T.S. No. 19-21058-SP-CA Title No. 191149382-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0218-891-66-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 12/19/2006. 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: Sergio Reyna, a married man as his sole and separate property Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 01/02/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0001112 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 01/10/2022 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: $549,341.62 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 3034 Rocky Lane Ontario, CA 91761 A.P.N.: 0218-891-66-0-000 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 19-21058-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: 11/22/2021 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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021 CPP351729
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: Gary Lemos
CASE NO. PROSB2100944
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Gary Lemos:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by Mary L. Cabral in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Mary L. Cabral 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 21, 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
Jennifer Saldana, 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 Mary L. Cabral
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: 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.
FBN 20210011818
The following entity is doing business as: FEEL BEAUTIFUL AESTHETICS 11513 FOOTHILL BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: MARGARET M. HERNANDEZ 10818 CLAREMONT BLVD BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
Mailing Address: P O BOX 651 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ MARGARET M. HERNANDEZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/24/2021
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 12/03, 12/10, 12/17 & 12/24, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIV SB 2129348
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Aida Guadalupe Angeles Cornejo filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Aida Guadalupe Angeles Cornejo to Aida Angeles
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: 12/30/2021
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: 11/18/2021
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino City News on 12/03/2021, 12/10/2020, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021

SUMMONS – (FAMILY LAW)
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): JINGA LUCIOUS MAYO
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. Read the information below and on the next page. Lo han demandado. Lea la informacion a continuacion y en la pagina siguiente.
PETITIONER’S NAME IS (Nombre del demandante): CHINYERE CHRISTINE MAYO
CASE NUMBER FAMSB2101845
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this Summons and Petition are served on you to file a Response (Form FL-120) at the court and have a copy served on the petitioner. A letter or phone call will not protect you. If you do not file your Response on time, the court may make orders affecting your marriage or domestic partnership, your property, and custody of your children. You may be ordered to pay support and attorney fees and costs. For legal advice, contact a lawyer immediately. Get help finding a lawyer at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.cagov/selfhelp), at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), or by contacting your local county bar association.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de haber recibido la entrega legal de esta Citacion y Peticion para presentar una Respuesta (formulario FL-120) ante la corte y efectuar la entrega legal de una copia al demandante. Una carta o liamada telefonica o una audiencia de la corte no basta para protegerio. Si no presenta su Respuesta a tiemp, la corte puede dar ordenes que afecten su matrimonio o pareja de heco, sus bienes y la custodia de sus hijos. La corte tambien le puede ordenar que pague manutencion, y honorarios y costos legales. Para asesoramiento legal, pongase en contacto de inmediato con un abogado. Puede obtener informacion para encontrar un abogado en el Contro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en el sitio web de los Servicios Legales de California (www.lahelpca.org) o poniendose en contacto con el colegio de abodgados de su condado.
NOTICE – Restraining orders on page 2: These restraining orders are effective against both spouses or domestic partners until the petition is dismissed, a judgement is entered, or the court makes further orders. They are enforceable anywhere in California by any law enforcement office who has received or seen a copy of them.
AVISO – Las ordenes de restriction se encuentran en la pagina 2 : Las ordenes de restriccion estan en vigencia en cuanto a ambos conyuges o miembros de la pareja de hecho hasta que se despida la peticion, se emita un fallo o la corte de otras ordenes. Cualquier agencia del orden publico que haya rocibido o visto una copia de estas ordenes puede hacerlas acatar en cualquier lugar de California.
FEE WAIVER : If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the clerk for a fee waiver form. The court may order you to pay back all or part of the fees and costs that the court waived for you or the other party.
Exencion de cuotas : Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario un formulario de execion de cuotas. La corte puede ordenar que ested pague, ya sea en parte o por completo, las cuotas y costos de la corte previamente exentos a peticion de usted o de la otra parte.
FL-100 PETITION FOR Dissolution (Divorce) of: Marriage
1. LEGAL RELATIONSHIP: We are married.
2. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: a. Petitioner [and] have been residents of this state for at least six months and of this country for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of this petition. (For divorce, at least one person in the legal relationship described in items 1a and 1c must comply with this requirement.)
4. MINOR CHILDREN: There are no minor children.
5. LEGAL GROUNDS: Irreconcilable Differences
8. SPOUSAL OR DOMESTIC PARTNER SUPPORT: Terminate (end) the court’s ability to ward support to Respondent.
SEPARATE PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be confirmed by the court.
COMMUNITY AND QUASI-COMMUNITY PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be divided by the court.
OTHER REQUESTS: Such other and further orders as the court deems just and proper.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y dirrecion de la corte son):
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO
351 N. ARROWHEAD AVE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415
The name, address and telephone number of petitioner’s attorney, or petitioner without an attorney, are: (El nombre, direccion y numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante si no tiene abogado, son):
IN PRO PER
CHINYERE CHRISTINE MAYO
6774 KAISER AVENUE
FONTANA, CA 92336
DATE (Fecha): July 30, 2021
by Krystal Lerma (Asistente) for Clerk of the Court (Secretario)
This case is assigned to Agron Department S 50
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on 12/03, 12/10, 12/17 & 12/24, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RUFUS BIAS, JR.
CASE NO. PROSB2100054
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RUFUS BIAS, JR.:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ELLA LOUISE CARODINE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ELLA LOUISE CARODINE 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 FEBRUARY 2, 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 10, 17 & 24, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARCUS MARCEL 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 MARCEL 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 10, 17 & 24, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROBERT DANIEL STONE
CASE NO. PROSB2101032
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROBERT DANIEL STONE has been filed by ROBERT JOSEPH STONE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ROBERT JOSEPH STONE 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. S35 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Sabrina Felix, 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 Robert Joseph Stone:
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 10, 17 & 24, 2021.

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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2129131
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: S22
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 12/10, 12/17. 12/24 & 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 20210010849
The following person is doing business as: CITRINE VENDING 945 W WABASH ST RIALTO, CA 92376 JANELLE S BROWN 945 W WABASH ST RIALTO, CA 92376
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/ JANELLE S BROWN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/27/2021
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 11/19, 11/26, 12/03 & 12/10, 2021.
FBN 20210011371
The following person is doing business as: APRIL’S HOMES. 11510 FERNDALE RD VICTORVILLE, CA 92394; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); AVO INVESTMENTS, LLC. 15510 FERNDALE RD VICTORVILLE, CA 92394
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
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/ MARIO A. GALLEGOS, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/10/2021
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
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202101MT

FBN 20210011446
The following person is doing business as: DAVE’S HAULIN 10004 PRADERA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; AVO INVESTMENTS, LLC. 10004 PRADERA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
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/ DAVID BENGINO ESPINOZA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/12/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202102CV

FBN 20210011481
The following person is doing business as: AAACMI 1227 COULSTON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); BERNIE AGONOY 1227 COULSTON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 08, 2014
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/ BERNIE AGONOY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/15/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202103IR

FBN 20210011440
The following person is doing business as: J.A. CONSTRUCTION 1473 DORAL CT ONTARI, CA 91761; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); J.A. CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1473 DORAL CT ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ JACOB GLEN ALBAUGH, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/12/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202104SB

FBN 20210011447
The following person is doing business as: STAR 1 AUTO REPAIR 2147 W. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 1670 W. 27TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407 ]; REYNALDO RAMOS ROMERO 2147 W. HIGHLAND AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
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/ REYNALDO RAMOS ROMERO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/12/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202105IR

FBN 20210011342
The following person is doing business as: G&P REGISTRATION SERVICE 17763 VALLEY BLVD. SUITE G BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 26340 CAMINO LARGO MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555 ]; GARARDO GUTIERREZ 26340 CAMINO LARGO MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
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/ GERARDO GUTIERREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/09/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202107IR
FBN 20210011446
The following person is doing business as: IRON & MADWOODS 17111 MELON AVE FONTANA, CA 92336; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); IRON & MADWOODS, INC 17111 MELON AVE FONTANA, CA 92336
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/ JOSE DE JESUS TORRES, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/08/2021
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
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202108IR

FBN 20210011305
The following person is doing business as: 11 HILL’S MARKET 4545 MISSION BLVD UNIT A MONTCLAIR, CA 91763; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); NORMA VILLAFUERTE 4545 MISSION BLVD UNIT A MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
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/ NORMA VILLAFUERTE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/08/2021
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
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202109MT

