September 5 SBC Legal Notices

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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIV SB 2522959
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: ANDREA-DANIELA BECKY ROSALES filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: ANDREA-DANIELA BECKY ROSALES to ANDREADANNIELLA REBEKAH ALEJO
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: 09/25/2025, Time: 08:30 AM, Department: S 30
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 08/14/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Maria Rubio, Deputy Clerk of the Court
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on August 15, 22 & 29 and September 5, 2025.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2510807,
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner Maxwell Michael Kovacevich, filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Maxwell Michael Kovacevich to Maxwell Javier Caron
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: 09/18/2025, Time: 08:30 AM, 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, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 08/07/2025
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Rancho Cucamonga on 08/15/2025, 08/22/2025, 08/29/2025, 09/05/2025

Continue reading

Whistleblower Alleges County Schools Superintendent Office Contract Violations

By Carlos Avalos
A detailed whistleblower complaint filed with the San Bernardino County Auditor, Ensen Mason, alleges a pattern of contract violations, preferential treatment, and potential misuse of public funds within the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (SBCSS), raising serious questions about transparency and accountability in the agency’s operations. The complaint, submitted by advocate Antoinette Jensen, who previously worked in the educational profession within San Bernardino County, centers on consulting contracts with Sherman Garnett, a Upland Unified School Board Trustee who also operates a private educational consulting business. The allegations include repeated violations of procurement policies, “after-the-fact” approvals that violated accounting procedures, and the use of public resources to market a private business.
The complaint asks the county auditor asked to investigate these after-the-fact approvals, policy violations, and potential misuse of public funds
The complaint comes against the backdrop of a recent California Attorney General investigation that found Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools in violation of the Brown Act. Last year, Attorney General Rob Bonta concluded that the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools (SANDABS), controlled by County Superintendent Ted Alejandre, was illegally operating without public transparency requirements. Alejandre and his office had withheld information relating to the actions and expenditures of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools Executive Committee, which met in secret and without the posting/provision of an agenda relating to its meetings at which votes and decisions on the expenditure of money entrusted to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools for educational programs were made.
“We conclude that the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools Executive Committee is the ‘multimember body that governs’ San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools within the meaning of Government Code section 54952, subdivision (c)(1)(A), and is therefore a ‘legislative body’ within the meaning of that section and subject to the Brown Act’s open-meeting requirements,” the California Attorney General’s office determined. This previous finding, according to the whistleblower, illustrates “the consolidated power and control of the County Superintendent” and establishes a pattern of transparency failures that extends to current contracting practices.
In the complaint, there are allegations of unusual contracting agreements. Central to the current allegations are contracts between the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and Sherman Garnett for educational seminars on student records and discipline. The arrangements, spanning from 2021 to 2024, contained several unusual provisions that distinguish them from standard consulting agreements. The issue of marketing for private gain is also alleged in the complaint. Unlike typical consulting contracts that involve flat fees, Garnett’s agreements with the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools specified payment on a per-attendee basis. More controversially, the contracts explicitly required the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools to handle all marketing and “recruitment” using public funds and taxpayer-paid employee time to increase attendance at Garnett’s private seminars. “Using public funds (and taxpayer-paid employee’s time) to market and recruit attendance for a private business constitutes a clear misuse of public funds,” the complaint states, noting that Garnett uses flat-fee arrangements with school districts outside San Bernardino County.
The contracts also included an unusual revenue-splitting component. In 2021, while Garnett received $75 per attendee, $50 per attendee was directed to the Children Deserve Success division of SBCSS, led by Don English, who serves as Board President of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Purchase orders explicitly stated that English’s division would receive these funds for facilitating and marketing the events, creating what the whistleblower describes as a system where “public funds were diverted from individual school districts to a division of SBCSS – without transparency of this fact to the attendees, or to the public.” The complaint documents multiple instances where SBCSS contracting policies were allegedly violated, specifically Policy 3312, which requires approvals to be obtained before services are rendered.
In 2022, Garnett provided two seminars in September without any contract in place, despite email references to a contract number (22/23-0739). Instead of executing a proper contract, the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools officials apparently split the services into two purchase orders of $7,885 and $5,415 to stay under the $10,000 threshold requiring formal contracts. “The total for those two seminars in September equated to $13,300,” the complaint notes. “These seminars were so close in proximity, that it appears that Sherman Garnett and Don English were well aware that Sherman Garnett’s total compensation would be over the $10,000 requirement for a contract to be executed, but they decided to skirt the typical protocol.”
Chief Business Officer Richard De Nava, who also serves as campaign treasurer for Superintendent Alejandre, repeatedly approved retroactive authorizations that he acknowledged violated accounting procedures. In October 2022, Don English specifically requested “after the fact” approvals for the September seminars. De Nava approved both requests on October 26, 2022, for requisitions 3806 and 3406, despite acknowledging this violated their own accounting procedures. The approval documents show English promising that “to ensure that it doesn’t happen again,” proper agreements and requisitions would be required in the future. However, the same pattern repeated in April 2023.
On April 20, 2023, a requisition was submitted for a Garnett seminar scheduled for April 24, 2023 – just four days later. However, the requisition already showed 41 registered attendees, indicating the seminar had been planned, marketed, and scheduled well in advance. The purchase order wasn’t created and approved until April 26, 2023 – two days after the seminar had already taken place, and the same day Garnett submitted his invoice.
Escalating fees, costs, and the financial details reveal dramatically increasing costs and what the whistleblower characterizes as excessive consulting fees, as seen below.

2021
Antendee Charge $125
Garnett’s Share $75
English Share $50

2022
Antendee Charge $185
Garnett’s Share $95
English Share $90

2023-2024

Antendee Charge $225
Garnett’s Share $95
English Share $130

Hourly rate analysis based on seminar flyers shows that Garnett spoke only for two and a half hours at each event, noon to two thirty pm. His effective hourly rate reached extraordinary levels. On September 13, 2022, he earned $7,885 for two and a half hours, which equals $3,154 per hour. On September 29, 2022, he earned $5,415 for two and a half hours, which equals $2,166 per hour. On April 24, 2023, he earned $3,895 for two and a half hours, which equals $1,558 per hour. “This is an exceedingly high rate for consultants and is inflated due to the per-attendee fee arrangement,” the complaint states.
Revenue Impact Summary

9/13/2022
Attendees 83
Total Charged $15,355
Garnett’s Cut $7,885
English’s Cut $7,470

9/29/2022
Attendees 57
Total Charged $10,545
Garnett’s Cut $5,415
English’s Cut $5,130

4/24/2023
Attendees 41
Total Charged $9,226
Garnett’s Cut $3,8955
English’s Cut $5,330

TOTALS

Attendees 181
Total Charged $35,126
Garnett’s Cut $17,195
English’s Cut $17,930

The complaint raised pointed questions about the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools and their oversight, pertaining to why government employees have engaged in marketing for Garnett’s private business and whether that arrangement was used for other consultants? The complaint delved into why the contracts were not included in the County Board of Education agendas to provide for public transparency, how money directed to the San Bernardino County Superintended of Schools Office’s Children Deserve Success division was accounted for and spent, what consequences ensue from the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office failing to follow its own policies and wheter the County Superintendent of Schools has the the authority to create and revise policies without public input? There were also vetting concerns expressed in the complaint. The whistleblower also questioned the vetting process for vendors, noting that Garnett “does not appear to have a business license, or a Fictitious Business Name (FBN) registered with the county.”
The complaint alleged the issues raised represented more than isolated incidents, describing them as “a pattern and practice at the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office that creates an environment which drastically increased the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse.”
In her complaint, Jensen wrote to Mason, “Public trust has been breached due to the contracting policies made unilaterally without public input, the potential conflicts of interest, the repeated violations of the approval process [and] public monies going to market a private business for personal gain.”
The complaint requested a formal investigation into whether wrongdoing has occurred, citing concerns about policies created unilaterally without public input, potential conflicts of interest, repeated violations of approval processes, public money used to market private businesses, and senior staff knowingly violating stated policies.
As of the original complaint, SBCSS has not responded to requests for comment on the specific allegations contained in the complaint. County Auditor Ensen Mason’s office will now review the complaint and supporting documentation to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. The extensive documentation provided includes contracts, purchase orders, approval forms, and marketing materials spanning multiple years. The case highlights ongoing tensions over transparency and accountability in public education administration in San Bernardino County, particularly regarding the use of taxpayer funds and adherence to procurement policies designed to prevent favoritism and ensure fair competition. It further raises questions about the incestuous relationships between elected public eduation officials, their business interests and the public education institutions those elected officials oversee or network with as a consequence of their authority regarding educational programs. For parents, taxpayers, and education stakeholders in San Bernardino County, the outcome of this complaint could have significant implications for how the county’s school office conducts business and maintains public trust.

