino on: 09/01121 _
I hereby certify thal’ Ibis is II
· correct copy of the original slate.!
ncn! on filc in,my office . .
,Began’ Transacting Business:
Ogta0l21
County’ Clerk, sf DS511 .
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the Sao. Bernardino
County SeDtinel aD 09117121,
09124121,10/0112 1, 10/08/21
FBN 20210012284
The following person is doing business as: WAR GUARDIANS 1375 W. SAN BERNARDINO RD. #156 COVINA, CA 91722; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); DONALD L DENOYER 1375 W. SAN BERNARDINO RD. #15 COVINA, CA 91722; SOCORRO LOPEZ ZEPEDA 1375 W. SAN BERNARDINO RD. #156 COVINA, CA 91722
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DONALD L. DENOYER, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202101IR

FBN 20210012258
The following person is doing business as: PEDRO SMOG CHECK 405 N. WATERMAN AVE. STE B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); SANDR CARRANZA 405 N. WATERMAN AVE, STE B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SANDRA CARRANZA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/132021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202102IR

FBN 20210012015
The following person is doing business as: WOLF SNACKS 255 OAK DRIVE LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS PO BOX 90614 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92427]; JASEN E MATTINGLY 255 OAK DRIVE LAKE ARROWWHEAD, CA 92352
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/ JASEN MATTINGLY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/03/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202103IR

FBN 20210012049
The following person is doing business as: AA NUTRITION CENTER 723 N D ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 STAFFORD CT CHINO HILLS, CA 91709]; DERAR S HUMOUD 5601 STAFFORD CT CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
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/ DERAR S HUMOUD, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/03/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202104IR
FBN 20210012105
The following person is doing business as: GALIL PRODUCTIONS 199 STATE HWY 138 CRESTLINE, CA 92325; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 3727 CRESTLINE, CA 92325]; GABRIEL MARCOS REMON 199 STATE HWY 138 CRESTLINE, CA 92325
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 10, 2010
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/ GABRIEL MARCOS REMON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/07/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202105IR

FBN 20210012107
The following person is doing business as: EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION, INC 14840 EBONY PL FONTANA, CA 92335; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); NINEONINE TRANSPORTATION, INC 14840 EBONY PL FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ EMMANUEL LIZAEEAGA, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/07/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202106MT

FBN 20210012179
The following person is doing business as: TONY’S TREE SERVICE 9187 BONITA DRIVE CHERRY VALLEY, CA 92223; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); MICHAEL D CUSTER 9187 DONITA DRIVE CHERRY VALLEY, CA 92223
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MICHAEL D. CUSTER, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202107MT

FBN 20210012181 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME STAEMENT
The following person is doing business as: TONY’S TREE SERVICE 35257 WILDWOOD CANYON RD YUCAIPA, CA 92399; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ALAN L MORRIS 35257 WILDWOOD CANYON RD YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 07/11/2018. Original File# 20180008027
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 16, 2010
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/ ALAN L. MORRIS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202108MT

FBN 20210012178
The following person is doing business as: VIZION PERFORMANCE 1471 E HICHLAND CT ONTARIO, CA 91764; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); CHRISTOPHER A TRUJILLO 1471 E HIGHLAND CT ONTARIO, CA 91764
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CHRISTOPHER A. TRUJILLO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202109MT

FBN 20210012269
The following person is doing business as: THE APU DOCTOR, CORP 1161 W I STREET APT #4 ONTARIO, CA 91762; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); THE APU DOCTOR, CORP 1161 W I STREET APT #4 ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CARLOS QUINTEROS CARRILLO, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202110

FBN 20210012288
The following person is doing business as: HELPING HAND MENTAL HALTH SERVICES INC 9923 LIME AVENUE FONTANA, CA 92335; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); APPLE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES INC 9923 LIME AVENUE FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JO R.ROCA-TUAZON, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202111MT

FBN 20210012106
The following person is doing business as: K-MARTINEZ CONSTRUCTION 764 N. DALLAS AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); KEVIN G MARTINEZ 764 N. DALLAS AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KEVIN G. MARTINEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/07/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021, 01/07/2021 CNBB49202112IR

If you hover and click on the blue portal below, you can draw up onto your computer screen an electronic replica of the December 31 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 12-31-21

By Mark Gutglueck
A jury this week convicted Robert Rodriguez, one of Victorville City Councilwoman Blanca Gomez’s primary political supporters, of two of the six misdemeanor counts that were originally lodged against him last month when he and Gomez were charged with having created public disturbances in June and July. Three of those charges were dismissed prior to the jury being tasked to determine his culpability, while Rodriguez was acquitted on one of the remaining counts.
Rodriguez’s trial was hurriedly commenced on December 2, after the prosecution, despite enumerating and providing detail with regard to the charges in a complaint completed on October 28 and filed with the court on November 1, failed to prepare itself for the proceedings and was caught flatfooted when Rodriguez did not waive his right to a speedy trial. Those proceedings, featuring as their main tableau a narrative provided by Deputy District Attorney Jason Wilkinson in which Rodriguez was cast as an inveterate troublemaker, from their outset were considered by virtually all involved as a dry run for the eventual prosecution of Gomez.
Despite solemn pronouncements from Wilkinson and other members of the combined Victorville/San Bernardino County governmental and legal establishments that the district attorney’s office is earnestly seeking to bring two miscreants to the bar of justice, the cases against Gomez and Rodriguez contain an undeniably political element that even Wilkinson eventually alluded to in his statements to the jury.