FBN 20210011339
The following person is doing business as: SANDYBEES 270 E BASELINE ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); LATOYA O ANDREWS 270 E BASELINE ST 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/ LATOYA O. ANDREWS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/09/2021
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 11/19/2021, 11/26/2021, 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021 CNBB45202110MT
FBN 20210011798
The following person is doing business as: UNITY BBQ AND CATERING. 15821 SERRANO RD UNIT #2 APPLE VALLEY, CA 9230 ; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); IVORY D DAVIS JR 15821 SERRANO RD UNIT #2 APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307.
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/ IVORY D DAVIS JR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/23/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202108MT

FBN 20210011799
The following person is doing business as: WOODY WOOD PECKER TREE SERVICE. 7445 LOS FELIZ DR HIGHLAND, CA 92346; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ERIC J SALSBERRY 7445 LOS FELIZ DR HIGHLAND, CA 92346.
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/ ERIC J SALSBERRY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/23/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202107MT

FBN 20210011660
The following person is doing business as: FAMILY NAILS & SPA. 1270 W FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); CUONG M NGUYEN 1270 W FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786.
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/ CUONG M NGUYEN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/18/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202106MT

FBN 20210011309
The following person is doing business as: THREE BEES BOUTIQUE. 22400 BARTON ROAD SUITE 3 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); LISA M PANKULICS-GREEN 269 CHICKADEE CIRCLE RIVERSIDE, CA 92507.
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/ LISA M PANKULICS-GREEN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/09/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202105IR

FBN 20210011792
The following person is doing business as: DEERFIELD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. 11354 CAMPUS ST LOMA LINDA, CA 92354;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); GRACE JOY D TABINGO 11354 CAMPUS ST LOMA LINDA, CA 92354.
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/ GRACE JOY D TABINGO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/23/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202104IR

FBN 20210011858
The following person is doing business as: HACIENDA GARDEN DECOR. 3802 BRONSON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ANGELINA CELIS 3802 BRONSON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; EDGAR H DELGADO 3802 BRONSON ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; JOSE CASTANON 2345 N MILOR AVE RIALTO, CA 92377
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/ ANGELINA CELIS, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/24/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202103IR

FBN 20210011868
The following person is doing business as: GLEN ENTERPRISES. 23812 PROSPECT VALLEY DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); RICK’S POOL SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE INC. 23812 PROSPECT VALLEY DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
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/ RICHARD ROBERTS, PRESIDENT
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202102CH

FBN 20210011931
The following person is doing business as: LUSSTWEAR. 747 W. SUNKIST ST ONTARIO, CA 91762;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); DENISE MARJORIE SOLIS 747 W. SUNKIST ST. ONTARIO, CA 91762; ANTONIO DE JESUS ARELLANO 747 W. SUNKIST ST. ONTARIO, CA 91762.
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/ DENISE MARJORIE SOLIS, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/30/2021
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 12/03/2021, 12/10/2021, 12/17/2021, 12/24/2021 CNBB47202101MC

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

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the December 3 San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel December 3 21

