An incremental inroad against the graft and influence peddling besetting the Acquanetta Warren regime in Fontana was achieved earlier this month, when Fontana’s elected officials were essentially shamed by their recently-hired interim city manager into requiring that they and the candidates who will compete against them for elected office must file the campaign finance disclosure documents required by the Fair Political Practices Commission of all politicians in California electronically.
Previously, before Warren was elected to the post of mayor in 2010, the city clerk’s office in Fontana had an open access policy with regard to public documents, including campaign funding disclosure documents known as Form 460s, allowing the public to see and chart from whom Fontana’s elected officials – primarily the mayor and members of the city council – were receiving campaign donations and in which amounts. Within a relatively short timeframe, the city council in Fontana, led by Warren in her role as mayor, became immersed in a pay-to-play ethos under which business entities seeking city franchises, city contracts for goods or services, or approval for development projects within the city could trade political donations to Warren and other members of the council for votes in favor of granting those franchises, contracts or project approvals. To prevent the public from having easy access to the documentation that would indicate or prove that such quid pro quo arrangements – tantamount to outright bribery – were ongoing, Warren put pressure on the city clerk’s office to discontinue making the 460 forms available on the city’s website.
When those forms were submitted by the elected officials in an electronic format, the city clerk’s office could simply upload them onto the city’s website. To comply with Warren’s demand that the city discontinue making the 460 forms easily available to the public, the Fontana city clerk in 2011 informed council members and council candidates that her office would no longer accept campaign finance disclosure forms that were submitted electronically, and that the forms had to be submitted on paper. Since mounting the disclosure documents on the city’s website required that they first be scanned and converted into electronic form – a personnel-intensive and time-consuming process – the city clerk’s office was thereafter able to justify not having the mayor’s and the city council’s 460 forms available for perusal on the city’s website.
With the change in policy, it was no longer possible for members of the public or journalists or anyone inclined to check up on the motivations of the Fontana mayor or the members of the city council relative to their votes to do so anonymously or remotely from City Hall. To see any such documentation, the individual doing the inquiry was obliged to come into City Hall, identify himself or herself, and make a physical inspection of the documents at the city clerk’s counter, making himself or herself subject to being photographed or seen by the mayor or members of the council, as well as accompanying efforts to dissuade the individual from making an issue over what information had been gleaned or obtained. In response to some requests, claims were made that the paper documentation was not available or the personnel to serve as the intermediary in accessing it was not available, necessitating that the individual seeking it make a return trip at a specified time, again subjecting him or her to being seen or confronted by a member of the city council or the mayor.
On occasion, the city clerk’s office responded to email or telephonic requests, and would scan the documents requested, and provide the documentation in an electronic form as email attachments or post them to a private access page through the city’s internet server, and provide the link to the person making the inquiry. After a set number of days, the link would expire.
In some cases, the city clerk’s office, particularly in cases where the requested information was recognized as having implicated Warren and her council colleagues in out-and-out corruption of the political process, would accede to pressure from Warren and the council and simply ignore the requests.
In recent months, as the degree to which Warren and her council allies Pete Garcia, Phil Cothran Jr. and John Roberts have traded their votes for campaign cash has become more widely recognized, interim City Manager Shannon Yauchzee and City Clerk Tonia Lewis have realized that remaining complicit with Warren and the council in the pay-to-ply ethos that has gripped City Hall for a decade now will potentially harm their reputations. Lewis previously was able to distance herself from the decision to obstruct the public’s access to the 460s filed by the mayor and council members because in Fontana the deputy city clerk, who is appointed by the city manager and not answerable to the city clerk, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the office, while also serving as the custodian of the official records of the City of Fontana. In Fontana, it is the deputy city clerk rather than the city clerk who manages the citywide records management program.
The two city managers in place previous to Yauchzee, Ken Hunt and Mark Denny, were highly beholden to Warren for their positions, salaries and benefits. They used their authority as city manager to prevent the deputy city clerk from embracing a policy of electronic filing of campaign reports to shield the mayor and council from unwanted scrutiny of their willingness to exchange money provided to them by their campaign donors for votes made in favor of those political backers.
At present, Warren has funds that are at least in excess of $350,000 in her campaign war chest and perhaps more than $500,000. The city clerk’s office is yet refusing to release that information.
Lewis was unavailable this week to say whether the requirement that the mayor and council file their 460 forms electronically will translate into the information contained in them being available, henceforward, on the city’s website.
The resolution for the ordinance amendment adopted by the city council on December 14 states, “The purpose of this ordinance is to require the filing of campaign disclosure statements and statements of economic interest by elected officials, candidates, staff, consultants or committees to be completed electronically. The city council enacts this ordinance in accordance with the authority granted to cities by state law. This ordinance is intended to supplement, and not conflict with, the Political Reform Act.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Recent storms have exacerbated vehicular and even pedestrian access issues in a portion of the former Chino Agricultural Preserve which in recent years has undergone aggressive development into mostly residential subdivisions.
Kimball Avenue, a major east-west arterial into the newly established neighborhoods, was blocked off and closed several months ago to allow for utility connections to serve areas eastward to be installed along with storm drains, road widening and traffic signalization and other improvements.
That work was to be completed sometime this month.
On December 14, with the advent of the late autumn/winter storm season and the deluge that materialized that day, progress on those projects was suspended, and in some respects, set back.
The December 14 deluge flooded out several key areas within the city and the former preserve. City public works employees shut Bickmore Avenue between Euclid Avenue and Meadowhouse Avenue. Another main east-west means of transit, Pine Avenue, was blocked off between El Prado Road to Mill Creek.
This created a logjam at various points, making it virtually impossible to get directly into, or out of, certain neighborhoods.
Some residents found a way to go around or defeat the barriers but risked incurring a ticket involving a hefty $540 fine for doing so. In some cases, children, the infirm and elderly or pets were left stranded, unaccompanied and uncared-for at their homes while their parents, adult children and/or caretakers or owners were away and unable to get home.
The circumstance was fraught with danger. Inadequate drainage created a circumstance in which cold water was massing on several streets, rising to a level above the street curbs and spreading into front, side and sometimes back yards. This made negotiating cars on those streets, if not impossible, difficult. Meanwhile, young children, many of them cut off from their parents, were in danger of drowning or being run over by vehicles trying to wend their way through the nearly impassible streets. The police, using the threat of citation, hindered many parents being able to get into place in time to ensure their children’s safety.
There were places within the former Chino Ag Preserve development where access was literally fully cut off.
With this week’s downpour, the scenario from December 14 to December 16 was repeated.
City officials have indicated that they are maneuvering now to limit the possibility that further heavy rain in January, February, March and April will turn out to be as problematic, and they have already begun to clear debris from storm drains to allow faster flow of water on Bickmore and Euclid avenues and eliminate sheet flow onto east-west streets with sandbagging.
It is hoped that Kimball Avenue will be reopened in full by the end of February. The project that resulted in its closure is to be completed by May. Until then, further rainstorms are likely to greatly inconvenience the 16,000 residents of the district that has risen up on the land of the former Chino Agricultural Preserve.

