ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CIV SB 2505583
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS:
Petitioner NATALIE ORTIZ filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
NATALIE ORTIZ to NATALIE URIBE ORTIZ
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: May 27, 2025
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Department: S35
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 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 in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Gilbert G. Ochoa
Judge of the Superior Court.
Filed: March 25, 2025 by
Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy Court Clerk
Attorney for Natalie Ortiz:
Jessica De Anda Leon State Bar #: 283600
1887 Business Center Drive Ste 5C
San Bernardino, Ca 92408
Telephone No: (909) 885-7300
Fax: (909) 381-6960
Email address: law@jessicadeanda.attorney
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 4, 11, 18 & 25, 2025.

FBN 20250003065
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
MEZA JANITORIAL SERVICES 540 W ROSEWOOD CT ONTARIO, CA 91762 GRECIA J ROMO [and] PEDRO MEZA-CASTANEDA
Business Mailing Address: 540 W ROSEWOOD CT ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: March 27, 2025
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
/s/ PEDRO MEZA-CASTANEDA , Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/27/2025
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy K5079
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 4, 11, 18 & 25, 2025.

Continue reading →

The trial of Jason Halstenberg began in earnest this week, with the prosecution wasting no time in laying the foundation for and then constructing the first stories in a high rise of circumstantial evidence to prove that he was the instigator of the Line Fire, the fourth most destructive wildland conflagration in San Bernardino County history.
As boldly, Halstenberg’s two defense lawyers at the earliest opportunity undertook to eat away at the edifice of evidence being erected against their client, moving rapidly to deconstruct the assumptions upon which the theory of Halstenberg’s guilt is based and to deride the flimsiness of certain items of evidence gathered by the investigators, who were looking into suspicions of arson-associated activity in the area around the area of the Line Fire’s origin even before that fire was set and within the first hour of the blaze, just as it was growing beyond the possibility of early containment.
Established during the first three days of testimony, eight witnesses were called, including two arson investigators employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Those investigators indicated they are absolutely convinced the Line Fire was the product of an arsonist who at least twice previously on September 5, the day the inferno began, used a distinctive ignition device to set the fires, one so rare that the lead arson investigator on the case testified he had not encountered such an implement in more than 500 fires he had previously worked on. The individual responsible had thus left what was tantamount to his calling card at the scene of Line fire’s origin, prosecutors through those investigators and one of the witnesses suggested.
Using the testimony of others who took the stand this week and submitted to questions regarding their own observations and/or footage caught on security videos installed at their homes or on their vehicles, the prosecution as testimony wrapped up this week had begun to lay out but had not quite cinched up its argument that Heustenberg and his equally distinctive dual cab, white short bed Chevrolet pickup truck was present in Highland, in close proximity to all three of the fires that had been set in the crucial time frame prior to and during the fires being lit, and that he is thus unmistakably identifiable as the firebug.
The defense team fought to keep pace, suggesting that the evidence being presented by the prosecution as damning of Halstenberg, while no doubt consisting of artifacts found at the scene of the three lit fires, was in multiple respects too fragmentary to paint a reliable snapshot of actual events. Furthermore, the defense contended, the state’s expert witness consisting of the arson investigators had not gathered evidence and then evaluated and analyzed it non-prejudiciously in accordance with scientific method to reach a determination a posteriori but had formed a conclusion a priori and then selectively focused on certain artifacts remaining in the wake of the fire to support a finding of Halstenberg’s guilt while discounting or ignoring evidence that pointed to some other factors unrelated to the defendant having sparked the blaze. The investigators, the defense sought to suggest to the jury, had postulated the existence of an ignition device they had never seen, of which no intact example exists and which they had not bothered to recreate, to offer up speculation that Halstenberg had used it to touch off the fire.
Read the full article in this week’s edition of the Sentinel, available at newsstands throughout San Bernardino County.

