Grading at the site for the Enclave residential subdivision in western Upland was under way this morning.
That work to make way for construction at the 15.64 acre site came after the Upland Planning Commission gave go-ahead for Lennar Homes, which is to be the builder on the project originally championed by the Lewis Land Developers, LLC, to begin construction.
The planning commission’s action on Wednesday night removed from the original 19.03 acre project site 3.39 acres currently occupied by a boat manufacturing concern, GT Performance. The boat manufacturer had formerly, prior to the project being given approval in 2015, agreed to sell the property to Lewis Land Developers, LLC for inclusion in the project. Word was that because the Lewis Operating Company was unwilling to pay GT Performance’s moving costs, the purchase of the property to be included in the subdivision has not been made by Lewis Land Developers, LLC.
Because the 3.39 acres is not being included in the current undertaking, the overall project, set at 350 homes in 2015, will be reduced by the 65 dwelling units that were to be constructed on the GT Performance property. In addition, the 103 dwelling units that were slated for a 5.12 acre patch of ground within the project site have been reduced by 27 to 76 dwelling units; the 94 dwelling units to be built on a 4.7 acre parcel are to be reduced by 31 to 63 dwelling units; and 88 dwelling units to be built on 4.38 acres within the subdivision have been reduced by 35 to 53 dwelling units.
Thus, overall, the project is to entail 192 total dwelling units. There remains a possibility that in the future the GT Performance property could be developed residentially, involving as many as 65 units.
The units to be built are to include attached three-story townhomes using Santa Barbara, French Provincial and Spanish Monterey architectural schemes, as well as detached two-story homes in the Santa Barbara, French Provincial and Spanish Monterey styles.
Unresolved by the planning commission is the difficulty represented by the location of the Enclave Development and the nearby Harvest Development within the City of Upland’s industrial district.
Both the Enclave project and the Harvest project have entrances off of 11th Street and fall within an area of the city that is industrially zoned. Both Harvest and the Enclave were projects undertaken by Lewis Land Developers, LLC, the corporate successor of Lewis Homes. Lewis Homes historically was one of the most successful home builders in the Inland Empire, founded by Ralph and Goldy Lewis in the 1950s. The second generation of the Lewis Family is now in the process of relinquishing control over the company to the third generation of ownership and management, as the company has become involved less and less in actual home building and now engages mostly in achieving entitlements to proceed with projects, and spins those off to other home builders, such as Lennar in the case of the Enclave and KB Homes in the case of Harvest.
The Lewis Group of Companies, including Lewis Homes and Lewis Land Developers, LLC, is based in Upland and its principals, including Richard, Randall, Roger and Robert Lewis along with Leon Swails and John Goodman are pillars of Upland society and the local political establishment. When the company first proposed constructing the Harvest residential project in the city’s industrial zone in the early 2000s, city officials were unable to stand up to the Lewis Empire and resist the call to place what was essentially an incompatible residential use into property more properly used and already zoned for industrial purposes. This was compounded when the Enclave project was proposed in the same industrial district along 11th Street some years later, and the city once more caved in to the Lewis Land Developers request.
The problem this created manifested last year when Yellow Iron Development proposed the construction of a 92,275-square foot warehouse/light industrial manufacturing/distribution facility, on the south side of 11th Street just to the east of the Harvest Development and west of the Enclave. The project, the site plan for which included 11 truck bays and two other truck loading facilities as well as parking spaces for 202 vehicles, appeared to be fully in compliance with the city’s zoning codes. Nevertheless, the planning commission denied the Yellow Iron Development approval of the project, primarily out of concern over the developer’s unwillingness to grant an assurance that the eventual tenant would not want to conduct operations during night and early morning hours.
Evening and early morning operations are a staple of industrial operations. The city, which already is in the throes of fighting 55 lawsuits, is facing the prospect of yet another from Yellow Iron Development, which has appealed the planning commission’s denial of the project to the city council. If the city council upholds the planning commission’s denial, word on the street is that Yellow Iron Development will file a 56th lawsuit against the city based on its contention that the city has denied the company’s right to operate, even though it has shown its readiness to meet all city codes and has complied with city zoning regulations.