Wilkinson, as measured by the jury’s two verdicts in his favor on the three charges they at last considered, succeeded in demonizing Rodriguez as an incendiary agent provocateur constantly seeking to incite chaos and disorder, whether out of a deep-seated personality flaw or misguided devotion to promoting Gomez’s political reach. Simultaneously, nonetheless, the prosecutor put on display the degree to which Victorville municipal officials at odds with Gomez, elements within the sheriff’s department and his boss, District Attorney Jason Anderson, are gunning to bring the curtain down on Gomez’s tenure as a viable politician.
Indeed, as the trial progressed a perception grew that Rodriguez, fiercely loyal to Gomez and assisted in some degree by his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Matthew Canty, was intent on pursuing a defense that was angled less at acquitting himself of the charges lodged against him but rather exposing the double standard that those who wield the gavel of public authority employ in maintaining their positions of public trust and the degree to which the lawgivers in San Bernardino County – the county’s largest law enforcement agency and the prosecutor’s office – are willing to go to ward off challenges to the county’s dominating political class which controls the public treasury from which those entities’ budgetary allowances are made. In this regard, Rodriguez seemed intent on and in some ways succeeded in illustrating that in formulating the case against him, both the arresting agency in this case, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, and the prosecution – the district attorney’s office and Wilkinson – were seeking to gloss over and as best they could shield from the scrutiny of both the jury and the public action by one of Gomez’s chief political rival’s closest associates, that being the husband of Gomez’s political nemesis, Victorville Mayor Debra Jones, that was not much different than Rodriguez’s and which did not result in arrest or prosecution.
The case against Rodriguez stemmed from his action on three separate occasions – June 2, July 6 and July 20 of this year – while he was in Gomez’s presence.
The June 2 incident took place on the premises of the Panera Bread bakery-café at 11838 Armargosa Road in Victorville while both Gomez and Rodriguez were customers there. Rodriguez, somewhat ill-advisedly, began vaping. When he was asked by an employee to step out of the café because vaping was not allowed indoors, things grew confrontational, resulting in sheriff’s deputies being summoned. While the deputies were yet en route, a dispute over Gomez’s efforts to use her cell phone to video what was occurring erupted. The situation devolved from there when deputies arrived on the scene and alleged that both Gomez and Rodriguez were “trespassing” on the Panera Bread property, and came to the conclusion that Gomez’s efforts to use her cell phone to videorecord Panera Bread manager Maria Weatherbie, who had been involved in seeking to have Rodriguez desist in vaping, was tantamount to “battery.” The deputies requested that Rodriguez step outside the café. Rodriguez did so, refusing to provide the officers with his identification when it was requested. He was handcuffed and detained, put into a sheriff’s department vehicle for a time but taken out of the car and un-handcuffed after deputies determined who he was. Meanwhile, Gomez phoned Victorville Sheriff’s Station Captain John Wickum to complain about the treatment she and Rodriguez had been subjected to. Both Gomez and Rodriguez were cited but not taken into custody.
During the July 6 Victorville City Council meeting, a fracas broke out when city officials became warily regardful of Rodriguez, and Mayor Debra Jones called for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies, who were on standby to maintain order at the council meeting, to take action, to which Rodriguez reacted vocally and loudly. As a consequence, he was forcefully removed from the council chambers by the deputies on the scene.
On July 20, the city council was meeting once again, and had progressed to a discussion relating to employing interpreters to facilitate the participation of Spanish-speaking residents at city meetings. Rodriguez was wearing a hat and what appeared to be a ski mask while sitting near Jones’ husband, Ernest Jones, in the gallery within the council chamber. Rodriguez was using a device to video-record the meeting. The circumstance was complicated by the consideration that Ernest Jones was also, apparently, recording the meeting, which was remarked upon by City Attorney Andre de Bortnowsky. When Rodriguez trained the camera he was holding on her husband, the mayor objected, and in her capacity as the meeting’s presiding officer, ordered Rodriguez to discontinue recording. Gomez interjected that both Rodriguez and Ernest Jones were recording. Gomez, who had herself set up a camera on the dais and was livestreaming the meeting to her Instagram account, noted that she had recorded Ernest Jones using his camera to videorecord the meeting. As Rodriguez continued to record, Mayor Jones ordered the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies who were present at the meeting to seize Rodriguez’ phone to determine if he had been recording, and then ordered him removed from the meeting chamber. When Gomez left her place at the council dais to move into the gallery, an altercation with deputies took place, and both she and Rodriguez were arrested, even as Gomez and Rodriguez continued to record the goings-on with their handheld devices.
Rodriguez was incarcerated and his phone was confiscated. Gomez, who suffered an anxiety attack after she was handcuffed, was taken to a hospital. Her phone was also confiscated. Upon the phone being returned to her, she learned that while it was in the possession of the sheriff’s department deputies had deleted the videos from the device and went into her Instagram account and deleted the videos there as well.
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Detective Tyler McGee shortly thereafter obtained a search warrant from San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Kyle Brodie to search the homes of Gomez and Rodriguez. On July 23, sheriff’s deputies and detectives served those search warrants. At Gomez’s home, she was not present, and the officers encountered only two of the nine residents there. Holding those residents, the home’s owner and his brother, at gunpoint, they seized a Nokia cell phone, an Apple watch, a Samsung Galaxy, a Samsung computer, a black/red USB drive, three iPads, a California driver license, a silver Apple laptop, three iPhone S series cell phones, four other iPhones, an Acer Chromebook, a Macbook Air, a Lenovo laptop, a white iPhone, a wallet with Robert Rodriguez’s California driver license, a black iPhone, Sky devices and a Microsoft laptop.