To the consternation of municipal governance observers in Southern California, Yucaipa city officials this month maintained their demonstrated pattern of utilizing the year-end holiday season to minimize residents’ resistance to or questioning of controversial or potentially problematic city action.
This year, on December 15, the Yucaipa planning commission approved an addition to an existing senior housing project on Third Street and signed off on an architectural review for a long-delayed project involving 22-single-family homes to be built by Pacific Horizons Homes that will be located west of Bryant Street and south of Sunnyside Drive.
The first project calls for 27 units to be built on what was variously represented as a .38-acre, a roughly .45- acre, a 1.03-acre or a 1.104-acre site, translating into a density of, variously once more, 71 units to the acre, 59 units to the acre or slightly over 26 units to the acre.
The second project is to offer an overall density of 3.87 units per acre, which is more in keeping with the intensity of land use traditionally associated with Yucaipa neighborhoods. Nevertheless, there were Yucaipa residents who told the Sentinel after the December 15 hearing that there were issues relating to the project and its placement, including impacts on adjacent and nearby properties that they wanted addressed before the project was given go-ahead. They said the city snuck the December consideration of the project past them.
According to Yucaipa Assistant Planner Christian Farmer, the city is providing Urban Housing Communities, LLC with a density bonus and granting it a conditional use permit to complete the final phase of what was originally permitted as an apartment complex limited to those 55 years of age or older, known as the Horizon Senior Housing Project on Third Street.
Farmer said the 77-unit senior housing project was first approved by the planning commission on June 17, 2009. The initial entitlement to build expired, however, and a new conditional permit was approved by the planning commission on December 3, 2014. The first phase of the project was completed, entailing the first 50 units and all of the complex’s resident amenities. Thereafter, the conditional use permit on the remaining 27 units expired.
The action before the planning commission on December 15 consisted of allowing Urban Housing Communities to pick up where the project had left off.
The project is to consist of a two-story, 32-foot tall building of approximately 20,000 square feet to accommodate 19,790 square feet of internal living space. That living space is to involve 23 one-bedroom units ranging from 665 square feet to 698 square feet along with four two-bedroom units of 1,026 square feet.
The city is granting Urban Housing Communities a housing density bonus consistent with state guidelines that allow for such incentives to encourage the construction of senior living units. In this case, Yucaipa has a minimum 750-square foot standard for one-bedroom units. That is being waived because Urban Housing Communities has agreed to reserve 30 percent of the units for low-income tenants and 15 percent of the units for very-low-income tenants.
At the meeting and in the documentation for the project, there was contradictory information with regard to the project’s parameters, which have led to some confusion as well as criticism with regard to the city rushing the project toward approval.
One item of confusion was the size of the project site. At one point, it was referenced as being .38 or an acre. There was a variant indication the project property was actually 1.104 acres. Another calculation was that the property being developed was .454 acres. Another held that the property in question totals 1.03 acres.
The parcel upon which the project is to be built is zoned multiple residential, which carries with it a requirement that each structure be built on a 7,200 square-foot minimum lot. As the parcel is at least .38 of an acre – that is 16,552.8 square feet – the project meets that criterion. Nevertheless, the eventual residents of the project will be crammed very closely together.
As the floor plans of the units total 19,790 square feet and the building consists of two stories, the building can cover an area of no less than 9,895 square feet, which is equal to .227 of an acre.
How large the lot is was not clear from the context of the documentation prepared for the meeting.
A reference to the project site said it was .38 acres. In his report on the project, Farmer stated “The building coverage is approximately 22 percent of the project site.” Elsewhere in the report, Farmer wrote, “the subject property is 5.02 acres in size.” There is no direct statement as to the precise building size or the lot size upon which the building is to be sited. One interpretation is that the entire Horizon Senior Housing Project, including all 77 residential quarters, the facility’s office, clubhouse and amenities, covers 5.02 acres. This would indicate the current project site is 1.104 acres. Another interpretation is that the 9,895-square foot footprint of the building is 22 percent of the project site, such that the lot being built upon is 44,977.27 square feet, roughly 1.032 acres.
Because of the holiday closure of city offices, Farmer is not available to make a clarification.
It is because municipal offices shut for the Christmas break that those monitoring city operations feel that placing issues where the public at large may have questions or objections to what is being proposed and approved is ill-advised.
It is not just city officials in San Bernardino County, Southern California and the Golden State but rather ones throughout the United States who have developed a time-tested stratagem of concealing from the public action that may prove controversial, problematic or embarrassing. That approach consists of hiding the action in plain sight by scheduling such matters for discussion during meetings falling right before or after major holidays, the classic manifestations of which are those just prior to Christmas or between Christmas and New Year’s Day.
Yucaipa has not been shy about using that legerdemain.
In December 2019, the Yucaipa City Council sold to an unspecified entity one week before Christmas and four days before the onset of Hanukkah 1.67 acres of public land originally donated to the Yucaipa community by Ruben and Lester Finkelstein with a deed restriction that it be utilized for public purposes. Though the Finkelstein brothers –the proprietors of the variegated Lester Ruben Corporations No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, the Finkelstein Foundry Supply Company, the Finkelstein Supply Company in Los Angeles and the L and R Cattle Company in Yucaipa – made the donation of the property in question, much of which was used for the creation of Crafton Hills College, prior to the incorporation of Yucaipa as a city, the property ultimately came under the ownership of the city with the original deed restrictions.
-Mark Gutglueck