This week, faced with the contradiction between the city’s zoning restrictions and the incompatible and non-compliant uses that have been permitted to locate within specific areas of the city, the planning commission and Community Development Director Bob Dahlquest did not utilize that opportunity to explore the full implication of the city’s past actions that have led it to this juncture, and to resolve the incompatible use and inconsistent zoning issues facing the city.
The failure to come to terms with that zoning discordance relates directly to this project, since the planning commission’s vote permitted Lewis Land Developers, Inc. and Lennar Homes to proceed with a residential development that will be contiguous on two sides with GT Performance’s industrial operation.
-Mark Gutglueck

The Department of the Interior as it has been reconstituted with the Joseph Biden Administration appointees, announced earlier this month that it is reversing the lame duck Trump Administration’s dismantling of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.
The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, known by its acronym DRECP, is a collaborative effort between the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Energy Commission to streamline the permitting process for renewable energy development while striking what those participating in the plan’s drafting say is a balance that will conserve and protect unique and endangered species, their habitat and overarching desert ecosystems while providing citizens access to some public desert lands for recreational purposes.
Stating that it was not sensible to require that every renewable energy project on public lands in California require a resource plan amendment to proceed and decrying that such regulations prevented all but 4 percent of the 10.8 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management from being included in the “focus areas” eligible for renewable energy development, the Trump administration said it was instituting changes to the DRECP that would free up more than 800,000 acres for renewable energy development and allow more off-highway vehicle recreation. The Trump Administration said this would help “meet California’s renewable energy mandates.”
Those who had participated in the drafting of the DRECP, including a range of environmental groups and the California Energy Commission, denounced the move as a counterproductive and destructive setback.
The Department of the Interior in a Federal Register Notice revoked the Bureau of Land Management’s comment period on the Trump administration’s draft environmental impact statement to amend the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan .
Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity commended the Biden Administration for its decision to keep the DRECP intact.
“Five days before Joseph Biden was sworn in, the Trump Administration took action that stripped a lot of the conservation pieces out of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan ,” Anderson said. I was very concerned about that. Last week the Biden Administration withdrew that, so it appears they have are satisfied with the DREP as it is drafted. Hopefully, what they do from here on out and what will be implemented will be consistent with that. Right now, there are only two new renewable energy projects being proposed in the desert that are going to through the environmental examination process. Those will be in the development focus areas that have the least number of biological conflict areas in the desert. It appears the new administration is going to give the plan a chance to work.”
Anderson said the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, by specifying a focus area where renewable energy projects are to be located, will “ensure renewable energy project construction occurs in places that have the least amount of impact on sensitive habitats.”
She said it is a good sign that the Biden Administration stepped in to prevent the junking of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan .
“The Trump Administration basically rolled back virtually all of the environmental protections we rely upon for human health and safety as well as for the protection of wildlife,” she said.
In contrasting the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration with regard to the development of the desert and the mining of its resources, Anderson said the current “I think they are definitely committed to doing more publicly available public review on environmental issues.”
Nevertheless, Anderson said the Biden Administrations zeal to pursue renewable energy options could mean it will not be sufficiently diligent in or committed to pursuing environmental protection both generally and in regard to the ecology of California’s Desert.
“I think time will tell,” she said. “I wish I had a crystal ball. They are very much in favor of renewable energy and to make a transition off of fossil fuels.”
Anderson expounded on the tension in the environmental community between those who are aggressively in favor solar power development and those who want strong regulations preventing the development of huge solar fields anywhere in the desert.”
“The environmentalist spectrum is wide,” she said. “For sure there are three or four environmental groups actively opposing renewable energy projects on private desert lands of all kinds. I can only speak for my organization. One of our concerns is about climate change. We are seeing the effects as we speak so there is a need for the transitioning to renewable energy. The way our system currently exists, the development of large scale solar plants is under the control of private companies. They have stockholders, and capitalism is all about making money. So it is easier for them to only have to deal with one entity.”
The regulatory agencies overseeing power generation do not have the preservation of threatened species as a priority, she said. “That is the dynamic that is occureing in the California Desert,” she said.