County’s State Legislators Break Along Party Lines In Their Stances On Governor’s Gerrymandering Proposition

Predictably, the state legislators representing San Bernardino County have more or less divided up along party lines in their reaction to Governor Gavin Newsom’s effort to counter Republican Party efforts to strengthen its presence in Congress following the 2026 midterm election using reciprocal tactics to boost the Democrats’ hold over the California Congressional delegation.
Going back to 1900, with some exceptions, a president coming into office has commonly enjoyed the parallel support of his party having a majority in one or both houses of Congress. Throughout that time, again with a handful of exceptions, it has also been the case that the president’s party will lose ground in or control over one or both the House of Representatives and/or the U.S. Senate as a result of the midterm elections.
In the case of Donald Trump during his current term, one which follows by our years his first term from 2017 until 2021 and which was followed by his absence from the White House following his defeat in the 2020 election, his Republican Party is enjoying a relatively narrow margin of ascendency over the Democrats in Congress, with the GOP-to-Democrat ratio in the House of Representatives standing at 220-to-215 and in the U.S. Senate 53-to-45, with two Independents. Among senior Republicans and Trump Administration advisors there is concern that the Republicans might see their legislative branch edge eradicated in the mid-term 2026 election.
While political maps throughout all 50 states are traditionally redrawn the year following the decennial census, that being the year each decade ending in 1, and are first employed in the year ending in 2, President Trump’s advisors earlier this year hit upon a strategy of asking the governors and legislatures in those states where the Republicans currently predominate to consider making what are generally unprecedented efforts to redraw their respective state’s Congressional electoral maps in such a way as to boost Republican Congressional candidates’ collective chances in 2026.
The manipulation of an electoral constituency’s boundaries so as to rebalance the comparative numbers of voters residing and voting therein in favor of one party or class is called gerrymandering. Gerrymandering can consist of so-called “cracking,” which entails (diluting the voting power of the opposing party’s registrants across multiple districts or what is referred to as “packing,” which involves concentrating the opposing party’s voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts. The overall goal is to increase the hold the controlling party already enjoys within a given jurisdiction. For gerrymandering to take place, the party doing the electoral district map manipulation must, generally, already enjoy at least a slight electoral advantage over the rival party, as the authority for setting or altering political boundaries and electoral maps resides with a state governor or legislature or combination thereof.
Newsom’ and California Democrats were set off on their ongoing gerrymandering mission by a reciprocal gerrymander orchestrated in the Lone Star State earlier this summer. Upon taking office in January, President Donald Trump initiated a whirlwind of policy changes which, while pleasing to his base, generated controversy and provided Democrats and other Trump critics with ammunition to attack him. This sparked concern over the prospect that the relatively slim margin of majority that the GOP holds in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate could evaporate and be reversed in the mid-term 2026 election. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the lion’s share of Republicans in the Texas legislature, where the Republicans hold a commanding majority, responded positively to that proposal and used the authority vested in that state’s legislature, to redraft the state’s Congressional map in such a way that all of Texas’s existing Republican Congress members are likely to hang onto their elected positions and up to five of the state’s Democratic members of the House of Representatives will lose theirs.
Newsom, who has emerged as one of President Trump’s most steadfast critics, outraged at the barefaced manipulation of the electoral process that Abbot, his Teas counterpart, was engaged in, huddled with Democratic state officials in Sacramento, where Democrats are every bit as dominant as Republican are in Austin, and concocted a plan that includes a new Congressional electoral map for California that matches the scope of political rearrangement taking place in Texas.
On August 19, Democrats in the California Assembly and Senate election committees approved sending a bill to the floor which, they said, would “empower voters to fight back against Trump’s attacks on California. That legislation, which the Democrats dubbed the “Election Rigging Response Act,” a package of bills that included placing a ballot measure before the voters in November calling upon them to approve a new statewide Congressional voting district map. .
“Today, Democrats in the Assembly and Legislature voted to pass a historic measure that empowers California voters to push back against Donald Trump’s power grab in Texas,” Governor Newsom said.
The special election to be held on November 4 at which the state’s voters will be asked to approve or reject Proposition 50, California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said on August 21, as the legislature moved to put the matter on the ballot, will give “California voters… the final decision to fight back against Trump’s attacks on their state economy and democracy. I’m proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues today as we pass this historic measure.” Democrats are merely standing up against the Republican oppressors, Rivas said, “with courage. President Trump wants us to be intimidated. His playbook is simple: bully, threaten, silence — then rig the rules to hang onto power. Well, we are here today because California will not be a bystander to that power grab. We are acting — openly, lawfully with purpose and resolve, to defend our state and our democracy. Donald Trump does not believe in democracy. He is terrified of losing — and he will do whatever it takes to cling to power. If Trump can’t win fairly, he’ll try to make it impossible for Republicans to lose.”
Governor Newsom said that what the Democrats are doing is “fighting fire with fire.”
That clashed with what some of the state’s Republicans had to say.
California Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher said, “No public hearings. No transparency. Complete secrecy. Gavin Newsom’s Democrat allies are behind closed doors, rigging California’s congressional districts so politicians can choose their own voters. The special election would attempt to reverse a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2010. That amendment stripped the Legislature of its power to draw congressional districts and gave that authority to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, an independent body created to stop politicians from rigging maps to protect themselves. These are rigged maps drawn in secret to give Democrat politicians more power. These maps shred the fair, transparent process voters demanded. The independent commission spent months gathering public input, holding 196 public meetings, hearing 3,870 verbal comments and collecting 32,410 written submissions before finalizing the current maps. Democrat politicians are throwing that work in the trash for a rigged scheme cooked up behind closed doors. This is a mockery of democracy,” Gallagher said. “If they can neuter the commission here, they can neuter it anywhere. Californians should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”
Had the situation been different, Governor Newsom and the Democrats legislators in Sacramento, who comprise supermajorities in both the Assembly and State Senate, would have acted to redraw and approve the new electoral map unilaterally. That was not possible, however. In 2010, California’s voters passed Proposition 20, which transferred congressional redistricting authority in the Golden State from the California State Legislature and the governor, which formerly allowed unbridled gerrymandering that favored whichever party happened to be in control in Sacramento at the time to occur, to a somewhat less-partisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission. That lessened, to a degree, the blatant manipulation of the election district maps in California, though, given the higher Democrat-to-Republican ratio in California generally, the maps drawn since then, particularly the districts created in 2021, give the Democrats an edge. One of the provisions of Proposition 20 was that if the governor or legislature want to reassume redistricting authority, any redistricting they engage in must be approved by the state’s voters.
At present, Democrats lopsidedly outnumber Republicans in California’s 52-member Congressional delegation 43-to-9. That is a reflection of the degree to which California leans leftward politically.
Of California’s total 23,206,519 registered voters, 10,396,792 or 44.8 percent are Democrats, while 5,896,203 or 25.41 percent are Republicans. Those who have no party affiliation number 5,336,441 or 23 percent, a number not terribly far off from that of the Republicans. The remaining 1,577,083 voters or 6.8 percent are members of the American Independent, Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom or other more obscure parties. Despite comprising more than one-quarter of the state’s voters, the Republicans hold nine of the total 52 House seats in California’s congressional delegation, while the Democrats claim 43. In this way, California’s electoral map has already been set so that the Republicans are represented at a rate in the House of Representatives – 17.31 percent – well below the 25.41 percent of the voters they constitute.
Thus, there is a widespread perception that the current California Congressional map, which was drawn up in 2021 based upon the 2020 U.S. Census’s survey of California’s population, has already been gerrymandered in favor of the Democratic Party. Mathematically, according to statisticians, based solely on the voter registration numbers throughout the state under the conventional model of a two-party political system that has prevailed in the United States for most of its history, 31 to 33 of the 52 members of California’s Congressional delegation would be Democrats and 21 or 19 of them would be Republicans if the state’s Congressional electoral map were unhindered by gerrymandering.
What Newsom and his fellow and sister Democrats in California appear to be intent upon doing is to bend the Democratic-to-Republican ratio in the California Congressional Delegation even further in favor of the Party of Andrew Jackson. The map which was drawn up and which California’s voters will be asked to certify on November 5 has been contoured in such a way, the Democrats calculate that Doug LaMalfa, the Republican incumbent in California’s 1st Congressional District, incumbent Republican Representative Kevin Kiley in the 3rd Congressional District, incumbent Republican Congressman David Valadao in the 22nd Congressional District, incumbent Republican Representative Ken Calvert in the 41st Congressional District and incumbent Representative Darrell Issa in the 48th Congressional District will most likely be ousted in the face of challenges from their Democratic opponents in the November 2026 election.
The Sentinel this week sought to obtain the perspectives of the 18 members of the California legislature who represent San Bernardino County in Sacramento. Most, but not all cooperated and offered a response to the Sentinel’s inquiries. Some of those who did not respond maintained that a state elected official going on the record with regard to what they referred to as an “electoral” matter would be an ethical violation. Not all of the Assembly or State Senate members felt that way. A few, such as Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey, who is to be termed out of the legislature following the current term, appeared to be reluctant to offer a statement to any individual who was not one of his constituents within the 34th Assembly District.
Others, such as Democratic Assemblywoman Castillo as perhaps was the case with Lackey, were unwilling to enunciate opposition to the direction being charted by the state’s Democratic majority out of a concern that an expression of opposition might complicate their future personal political initiatives and agendas.
In most cases, however, San Bernardino County’s politicians did not shy away from closing ranks with the members of their respective parties.
18th District Senator Steve Padilla, a Democrat, was unwilling to deal with the controversy of taking a position on Proposition 50.
District 23 State Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares, a Republican, on August 14 stated that she believed that the redistricting mid-decade would “disregard the voters’ mandate for a fair and transparent process. California has a voter-mandated, non-partisan redistricting method that is intended to ensure a fair and transparent process and is enshrined in the California Constitution. Not a concern for Governor Newsom! He is moving full speed with his politically motivated plan to upend that process with biased lines drawn behind closed doors by politicians and political consultants. That’s not leadership, that’s voter betrayal.”
On August 21, Valladares said, “Today, California’s majority party rammed through Governor Newsom’s unconstitutional redistricting maps. In doing so, they ignored our Constitution and stripped power away from the independent, voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission.
“I offered a simple amendment: if politicians want to overturn the rules and draw their own districts, then they should live by the same standard as the commissioners — a 10-year ban on running for office. It failed on a straight party-line vote. That tells you everything. This is a blatant power grab — politicians protecting themselves at the expense of voters. But we will not stop, we will continue to fight this abuse. Californians deserve fair maps, transparent elections, and leaders who respect the will of the people. We won’t give up that fight,” Senator Valladares said.
Thereafter, Valladares introduced an amendment to Proposition 50 that called for a 10-year moratorium on running for office for any legislator who votes in favor putting Proposition 50 on the ballot. “If we are going to move forward with a law that takes redistricting power out of the hands of the voter-approved commission, then at the very least, we must put up meaningful safeguards against corruption,” said Valladares.
The proposed amendment would prohibit any member of the Legislature who votes in favor of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 from running for elected office for ten years—a restriction that already applies to the citizens who serve on the existing independent redistricting commission.
“This amendment simply extends to every legislator who votes in favor of the measure, the same ten-year candidacy moratorium that applies to the citizens who currently draw the lines,” Valladares stated. “The people of California deserve ironclad guarantees that those in charge of redistricting aren’t acting in their own self-interest.”
More than 60 percent of California voters supported the creation of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, frustrated by gerrymandered maps that prioritized political power over community representation.
“Let’s be clear: you cannot in good conscience demand that ordinary citizens forfeit the right to run for office for a decade, and then exempt the politicians now reclaiming that power. There is a word for that—hypocrisy,” Valladares said.
“This is a test of whether this body values integrity over expediency, fairness over partisanship, and accountability over ambition.”
Valladares said she was “calling on fellow lawmakers to join in supporting the amendment and uphold the ethical standards Californians expect and deserve.”
22nd District Senator Susan Rubio indicated she unequivocally supports the governor.
“I was proud to stand alongside my colleagues in the Senate and Assembly and with Governor Gavin Newsom as we signed historic legislation that puts the power back in the hands of Californians. At a time when our communities are under attack from unlawful raids, unjust federal cuts, and nationwide efforts  to silence voters, California is standing strong. These powerful measures will ensure that redistricting of our congressional seats will be decided by the people, not by politicians or partisan interests. We are fighting back and we are protecting what matters most.”
19th District Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, a Republican, said, “Californians deserve a redistricting process that is fair, transparent, and free from political gamesmanship. Weakening or discarding the independent commission, even temporarily, betrays the trust voters placed in us and undermines the integrity of our democracy. The Citizens Redistricting Commission was created to end decades of political gerrymandering. Rolling back that progress for short-term gain risks undoing years of hard-fought reforms. Californians deserve leaders who will protect the independent system voters demanded and preserve it for generations to come.”
Ochoa Bogh said, “A proposed legislative package would place a constitutional amendment on the November 4 special‑election ballot. If passed, the amendment would strip the commission’s authority, temporarily granting lawmakers control over congressional redistricting for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections. While framed by some as reactive to nationwide redistricting trends, critics warn it compromises California’s voter-approved safeguards and damages its leadership on electoral fairness.”
Ochoa Bogh said what the Democrats are doing “undermines voter trust. The commission was created by voters to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Repealing that now would feel like repudiating voter intent. Past systems showed that when legislators control map-making, they shield their own seats. That’s precisely what voters rejected when they established the independent commission. Will lawmakers include safeguards? Are we willingly undoing voter‑approved reforms? Can the people trust the legislature to act with integrity and not self-interest in the process of redistricting?”
Republican 32nd District State Senator Kelly Seyarto said he opposed what he said was “an egregious legislative package to gerrymander California’s congressional districts. California voters are already living under a supermajority that doesn’t reflect the state’s diverse values. Now the governor wants to spend over $200 million on a special election to redraw maps that not only sidelines Republicans, but silences and suppresses independent voters and everyone who isn’t a progressive Democrat. All Californians deserve fair and balanced representation.”
Senator Seyarto questioned how much the redrawing of maps has already cost California taxpayers without their approval, and why lawmakers are prioritizing it during a budget deficit when services are being cut and the real needs of communities are being overlooked. “Despite serious concerns and unanswered questions, Democrats pushed this three-part legislation, Assembly Bills 604, SB 280, and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, through in just one week without transparency or clarity about the legality and validity of the proposed maps.”
District 31 Senator Sabrina Cervantes made clear that she was in favor to the redistricting. Proposition 5, she said, was California’s efforts to “combat a political power grab by President Trump and his Administration in collaboration with the Texas Governor.”
District 25 Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat who has been sharply critical of the Trump Administration with regard to a host of issues, was unwilling to go on the record as supporting Governor Newsom’s gerrymandering strategy largely because doing so might clash with her condemnation of reciprocal Republican-led gerrymandering moves, including the one in Texas.
According to Assemblyman Phillip Chen’s Sacramento office, he has taken no position with regard to the ballot measure. He is a Republican.
36th District Assemblyman Jeff Gonzalez, a Republican, in his statement to the Sentinel called Proposition 50 “the supermajority’s redistricting power grab. The August 21 vote on the Assembly floor is nothing short of a disgrace. Instead of tackling affordability, homelessness, healthcare, or the housing crisis, Sacramento is going to waste over $200 million to undo what Californians already decided: that politicians should not be allowed to draw their own district lines. Meanwhile, my constituents in Imperial, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are struggling. And yet, this body is more interested in gerrymandering than solving real problems. Californians in my district tell me every day they feel forgotten and they’re right. We should be investing in hospitals, food banks, wildfire protection and jobs, not playing partisan games.”
District 39 Assemblyman Juan Carrillo, a Democrat, indicated he viewed the special election to be held this November positively, saying it was “giving voters the opportunity to defend the state against attacks from President Trump. The president created this emergency when he called Texas to ask the governor to change the rules and redraw the districts. His goal is to manipulate the elections. California is not going to sit idly by while they attack our democracy.
Carrillo added, “What Republicans in Texas and other states are doing with redistricting maps is fragmenting communities and eroding public trust. Legislators are drawing maps in secret, leaving voters out of the process. California is taking a different path. The legislation from the leaders of the Assembly and Senate supports the independence of the redistricting commission, defends voting rights protections, and maintains the integrity of California’s cities and neighborhoods. State lawmakers understand the damage that California will continue to face if Trump’s power goes unchecked. Democrats are taking urgent measures to protect the state from his relentless attacks.
41st District Assemblyman John Harabedian appeared to be reluctant to stand foursquare behind his party colleagues in support of Proposition 50, as his office did not respond to the Sentinel in its effort to obtain his take on the matter.
District 45 Assemblyman James Ramos, a Democrat, offered no particular show of sentiment with regard to Proposition 50, but decried efforts by Republicans to engage in what he characterized the “exploitation” of Native Americans by the Republicans in opposing it.
Democrat District 53 Assemblywoman Michelle Rodriguez spurned an invitation from the Sentinel to go on record with regard to Proposition 50.
While District 50 Assemblyman Robert Garcia, the assistant majority leader in California’s lower legislative house has consistently gone along with his party right down the line on virtually every item that comes before the Assembly, he has yet to make a formal statement with regard to the redistricting contained in Proposition 50
District 47 Assemblyman Greg Wallis, a Republican, told the Sentinel, ““Prop 50 is a step backward for democracy. Voters created the independent redistricting commission to take politics out of the process and ensure fair maps. Suspending it now would hand power back to politicians and weaken the will of the people. Californians deserve districts drawn by voters, not by politicians.”