By Mark Gutglueck
Since the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department initiated what it has dubbed Operation Hammer Strike on August 30 of this year, its deputies had seized through twelve weeks of effort as of November 26 what the department calculated as exceeding $200 million worth of marijuana being grown at unlicensed operations.
Questions are emerging with regard to the accounting for the sheriff’s department’s most recent version of its longstanding marijuana eradication project, which under the 2021-2022 county budget is being subsidized with $4 million earmarked by the board of supervisors. The department, under former Sheriff John McMahon, had as of January begun a concerted effort to find and shutter marijuana farms operating in the relative open, generally using sunlight to cultivate the plants, primarily in San Bernardino County’s vast Mojave Desert. While those operations sometimes entailed the arrest of those present at the farms and involved in their operations, particularly if they demonstrated themselves to be involved in another crime such as carrying an unlicensed firearm, most of those in place at the makeshift cultivation sites were cited and released or simply released.
McMahon’s voluntary resignation as sheriff became effective in July, shortly after the beginning of the current fiscal year. His successor, Shannon Dicus, has now burned through nearly $3 million of the $4 million that was set aside to rid San Bernardino County’s vast desert outback of the scourge of unpermitted marijuana farms, having expanded the sheriff’s department’s marijuana enforcement program from one to five teams while funding their constant activity for more than three months. The deputies, five sergeants and one lieutenant assigned to those teams have fanned out over the desert, from Piñón Hills to Phelan to Oak Hills to Summit Valley to Hesperia to Apple Valley to Victorville to Oro Grande to Helendale to Silverlakes to Adelanto to Hinkley to Four Corners to Barstow to Yermo to Newberry Springs to Twentynine Palms to Joshua Tree to Desert Heights to Landers to Johnson Valley to Lucerne Valley. With the added funding, the department has proven more aggressive than it was earlier in the year, and those caught at the sites where the cultivation is ongoing have been arrested and in most cases jailed, since the funding the sheriff’s department is receiving allows for defraying the cost of housing the arrestees at the sheriff’s various jails.
As of last week, according to the department, it has taken down 1,623 illegal outdoor greenhouses in the past 12 weeks, raided and shuttered 14 indoor growing operations, served 292 search warrants in conjunction with the operations, made 346 arrests, cut down or uprooted and carried off 292,192 marijuana plants, otherwise seized 56,249.4 pounds of processed marijuana, taken out of the possession of those involved in illicit marijuana production a total of 87 guns, confiscated $849,449 in cash which the department said was the proceeds from illicit marijuana sales, discovered in the course of its operations eight illegal electrical bypasses, and has come across and dismantled five THC extraction labs. As an inadvertent byproduct of the sheriff’s department’s activity, deputies have seized eight grams of methamphetamine that was in the possession of those it arrested.
Though the department did not provide its estimate of the total wholesale product value of cannabis seized during the 12 weeks of Operation Hammer Strike’s effort, it did provide one for the first eleven weeks, that being $194,052,220.
The department did not offer a legend or key to how the $194,052,220 figure had been calculated. It is just that lack of clarity that has brought the accounting of the operation into question.
Further questions attain to what has become of the product seized.
Complicating factors include the generic description of the plants uprooted, a lack of transparency as to the ultimate disposition of those plants and processed marijuana, difficulties with or lack of availability of records relating to the individuals arrested and charged along with the quantification and/or preservation of the marijuana they are accused of cultivating or harvesting and lax custody or preservation of the processed substances that were a product of the illicit cultivation activity.
Earlier this year, under McMahon, the department made a display of large amounts of seized marijuana being destroyed. In at least some of the earlier operations, no charges against the growers or those manning the growing operations were forthcoming. Thus, preserving the marijuana seized as evidence was not necessary. Under the even more energetic program being carried out under Dicus, however, those encountered at the farms are being arrested rather than merely being issued citations as was occurring previously. This implies that those being arrested are going to be formally charged and prosecuted. Indeed, officials with the department have made statements to that effect, and the district attorney’s office is known to be beefing up its staff to handle what is anticipated to be an influx of over 1,000 cases against defendants for participating in illicit cultivation of marijuana or owning property where that activity took place.
While the vast majority of those defendants in mounting their legal defenses if they mount legal defenses at all would not likely be sophisticated enough to put the court system and prosecutors through their paces, a minority of the defendants probably will. For that reason, preserving the evidence against them – the uprooted or already harvested marijuana – is called for. The department has not given much in the way of public information regarding what it is doing with the marijuana it is seizing. If it has developed a protocol for handling that evidence, it has not disclosed it. Nor has the department given an indication of where it is storing that evidence or what security procedure it has in place to maintain its integrity or prevent marijuana plants that were seized in one raid from being confused with marijuana plants seized in another raid.
While in many cases, the owners of the property where the illicit marijuana farms being operated in the desert were actively involved in the cultivation or were knowledgeable of it, the Sentinel has learned that a number of the illegal operations had sprouted up on properties where absentee landowners were entirely uninvolved and had no idea of what the trespassers had set up on their secondary or tertiary property. It is the growing prospect that the sheriff’s department, the district attorney’s office and the county itself through the policies county supervisors are now contemplating putting into place are going to initiate blanket legal or administrative action against landowners who are in fact the victims of trespass and are innocent of any criminality that will very likely result in the sheriff’s department ultimately being faced with restrictions on the autonomy and liberty of action it has so far exercised during Operation Hammer Strike.
In providing the statistics relating to Operation Hammer Strike, the department specified the number of plants but did not go beyond that description. The size or maturity of the plants was not given. Neither did the department distinguish between the various strains of marijuana that were seized. It did not quantify the uprooted marijuana in total or each plant individually by weight.
Maturity, strain and weight are all factors in determining the monetary value of marijuana.
A marijuana plant in the end stages of its growth and immediately upon harvesting will weigh substantially more than it does after it has been dried. Ordinarily, most marijuana that is sold and consumed has been dried or “cured.” Marijuana on both the illicit market and when retailed legally is generally sold in quantities measured by weight. Thus, to determine the monetary value of marijuana with any degree of accuracy, its weight must be considered.
There are myriad strains of marijuana. Cultivators constantly refine, crossbreed and hybridize marijuana to fine-tune the type, quantities and relative quantities or balance of what are recognized by chemists as 113 total cannabinoids present in the plant, those being marijuana’s constituent ingredients which provide for the drug’s palliative and psychoactive effects. In particular, strains containing a higher percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal psychoactive constituent known by its acronym THC, are usually more valuable. The department does not appear to have made much in the way of an effort in distinguishing what type of marijuana it is uprooting. As a consequence, the estimation of the valuation of the marijuana it has seized is questionable.
Moreover, the department has not made any attempt, or so it would appear, to factor in the cost variable of what its operations mean in terms of the price of marijuana locally. Under the principle of supply and demand, the more plentiful the supply of any item, substance or material, calculated against a constant demand for that commodity, the less expensive it is. The converse – dwindling availability while demand for it continues – results in an increase in price. Unquestionably, measured by any rational standard, Sheriff Dicus’s Operation Hammer Strike has been unprecedentedly successful in eradicating marijuana cultivation in San Bernardino County. That action has put a major dent in the availability of marijuana both on the illicit market as well as to licensed and permitted operators of dispensaries and shops selling the drug for its intoxicative purpose. This has undoubtedly, at least temporarily and regionally, resulted in an increase in the value of marijuana and its retail price. It is unclear if in making its calculation of the value of the marijuana it has seized, the department considered this factor.
Whether the sheriff and his deputies are conscious of that factor or not, Operation Hammer Strike is proving to be of benefit to those classes of marijuana purveyors who are alternately being protected by elements of San Bernardino County’s political establishment, which includes the politicians at the head of the county who provided the sheriff’s department with the $4 million being used to eradicate the marijuana being grown outdoors in the desert, and the more sophisticated marijuana cultivators who have devised methods of carrying out their agricultural endeavors without getting caught.
In 1996, California’s voters with the passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act, legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes throughout the state, and made it legal for dispensaries to operate, subject to local control. For sixteen years, however, no jurisdiction in San Bernardino County, including its 22 cities, two incorporated towns and the county government itself, would provide operating permits to any dispensaries. In 2012, the City of Needles relented, and allowed dispensaries to begin operations. In 2015, the City of Adelanto began allowing large-scale indoor marijuana cultivation operations to set up operations in its industrial zones. In 2016, with the passage of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which allowed for the use and sale of marijuana for its intoxicative effect, Adelanto graduated to allowing all order of commercial cannabis activity, with Mayor Richard Kerr publicly stating that it was his intent that Adelanto become the marijuana capital of California and, in time, the world. Simultaneously, through the initiative process, voters in the city of San Bernardino passed a ballot measure calling for marijuana to be available for sale there. Since that time, Hesperia city officials have allowed marijuana distribution operations to operate within certain areas in its city limits, and Barstow officials have consented to commercial marijuana/cannabis operations setting up in their city. Needles has since consented to allowing the marijuana and cannabis-based products used for recreational purposes to be sold in that city along with medical marijuana. San Bernardino now allows all order of commercial cannabis activity, from cultivation of marijuana to THC extraction to manufacturing of cannabis-related products to research on marijuana to warehousing and packaging to distribution to wholesaling the drug to the retailing of marijuana and cannabis products.
In several instances, the politicians in the San Bernardino County cities where highly lucrative commercial cannabis activity has been permitted have become enmeshed in graft and corruption. In Adelanto, former City Councilman Jermaine Wright, while he was still in office, was arrested by the FBI for, and was charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office with, accepting a bribe in exchange for agreeing to shield a marijuana distribution business and its operator from being subject to city regulation. Former Adelanto Mayor Rich Kerr, after he left office, was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with receiving bribes from cannabis-related business operators who had obtained permits and licensing in the city. Adelanto-based marijuana and cannabis-based business operators continue to deliver bribes to some of the politicians in Adelanto who succeeded Wright and Kerr, as well as to city management. In San Bernardino, though they have not been arrested or charged, Mayor John Valdivia and his political ally, Councilman Juan Figueroa, have been implicated in bribery schemes involving marijuana or cannabis product-related businesses that have succeeded in getting operating permits in the city or have applied to obtain such licensing. Those bribes reportedly consisted of money provided directly to Valdivia which was laundered through his consulting company, AAdvantage Comm LLC, or political contributions provided to Valdivia and Figueroa.
Former San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus, through his company, Mountain States Consulting Group, as well as his business and political associates including among others Dino DeFazio and Jeremiah Brosowske, has begun filtering money originating from entrepreneurs who have already established marijuana or cannabis-based businesses or who are interested in setting up marijuana and cannabis-based commercial companies to politicians, including those in San Bernardino, Hesperia and Adelanto. Postmus further began providing money to three members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors – Chairman and Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman, Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe and Fifth District Supervisor Paul Cook – originally disguised as political contributions coming from him and his political associates. Postmus and his team were instrumental in convincing the board of supervisors to provide the $4 million to the sheriff’s department to fund Operation Hammer Strike. Supervisors Rowe and Cook, in whose districts the county’s desert area is located, were among the most vociferous elements in advocating action to shutter the illicit marijuana farms.
Operation Hammer Strike has assiduously avoided targeting the marijuana cultivation enterprises that are operated by businesses that are represented by Postmus and Mountain States Consulting Group, which include cultivation facilities in Adelanto, San Bernardino, Ontario, Cajon, Wrightwood, Hodge, Searles Valley, Harvard, Needles, Danby and Cadiz, including a large indoor facility owned and operated by Postmus’s political and business associate DeFazio.
Postmus has consistently refused to disclose how much of the money he is taking in from the various marijuana and cannabis-based commercial operations he is kicking back to Hagman, Cook, Rowe, Valdivia, Figueroa, current Adelanto Mayor Gabriel Reyes and Adelanto City Manager Jessie Flores.
Next Tuesday, December 7, the board of supervisors is set to consider, according to its meeting agenda, “a proposed ordinance to add Section 84.34.080 [to the county code], relating to abatement of items used to facilitate cannabis cultivation, and amend Section 86.09.090, relating to classification of violations as a misdemeanor offense.”
In essence, what the proposed ordinance will do is allow the sheriff’s department and the county’s code enforcement division to legally remove greenhouses, cisterns, trailers and other equipment or items used by cultivators at marijuana cultivation sites after the sheriff’s department concludes it eradication operations, and to criminally charge anyone on whose property marijuana is being grown.

