In his whirlwind tour of the Golden State to stave off next month’s effort to recall him from office, Governor Gavin Newsom came to San Bernardino today to provide those in the impoverished county seat the lowdown on his accomplishments during his 21 months in office at the pinnacle of political power in California.
Newsom is the son of William Alfred Newsom III, an attorney for Getty Oil, administrator of the Getty Family Trust and a Superior Court judge and later appeals court judge. In his early twenties, Gavin Newsom used money provided to him by J. Paul Getty’s son, Gordon Getty, to start ten different businesses, one of which, PlumpJack Winery, became successful. In 1998, at the age of 31, he ran successfully for a position on the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors. In 2003, he was elected mayor of San Francisco. He retained that position until he was elected California’s lieutenant governor in 2011.
In 2018, by which point he was a mainstay of California’s Democratic establishment, he was elected governor. Newsom has embraced a bevy of progressive measures both prior to and during his tenure as governor, including abolishing capital punishment in California; categorizing a significant number of non-violent offenses previously designated as felonies as misdemeanors; championing free community college education; promoting government subsidization of technological innovation in the private sector; imposing a moratorium on any newly initiated hydraulic fracturing and steam-injected oil drilling in the state until the permits for those projects are reviewed by an independent team of scientists; seeking accountability and prosecution relating to provable instances of police brutality and excessive use of force; promoting water-sharing and water conservation among the state’s agricultural interests, its urban, metropolitan and municipal entities and environmentalists seeking to preserve rivers and lakes as habitat for endangered fish; decriminalizing the use of marijuana; meaningfully addressing the homelessness crisis; reducing the state’s energy reliance on the use of fossil fuels; and reducing the cost of healthcare.
Along the way he has garnered some degree of controversy as when he defied state law as mayor of San Francisco in 2004 by directing the San Francisco city/county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples, in violation of state law at the time, which precipitated a California Supreme Court ruling later that year which annulled the marriages. He also skirted the law when he encouraged major corporations such as AT&T, Comcast, Kaiser Permanente, Pacific Gas & Electric and United Airlines to make donations to the Representation Project, a nonprofit run by his wife, the actress Jennifer Siebel Newsom. The millions of dollars the Representation Project has received from donors who have an interest in state legislation and policy has provided Siebel Newsom not only with the capital she needs to produce movies and documentaries, but more than $2.4 million in salary since the Representation Project was founded in 2011.
Gavin Newsom has continued to back the completion of the California High Speed Rail Project, which is already under construction and is intended to connect the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center in Orange County and Union Station in Los Angeles with the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco. While the project’s sponsors and advocates as well as some others have touted the project as a farsighted undertaking which will provide benefits to the regions in California it will service and will represent a relative environmental improvement as it will lessen the use of vehicles transiting between Southern California and the Bay Area, there have been substantive questions about the economic cost and viability of the system as a transportation mode, given that it will have relatively few embarkation locations and limited destinations. The estimated cost of the project, originally pegged at $40 billion in 2008, has gone to $98 billion at present and is likely to triple to $300 billion by its projected 2033 completion. Even the most confident projections with regard to the system’s ridership levels upon completion hold that the system will not generate enough money in fares to sustain its operations going forward, let alone cover the cost of right-of-way acquisition and construction.
With 46.3 percent of California’s voters registered as Democrats and 24 percent affiliated with the Republican Party, Newsom seemed secure as the resident of the Governor’s Mansion at 1526 H Street in Sacramento at least until January 7, 2023, when his first term as governor was set to end, and perhaps until 2027, at the end of what would be the second and last term he could serve as governor under California’s term limits. The advent of the COVID-19 crisis, which provoked stern measures from the government to check the advance of the disease, let loose mounting disaffection on the part of the public with the precautionary measures being taken. A highly vocal and energized minority of the public adhered to a belief that the virus was no danger at all or was being used by liberals in control of the so-called Deep State to further assist in the government’s enslavement of the public and to erode the rights of Americans, while simultaneously increasing the authority and power of government. An even larger segment of the population, though less inclined to assign malicious intent to the part of the government, nevertheless grew weary, restless and disenchanted with the imposition of the precautions, which involved stay-at-home orders, mask-wearing mandates, business closures and other bothersome measures which Newsom had imposed through executive orders.
As the crisis wore on and businesses affected by the closures were driven into failure or their owners forced into bankruptcy, anger toward the government mounted. Opportunistically, Newsom’s opponents, primarily Republicans whose control in the Golden State had elapsed more than a decade ago at the close of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s second term as California governor, rose up and sought to convince their fellow citizens that Newsom was not fit to serve as governor and should be removed from office. They began a petition drive toward that end. Efforts by the state government to push residents to consent to being vaccinated against the coronavirus malady, even though the vaccines in use had not been certified as fully safe by the Food and Drug Administration, prompted even more more residents to support the recall drive as that effort neared its deadline. Well before the signature gathering effort drew to a close in April, recall proponents were able to garner more than the 1,495,000 signatures needed statewide to force Newsom into a special election in which his longevity in office was to be the main question on the ballot, accompanied by a vote as to who should succeed him.
That recall election, the second one in two decades, the last being the successful effort to remove then-Governor Grey Davis, likewise a Democrat, in 2003, stands as a mortal threat to Newsom’s political career. The recall election is to take place on September 14, what is to be Gavin Newsom’s moment of truth.
The proponents of Newsom’s recall say he practically violated the law with his plan, in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, to provide mail-in ballots to every registered active voter for all elections. They suggest this is a silent conspiracy by Newsom and Democrats to allow illegal aliens to vote.
Newsom was responsible for $1 billion in unemployment checks going to prisoners and felons while those legitimately deserving of such assistance were ignored, his opponents state. They blame him for squandering $80 million on a billboard campaign to instruct people to social distance in the face of the COVID-19 threat. Newsom is soft on crime and has granted clemency to vicious criminals, according to those favoring the recall. He has taken a stand against gun owners and the Second Amendment, recall advocates say. Newsom is responsible for California’s homeless problem, his political enemies insist, and he is in favor of rent control. He has provided sanctuary in California for illegal aliens, according to those who want him removed from office, and he has allowed those in the country illegally to participate on state governmental boards and has provided state-sponsored medical insurance to unregistered aliens, along with welfare and food stamps, while simultaneously providing $50 million to subsidize illegal alien-owned businesses. Newsom is a tax and spend liberal who oversees a state with the highest income tax in the nation, those who want him removed from office say, and he has ruled like a tyrant, carrying out his depredations on the backs of the taxpayers who are staggering under a 7.25 percent state sales tax. He is working to layer into the tax code higher property taxes, the recall advocates warn, and they decry California’s vehicle registration tax as the highest in the United States. Newsom is a cop-hater who has hamstrung law enforcement agencies in their mission to collar criminals, they maintain. He has been both too easy and too hard on Pacific Gas & Electric, recall proponents say. His mandates that state residents wear masks is unconstitutional, his critics charge. Under his watch, the state purchased inferior masks from Chinese vendors rather than Americans. Under his management, the state’s debt has skyrocketed to $1.3 trillion, his rivals hasten to point out. Newsom is alleged to be a hypocrite who does not wear a mask when he is in social circumstances and who has skipped out on paying his property tax. As governor, he is driving farmers in the Central Valley into bankruptcy and ruin by his water rationing, his political enemies say. He is a tool of the public employee unions, according to the recall advocates. He has overstated the COVID-19 danger, his detractors say, and was responsible for too many people in the state’s nursing homes dying from COVID-19. He overstepped his authority by signing an executive order to phase out gasoline powered cars by 2035, it is alleged.
While Newsom doubtless has his detractors, his performance as governor has fallen within the standard realm of deviation of what President William Harding referred to as normalcy. No intractable scandal has befallen him and no indictable behavior that would qualify him for prosecution let alone conviction has surfaced. At the same time, he, like virtually all successful politicians, has engaged in fundraising efforts to endow his political war chest with money in ways that come across as being short of ethical. His opponents have condemned him for a host of attitudes, actions, non-actions and managerial faux-pas they perceive as being direct consequences of his arrogance. Much of that criticism is contradictory, as when he is blamed for a homeless crisis that has been burgeoning for a generation, while he is simultaneously excoriated for advocating rent control.
To be sure, like the rest of the Democratic Party, Newsom continues to advocate a welfare state that carries with it a price tag he and his political supporters have no realistic means of defraying, even as the state’s burdensome taxing structure is pushing more and more businesses, which represent the heavy lifters who are carrying the welfare state upon their backs, toward leaving California.
In the main, the primary grounds cited against Newsom to justify his removal as governor relate to the COVID-19 crisis.
In that regard, the record would appear to vindicate the governor. He has been charged with overreaction to a non-crisis and overstepping governmental authority and the bounds that should be applied in terms of governmental imposition of its authority. It is said he has overreached with his executive orders and mandates. And indeed, Newsom was bold in this regard, just as the Republicans maintain. Nevertheless statistics compiled by the National Centers For Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta show that as of August 4, 2021, of all of the major population states in the United States, with a single exception, California had the lowest COVID-19 related death rate among its citizens, making it a safer place than Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois Ohio, Georgia and Michigan. The Golden State, with 163 deaths per 100,000 population, fared better than Ohio, with 176 deaths per 100,000; Florida with 182 deaths per 100,000; Texas, with 184 deaths per 100,000; Illinois with 204 deaths per 100,000; Georgia, with 205 deaths per 100,000; Michigan with 212 deaths per 100,000; Pennsylvania with 218 deaths per 100,000; and New York with 276 deaths per 100,000.
Indeed, the only one of the ten states with a population of over 10 million residents that had a lower COVID-19 death rate than California was North Carolina, with 130 deaths per 100,000.
Whether or not those subject to his rule as governor appreciated it or respected his decision-making and the considerations that went into how he has governed in specific regard to the most immediate health threat to his constituents, the reality is that Newsom implemented a policy that protected the residents of his state more effectively than did the governors of eight of the nine largest states in the nation other than California, and that he did so in the face of fierce resistance and in spite of the potential political cost to himself, as the ongoing recall effort attests. Newsom’s profile is thus one, according to his supporters, in courage.
Having emerged from the woodwork are a number of opportunists – 46 to be exact – who are looking to replace Newsom as governor if the recall succeeds. Among those are former Republican Congressman Doug Ose; former Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley; Libertarian Jeff Hewitt, a Riverside county supervisor; Republican Ted Gaines, a former assemblyman and state senator; Republican Kevin Faulcanor, San Diego mayor; Republican Caitlyn Jenner, a transgender former Olympian and television personality; Republican Larry Elder, a conservative talk show host; Republican John Cox, a businessman who lost to Newsom in 2018; Democrat Kevin Paffrath, a real estate and stock investor who is advocating the construction of a canal from the Mississippi River to California; Republican Leo S. Zacky, one of the owners of Zacky Farms; Republican Anthony D. Trimino, an advertising executive; California National Party member Michael A. Loebs, a secessionist intent on having California de-annex from the United States to become its own sovereign nation.
For those seeking Newsom’s recall, the hope is that virtually all of the state’s Republicans will turn out to vote for his removal from office, that they will be joined by large numbers of the state’s voters who have no political affiliation or are aligned with the more obscure political parties as well as by a fair number of disaffected Democrats, while a good number of the state’s Democrats, who generally have much poorer voter turnout at election time than Republicans, will be even less attentive than they normally are and will not turn out to keep Newsom in office.
Meanwhile, Newsom is out there on the hustings, seeking to energize the majority of the state’s voters who elected him lieutenant governor in 2010, reelected him to that post in 2014, and made him governor a little more than two-and-a-half years ago.
This morning, he was in San Bernardino, seeking to remind voters in the overwhelmingly Democratic city that he is their strongest advocate in Sacramento. In his speech, he said the state and its residents need to pull together to overcome the resurgence of COVID-19 in its so-called Delta variant through an even fuller vaccination of the population than the state has already achieved and through maintaining the discipline of using masks in public. Also featured in his presentation was promoting his Comeback Initiative, a $123.9 billion economic recovery program which contains money to boost California’s public K-12 education system, as it moves into reopening classrooms after a year of classes being conducted remotely and on-line.
Prior to making his speech, Newsom made an appearance at Juanita B. Jones Elementary School in San Bernardino. This week, on Monday, Juanita B. Jones began conducting classes for the first time since the school was shut down as a safety measure in reaction to the rapidly spreading coronavirus outbreak in March 2020.
During the photo op, Newsom interacted with a class of first graders.