Bridge Development Partners, the real party in interest in the lawsuit brought by Upland Community First against the City of Upland challenging the April 2020 approval of the one-fifth of a million square foot warehouse/distribution center that was to be developed for Amazon, has appealed Judge David Cohn’s ruling upholding that challenge.
Upland Community First, the citizens interest group which raised multiple environmental issues in objecting to the project and prevailed on the single point of the inadequate assessment of the greenhouse gasses to be generated at the facility once it is inhabited by its presumed tenant, indicated it will file a cross appeal to match and counter Bridge Development’s objection to the court ruling. That cross appeal will seek to persuade the appellate court that not only should Judge Cohn’s finding be sustained with regard to inadequate quantification and mitigation for the excessive greenhouse gas emissions that will come about as a consequence of the truck traffic-intensive operations that will become a daily reality in western Upland if the on-line retail behemoth locates a distributorship there, but assert that Judge Cohn erred in not recognizing that the city failed to adequately consider other impacts from the project that require further mitigation.
On April 1, 2020, the Upland City Council, over the protests of 22 residents who went on record as being opposed to the warehouse/distribution center project during a remotely held city council meeting to consider the project, gave 4-to-1 approval of Bridge Development Partners’ request to construct a single 201,096-square foot facility involving 25 dock-high loading bays for 18-wheeler trucks, another 32 bays for delivery vans and trucks, along with 1,438 parking spaces around the building. The facility was slated for a 50-acre site in Upland north of Foothill Boulevard slightly east of Central Avenue and south of Cable Airport.
In approving the project proposal, the city council accepted the terms of a $17 million development agreement offered by Bridge Development Partners. Some city residents saw that as a show of generosity on Bridge Development’s part. Others, taking stock of the consideration that the city would realize no sales tax revenue from the project because of Amazon’s non-California-based internet sales model, felt that the deal was a bad one since the impacts of the Amazon operation, which would remain in place for at least 50 years per the ground lease Bridge Development had for the 50-acre site and perhaps a full century if the lease was renewed, would far exceed $17 million when wear and tear on the city’s roads and other infrastructure demands of the project were considered.
From the time the project had been proposed, it was steeped in controversy. It was originally previewed to the community by Bridge Development’s corporate representatives in June 2019 as three buildings comprising 977,000 square feet.
Over the next several months, as objections to the scope of the proposal manifested, the tentative site plan was modified several times until in October 2019, a revamped conception of the project was presented, one that was reduced to a single structure of 276,250 square feet. When the environmental certification documentation for the project was posted on December 16, 2019, it came in the form of a mitigated negative declaration. In that documentation, the project was shown as a having been reduced once more to a 201,096-square-foot distribution center, with 1,438 parking spaces contained on the project grounds.
The city allowed the project to proceed toward approval without being subject to a comprehensive environmental impact report, which many Upland residents believed should have been carried out for a project of such size, intensity and complexity. Rather, the city elected to use a mitigated negative declaration to complete the environmental review process.
An environmental impact report is an involved study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. It specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts. A mitigated negative declaration is a far less exacting size-up of the impacts of a project, by which the panel entrusted with the city’s ultimate land use authority, in this case the city council, issues a declaration that all adverse environmental impacts from the project will be mitigated, or offset, by the conditions of approval of the project imposed upon the developer.
A cross section of the city’s residents disputed the city council’s declaration that all impacts from the project had been adequately mitigated, based both on the magnitude of the project and the consideration that the city council lacked land use and environmental expertise. There were questions as well as to whether the zoning at the project site would allow a distribution facility to be established there.
Suspicion remained that the project would be subject to substantial expansion, without any further environmental analysis, perhaps to as large as the 977,000 square feet originally proposed, since 1,438 parking spaces is far in excess of what would normally be needed for a 201,096-square foot warehouse.
On February 12, 2020, the Upland Planning Commission voted 3-to-2 to recommend that the city council not approve project. Two weeks later, on February 26, 2020, the commission met again, and in a move unprecedented in Upland’s history, reversed itself, voting 4-to-2 to recommend that the city council approve the project, with two of the members who had voted against the project on February 12, Linden Brouse and Gary Schwary, changing their votes, while a commissioner not present previously, Alexander Novikov, registered his opposition to the undertaking.
Less than five weeks later, the city council recorded its 4-to-1 vote to approve the project.
Thereafter, a contingent of Upland citizens banded together, taking on the name Upland Community First. The group’s members retained attorney Cory Briggs, who then filed a petition for a writ of mandate, seeking from the court an order that the city revisit the environmental review process for the project, make a determination that the mitigated negative declaration was inadequate and require that a full-blown environmental impact report for the project be carried out before the project is allowed to proceed.
As a consequence of the Upland Community First legal filing, any action toward the completion of the project, including site grading, was suspended.