Rodriguez was at that point being held, and has remained in custody since, on a “flash incarceration” under Penal Code § 3455, which pertains to his having violated the terms of his post release community supervision requirement for parole he was granted relating to a prior criminal conviction. He was not at his residence when the sheriff’s department’s officers on July 23 served the search warrant there and seized items.
By the time of the three incidents involving Gomez, Rodriguez and the sheriff’s department in June and July, the tension between Gomez and the Victorville political and legal establishment had been building for nearly five years.
Gomez was elected to the Victorville City Council in 2016. Nearly from the outset of her tenure in office, she clashed with her fellow and sister officeholders. Gomez had an imperfect understanding of the limited reach of local governmental authority and its protocols, no mastery of parliamentary procedure, and she was out of step with not only the political orientation but the governance precepts of the other officials she was serving with. The situation was exacerbated by Gomez’s efforts to extend her limited oversight as a city official to advocacy of immigrant rights and social issues that are beyond the scope of her elected position, but which she maintains she is at liberty to actively embrace. Her antagonistic and contentious style often involves provocative acts, as when she draped herself in a Mexican flag during a council meeting, and this has further alienated her from her elected colleagues. In her crusade against what she considers to be large-scale societal injustice, she frequently takes recourse in accusing those resisting her efforts of having racist motivation. As a Democrat, her approach has not been well received within the Republican-dominated political establishment in both San Bernardino County and Victorville.
Moreover, Victorville was a particularly poor venue for such a crusade as that being waged by Gomez, one based on the proposition that Hispanics have been historically and universally oppressed by the white population in California and elsewhere in the United States, and that the oppression must be stemmed. In the 24 years before Gomez was first elected, Victorville had demonstrated itself as having a governmental structure that was among the most racially diverse not just in San Bernardino County but throughout the state, and a community where the long somnolent Latino political giant had first awoken. During the last decade of the 20th Century – from 1990 to 1999 – and the first 17 years of the 21st Century – from 2000 through 2016 – Victorville was the second most politically stable of the 24 municipalities in San Bernardino County, as there was very little turnover of the members of its city council, with 16 people having served on the council during those 26 years ending in November 2016. Six of those 16 council members were people of color. Five of those – Felix Diaz, Rodolfo Cabriales, Angela Valles, Gloria Garcia and Eric Negrete – were Hispanic. Of those five Hispanic council members, four were Republicans. Roughly 70 percent of California’s Hispanic voters identified as Democrats, with another approximate 10 percent registering no political affiliation or membership with the American Independent, Peace & Freedom, Green, Libertarian or other more obscure political parties. Only about 20 percent of California’s Latino voting population are Republicans. Nevertheless, in Victorville, a sizable element of the Hispanic community embraced Republicanism and its ideals, reciprocated by the collective community’s election of Latinos into positions of municipal governance.
With Gomez’s election to the council in 2016, three-fifths of the city council was Hispanic – herself, Mayor Gloria Garcia and Councilman Eric Negrete. In 2018, another Hispanic, Rita Ramirez, would supplant Negrete on the council, such that at that point, seven of the council’s members over a period of 26 years had been or were Latino. Two years later, in 2020, when Gomez was reelected, Garcia was voted out of office, replaced by another Latina, Liz Becerra. Also victorious in the 2020 race was Leslie Irving, an African-American. In this way, at present over the last 30 years, eight of 21 or 38.1 percent of Victorville City Council members have been Hispanic and 10 of 21 or 47.6 percent of the Victorville City Council members over those three decades have been people of color.
Those statistics render generally unsupportable the position Gomez has taken that the Hispanic population in Victorville has been disenfranchised. Gomez’s persistent accusations that Victorville’s political and governmental structure is a hotbed of racism has proven galling to the vast majority of those who have inhabited the city’s political and governmental establishment. Moreover, among virtually all of the Latinos who have achieved elective office in Victorville to become part of that establishment, Gomez’s public comportment is perceived as embarrassing and counterproductive.
Complicating the situation in general is that the position to which she was elected – the Victorville City Council – is a panel of relatively modest authority in comparison to Gomez’s grand political objectives, one that is dedicated to overseeing municipal government in Victorville, with its most notable reach being the ultimate authority on local land use decisions and having last say with regard to the city’s budget. Gomez’s focus was elsewhere, as she was intent on promoting the interests of Hispanics and crusading against the injustices – within the legal system, economically and at large – she was convinced were being perpetrated against disadvantaged minorities by the white establishment.
Gloria Garcia was mayor when Gomez first assumed her position on the council. Within the first three months after Gomez was sworn in, both Garcia and Councilman Eric Negrete had repeated confrontations with Gomez on issues of both substance and form. Gomez’s lack of knowledge and respect for parliamentary protocol formed the basis of multiple heated exchanges with the mayor. There were occasions where Garcia called upon deputies with the sheriff’s department, who served in the capacity of sergeants-at-arms during council meetings, to forcibly remove Gomez from the council dais and the meeting chamber.
Elected to the Victorville City Council in 2018 along with Rita Ramirez, a Democrat, was Debra Jones, a devout Republican. On some issues, Ramirez was in consonance with Gomez, and Ramirez’s presence on the council to a degree reduced Gomez’s isolation. In the 2020 election, in which a total of 22 candidates competed, the voters returned Gomez to office, while turning Garcia out. Also elected in 2020 were Leslie Irving, a Democrat, and Becerra, a Republican.