Notably, Newsom, who is dyslexic and reads at a fifth grade level, did not participate in any of the class’s reading lessons. Instead, he took off his suit coat and, sitting on a chair in front of the students while they sat cross-legged on a mat in the classroom, participated in a listening circle.
Newsom dialogued with the kids and asked them about their attitude with regard to returning to class.
“We’re done with Zoom school,” said Newsom.
“Yeah!” responded one of the students.
“Are you over that?” Newsom asked.
“Yeah,” shouted one of the kids.
“I’m over it, too,” said Newsom.
The education portion of his Comeback Initiative, Newsom said, will “transform schools into gateways to opportunity.” He said public schools in low-income neighborhoods can “fundamentally transform into the kind of complete campus every parent would want for their child – with before- and after-school instruction, sports and arts, personalized tutoring, nurses and counselors and nutrition for every kid in California.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Since shortly after Robert Shuey’s April 26 death, there has been persistent mystery as to how, exactly, he died, and by whose hand.
It was widely anticipated that the eventual release of the documentation of the autopsy carried out eight days after he died would clear up a good portion of the confusion, if not all of it.
Now, more than three months later, the coroner’s office’s findings have been made public. Nevertheless, despite the official cause of death pronounced in that document being acute fentanyl toxicity, it is still unclear as whether he was shot and suffered a fatal wound to his head, as has been widely rumored from the start, whether he was shot in the head but did not expire from that injury, whether a profusely bleeding hole at the base of his skull was not, in fact, a bullet entry or exit wound, or whether the presence of the powerful synthetic opiate present in his system was the sole factor that precipitated his death.
The information now available in the document known officially as an autopsy protocol, its accompanying toxicology report and attached investigator’s notations confirm much of the general narrative relating to Shuey’s final hours and minutes that has made the rounds since April, with some clarification as to further exact detail. Some of the previous narrative was inexact or wrong. For example, it was circulated, and previously reported in the Sentinel that Shuey was found dead inside his Blue Jay home, which was locked from the inside, on the morning of April 27. In fact, Shuey was discovered there in the evening of April 26.
Previous reports were that Shuey was shot point blank in the face. More recently, it was intimated that Shuey was shot at close range in the back of the head. Throughout that time, there was a contradictory report that Shuey had expired from a fentanyl overdose, which occurred either accidentally or deliberately as a suicide.
Even as the autopsy protocol sheds light on those previously shadowy versions of what occurred or may have occurred, it yet stands, despite its recitation of scientific fact, as a document of remarkable ambiguity. Still unresolved, in any satisfactory manner, is exactly how 30-year-old Robert Allen Shuey died.
Both the coroner investigation report and the autopsy protocol show acute fentanyl toxicity as the cause of death. On April 27, Jeff Lewison, a supervisor in the San Bernardino County Coroner’s Office, which is a division of the sheriff’s department, completed what was labeled as the “coroner supplement report” relating to Shuey’s death. Lewison, who arrived at Shuey’s residence at 11:57 p.m. on April 26, compiled the report based upon information provided to him while he was there by the first member of the sheriff’s office to arrive on the scene of the death, Deputy William Chad Zerbe, as well as by Dorian Stefan, who had discovered Shuey deceased earlier that evening.
At 9:12 p.m. on April 26, 2021, Lewison was called by Zerbe, who had previously been dispatched to the death scene, and was informed about Shuey’s death.
Lewison’s report states, “On Monday, 04/26/2021, at 2112 hours [9:12 p.m.], San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Deputy W. Zerbe called to report the home death of Robert Shuey, age 30. I was assigned this coroner call, number 83, at 2244 hours [10:44 p.m.]. On Monday, 04/26/2021, at 2251 hours [10:51 p.m.], I spoke to Deputy Zerbe by telephone. The following is a summary of his statement. On Monday, 04/26/2021, at 2033 hours [8;33 p.m.], [the] San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department got a call for service from Dorian Stefan. She arrived at the residence located at 27115 Highway 189 in Blue Jay, as Shuey’s truck had been out front all day, which was unusual. The house was blacked out and the dog was home. She looked in the window and saw Shuey on the floor from the glow of the pilot light of the heater. She knocked on the door, knocked on the windows, and he did not answer. She used her key to make entry into the home. She saw him on the floor, and he had purple discoloration. She called 911. Stefan was Shuey’s three-year-old daughter’s babysitter. The little girl stated, ‘My daddy’s been shot.’ The little girl told deputies later that a boy came in and shot her daddy in the nose. She did not hear any loud bang. Earlier in the day, sometime in the morning, Shuey told his daughter to go into the bedroom and hide (according to the daughter). Later, the ‘boy’ arrived and the little girl initially stated she heard a boy’s voice and then later said she heard a girl’s voice. After Stefan called 911, deputies arrived and Deputy W. Zerbe confirmed the death at 2100 hours [9 p.m.]. Shuey had a history of drug use but there was no obvious paraphernalia in the house. Deputy Zerbe had notified Gary Shuey, Shuey’s father, of the death. Gary stated that Shuey had used methamphetamine, Xanax, and fentanyl in the past. He believed he was currently using fentanyl and had been for the past six months.”
Lewison’s report continues, “I responded from the Central Coroner Division at 2307 hours [11:07 p.m.] and arrived at 2357 hours [11:57 p.m.]. While awaiting the response from the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department Overdose Response Team, I performed a body examination and located what appeared to be a gunshot exit wound in the back of the head. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Homicide Division was notified.”
According to Lewison, “The scene consisted of a single-story, single-family home in the mountain community of Blue Jay. The front entrance was on the center of the north side of the home. The body of a white male adult was supine on the floor in the geographic middle of the home. The head was oriented west and faced upright. The gas wall heater was immediately to the right of the male’s hip. The heater was on. In the bathroom in the center of the south side of the home, there was a small screw top vial filled with white bar pills with ‘Y21’ imprinted on them. There were approximately 6-1/2 pills remaining.”
Lewison’s report continued, “On Tuesday, 04/27/2021, at approximately 0015 hours [12:15 a.m.], I spoke to Stefan on scene. The following is a summary of that interview. Stefan has known Shuey since they were 15 or 16 years old. He had a history of methamphetamine use, but she believed he quit using methamphetamine several years before. He did not use tobacco, but he did smoke marijuana. He consumed alcohol socially, but in the past had drunk heavily to the point where he would black out nearly every time he drank. Stefan was not aware of any mental or medical health issues that Shuey had. He had been stabbed several years prior. I began the examination at 0130 hours [1:30 a.m.]. The body was that of a white male adult that appeared to be the described age of 30 years old. He had short blond hair, green eyes, was approximately 76 inches, and weighed approximately 180 pounds. He had a clean-shaven face. The body was supine on a carpeted floor. The head was oriented west and faced upright. The right arm extended slightly out from the shoulder approximately 45 degrees from the side of the torso. The right forearm was resting against the front of the gas heater. The left arm was extended out from the shoulder approximately 45 degrees from the side of the torso. The left elbow was bent and the left hand with a closed fist was resting on the front of the upper left shoulder. The right leg was extended slightly forward of the hips. The left leg was extended slightly out from the hip with the knee bent approximately 90 degrees. The body was clothed in a pair of blue briefs. The upper and lower natural teeth were present. The upper and lower frenula were intact. There were two broken teeth in the mouth that appeared to have been there for an extended period of time. There was a white foam exuding from the mouth. There was a reddish-brown fluid in the mouth. Bloody purge exuded from the nose. The nails were intact and there was no indication of injury or defensive wounds. The top of the left foot had a large bony bump. There was a linear scar approximately 4 inches in length on the outside of the left shoulder. There was a diagonal scar on the left flank. There was a linear surgical scar on the left flank. There were Tardieu spots on the left flank near the armpit. There was a healing abrasion on the inside of the right ankle.”
Tardieu spots are observed in the tissues of people who have been asphyxiated.
Lewison’s report further states, “There were no therapeutic devices.”
Lewison provided an inventory of Shuey’s visible tattoos. “‘Crestline’ was on the outside of the left ankle,” Lewison reported. “A clock with a knife in it was on the front of the left chest. A skull with four aces was on the inside of the upper left arm. A skull was on the outside of the upper left arm. A large indistinguishable design the size of a dinner plate was on the center of the back.”
Lewison thereafter provided a description of visible evidence of trauma to Shuey’s body.
“There was a circular defect on the back-left side of the head approximately one inch above the hairline,” the report states. “The underlying surface was slightly raised. Blood exuded from the wound. There was an abrasion on the left knee.”
According to Lewison, at that point, “The body was cool to the touch. Rigor mortis was present and was difficult to break. Lividity was present in the posterior of the entire body. It was also present on the anterior of the right arm. It blanched with significant pressure.”
According to Lewison, after the arrival of homicide investigators, “San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Crime Scene Specialist S. Mathis performed a gunshot residue test.”
Lewis reported that “The examination concluded at 0135 hours [1:35 a.m.]. I took 52 photographs of the body and scene. Toe tag #01836 was affixed to the great right toe by transport personnel. The body was placed in a yellow coroner body bag and secured with pouch lock #5140972. After the examination, the body was transported to the San Bernardino County Morgue facility by All Caring Solutions transport. The transport of the body was delayed due to the necessity of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Homicide Division response.
Lewison noted that “Dorian Stefan initially identified the body to sheriff’s deputies. Due to the nature of the examination, fingerprints were requested to be obtained at autopsy.”
According to Lewison, “Deputy Zerbe notified Gary Shuey, Shuey’s father, on Monday, 04/26/2021, at approximately 2151 hours [9:51 p.m.].”
An autopsy was performed on Shuey’s body on May 4 between 9 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. by Brian Hutchins, a forensic pathologist, assisted by Andrea Meacham. Present were Kevin Riberich, Ian Gosswiller, and A. Martinez, all of the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department.
The nomenclature on the autopsy is given variously as A0954-2 1 H U or A-0954-21,
The bottom line of the autopsy was that a “30-year-old male [was] found dead in [his] residence,” that he died of “acute fentanyl toxicity,” that “Prescription drugs [were] found at the scene” and that Shuey had a “reported history of drug abuse.” The “postmortem toxicology” revealed that Shuey had “fentanyl 3.6 ng/mL and norfentanyl 0.41 ng/mL in [his] femoral blood.” The findings were that there were on Shuey’s body “no traumatic injuries [and] no penetrating injuries.” The cause of death was listed as “acute fentanyl toxicity, [occurring within] minutes.” The manner of death, the report said, was an “accident.”
Despite the conclusion that Shuey had suffered no traumatic injuries, under the category of external examination, the autopsy protocol states matter-of-factly, “The head is covered by short blonde hair. Facial hair is cleanly shaven. There are no petechial hemorrhages in the conjunctivae of the lids or sclerae. There is congestion seen in the eyes. Upper and lower teeth are present. There are no injuries in the lips or oral mucosa. Upper and lower extremities show no edema. The external genitalia are without trauma or lesions. There are multiple healed surgical scars noted in the following areas: right shoulder, left shoulder, right elbow, left elbow, left flank, and left upper back. There is a small abrasion noted on the left knee. There is focal abrasion noted on the posterior surface of the right forearm. There is small abrasion noted in the medial aspect of the right foot. There is a small puncture noted on the left occipital scalp/base of the neck.”
With regard to the internal examination of Shuey’s head, Hutchins stated, “There is no hemorrhage in the scalp. There are no fractures of the calvarium or base of the skull. There is no epidural, subdural, or subarachnoid hemorrhage. The brain is 1500 grams. The cerebral hemispheres are symmetrical. A normal convolutionary pattern is observed. Upon sectioning of the brain, there is no hemorrhage or lesions seen within the cerebrum, brainstem, or cerebellum. The vessels at the base of the brain have a normal pattern of distribution. The cranial nerves are present.”
With regard to Shuey’s neck, Hutchins wrote, “There is no edema of the larynx. The hyoid bone and larynx are without fractures. There is no hemorrhage in the throat organs or strap muscles. There are no prevertebral fascial hemorrhages. The tongue is unremarkable.”
Included in the coroner’s examination report was a toxicology report completed by NMS Labs in Horsham, Pennsylvania on May 31, 2021. According to that analysis of Shuey’s femoral blood, reported by the lab’s certifying scientist, Erik Flail, there were 3.6 nanograms of fentanyl per milliliter of Shuey’s blood and 0.41 nanograms of norfentanyl per milliliter of his blood.
Investigating with Deputy Zerbe the circumstances surrounding Shuey in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of his body was Sheriff’s Detective M. Del Rio.
Lewison held off on making his conclusion as to the cause of death until June 4, at which point he offered his concurrence that the cause of death was acute fentanyl toxicity.
The investigative summary of the case included in the coroner’s report states, “On Monday, 04/26/2021, at 2033 hours [8:33 p.m.], Dorian Stefan called 911 after finding her friend, Robert Shuey, age 30, unresponsive in his home. Deputy W. Zerbe arrived and confirmed the death at 2100 hours [9 p.m.]. Shuey had foam cone, and Xanax pills without an obvious prescription were located in the home. During the body examination, a small defect was observed in the back of the head consistent with a small caliber gunshot wound. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Homicide Division is investigating.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Officials with the cities of Fontana and Upland recently opted to make substantial monetary payouts to claimants alleging police department misfeasance in circumstances where the wrongdoing alleged was less than clear-cut.
In both cases, taxpayers were fleeced because leadership in the respective cities was unwilling to test the oftentimes capricious nature of the court-and-jury system or withstand the confusion of public perception in the face of controversy the actions in question engendered. Nevertheless, the controversy those governmental entities sought to avert has intensified rather than abated because the nondisclosure clauses put into the settlements has heightened rather than diminished public curiosity about the illegitimacy of the backroom dealing their public officials are engaging in.