In the meantime, Bridge Development Partners seemingly recruited Bill Velto, who voted in April 2020 as a member of the city council to approve the project and who in November 2020 was elected Upland mayor, to serve as its agent in approaching members of Upland Community First in an effort to get that group to end its challenge of the project approval. To that end, Velto indicated via text messages that Bridge Development Partners had expressed a willingness to more than double the $17 million in project impact offsets the company had agreed to pay in the development agreement for the project approved in April 2020 to $40 million. That offer was conditional upon Upland Community First dropping its demand for a comprehensive environmental impact report and accepting an environmental review that would allow the project to proceed, without any of the changes that would typically be required by an environmental impact report. Upland Community First spurned those offers, insisting that the matter be resolved though the writ of mandate proceeding.
While ultimately, Judge Cohn, who considered the petition for a writ of mandate, entered a finding that the mitigated negative declaration the city council made to clear the way for the project to proceed was inadequate, he did so on relatively narrow grounds. His order was that the mitigated negative declaration with regard to the emission of greenhouse gasses had to be done over, but his order did not include a requirement that a full-blown environmental impact report had to be completed. The city could rather utilize the mitigated negative declaration process once more, as long as it did a more thorough assessment and cataloging of mitigations, he ruled.
Judge Cohn’s findings let stand the other portions of the environmental certification that were contained in the original mitigated negative declaration, and he sided with the city in rejecting Upland Community First’s contention that the mitigated negative declaration:
* underestimated traffic counts anticipated from the distribution center;
* misdefined the project as a high-cube parcel hub warehouse instead of classifying it as a fulfillment center;
* failed to recognize the project was in conflict with Upland’s general plan and zoning code;
* mistakenly allowed a distribution center to be built in an area zoned for commercial/industrial mixed-use;
* failed to recognize that the project was an impermissible use where it was located;
* inadequately defined the project;
* was improperly ratified during a meeting which was not publicly held but rather conducted remotely and electronically and therefore did not give Upland residents adequate opportunity to provide input with regard to the project.
Judge Cohn ruled that any conclusions Upland Community First’s members may have drawn based on the number of parking spaces included in the project plans were speculative.
The victory Upland Community First and its attorney, Briggs, notched proceeded from Judge Cohn’s acceptance of their assertion that the city had wrongfully used a greenhouse gas threshold of ten thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in calculating emissions from the distribution facility on a yearly basis as a maximum allowable limit. Since the city had sought to use an inoperative maximum threshold for emissions, he said, the mitigated negative declaration was flawed, and had to be done over.
Greenhouse gasses are those such as carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons, which create a “greenhouse” effect, that is, causing the atmosphere to increase in temperature through the constant absorption of infrared radiation.
“The failure to provide substantial evidence to justify the single quantitative method used as the greenhouse gas threshold of significance constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion,” Judge Cohn ruled. “The public and decision-makers have not been provided sufficient information necessary to understand the threshold or the data used in the analysis establishing the threshold and reason for the significant change in baseline emissions in the subsequent greenhouse gas analysis. Accordingly, the city’s approval of the mitigated negative declaration is set aside.”
Upon the city revisiting the greenhouse gasses analysis for the warehouse project, Judge Cohn said, it would have the discretion to choose an appropriate “threshold of significance” and to determine under that standard whether an environmental impact report is required, or it might reconduct a more comprehensive study and analysis and redraft the mitigated negative declaration accordingly, one that would presumably include a description of how the operations at the distribution facility would need to be altered to mitigate or offset the impacts/damages from the generation of greenhouse gasses there.
The defendant in the suit was the city. Bridge Development Partners had agreed to indemnify the city over any litigation it became involved in as a consequence of the project approval. The city, represented by Ginetta Giovinco, appeared purposed to comply with Judge Cohn’s order and intensify the environmental certification process and, ultimately, recertify the redrafted mitigated negative declaration.
It appears that Bridge Development Partners was dissatisfied with that approach, believing the city was not being aggressive enough in seeking to be vindicated in its April 2020 decision. In addition, Bridge Development Partners anticipates that Upland Community First would ultimately legally challenge the redraft of the mitigated negative declaration once it was completed, and it is no longer interested in playing patty cake with those who are opposed to the project. By issuing the appeal, Bridge Development Partners removes the matter from Judge Cohn’s courtroom to the California State Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division Two in Riverside, which has reversed Judge Cohn’s rulings on four separate occasions in the past.
Meanwhile, Upland Community First and Briggs, confident that the challenge of the greenhouse gas assessment as it was made in the original mitigated negative declaration will be upheld in Riverside, believe the appellate court can be convinced that Judge Cohn was not aggressive enough in holding the city to account for the inadequate impact offsets related to other issues laid out in the mitigated negative declaration for the project accepted in April 2020. Their intention is to convince the appellate court that the mitigated negative declaration format for addressing a project such as the Amazon warehouse/distribution center is inadequate to the task of assessing let alone redressing its impacts, and that more properly, an environmental impact study at the least should be done, and preferably, a comprehensive environmental impact report should be completed before the project is given go-ahead.
-Mark Gutglueck