Jones Era In Victorville To Come To A Close With October 21 City Council Meeting

The Debra Jones Era in Victorville will come to a close in two months, city official have disclosed.
Jones, just as multiple individuals before her, commandeered control over municipal government in what is today’s largest desert city in San Bernardino County, relatively shortly after acceding to the city council in 2018, thwarting what had been the upward progression of Blanca Gomez, her primary rival during most of her tenure with the city.
Jones proved over the course of her time as an elected official in the Victor Valley to embody some contradictory elements, ranging from reformist inclinations she indulged in when she began as school board member that led to what many perceived as changes that benefited students to her assumption of the identity of the leader of the present-day Victorville Establishment, with its roots in the fundamental governmental and social excesses and corruption the community has long been inured of.
Councilmember Debra Jones has announced her intention to step down from the Victorville City Council following the October 21, 2025, meeting, as her family prepares to relocate outside the city later this year.
During the August 19 Victorville City Council meeting, Jones said she had made a “painful decision” to leave the city council as she is approaching her seventh year in her current elected post. “[S]tepping down is one of the hardest things that I’ve ever had to do,” she said.
She reiterated her decision in a Facebook post.
“After years of dedicated service to Victorville, I will soon be stepping down from the city council as I prepare to relocate outside the city,” she wrote. “Serving this community has been one of the greatest honors of my life, and I am deeply grateful for the trust you’ve placed in me.”
Jones began her political career toward the end of the first decade of the Third Millennium as a newfangled and reformist Republican willing to challenge what was then the Old Guard in San Bernardino County’s GOP establishment. Bill Postmus, who had been the chairman of the San Bernardino county Republican Central Committee, the chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, San Bernardino County’s First District Supervisor from 2000 to 2006 and the highest taxing authority in San Bernardino County as the county assessor from 2007 until his forced resignation in 2009, had built a remarkable deep and broad political machine built upon pay-to-play politics. As supervisor, board chairman and central committee chairman, he had perfected the technique of shaking down those with business pending before the county board of supervisors, various city councils and, in some cases, the California Legislature. He did this by suggesting, hinting, representing or outright promising that in exchange for donations to the local Republican Party, to any of several political action committees he had founded, taken over or otherwise controlled, to his own political war chest or to the electioneering funds of any of his political associates, he could arrange for the development proposals or governmental contracts for goods or services or the franchise applications those donors with governmental entities would be approved. As county assessor, in exchange for political support of his candidacy or the candidacies of his political allies, Postmus was prepared to arrange or had in fact arranged to lower the property value and equipment/facility value assessments of the possessions of individuals or businesses, thereby lowering by thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars the taxes those entities had to pay on a yearly basis.
Side-ventures to Postmus’s corrupt manipulation of his authority as a public official were efforts to exploit governmental programs and subsidies. One such scheme was that relating to the California Charter Academy, an entity set up by Charles Steven Cox by means of an arrangement with/sponsorship of the Snowline Joint Unified School District, the Orange School District and the Oro Grande School District. Between the turn of the millennium and 2004, according to prosecutors, Cox and Tad Honeycutt, both of whom were Postmus’s political associates, diverted some $23 million in public money that was intended for educational purposes to their own use, spending it on a lavish lifestyle for themselves and their associates and families, investing it in stock and bonds, whisking it into offshore bank accounts and routing it into the campaign accounts of various politicians, including Postmus.
Cox arranged to contract with an entity he had set up – Educational Administrative Services – and two others set up by Honeycutt – Everything For Schools and Maniaque Enterprises – to divert California Department of Education money provided though the Snowline, Orange and Oro Grande districts for the provision of school administrators and school room items such as blackboards, desks, text books, computers, projectors, pens, pencils, notebooks and the like into accounts he and Honeycutt controlled. The educational materials were never delivered. Involved with Cox and Honeycutt in the scheme were Postmus; Brad Mitzelfelt, Postmus’s campaign manager, chief of staff when he was supervisor and his successor as supervisor; Adam Aleman, Postmus’s protege, political associate and San Bernardino County’s assistant assessor when Postmus was supervisor; Jessie Flores, a Postmus political associate and currently Adelanto City Manager.
After having made off with some $23 million in funds intended for educational purposes, Cox and Honeycutt saw the California Charter Academy gold goose killed when prosecutors charged Cox with 56 felony counts of PC 424 embezzlement/misappropriation of public funds, 56 felony counts of PC 487/grand theft, and one count of violating California Revenue and Taxation Code 19706 and Honeycutt was charged with 16 counts of PC 424/misappropriation of public funds and 14 charges of violating PC 487/grand theft, three charges of violating California Revenue and Taxation Code 19706/tax evasion and one charge of violating California Revenue and Taxation Code 19705/filing a false tax return. Postmus and the other political figures in his circle found themselves cut off from the largesse that Cox and Honeycutt could provide.
In 2008, the Postmus political machine and its coterie of hangers-on sought to duplicate the success that had been had with the California Charter Academy. Cox, working as a quiet adviser functioning from the shadows, put together another charter school proposal, this time selling the idea to the Adelanto School District. Participating in the free-for-all were Cox; Postmus; Mitzelfelt, who had succeeded Postmus and at that time was First District supervisor; Dino DeFazio, a friend of Postmus and the owner of D & D Real Estate and other real estate businesses, including Tri-Land, Inc, in which he was a partner with Postmus; Flores, a former field representative for Postmus and a then-field representative for Mitzelfelt; Aleman, who was formerly one of Postmus’s field representatives and at that time one of Postmus’ assistant assessors; Hesperia Unified School District Trustee Anthony Riley, a Postmus political ally; Sentry Home Loans owner and Adelanto Boys and Girls Club President Helene Harris and her husband Hendon Harris; Mitchel E. Pullman, a principal in Arrowhead Properties, IV, LLC; and Peggy Baker, Charles Steven Cox’s sister-in-law.
After Cox prepared the articles of incorporation, the Adelanto Charter Academy was chartered by the Adelanto School District on August 19, 2009. Functioning on a model not very different from that used by the California Charter Academy but on a smaller scale, Cox, Postmus, Mitzelfelt, DeFazio, Flores, Aleman, the Harrises, Pullman and Baker utilized the position of trust they had been vouchsafed to funnel money to themselves or the companies they controlled. In the roughly 15 months the academy was running without any oversight, they managed to loot the operation of more than $2 million that should otherwise have gone toward the education of students but instead was diverted to activities, purchases and disbursements having no conceivable academic application, such as the provision of limousines to the participants by Flores, the owner of Diamond Limousine. The Adelanto Charter Academy contracted with Professional Charter Management, Inc. to have the latter perform administrative services in return for 15 percent of all Adelanto Charter Academy revenues.
According to the California Secretary of State, Professional Charter Management, Inc. was a corporation with Jessie Flores as its chief executive officer and Dino DeFazio in the capacities of chief financial officer and secretary and Kari Murdock as agent for service of process. Kari Murdock is a niece of Charles Steven Cox.
In December 2010, Jessie Flores filed, under penalty of perjury, a certificate of dissolution for Professional Charter Management, Inc. Records, however, show that Professional Charter Management, Inc. continued to receive payments from the Adelanto Charter Academy after that dissolution.
In 2010, Postmus reached the end of the line as a politician when he was indicted on political corruption charges. Nevertheless, the illicit schemes he was involved in, such as the one involving the Adelanto Charter Academy, were yet operational.
In Honeycutt diverted some $23 million in public money that was intended for educational purposes to their own use, spending it on a lavish lifestyle for themselves and their associates and families, investing it in stock and bonds or whisking it into offshore bank accounts.
Just as Postmus’s career as a politician was sunsetting, Jones run in elective office was beginning. In 2010, she was elected to the Adelanto Elementary School District Board of Trustees. Despite the consideration that she was a Republican and that part of Postmus’s modus operandi was to exploit his authority as an elected official to rob from public coffers and transfer that money over to the rich donors that had kept his Republican political machine humming, Jones forthrightly participated in the effort to bring a curtain down on the depredations Cox, Postmus, Mitzelfelt, DeFazio, Flores, Aleman, the Harrises, Pullman and Baker were engaged in with the Adelanto Charter Academy. She pushed, along with other members of the school board, for the district to make an examination of what was being done with the state educational money the Adelanto School District was instrumental in delivering to the Adelanto Charter Academy. In November 2010, an audit cataloging significant shortcomings in the school’s operations was released, showing the academy had diverted some $2.2 million from educational purposes to the coterie of Postmus’ one-time political hangers-on. On May 17, 2011, the Adelanto School District revoked the charter it had granted to the Adelanto Charter Academy. The Adelanto Charter Academy immediately appealed the decision to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, who upheld the Adelanto School District’s decision on August 1, 2011. The Adelanto Charter Academy appealed that decision to the California Department of Education and continued to operate until notified on April 17, 2012, that “your administrative remedies are exhausted” and “any further appeal of revocation must be sought in a court of local jurisdiction.”
Recognizing that moving the matter into such a forum might well lead to indictments, those behind the operation threw in the towel, having diverted somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.1 million to their own pockets and bank accounts.
Jones earned the admiration and support of those who were paying attention to what she had achieved in the Adelanto School District, and she was recognized as a Republican reformer, who was willing to stand up to those in the local GOP such as Postmus, Mitzelfelt, Cox and Flores, who were more powerful than she was.
In 2018, partially on the strength of her achievements in the Adelanto Elementary School District, Jones was elected to the Victorville City Council. She joined Jim Cox, who was no relation to Charles Steven Cox; Mayor Gloria Garcia and Councilwoman Blanca Gomez, who were already on the council, and was sworn in that December along with Rita Ramirez, who had been elected to the council with her that November.
While races for local office – school and fire district boards, town councils, city councils and county supervisorial boards – in California are supposed to be nonpartisan, in San Bernardino County, party affiliation has for decades been a major factor with regard to who holds elective office. Throughout Victorville’s entire then-56-year history – from its 1962 incorporation until 2018 – it had been controlled, if not outright dominated, by Republicans. At that point, the number of registered Democrats in Victorville had eclipsed the number of registered Republicans. Despite that, given the far greater sophistication of the Republicans, their propensity for much higher voter turnout, their superior coordination and concerted electioneering and the degree of cohesion they demonstrated while the Democrats were beset with dissension, a lack of coordination and riddled with apathy, the GOP retained its control of the city, as Cox, Garcia and Jones were Republicans. Nevertheless, the presence of Democrats Gomez and Ramirez on the council reflected the growing influence of their party within the context of Victorville.