In Fontana, the parents of a burglar who in February was shot and killed by police after he was caught in the act during a break in and then attempted to flee were provided with a cool $1 million in response to a claim they filed against the city.
Amond Hawkins and Kenisha Kinard, represented by the Law Firm of Douglas Hicks Simplis & Perez, in March lodged that claim against the city based on the death of their son, Daverion Deauntre Kinard.
According to the Fontana Police Department, at approximately 10:30 p.m. on the evening of February 13, 2021, a resident of a home in the 16500 block of Casa Grande Avenue in north Fontana who was not present at the residence was alerted, through a video surveillance and digital relay and notification system, that there was an intruder on his property. The homeowner contacted the police department, which dispatched officers, including one subsequently identified as Johnny Tutiavake, to the Casa Grande location.
Upon reaching the home, the officers encountered Kinard, who had a criminal history involving burglary. An effort to take Kinard into custody failed, and he took flight, heading into a tract of homes under construction south of Casa Grande Avenue proximate to Justin Street and Heinz Way. Officers, having seen Kinard dart into the construction site where they believed he was hiding, summoned back-up assistance, intending to form a perimeter and then converge methodically toward the center of the site to find Kinard and take him into custody.
Before that occurred, however, Officer Tutiavake approached a portable toilet at the construction site and opened the door. As Kinard, who was in the mobile toilet, bolted forward in effort to again elude capture, Tutiavake discharged his service gun once, striking Kinard in the front thorax.
Thereafter, officers attempted to render assistance to Kinard, in vain, as his aorta had been ruptured by the gunshot. He died at the scene.
There was a video of the shooting captured on Tutiavake’s body camera.
A claim against a public agency is considered to be a precursor to a lawsuit. For legal action being pursued in state court in California, claimants must file a claim against a pubic agency within six months of the incident out of which the alleged damage occurred. The public entity can then acknowledge the claim as valid or reject it. Upon rejection of the claim, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit against the public agency pertaining to the alleged damage.
For reasons that are not clear, the City of Fontana and its police department, which acknowledged shortly after Kinard was shot and killed that he was not armed, has refused to release Tutiavake’s body camera footage of the February 13 incident.
Tutiavake was placed on administrative leave in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, but has since been reinstated to full duty, pursuant to a finding that he acted properly.
At the time of the February 13 incident, Kinard was on a probational release related to a previous burglary conviction, and was avoiding incarceration by having agreed to engage in no further violations of the law and submit to supervision.
In a full and final settlement of Amond Hawkins’ and Kenisha Kinard’s claim, they are receiving $1 million, have dropped their demand that the grainy nighttime video of the shooting be released and that they make no public comment with regard to the shooting nor any comments about the city or the department that might be interpreted as “disparaging.”
The City of Upland has just paid out over half of a million dollars to a woman who was given a temporary and tentative promotion from her senior administrative assistant position in the police department to that of executive secretary to the police chief and then returned to her senior administrative assistant post after the police chief came to the conclusion she did not have the requisite skill to hold the executive secretary slot.
The woman, Luz Elena Barrett, in April 2020 took an unanticipated leave of absence from her post as acting executive assistant to the police chief and the following month submitted a draft civil complaint to the city, threatening to file it in state court. The unfiled complaint contained allegations that Barrett had been the victim of racial/ethnic/gender discrimination. Barrett’s contentions hinged upon her experience during the nearly 22 months she had served in the executive assistant’s post with the department.
Darren Goodman moved into the police chief’s position with Upland, effective July 16, 2018, the first African-American to achieve the rank of police chief in Upland, and one of only a handful of African-American officers to have ever served with the department. Goodman, a graduate of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in 2015, where he studied local and state government executive management, held both a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Southern California and a doctorate attained at USC’s Rossier School of Education.
Goodman was previously a captain with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, with which his last assignment had been heading the Chino Hills Sheriff Station, where he served as Chino Hills de facto police chief overseeing the sheriff’s department’s provision of contract law enforcement service to the county’s southwesternmost city.
Barrett had begun as a clerical assistant with the department during the tenure of former Police Chief Martin Thouvenell. Thouvenell had departed as police chief in 2005, and over the next 13 years, Barrett had risen to the position of senior administrative assistant in the department, for which she was provided a $55,476.97 salary, $3,107.60 in overtime pay and $4,576.31 in other pay, along with benefits of $39,107.70 for an annual total compensation of $102,268.68 in 2017, the last full year when she was working in the capacity of senior administrative assistant.
Shortly after his arrival in Upland, Goodman promoted Barrett to the department’s vacant executive assistant at the insistence of certain colleagues who felt that the length of her time with the department warranted her promotion.
Barrett’s move into the executive assistant to the police chief post was a provisional one, contingent upon her demonstration of her ability to handle the assignment, whereupon she was to be given the full title of the position. Barrett’s remuneration in 2018, most of the later half of which she functioned as the department’s executive assistant, and in 2019, the entirety of which she was in the executive assistant billet, reflected a relatively modest increase in pay of around $2,000 annually for her having taken on the executive assistant assignment. In 2018, Barrett was provided with a $55,482.50 salary, $4,924.60 in overtime, $4,391.80 in other pay as well as $36,494.56 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $101,293.50. In 2019, Barrett’s salary was $57,586.11, she saw her overtime pay decrease to $395.93 and she was provided with other pay of $4,656.24 along with benefits of $39,299.16 for a total annual compensation of $101,937.44.
According to Goodman, he initially had confidence that Barrett would adapt to and hone the skill set necessary to function within the executive assistant position, and he strove to develop an amicable and trustful relationship with her.
Toward that end, Goodman has acknowledged, he and his family assisted Barrett with personal matters on a number of occasions, which extended to providing her with money to assist her with unexpected expenses beyond what she could afford based on her income. The conviviality that developed between the police chief and his executive assistant was reciprocal, and on occasion Barrett assisted Goodman and his wife in communicating with the Goodmans’ Spanish-speaking housekeeper. Barrett maintains, and Goodman acknowledged, that over a period of four months Barrett communicated by phone with the housekeeper and that on one occasion Barrett traveled to the Goodmans’ vacation home in San Diego County to meet with the housekeeper and translate for him.
Goodman contends that none of Barrett’s assistance to him and his wife was rendered on city time or at city expense, and that to compensate Barrett for her assistance, he had paid Barrett, as indicated in electronic bank transfer records. In addition, according to Chief Goodman, he provided Barrett with a week’s stay at his vacation home free of charge.
Goodman instructed Barrett that it would be best for her not to mention to anyone else at the department that she had stayed at his family’s vacation home.
Ultimately, Goodman came to the conclusion that Barrett, despite her clerical ability and fluency with the Spanish language, lacked the temperament and necessary skills to fulfill the role of executive assistant. He began documenting her shortcomings and, when his efforts to encourage her to better her performance through constructive criticism did not raise her performance to an acceptable level, he notified the city’s human resources department in March 2020 that he intended to return Barrett to her former classification upon the termination of her probationary period. Goodman maintains that Barrett either overheard his conversation with the city’s human resources director about his intention to implement Barrett’s demotion from the acting executive assistant post or that, as the lone member of the police department other than himself entrusted with a key to Goodman’s office, she had gone through papers relating to her planned demotion that were on his desk. The day before Goodman was to inform Barrett about her return to her former classification, she took a leave of absence.
Two weeks later, Barrett lodged a complaint with the human resources department in which she alleged that she had been subjected to mistreatment by Goodman, that she had been forced into working as a translator for him and that he had her do this personal work for him and his family while she was supposed to be working in her capacity as his executive assistant and was on the clock, and being paid as, a city employee. The complaint, a draft of a civil suit, stood as a claim against the city and Goodman for harassment and subjecting Barrett to a hostile work environment, while further maintaining Goodman had engaged in the misappropriation of department assets, that Goodman instructed or ordered Barrett to carry out personal errands for him on city time and that he had her forge a timecard to obtain city payment for the translation work she had done for the Goodman household.
On Friday, June 19, 2020, the Upland City Council, at that point functioning at four-fifths strength because of the resignation of former City Councilman Ricky Felix in May 2020, held a hastily-called closed-door meeting with then City Manager Rosemary Hoerning at which the tentative complaint against the city filed by Barrett was a topic of discussion, extending to what the council’s reaction should be. A suggestion, pushed by Hoerning, that some form of discipline should be directed against Goodman was considered but rejected in short order, as doing just that might be construed as an admission of the accusations contained in Barrett’s complaint. No authorization for any direct action was given. Three days later, on Monday, June 22, 2020, Hoerning, acting solely upon her own authority and with the backing of then-Mayor Stone, placed the police chief on administrative leave, citing the poor judgment exhibited by Goodman in his dealing with Barrett. When contacted by the Sentinel late in the morning of June 22, 2020 and queried about the suspension, Councilman Rudy Zuniga said he had not been informed in advance that it was going to take place. Councilwoman Janice Elliott likewise said she had no inkling of the action before it was announced. Zuniga and Elliot said there had been no authorization of the suspension in any vote taken.
A firestorm of protest among a cross-section of Upland citizens at what was perceived as a move toward sacking Goodman manifested. Virtually overnight, hundreds of lawn signs expressing support for Goodman were posted in neighborhoods all over Upland. Residents buttonholed and harangued the city council over Goodman’s suspension.
By June 25, it was widely known in Upland that Barrett’s accusation against Goodman consisted of her contention that she had assisted Goodman in translation and interpretation in his efforts to communicate with his family’s housekeeper, and that she had contended she had carried out that assignment while being paid by the city. Goodman marshaled evidence to demonstrate Barrett had forged the timecard she said supported her accusation.
On June 29, after the city had attempted but failed to prevent the widespread public surfacing of information relating to Barrett’s accusations against Goodman forming the grounds for the police chief’s suspension, Hoerning at the direction of Zuniga, Elliott and then-Councilman Bill Velto, reinstated Goodman.
Barrett, at the urging of her attorney, Bradley Gage of Woodland Hills-based Goldberg & Gage, held off on filing her complaint in Superior Court. Instead, in August 2020, Gage filed with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing on her behalf a discrimination complaint against the city and Goodman alleging she had been harassed and subjected to a hostile workplace because of her race and/or gender.
Under normal circumstances, the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing will carry out an investigation to determine if a complainant has a prima facie case to proceed to court with, and if so gives the complainant a letter known as a “leave to sue.” The California Department of Fair Employment & Housing did not provide such a letter, but the city folded nonetheless, agreeing to pay out $495,000 to be divided between both Barrett and Goldberg & Gage, and another $50,000 to Barrett for lost wages. The settlement was signed off on by acting Upland City Manager Steven Parker.
Barrett had been on paid leave since April 2020. Between April 2020 and July 2020, she continued to be paid as if she were in the role of executive assistant to the police chief, which provides an annual salary of $57,586.11 plus roughly $40,000 in benefits. From July 2020 until she officially left the city’s employ on June 3, 2021, she remained on paid leave and was paid as if she were functioning in the role of senior administrative assistant, which provides remuneration of about $55,600 in salary, roughly $2,000 less than the executive assistant post, along with another $40,000 in annual benefits.
The settlement agreement, agreed to and signed by Barrett in May, calls for her to receive in addition to the aforementioned $545,000, the pay she was due up to her June 3 resignation, and that she is to forsake any further legal action against the city and Goodman. The pact further requires that both sides are to remain mum with regard to the entire matter. The settlement holds neither side to blame and makes no admission of wrongdoing by any of the parties. Money paid out under the settlement is for “non-economic damages and attorney’s fees.”
In this way, after not working for more than a year, Barrett, along with her attorneys, is to receive a payout equal to more than nine years of her annual salary.
A handful of Upland citizens expressed to the Sentinel outrage over the matter. While some conceded that Goodman should not have entangled his personal and family affairs with one of his subordinates, and that his having done so made rescinding her temporary promotion to the position of his executive assistant awkward, resident after resident expressed the opinion that Barrett’s assertion of discrimination was spurious. The settlement in excess of half of a million dollars that was conferred on her, despite her admission of having fraudulently altered her own timecard, was characterized in numerous ways, including being uncalled-for, a shake-down and a gift of public funds.
Similarly, 16.8 miles to the east, in Fontana, residents there were incredulous that the city’s taxpayers were on the hook for a million dollars to the family of a burglar, given that under California statute and established case law, law enforcement officers are authorized to use lethal force in the apprehension of a fleeing felon who represents a threat to the safety of an officer or a member of the public. Referenced was the department’s determination that Officer Tutiavake had acted properly and was reinstated to full duty as an indication that the shooting was both practically and legally justified, which would have obviated the need to settle the claim brought by Kinard’s parents.
-Mark Gutglueck