The San Bernardino City Council on Wednesday night voted unanimously to censure Mayor John Valdivia.
The action came not quite three years after Valdivia was sworn in as mayor, and was sparked by his diversion, earlier this year, of taxpayer money used to promote himself politically.
Valdivia and his attorney, Rod Pacheco, were unable to dissuade the council from making an official record of its collective condemnation of what has been roundly considered the mayor’s misuse of his authority. Nevertheless, Pacheco and the mayor did effectuate a strategy of calling into question the thoroughness, one-sidedness and therefore the fairness of the censure proceeding, which at least for Valdivia’s partisans served to blunt the onus of the castigation he was subjected to.
The grounds given for the council’s reproval of its presiding officer included those diversions and similar questionable uses of public money over the last two-and-a-half years, but did not extend to even more serious accusations related to graft and bribetaking on Valdivia’s part which have been openly spoken about within the county seat even before he was elected mayor, nor did it catalog multiple examples of his comportment toward several city employees, five of whom have now filed suit against him and the city.
The censure, which stood as the strongest showing of displeasure that the council could make with regard to the mayor’s conduct in office, has no immediate tangible impact on Valdivia’s hold on the mayoral office, but could potentially be used by one of his future political challengers in a campaign to unseat him as mayor, perhaps as early as next year.
Valdivia made an extraordinary ascent to the pinnacle of politics in San Bernardino with his November 2018 election as mayor, which has been followed by an even more dramatic descent. His entry into the volatile world of local politics had come nine years before he had taken possession of the mayor’s gavel.
In 2009, Valdivia made a failed attempt to capture the Fourth Ward city council position. In 2011, after changing his residence, he successfully vied for council in the Third Ward, capturing victory with the support of the city’s employee unions, the San Bernardino Firefighters Association foremost among them, followed by the unions representing the city’s police officers and its regular line employees. He assumed the Third Ward council post in March 2012.
In February 2014, just a little less than two years after he had acceded to municipal office, Valdivia announced he would seek the Republican nomination for Congress in the 31st Congressional District, but within a short period of time decided against following through with that candidacy. In 2015, Valdivia retained his position as Ward Three councilman when no one surfaced to run against him.
Valdivia coveted the mayor’s position, as at that time San Bernardino was yet functioning under the municipal charter the city had adopted in 1905. The 1905 charter instilled in the mayor both political and administrative authority. Politically, the mayor was the presiding officer of the city council who was able to unilaterally place any item for discussion and action before the council. While presiding over meetings, the mayor controlled the ebb and flow of discussion and debate. He did not have a vote on normal business items unless the vote ended in tie, but he did possess veto power on 4-to-3 votes or 3-to-2 votes of the council, such that in actuality he held the power of two votes on virtually any issue of viable controversy or issue where the outcome was not already decided by a clear majority of the council. He was allowed to vote on matters of appointment/hiring of the city manager and appointments of city commission members. On the administrative side, the mayor under the 1905 charter had co-regency with the city manager and control over direct hiring and firing of city employees.
In 2016, the council placed before San Bernardino’s voters a charter redraft which changed the city’s treasurer, city attorney and city clerk positions from elected to appointed ones, shifted its elections from odd-numbered to even-numbered years, and reduced the power and administrative reach of the mayor from what it had been under the municipal charter put in placed in 1905, such that the mayor no longer shared with the city manager control over direct hiring and firing of city employees.
Despite Valdivia’s opposition, the city’s voters approved the new charter in a 2016 vote. Even though the San Bernardino mayor’s post had sustained this reduction in authority, in 2018 Valdivia challenged then-Mayor Carey Davis in that year’s election. Ultimately, Valdivia emerged victorious in that contest with 19,155 votes or 52.51 percent to Davis’s 17,327 votes or 47.49 percent.
Upon being sworn into office on December 18, 2018, Valdivia had the support of both of the council’s two newly-elected members, Ted Sanchez in the city’s First Ward and Sandra Ibarra in the Second Ward, and incumbents Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel and Sixth Ward Councilwoman Bessine Richard. His opposition on the council at that time consisted of Fourth District Councilman Fred Shorett and Seventh District Councilman Jim Mulvihill.
In May 2019, the city held a special election in the city’s Third Ward to select Valdivia’s council replacement, as he had been obliged to resign that post to move into the mayor’s slot. Prevailing in that contest was Juan Figueroa, who was one of Valdivia’s allies.
Immediately upon Figueroa coming into office, Valdivia effectuated the removal of City Manager Andrea Travis-Miller, whom he considered to be a vestige of the Davis Administration. He thereafter installed Travis-Miller’s assistant city manager, Teri Ledoux, into the position of city manager. In so doing, Valdivia and his then-chief of staff, Bill Essayli, brokered a deal that conferred upon the soon-to-retire Ledoux a boost into the city’s senior administrative position she would otherwise never have achieved, and with it an annual pension approaching $190,000 upon retirement in exchange for surrendering to Valdivia the power as mayor that had been attenuated with the 2016 charter change, that being the de facto authority to hire and fire city employees and department heads through the new city manager.
At that point, it appeared Valdivia had an absolute political lockhold on San Bernardino. Over the next six months, however, the control over the city Valdivia had so masterfully cultivated slipped from his grasp.
Before the end of Summer 2019, Valdivia alienated first Ibarra and then Nickel. In October 2019, Valdivia was on the outs with Sanchez. At that point, the only reliable votes on the council he could count on were those of Figueroa and Richard, while he found himself unable to muster the support of Mulvihill, Shorett, Ibarra, Sanchez and Nickel for any of his initiatives. Having effectively lost control of the council, Valdivia, growing increasingly frustrated, began to lash out at city staff, ultimately alienating then-City Manager Ledoux and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, both of whom were once safely within his camp.
In January 2020, Mirna Cisneros, Valdivia’s constituent service representative, and Karen Cervantes, his special assistant, went public with accounts of how Valdivia had pressured them to have sex with him. Cisneros related how Valdivia had solicited and received bribes. She also laid out how he used city money to travel nationally and internationally on business unrelated to the city, which included raising money for himself or his future political campaigns. Thereafter, Jackie Aboud, Valdivia’s field representative, came forward to say that Valdivia had squeezed her to have sexual relations with him, and that Valdivia had used his influence as mayor to provide favorable city treatment to his donors and supporters, while working to prevent city services from being rendered to his constituents who were not supporters, in particular those in the city’s Fourth and Seventh Wards, represented by his two longstanding rivals on the council, Fred Shorett and Jim Mulvihill. Alissa Payne, whom Valdivia had appointed to the city’s Arts and Historical Preservation Commission and the San Bernardino Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, publicly surfaced with accounts that were in some fashion similar to those of Cisneros, Cervantes and Aboud with regard to sexual advances the mayor had made toward her. Don Smith, who had worked on Valdivia’s campaign for mayor and was subsequently hired by the city to serve as Valdivia’s part time field representative, offered specific accounts of bribetaking by the mayor, including one of a kickback that had originated from holders of the city’s tow truck franchises, consisting of a cash-stuffed envelope given to the mayor in Smith’s presence. Matt Brown, who was brought in to serve as Valdivia’s chief of staff in August 2019, roughly a month after his original chief of staff, Bilal Essayli, resigned, stated that he was being retaliated against by Valdivia for having sought to protect Cisneros, Cervantes and Aboud in the face of Valdivia’s treatment of them, and he retained Tristan Pelayes, the lawyer who was representing Cervantes, Cisneros, Aboud, Payne, and Smith. Ultimately, Aboud, Brown, Cervantes, Cisneros and Smith sued the city over the ordeals they had with Valdivia.
In the 2020 election cycle, Valdivia’s political affiliate and council ally, Juan Figueroa, was reelected, and Valdivia’s political affiliate and council ally Bessine Richard was voted out of office, replaced by Kimberly Calvin. Both Henry Nickel, who had evolved into one of Valdivia’s political foes, and Jim Mulvihill, who had never been aligned with Valdivia, were likewise chased from office by the city’s voters, replaced, respectively, by Ben Reynoso and Damon Alexander. While Valdivia held out hope that Alexander would show himself to be a reliable ally, that did not come about. Calvin very early on clashed with Valdivia, and Reynoso has proven to be a more committed antagonist to the mayor than was Nickel. After the new council was seated in December 2020, Figueroa’s was the only vote of consistent support on the council that Valdivia could count upon.
Even before he was elected mayor, there were recurrent reports that Valdivia was on the take, involved in graft and bribery at the worst and at the very least a practitioner of pay-to-play politics in which he was provided with donations to his political campaign fund in exchange for his vote as a council member supporting those donors’ applications for city franchises or project approval with the community development department or contracts to deliver services and/or goods to the city. After his election as mayor, there were further indications that Valdivia was heavily involved in trading his votes for campaign donations as well as evidence suggesting he was receiving bribes from entities doing business with the city or seeking project approvals, such as many of the applicants for permits and licenses to operate commercial marijuana/cannabis-related businesses in the city. Those revelations included accounts of Valdivia being provided with cash that was not reported as campaign donations and which he simply pocketed, or payments made to him through his consulting business, AAdvantage Comm LLC, which served as a laundering mechanism for the payoffs he received.
Earlier this year, Valdivia and Figueroa were dealt the blows of revelations pertaining to both receiving support and money, characterized as bribes, from entities with applications for commercial marijuana operations in the city as well as from SCG America, which was competing to obtain redevelopment rights at the Carousel Mall in downtown San Bernardino.
Late this spring, Valdivia courted further controversy by billing the city for $4,686 to cover the expenses – extending to the cost of gilded invitations, flowers, balloons, meals and drinks – for a so-called VIP reception to be held at the Hilltop Restaurant in San Bernardino in the immediate aftermath of the mayor’s state of the city address. That event, Valdivia insisted, was to accommodate his list of invitees, a group Valdivia characterized as San Bernardino’s “residents, stakeholders and movers and shakers.” It turned out, however, that attendance at the reception was to be limited to those who were invited, and the only council member invited was Figueroa, Valdivia’s lone remaining ally on the council. Nearly all of those invited were Valdivia’s campaign donors, whom he intended to hit up again for more electioneering funding.
Valdivia’s boldness in utilizing public funds for political purposes further estranged him from the members of the council, and they called upon City Manager Robert Field to have the matter investigated.
Field and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho arranged to have the Costa Mesa-based law firm of García Rainey Blank & Bowerbank delve into the particulars of what Valdivia had done. An attorney with García Rainey Blank & Bowerbank, Kendra L. Carney Mehr, in conjunction with the Openheimer Investigations Group probed the matter and generated a report. That report, which was reviewed by the city council, became the basis of a proposal for the city council to officially censure Valdivia.
According to Mehr’s eight-page report, “The mayor’s office caused 2,075 postcards featuring Mayor Valdivia to be mailed at the city’s expense on or about June 4, 2021, in violation of Government Code section 89002. Elected officials are prohibited from sending mass mailings at public expense as described in Government Code sections 89001-89003.”
The postcards did not invite those to whom they were sent to the state of the city speech but rather served as invitations to the mayor’s reception/fundraiser held after the speech, Mehr noted. The reception, she stated, was not “a public meeting or event, but instead… a private event [that] promoted the mayor individually. The city spent more than $2,500 of public funds to design, produce, print, and mail post cards at the direction of the mayor. The design and printing costs were $2,134.08 and the bulk rate mailing cost was $546.33. The mayor violated the mass mailing prohibitions set forth in Government Code section 89002.”
Furthermore, according to Mehr’s report, “In June 2021, the mayor solicited a contribution of $5,000 from the Inland Empire Health Plan to be paid to the City of San Bernardino. Inland Empire Health Plan paid the contribution. The mayor did not report the behest payment as required by Government Code section 84224. An elected official who fundraises or otherwise solicits payments from one individual or organization to be given to another individual or organization is required to report the payment over $4,999. The mayor did not report the behest payment as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission rules.”