FBN 20210012158
The following person is doing business as: SU CENTRO HISPANO MULTI-SERVICE 15058 ESCALANTE CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394: LAURA NAVA 15058 ESCALANTE CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DECEMBER 29, 2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LAURA NAVA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/08/2021
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 I5199
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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 & 12/31/2021

FBN 20210012185
The following person is doing business as: SHIEKH IMPACT 1774 S. VINTAGE AVENUE ONTARIO, CA 91761 SITARA FOUNDATION INC. 10540 SUNBURST DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Mailing Address: 10540 SUNBURST DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
Incorporated with the State of California C2408434
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/ IRUM SHIEKH
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/10/2021
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 I5199
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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 & 12/31/2021
ABANDONMENT OF A FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
NUMBER 20210012133
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 20180190172
Mailing Address: 2082 MICHELSON DRIVE, 4TH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92612
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
The original FBN Number was FBN 20180002930 The date of filing was 03/14/2018
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: 12/08/2021
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 I5199
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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 & 12/31/2021
FBN 20210012031
The following person is doing business as: LEAN ON ME PET SITTING 8774 KNOLLWOOD DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: MICHELLE M MORENO 8774 KNOLLWOOD DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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/ MICHELLE M MORENO
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 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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 & 12/31/2021

T.S. No. 18-21030-SP-CA Title No. 180599804-CA-VOI A.P.N. 1048-383-06-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 10/10/2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Antonio Fuentefria, a married man as his sole and separate property Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 10/18/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0709369 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 01/20/2022 at 12:00 PM Place of Sale: At the North Arrowhead Avenue entrance to the County Courthouse, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $498,084.05 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 632 East G Street Ontario, CA 91764 A.P.N.: 1048-383-06-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 18-21030-SP-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. Date: 12/10/2021 National Default Servicing Corporation c/o Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., its agent, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92108 Toll Free Phone: 888-264-4010 Sales Line 855-219-8501; Sales Website: www.ndscorp.com By: Rachael Hamilton, Trustee Sales Representative 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 CPP351770
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF JOSE RUBEN RIVERA LOPEZ
Case No. PROSB2100920
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of JOSE RUBEN RIVERA LOPEZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Maria Rivera in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Maria Rivera 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 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
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:
SLAV KASRELIOVICH ESQ
SBN 256807
ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO LLP
16001 VENTURA BLVD
STE 200
ENCINO CA 91436
CN982569 LOPEZ Dec 17,24,31, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LUCILE DAVIS
CASE NO. PROSB2101036
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LUCILLE DAVIS has been filed by KENNETH DAVIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KENNETH DAVIS 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 11, 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.
Aspen Jackson, Deputy
December 8, 2021
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 the Kenneth Davis:
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 December 17, 24 & 31, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: NANCY RUTH WHITE
CASE NO. PROSB2101034
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of NANCY RUTH WHITE has been filed by CHRISTOPHER KINSMAN WHITE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CHRISTOPHER KINSMAN WHITE 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 13, 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.
Selyna Razo, Deputy
December 8, 2021
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 the Christopher Kinsman White:
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 December 17, 24 & 31, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: FREDDIE MAE CUMMINGS
CASE NO. PROSB2101044
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of FREDDIE MAE CUMMINGS:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by HARVEY LEE CARTER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that HARVEY LEE CARTER 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 12, 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 17, 24 & 31, 2021.
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 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. S36 at 9:00 a.m. on January 25, 2022 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd St. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, San Bernardino District – Probate
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:
Cicely T. Ray
4740 Green River, Suite 314
Corona, CA 92880
Telephone No: 951-735-2488
Published in the San Bernardino Sentinel on:
12/17, 12/24 & 12/31, 2021

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
FBN 20210011895
The following person is doing business as: HIGH FREQUENCY BEAUTY 2454 N ORANGE AVE RIALTO, CA 92377; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); CINTHIA F BOTELLO 2454 N ORANGE AVE RIALTO, CA 92377.
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/ CINTHIA F BOTELLO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/29/2021
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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 CNBB48202102IR

FBN 20210011873
The following person is doing business as: ROBALO. 1720 E. D ST ONTARIO, CA 91764; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO );
CRUZ A MONGE VALENZUELA 1720 E. D ST ONTRIO, CA 91764; SANTIAGO RAMIREZ 1720 E. D ST ONTARIO, CA 91764.
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/ CRUZ A MONGE VALENZUELA, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/29/2021
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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 CNBB48202101CV

FBN 20210011942
The following person is doing business as: QUICK STOP CONVENIENCE 1435 N WATERMAN AVE UNIT A SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 1153 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402]; DFM, INC. 1505 ½ W 9TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DANI MHANA, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/01/2021
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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 CNBB48202103MT

FBN 20210012052
The following person is doing business as: BOLLYWOOD THREADING & SPA 2550 S ARCHIBALD AVE #F ONTARIO, CA 91761; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); YASMEEN CHOUDRY 2550 S ARCHIBALD AVE #F ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ YASMEEN CHOUDRY, 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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 CNBB48202104MT

FBN 20210011960
The following person is doing business as: BONANZA PLASTERING 7166 BRISAS CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ANTONIO GOMEZ JR 7166 BRISAS CT 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: 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/ ANTONIO GOMEZ JR. , OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/012021
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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 CNBB48202105MT