Blanca Gomez, through both her conception of herself and the world as it existed around her, made for a Democratic politician of especial stridency. She applied the concept of Democracy in the most literal fashion; perceiving, perhaps accurately and perhaps not, that Democrats outnumbered Republicans and that conservatives as she defined them were in eclipse and that liberals were in ascendancy throughout the community generally, she was unable to understand or accept that when it came to politics, the Democrats had simply been outhustled by the Republicans and the spoils thereafter fell to the victor. When she joined the city council in late 2016, her colleagues were Cox, Garcia, James Kennedy and Eric Negrete – Republicans all. It did not help the matter that upon being elected, Gomez did not have a command of parliamentary procedure. Within two months, over the course of three public meetings, hostility had developed between Gomez and Garcia, the latter of which had been honored with the mayor’s gavel and as such assumed the duty of presiding over the council’s meetings. Garcia grew weary of having to rein in or gavel down Gomez, who perceived the bully pulpit of the city council as an opportunity to address in depth and fashion on the spot a solution to any social or public issue that existed, irrespective of the limited set of topics delineated on that particular meeting agenda. For Garcia, Gomez’s would-be excursions into provinces where the city council had little or no authority or license to tred were only slightly more enraging than the positions Gomez had assumed with regard to issues of social reform and justice for herself and which she wanted the balance of the council to endorse. Convinced that American society was racist and that the country’s majority population of European extraction was indecently lording it over the economically-disadvantaged indigenous, black and Latino component of the society, Gomez found herself at odds with not only Cox and Kennedy, who were white, but most especially Garcia and Negrete, who had applied their personal intensity to establish themselves and rise within the conventional social hierarchy. Less than halfway through 2017, the exchanges between Gomez and Garcia and between Gomez and Negrete became legendary remonstrations of indecorousness.
In 2018, Kennedy opted out of running for re-election and Negrete was defeated in his bid for reelection. They were replaced by Ramirez and Jones.
In 2020, electoral history was made on two score in Victorville when, in the aftermath of Jim Cox’s decision not to seek reelection, no fewer than 20 candidates sought election or reelection to the council in the November contest, with Gomez capturing reelection, Mayor Garcia being defeated and newcomers Leslie Irving, a Democrat, emerging victorious, along with Liz Becerra, a Republican. Thus, for the first time in Victorville history, all five members of the city council were women and a majority – consisting of Gomez, Ramirez and Irving – of the council were Democrats.
In Victorville, as was and is still the case with nine of San Bernardino County’s 23 other cities or incorporated towns, the mayor is not elected directly by the city’s residents but is rather chosen from among the members of the council by the council. A tradition had developed of rotating the mayoral appointment, which generally lasted for a period of two year, to that individual with the most seniority/experience on the council who had not previously served as mayor. In December 2020, at which point the Victorville City Council was set to select the mayor to succeed the departing Garcia, Gomez was the most senior member of the council, having been elected in 2016, two years prior to Ramirez and Jones and four years prior to Becerra and Irving.
By tradition and the rule of seniority, the honorific of being named mayor at that point, both logically and politically, seemed to fall to Gomez. As Democrats, Gomez, Ramirez and Irving had more votes combined than did the two Republicans, Jones and Becerra. In a series of backroom maneuvers, the terms of which were never publicly disclosed, Jones was appointed mayor, Ramirez was designated mayor pro tem and Gomez was denied the post she and her supporters felt she deserved.
At that point, the Jones Era in Victorville began. As mayor, she undertook a host of initiatives ostensibly aimed at bettering the community, ones that were consistent with Republican goals of improved public safety, economic opportunity, development and prosperity, translating into increasing funding for law enforcement and fire services and attracting investment and large employers to the city.
In 2020, Measure P, the brainchild of Ruth Cordova that had been sponsored by a coterie of pro law enforcement advocates, was placed on the ballot as a general sales tax measure. It was approved by the Victorville voters during the November 3, 2020 election, increasing Victorville’s sales tax rate from 7.75 percent to 8.75 percent. Its supporters convinced the city’s voters to vote for it by emphasizing that the revenue from the one cent sales tax increase would be used to enhance public safety programs, by expanding essential services like policing, fire prevention and suppression, code compliance and animal care and control, while broadening community services, and creating programs to deal with homelessness.
As Measure P went into effect on April 1, 2021 in the earliest stage of Jones’ time as mayor and provided funding throughout the remaining time of her tenure as mayor, Jones was in certain respects the primary beneficiary of the initiative. She was widely credited with the measure’s impacts and as the driving force behind it. While she basked in that reputation and it increased her popularity with a not inconsiderable number of Victorvile’s residents, those who were in actuality the prime movers behind Measure P resented the way in which she had stolen their thunder and accrued glory. This was particularly galling to some who watched as Jones took credit for and saw her name enshrined on the cornerstone of the new police station and civic plaza now under way, financed in part by Measure P funds.
Jones moved into the central role of the city’s leader and the embodiment of the establishment, serving on regional boards such as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority, along with participating in multiple seminars and conferences with the League of California Cities while serving on that organization’s Revenue and Taxation Committee. She also was a board member on the Mojave Desert & Mountain Recycling Joint Powers Authority, and was an alternative representative to the Victor Valley Transit Authority and serves on the League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Committee.
Jones worked behind the scenes as an effective Republican political operative, undercutting the Democrats. When Councilwoman Leslie Irving, formerly a strong Democrat, had a falling out with her party, Jones encouraged that estrangement between Irving and the Democrats, giving her greater reach on the city council.
With Jones’ assumption of the mayoralty, she inherited Garcia’s enmity with Gomez. Over time, Jones earned the disapproval of those in the community who saw Gomez as their champion. Gomez, who regularly engaged in behaviors such as draping herself in the Mexican flag or practically maintaining that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo should be abrogated so that Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and California could be returned to Mexico, found herself out of favor with a growing number of Victorville’s residents, who by default adhered to Jones.
Gomez sought to widen her base through the use of social media platforms, which included streaming city council meetings to her followers, framing what was being broadcast in terms or explanations or contexts that were favorable to her. She did this with the assistance of her boyfriend Robert Rodriguez, who regularly attended the city council meetings, likewise using his cellphone to capture video of the ongoing proceedings or those in attendance. Among those often in attendance at the meetings was Jones’ husband, Gene, who periodically matched the tactics Gomez and Rodriguez engaged in by using his phone to capture video images of the goings-on at the meetings his wife was presiding over. On a few occasions, verbal confrontations of one sort or another between Gene Jones and Rodriguez resulted.
On one such occasion, the ensuing contretemps between Rodriguez and Gene Jones interrupted the meeting, at which point Gomez left the dais herself to confront the sheriff’s deputies who were surrounding Rodriguez. As she did so, Gomez instructed her adolescent daughter, who was present in the front row of the gallery, to get what was ongoing on video. Ultimately, both Rodriguez and Gomez were arrested for interrupting the meeting. Jones, as mayor, and other Victorville officials and the sheriff’s department prevailed upon District Attorney Jason Anderson, a Republican, to prosecute Gomez and Rodriguez over the matter. Rodriguez’s case went to trial and he was convicted of creating a public disturbance and handed a 270-day sentence, much of which he had already served because he had not been released on bail after his arrest.
Ultimately, the Jones/Gomez rivalry brought about disparate conclusions, based largely on the political affiliation, philosophy or orientation of the beholder. Some saw Gomez as a provocateur, an unwelcome quantity in the realm of politics, whose inability to understand that the city council’s province was civic affairs and the operation of local government that had nothing, or little, to do with the social causes Gomez espoused. Those people saw the action that Jones took in gaveling Gomez down or having her removed from the council chambers in the midst of discussion or debate over an item to be decided and voted upon by the council to be an entirely justifiable reaction to a situation of Gomez’s creation. Others, however, saw Jones’ use of her mayoral prerogative to impose strict order on the council discussions and the selective action of the sheriff’s department in restricting or preventing Rodriguez’s videographing of council proceedings and audience members while allowing Gene Jones to engage in such activity to be not only heavy-handed but prejudicial, partisan, a violation of her constituents’ constitutional rights and an abuse of her authority.
In 2019, Councilwoman Ramirez was injured in a fall that seriously bruised her foot, and she required hospitalization. While hospitalized, the advent of the COVID epidemic took root, and complications set in, requiring a succession of three amputations. Her son, concerned about his mother’s presence in a medical facility where COVID was at large and spreading while she was seeking to convalesce, bundled her off to the family home in Twentynine Palms, from which Ramirez continued to participate in city council meetings remotely.
By early 2021, Jones recognized the opportunity that was being presented to rid the city council of yet another Democrat. Using Councilwoman Becerra as her cat’s paw, she initiated a challenge of Ramirez’s right to remain on the council on the grounds that Ramirez was no longer meeting the Victorville residency requirement. In March 2021, the city council voted 3-to-2, with Ramirez and Gomez dissenting, to remove Ramirez from the council.
For many, Jones’ active efforts to neuter local Democrats at the civic level is beyond baffling, given her muted response to what was the most pointed Democratic power play while she was mayor.
In 2021, Gomez networked with an attorney from Walnut Creek in Northern California, Scott Rafferty, utilizing the California Voter Rights Act in an effort to force Victorville to dispense with its traditional practice of electing its council members at large and partition the city into voting districts so that the members of the city council do not represent the city as a whole but a portion thereof. In this way, under a district representation system, each district is represented by a resident of that district voted into office by, and only by, residents of that district.
Under the California Voting Rights Act, a city can be forced to adopt by-district voting if it can be demonstrated that under the at-large voting system, racially polarized voting has taken place. Indications of racially polarized voting include a city on a continuous basis having elected no members of a so-called protected minority – African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and Pacific islanders – if more than one-fifth of the voters in a city with a five-member city council elected at large consists of those who identify as a member of those racial minorities.
Thus, based upon Gomez’s representations to him, Rafferty, whose law office was located 353 miles from Victorville, was alleging that racially polarized voting had taken place in Victorville, justifying the request that the court order Victorville to cease electing its council members at large and form council districts, henceforth having the electors from each of those five districts select a single council member from among themselves to represent them at City Hall.