In December 2020, for the first time in more than a generation, the Democrats, after the new members of the council were sworn in, were in ascendancy on the Victorville City Council, holding a 3-to-2 numerical advantage over the rival Republicans. That would have seemed to bode well for Gomez, who at that point was the senior member of the council in terms of tenure. The tradition in Victorville, which does not have a directly elected mayor, is that the mayoralty is rotated among the council members, with the honorific gravitating to that person with sufficient experience on the panel who has not yet served in the mayoral capacity. Thus, in December 2020 the heir apparent as mayor was Gomez. Nevertheless, Jones was able to capitalize on Gomez’s by-then burnished reputation as an establishment outsider to outmaneuver her, garnering the support of her sister Republican Becerra and brokering a deal with Irving to provide her with the vice mayor’s position, known as mayor pro tem, in exchange for her vote to make Jones mayor.
Despite the consideration that the Democrats have a substantial 27,489 or 44.2 percent to 14,620 or 23.5 percent voter registration advantage among Victorville’s 62,226 voters, the Democrats’ ascendancy on the Victorville City council did not last long. Ramirez had injured her foot in a December 2019 fall in which internal bruising occurred but initially went undetected. Her condition worsened, and she was forced to undergo a series of foot and then lower leg amputations in early 2020 and had thereafter been brought by her grown son to the family’s vacation home in Twentynine Palms to recover. Based upon Ramirez’s failure to attend an extended number of council meetings, she was voted off the council in March of this year, on a 3-to-2 vote, with Jones, Becerra and Irving prevailing and Ramirez and Gomez dissenting. Since that time, the council has remained at four-fifths strength, as Republicans Jones and Becerra are not willing to accept any Democrat Irving and Gomez would support and Irving and Gomez are unwilling to put into office any Republican whom Jones and Becerra might support.
It is within that context that the arrest, prosecution and trial of Rodriguez took place and under which the pending trial of Gomez looms.
Regardless of the low esteem Gomez is held in by her council colleagues, her message has nevertheless resonated with a cross section of the community, which redounded to her 2020 reelection to the council. She has a coterie of supporters who can be counted upon to turn out at public events and meetings, close ranks with her and fend off the occasional attacks vectored at her from her opponents or those who have taken umbrage at the way she conducts herself. Among those in Gomez’s praetorian guard is Rodriguez, who had become, by early this year, a mainstay at city council meetings.
Like Garcia before her, Jones as mayor has had a testy relationship with Gomez.
One of Jones’ primary political supporters, Robert Harriman, pursued but failed in an attempt undertaken more than two years ago to recall Gomez from office.
Jones has acceded to the position of leadership of the Victorville political/governmental establishment, which has been Republican in nature with little deviation since the city’s 1962 founding. Despite the Democrats’ growing voter registration advantage both in Victorville and San Bernardino County in general, the Republicans have maintained the upper political hand by boosting the turnout of Republican voters to rates approaching three times that achieved by their Democratic counterparts, backroom deal making with Democrats who manage to get into office and co-opting ambitious Latino and African-American politicians and officeholders. The Republicans have simultaneously sold their advocacy of “conservative values” to a good cross section of the Hispanic and African-American population in Victorville, in an effort to convince them that the Republican approach to public safety and economic growth is in their interest. Jones, as Victorville mayor and a rising star in High Desert politics, is on good terms with the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, which consists of four Republicans and a single Democrat. In the same way the board of supervisors is, Jones is committed to promoting the GOP ideal of spurring development and economic growth, supporting law enforcement and being tough on crime.
Perhaps the strongest indication that Jones is a rock-solid manifestation of the Victorville Republican establishment was the 2021-2022 budget passed by the city council in her first mayoral administration last May, which boosted the city’s commitment to law enforcement in the form of its contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for police services by 15 percent over the previous year, from $29,574,517 to $34,129,863.
There is strong evidence to suggest that in the immediate aftermath of the July 20 arrests of Gomez and Rodriguez, Mayor Jones met with San Bernardino County’s Republican district attorney, Jason Anderson, after city officials learned that the basis for the arrests – videotaping a council meeting – would not suffice as grounds for a prosecution. Together with Harriman, who is likewise a stalwart within the Victorville Republican establishment, Jones reportedly pressed Anderson to have his prosecutors come up with some other rationale for prosecuting Gomez and her sidekick Rodriguez, getting convictions, and taking Gomez down a peg or two if not outright ending her trouble-making political career altogether.
Anderson assigned one of the office’s most accomplished prosecutors, Supervising Deputy District Attorney Britt Imes, who has a considerable, indeed enviable, track record in prosecuting and achieving convictions on major cases in the county, including murder, multiple murder and gang racketeering, to zero in on Gomez and Rodriguez. After three months, on October 28, Imes finished his draft of a complaint against Gomez and Rodriguez. On November 1, Imes filed that complaint, which charged Gomez with one misdemeanor count of violating PC148(a)1, resisting, obstructing or delaying of a peace officer and one misdemeanor count of violating PC242 – battery, both stemming from an incident on the premises of the Panera Bread bakery-café on June 2 and with two misdemeanor counts of violating PC148(a)1 – resisting, obstructing or delaying of a peace officer and one count of PC403 – disturbance of a public meeting, relating to her action on July 20. Rodriguez was charged with six misdemeanors alleged to have occurred in connection with the June 2, July 6 and July 20 events. He was nicked with being in violation of PC148(a)1 – misdemeanor resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer and one count of violating PC602(m) – trespassing with regard to the June 2 incident. He was charged with a single count of violating PC403 – misdemeanor disturbance of a public meeting growing out of what occurred at the July 6 meeting. He was further accused of violating PC148(a)1 – resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer, violating PC403 – disturbance of a public meeting and violating PC182(a)1 conspiracy to commit a crime in regard to the events of July 20.