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 HUMOND 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 HUMOND, 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 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021, 12/31/2021 CNBB48202106IR

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 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

Read an exact replica of the December 24 San Bernardino County Sentinel:

Sentinel 12-24-21

By Mark Gutglueck
Faced with an ultimatum from a Northern California-based lawyer calling for Victorville to alter the method by which its political leaders are elected, the four current members of the Victorville City Council this week gave approval to a gerrymandered city electoral ward map that advantages them politically over the next two election cycles and potentially over the next five council elections if they continue to seek reelection.
Earlier this year, Walnut Creek-based lawyer Scott Rafferty, in the capacity of the legal representative of Neighborhood Elections Now, a front group that is an extension of Rafferty’s law firm, threatened Victorville with a lawsuit under the auspices of the California Voting Rights Act if it did not dispense with its at-large voting system and adopt a ward or by-district voting map. The at-large voting system the city has used since its inception as an incorporated municipality in 1962, Rafferty alleged, has been “diluting the influence of Latino voters.”
Rafferty made that charge despite the consideration that three of the city’s five most recently elected council members are Latinas, that one of the council members is an African-American woman and thus a member of another “protected minority” under the California Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act, and a single member of the city council is a Caucasian woman.
Moreover, prior to the current crop of elected officials on the city council, Victorville had previously demonstrated itself, along with the City of Colton, as one of two municipalities in San Bernardino County where the long dormant Hispanic political giant had awoken. Throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the Third Millennium and into the 2010s, Victorville had proven to be one of the most politically stable of the county’s 24 cities and incorporated towns, measured in terms of changeover on the city council. Nevertheless, in that timeframe, Victorville, with the single exception of Colton, had the most inclusive and diverse city/town council in the county racially and ethnically. From 1992 onward, in addition to electing two African-Americans to the city council – James Busby and Leslie Irving – the council was populated with eight Latinos/Latinas: Felix Diaz, Rodolfo Cabriales, Angela Valles, Gloria Garcia, Eric Negrete, Blanca Gomez, Rita Ramirez and Elizabeth Becerra.
Beginning in 2014, a group of opportunistic attorneys – R. Rex Parris, Kevin Shenkman, Milton C. Grimes and Matthew Barragan – utilizing elements contained within the California Voting Rights Act ostensibly intended to counteract racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting, sought major paydays by threatening to file or actually filing lawsuits under the provisions of the California Voter Rights Act against a number of cities. Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan surveyed the San Bernardino County landscape and selected what they considered to be the political subdivisions most vulnerable to such suits, those being a handful of cities perceived to have foreclosed minority rights because of the relative scarcity or complete lack of elected Hispanic officeholders in those jurisdictions, even though they had a substantial Latino population. They sent letters demanding that Highland, Redlands, Chino, Chino Hills, Upland, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Hesperia, Apple Valley, Barstow, Yucca Valley, Big Bear, Yucaipa and Twentynine Palms move to by-district elections, even though Chino, Chino Hills, Upland, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Hesperia and Barstow had histories and in some cases significant histories of electing protected minority members to their respective city or town councils. Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan could be bold in making those threats because under the California Voter Rights Act there is no penalty for initiating a spurious legal action. While with virtually every other type of lawsuit a plaintiff who does not prevail is subject to having to pay the legal fees of the defendant, the California Voting Rights Act conferred upon the plaintiffs in cases brought under its provisions immunity from such financial responsibility. Even though the plaintiff[s] in an action filed pursuant to the California Voter Rights Act stand[s] to recover from the defendant city or town all money expended or owed in the matter to pay for the plaintiff’s or plaintiffs’ attorney’s efforts if the suit succeeds either in whole or part, the cities or towns sued under the voting rights act are not eligible to recover their fees if they prevail in the litigation by succeeding in demonstrating that racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting has not occurred in their jurisdictions. Thus, the plaintiffs and the lawyers representing them in these legal actions brought under the California Voting Rights Act run no risk. On the other side of the plaintiff/defendant divide, the cities challenged in this way have to defray their own legal expenses if they chose to put on a defense at trial. Thus, even if a city prevails, it sustains unrecoverable legal costs, and if it loses, it stands to suffer costs of tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps, depending upon how spirited of a defense the city puts on and the outcome of the legal proceedings, beyond a million dollars in legal fees to be paid to the prevailing party. Layered into the California Voter Rights Act was a provision that for making such a demand by letter upon a city to make a transition to by-district elections, an attorney is eligible to claim and then receive a $30,000 to $45,000 fee from the city for merely having written the letter lodging the request for the election transition without either side going to court, if the city agrees to such a course of action within 45 days of receiving the letter. This ploy, resulting in a lawyer or law firm standing to make $30,000 to $45,000 for what is the relatively minor assignment of writing a letter, triggered the spate of election transition demands that occurred not only in San Bernardino County but elsewhere in California in 2014 as law firms up and down the state took stock of the opportunity the California Voter Rights Act afforded them in this regard. The only possible downside to an attorney contemplating the filing of a lawsuit against a city or town under the California Voter Rights Act consists of the possibility of not being paid for his/her efforts in filing such a suit if that action ultimately is unsuccessful.
Neither Parris, Shenkman, Grimes nor Barragan undertook an effort to force Victorville to change its at-large election system to a by-district one because they understood that if they had to go to trial they could not possibly prevail given Victorville’s history of electing members of protected minority groups to serve on the city council.