It was quite clear, however, that going back over the previous three decades, racially polarized voting had not taken place in Victorville. During that timeframe, eight Latinos – Felix Diaz, Rudy Cabriales, Angela Valles, Gloria Garcia, Eric Negrete, Blanca Gomez, Rita Ramirez and Liz Becerra – and two African Americans – Jim Busby and Leslie Irving – served on the council.
Curiously, however, in the face of the legal action brought by Rafferty, the city folded. Instead of taking the matter to trial and demonstrating to the world that Victorville was indeed one of those places where the sleeping Hispanic political giant first awakened and that, contrary to what Gomez and Rafferty were alleging, Victorville accommodates those who want to participate in the political process without regard to race or ethnicity, the city capitulated and adopted district voting. To those who had a long enough memory, the contrast between the Debra Jones that fought the corrupt Republican cabal that misappropriated school district money in 2010 and 2011 and the Debra Jones who was too frightened to fight the Democrats in their bid to create Philadelphia-style or Chicago-style machine-dominated ward politics in Victorville was stark. She had found her niche in the political establishment, and she was unwilling to rock around and resist, lest she find herself on the outside looking in.
In 2022, after gerrymandering the city’s voting districts in such a way that it gave her and her allies an advantage in running for reelection or election, she was handily returned to the council as the first person to represent the city’s District 2, overcoming Democrat Rafael Porras, or 2,583 votes or 66.87 percent to 1,280 votes or 33.13 percent. At the same time, Jones’ ally, Republican Robert Harriman, eked out a victory in the first District 4 race with 2,096 or 51.96 percent to Democrat Lizet Angulo’s 1,938 or 48.04 percent.
With the Republican domination of the Victorville City Council yet in full swing, Jones was unwilling to give Gomez, whom she know considered to be a profound political rival, her due by turning the mayor’s gavel over to her. Instead, worked out with Harriman, Becerra and Irving a deal in which she remained as mayor for another year.
When 2024 rolled around, acutely conscious that Gomez and Becerra had been gerrymandered into the same district and would be facing each other in November to determine who would remain on the council, Jones relinquished the mayoral post to Becerra, allowing her to campaign using that title later in the year. Indeed, the full Republican Party political machine and its law enforcement and conservative family values coalition came together to back Becerra over Gomez.
While Becerra was mayor, Victorville was yet considered to be Jones’ oyster. Like previous dominant political forces in Victorville such as Joseph Campbell, Terry Caldwell and Jim Cox, her reach by 2024 had extended far enough and her grasp was firm enough that she could designate proxies to serve as the city’s figureheads.
History will record that during her tenure, she reasserted the Republican grip on the city while breaking the upstart Democrat’s hold, had furthered economic development in the city, brought in major businesses such as Amazon and CarMax and made the most significant strides in dealing with the city’s and regions intractable homelessness problem by the development of the Wellness Center in Old Town Victorville, providing housing, medical care and other assistance to the dispossessed, which opened at the end of her run as mayor in December 2023.
According to Jones, she would have otherwise remained in Victorville as its leading political figure except that her husband Gene has recently faced health challenges. Rather than remain in their two-story home at 12261 Chacoma Way in Victorville, the couple is intent on moving to a bungalow in either Adelanto or in the Riverside County community of Banning, where her husband will not need to climb stairs.
Jones said her last day as a member of the council well come on October 21, when the council holds its second scheduled meeting that month, after which her resignation will become effective.
The Victorville City Council will then have the option of appointing her replacement to serve out the remainder of her term, which will end in December 2026; schedule a special election to allow District 2’s voters to choose her replacement; leave the post unfilled for the remainder of the term; or accede to Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, appointing Jones’ replacement.
Jones indicated she is proud of her accomplishments while in office in Victorville in a posting on Facebook.
“Together, we’ve achieved so much—from strengthening public safety to bringing new jobs and addressing homelessness with compassion and innovation,” Jones wrote. “I leave confident in Victorville’s future and in the capable hands of its leaders and residents.”
The Jones ruling era in Victorville was relatively short-lived, last less than a half of a decade. Prior to her, the last dominant personage in Victorville Politics was Terry Caldwell, who served on the City Council for 38 years before electing against running for reelection in 2010. Caldwell served eight separate two-year terms as mayor during that span, leading the city when the Mall of the Victor Valley was constructed. Having grown up in Barstow and Colton when those two railroad towns were far larger than Victorville, Caldwell moved to Victorville out of the belief that it represented the High Desert’s future. His leadership is seen as a key factor in the city’s growth into the largest geographical and most populous of San Bernardino County’s Desert cities. Caldwell’s tenure is identified in large measure with that of Jim Cox, who began as Victorville’s assistant city manager in 1967 and then served as city manager from 1969 until 1999, and then reprised that role in 2009 and 2010, before running successfully for City Council in 2012 and being reelected in 2016. Caldwell and Cox are credited with having formulated and executed the strategy to have Victorville rather than neighboring Aelanto annex the former George Air Force Base after it was shuttered in 1992, converting it into the present day Southern California Logistics Airport.
Prior to Caldwell’s political primacy in Victorville was that of Joseph Campbell, who was a member of the maiden Victorville City council when the city incorporated in 1962 and later spent three years as mayor prior to his nomination to the Superior Court by then Governor Ronald Reagan. Campbell was the scion of what was one of the community of Victorville’s elite families, prominent in the area’s history. His father was Kemper Campbell, Sr., an attorney, and his mother, Litta Belle Campbell, also a lawyer, was the first women to achieve the status of assistant district attorney in the State of California. He was the brother of Kemper Campbell, Jr., a graduate of Victorville High School who had enlisted in the Army Air Corps, where he obtained his wings and then died in the early months of World War II during a logistics flight.
Willard Wade was Victorville’s first mayor, who served in that capacity for the entire length of the city’s first four years in existence.