By Mark Gutglueck
The San Bernardino City Council this week confirmed that it is purposed to pursue censuring Mayor John Valdivia
Valdivia, who was elected to the city council to represent the city’s Ward 3 in 2011, reelected in 2015 and elected mayor in 2018, began his mayoralty in December 2018 in political ascendancy. He counted among his allies then-Fifth Ward Councilman Henry Nickel and then-Sixth Ward Councilwoman Bessine Richard. Valdivia had lent support to the council’s two newly-elected members, First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez and Second Ward Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra in their successful November 2018 electoral bids, and this gave him a solid ruling coalition, as his only rivals on the council at that time were then-Seventh Ward Councilman Jim Mulvihill and Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett. In May 2019, when Juan Figueroa, whom Valdivia had backed, won a special election to fill the Third Ward position from which Valdivia had resigned to become mayor, Valdivia appeared to have an airtight lock on the council and substantial sway over governance in the then-215,941-population county seat.
As mayor, Valdivia repeatedly made commitments to do the bidding of individuals and businesses making substantial contributions to his campaign fund as well as to those which hired his firm, AAdvantage Comm LLC, to provide them consulting services.  This meant he encouraged the council members over whom he had influence to support with their votes his campaign contributors or clients when those entities had issues pending before the city council. In a relatively short time span, this damaged Valdivia’s reputation. As Valdivia’s credibility as a dedicated and compassionate community leader eroded, first Nickel, then Ibarra and eventually Sanchez distanced themselves from him.
This worsened when three female staff members working within the mayor’s office and then a woman he had appointed to two city commissions accused him of making sexual advances to them. Ultimately, five employees who had worked in the mayor’s office, two men and three woman, filed suit against him and the city, saying they were pressured by the mayor to engage in improper and illegal acts, and had become aware of Valdivia’s bribetaking and trading political donations for official city action which favored those who provided him with money.
In the 2000 election cycle, Nickel and Richard were displaced on the council by, respectively, Ben Reynoso and Kimberly Calvin, as was Mulvihill by Damon Alexander. Richard and Figueroa had been Valdivia’s last remaining allies on the council. Valdivia had hoped that Alexander’s votes might prove out to be ones he could count on. Alexander realized, however, that Valdivia was isolated on the council, and that neither Reynoso nor Calvin were willing to join Valdivia’s coalition, making any affiliation he might form with the mayor pointless. Since December 2020, when the council as it is currently composed was installed, Valdivia has had control of but a single vote on the council, that being Figueroa’s.
The mayor in San Bernardino has limited voting power. He is permitted to vote on the hiring of employees and the appointment of commissioners and committee members, but cannot vote with regard to most other issues or decisions that come before the city council, with the exception of being able to vote to break a tie vote and to veto a 4-to-3 or 3-to-2 vote of the council.
Valdivia’s loss of control over the council represented an existential threat to his continuation not only as mayor but as a politician, increasing his need to raise money to fatten his already substantial political war chest, which currently stands at $394,622.54. Valdivia has continued to raise a substantial amount of money from donors such as Edward Atsinger III, Cole Burr, Tracey Burr, Canon Management DFT, Capitalist Masters Group, Phil Cothran, Dedeaux Properties, Brett Dedeaux, Del Rio Transportation, Diamond Chevrolet, DM Bertino, Josh Dome, Jimmy Espinosa, F4 Starhouse, Gant Trave, Michael Gay, Michael Giuliano, Cesar Gomez, Jerrod Gutierrez, Cody Holmes, JM Endeavors, JM Realty Group, KAL Freight, Don Kaplan, Joshua Kaplan, Troy Kirtley, George Kritikos, Jeremy Krout, Tak Lam, Nicole Landis, LeadNet, Lewis Pacific Partners, Hanhsing Li, Jose Limon, Longo Customs Service, Leonard Lundin, Stephen Matich, Pacific/Lewis Properties, Juan Zuniga, Woodrow Wong, Warmington Residential California, Vone SB LLC, Steve Velazquez, Aldi Ujkaj, Thienes Engineering, Mike Cox, Bradley Steege, Skyline Equities, Sigra LLC, Shryne Group, SGI Retail, Sergio’s Pallet Repair, Michael Sadeghian, SA Recycling, Geoff Rosenhein, Ezequiel Reynoso, Dinesh Ram, Provident Land Associates, Dipak Patel, Jonathan Pauls, Shina Park, Hae Park, and Panda Restaurant Group, largely by telling them or otherwise convincing them that he has control of the San Bernardino City Council.
Valdivia is at a crossroads. He has enough money to likely ensure his reelection as mayor in San Bernardino in 2022, as the more than $400,000 he will have by the time the campaign for mayor next year begins in earnest will allow him to buy television and radio ads, billboard visibility, tailor drafted and subject specific mailers to be sent selectively to the city’s voters in accordance with their ethnicity, political party affiliation, age, gender and income level. Nevertheless, because of the enmity he already has on the council, it is not likely that Valdivia will be able to accomplish much as mayor if he were to remain in that office four years beyond next year. If his donors catch on that he is unable to deliver to them the things he is promising, his future prospects of raising money will dim. For that reason, for some time he has been casting about to find another political office he can seek and succeed in winning, such as in the California legislature.
This year, prior to San Bernardino’s state of the city address, he arranged a VIP [very important person] reception to follow his speech, what was to essentially be a meet and greet with his campaign donors and political supporters. Rather than use the money he has accumulated in his electioneering fund to hold that event, however, he arranged to have the city defray the cost of the soiree, which was held at the Hilltop Restaurant on Kendall Drive. The owners of the Hilltop Restaurant are among Valdivia’s donors. The invitation list to the get-together consisted primarily of Valdivia’s political donors. He did not try to hide the baldly political nature of the conclave, and he did not extend invitations to six of the city council’s members. The sole member of the city council invited was Figueroa, the only member of the council with whom Valdivia is on good terms.
The use of public money for political promotions is illegal. The council moved to challenge Valdivia on what he was doing, even before the event was held. When he went through with the reception as planned, the council called upon the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office to investigate the matter, and it voted to consider censuring Valdivia.
Over the last month-and-a-half, momentum has built toward the council officially rebuking the mayor using the censure process.
Internally at City Hall, the forces in place are divided. In Valdivia’s corner are City Manager Robert Field and Director of Community and Economic Development Michael Huntley. Though City Attorney Sonia Carvalho spent months shielding Valdivia from accusations of wrongdoing and the claims of sexual harassment leveled at him by his former staff members, his often intemperate statements in public, including lashing out at her when she has made interpretations of the law not fully to his liking during council meetings, has soured her on the mayor. Many staff members make a show of cordiality toward him, but evince disdain for him in private. While Field has attempted to maintain a positive relationship with the entire council, his accommodation of Valdivia has not sat well with some of the council, in particular Councilwoman Calvin.
A contingent of residents who have been gunning for Valdivia have likewise accused both Field and Huntley of militating on the mayor’s behalf and enabling him in his pay-to-play shakedowns of those with project or permit applications before the city or who are competing for or have already attained contracts or franchises with the city. An unintended consequence of those accusations, accurate or not, has been to shunt Field and Huntley even further to the Valdivia side of the mayor-council divide.
If, however, Field has indeed used his authority as city manager to attenuate the effort to censure Valdivia, he has succeeded not so much in blocking it as delaying it.
This week, Assistant City Manager Rebekah Kramer authored a report to the council on the council’s previous request for a cataloging of its options in pursuing Valdivia’s censure.
In her report, Kramer endeavored to facilitate the council’s call to “establish whether there is substantial evidence to proceed, provide due process and decide whether to schedule a hearing and consideration of [a] final resolution of censure.” In doing so, Kramer set out a charge sheet against Valdivia which will likely be the blueprint for that action, which the council appears to be on a trajectory to pursue.
Kramer wrote, “A censure is generally understood to be “an official reprimand or condemnation; an authoritative expression of disapproval or blame.” The city council has authority to censure an individual councilmember. A censure is generally adopted by resolution and represents the opinion of a city council or other public body, but does not levy a fine, suspension, or other penalty. While there is no statute directly addressing censure, many local legislative bodies have adopted resolutions condemning inappropriate behavior and violations of policies and laws. A censure is one way of distancing the public agency from bad behaviors that interfere with the agency’s ability to conduct the public’s business. While censure does not remove an elected official from office, it may serve an important purpose by stating to the public that certain behavior is unacceptable to the other council members. It is a form of self-policing for elected officials.”
Thereafter, Kramer got down to brass tacks, and laid out the tentative reasons why the mayor should be officially rebuked. Valdivia’s alleged transgressions included, according to Kramer:
“1. Violation of Fair Political Practices mass mailing regulations. 2. Improper payment of subscription services to support text messages and communications for personal gain. 3. Using [a] personal political consultant to advise and prepare [the mayor’s] state of the city address. 4. Using city staff and expending city funds for personal or political purposes, including the planning and hosting of a personal mayor’s VIP reception. 5. Using a consultant hired by the city to videotape the virtual state of the city address to support the mayor’s personal VIP reception. 6. Submitting reimbursement claims for hotel and food unrelated to official city business. 7. Soliciting sponsorship from [the] Inland Empire Health Plan to offset [the cost of the] personal VIP reception and offering [the] Inland Empire Health Plan special invitations to the VIP reception. 8. Causing [the] city to expend thousands of dollars in investigations and lawsuits related to behaviors found to be inappropriate. 9. Violating the city charter by directing the city manager to fire city employees.”
Notably, because they carry with them the potential of exposing the city to legal liability, Kramer avoided mention of out and out instances of graft Valdivia is known or suspected of being involved in and it made no explicit mention of the accusations leveled at Valdivia in a number of lawsuits filed against the city.
There was some irony in Kramer’s authoring of the report. The ninth element of the charge sheet – directing the city manager to fire city employees – was a partial reference to Kramer herself. The Sentinel is reliably informed that among the city employees Valdivia was pressuring Field to fire were Kramer and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Jim Tickemyer. Field did not accede to those requests, and Tickemyer remains in place. Though Field did not cashier Kramer, she has, the Sentinel is told, wearied of having to deal with the mayor, who has constantly pushed her to use her authority to take action that has not been authorized by the city council or the city manager. She has resigned, the Sentinel is told, officially effective August 12, but has already left the city. Human Resources Director Edelia Eveland is serving in her place as the interim assistant city manager. In this way, one of Kramer’s last acts as an employee with San Bernardino was to choreograph the city council’s censure of Valdivia.
As Kramer’s report stated, a censure carries with it no actual direct impact on an elected official’s status. It does, however, provide ammunition for a political rival to use in an effort to prevent the official from being reelected.
Censures are relatively rare. In recent years in San Bernardino County, five examples readily come to mind.
In 2000, the San Bernardino City Council censured then-City Attorney James Penman. At that time, San Bernardino city attorney was an elected position. Penmen was reelected in 2003, 2007 and 2011, but recalled from office in 2013.
In 2003, the Ontario City Council censured then-City Councilwoman Debbie Acker, who was consistently out of step with the direction the remaining four members of the council favored for the city. Acker opted out of seeking reelection the following year.
In 2014, the Ontario City Council considered censuring Councilman Paul Vincent Avila, who like Acker was perennially at odds with his colleagues on the council and was even more strident than she was in raising his objections and hurling insults at his rivals. The council instead of censuring Avila sanctioned him, an act that was distinct from a censure without any practical difference. In 2016, Avila lost his bid for reelection.
In 2017, the Upland City Council, four members of which were pushing for the shuttering of the city’s then-111-year-old fire department to effectuate the county fire department’s takeover of the city’s fire and emergency medical service, censured Councilwoman Janice Elliott for continuously indulging and facilitating residents’ protest of the move. The following year, Elliott, who was then in the middle of a four-year term on the council to which she had been elected in 2016’s at-large citywide election, was elected to represent the city’s First District in the first by-district election in Upland’s history.
In 2019, Winn Williams, who had been elected to the Chino Valley Independent Fire District Board of Directors in November 2018, was censured twice within the first eight months of his tenure on the board, once in February 2019 and again in July 2019. Williams remains on the board, and is scheduled to stand for reelection in 2022.
As the San Bernardino City Council took up the subject of the censure of Valdivia at its council meeting on Wednesday this week, Valdivia portrayed himself as an aggressive politician working on behalf of his constituents, and he painted his council rivals as obstructionists who were politicizing the circumstance for their own gain.
“I have been meeting with residents throughout our community for many, many months, one on one and learning from their perspective and issues,” the mayor said. “Of the topics that are most common amongst the residents are the need to address our city as a whole, and the desperate need to advance the game ball for Team San Bernardino. Most residents are ready and eager to support positive change that will boost San Bernardino’s future success. Unfortunately, as exemplified by Item Number Five on tonight’s agenda [the censure issue], too many city council members are obsessed with engaging in negative politics instead of providing community leadership. For example, I worked my tail off to bring responsible and world class development to our downtown. Beginning in the summer of 2019, I led and interviewed many developers which expressed interest and came up with a short list of top developers to come to San Bernardino. I made my recommendations to our city staff and spent time with them to deliberate and provide my recommendations for our city’s downtown. I encouraged the RFQ [request for qualifications] process, and then I led the city council to the RFP [request for proposals] process, and then politics entered in. As mayor, I worked hard to attract a major investor who would tear down the blighted Carousel Mall, and initiate the much needed renovations of our downtown. Instead of supporting this great opportunity, Councilmember Calvin and her allies rejected the investor solely because of political gamesmanship, halted the demolition study, and inserted herself with faulty accusations, and led this do-nothing city council, which is before you, to a standing halt. The result is that our big elephant in the room tonight is the Carousel Mall, which costs $700,000 to $800,000 in annual maintenance costs and security and board-up services. Now it has come to light that the council’s chosen developer does not have the capacity to do the necessary renovation. Thanks to Councilmember Calvin’s decision to choose politics over progress, San Bernardino is now back to square one on downtown development.”
Valdivia turned to Sanchez. “As mayor, I have also been meeting regularly with regional business leaders to attract new jobs for our families and reduce San Bernardino’s chronically high unemployment rate,” Valdivia said. “Yet, instead of embracing this new economic development, Councilman Sanchez has decided to play political games and instead push for a moratorium that would drive jobs and businesses away from San Bernardino.”
He next addressed Reynoso.
“As mayor I also helped a common sense solution to grind and remove the unsightly pile of concrete in the north end of the city,” Valdivia said. “Many other cities have successfully used this approach for concrete removal on site. Sadly, Councilman Ben Reynoso decided to play politics and killed the cleanup plan. Thanks to Councilman Reynoso, the ugly concrete pile is still there, with no timeline or plan for removal.”
Valdivia continued, saying “This do-nothing city council has it wrong and the voters and residents of this community have had it. They want real, tangible, pragmatic solutions and they want it now. So I ask these members and our community: ‘Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs you have brought to the West Side, Councilmember Calvin? What jobs and businesses have you attracted in your over 13 years of representing Fourth Ward residents, Councilman Shorett? What are you doing every day for residents of the Fourth Ward, Fred?’”
The mayor reached out to sting Alexander, accusing him of spending $5,400 of taxpayer money on ceremonial flags. He said the city council was more interested in “business cards, parking spots, name plates [and] fancy monogrammed shirts” than serving the city’s residents.
He charged the city council with valuing “politics over progress. A city council majority won’t support naming a permanent police chief for San Bernardino. They’re trying to fire our new city manager and rearrange the deck of a ship here called San Bernardino. The people of San Bernardino are fed up with this do-nothing city council who spends all of their time measuring drapes, counting paper clips and all of their time and energy spent on politics, yet our community suffers. Enough is enough, and it’s time for council members to get to work, to stop the negative political antics. It’s time for them to drop their meaningless censure resolution, and start supporting positive changes to make our city better.”
Valdivia’s sallies at the council did not dissuade it from its ineluctable march toward censuring him. Calvin sought to turn the matter into a factfinding effort, and she began to question Field about what he knew about the allegations on the charge sheet Kramer had created. Both Field and Valdivia insisted that the item before the council that evening was procedural to get the consideration of whether a censure should be made to the next level, and that evening’s proceedings were not intended to allow the sort of factual inquiry Calvin was pursuing to take place that night.
Shorett, who observed that in his speech Valdivia was “denying everything and blaming everyone else,” made a motion to have the process move forward, with staff fleshing out and providing evidence to support the charges outlined by Kramer so that they could be presented in a finalized form, after which a formal hearing to allow Valdivia to respond could be held. Thereafter, a vote by the council to censure or not censure Valdivia would ensue.
Councilwoman Ibarra brought up having two or three members of the council form a subcommittee to work on the language of the censure resolution. Shorett said that was not part of his motion, and the wording of the resolution could be arrived at after the independent investigation was completed to determine the facts of the matter.
Both Field and Carvalho emphasized the need for due process. Carvalho did indicate, however, that a portion of the investigation had already been carried out, which had involved the unearthing of “a thousand” pages of documents, some of which, she indicated, appeared to implicate Valdivia in what he had been accused of. Other accusations had yet to be fully documented and substantiated, she indicated.
Alexander seconded Shorett’s motion to have city staff and the city attorney continue with their investigation and upon its completion have the matter brought back for consideration of whether the grounds to create a resolution of censure existed. The measure passed unanimously.