Earlier this year, Rafferty was contacted by Victorville Councilwoman Blanca Gomez, who asserted that Victorville has consistently exhibited not only a racial bias in the manner in which it conducts itself and hires staff members, but that the city is a hotbed of racism. In carrying out his survey of the situation, Rafferty noted that Victorville was one of only six of San Bernardino County’s 24 municipalities that still utilized an at-large voting process.
On August 12, 2021, Rafferty, claiming he was representing Neighborhood Elections Now along with “individual Latino electors residing in Victorville,” wrote a letter to Victorville officials asserting Victorville’s existing at-large election system violated the California Voting Rights Act by “diluting the influence of Latino voters.” He threatened litigation if the city did not adopt a district-basted electoral system.
“The life experience and values of Latinos as a group (and of other minorities) is often distinct from the rest of the electorate,” Rafferty propounded. “Districting equalizes the voting power of minority neighborhoods.”
Rafferty maintained he was prepared to demonstrate that the city continuing with its at-large voting system would “impair the ability of a protected class, as defined, to elect candidates of its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of an election.” This, he said, gave a litigant such as Neighborhood Elections Now standing to force the city to adopt a district voting system. Because, Rafferty asserted, “the group of Latino candidates who ran in the 2018 election were disproportionately preferred by their own community,” proof existed that Victorville had, he claimed, engaged in racially polarized voting.
At that point, Councilwoman Rita Ramirez, who had undergone three successive and progressive amputations of her left foot, ankle and leg in 2020 and had therefore not been able to physically attend city council meetings, was removed from office in March 2021 as a consequence of action initiated by Councilwoman Liz Becerra. The council was thereafter unable to agree to a selection to replace Ramirez. Thus, as of August, Rafferty was prepared to contend that the 50 percent Hispanic composition of Victorville’s city council was below the 55.5 percent of Victorville’s population identified as Latino.
At the same time, however, the city was in a position to demonstrate that in the previous two election cycles during which the composition of the city council had been determined, in 2018 and 2020, three of the city’s five council members elected or reelected – or 60 percent – were Hispanic, those being Ramirez, Gomez and Becerra.
In the aftermath of the city having received Rafferty’s letter, in a report to the city council dated September 27, Victorville City Attorney Andre deBortnowsky wrote, “Although the city has asserted and believes that Mr. Rafferty’s allegations of a California Voting Rights Act violation lack evidentiary support for any Latino or other racially polarized voting in the city, absent the city’s adoption of a resolution of intention to initiate the transition to a district-based electoral system tonight, Mr. Rafferty can embroil the city in expensive litigation to force a district-based electoral system, leaving the city’s electoral system in the hands of a court.”
Given the disadvantage that cities in California must function under when litigating matters brought under the California Voting Right Act and the elapsing of the 45-day window for the city to respond to Rafferty’s demand letter, deBortnowsky recommended that the city merely throw in the towel. He told the city council it should “adopt [a resolution prepared for the September 27 council meeting] declaring its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections for members of the city council under Elections Code Section 10010. The basis for recommending adoption of [the resolution] is not a concession or admission that the city has or would ultimately be found to have violated the California Voting Rights Act. Instead, the recommendation stems from a determination that the public interest is better served, and taxpayer dollars better spent, by making a voluntary transition to by-district elections, given the uncertainty in defending such litigation and the extraordinary cost of such a lawsuit, even if the city were to prevail.”
The city council followed deBortnowsky’s recommendation.
Thereafter, essentially, Rafferty was able to claim victory and arrange to collect his $30,000 to $45,000. Having achieved that goal, despite his declaration that he had challenged and was seeking to eradicate what he considers to have been hitherto an unfair and racist at-large election process, he allowed the city to take control of the process of determining how the city’s electoral districts were drawn. At that point, Rafferty’s claimed high-minded intention of ensuring that the politically disenfranchised protected minority community of Victorville will get a fair shake at election time was out the window. Driving the process of determining the city’s new districts fell into the hands of the city council, the members of which had a personal stake in how the city’s district map would be drawn. Having risen to the top of the political heap on the Victorville City Council by means of what Rafferty maintained was the unfair and long-existing at-large election process, the incumbents seized the opportunity Rafferty had provided them to give themselves an overwhelming advantage, which will in all likelihood disenfranchise non-incumbents and those who would vote for those non-incumbents, when the current members of the council must next stand for election.
Statistically, incumbents fare far better in election than do their challengers. Additionally, incumbents hold a stark advantage over their challengers when it comes to raising funds to conduct an election or re-election campaign.
Rather than drawing up the new districts using a random approach or geographical and demographic logic, the council created a city district map in which each of the four incumbent members of the Victorville City Council resides in a different newly-drawn council district. This ensures that none of the council members will need to run against one another, and that in 2022 and 2024, each will have the advantage of running as an incumbent.
Equally remarkable, the drafting of the city’s district map was done such that the current terms to which the existing council members were elected at-large in 2018 and 2020 will end in accordance with the elections in the districts into which those council members have been placed.
The city’s electoral map was drawn making District 1 the city’s easternmost lying political subdivision, extending to Victor Valley College, Green Tree Golf Course, and southeast portion of Old Town. District 2 comprises the southwest corner of the city, overlaying both sides of Highway 395, the so-called Golden Triangle which lies between the I-15 Freeway to the east, Highway 395 to the west and Bear Valley Road to the north, along with Eagle Ranch and Sunset Ridge. District 3 includes the lion’s share of Old Town and the neighborhoods surrounding Hook Park. District 4 encompasses the areas surrounding the Victor Valley Mall. District 5 lies at Victorville’s northern end and, as the least densely populated expanse within the city, is the largest district geographically, including Southern California Logistics Airport, the frontier bordering Adelanto and its sphere of influence, the prison and the environs of Village Drive.