Recent Run Of Freakish Vehicle Mishaps In The Victor Valley

There was a spate of bizarre vehicle mishaps in the Victor Valley last and this week.
On August 19, 53-year-old Joe Dominguez II of Apple Valley was killed when the motorized shopping cart he was riding on was hit by a a pickup truck.
The collision occurred at at 8:40 p.m., 25 minutes after sundown, hear the intersection of Dale Evans Parkway and Zuni Road, according to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.
Dominguez was heading north on Dale Evans Parkway in the unlicensed jerryrigged mobile contraption, which was described by the sheriff’s department as somewhat akin to a scooter, when he was hit from behind by a 2002 Mazda B-Series pickup truck traveling north.
Reportedly, the driver of the truck, a 49-year-old man from Barstow whose identity has not been released, did not see the unlit vehicle.
Dominguez was transported to a hospital under the care of paramedics. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.
The sheriff’s department dispatched its major accident investigation team to the location.
The driver of the Mazda truck remained at the scene of the mishap and was fully cooperative with the investigators, and the intersection was shut until nearly 1 a.m. on August 20, while the cause and circumstances of the collision were examined. Based upon the evidence and information gathered, the preliminary conclusion was that the driver of the Mazda truck was not at fault.
Deputy J. Alarcon of the Apple Valley Police Department has been assigned to make a final report with regard to the case.
Very late in the evening of August 25, a tractor and 53-foot trailer traveling at a speed in excess of 50 miles per hour blasted through a backyard wall and into a residence when the driver lost control of the truck and its load. When the destructive forward progression of the semi came to a halt, the driver in was pinned within the wreckage for over an hour.
“On Monday, August 25, 2025, at approximately 11:27 p.m., deputies from the Victorville Police Station, rescue personnel from the Victorville Fire Department, American Medical Response, and San Bernardino County Fire Departmet responded to a traffic collision on Green Tree Boulevard, north of the intersection with Arrowhead Drive, in the city of Victorville,” according to the San Bernardino county Sheriff’s Department. “Upon arrival, deputies located a white 2019 Freightliner tractor truck, which crashed into the rear of a residence in the 16000 block of Wimbleton Drive. The driver of the Freightliner, who was identified as Vincent Lynn, was trapped in the Freightliner with the roof of the residence collapsed on the truck. Lynn was trapped inside the Freightliner for approximately one hour and was extricated by rescue personnel. He was subsequently transported to an area hospital, where he was airlifted to a regional trauma center due to injuries sustained as a result of the crash. None of the occupants of the residence were injured.”
The Victorville Police Station Major Accident Investigation Team, which responded and assumed the investigation, learned Lynn was driving north on Arrowhead Drive when he lost control of the Freightliner. He crashed into a traffic control device and proceeded into the rear of the residence.
The San Bernardino county Sheriff’s Department functions as the contract law enforcement agency – the police department – for the City of Victorville.
The cause of the crash is under investigation. Green Tree Boulevard and Arrowhead Drive were closed for approximately four hours for the duration of the investigation. Deputies J. Tomasello and R. Anselm have been assigned to completing the report of the incident.
On Tuesday, August 26, 2025, at 8:01 a.m., Apple Valley Fire Protection District firefighters responded to a report of a single vehicle, a Chevrolet Aveo, careening out of control when its 24-year-old driver, in the throes of an unspecified medical emergency, left the roadway and plunged into a single-family dwelling in the 13800 block of Iroquois Road in Apple Valley.
According to the Apple Valley Fire Protection District, “Occupants were home at the time of the incident; however, no injuries were reported to the occupants. The driver of the vehicle was transported to a local medical facility as a precaution.”
The district reported, “The Town of Apple Valley Building and Safety Department was requested to assess structural integrity of the affected residence. Firefighters constructed emergency shoring to stabilize the structure and prevent further damage or potential collapse.”

Haro Child Disappearance Case Investigation And Charges Have Created Unprecedented Complications