The trial of Jason Halstenberg began in earnest this week, with the prosecution wasting no time in laying the foundation for and then constructing the first stories in a high rise of circumstantial evidence to prove that he was the instigator of the Line Fire, the fourth most destructive wildland conflagration in San Bernardino County history.
As boldly, Halstenberg’s two defense lawyers at the earliest opportunity undertook to eat away at the edifice of evidence being erected against their client, moving rapidly to deconstruct the assumptions upon which the theory of Halstenberg’s guilt is based and to deride the flimsiness of certain items of evidence gathered by the investigators, who were looking into suspicions of arson-associated activity in the area around the area of the Line Fire’s origin even before that fire was set and within the first hour of the blaze, just as it was growing beyond the possibility of early containment.
Established during the first three days of testimony, eight witnesses were called, including two arson investigators employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Those investigators indicated they are absolutely convinced the Line Fire was the product of an arsonist who at least twice previously on September 5, the day the inferno began, used a distinctive ignition device to set the fires, one so rare that the lead arson investigator on the case testified he had not encountered such an implement in more than 500 fires he had previously worked on. The individual responsible had thus left what was tantamount to his calling card at the scene of Line fire’s origin, prosecutors through those investigators and one of the witnesses suggested.
Using the testimony of others who took the stand this week and submitted to questions regarding their own observations and/or footage caught on security videos installed at their homes or on their vehicles, the prosecution as testimony wrapped up this week had begun to lay out but had not quite cinched up its argument that Heustenberg and his equally distinctive dual cab, white short bed Chevrolet pickup truck was present in Highland, in close proximity to all three of the fires that had been set in the crucial time frame prior to and during the fires being lit, and that he is thus unmistakably identifiable as the firebug.
The defense team fought to keep pace, suggesting that the evidence being presented by the prosecution as damning of Halstenberg, while no doubt consisting of artifacts found at the scene of the three lit fires, was in multiple respects too fragmentary to paint a reliable snapshot of actual events. Furthermore, the defense contended, the state’s expert witness consisting of the arson investigators had not gathered evidence and then evaluated and analyzed it non-prejudiciously in accordance with scientific method to reach a determination a posteriori but had formed a conclusion a priori and then selectively focused on certain artifacts remaining in the wake of the fire to support a finding of Halstenberg’s guilt while discounting or ignoring evidence that pointed to some other factors unrelated to the defendant having sparked the blaze. The investigators, the defense sought to suggest to the jury, had postulated the existence of an ignition device they had never seen, of which no intact example exists and which they had not bothered to recreate, to offer up speculation that Halstenberg had used it to touch off the fire.
What became known as the Line Fire began in a field of dry vegetation north of Baseline Road in east Highland on September 5, 2024,  a sweltering day near the end of the hottest summer in Southern California in the last 130 years. Continue reading →

A split Redlands City Council this week moved to, in the words of one City Hall insider, “permanently shut up” Deputy Police Chief Travis Martinez by paying him $871,956 plus a buyout of his accrued sick, vacation and staff privilege leave to discontinue his statements critical of his political masters and administrative overlords and retire before the end of the month.
Martinez, the second-highest ranking member of the Redlands Police Department, has claimed that decisions made by council members, the current and immediate past city manager and other senior department heads at Redlands City Hall has saddled the police with an inferior police chief and inadequate leadership of the police department and created physical and procedural circumstances within the city that have been and remain a continuing hazard to the public.
Martinez was highly thought of for the quality of his police and investigative work and his ambition and industriousness on the job. Those qualities, combined with the Redlands’ community’s desire as it advanced into the Third Millennium to promote Hispanics into high profile positions of authority, resulted in Martinez achieving the second highest ranking position in the Redlands Police Department.
Nevertheless, what was either his insensitivity to or disregard for political implications, a personality trait uncommon in most individuals who make it to management positions in the law enforcement profession, resulted in complications for the city, its political and administrative leadership and ultimately Martinez himself.
Martinez, grew up in Redlands as the grandson and grandnephew of the first two Latino members of the Redlands City Council, Norman and Odie Martinez. At the age of 22 in 1995, after graduating from the University of Redlands the previous year with a bachelor’s degree in business administration and management and then attending the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Academy, he was hired by the Redlands Police Department. Continue reading →