None of the districts has more than a single incumbent councilwoman living within its confines. Councilwoman Gomez resides in District 1. Mayor Jones lives within District 2. Councilwoman Becerra lives in District 3. Councilwoman Irving lives in District 5.
Council District 2 and Council District 4 are scheduled to have elections in 2022, when the current at-large term for Mayor Jones, who lives in Council District Two, is scheduled to expire in 2022, as is the term for former Councilwoman Ramirez. Equally significant is that elections are scheduled to take place for the Council District 1, Council District 3 and Council District 5 positions in 2024, the same year that the current at-large terms of councilwomen Gomez, Becerra and Irving are set to expire.
A calculation made by the Sentinel is that the statistical probability that all four of the current members of the council would end up in her own district, separate from the other members of the council combined with all four of the current members of the council being placed into districts where the elapsing of their current at-large terms would correspond across the board with the elections for the respective districts each lives in occurring naturally if the districts had been randomly drawn is 0.1953125 percent, that is one out of 512. The implication is that the districting that took place in Victorville was calculatedly and deliberately carried out, and the districts gerrymandered in such a way that benefited the four incumbent councilwomen, guaranteeing that they would not need to run against one another, and would confer on them more fully the advantage of being incumbents, which includes an advantage in fundraising over non-incumbents in their reelection races in 2022 and 2024, if indeed they intend to seek reelection. All four have given indication they intend to seek reelection.
In two separate emails to Rafferty, the Sentinel sought from him why he felt it expedient to alter the City of Victorville’s electoral process from an at-large system to a by-district one when adequate representation of the Hispanic population had manifested organically under the city’s current at-large electoral system.
Moreover, the Sentinel asked Rafferty how it was and why it was that his stated objective of ensuring a fair electoral process for the politically disenfranchised protected minority community of Victorville had been abandoned in favor of creating an electoral map that favors or otherwise advantages the city’s current political establishment.
Rafferty ducked the first question, in doing so essentially conceding that adequate and fair representation of the residents of Victorville and its constituent protected minorities already existed.
In his answer to the second question, he acknowledged that his intent had evolved to accommodating the incumbents by gerrymandering for them safe districts in which to seek reelection to the council. Significantly, he said he had reached that accommodation with the incumbents because they had come to accept his goal of creating, with the fifth position on the council – that being the one representing District 4 – an office that would very likely be filled with a Latino.
“The key purpose of this map was to create an open seat, vacated by Ramirez, in an area that had been unrepresented for some time,” he told the Sentinel in writing. “The map was refined not only to have high nominal Latino voting strength (adult citizens), but I also studied turnout in the gubernatorial and presidential cycles. The map isolated low-turnout Latino neighborhoods from higher-turnout neighborhoods that could control the election even if they had less population. I also believed that the powerline and I-15 (including the business route) distinguished different demographics for much of their route. I studied Victorville neighborhoods and had already kept Brentwood together. Except for one unpopulated, commercial block, I also accommodated Mayor Jones’ desire to keep Eagle Ranch together.”
In providing his response to the Sentinel, Rafferty consistently disregarded the consideration that both Hispanics and African-Americans were already represented on the council, per the results of the two most recent elections, in numbers/percentages greater than the numbers/percentages of Hispanics and African-Americans within Victorville’s population.
“Turnout is a problem in many Latino neighborhoods,” Rafferty said. “In fact, depressed minority turnout resulting from chronically uncompetitive elections and a relative absence of any efforts to incorporate and mobilize low turnout neighborhoods is the principal evil addressed by the California Voting Rights Act, along with the consequence that the most needy areas lack a dedicated voice on the city council. In addition to isolating low turnout precincts, the open seat contains significant black voters to be effective, if and only if the Latino community registers and votes at higher levels.”
Rafferty straight out admitted that when the map at last came together, it was widely recognized that the current members of the council were going to be provided with an advantage going into the upcoming 2022 and 2024 elections. Unhesitatingly, he acknowledged that such baldly preferential treatment of those already in office was okay with him, since it furthered his overarching goal of virtually guaranteeing the Victorville City Council will be composed of Latino and African-American politicians.
“Before proposing the sequence, I had several blunt conversations with the minority community,” Rafferty said. “Democracy is not easily engineered. Maps do not guarantee success. We also looked at the difference in turnout between gubernatorial and presidential elections. [California Elections Code] Section 10010(b) requires that the sequence give special considerations to the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act. The input from the minority community was overwhelming that they were ready and able to mobilize turnout in the open seat, and did not want to wait until the presidential election. Once the council respected the minority community’s desire to place the open seat in 2022, which was very critical, Section 10010(b) required the sequencing to respect the interests of the incumbents, all of whom wanted to seek reelection at the conclusion of their current terms.”
Rafferty indicated he saw no problem with the city consulting with Redistricting Partners and its principal, Paul Mitchell, to carry out demographic and other advisory work with regard to the formation of the electoral districts. Paul Michell is a political consultant active in hundreds of local election campaigns.
“It is always an honor to work with Paul Mitchell, who is the premier demographer in our state,” Rafferty said. “Most of his proposed maps did not pair incumbents, and he drew them before he knew where any incumbents live.”
Rafferty denied that he had undertaken the effort to force Victorville into a by-district voting system merely to collect the $45,000 attorneys are entitled to under the California Voting Rights Act for initiating such a process without taking the matter to trial.
“The notion that I am ‘mercenary’ is far-fetched,” he told the Sentinel.