At the same time, large utility companies want to put in fields of solar arrays on property that exists as crucial habitat for endangered species.
“The California desert is a world class solar radiation zone,” she said. “Quite literally, there is no other place that has such a good location that also happens to be next to one the biggest electrical use load centers on the planet, the Southern California area. For solar energy in particular, it is a desirable place to locate solar fields.”
Her group and other environmentalists have invested considerable time and effort in finding a means to effectuate species protection, while allowing the construction of large-scale solar array fields to take place. The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan was the end product of that labor, she said. “We have made improvements in how renewable energy projects are permitted and where they are located. In trying to implement the provisions of the DERCP, we are manageing to put them where they have the least impact on critical habitat. We hope to balance the need for electricity and work within the system we are bounded by and offset the worst climate change challenges we face. We hope to stem the tide of overheating our planet.”
Asked how she countered the argument that the worldwide, national and state dependence on fossil fuels as a primary energy source represents a greater environmental threat than do the downsides of placing massive scale solar power generating plants and windmills into the desert, Anderson said, “I think we need to find a balance.”
She said she understood there should be a commitment to using solar power where it can do the most good.
“At the same time we are trying to transition to renewable energy we have a worldwide species extinction process that is ongoing in the face of global warming,” she said. “Protecting these species is so very important, and that means preserving their habitat. But they are being threatened by global warming. So, we don’t want to have them go to extinct from climate change. That calls for a nuanced solution, but that is the way to go forward. If it was up to me, the emphasis would be on putting our renewable options in place on our residential rooftops, on commercial buildings, where people actually live and work. That would not destroy the habitat for species that are moving toward extinction. That is the most effective way to reach the goals. Southern California Edison and PG&E are fighting that tooth and nail, as is every other corporate utility owner, because that is not their business mode.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Some 16 months after the California Department of Parks and Recreation spurned the City of Upland’s application for an $8.5 million park upon learning elements of that application had been falsified, city officials have gamely applied once more for an identical amount of money from the state.
In the current go-round, the city is relying upon a grant-writing consultant, Megan LeNoue of the firm Avant Garde, to guide the city’s approach to obtain the State of California’s Proposition 68 park improvement grants, according to Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker.
According to Parker, the city is not starting from scratch but rather making a resubmittal of the application.
“Avant Garde, in coordination with city staff has prepared the application for the resubmission. The only known change in what will be submitted to the state is that the conceptual site plan and legend will be replaced once they are updated by our consultant,” Parker told the city council on Monday, February 22.
Basing the city’s grant request on its 2019 submission might prove problematic, particularly if the same California Department of Parks and Recreation personnel that considered the 2019 request evaluate this year’s request.
The 2019 request was hastily drawn up by the city’s then recreational services manager, Doug Story, as a ploy by city staff and the city council to placate resident outrage at the city’s secretive 2018 move to sell 4.631 acres of Memorial Park to San Antonio Regional Hospital for use as a parking lot. The city had attempted to effectuate that sale without submitting the matter to a vote of the city’s residents as required by law. That sale was challenged by residents in court when the city tried to validate the sale. On May 29, 2019, some 14 months after the sale of the park property was approved by the city council, Judge David Cohn, dismissed the city’s sale validation action. Penultimately, hospital officials resigned themselves to the necessity of subjecting the sale of the property to a citywide vote, which took place in the November 2020 General Election. The city voters rejected making the sale.
The 2019 Proposition 68 grant application submitted by Story was done in the hope that the city’s residents would be so mesmerized by the park improvements the grant would provide that they would look beyond that accompanying the park enhancements would be the reduction of the 38.5 acre park by 12 percent to 33.869 acres. Story’s application said the $8.5 million would be used to refurbish or replace Memorial Park’s playground equipment, add a water feature splash pad, an amphitheater and an artificial turf multi-sports competition field, augment the park with walking and exercise trails, a basketball court and an intensified outdoor nature conservancy with trees and plants hospitable toward bees, hummingbirds and the like.
Proposition 68 was passed by the state’s voters in 2018. It reallocated a portion of California’s $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds for expanding and enhancing parks around the state.