Click on the image above to enlarge it.

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the State of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at said address below on: 08/20/2021 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
21 GREA / 1GR1A0626MK225890 /556V360 CA
To be sold by CONTINENTAL TOWING 14601 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published on 08/06/21

NOTICE OF SALE OF AUTOMOBILE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 3071 of the Civil Code of the State of California the undersigned will sell the following vehicle(s) at lien sale at said address below on: 08/20/2021 09:00 AM
Year of Car / Make of Car / Vehicle ID No. / License No. (State)
11 TOYPTA / 4T1BF3EK7BU657226 /537HUJ CA
To be sold by CONTINENTAL TOWING 14601 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA CA 92335
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published on 08/06/21

CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): CIVDS 2014752
SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR. and DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more infor-mation at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov) en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): JOHN S. BUZAS, SBN: 117797, GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436-9292
Date: (Fecha) July 1, 2020
Clerk of Court (Secretario)
La Shonda Richardson, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel July 16, 23, 30 & August 6, 2021
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
Case No.: CIVDS2014752
ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO, and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ
Plaintiffs
vs.
JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants
To Defendant, JACK RODRIGUEZ, JR., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Plaintiffs, ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN
OBANDO, and CRYSTAL GONZALEZ, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 425.11, hereby state the nature and amount of damages being sought as follows:
1. ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $30,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $3,047.31
(2) Future medical expenses (present value) $2,500.00
AUXILIADORA DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $30,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $3,042.68
(2) Future medical expenses (present value) $2,500.00
CRYSTAL GONZALEZ:
A. GENERAL DAMAGES:
(1) Pain, suffering, and inconvenience $15,000.00
(2) Emotional distress $5,000.00
B. SPECIAL DAMAGES:
(1) Medical expenses (to date) $1,496.29
(2). Future medical expenses (present value) $500.00
Dated: September 8, 2020
GABRIEL& ASSOCIATES
By SAMUEL E. GABRIEL
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
ALVARO GONZALEZ GARCIA, AUXILIADORA
DORIAN CARMEN OBANDO, CRYSTAL
GONZALEZ
JOHN S. BUZAS, SBN: 117797, GABRIEL & ASSOCIATES 801 PACIFIC AVENUE LONG BEACH, CA 90813
Telephone:(562) 436-9292
Facsimile: (562) 436-3131
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel July 16, 23, 30 & August 6, 2021

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER  CIVSB2118341
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Shannon Anjanette Griffin filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Shannon Anjanette Griffin to Shannon Anjanette Nichols
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/08/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the 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: July 08, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/16/21, 07/23/21,  07/30/21, 08/06/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210006452
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lux Rejuvenation Aesthetics, 1835 W Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373, Medical Legal Management, 1835 W Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Maria Sanchez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/18/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/16/21, 07/23/21, 07/30/21, 08/06/21