The prosecution of Gomez and Rodriguez was a classic pitting of a group of coordinated, sophisticated, enabled, powerful and well-heeled government insiders against two pathetically naive perennial outsiders, whose command of protocol and the law is so poor as to be virtually nonexistent. It was clear that the arrest of Rodriguez in July, his continued incarceration and the filing of charges against both him and Gomez in November threw them both back on their heels. For that reason, perhaps, the prosecution itself convulsed when Rodriguez did not, as it was assumed he would, waive his right to a speedy trial. Thus, the court and the prosecution were faced with the need to begin his trial no later than December 1. When the trial had not begun by that date, Rodriguez’s attorney, Matthew Canty, prepared a Penal Code 1382 motion to have the charges dismissed.
On December 2, the matter was abruptly moved into the courtroom of Judge Kawika Smith, a longstanding defense attorney employed by the San Bernardino County Public Defender’s Office who had been appointed to the Superior Court by Governor Gavin Newsom in July and who had been sworn in in August. Judge Smith was under extreme pressure to demonstrate that as a jurist he has not carried over any of his pro-criminal defendant leanings.
The district attorney’s office had to scramble, and Imes appeared for the prosecution in Judge Smith’s courtroom on December 2, even though another deputy district attorney, Jason Wilkinson, was supposed to be prosecuting the case. Wilkinson was unavailable, as he was engaged elsewhere.
Hastily, a pool of jurors that had been called to the courtroom as a potential jury on another matter were sent to Judge Smith’s courtroom to serve as the jury in Rodriguez’s trial. Voir dire, the questioning of the jurors began, but was not completed by the end of the day. The reassignment of the jurors to the Rodriguez case was notable in that the San Bernardino County Superior Court and the district attorney’s office had earlier this year successfully resisted efforts by defendants to force their rights to speedy trials to be honored, including a defendant charged with murder and three felony enhancements who was twice denied a speedy trial on the grounds that the emergency precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic justified precluding the impaneling of a jury and utilizing a courtroom to hear that case. Legal observers were astounded to learn that both the court and the district attorney’s office put a higher priority on a case involving six relatively minor misdemeanors than a murder case.
The jurors were ordered to return the following day. Nevertheless, in court on December 3 the jurors were sent home, and only procedural issues were discussed by the judge and attorneys.
On December 6, the jury returned and was accompanied by a second jury panel. Outside their presence, Judge Smith acceded to arguments made by the prosecution and denied the defense motion to dismiss the case because Rodriguez had been denied his right to a speedy trial. A procedural error occurred while both jury panels were present in the courtroom and their members were exposed to statements prejudicial to Rodriguez. Judge Smith dismissed both jury panels.
On December 8 a third potential jury panel was present for voir dire. Ultimately, due to unspecified considerations, that potential jury panel in its entirely was dismissed.
Later that day a fourth potential jury panel was brought in. After questioning, the considering of confidential information and the dismissal of one potential juror, a jury was selected, consisting of five white men, three African-American men, three Hispanic women and an Asian woman, along with two alternate or back-up jurors, an African-American woman and a Hispanic woman.
The following day, the trial began with opening statements, followed by the prosecution initiating putting on its case.
By the end of the trial, three of the original charges against Rodriguez – two counts of resisting, obstructing or delaying a peace officer and conspiracy to commit a crime – were dismissed with the assonance of the prosecution.
Multiple witness testified, including Maria Weatherby, the manager at the Victorville Panera Bread bakery-café; Mayor Jones supporter and Gomez recall proponent Robert Harriman, who was present at the city council meetings and had interaction with Rodriguez; Victorville Code Enforcement Officer Jorge Duran, who was present at the city council meetings and whom Rodriguez “shadowed”; Victorville City Attorney Andre deBortnowsky; and Mayor Jones.
There were glitches, irregularities and notable exchanges during the trial, to the point that the court imposed a blackout on information relating to the case. The prosecution failed to turn over evidence it possessed, once possessed, had seized or destroyed, which Canty considered key to the defense, including the video footage of the contretemps at the July 20 meeting the sheriff’s department offloaded from Gomez’s phone and then erased. Judge Smith made a finding that the prosecution in fact withheld evidence. He did not, however, grant Canty’s motion to dismiss the case against Rodriguez. There were suggestions, insinuations or accusations that Mayor Jones and deBortnowsky lied under oath and that Wilkinson suborned perjury. When questioned whether she had spoken with District Attorney Anderson or anyone from the district attorney’s office about remedying the arrests for videotaping and bootstrapping the charges into something upon which convictions could be obtained, Jones testified that “didn’t ring a bell.” deBortnowsky, who during the July 20 meeting stated that both Rodriguez and Ernest Jones were videotaping the proceedings, was unwilling to say anything on the witness stand implicating anyone other than Gomez or Rodriguez. In his rulings, Judge Smith did not make any definitive findings with regard to the perjury and suborning perjury accusations.
In his closing arguments, Wilkinson said that Rodriguez had a history of disrupting public meetings in Victorville, and had previously been expelled from meetings in 2018 and 2020.
Wilkinson said that “at both the July 6 and July 20 meeting [city officials] were absolutely required to take an unscheduled recess to reestablish order” because of Rodriguez’s interference in the proceedings.
At the July 20 meeting, Wilkinson said, Rodriguez victimized both Duran and Harriman.
“He followed Mr. Duran, leaning over him and peering at him,” Wilkinson said.