Story in September and October 2019 guarantedd that the full $8.5 million applied for in his request was forthcoming, and he dismissed questions noting that the city yet needed to compete against other grant requests as aspersions on the integrity of Upland officials that bordered on slander.
This prompted direct inquiries by Upland residents with the California Department of Parks and Recreation that uncovered the grant application and city demographic data showed the city had fudged numbers relating to the “service area” pertaining to the park by claiming that the average per-household annual income was less than $51,000. Upon recognizing that some of the data forwarded to them by the city as part of the application process had been falsified, by the end of November 2019, state officials made a determination that the grant application should be rejected, and informed Story of such. Story checked out of Upland the first week of December to go to work in the recreation department in the City of Beaumont, effective in January 2020.
In the meantime, Upland municipal officials withheld from the public that the state had denied the city’s grant request. Then-Councilman Bill Velto, who is now mayor, in December 2019 insisted the city was yet waiting for all $8.5 million of the grant. Councilwoman Janice Elliott in January 2020 said it remained the city’s official position that the Proposition 68 grant might come through. She said it was irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
In March 2020, the city acknowledged that the grant would not be forthcoming.
This week, after the council voted to have the city submit the reapplication, Parker was unavailable to say whether the city had included the falsified data relating to the average per-household annual income in the park’s service area.
-Mark Gutglueck

By Amanda Frye and Mark Gutglueck
The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District has taken legal action in an effort to end Nestlé’s withdrawal of millions of gallons of water annually from springs in the San Bernardino National Forest which the Swiss-owned company sells under the Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water brand.
The water district’s action is ongoing as Nestlé is engaged in negotiations with One Rock Capital Partners, LLC , a private equity firm heavily funded by Asian investors, over the sale of Nestlé’s North American bottled water business, which includes the local Arrowhead Water bottling operation. In June 2020, Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc. announced it was going to sell its bottled water business in a push toward sustainability.
At its March 2 meeting to be held at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s board of directors is set to adjourn into a closed session outside the presence of the public to, according to the agenda for that meeting, engage in a “conference with legal counsel” pertaining to “existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9” regarding a “complaint against Nestlé Waters North America” concerning “unauthorized diversions from Strawberry Creek [in] San Bernardino County.” The agenda notes that the matter is “before the State Water Resources Control Board.”
The Sentinel was able to find no more information regarding the action.
In 2015, Nestlé’s Arrowhead water withdrawals from the San Bernardino National Forest came under review. In that review, the company’s expired water drafting permit was questioned.
Nestlé takes groundwater from the headwaters of Strawberry Creek near Red Rock Wall and Highway 18 at the 5,000 foot level within the San Bernardino National Forest. Nestlé’s has a series of horizontal wells bored hundreds of feet into the mountainside, draining millions of gallons of forest groundwater each year. A stainless steel pipeline system conveys the extracted forest groundwater southward to the 2,000-foot elevation level at the mountain’s foothills, where it is picked up by trucks near the site of the historic Arrowhead Springs resort and then taken to Nestlé’s water bottling operations and is sold as “Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water” and “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water.”
Nestlé’s water diversion and water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest have remained under investigation by the California Water Resources Board, which has oversight on all California water rights and diversions, including those on federal lands within the state since 2015, pending the board’s final report of its investigation. In December 2017, the water board’s initial review of its investigation limited Nestlé’s taking of water to 26 acre-feet annually, but Nestlé has refused to comply, continuing to take 144 acre-feet in 2017, 141 acre-feet in 2018 and 210 acre-feet in 2019, with no indication of compliance in 2020 or 2021.
An acre-foot equals 325,851.4 gallons or 43,560 cubic feet, the amount of water that would cover one acre, 43,560 square feet, to the depth of one foot.
The streambed of upper Strawberry Creek is dry as Nestlé’s nearby stainless steel pipeline drains millions of gallons of forest groundwater. The national forest water was reserved upon its founding in 1894 for nearby communities and irrigation. Forest waters are essential for supplying water to the Santa Ana River and for local groundwater recharge. Nestlé, which has intensified the deterioration of the ecology in Strawberry Canyon and the national forest by its water extraction for years, is seeking to bypass any potential liability by selling the water bottling operation and walking away with $4 billion.