FBN 202100073333
The following entity is doing business as BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335: BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/Julie Diaz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 7, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/16, 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RICHARD WARMOUTH, JR.
CASE NO. PROSB2100233
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RICHARD WARMOUTH, JR.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by KIMBERLY MICHELLE WARMOUTH, JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that KIMBERLY MICHELLE WARMOUTH, JR. be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on AUGUST 25, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JULY 7, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RUTH ELLEN MOORE
CASE NO. PROSB2100233
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RUTH ELLEN MOORE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON LEE LUNGER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON LEE LUNGER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on AUGUST 21, 2021 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.
Date: July 9, 2021
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 5/21, 5/28 & 6/4, 2021.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN GONZALEZ SIERRA
CASE NO. PROSB2100213
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUAN GONZALEZ SIERRA, aka JUAN GONZALEZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JUAN RICARDO GONZALEZ ESTRADA, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JUAN RICARDO GONZALEZ ESTRADA, be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JULY 2, 2021
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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 5/21, 5/28 & 6/4, 2021.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARCIA FAYE HAMMOND
NO. PROSB2100293
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARCIA FAYE HAMMOND:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by BLANCA S. HAMMOND in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BLANCA S. HAMMOND be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
JUDGE STANFORD E. REICHERT
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: JULY 8, 2021
Attorney for the Petitioner:
Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Blanca S. Hammond
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30 & 8/06, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2114732
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JAMES FLANNIGAN IV filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JAMES*** FLANNIGAN IV to Flannigan IV, James
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/15/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 13, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/23, 7/30, 8/06 & 8/13, 2021
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ROGER LINDENMUTH
CASE NO. PROSB2100063
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ROGER LINDENMUTH has been filed by ERIC LINDENMUTH in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ERIC LINDENMUTH 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 will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held NOVEMBER 4, 2021 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.
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.
Eric Lindenmuth
1148 Stonewood Ct.
San Pedro, CA 90732
(310) 872 6599
el.photography@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 30 and August 6 & 13, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: EMMETT RICHARD WALKER
CASE NO. PROPS2100054
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EMMET RICHARD WALKER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by SHARON STONE WALKER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SHARON STONE WALKER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 1:30 P.M. on AUGUST 19, 2021 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: TECLA M. LUNAK (SBN 457090)
LAW OFFICES OF TECLAR M. LUNAK, A.P.C.
71-780 SAN JACINTO DR., BLDG A-3
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Telephone No: (760) 834 8625
Fax No: (760) 834-8596
tecla@lunaklaw.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/30, 8/06 & 8/13, 2021.
FBN 202100073333
The following entity is doing business as BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA 92335: BUENOS DIAZ INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION SERVICES 17914 FOOTHILL BLVD. #A FONTANA, CA  92335
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Julie Diaz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 7/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 7, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 7/30, 8/06, 8/13 & 8/20, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007776
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: New Horizon Real Estate Investments, 10730 Church Street Unit 204, San Bernardino, CA 91730, Chris Butner Mortgages LLC, 10730 Church Street Unit 204, San Bernardino, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Christopher Butner
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007712
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Swirls Soft Serve, 1217 W. Foothill Blvd, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 75 Camellia Court, Upland, CA 91786, Gazar Investments LLC, 75 Camellia Court, Upland, CA 91786
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Gerard Azar
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007572
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Express Notary; Mountain Express Notary; Express Notary & Scan; Mountain Express Notary & Scan, 2562 Oak Dr, Running Springs, CA 92382, Mailing Address: PO Box 1948, Running Springs, CA 92382, Rita C. Nelson, 2562 Oak Dr, Running Springs, CA 92382
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Rita C. Nelson
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/02/2021
County Clerk, s/ I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007551
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: MRC Financial Services; MRC Insurance Services, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336, Richa G Chand, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336, Ravi S Chand, 14807 Hillstone Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: A Married Couple
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Ravi S. Chand
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
07/30/21, 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LARRY VERNON JUDKINS
CASE NO. PROSB2100331
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of LARRY VERNON JUDKINS has been filed by BARBARA L. NEWMAN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BARBARA L. NEWMAN 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 will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
THE PETITION requests a $350,000 bond fixed. The bond will be admitted by an admitted surety insuere or as otherwise provided by law.
Decedent died on 1/08/2021 in HELENDALE, CA, a resident of San Bernardino County.
A hearing on the petition will be held SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 2021 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.
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
MAY 6, 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.
The petition requests that a bond not be required.
The character and estimated value of the property of the estate is estimated at $464,000.
Filed: JULY 26, 2021
Attorney for Barbara L. Newman
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 August 6, 13 & 20, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
CESAR OSORIO
NO. PROSB 2100339
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CESAR OSORIO
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JULIUS OSORIO in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JULIUS OSORIO be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S36 at 9 a.m. on SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: JULY 20, 2021
Judge Tara Reilly
Attorney for Julius Osorio
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel August 6, 13 & 20, 2021.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2119271
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: KHAREY JAMAL PERRY filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
KHAREY JAMAL PERRY to KHOREY JAMAL PERRY
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/15/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: July 23, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20 & 08/27/21, 04/16/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2120037
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:
RUDOLPH GONZALEZ filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
RODOLFO CLEMENTE GONZALEZ to RUDOLPH GONZALEZ
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 09/14/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
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.
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20 & 08/27/21, 04/16/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME NUMBER 20210007348
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: DYNAMIC SPA 1955 E FOURTH ST ONTARIO, CA 91764: YUEQING, INC. 8191 BOLSA AVE MIDWAY CITY, CA 92655
Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/YAN QING DONG
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/12/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21& 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME NUMBER 20210008133
The following person is doing business as: GOT COOKIES? 6826 LUCERO DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336:
JENNIFER L. JEEVES 6826 LUCERO DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JENNIFER L. JEEVES
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/13/2021
County Clerk, s/ I7122
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21& 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007343
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Sky Spa, 4012 Grand Ave, STE E, Chino, CA 91710, Mailing Address: 142 E. Bonita Ave 181, San Dimas, CA 91773, AGX Group LL, 142 E. Bonita Ave 181, San Dimas, CA 91773
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Wei Xin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/08/21
County Clerk, s/ I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007868
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: DVK Consulting & Financial Svcs, 1128 W. Mission Blvd, Suite C, Ontario, CA 91762, Deyanira Brandon, 875 S. Mountain Ave., Ontario, CA 91762
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Deyanira Brandon
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/30/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/22/21
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210007242
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: On Time Home Inspections, 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Mailing Address: 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Juan J. Tobin, 10123 Hampshire St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/Juan J Tojin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/01/21
County Clerk, s/ I5199
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
08/06/21, 08/13/21, 08/20/21, 08/27/21
AFFIDAVIT
Notice
of
NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT
Nation of American Hebrew Israelite Monarchy referred to hereafter as, “NAHIM”,
attests it was established January 1, 2013 in the San Bernardino County, the California State,
as an “Independent Sovereign Government”, authorized by ‘law to exist pursuant to,
“Luther v. Borden US !,12;.LED 581. 1st Amendment Article 1l, 10th Amendment, & 11th Amendment.
‘’NAHIM’’ attest, the NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT is our “OFFICIAL IDENTIFICATION.” We have created our passport for the purposes of traveling worldwide, by air, land or sea; afforded the protection of “SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY” under the laws of the United States Constitution. We are centered on creating friendly relationships and communication with other countries worldwide for the ‘purpose of ministering salvation and the gospel of our heavenly father who is ‘OUR KING” Yhoah Ehyeh the creator of the heaven & earth in their countries.
‘’NAHIM’’ attest, the NAHIM Govemment is “Not” affiliated with the U.S. Government, nor any of it’s law enforcement agencies, yet we share the same goals of “HONORING/OBEYING’ the U.S. Constitution. All of our passport holders. “ARE AMERICAN BORN CITIZENS”.
This Affidavit of Notice can.be refuted by “ANYONE” within 30 days in a court of law by affidavit using U.S. Constitutional laws “ONLY” signed under perjury and notarized in the presence of a notary public proving the NAHIM Government passport is by U.S. Constitutional law “UNLAWFUL.” Should NO ONE refute this affidavit within the given 30 days of receiving it in a court of law, it is then DECLARED”, THE NAHIM GOVERNMENT PASSPORT IS A LAWFUL “SOVEREIGN PASSPORT TO POSSESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS WHICH AUTHORIZES ITS EXISTENCE
AND USE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD.
Send your Affidavit of refute to:
E. Sog
NAHIM Government
General Delivery, San Bernardino, Ca 92402
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210005949
The following person is doing business as GARNISH PIZZA & GRILL 7890 HAVEN AVE. UNIT 15 & 16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730:
NATION FOOD SERVICE INC 7890 HAVEN AVE. UNIT 15 & 16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA C4264978
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ PARVINDER SINGH
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/3/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: APRIL 10, 1990
County Clerk, Deputy I6764
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210006061
The following person is doing business as OPTIMA REEFER SERVICE 18960 CAJON BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407: OPTIMA REEFER SERVIC, LLC 18960 CAJON BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
This Business is Conducted By: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA 202114810451
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JOSE F. VALENCIANO GUTIERREZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/08/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021
FBN 20210006059
The following person is doing business as OPEN DOOR REALTY & INVESTMENT 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
ROSA M ESTRADA 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 [and] RICARDO CASTRO 8291 UTICA AVE STE A RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ ROSA M ESTRADA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/8/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 07/02, 07/09, 7/16 & 07/23, 2021

FBN 20210007079
The following person is doing business as: SAYULITA 369 1315 HARD STREET UNIT B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); CESAR A. SIGALA ORTIZ 1315 HARDT STREET UNIT B 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: 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/ CESAR A SIGALA ORTIZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202101SN

FBN 20210006838
The following person is doing business as: BEE CUTE FASHION 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; MINDY RODRIGUEZ 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; ELIZABETH M SALAZAR 15764 COUNTY CLUB DR. CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
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/ MINDY RODRIGUEZ, GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/01/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB282021002CV

FBN 20210006385
The following person is doing business as: RIVAS TRANSPORTATION 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA 4620 LEROY ST SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92404
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/ JUAN ANTONIO RIVAS ORELLANA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 06/17/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202103MT

FBN 20210007041
The following person is doing business as: CHERRY REGISTRATION 14976 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT #300 FONTANA, CA 92335 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); GABRIELA J ALVARADO 14976 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT #300 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ GABRIELA J ALVARADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202104MT

FBN 20210007054
The following person is doing business as: CHALECO’S LOGISTICS 461 E. REDLANDS BLVD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS );[ MAILING ADDRESS 700 E. WASHINGTON BLVD COLTON, CA 92324]; JOSE G VALDEZ GALINDO 700 E. WASHINGTON ST. SPC #21 COLTON, CA 92324
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/ JOSE G. VALDEZ GALINDO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/08/2021
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 07/16/2021, 07/23/2021, 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021 CNBB28202105IR

FBN 20210007451
The following person is doing business as: AND.STUDIOS 16803 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); NAVA DAVID 16803 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; CHARLY PIZANO 16809 MESA OAK AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 15, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DAVID NAVA, PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202101RC

FBN 20210007079
The following person is doing business as: JIF ENTERPRISES 1508 BARTON RD #283 REDLANDS, CA 92373 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); KUSUMA R PHILIP 1508 BARTON RD #283 REDLANDS, CA 92373
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/ KUSUMA R. PHILIP, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/12/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202102MT

FBN 20210007224
The following person is doing business as: LG AUTO SALES, LLC 1680 SOUTH EAST STREET B-232 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); LG AUTO SALES, LLC 1680 SOUTH STREET B-232 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
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/ LAWRENCE M. GITONGA, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202103MT

FBN 20210007204
The following person is doing business as: OSCAR’S CONCRETE PUMPING 18618 GROVE PL BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); MIGUEL A GARCIA NUNO 18618 GROVE PL 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/ MIGUEL A. GARCIA NUNO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202104MT

FBN 20210007202
The following person is doing business as: CHASQUI 8880 ARCHIBALD AVE UNIT E RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); LUQUEVAL INC 2450 S ATLANTIC BLVD COMMERCE, CA 90040
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/ MANUEL G. LUQUE, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202105MT

FBN 20210007290
The following person is doing business as: ACADEMIA DE DANZA PROFETICA ALFA Y OMEGA 18467 BELLLFLOWER ST. ADELANTO, CA 92301 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); DOLORES ARREDONDO 18467 BELLFLOWER ST. ADELANTO, CA 92301
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/ DOLORES ARRENDONDO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/15/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202106MT

FBN 20210007349
The following person is doing business as: THE 3 PET-A-TEERS 1824 N. MILLSWEET DR. UPLAND, CA 91784 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 1734 GLENDORA, CA 91749]; ARIAL V LOGAN 1824 N. MILLSWEET DR. UPLAND, CA 91749
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/ ARIAL V. LOGAN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202107IR

FBN 20210007467
The following person is doing business as: BALANCE IN MOTION 1881 COMMERCENTER E DRIVE SUITE 200 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 411 EASTVAE, CA 91752]; TOO BE FREE RECOVERY INCORPORATED 1881 COMMERCENTER E DRIVE SUITE 200 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
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/ STACEY Y. HARVEYFULLER, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202108IR

FBN 20210007350
The following person is doing business as: NO PRGM 24577 E MONTEREY AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; NATHAN MARQUEZ 24577 E MONTEREY AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 12, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ NATHAN MARQUEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/16/2021
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202109CV

FBN 20210007510
The following person is doing business as: NANI’S INMITABLE DESIGNS 11129 RIO SECO COURT ADELANTO, CA 92301( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ); NANI’S INIMITABLE DESIGNS LLC 11129 RIO SECO COURT ADELANTO, CA 92301
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: JUN 26, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LEOLA MITCHELL, MANAGER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
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 07/30/2021, 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021 CNBB30202110EM