Rodriguez was not engaged in constitutionally protected free speech in doing so, Wilkinson insisted. “That is not an expressive action,” Wilkinson said. Rodriguez was being “disruptive and continued to record,” Wilkinson said, after he was told to discontinue doing so.
“It is not the recording itself which is disruptive, but the method that is truly disruptive,” Wilkinson asserted.
Wilkinson said that in reaction to Rodriguez, “Duran tried to move away,” but that Rodriguez “shadowed him for 40 minutes.” Wilkinson said that when Duran moved away from Rodriguez, Rodriguez “followed him around.” Duran was “shushing” Rodriquez, that is, urging him to be quiet, in an effort to discourage him from interrupting the meeting, Wilkinson said. Duran was, Wilkinson said, “asking him to stop, but the defendant failed to do so.”
Rodriguez was similarly harassing Harriman, Wilkinson said.
Rodriguez’s interaction with Duran and Harriman prevented them from observing the meeting and participating in it, Wilkinson said.
Rodriguez was motivated in his actions by “a longstanding issue between the mayor and Ms. Gomez,” Wilkinson said, and told the jury the defendant bedeviled the mayor’s husband, Ernest Jones, as well.
“The husband of the mayor was his next target,” Wilkinson said, relating how Rodriguez “sat by him on July 20, putting the camera in the face of Mr. Jones.”
Wilkinson said each victim thought Rodriguez’s conduct was bothersome.
“These were politically motivated intentional disruptions,” Wilkinson said. “He stopped the deliberations of government officials. He interfered with and stopped the meeting.”
Wilkinson said officials asked Rodriguez to desist. “He knew he was not in compliance with the request,” Wilkinson said.
While engaged in that disruption on July 20, Wilkinson said, Rodriguez was “covering up his identity with a ski mask.”
Wilkinson told the jury that the July 6 meeting also had to be stopped because of Rodriguez’s antics.
During the June 2 incident at the Panera Bread bakery & café, Wilkinson said that Rodriguez intentionally interfered with business operations by vaping and obstructing employees in their ability to carry on business with their customers. “He mocked a customer for snitching on him,” Wilkinson said. “He took an intimidating and aggressive posture. He refused to leave after he was contacted. He was aggressive toward Panera Bread management and caused her to focus her attention away from running the restaurant.”
Canty in his closing statement said that Mayor Jones’ testimony showed that the actions taken against Rodriguez at the July 6 and July 20 council meetings and Gomez at the July 20 council meeting, including the arrests, established that Rodriguez was not engaged in criminal activity and that city officials’ and the deputies’ action boiled down to the city’s attempt at “avoiding the appearance of impropriety.” Jones acknowledged, Canty said, that the action by the city and the deputies on July 20, was to “get a certain outcome,” which was the arrest and eventual prosecution of Gomez and Rodriguez. This translated into what had happened to Rodriguez being, Canty said, “a set-up.”
On the witness stand, Canty said, Mayor Jones had acknowledged that over the course of the entire ordeal, she had “changed her story,” having initially called for and justifying Rodriguez’s arrest as being done to curtail his recording of the meeting and then “going back after the fact” to say the arrest was made because of a violation of Penal Code Section 403, pertaining to disturbing a public meeting. Surviving evidence showed, Canty said, that Mayor Jones’ husband was himself recording the meeting and that “He pointed his camera right back at Mr. Rodriguez.”
Canty said that after the arrests on July 20 which were predicated on Rodriguez videotaping the meeting, Mayor Jones and her political supporter, Robert Harriman, came to recognize that accusing and establishing that Rodriguez had videotaped the meeting would not suffice in getting a conviction, and they therefore initiated a lobbying campaign with District Attorney Jason Anderson to utilize some other grounds – which ultimately turned out to be interrupting a public meeting Penal Code 403 charge – to justify the arrest and proceed with a prosecution.
Canty cited evidence of an exchange between Jones and Harriman on July 21 that contained the phrase “I hope the DA doesn’t show weakness,” to establish they were putting pressure on Anderson to file charges against Rodriguez and Gomez.
When Jones was questioned under oath, Canty said, she perjured herself.
“She could not remember if she had talked to the DA,” Canty said. “‘Doesn’t ring a bell,’ she said. You don’t forget talking to the DA about bringing charges against your political rival for five years. ‘Doesn’t ring a bell’ sounds like a lie to me. Based on the things she stated on the witness stand, she doesn’t have any credibility at all.”
Canty told the jury that under Section 54953.5 of the Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law, all citizens have a right to videorecord public meetings. To be convicted of a Penal Code Section 403 violation, someone must have an intent to disrupt a public meeting, he said. Rodriguez had no such intent, and no intent could be proven, Canty said, because Rodriguez had the right to record and “thought he could record because of Section 54953.5.”
The district attorney’s office had floundered about, while furiously militating to come up with a way of complying with Jones’ and Harriman’s request to redeem Rodriguez’s wrongful arrest on a meeting videotaping charge by substituting some charges that would suffice as grounds for justifying the arrest, Canty said. That was proven out, Canty said, by the consideration that “Charges were not filed until October 28,” consisting of, he said, “conspiracy to commit an interruption of a public meeting.” Ultimately, that charge was dropped, and the only allegation left was the disturbing of a public meeting.
Canty, latching onto the concept of conspiracy, immediately pivoted from a defense of Rodriguez to attacking the government.
“The conspiracy in this case rests with the government,” he said. “There was no conspiracy to interrupt a meeting.”