The Emmanuel Haro disappearance case has now complicated itself to a level beyond any previous expectation, as multiple entities, which over the course of two weeks grew heavily invested in the child’s parents being guilty of having murdered him, now finding themselves at stark loggerheads with one another.
Seven-month-old Emmanuel burst into the public consciousness in San Bernardino County, Southern California, across the country and ultimately globally on August 14, when 41-year-old Rebecca Haro reported to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department that while she was in the parking lot of the Big 5 sporting goods store in Yucaipa, standing outside the passenger side of her vehicle while changing her child’s diaper with him lying in the backseat, a man who came up behind her and greeted her in Spanish bashed her in the head, knocking her cold. When she came to, she was lying on the ground, Rebecca Haro said, and Emmanuel was gone.
The kidnapping had taken place, Rebecca and her 32-year-old husband, Jake Haro, said, while they were in Yucaipa with their two-year-old child and the ten-year-old son Jake had from an earlier marriage, so the older child could participate in a youth league football scrimmage at the Yucaipa athletic stadium, a relatively short distance from the Big 5 sporting goods store. The Haro’s horror story had, or seemed to have, the ring of truth. Rebecca’s right eye had been blackened, and her claim that she had gone to the sporting goods store to buy a mouthguard for her stepson was more than plausible. Within 48 hours after the disappearance, there was a report that a child closely resembling Emmanuel had been spotted in the company of a suspicious adult near Bakersfield in Kern County.
Over the next several days, however, the Haros’ version of events was subjected to withering scrutiny, and not just by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department detectives looking into the matter. Across the world, both professional and amateur sleuths began weighing in on social media, while over a dozen influencers and local web channel hosts and personalities took advantage of their proximity to the situation on the ground, going to the sites of relevance to the story, extending to various spots in Yucaipa, including the stadium and commercial district where the abduction had allegedly taken place, as well as the neighborhood in Cabazon in Riverside County where the Haros lived.
Some were so energetic and resourceful that they traced the family’s movements in the days and weeks prior to Emmanuel’s disappearance in exacting detail, interviewing their neighbors, friends and acquaintances. Even as the sheriff’s department investigators were taking note of what they would characterize as inconsistencies in the Haros’ statements, the impromptu layers of media teams began churning up details and facts that clashed, or seemed to, with the account of the kidnapping or the representations Emmanuel’s parents were making. Moreover, the background of the family and its circumstance, which was initially obscured, began to emerge. Elements of that background suggested that the Haro household was not a safe one for infants.
While the nature of law enforcement investigative processes by their nature do not provide for the information so obtained to be publicly disclosed, it appeared that at least with regard to some of the ground covered by the civilians looking into the matter, a few of those amateurs, at least, learned specifics that had eluded the professionals in the sheriff’s department.
A case in point was the efforts of Ahmed Bellozo, whose Tic Tok Channel “On The Tira” is devoted primarily to happenings, personalities, and landmarks in the Inland Empire. Accompanied by a videographer, Bellozo, armed with a microphone, conducts man-or-woman-on the street interviews, which he then posts on Tic Tok. What Bellozo lacks in formal journalistic training and polish, he makes up for in energy, intrepidity, resourcefulness and boldness, bordering on what some consider unmitigated gall. His guiding principle is steeped in instinct rather than based on rendering an unbiased exploration of whatever issue he has decided to focus on. This cinéma vérité approach to news gathering relies more on suspicion and luck than beforehand research. He films first and gets clearance for having inserted himself into the lives of others later, if he ever asks for the consent of those he videos at all. This unwillingness to adhere to the polite norms of comportment typically employed by news crews has led to awkward and on occasion expletive-filled exchanges that produce far more heat than light. His intent is aimed less at capturing objective reality than propounding his own perspective. Nevertheless, his approach has produced, on occasion, some remarkable and unexpected revelations and/or information that might have otherwise remained buried.
Bellozo took up the Baby Emmanuel case because he immediately recognized that it was a subject that would draw viewers. He was indistinguishable from literally dozens or even scores of other social media figures in that regard and similar to them in one other important aspect, as well. He, like they, concluded that there was a high degree of likelihood that the Haros were plain not telling the truth about their son having been abducted. Indeed, he was certain it was Jake and Rebecca Haro who were responsible for Emmanuel’s “disappearance.” Moreover, to Bellozo, disappearance was a euphemism for a much more grim reality; he believed that the child was dead and that his parents, one way or the other, were responsible for Emmanuel’s death.
Following a set of leads that he has not fully disclosed, Bellozo learned that the Haros had sojourned from their home in Cabazon on Sunday, August 3, a full 11 days before the alleged abduction of their youngest child, to the Waterman Discount Mall in San Bernardino. While there on that day, Bellozo learned, multiple witnesses had seen Rebecca Haro with a fresh and swollen black right eye. This was evidence corroborating his deeply-held belief, Bellozo reported to his viewers, that Rebecca Haro’s tale of having been set upon by an assailant who knocked her to the ground and left her unconscious while snatching her baby away from her was an out-and-out fabrication.
Simultaneously, other bloggers, social media platform contributors, members of the traditional media/press and the investigators with the sheriff’s department assigned to the case were growing increasingly skeptical and then downright unbelieving of the Haros’ narrative of what had happened on August 14. Virtually everyone had learned by this point that not quite seven years previously, Emmanuel’s half-sister, Carolina Rose, the then-ten-week-old daughter of Jake and Vanessa Avina, on October 13, 2018, had been admitted to Hemet Valley Hospital with a freshly broken rib, one which Jake said had come about when he dropped her onto the separating barrier in the sink where he was bathing her. What medical personnel at the hospital found was that in addition to that broken rib, she had five other healing broken ribs, a healing skull fracture and a healing broken leg, along with a neck injury and a brain hemorrhage.
After an investigation of that matter, Riverside County prosecutors charged Jake and Vanessa criminally with child abuse, child neglect and child cruelty. The case against them dragged on for more than four years while each made accusations against the other and their marriage ended in divorce. Jake and Vanessa had another child, Jake Jr., who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. In 2023, both Jake and Vanessa entered guilty pleas to willful cruelty against a child. Jake was sentenced to four years in prison, but the sentence was suspended in lieu of his completing 180 days in jail, during which he was granted a work release. Vanessa was given a 120-day sentence, which was also subject to work release.
Carolina Rose was adopted by Vanessa’s sister, who changed the child’s name to Promise Faith. The child was severely disabled after having had to undergo a tracheotomy, and is now blind, unable to walk or speak, with three to seven percent brain function. She is entirely dependent upon her aunt, her primary caregiver.
Based on what they were learning, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department investigators redoubled their scrutiny of the Haros, whose Cabazon home was subjected to a search warrant, one which included the use of ultraviolet lights and cadaver dogs. Jake’s and Rebecca’s cell phones were seized and they both willingly disclosed to investigators the devices’ passwords.
Contrary to reports that Rebecca was not cooperating with the investigation, she was repeatedly subject to questioning by investigators, as was her husband over the next several days.
Investigators found blood evidence in the Haro residence and discovered Emmanuel’s clothing and bedding along with photos of him discarded in a neighbor’s trash, according to the Sentinel’s sources. This evidence formed a partial basis of the arrest warrant that was served on August 22.
With the Haros’ arrest by San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies, however, despite the previous clamoring in the media for some order of action to be taken against the parents whose guilt was seemingly being universally assumed, there was an immediate sense that the authorities had acted prematurely. What had specifically thrown a large number of people for a loop was the lack of any definitive direct evidence that the child was dead. Reluctantly, San Bernardino County investigators acknowledged Baby Emmanuel’s body had not been found. Nevertheless, both Jake and Rebecca had been booked into the Robert Presley Detention Center in downtown Riverside.
That they were in the Riverside County detention center rather than in the Central Jail in San Bernardino or the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga across the San Bernardino County Line was a tacit indication that the child had been killed in Riverside County. Moreover, in addition to being arrested for the murder of their son, the sheriff’s department alleged as well that the Haros had conspired in perpetrating the murder. This went beyond implying that the couple were involved in their child’s death to asserting, essentially, that they had killed him with malice aforethought, with a conscious disregard for their own child’s life and were working together in deliberate cooperation to kill Emmanuel. This exceed by half the extremely uncharitable characterizations of the Haros that had been popping up all over the Worldwide Web. It more than implied that investigators and prosecutors had specific facts to back up the criminal charges.
Curiously, however, when the Haros, who were awoken at 6:59 a.m. and immediately taken into custody and transported to the Presley Detention Center by 8 a.m. on August 22, their jailers – the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department – did not, as is normally the case with those arrested on murder charges specified in an arrest warrant issued by a court, did not immediately book them. In the case of Rebecca Haro, she was not booked until 12:31 p.m., over a half hour after noon. Jake was not booked until 5:32 p.m.. In this way, Rebecca was relegated to a holding/admission cell for more than four-and-a-half hours, while Jake was placed in such temporary custody for nine-and-a-half hours. This gave the Riverside Sheriff’s Department the opportunity to engage in so-called Perkins operations, those being having undercover law enforcement officer misrepresent themselves as inmates and attempt to engage them in conversations with the goal of obtaining confessions, implicative statements or information relating to the crimes alleged against them.
In reaction to the arrests, the Internet exploded. There were outpourings of information built upon the official announcement of the arrests, augmented with speculation and supposition and occasional insight. For the region’s journalists, ones who fall within the loop of professionals working the local courts and police agencies, there were dividends in the form of detail or documents relating to the case. Simultaneously, an atypical informational pipeline opened, one which those professionals naturally and instinctively followed, but which upon reflection was recognized as highly irregular. Late on August 23, word was that Jake Haro had confessed to killing his son and that Emmanuel’s body had been found or that, at the least, its location was known. The following day, a bevy of investigators accompanied Jake, clad in a dark orange/red jail jumpsuit, to the hillside along the 60 Freeway near Gilman Springs east of Moreno Valley. Members of the press had been alerted ahead of time to the excursion and the anticipated discovery of the dead child’s remains, whereupon a coterie of reporters and photographers were in place to observe, from a distance, the investigative team walking along the fire roads and pathways on the hillside near Gilman Springs.
The involved agencies – the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, the Riverside County Coroner’s Office and the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office – were tight-lipped, at least initially, about what evidence had been found during that Sunday trip into the field. As could have been predicted, however, videos and photographs of Jake accompanied by investigators walking along the rustic trail in the Gilman Springs area were posted to social media sites within an hour and photos ran in the following day’s newspapers, with captions and reports that Jake was speaking to investigators and had divulged to them crucial details about the child’s death and how the tot’s body had been disposed.
A report circulated that Jake Haro had told San Bernardino County Sheriff’s detectives that he had unintentionally rolled over on Emmanuel in bed, discovering the infant dead the next morning, whereupon he panicked and disposed of the body. That report, however, did not appear in any official statement from either the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department or law enforcement in Riverside County, having surfaced on the internet on Sunday. Within the next 24 to 36 hours reports with regard to the Perkins operation surfaced in the traditional press and media, roughly simultaneous to the revelation that the excursion to Gilman Springs had not led to the discovery of Emmanuel’s body. In that context, the forewarning to the press about the Sunday trip to Gilman Springs was seen as an effort by Riverside County authorities – both those in the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office and in the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department – to utilize the newspapers, copies of which would be left lying around on the 7th floor of the Presley Detention Center in which Rebecca Haro was housed, as a means to convince her that her husband had turned and was in full cooperation with investigators, implicating her in their child’s murder.
Reports began to circulate early this week that Jake had told a jail inmate or someone he mistook for an inmate that he had killed Emmanuel and disposed of his body in the trash.
On August 26, both Rebecca and Jake appeared in Riverside Superior Court before Judge Gary Polk to be arraigned on a single PC 187 murder count and a single PC 158.5 misdemeanor charge of filing a false police report that had been lodged against each of them by the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office. The arraignments had not been held, however, and the proceedings were continued until September 4, reportedly because the public defender’s office did not want to be put into the position of representing both, given the possibility that a conflict might develop between the two defendants in the course of their defense against the charges. For the record, at that time, Deputy Public Defender Brian Cosgrove was representing both parents.
Shortly thereafter, it was determined that Allison Lowe and Paulette Garthwaite from the Riverside County Public Defender’s Office, under the supervision of Cosgrove, who with Lowe heads the public defender’s office’s complex litigation division, will represent Jake and that Jeff Moore of the Riverside-based law firm of Blumenthal & Moore will represent Rebecca to ensure that if any conflict between the husband and wife emerges, neither will be disadvantaged by having a legal team with divided loyalties.
The postponement until September 4, it was widely noted, would provide the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department with the opportunity to continue with the Perkins operations in an effort to solidify the case against the couple.
Thereafter, there was a cacophony suggesting something was amiss with the case, with questions as to why the parents had been arrested prior to there being absolute certainty that the child was in fact dead and why it was necessary to perpetuate the sheriff’s department’s, and therefore the district attorney’ office’s, investigation into the facts of the case. A point of sensitivity was why the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department had made the arrests when, to all indication, the murder, if in fact a murder had taken place, occurred in Riverside County.
In the minds of at least some, what was occurring with Rebecca and Jake Haro had echoes of a now infamous missing persons case out of San Bernardino County, that of Thomas Perez, Sr. of Fontana. The manner in which another San Bernardino County law enforcement agency, the Fontana Police Department, had dealt with that matter had proven most unfortunate, devolving into a debacle of regrettable proportion when its detectives arrested Perez’s son, Tom Perez, after the younger Perez reported his father as missing. Fontana Police Department detectives accused Tom Perez of murder, banging on him psychologically unendingly and unmercifully, insisting that despite his father’s body not yet having turned up that he had killed his father, browbeating him into making a confession. A few days later, Thomas Perez, Sr. returned from a trip he had made to San Francisco to the home in Fontana that he shared with Tom, very much alive.
Riverside District Attorney Mike Hestrin this week found himself in a very uncomfortable position of having a growing number of people, including members of the Fourth Estate, questioning his judgment in proceeding with the case against the Haros after being saddled with their arrests by not the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department but the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which had yet to definitively confirm that the victim – seven-month-old Baby Emmanuel – was indeed dead. Blood may indeed have been present in the Haros’ Cabazon home, but that was by no means proof positive that the child was dead or that the blood in question originated with Emmanuel, observers said. A child’s clothes and a blanket being placed into the trash could not be construed as proof positive that the child was dead, it was remarked. The sighting of a child matching Emmanuel Haro’s description in Kern County had never been satisfactorily resolved or adequately followed up on, according to those who had taken notice of that early development in the case.
The doubts and questions had grown to the point that on Wednesday, August 27, Hestrin called for and hosted a press conference, at which San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco were also in attendance, in an effort to allay the growing questions about the case, in particular to explain why the arrests had been made.
Hestrin by his presence made an assertion of authority and credibility, displaying his gravitas and charisma with a show of his command of the intricacies of the law as well as his mastery of the Spanish language in answering a question from a Mexican press correspondent. He was not in a position to lay out the entire case against the Haros, the district attorney said, and it would be a violation of prosecutorial ethics to do so, but he asserted nonetheless that he stood by the decision to charge the couple with the murder of their son.
“The defendants in this case have been charged with crimes, serious crimes,” Hestrin said. “The filing in this case reflects our believe that Baby Emmanuel was abused, the victim of child abuse over time and that eventually because of that abuse he succumbed to those injuries. We charged both Jake and Rebecca with murder. Now, they have a presumption of innocence that applies to them. They’re innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I’m not allowed to prove my case in the court of public opinion. So there’s a lot that we can’t say here in terms of the facts and the evidence. For that, you will have to come to the court and the various hearings to see how the case plays out.”
Hestrin noted that the Haros had held a press conference of their own in which they told “the public, the media and ultimately law enforcement that their child had been kidnapped when, in fact, that’s not what occurred.”
Hestrin took the bull by the horns when a reporter delved into whether the location of Emmanuel’s body was known.
“Yes,” Hestrin said. “We have a pretty strong indication of where the remains of Baby Emmanuel are.” He implied but did not specifically state that it was now just a matter of making a scientific confirmation being made. “That investigation is ongoing at this time,” he said.
In one swoop, it seemed, Hestrin had overcome the doubt that had cropped up with regard to the case. Hestrin furthered that impression by having Sheriff Dicus explain that evidence crucial to the case, which by the context of what was said seemed to indicate the child’s body, had been located through information obtained from Jake Haro.
“I’m not going to go into great detail about that, but there is some level of cooperation with the suspect’s involved in this,” Dicus said. “We’re trying to locate that, and our job is to follow every lead.”
Hestrin further finessed the reporters present when it came to lingering questions relating to the interviews or interrogations and/or the Perkins operations undertaken by Riverside County Sheriff’s Department investigators targeting the Haros while they were in custody in Riverside County along with the previous questioning of the couple by San Bernardino County Sheriff’s detectives. When asked about Jake Haro having made a confession to either purposefully or inadvertently killing his son, the district attorney initially deflected the question, skirting around Dicus’s indication of the couple’s cooperation with investigators.
While most of the press corps appeared ready to accept Hestrin’s assertion that Riverside County Sheriff’s Department investigators had not coaxed Jake Haro into a confession and not examine closely his  somewhat elliptical suggestion that Emmanuel’s body had been discovered, when Bellazo was given the opportunity to question Hestrin, he cut to the heart of that matter and the mystery that yet persisted regarding it, forcing Hestrin to explicitly deal with the question.
“I didn’t say I know where the remains are,” Hestrin responded to Bellazo’s challenge.
Bellozo said he had exhausted himself trying to get to the bottom of the issue, and that he wanted a straight answer.
“Well, you should get some rest, sir,” Hestrin, agitated but seeking to contain himself, responded. “I can’t share with you anything.”
The district attorney then sought to dissuade Bellozo or anyone else from inserting themselves into the effort to find Emmanuel’s body. As he did so, Hestrin brought attention to the core of the controversy: the readiness of his office and both of the involved sheriff’s departments to conclude that the child had been murdered without having produced the critical evidence that the child was dead.
“Look,” Hestrin said, “there are professionals that are looking for the remains of this child,” finally stating unequivocally, as he had previously avoided, that Emmanuel Haro’s body had not been found. “If the public has any information, then we ask for their help. So, we don’t know exactly where the remains are. We have some ideas of where we’re going to look and where we’re going to continue to investigate.”
Hestrin cut off an inquiry into whether the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department had succeeded with the Perkins operation.
“I can tell you that’s not true,” he said when asked if Jake Haro had been tricked into confessing to the murder. “There’s no confession made in jail.”
As the questioning thereafter grew more intense with regard to the information that had been obtained in the course of the investigation that had not yet been released but which justified the filing of the murder charges and was tumbling out in various postings and articles about the case, Hestrin implied that much of what was being written or posted was inaccurate, though he made no specific corrections. He decried the postings relating to Jake Haro’s alleged confession to killing his son, Jake Haro’s divulging of the location of the body, Jake Haro’s admission of disposing of the body in the trash and the disclosure of the Perkins operations as counterproductive.
Calling much of what was being reported “untrue,” Hestrin said, “This is what happens when you’ve got all these folks out there online and these keyboard warriors. You get a lot of misinformation.”
Bianco, saying “I actually complimented the mainstream media because you’ve been reaching out to us and actually been printing what we’ve told you” chastised the press for being so gullible as to pursue any  angles on the story that did not uphold the official version of events. “If someone posts something on social media, you all believe it’s true,” he said. Disregarding that a large segment of those engaging in amateur sleuthing and blogging had brought attention to and delineated the inconsistencies in the Haros’s narrative and had championed investigators playing hardball with the couple, Bianco said influencers and social media participants now questioning the paucity of information being disclosed by his department with regard to the case and the district attorney’s office’s decision to open a prosecution without having the child’s body in hand as “doing nothing but harming this investigation. And when you form your opinion and come in here and ask questions like that, you’re not serving the public in any way. There should not be anyone out there looking for Baby Emmanuel except for us. Social media’s devotion of attention to the matter, which he said was loaded with “misinformation, lies and purposeful misdirection,” was uncalled for, Bianco said. “All you’re going to do is complicate things in the future,” he said. “I am begging all of you with cameras out here don’t be a part of it.”