FBN 20210007683
The following person is doing business as: CLUB SPIN 31514 YUCAIPA BLVD #D YUCAIPA, CA 92399 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CLUB SPIN LLC 31514 YUCAIPA BOULEVARD #D YUCAIPA, CA 92399
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/ KARLA ALANIS, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202101MT

FBN 2021007549
The following person is doing business as: CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE DESIGNS 18349 EUCALYPTUS ST HESPERIA, CA 92345 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); SAUL TREJO 18349 EUCALYPTUS ST HESPERIA, CA 92345
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 04, 2015
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/ SAUL TREJO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/22/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202102IR

FBN 20210007633
The following person is doing business as: RED’S HOLY SMOKES 2751 RECHE CANYON RD. SP 102 COLTON, CA 92324 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CHRISTOPHER L HINE 2751 RECHE CANYON RD. SP 102 COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CHRISTOPHER L. HINE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202103IR

FBN 20210007630
The following person is doing business as: PATRIOT PAINTING 1595 W HOLY ST RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); JAMES L KEMPLE 1595 W HOLY 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/ JAMES L. KEMPLE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202104IR

FBN 20210007545 STATEMENT OF ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTICIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
The following person is doing business as: THE ZUMBA ROOM 638 W. BASELINE RD RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); BELEN DIAZ 638 W. BASELINE RD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino County on 06/12/2017. Original File# 20170006873
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/ BELEN DIAZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/22/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202105MT

FBN 20210007602
The following person is doing business as: EST AUTO REGISTRATION 582 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); MICHAEL A DE LA ROSA 582 W FOOTHILL BLVD 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/ MICHAEL A. DE LA ROSA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/26/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202106MT

FBN 20210007687
The following person is doing business as: THE MOBILE HOT HOSE 1666 W 11TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); DEVIN L HUMPHREYS 1666 W 11TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
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/ DEVIN L. HUMPHREYS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202107MT

FBN 20210007656
The following person is doing business as: THE REAL ESTATE GUYS 3350 SHELBY ST SUITE #100 ONTARIO, CA 91764 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); LEONARD CALDERA 3350 SHELBY ST SUITE #100 ONTARIO, CA 91764
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LEONARD CALDERA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/27/2021
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
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202108MT

FBN 20210007681
The following person is doing business as: ALIGN HOMES 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202109MT

FBN 20210007669
The following person is doing business as: ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ JOHN DOUGLAS GOTOYCO FONTAMILLAS, SECRETARY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/27/2021
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
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202110MT

FBN 20210007679
The following person is doing business as: CSG LIVING GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE # 460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/28/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202111MT

FBN 20210007607
The following person is doing business as: OPTIMUM REALTY GROUP 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ALIGN HOMES, INC. 10535 FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE #460 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
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/ JOEL R. VALMONTE, C.F.O
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/20/2021
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 08/06/2021, 08/13/2021, 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 CNBB31202112MT

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the July 30 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