According to Mehr, at the mayor’s “exclusive VIP reception… which took place after the annual state of the city address on June 15, 2021… the event provided a giveaway item, a ‘hot drink travel set’ that promoted the mayor, not the city, demonstrating the focus of the event was to promote the mayor personally and not the city. In fact, the mayor requested that the city logo be removed from the travel set and replaced with a logo used by the mayor. Invitations were restricted to a list of individuals selected by the mayor. Valdivia did not include most city staff or other city elected officials. City staff and other city elected officials were kept in the dark about the event. The mayor misused city funds by applying for reimbursement of expenses for the VIP reception following the state of the city address for personal or campaign purposes.”
According to Mehr, Valdivia from 2019 through June 2021 also sought reimbursements for travel and meals to which he was not entitled at various times during his tenure as mayor, including, she documented:
• A hotel stay and meal in San Diego on September 20-22, 2019;
• Overnight parking charges from June 29-30, 2020;
• A hotel stay in Irvine on September 10-11, 2020;
• Parking at Mission Inn, Riverside on October 27, 2020;
• Parking at West Beverly Hills Hotel on January 17, 2021;
• A hotel stay and meal in Irvine on March 8-9, 2021;
• A hotel stay in Irvine on March 18-19, 2021;
• Meals in Nevada on March 22-23, 2021;
• A meal in Newport Beach on March 23, 2021
• A meal and hotel stay in Irvine on April 13-14, 2021.
The city council’s consideration of the censure of the mayor was set for a special meeting at 5 p.m. on December 1. That meeting was adjourned separately from the regularly scheduled city council meeting, which was scheduled for 7 p.m. San Bernardino holds its regular council meetings on the first and third Monday of each month. The December 1 special meeting featured only a single item, that being the consideration of the mayor’s censure.
Presenting the substance of Mehr’s report that evening was not Mehr, but rather the founder of the García Rainey Blank & Bowerbank law firm, Norma García Guillén. The choice of García Guillén to make the presentation was a calculated one. García Guillén was an associate at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, a prestigious national law firm, before she created what has become García Rainey Blank & Bowerbank with Tabitha Rainey Pullara in 2012. It was thought that she would have sufficient gravitas to match Valdivia’s legal representative, Rod Pacheco, such that she might merely lay out the facts contained in Mehr’s report without having to argue a case for censuring Valdivia, thus maintaining the fiction of García Rainey Blank & Bowerbank along with Mehr having conducted an impartial and dispassionate review of Valdivia’s actions. More importantly, García Guillén is a Latina, and as such she possesses an inherent immunity to the charges of racism that Valdivia has a demonstrated propensity for using when he is confronted with accusations of political or legal impropriety. On repeated occasions, upon being questioned or challenged with regard to his violation of city policy, state law, Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, the pay-for-play nature of his votes on the council or indications of outright graft, Valdivia has responded by asserting that he is being victimized by the white establishment. And while currently three of the city council’s seven members – Sanchez, Figueroa and Ibarra – are Hispanic, two of the council members – Calvin and Alexander – are African-American and one of the council members – Reynoso – is of mixed Hispanic and African-American parentage, one of the council members – Shorett – is white, as is San Bernardino’s city manager, Robert Field. The two investigators with Openheimer Investigations Group – Zaneta Seidel and Renee Jansen – are likewise white, as is Mehr. Thus, the way was clear for Valdivia to maintain that the censure proposal was part of a racist plot to discredit him, only the second Latino mayor in the city’s history. García Guillén presenting the evidence arrayed against him in this way was a means of preventing Valdivia from asserting that the cataloging of his misuse of his authority was overblown, illegitimate and an outgrowth of the white community’s hatred toward Mexican-Americans.
That being the case, Valdivia and Pacheco opted to abandon utilizing the subject of race or ethnicity in the mayor’s defense, and instead explored an opposite course from what was expected, that being to attack both García Guillén and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho. Personalizing the attack on two of the principals Pacheco represented as being key to the information being presented against the mayor ostensibly was meant to call into question the grounds for the censure. Though in the end it did not dissuade the council from censuring Valdivia, what Pacheco was able to achieve was to create a spectacle in which he successfully bated García Guillén into responding to his attack on her, such that she abandoned the aspect of an independent investigator dispassionately reciting the facts that had been churned up during the inquiry conducted by Mehr, Jansen and Seidel, instead showing herself as an advocate for the censure.
Part of the Valdivia defense strategy was dependent upon Pacheco’s gravitas relative to that of García Guillén. Pacheco at one time was the leading Hispanic Republican politician in California. A half of a generation before Valdivia, Pacheco made his entry into politics in a rather spectacular fashion. After having acceded to a position of high rank within the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office under then-Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask, Pacheco in 1996 made a successful run for the California Assembly, becoming the first Latino Republican elected to the Assembly in more than a century. He was elected leader of the Republican caucus, marking the first time in the state’s history that a Hispanic legislator had risen to that position. Because the Republicans surrendered their majority hold on the Assembly in the 1996 election, Pacheco narrowly missed out on becoming the first Hispanic California Assembly speaker. After being termed out of the legislature, he returned to the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, where in 2006, he was elected district attorney, serving a single four-year term. He is now in private practice.
When Pacheco began his presentation, he attempted to present documentation he implied would serve to vindicate Valdivia with regard to at least some of the accusations of misappropriate conduct against him. Pacheco wanted those documents photocopied and distributed among the council. That met with immediate rejection, and it was stated that the time for marshaling any such evidence had elapsed, as such material should have been presented while the investigation was ongoing, Pacheco was told. It was pointed out that Valdivia had been invited to meet with the investigators to provide his version of events, but had declined.
In his presentation, Pacheco maintained Valdivia was a man of rectitude who was undeserving of the obloquy being heaped upon him. The mayor’s lawyer represented his client as an earnest public servant seeking to lead a city out of the financial doldrums it has been caught in. Pacheco imputed to several members of the city council political motives in the move to condemn the mayor, and he harshly criticized the process as it was being conducted and overseen by García Guillén and Carvalho as one-sided and unfair. The former prosecutor accused García Guillén of misinterpreting the law or omitting facts and details to suit the case for censure.
With every aspersion that Pacheco would cast toward García Guillén, she felt obliged to defend herself and justify the conclusion of the report as being even-handed and non-political. In the face of Pacheco’s insinuations that she was nothing more than a gun-for-hire who was serving as the city council’s attack dog, the more strident García Guillén’s responses became and the more she came across as someone who was indeed gunning for Valdivia.
The atmospherics at the meeting, which was held in the auditorium at the Norman Feldheym Library redounded to Valdivia’s benefit in this regard as well, rather paradoxically because they were so unfavorable to the mayor. Though there were Valdivia supporters present, the majority of those in attendance were decidedly those holding the mayor in low regard. Throughout the meeting, many of them did not hesitate in vocalizing their disdain for Valdivia, applauding and cheering those members of the council speaking from the dais or members of the public during the comment period who voiced criticism or disapproval of Valdivia and his actions. Nor did they hesitate in jeering or mocking any of those who spoke positively of the mayor, interrupting those speakers with catcalls or guffaws. This contributed to the overall impression that Valdivia was being subjected to a kangaroo court in which he was not being given a fair and balanced hearing.
“What is the purpose of this hearing?” Pacheco at one point asked rhetorically. “Is its purpose to improve the lives of the citizens in San Bernardino or is this to drive political objectives being engineered by the city attorney? This is not the first investigation she has created and probably won’t be the last.”
Pacheco asserted, “The mailings made by the city on behalf of the mayor for the state of the city address and the VIP reception for the mayor were in fact legal. The law allows a mass mailing to be done if it is an invitation to an event.”
García Guillén pointed out that while California law allows public money to be used to promote public events, Pacheco omitted the word “public” when he quoted the law stating that city money could be used to promote events. García Guillén said that though the state of the city address was a public event, the reception held afterwards was a political fundraiser, which was not a public event in the sense referred to in the California Government Code that she maintained Pacheco had misquoted, and she insisted that Valdivia had used city money and resources to promote the fundraiser rather than the state of the city speech, thereby running afoul of the law and the city’s policy.
Presiding over the meeting was Mayor Pro Tem Sandra Ibarra, who at one point importuned the crowd to remain respectful toward Pacheco after members of the audience had begun to hurl epithets at him.
During the council’s discussion of the censure proposal, the prevailing sentiment toward making the censure was apparent.
“He [Valdivia] has been asked and given all the opportunities and has never felt that he has to operate by the rules,” Councilman Fred Shorett said.
“We must purge City Hall of all corruption and members who choose to do the exact opposite of the oath we’ve voluntarily taken,” said Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin.
Councilman Ben Reynoso stated his belief that the issues delineated in the investigation were sufficient to warrant Valdivia’s censure, while intimating that the council, through information provided to it in closed sessions, was aware of even more serious transgressions on Valdivia’s part that for reasons of the city’s legal liability cannot be disclosed. He said the city could not dare to let Valdivia off the hook.
“What happens when you let little things like this go on forever?” Reynoso asked. “This is principle. I don’t care if it’s a dollar. I don’t care if it’s $10,000.”
He denounced Valdivia for having comported himself in such a way that he was shedding discredit on the entire city council.
“We are putting ourselves in an embarrassing spotlight to rid ourselves of corruption,” Reynoso said. “People ran for office who are on this dais today for multiple reasons. One of them was a clear conception that this city is corrupt from the inside. It is disturbing the things we can’t tell you that actually happen inside the city. I am disheartened by the community of developers and business owners who potentially jeopardize yourself by saying that you can reach a crooked person at any time of the night, any time of day, to get anything done that you want. That’s not why we came here. This is embarrassing. This is something we had to do.”
Councilwoman Ibarra said it was apparent to her that Valdivia had utilized taxpayer money to promote the VIP reception as a personal fundraiser and that his intention was not to draw people to listen to his state of the city address but to aggrandize himself.
“I am also a voter in the city,” Ibarra said. “I did not get an invitation. The concern we are having here is the private VIP reception he held, and the people he invited. That was not for the public. When only a limited amount of people are invited, that is not the public. He did not represent the public at that VIP reception. That was a private event only to benefit himself. What matters here is the ethics, the integrity of the work we do here for our city.”
The sole deviation from the tenor of the council indicating its members were resigned to rebuking Valdivia was a round of questioning of City Attorney Carvalho and García Guillén which Councilman Figueroa attempted to engage in during the time allotted him. In the precepts to some of Figueroa’s questions was the suggestion or outright assertion that the investigation had not been thorough.
“Part of my issue or concern with it is there was a mention of at least two council members, and I would like to have asked, ‘Were any council members actually interviewed during this process?’” Figueroa said to Carvalho. “I know that I wasn’t. So, I wasn’t interviewed but yet I can openly say that my name came up a couple of times. In fact, it’s in the back-up material here. Yet the person who investigated didn’t seem to reach out to council members to ask further questions. I have serious concern with that. Why wasn’t I contacted? I’m greatly disappointed in that. There was a comment made earlier about information being withheld and not doing your due diligence and not following up with the council member who has actually been named in this. I feel you actually have an obligation to reach out to that individual.”
Despite Figueroa’s consistent previous standing as a key Valdivia political ally and his statements and questions during Wednesday night’s discussion indicating his less than complete satisfaction with the investigation of the mayor, Figueroa joined with his colleagues in voting to censure Valdivia, such that the motion to do so passed unanimously. Furthermore, Figueroa joined in with the others in unanimously supporting a second motion to schedule a future council consideration of removing the mayor as the city’s representative to various regional and joint powers authority boards.
-Mark Gutglueck