Elsewhere in San Bernardino County, in Deer Canyon above Rancho Cucamonga, Nestlé extracts roughly 76 million gallons annually from springs at that location.
A review of the historical record indicates that Nestlé has no water rights within the San Bernardino National Forest at the 5,000 foot level, but has conflated Strawberry Canyon with the original 1910 Arrowhead water bottling operation at a natural water source on the grounds of the privately-owned Arrowhead Springs Hotel at the 2,000-foot elevation level in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, where one of its corporate predecessors had established water rights, which were not passed on to the Arrowhead water bottling successors.
The Forest Service has not resolved this discrepancy, but is waiting on the California State Water Resources Board’s final report of its investigation into the matter. A new federal permit for Nestlé’s pipeline was issued in June 2018, with minimal mitigation measures despite an initial ruling by the state water board to reduce the water taken out of Strawberry Canyon while the investigation is pending.
Decades ago, Nestlé’s corporate predecessor Arrowhead Puritas was extracting water from Strawberry Canyon based on a ten-year permit issued by the National Forest Service in 1978 and renewed annually at a cost of $524 per year. Arrowhead Puritas was bought out by Beatrice Foods and then morphed into the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, which acquired the still-active permit. The BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company applied to extend that permit and, in 1987, while that application process was still uncompleted, Perrier purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company. The then-pending water extraction permit renewal required a U.S. Forest Service review of the water drafting arrangement and its environmental/ecological impact, which at that point the U.S. Forest Service did not have the immediately available resources to carry out. In a gesture of compromise, Perrier was allowed, pending the eventual Forest Service review, to continue to operate in Strawberry Canyon by simply continuing to pay the $524-per year fee to perpetuate the water extraction under the terms of the expired permit. In 1992, when Nestlé acquired the Arrowhead brand from Perrier, it inherited the Strawberry Canyon operation and continued to pay the $524 annual fee without renewing the permit, which at that time existed under the name of the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Co,” one that was never listed legally in corporate filings, but which is currently operating under Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc.
A report from the California State Water Resources Control Board released on December 20, 2017, while California state water officials were investigating Nestlé’s San Bernardino Mountains operation, reached the conclusion that while Nestlé was drafting 192 acre-feet (62.56 million gallons) annually from Strawberry Canyon, the company had the right to divert up to 26 acre-feet of water (8.47 million gallons) per year, based on historic water claims. State officials claimed that Nestlé in this way was extracting on a yearly basis 166 acre-feet (54.09 million gallons) of water it does not have a right to take. Further examination of the historic record indicates that the rights to the 26 acre-feet that the California State Water Resources Board said Nestlé could assert were based on established rights of one of its corporate predecessors from springs located in the foothills rather than in Strawberry Canyon at the 5,000 foot level.
Nestlé in 2018 said the State Water Resources Board’s December 20, 2017 conclusion did not take into account “additional volumes” of water available to it from several categories of water rights. Nestlé insists it has a “valid basis of right for surface water and groundwater to collect at least 271 acre-feet annually in Strawberry Canyon.”
Public comments relating to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s action can be emailed to that body’s board through the board clerk, Jose Macedo. To obtain his email address, reach him at (909) 387-9214. You can zoom into the meeting and make comment, as well, but must first obtain access to the district’s Zoom website, as well as a meeting identification and a passcode. Call district headquarters at (909) 387-9200 for this information.

By Curt Hagman Chairman, San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and Dawn Rowe, Vice Chairwoman
San Bernardino County has been the standard-bearer for administering the COVID-19 vaccine to our residents and has used more than 97% of the doses we have received from the state, while many other counties struggle to use more than 85%.
Despite our vaccination efficiency, fewer doses are provided to our county relative to other counties that end each week with vials stacked up in freezers.
We estimate this disparity has resulted in 65,000 senior citizens and teachers in our county who want vaccinations but are unable to access them. Meanwhile, truckloads of vaccines roll past our region on their way to other destinations throughout the state. This is concerning as California will soon open another tier in their vaccination roadmap that will make thousands of our county’s sick and disabled residents eligible for vaccination.