He then focused on the inability of the sheriff’s department, the city and the prosecution, which had possession of Gomez’s and Rodriguez’s cell phones and the data contained therein, to show evidence of such a plot to interrupt the July 20 meeting. Rather, Canty said, the sheriff’s department eradicated the evidence, which, if it had remained intact in Gomez’s and Rodriguez’s possession, would have been used at trial to vindicate Rodriguez.
“Getting a [search] warrant was part of a conspiracy,” Canty said. “A warrant is supposed to turn up evidence, not destroy it.”
Arresting Rodriguez and Gomez, taking their cell phones, searching their homes and seizing their possessions was not intended to prove a crime and ultimately produced no evidence that any crime was committed, Canty said. Rather, he intoned, “The search warrants… the only purpose of that was to send a message that ‘We’re not going to put up with what you are doing at public meetings anymore.’”
Canty said any exchanges Rodriguez had with Harriman and Duran at the meeting were expressions of his opinion and were protected by his right to free speech. That either Harriman or Duran disagreed with what he said or that one or both of them found those statements upsetting did not qualify as disturbing the peace, Canty said. The law prohibits disturbing the public peace, Canty said, not “disturbing the peace of an individual.”
That Rodriguez was not disturbing the peace was demonstrated by his not having raised his voice during the meetings, as one of the deputies present had testified that Rodriguez’s volume was somewhere “between a whisper and a mutter,” Canty said.
If indeed there was a disturbance of the public peace at the July 6 and July 20 meetings, Canty said, it was Gomez and Jones who were the perpetrators, with both having gotten animated over “silly stuff going on in the meeting. Both started yelling things. My client didn’t have anything to do with a disruption of the meeting. It was a rivalry between Councilwoman Gomez and Ms. Jones.”
With regard to the June 2 incident at the Panera Bread bakery-café, Canty said Rodriguez was not guilty of trespassing in a public place as charged, because under Penal Code Section 602, an individual must be asked to leave and refuse to do so before he is considered to be trespassing.
One of the deputies on the scene, Canty said, testified that Rodriquez agreed to leave the Panera Bread bakery-café roughly ten seconds after he was asked to do so.
Canty said that the prosecution had failed to disclose audio and video evidence in a timely manner as part of a political show trial.
“This is the People V. Robert Rodriguez not V. Blanca Gomez,” a visual display Canty placed on an overhead screen in the courtroom read. The entire contretemps was a manifestation of a “longstanding dispute between the mayor and Councilwoman Gomez, Canty said. He then closed with, “Return a not guilty verdict and tell them this charade does not have your support.”
In his rebuttal to Canty, Wilkinson said, “The evidence does not show a government conspiracy.”
That the district attorney’s office did not immediately move forward with the case as it was initially framed by the sheriff’s office after the July 20 arrests and rather readjusted the charges away from an emphasis on his having videotaped the meeting to a disturbance of the meeting was not an indication that the district attorney’s office and the city were plotting against Rodriguez, Wilkinson maintained. He said the prosecutor’s office normally revisits the issues surrounding a circumstance and interviews and re-interviews victims and witnesses before drafting a criminal complaint and filing it. “We repeatedly look back at what happened and take action,” he said.
“Taken in its totality, this case has been properly charged,” Wilkinson told the jury.
While stopping short of denying that Mayor Jones and Harriman had lobbied District Attorney Anderson to follow through with a prosecution, Wilkinson said no proof had been marshaled that such lobbying actually occurred. “There’s no evidence anyone spoke to the DA’s office about modifying the charges,” Wilkinson said.
The case for Rodriguez having disrupted the two public meetings did not come down to a single action, Wilkinson said. The defendant’s intent and culpability were established, he said, through the “totality of interruptions.”
Wilkinson, while sidestepping Canty’s accusations and insinuations relating to suborning perjury, perjury on the part of prosecution witnesses, the sheriff’s department’s destruction of evidence and the prosecution’s failure to provide both incriminating and exonerating evidence to the defense, said the seizure of Gomez’s and Rodriguez’s cell phones and the multiple items at their residences pursuant to the search warrant obtained after their arrests was justified, even though no relevant evidence was churned up.
“Just because it can’t be found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist,” Wilkinson said.
The jury, after more than a day of deliberations returned verdicts of guilty on the trespassing count, not guilty on disrupting the July 6 meeting and guilty on disrupting the July 20 meeting.

A San Bernardino nonprofit club has learned the hard way that even in the face of California’s marijuana liberalization, state officials have yet to consent to the blending of intoxicants in a commercial context.
Arrowhead Elks Lodge, which has existed since 1959 and had a liquor license from almost the time it started, has now lost its right to serve alcohol, based upon its premises, located at 1073 North Mount Vernon Avenue, having been used for promotional events for marijuana, marijuana-based products and cannabis-based palliatives.
Arrowhead Elks was once affiliated with the national organization known as the Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World, Inc., though that is no longer so.
Arrowhead Elks was the holder of a Type 51 Club license, which is a retail license issued to a nonprofit entity, authorizing sale of beer, wine and liquor to club members and their guests for on-premises consumption only.
The Arrowhead Elks Club intermittently uses its lodge in San Bernardino for its own purposes, but also regularly rents the premises out for other purposes.
Beginning in 2018 the Arrowhead Elks Lodge premises were leased out to various vendors selling marijuana and cannabis-derived products. On two occasions, August 15, 2018 and April 25, 2019, police served search warrants on the grounds of the Elks Lodge and impounded substantial amounts of cannabis products, as well as other evidence indicating that cannabis was being sold on the premises.
In June 2019, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issued an accusation seeking to revoke Arrowhead Elks’ alcohol sales license based on unlawful possession and sale of cannabis at the lodge.