Ontario Chaffey Show Band September Concert To Feature Petrocelli Tribute To Mercer

The musicians of the Ontario Chaffey Community Show Band to start their 40th Concert Season with a show titled “Back To Our Roots” on Monday, September 15, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. This milestone performance will be held at historic Gardiner W. Spring Auditorium on the campus of Chaffey High School located at 1245 N. Euclid Ave. in Ontario, CA. The Woodwind Celebration Ensemble will present a pre-concert recital at 7:00 p.m. Complimentary coffee and cookies will be served in the lobby prior to the concert. The performance is free to the public.

The concert will be filled with musical highlights from the 40 years of Show Band entertainment performed for the City of Ontario and its surrounding communities. On tap are a repertoire of various music genres including marches, swing, rock ‘n’ roll, and Latin music. The announcers for this special concert will be Steve and Ruth Groethe, who have a special tie with the history of the Show Band, that is to be revealed exclusively to those who attend the concert!

One of the earliest compositions selected for the concert is a trumpet trio entitled “A Trumpet Celebration” by James Curnrow. The trio of trumpeters performing this composition will be David Grasmick, Steve Collins, and Mike Pfister. This piece was chosen by the showband’s founding director, Jack Mercer, a trumpeter himself.

The concert will feature two singers that are well known to the Show Band concert attendees, Brian Detwiler and Marilyne Sherwood. Each singer has performed many times with the Show Band over the years and that night they’ll be singing some of the first tunes they sang with the Show Band. Marilyne is to offer a rendition of “You Made Me Love You.” Brian will sing the first song he sang with the Show Band… “Blue Skies.”
Two of the long-standing members of the Show Band who will be performing are saxophonist/violinist Francisco Mowatt and dancer/musician Kathy Soderlund. Kathy will be featured dancing to “Besame Mucho” and Francisco will be featured on his alto saxophone.
The musicians of the Show Band will be featured on several selections, including “Charter Oak” March, “Disney Medley” to be conducted by assistant director David Grasmick, “Swings The Thing” to be conducted by assistant director Dave Schaafsma, a rock medley titled “Big Fun In The Sun,” and “The Bandmaster” written by Director Emeritus Dr. Gabe Petrocelli for the retirement of the showband’s founder, R. Jack Mercer.
Please be sure to join us for a wonderful evening of music and the start of our 2025-2026 concert season. Do not forget to invite your family and friends! You can also support the Show Band by visiting and feeding our Hungry Tuba located in the lobby. The concert will be broadcast on local Ontario cable Channel 3. Check your cable listings for the date and time.
The Ontario Chaffey Community Show Band was founded in 1985 by R. Jack Mercer and is now under the direction of Patrick Arnold with assistant directors Dave Schaafsma and David Grasmick. Band members represent at least two dozen communities throughout Southern California. Adult musicians and students are invited to participate. Rehearsals are held on Monday evenings from 7 to 9:00 p.m. at the Chaffey High School ‘Jack Mercer’ Band Room. The band performs monthly concerts on the campus of Chaffey High School as well as at other venues throughout the community. All performances are free to the public.
For more information about the concert visit the Show Band website at www.showband.net or contact Patrick Arnold at pt@showband.net. The “Friends of the Ontario Chaffey Community Show Band” is a registered charity under Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c)(3); EIN # 46-1422958. Donations are welcomed. Checks may be made out to: Friends of the OCCSB, P.O. Box 1512, Ontario, CA 91762. Concert goers interested in being included on the Show Band mailing list are encouraged to fill out an information card at our events. Be sure to follow the Show Band on Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube, and our website at www.showband.net.