As of Feb. 16, the county received 255,150 doses and administered 191,186 with plans to administer another 57,147 doses by the end of the week. That would bring us to 97.3% administered out of our total doses allocated.
San Bernardino County accounts for 5.53% of the state’s population, yet as of Feb. 2, received only 4.33% of the doses allocated statewide. Had we received doses based on our fair share of the state’s population, we would have received an additional 51,813 doses.
The disparity continues to this day, and the gap has now grown to 65,000 doses.
More troubling is the fact that these inequities don’t include our county losing out on thousands of additional doses allocated to “Federally Qualified Health Centers” in Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego, and at least 22 other counties.
The county was told that the state’s criteria for selecting these centers for additional doses included service to a significant number of people experiencing homeless, residents of public housing, people with limited English proficiency, and large aging populations, along with the capacity to provide staffing and vaccine storage.
All four of our county-owned federally qualified health centers meet that criteria, as well as a vast majority of the centers represented by the Community Health Association Inland Southern Region.
We urge our state and federal partners to distribute vaccines in accordance with population and need and to place an emphasis on transparency and collaboration on all matters related to COVID-19.

FBN 20210001125
The following entity is doing business as THE BUNNY LASS 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786 JENNIFER CIACCIO 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JENNIFER CIACCIO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/04/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 31, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2021.

FBN 20200011271
The following entity is doing business as GAMESTOP 818 10730 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITE 140 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: GAMESTOP, INC
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION registered with the State of Minnesota under the registration number: 196945
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ GEORGE E. SHERMAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/11/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: AUGUST 8, 2000
County Clerk, Deputy V0956
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 25, 2020 and January 1, 8 & 15, 2021
Corrected: February 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2021.

FBN 20210001125
The following entity is doing business as THE BUNNY LASS 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786 JENNIFER CIACCIO 1012 W 7TH ST. APT 100 UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JENNIFER CIACCIO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/04/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 31, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2021.

T.S. No. 19-21246-SP-CA Title No. 191210102-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0108-601-12-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 10/18/2007. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Guillermina Martinez, a married woman as her sole and separate property Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 10/25/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0600551 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 03/11/2021 at 1:00 PM Place of Sale: At the Main (South) Entrance to the City of Chino Civic Center, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA. 91710 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $438,466.58 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 1510 North Lake Avenue Ontario, CA 91764 A.P.N.: 0108-601-12-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 19-21246-SP-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. Date: 01/26/2021 National Default Servicing Corporation c/o Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., its agent, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92108 Toll Free Phone: 888-264-4010 Sales Line 855-219-8501; Sales Website: www.ndscorp.com By: Rachael Hamilton, Trustee Sales Representative Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 & 02/26/2021 CPP350886

T.S. No. 19-21335-SP-CA Title No. 191260552-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0218-741-36-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 11/17/2006. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Kenneth Gabriel, an unmarried man Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 11/28/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0803327 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 03/11/2021 at 12:00 PM Place of Sale: At the North Arrowhead Avenue entrance to the County Courthouse, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $560,049.12 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 3471 Arcadian Shores Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 A.P.N.: 0218-741-36-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 19-21335-SP-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. Date: 01/26/2021 National Default Servicing Corporation c/o Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., its agent, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92108 Toll Free Phone: 888-264-4010 Sales Line 855-219-8501; Sales Website: www.ndscorp.com By: Rachael Hamilton, Trustee Sales Representative Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021 & 02/26/2021 CPP350885
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
CASE NO. PROPS 2001007
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANN ELIZABETH HOEL WYLIE aka ANN HOEL aka ANN CLARK
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TERRI A. DAVIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TERRI A. DAVIS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held JULY 1, 2021at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S37 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Terri A. Davis:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/19/21, 2/26/21 & 3/05/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JUAN C. CRUZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2100133
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JUAN C. CRUZ
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by DOMINIC CRUZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that DOMINIC CRUZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 5, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2028679
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Efrain Angel Dickerson Hernandez III to Efrain Angel Rodriguez

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: 03/17/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: Feb., 03, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2100792
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO DEMANDADO): The COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a charter county: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a public agency; MICHAEL A. RAMOS, in his individual capacity; JAMES HACKLEMAN, in his individual capacity; HOLLIS “BUD” RANDLES, in his individual capacity; ROBERT SCHREIBER, in his individual capacity: COLONIES PARTNERS, L.P, a California Limited Partnership; JEFFERY BURUM, an individual; ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2020 SETTLEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND COLONIES PARTNERS. L.P. AND JEFFERY BURUM; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
THE RED BRENNAN GROUP, a non-profit corporation.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
247 West Third Street,
San Bernardino, CA 92415
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
Aaron D. Burden, Esq.