According to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, on at least two occasions, those being August 15, 2018 and April 25, 2019, “Arrowhead Elks had knowingly permitted the sale, or negotiations for sale, of controlled substances or dangerous drugs at its premises in violation of section 24200.5 of California’s Business and Professions Code and its various subdivisions, which impose a general duty on licensed entities to maintain a lawful establishment, and for the licensee to be reasonably diligent in anticipation of possible unlawful activity, and to instruct employees accordingly.”
According to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Arrowhead Elks had knowingly permitted on its premises possession of a controlled substance for purposes of sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359.
A hearing on the matter was held before an administrative law judge. Testimony was taken from two officers of the Arrowhead Elks, those being its “house chairman” and its “exalted ruler and president.” Evidence was provided that another officer of the Arrowhead Elks, its “leading knight and vice president,” had hired a security guard for the events and hired another person to put up and take down tables for vendors to use; that Arrowhead Elks had charged cannabis vendors $150 for vending space, plus $100 for “permit purposes,” even though no permits were obtained; and evidence that a particular cannabis event promoter who goes by the name “Lyfe” or “McLyfe” attended a membership meeting of the Arrowhead Elks in August 2017, at which an upcoming “Lyfeevent in January 2018” was discussed.
Arrowhead Elks’ house chairman testified that he, under the “guidance” of the organization’s exalted ruler, was responsible for leasing out the organization’s premises for various events, including cannabis events organized by promoters. The exalted ruler testified that he knew “cannabis events” were being held at Arrowhead Elks’ Lodge. He also testified that he personally ensured that during those cannabis events, including on August 15, 2018 and April 25, 2019, all alcohol was removed from the lodge’s bar and put into a locked “alcohol closet,” to which he had the only key.
The administrative law judge recommended that all counts of the accusation be sustained and that Arrowhead Elks’ license be revoked. The administrative law judge found that Arrowhead Elks “was fully aware that it was renting out the licensed premises to promoters and vendors for cannabis sales events.”
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control adopted the administrative law judge’s proposed decision in full. The Elks’ Lodge appealed the decision, whereupon the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board heard the matter and reversed the department’s decision. In making its reversal, the appeals board found that the decision as to the cannabis related counts was not supported by substantial evidence.
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in turn disputed the findings of its own Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, removing the issues involved to the California State Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division Two in Riverside. The matter was heard by a panel consisting of judges Michael Raphael, Carol Codrington and Marsha Slough.
“The department contends that its decision to revoke Arrowhead Elks’s license was supported by substantial evidence, so the appeals board’s finding to the contrary should be annulled. We agree,” the decision, penned by Judge Raphael and endorsed by Judge Codrington and Judge Slough states. “There is also no reasonable dispute that Arrowhead Elks knew that the cannabis sales events were being held at its premises.”
The appeals court panel’s decision continues, “Additionally, there is no question that the cannabis sales events that took place at Arrowhead Elks’s premises were unlawful. Cannabis remains a controlled substance under California law, despite the passage of Proposition 64, which legalized its recreational use. The commercial sale of cannabis is regulated under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. It is not possible to be licensed to sell cannabis at a premises also licensed for the sale of alcohol. A temporary cannabis event license shall not be issued for a premises that is licensed for the sale of alcohol or tobacco. Premises licensed under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ‘shall not be in a location that requires persons to pass through a business that sells alcohol . . . to access the licensed premises’ and premises licensed under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ‘shall not be in a location that requires persons to pass through the licensed premises to access a business that sells alcohol.’ A licensee [under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act] shall not, at its licensed premises, sell, offer, or provide cannabis or cannabis products. Although Arrowhead Elks’s house chairman testified that the promoters showed him and the leading knight their ‘license’ for the events, he was either mistaken about the scope of the permissions the promoters had obtained, or he was not telling the truth.”
According to the ruling, Arrowhead Elks’ argument that the evidence to sustain the department’s ruling was insufficient because there is no evidence that Arrowhead Elks “kn[ew] that the licensed premises were to be used in an unlawful manner” and whether commercial cannabis sales are unlawful “becomes complicated” in light of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, both failed. “[T]here is nothing complicated about whether temporary cannabis sales events such as those at issue here could be licensed to take place at a location that is already licensed to sell alcohol,” Judge Raphael wrote. “The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, under which Arrowhead Elks’s liquor license was issued, states plainly that ‘[a] licensee shall not, at its licensed premises, sell, offer, or provide cannabis or cannabis products.’ The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act implementing regulations state equally plainly: ‘A temporary cannabis event license shall not be issued for a premises that is licensed for the sale of alcohol or tobacco.’ Arrowhead Elks, as the holder of a liquor license, is responsible for familiarizing itself with the law relating to use of its licensed premises and operating those premises in accordance with the law.”
The appellate panel found unconvincing Arrowhead Elks’ argument there was no evidence that “illegal drug sales or possession occurred while [it] was operating its club license, or when its members or corporate officers were present” and that, as a “social club,” it “operates on a temporary or intermittent basis and only when its members are present.”
Judges Raphael, Codrington and Slough stated, “The idea here is, essentially, since the alcohol was locked away and no club members were present during the cannabis sales events, Arrowhead Elks was not using its license at the time, so it should not be subject to discipline based on the activities of the nonmember promoters, vendors, and customers. Both the department and the appeals board rejected this line of argument, as do we. The prohibitions at issue are not triggered by whether the premises were open for the sale of alcohol at the time, but by whether the premises are licensed for the sale of alcohol, and whether Arrowhead Elks allowed those premises to be used in an unlawful manner.”
-Mark Gutglueck