The City of Upland’s recent renewal of a sales tax springback arrangement with Holliday Rock has brought a wider-scale refocusing to the manipulation of taxing authority by which cities are able to divert – some have used the term steal – other cities’ sales tax revenues.
Holliday Rock is one of Upland’s largest and most successful businesses. For fourteen years, the City of Upland has returned, or sprung back, to Holliday Rock 40 percent of the city’s share of the sales tax paid by that company’s customers for the products it sells.
One of the facts of municipal life is that some cities employ as their managers and administrators individuals who are more sophisticated than do many other cities. As in the natural world, where the strong prey upon the weak, in the world of government, where money is the lifeblood that enables official action, programs and the provision of services, the smart take advantage of the less well-informed and less-worldly.
One concept by which money makes its way out of the pockets of one city and into the coffers of another is that of point of sale.
Point of sale is a relatively obscure element of financial function that stands at the intersection of business and government in California, and it applies to in particular the use of taxing authority to enhance the financial circumstance of municipalities.
The State of California imposes a 7.25 percent sales tax on most goods sold in California, with exceptions made for services, unprepared and non-snack food, meals delivered to elderly and disabled people or patents, student meals, medicine, prisoner of war bracelets, blood storage units, carbon dioxide, cogeneration devices, organic fuels, animal feed, original works of art, newspapers and periodicals, items sold at yard sales, oxygen delivery systems, racehorse breeding stock, real property, school yearbooks, teleproduction equipment, timber harvesting equipment, used mobilehomes subject to property tax, vending machine sales, wheelchairs, crutches, canes and walkers, such that seven-and-one-quarter cents is tacked on to each dollar paid in purchasing transactions throughout the state. Of those seven-and-one-quarter pennies that go to the state for every dollar spent, one of those pennies is reserved for and given to the city where those sales occur. If the sale does not occur in a city but rather in an unincorporated county area, that penny is routed to the county government.
In most circumstances, sales occur over the counter, from a store, one that is located unequivocally in a given jurisdiction, such that there is no confusion with regard to which municipality or county is due that one cent per dollar in sales tax that is collected. In virtually all circumstances, the merchant making the sale is responsible for collecting the sales tax at the time of the purchase, and is responsible for passing the sales tax collected to the state, which then makes the disbursement of that portion of the sales tax to the relevant city or county.
In some relatively limited cases, cities use what are referred to as sales tax springbacks to induce a company, usually one with a relatively large operation and a substantial quantity of sales, to set up shop within its particular jurisdiction. For example, city officials in a given city are likely to recognize that an entrepreneur who is contemplating establishing a car dealership has options of placing that business not only in their city but in a neighboring one or perhaps another location. Those officials recognize as well that it would behoove them and their city to host that car dealership so that they will see the benefit of the substantial amount of sales tax to be realized from the sale of large numbers of big-ticket items such as cars, SUVs, trucks and vans. To ensure the dealership locates in their city rather than elsewhere, those city officials will sometimes offer the dealership’s owner an incentive to locate his/her operation in their city, particularly if they know that the entrepreneur is considering locating the dealership in another jurisdiction. In such circumstances, those city officials might be willing to offer to refund to the car dealership ten percent or 25 percent or even as much as fifty percent of the tax money to be generated by that dealership for a set number of years to persuade its owner to locate in their city. These city officials justify these sales tax springbacks by the knowledge that 90 percent or 75 percent or even 50 percent of the tax revenue those car sales in their city will generate is preferable to zero percent of the tax revenue those car sales will generate if they are sold in another location outside that city’s boundaries.
The controlling factor, generally speaking, as to which governmental entity is to be the recipient of the sales tax from a sale consists of the location at which or from which the sale is made. This location is referred to as point of sale.
Mid-size, large and giant companies and corporations often function from a multiplicity of locations, however, and under California law, such entities are permitted to designate a single one of those locations as its “point of sale” for all of its California locations. Thus, a corporation or company can, for example, sell its goods in a few, dozens, scores or even hundreds of places, communities or cities around California, yet have those sales registered as emanating from one specific location or city. A company or corporation designating a city as its point of sale for the products that business is marketing thereby routes all of the sales tax generated from those sales, no matter where they occur in California, to that city.
Such is the case with Holliday Rock and the City of Upland. Holliday Rock, a mining operation/manufacturing operation which produces aggregate, ready mix concrete, asphalt and construction materials, has been in business since 1937. Holliday Rock has 32 operations in San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, Kern and Orange counties, including three in Upland, Ontario, Chino, Colton, two in San Bernardino and Adelanto in San Bernardino County, as well as in the City of Industry, three in Irwindale, Montebello, Santa Ana, Irvine, Westminster, Vernon, Long Beach, Palmdale, Antelope Valley, Perris, Romoland, two in Sun Valley, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, Canoga Park, Mojave, Tehachapi, Ventura and Bakersfield.
In 2007, the City of Upland entered into a 15-year operating covenant with Holliday Rock, which is set to expire on June 30, 2022. In exchange for Holliday Rock’s commitment to continue its Upland operation and use Upland as its corporate point of sale, the City of Upland in that covenant agreed to spring 40 percent of the sales tax Holliday Rock collects annually back to the company.
According to a staff report by Upland Development Services Director Robert Dalquest dated July 26, 2021 but written prior to that date, “Holliday Rock has continued to expand its operations since the time that 2007 agreement was approved, and the city has negotiated a new agreement to reflect resulting increased sales tax attributable to Holliday Rock facilities within the city.”
Dalquest’s report, which was forwarded to the city council by Acting City Manager Stephen Parker, was intended to orient the city council with regard to the circumstance involving the city’s previous sales tax springback arrangement with Holliday Rock and the point of sale issue in preparation of the city council’s vote, scheduled for the Monday, July 26 meeting, on extending the arrangement with Holliday Rock another 15 years.
The report deals far more explicitly with regard to the sales tax springback while dealing with the point of sale issue obliquely. The indirect discussion of the full implication of Upland being Holliday Rock’s point of sale was to avoid alerting Ontario, Chino, Colton, San Bernardino, Adelanto, the City of Industry, Irwindale, Montebello, Santa Ana, Irvine, Westminster, Vernon, Long Beach, Palmdale, Antelope Valley, Perris, Romoland, Sun Valley, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, Canoga Park, Mojave, Tehachapi, Ventura and Bakersfield that Upland is diverting the sales tax they would otherwise be receiving to its municipal coffers exclusively.
The money at stake is not insubstantial.
“Holliday Rock estimates that over the 15-year term contemplated by this new agreement, Holliday Rock’s activities will result in $3,252,769,492 in taxable sales revenues sourced to the city, with $13,011,078 in covenant payments from the city to Holliday Rock, and $19,516,617 in sales tax revenues retained by the city,” according to Dalquest’s report.
Understandably, Upland officials, including Parker, Dalquest and the five members of the city council, are in no hurry to alert officials with many of the other cities where Holliday Rock has operations of something at least some of them do not realize, which is that Upland has effectively picked their pockets of the sales tax revenue that would otherwise have come their way over the last 14 years and that for the rest of the current fiscal year and for the decade and a-half to come after that, it will be siphoning off the sales tax revenue due them from Holliday Rock’s business activity in their jurisdictions.
Upland’s preempting of the 21 other cities’ and four communities’ shares of the sales tax from Holliday Rock’s operations and its hogging of all of that sales tax revenue is considered, by some, to be poor form on multiple accounts.
Holliday Rock’s operations involve at least nine mining operations similar to its one in Upland, which entail the generation of dust and exhaust from the machinery used to unearth, crush, convey and load gravel, rock and other ore. All of Holliday Rock’s operations involve the use of heavy duty trucks, most of them diesel-powered, carrying substantial loads on local streets. The pollution and contamination the mining operations entail, the belching of diesel and machinery exhaust into the air and the wear and tear on the streets to and from the Holliday Rock operations represent health, safety and economic costs to those communities which see no monetary benefits or cost offsets from Holliday Rock in terms of sales tax revenue flowing into those cities or communities.
The operating covenant between Holliday Rock and the City of Upland for the fifteen years running between July 1, 2022 and June 30 2037 ratified by the council in a 4-to-1 vote with Councilman Rudy Zuniga absent stated, “Holliday Rock shall designate the City of Upland as the sole point of sale for a significant portion of products sold, including but limited to, through an internet website or phone sales which are designated for any location within California. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration shall maintain the appropriate master sales permits applicable to and required for the operation of the facility. Holliday Rock shall consummate all taxable sales transactions for company sales activities at the facility, consistent with all applicable statutory and California Department of Tax and Fee Administration regulatory requirements applicable to Holliday Rock’s company sales activities and the designation of the City of Upland as the ‘point of sale’ for a significant portion of owner’s Holliday Rock’s company sales activities at [the] facility.”
Upland’s point of sale arrangement with Holliday Rock to seize for itself all of the sales tax revenue from the corporation is a direct and proximate cause of the other 21 cities and four communities not getting the sales tax to which they would normally be entitled.
Even more pointedly, the manner in which Upland and Holliday Rock mutually induced one another into maintaining the 2007 arrangement for another 15 years has been questioned. Upland offered Holliday Rock the incentive of a 40 percent sales tax springback. Holliday rock, at least implicitly, threatened to make a location other than Upland its point of sale. Were there no point of sale agreement between Holliday Rock and Upland, each of the 26 cities or communities where the company has operations would come in for a share of the sales tax levied upon the Holliday Rock products. Through its springback pact with Holliday Rock, however, Upland has made it so that the company, over the next 15 years, will keep more than $13 million in sales tax its customers will have paid to buy its products. Many see this springback as a kickback, by which Upland is able, under a loophole in California law, to essentially legally bribe Holliday Rock into designating it as the point of sale for all of its products, and by so doing deprive the cities where Holliday Rock is operating of sales tax they should receive while capturing for itself sales tax from places outside of Upland’s jurisdiction. If the City of Gracious Living were not offering the monetary inducement to Holliday Rock, it would not be receiving that enhanced sales tax revenue, which many people feel Upland is neither ethically nor morally entitled to.
This week, the Sentinel sent letters to Adelanto City Manager Jessie Flores, Chino City Manager Matt Ballantyne, Colton City Manager William Smith, Ontario City Manager Scott Ochoa and San Bernardino City Manager Robert Field, asking them if they believed the city each of them worked for is powerless to resist the arrangement Upland has with Holliday Rock, or whether they felt, on the contrary, that there was perhaps a way to prevent the sales tax from business activity involving Holliday Rock in their cities from being diverted to Upland. The Sentinel inquired as to whether they felt that the diversion of sales tax money to another municipality through the point of sale ploy was something entirely in the hands of another governmental entity such as the Tax Franchise Board or the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, and whether they had explored their options in preventing the loss of the sales tax revenue they should have been receiving from Holliday Rock. The Sentinel asked if those cities had in the past fought a battle over this issue and not prevailed or whether there was a case where some other city waged such a battle in court or elsewhere, establishing a precedent that made taking this issue up moot or futile. If that was not the case, the Sentinel inquired of each of the city managers whether they would they consider exploring their cities’ options in that regard.
By press time, neither Flores, nor Ballantyne, nor Smith nor Field had responded.
Ochoa did.
Ontario is no stranger to point of sale arrangements with companies doing business within the 50-square mile confines of Ontario’s city limits, deals which have enhanced Ontario’s revenues. In his response, Ochoa acknowledged that there was a cut-throat competition amongst cities to increase their revenue. He insisted, however, that this dog-eat-dog ethos, while somewhat unseemly, was not a result of unprincipled city officials who are taking advantage of cities other than their own which employ city managers and administrators less sophisticated and aggressive than they are. Rather, he said, what is happening is more a product of a state government which has over the past several decades deprived cities of revenues that were formerly available to them, while creating circumstances wherein cities, which have been outcasts from the feast of government funding, must fight among themselves for the leftovers and table scraps. Accordingly, he indicated, he did not begrudge Upland the money it is realizing through its arrangement with Holliday Rock.
“Particularly in the wake of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund takings of the 1990s, the ‘triple flip’ involving the reduction in vehicle license fees in the 2000s, loss of redevelopment in 2012, and the host of other state mandates along the way, cities in California have had to utilize whatever tools were still available to generate the general revenues needed for municipal services ranging from public safety to quality of life,” Ochoa said. “Sales tax sharing agreements are such tools. Until and/or unless the State of California rationally, comprehensively and strategically revisits the broad policy issue of intergovernmental revenue sharing, then my wager would be that cities will continue to unapologetically leverage the tools and rules as they currently exist.”
At their July 26 meeting, the four Upland City Council members present heard a presentation on the covenant from Dalquest and an exposition from Holliday Rock principal John Holliday with regard to his company. They then voted to extend the operating covenant between Upland and Holliday Rock for a decade-and-a-half, effective July 1, 2022. During the presentation and the council discussion, there was reference to the point of sale arrangement, but there was no explicit reference to its implication, that being the diversion of sales tax revenue from Ontario, Chino, Colton, San Bernardino, Adelanto, the City of Industry, Irwindale, Montebello, Santa Ana, Irvine, Westminster, Vernon, Long Beach, Palmdale, Antelope Valley, Perris, Romoland, Sun Valley, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, Canoga Park, Mojave, Tehachapi, Ventura and Bakersfield to Upland. The city council members came across as determined to deal with that aspect of the deal in the most indistinct way possible, one that was calculated to avoid alerting any of the officials or residents of the cities or communities deprived of that sales tax revenue from taking stock of the situation. Moreover, the council came across as being unwilling to acknowledge, even to themselves, what the full implication of their action was, let alone create a situation where they might have to explain why or justify Upland foreclosing on revenue that others would certainly contend should more properly go to other governmental jurisdictions where the taxable product was actually sold.
Nevertheless, while Upland’s officials were unwilling to enter into a polemic to justify their city’s monopolization of the sales tax revenue generated by Holliday Rock’s operations, a former governmental official was willing to defend Upland’s use of both point of sale and tax springbacks to fill its coffers.
Greg Devereaux stands rightly accused and convicted of being the most sophisticated and resourceful governmental functionary in San Bernardino County history, someone whose skillful and creative manipulation of the arcane and complex regulations attending governmental and intergovernmental operations were envied by his peers in municipal management and both highly valued and sought-after by elected officials.
In the early 1990s, as Fontana was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and possible disincorporation as a result of malfeasance, misfeasance and mismanagement on the part of its civic leadership, he initiated that city’s economic turnaround, first in the capacity of housing and redevelopment director and then, beginning in 1994, as its city manager. In the three years while he was at the helm in Fontana City Hall, Devereaux structured an economic recovery program and set in place both reforms and revenue-generating mechanisms that moved the city out of the red and into the black. So comprehensive was Devereaux’s recovery blueprint that only a portion of it had been put into action by the time of his departure, and his successor as city manager, Ken Hunt, not only survived but thrived the next 22 years as Fontana’s acting and thereafter full-fledged city manager by, essentially, executing the plan that Devereaux had put in place before he left.
In 1997, the City of Ontario, impressed by what Devereaux had achieved in Fontana, lured him away to become its city manager. In Ontario, Devereaux started with the advantage of serving a community that was already in decent shape financially. From that position, he intensified its economic primacy, utilizing the full panoply of what was available, including incentives such as sales tax springbacks in combination with point of sale arrangements to induce large corporations such as Cemex and Hewlett-Packard to make Ontario their California headquarters, facilitating residential, commercial and industrial development, while leveraging the city’s existing draws, including the Mills shopping mall and Ontario International Airport, as well as progress in Ontario’s neighboring communities of Chino, Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, to encourage further economic expansion in the city. By the time he left Ontario, it was economically head, shoulders and torso over the rest of the county’s cities, with approaching two-thirds of a billion dollars running through all of the city’s funds, making its municipal budget more than twice that of the next most prosperous city in the county.
In 2010, San Bernardino County poached Devereaux from Ontario, creating the previously nonexistent position of county chief executive officer into which Devereaux was hired as the replacement of what had previously been the county’s highest staff position, that of county administrative officer.
Devereaux left the county after seven years and is now the principal of Worthington Partners, a consulting company. Worthington Partners’ primary clientele consists of governmental agencies, such that at present nearly a dozen governmental entities are making use of Devereaux’s managerial expertise simultaneously. In his capacity as a municipal troubleshooter, Devereaux now earns more money than he did when he was San Bernardino County’s highest paid public official.
Whereas Upland officials were not willing to speak up for themselves and defend how their city is monopolizing all of the sales tax revenue reserved for municipalities generated by Holliday Rock’s operations, Devereaux rallied to their defense.
The ground upon which governmental entities compete for funding is an uneven one, Devereaux said, and the rules governing that competition defy the concept of fairness. Accordingly, he said, cities have to be aggressive and in some cases ruthless in pursuing revenues.
The fact is, Devereaux said, the agreement worked out between Upland and Holliday Rock was perfectly legal.
“I can understand how people can come to the conclusion that the covenant they have is unfair, but what I would point out is the state legislature made that deal possible,” Devereaux said. “If people perceive that to be unfair, then they should go to the state legislature to change the law. People are criticizing the city for doing something that is permitted under the law. The city did not put the state’s sales tax policy together. The state did that in a way that allows what you are discussing. The city is doing what the law allows. It is an awful lot to ask the city to follow the law and then criticize it for doing just that.”
Just like many things in life are unfair, Devereaux said, there are disparities in the way governments operate.
“I can take exception with all sorts of things,” Devereaux said. “Is it fair that one city gets 50 percent of the one percent property tax collected on the property in its city limits and other cities get virtually nothing from the collection of property tax? Is that fair? Maybe it isn’t fair, but that is what the legislature has set up. Is it fair that those cities next to the mountains where water runs down can charge its residents lower rates for water? Is that fair? Each city has its own circumstance and has to make the best of that circumstance. It isn’t fair that one city has a mall and another one doesn’t. Just because of one city’s location, it sometimes gets all that sales tax. If a mall developer came to a city and the members of the city council said to him ‘Don’t locate your mall here. Locate it in city next to us because they need the revenue more than we do,’ how long do you think those people would last in office?”
Devereaux continued, “When you look at the system of revenue distribution to local government, Proposition 13 skewed the system considerably.”
Proposition 13 was passed in 1978 by means of the initiative process. That initiative replaced the practice of annually reassessing property at market value with a system in which assessments are based on cost at acquisition. It also restricted annual increases of assessed value to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2 percent per year. Proposition 13 locked in existing property tax rates, including existing disparities.
“At the time Proposition 13 passed, there were cities that were being very responsible in some people’s minds and not taxing their residents heavily while there were cities that were increasing property tax all along,” Devereaux said. “The latter cities got a much higher percentage of property tax than the cities that were most responsible and kept their taxes low. This was unfair. I can go on. At its heart, you are talking about what is allowed as part of the system. You are talking about what is moral and what societal judgment is. Isn’t that what the legislature is for? If the legislature wants to change that system, it can do so.”
Upland was merely making use of an opportunity available to it, Devereaux said.
“The inequalities in how cities are being funded are rife, and to pick out one thing and say that shows something is wrong misses the bigger picture,” Devereaux said. “The bigger story is the inequities that are built into the system that need to be redressed. Until you do that, you are going to have cities in the system scrambling within the system to provide services at the highest level they can.”
In the same way, Devereaux said, it is perfectly legal for Holliday Rock to have negotiated with Upland to work a trade-off which obtained for it the 40 percent sales tax springback in return for making Upland its point of sale.
“It is not surprising that corporations will try to see who will give them the best deal,” Devereaux said. “If they don’t do that, they aren’t being responsible to their shareholders. It is not uncommon for a company to look at six or seven competing cities when they are deciding where they are going to locate.”
To survive, all cities need revenue, and the competition for that revenue among cities is fierce, Deveraux said. Some cities are more aggressive while engaging in that competition than others, he said.
“There are cities that have staff and leadership that are more entrepreneurial,” Devereaux said. “They understand they are in business, the business of running a city. I am not suggesting that cities are businesses, but there are city leaders who understand that if they want amenities for their community, they have to generate revenue. Some cities are more accomplished in doing that than other cities. In Ontario, when I was there, we held our own. We had the Mills. We had point of sale agreements with HP [Hewlett Packard], Cemex. There were many of those kinds of deals. But we weren’t the only city to do that. Ontario was entrepreneurial. Ontario really worked hard to have diversified revenues. In any jurisdiction where there are difficult financial and budgetary times, its leadership will try to cut their way into balance. Ontario always tried to earn its way into balance. There are different philosophical approaches. Our approach led us to trying to diversify the city’s revenue base. We wanted to have higher levels of service, high levels of public safety. We wanted well-equipped departments with high levels of training. We were an entrepreneurial city, determined to earn whatever we could and to use that to provide those services.”
“People think all cities have the same revenue bases,” Devereaux said. “They don’t. Each city has to find its own way because of those differences. Most people do not understand that every single city’s circumstance is different, and it is the structure that leads them to have to seek different sources of revenue. The system creates inequities because choices in many instances have not been given to the local jurisdictions. They don’t get to impose income tax. City councils can no longer raise property taxes. They can’t raise the sales tax rate. That has to be done by a vote of the people. Cities work within the system. If they are working within the system, what’s the problem? There may be a problem with the system, but you cannot rightfully criticize cities for working within it.”