Cucamonga Valley Water District Board Member Luis Cetina’s announcement of his candidacy for Second District supervisor in 2022 signals a set of behind-the-scene political developments at the county, several of which will not be publicly revealed for weeks or months.
The Sentinel has learned that Cetina has brokered a deal with incumbent Second District Supervisor Janice Rutherford for her support in return for Cetina’s commitment to maintain the county employment status of the Second District supervisor’s current staff members.
Moreover, the deal between Rutherford and Cetina is an indication that an arrangement between Rutherford and Bob Dutton, San Bernardino County’s assessor-recorder-county clerk, in which they would mutually support one another in Dutton making a run for Second District supervisor next year and Rutherford running to replace Dutton as assessor-recorder-county clerk, is no longer operative.
Simultaneously, the accommodation between Cetina and Rutherford sets the stage for Rutherford’s former colleague on both the board of supervisors and the Fontana City Council, Josie Gonzales, making a run against Dutton next year. Meanwhile, up in the air are the potential Second District supervisorial candidacies of current Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren, who more than a decade-and-a-half ago served on the Fontana City Council with Rutherford and Gonzales, as well as former Fontana City Councilman Jesse Armendarez, who in 2020 ran a failed campaign for supervisor in the Fifth District.
Another open question is what is to become of Rutherford, who under San Bernardino County’s currently applicable term limit regulations is obliged to step down as Second District supervisor in 2022 upon the completion of her third term in county office, the first of which came in 2010 when she successfully challenged then-Supervisor Paul Biane. There is no readily apparent office up for election in 2022 for which Rutherford is considered to be an obvious candidate, although she yet has the option of seeking either of two state legislative offices, depending upon the final setting of district boundaries in keeping with the redistricting to occur in accordance with the 2020 U.S. Census.
For many, Cetina’s candidacy for supervisor was not anticipated. It has now been disclosed that Rutherford was instrumental in laying the foundation for his attempted transition from the water district board position he has held since 2012 by arranging for or serving as a conduit for $95,000 in donations to his recently-created supervisorial campaign electioneering fund.
In some measure, Rutherford is pinning her hope of remaining politically relevant on Cetina’s electoral prospect. At the same time, it appears she is risking, or at least potentially risking, a continuation of her relatively amiable relationship with Warren. It is publicly unknown at this juncture whether Rutherford undertook her arrangement with Cetina with or without having consulted with Warren ahead of time to obtain the Fontana mayor’s assonance in promoting Cetina for the supervisor’s post.
Warren is playing close to the vest what her future political intentions are. In 2002, she was appointed to the Fontana city council to fill the vacancy created when then-City Councilman Mark Nuami was elected mayor while he yet had two years left on his council term. Rutherford and Gonzales both supported Warren’s appointment to the council. Two years later, Warren won election and Rutherford was reelected to the council, and they were both reelected in 2008. In 2010, Rutherford ran successfully for supervisor and Warren unsuccessfully vied for the Republican nomination for Assembly in California’s 63rd Assembly District in that year’s June primary, thereafter in November running successfully for Fontana mayor, becoming the first African-American and the first woman to be elected to that post in Fontana’s then-58-year history. She was reelected in 2014 and in 2018. As of June 30 of this year, she had $560,000 in her campaign war chest, a sum which would start her off in an advantageous position if she were to run for Second District supervisor, and make here competitive if she were to seek state legislative office – either in the Assembly of California Senate – although she would be at a relative disadvantage to an incumbent or strong Democrat, given that any legislative district she ends up being in as a result of redistricting will have a substantially larger number of registered Democrats than registered Republicans.
Warren is a rarity – an African-American woman who has gained considerable traction as a Republican politician, as most officeholders of her gender and ethnicity are Democrats. Her political success in Fontana is remarkable, given that over 49 percent of the city’s voters are registered Democrats while registered Republicans hover around 20 percent, a contingent smaller than the 23 percent of the city’s voters who express no party preference. Those registered with the American Independent, Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom and other more obscure political parties account for the remaining roughly 8 percent of the city’s voters. Because the Republican Party in San Bernardino County is far better organized and more efficient than the county’s Democratic Party, Republican candidates generally throughout San Bernardino County fare better in elections than is reflected in their party registration numbers. Warren has been a beneficiary of the Republican Party’s ability to outcoordinate, outhustle and outcampaign its Democratic rivals in San Bernardino County overall and in Fontana specifically, where despite the Democrats outnumbering Republicans by a margin of almost five-to-two, four of the five members of the city council are Republicans. Joined by her three Republican colleagues on the council, Warren has dominated Fontana for a decade, and is a force to be reckoned with.
Armendarez, who was a major donor to local political campaigns and a then-member of the Fontana Unified School Board, was plucked from that position by Warren in 2016 to run for city council, which he did successfully, becoming a member of Warren’s ruling coalition. In 2020, without Warren’s blessing, Armendarez became the Republican standard bearer in the race to replace Josie Gonzales as Fifth District supervisor. Gonzales was termed out of that position after having served four four-year terms as supervisor, the last three of which were subject to term limitations following the passage of 2006’s Measure P, which raised supervisors’ salaries and benefits but thereafter reduced them to three elected terms. Warren’s preference was that Clifford Young, who as a member of the West Valley Water District Board of Directors stands with Warren as one of the two most prominent African-American Republican politicians in San Bernardino County and who more than a decade-and-a-half ago served a short stint as the appointed Fifth District supervisor, run for the supervisorial position again last year. Armendarez jumped into the race ahead of Young against two Democrats, Colton Joint Unified School District Board Member, Dan Flores, who was Gonzales’s chief of staff, and Rialto Councilman Joe Baca, Jr., the son of the longtime former Congressman and California state legislator. Armendarez’s vaulting ambition ruffled Warren a bit, although she eventually came around, as was incumbent upon her as a Republican, to support him. Despite local district, municipal and county offices officially being by state law defined as nonpartisan, in San Bernardino County those contests invariably reflect a strong political party-affiliation orientation. The 2020 race was ultimately won by Baca. Armendarez, a successful real estate broker, remains, as does Warren, a local Republican stalwart, and he is a major contributor to Republican causes and campaigns. It is not altogether clear to outsiders whether there is a developing clash between Armendarez and Warren over each’s future political ambition, as in the case of their putative mutual interest in becoming Second District supervisor. The east portion of Fontana currently lies within San Bernardino County’s Fifth District, and the western side of the city falls within the county’s Second District. The county board of supervisors is contemplating, as early as next week, a redistricting plan that would place virtually all of Fontana within the Second District. If the supervisors indeed adopt that new district map, Armendarez will be eligible to run for supervisor in the Second District. If the new map leaves the east side of Fontana in the Fifth District, Armendarez would remain a resident of the Fifth District. Nevertheless, as a real estate agent with considerable financial means, Armendarez could in very short order move himself and his family westward across the dividing line between the two districts once the county concludes the redistricting process that will set the district borders from 2022 until 2032. Many anticipate that Armendarez, who spent upwards of $100,000 of his own money in funding his campaign for supervisor in the Fifth District last year, will make such a move, as the prospects for a Republican candidate in the Second District are so much better than in the county’s Fifth Supervisorial District, wherein 50.8 percent of the voters are registered Democrats, 18.7 percent of the voters are registered Republicans, 23.2 percent of the voters have no party affiliation and 7.3 percent identify as members of the less-well established American political parties.
Despite the consideration that the Second District, like Fontana, has more registered Democrats than registered Republicans, the Republicans seem to hold the upper hand in the entirety of the Second District in terms of getting its party members elected there. The Democratic-to-Republican disparity in the Second District is not as overwhelming in the Second District as it is in Fontana. At present, 41 percent of the Second District’s voters are registered Democrats and 30.6 percent are Republicans. On the city councils of all three of the Second District’s municipalities – Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana – as well as on the boards of the district’s several agencies such as school, water and utility districts, the lion’s share of the officeholders are Republicans. It is of note, therefore, that all of the aforementioned politicians with the exception of Gonzales – Rutherford, Dutton, Warren, Cetina and Armendarez – are members of the GOP.