A good cross section of Chino residents have expressed discomfiture with the city council’s indulgence of the Newport Beach-based Orbis Development Company in what they anticipate will be redound to the disadvantage of existing residents in the Euclid Schaefer District.
Utilizing a limited liability offshoot, Orbis and its principals, Grant Ross and Tom Money, were able to successfully obtain the cooperation of the city’s planning division to get its acquiescence in conceptually accepting the subdivision of 10.3 acres at the northwest corner of Euclid and Schaefer avenues into a 267-apartments on 5.1 acres, a 1.4-acre fast food restaurant site, a 1.5-acre fast food restaurant site, a 1.5-acre storage facility and a 0.7-acre 18,600-square foot retail complex with an accompanying parking lot.
Orbis’s intended use of the property is of far greater intensity than that on the surrounding properties. The projects have been presented to the city as a package deal under the guise of a single project. Dubbed Eden by Orbis, the project signals a wave of development proposals by investors and development companies now on the drawing boards which will seek to use the leverage of state efforts to facilitate the construction of affordable housing, which is to ultimately manifest as densely packed multi-story structures. This has run head on into the expectations of those who in recent years and decades have located in Chino and are now residing in neighborhoods built upon wide swaths of land previously utilized for agricultural purposes and which currently feature suburban bungalows and two-story single-family residences.
On September 19, 2022, Orbis Real Estate Partners of Newport Beach acquired the 451,281.6-square foot – 10.36 acre – Zivelonghi property at the northwest corner of South Euclid Avenue and Schaefer Avenue within the confines of the now-defunct Chino Agricultural Preserve. Orbis paid Margaret Zivelonghi $12,100,000 for the acreage, translating to a cost of $26.59 per square foot or $1,158,301.16 per acre for the property. The sale did not invite the scrutiny of, nor alarm, the vast majority of those living in the area. A handful of residents, however, were aware of the transaction, and several of those understood the sale’s implication. Those more informed and sophisticated with regard to real estate and land development issues recognized that the price paid and other considerations such as zoning and pressure the State of California through its Department of Housing and Community Development is putting on cities throughout California to facilitate the creation of low income housing to ease the perceived housing crisis in the Golden State meant that the property was destined to be developed to a greater density than other property in the general vicinity and the property within the former Chino Valley Agricultural Preserve that had already been built upon in general. Continue reading →

Emboldened by a few recent victories it has experienced with regard to related issues and a political shift in Washington, D.C. away from the so-called wokeism that predominated during the immediate past presidential administration, the Chino Valley Unified School District on April 17 directed the district’s lawyers to prepare lawsuits challenging the State of California’s imposition of policies relating to transgender students.
One of the suits, which had already been tentatively drafted, allege the State of California through policies put in place and advocated by California Superintendent of Schools Tony Thurmond, ones advocated by Governor Gavin Newsom, a lawsuit filed against the district by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and legislation passed by the California legislature violated a federal act protecting families. The other propounds that the California Interscholastic Federation violated Title IX by allowing transgender athletes in female sports.
The Chino Valley Unified School District over the past decade-and-a-half has demonstrated itself to be on the cutting edge of challenges to the predominant philosophical orientation in California, where the Democrats and in particular the liberal wing of the Democratic Party hold the upper hand in the state capital, as the Democrats hold supermajorities in the California Assembly and State Senate and occupy the governor’s mansion and hold the lieutenant governorship, and the offices of California attorney general, superintendent of public education, California Secretary of State, Insurance Commissioner, State Treasurer, State Controller.
Early in the second decade of the Third Millennium, a three-member majority on the Chino valley Unified School District Board of Trustees, consisting of Sylvia Orozco, James Na and Andrew Cruz, Republicans all, sought and for a short time succeeded in permitting prayer in an academic and district board meeting setting. That policy was undone, when the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the prayer policy in court. For a short time thereafter, with Sylvia Orozco’s departure from the board following her unsuccessful electoral bid for the Chino City Council, a secular controlling majority on the council centered around Democratic lawyer Christine Gagnier, asserted itself. Gagnier was being groomed by forces within the Democratic Party as a future legislator at either the state or federal level or both. In 2022, despite intensive Democratic support, Gagnier was voted out of office and Sonja Shaw, a standard bearer of both the religious right and the Republican Party in the Chino Valley community, was voted into office, taking Gagnier’s place. Continue reading →