Cetina makes an interesting case study in a politician.
He qualifies as something of a technocrat, having earned his bachelor of science degree in civil engineering with an emphasis on the environment from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He began working with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in 1986, serving as a surveyor, construction plan reviewer, water supply calculator and forecaster, and has graduated up the chain of command into the arena of legislative and policy analysis. Despite his training as an engineer, he has not been utilized by the Metropolitan Water District in that capacity. He is at present the principal governmental and regional affairs representative for the Metropolitan Water District, promoting water policy among government, joint powers authorities, chambers of commerce, and both private economic partnerships and public/private economic partnerships.
Cetina was elected to the Cucamonga Valley Water District Board of Directors in November 2012, eight years after the entity he was elected to represent had changed its name from the Cucamonga County Water District. He represents Division 4 within the district. He has served on the district’s water resources and government as well as its public affairs committees, and he represents the district on the Chino Basin Water Bank Planning Authority as that entity’s chairman. Further, he is the Cucamonga Valley Water District’s representative on the Fontana Union Water Company Board of Directors as well as on the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce. He was elected to the Association of California Water Agencies Region 9 Board of Directors in 2018, again in 2020 and will serve his third term through 2023. He also serves on that entity’s agriculture and water quality committees.
He is currently the vice chairman of the Cucamonga Valley Water District Board of Directors. Since his election to the board nine years ago, he has functioned with a knowledge regarding water issues and operations that has been well-contexted and grounded.
Like Armendarez, Cetina is a relatively uncommon example of a Hispanic Republican politician in California, where Latino registered Democrats outnumber Latino registered Republicans by nearly three-to-one and where Hispanic voters consistently vote for Democrats roughly 77 percent of the time. A member of the San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee, Cetina has advocated for a more energetic GOP outreach effort toward Latino voters.
Despite his success as a politician, his assets and positive attributes and the faith that Rutherford is demonstrating in him by her support of his candidacy, there are several knocks against Cetina that might complicate his effort to get elected supervisor.
The first of these is that he has spent a large measure, indeed virtually all, of his professional life as a government employee. There is a cross section of the electorate, in particular Republicans, who feel that it is a mistake to have institutional government employees manning elected positions overseeing government. They use analogies such as monkeys running the zoo or inmates managing the asylum to illustrate the reality of what they consider to be double-dipping, wherein a government employee, who makes a living working for the government and enjoys the relatively high salary and far more generous benefits that are available to public sector employees than are available generally in the private sector for the same level of work, serves in the capacity of overseeing government. Those of this opinion hold that it is inadvisable to have creatures of government exercising control over the government, and that it is healthier to elect individuals from the private sector, which is regulated by government, as citizen legislators overseeing governmental entities since they understand how onerous government regulation can be.
A second derogatory regarding Cetina that dovetails with the first is that as a member of the Cucamonga Valley Water District Board he has consistently voted in favor or rate increases on the district’s customers, and has supported local government’s layering of more and higher taxes upon its residents.
This was exemplified at the October 13, 2015 meeting of the Cucamonga Valley Water District Board, at which Cetina joined with his board colleagues in passing Resolution No. 2015-10-1, a declaration in support of Measure A, a proposal put on the ballot by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council that year calling for a local tax increase to improve street lighting, parks and landscaping on the west side of the city. In order to get the measure passed, city officials had scheduled the vote for an odd-year election at which it was anticipated voter turnout would be limited and municipal officials hoped they could drive to the polls enough civic improvement supporters for the measure to prevail. This strategy called for drumming up support from as many other civic leaders as possible, including the board members of the water district. The water district board’s vote to endorse the tax increase antagonized a fair number of Rancho Cucamonga residents who were not only opposed to the tax increase but what they considered to be the city’s underhanded tactic of setting a vote on the matter during an off-year election season when few people were paying attention and only a fraction of the city’s voters participated in the vote. On November 3, 2015, Measure A was overwhelmingly defeated 77.97 percent to 22.03 percent, with 2,289 votes in support and 8,103 votes against it.
Many local Republicans have questioned whether Cetina embodies a purist Republican attitude with regard to minimizing the burden of the expense of government through the limitation of taxation.
Another criticism that is made of Cetina pertains to the action taken by the Cucamonga Valley Water District Board on October 27, 2015 to pass Resolution No. 2015-10-5, which moved the district’s elections to odd years, and, consequentially, skipped the election scheduled for November 2016. Cetina and his fellow and sister board members did this despite then-Governor Jerry Brown having signed, on September 1, 2015, nearly two months prior to the board initiating that action, Senate Bill 415, the California Voters Rights Participation Act, which was passed by the California Legislature earlier that year.
The California Voter Rights Participation Act required that in jurisdictions holding odd-year elections wherein there was lower voter turnout than in elections in the same area held in even-numbered years, the elections were to be moved to even-numbered years.
The full consequences of the passage of Resolution No. 2015-10-5 and the eventual enforcement of Senate Bill 415 was to confer upon all of the members of the water board, first, a one-year extension of what were then their current terms in in office, followed by yet another one-year extension of their terms in office when the law Senate Bill 415 put in place was enforced, such that Cetina and his board colleagues have now become beneficiaries of what is a two-year extension in office, two years in which they bypassed having to face the voters to hold elective office. As a consequence, Cetina and his colleagues on the board are looked down upon by many for what is perceived as a shifty gaming of the democratic process.
A fourth aspersion cast at Cetina consists of his pattern of reluctance to engage with his Cucamonga Valley Water District constituents as well as the public served by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in the face of inquiries about both of those district’s policies and/or controversies they have become embroiled in. This unwillingness to interact with the public has manifested despite Cetina occupying a position with the Metropolitan Water District, that of governmental and regional affairs liaison, and being on the public affairs committee with the Cucamonga Valley Water District, positions in which it is incumbent upon him to be responsive to public inquiries. Cetina has eschewed interaction with the public despite his serving on the board of the San Gabriel Valley Public Affairs Network. Indeed, even before the COVID-18 crisis led to sequestering and isolation of personnel, it was virtually impossible for anyone outside of the Metropolitan Water District to have direct personal or even telephonic contact with Cetina at his workplace, with the only practical means of connection to him being by email. Cetina has a poor record of responding to such emails.
Cetina, in general, comes across as being averse to confrontation and controversy, and is unwilling to be engaged when topics stray into arenas about which there is sharp or even subtle public disagreement.
In an apparent effort to overcome the degree to which he has been limited to being employed exclusively in the public sector during his professional life, Cetina has endeavored to involve himself in certain activities meant to shore up his reputation or credentials with the private sector and the business community. He is the chairman of the Gateway Chambers Alliance, a member of the San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of Chambers, a Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce board member and an active participant in the Inland Empire Chamber Alliance.
Despite repeated attempts by the Sentinel to locate Cetina and speak to him directly, phone messages left for him at the Metropolitan Water District office as well as on his cell phone and emails sent to his Metropolitan Water District and Cucamonga Valley Water District addresses, Cetina has not responded to questions relating to whether he believes his lack of experience in the private sector might hamper him in serving as supervisor as well as questions relating to his vote in 2015 as a water board member to shift the electoral schedule of Cucamonga Valley Water District board members in such a way that it provided him and his colleagues with what is a two-year extension in office during which he and they did not need to be answerable to the district’s constituency.
The Sentinel sought to reach Rutherford’s campaign consultant in the 2018 election, Matt Rexroad, who is rumored to be lined up to assist Cetina in his electoral effort next year.
“I don’t even know who that is,” Rexroad said.
-Mark Gutglueck

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors next week is scheduled to approve two contracts totaling $39 million with two vendors who are to supply ballots and voting pamphlets to be used by the county’s voters at all local elections to be held for the next five years.
On Tuesday, the board will consider a $17 million contract with Toppan Merrill, LLC for printing and mailing services for voter information guides for the period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026.
Voter information guides are mailed to voters approximately one month before an election to assist with exercising the right to vote. The guides include a sample ballot, instructions on how to vote, candidate statements, the text of local measures, an impartial analysis of measures appearing on the ballot and arguments for and against the measures, as well as information about the assistance that county registrar of voters office provides in assisting individuals in casting their votes.
The vast majority of jurisdictions in San Bernardino County hold elections that correspond with the presidential and gubernatorial elections, both primary and general, in even numbered years. A few cities and districts hold elections in odd-numbered years. The county, cities and districts can call for a special election, as can a group of residents if they file a petition and gather sufficient signatures as specified under state law.
According to San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Bob Page, “A portion of the expenses associated with the printing and mailing of voter information guides and sample ballots are billed to jurisdictions that call for an election and candidates who request a candidate statement be included in the guide.”
If competing candidates for an office up for election or reelection do not emerge, the county, a city, district or agency can forego holding an election and allow the incumbent or the sole candidate for that position to take office without voter participation.
Also on Tuesday, the board of supervisors will vote on Page’s recommendation that the county contract with K& H Printers, Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $22 million for the period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2026 to supply ballots for the elections to be held over the next five years.
The ballots to be supplied include ones that are to be used by voters at polling places as well as mail-in ballots, along with special ballots that are needed for voters with specific handicaps.
K & H is to comply with regulations pertaining to the security of ballots set by the California Secretary of State and the California Elections Code. Under the contract, designated employees of the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office are to be given full access to the K & H’s premises at any time, day or night. K & H is prohibited from allowing any unauthorized access to the ballots or their removal from the vendor’s facility before they are delivered to the county.
San Bernardino County has recently invested in purchasing Dominion Voting Systems machinery to carry out voting at its precincts.
K & H, under the contract, is to follow California regulations for printing Dominion Voting Systems ballots. The Dominion ballots are 8.5 inches wide with three columns and a minimum of 11 inches long and a maximum of 22 inches long. The number of candidates and measures on the ballot are to determine the length of the ballots.
K & H is also supplying mail-in ballots together with the envelopes in which the ballots are sent to the voters and which also contain the envelopes in which the voters mail the ballots back to the registrar of voters office. The return envelopes are white and nine inches wide and either five, seven or eight inches tall, with red printing. They are to be printed with a no postage necessary indicia.
In addition to the mail-in ballots and the poll ballots issued to voters at polling place locations for voting on election day, K & H is to supply the county registrar of voters with counter ballots, those being official ballots issued over the counter to the voters at early voting locations prior to elections and on election days, and training ballots, which are ballots utilized to train poll workers with regard to election day procedures.