P.O. Box 130370,
Carlsbad, CA 92013
Telephone: (619) 988-2663
DATE (Fecha): 01/26/2021
Clerk (Secretario), by Elisabeth Martinez, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21
FBN 20210000965
The following person is doing business as TAMAR COUNSELING SERVICES 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786: DEBORAH J VINALL 99 C STREET, SUITE 204 UPLAND, CA 91786
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ DEBORAH J.VINALL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: August 10, 2010
County Clerk, Deputy I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/19, 2/26, 3/05 & 3/12, 2021.

FBN 20210001168
The following entity is doing business as ALLWISE RESIDENTIAL HOME II 9995 GENEVA AVE MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 ALLWISE COMPANION CARE INC 14299 POINTER LOOP EASTVALE, CA 92880
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION registered with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA C4167976
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ WENDELL USON
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/05/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.
FBN 20210000553
The following entity is doing business as NOTARY EAGLE: EMIGDIA’S NOTARY SERVICES 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
Mailing Address: 990 W BELLEVIEW ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL.
BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ EMIGDIA MEJIA URIBE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/20/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 16, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 12, 19, 26 & March 5, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000959
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Lucifer’s Garage; Satan’s Henchmen; Heathen, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, Heathen Nation LLC, 8816 Foothill Blvd #103-403, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ David A. Lancaster
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
02/12/21, 02/19/21, 02/26/21, 03/05/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANN TRACY ALAN POWELL
CASE NO. PROPS 2100144
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of TRACY ALAN POWELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MICHELLE MERRIAM in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MICHELLE MERRIAM be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held APRIL 1, 2021at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Michelle Merriam:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328-7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 2/26/21. 3/05/21 & 3/12/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANGEL PATRON
CASE NO. PROPS 2100150
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANGEL PATRON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by VIONICA REYES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that VIONICA REYES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests the decedent’s wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-36 at 9:00 a.m. on APRIL 5, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on February 26, March 5 & March 1, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
EARL WILLIAM BALE
NO. PROPS 2100132
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EARL WILLIAM BALE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PATTY K. WHALEY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PATTY K. WHALEY be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 30, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Patty K. Whaley
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
RUTH DIANNE STACEY
NO. PROPS 2100153
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RUTH DIANNE STACEY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JENNIFER SHOEMAKER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JENNIFER SHOEMAKER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on APRIL 6, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
In Pro Per Petitioner: Jennifer Shoemaker
2276 Cedar St.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
Telephone No: (951) 662-1589
Email address: evilwitchsbrew@yahoo.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2000419
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOYCE TAYLOR CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
SELYNO RAZO, Deputy Clerk
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
NO. PROPS 2100107
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES W. CLARKSON, SR aka JAMES WINANS CLARKSON
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARTHA A. CLARKSON in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARTHA A. CLARKSON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S37 at 9 a.m. on MARCH 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: JANUARY 26, 2021
JUDGE TARA REILLY
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for Martha A. Clarkson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel February 26 and March 5 & 12, 2021.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210001697
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: My Serenity Mental Wellness, 12223 Highland Avenue Ste 106-466, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Johana Montes De Oca, 12223 Highland Avenue Ste 106-466, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Johana Montes De Oca
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/22/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/04/2021
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/20/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210000878
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Code With Nano, 1486 Moonridge Ct, Upland, CA 91784, Monica G. Say, 1486 Moonridge Ct, Upland, CA 91784
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Monica G. Say
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/28/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

FBN 20210000366 The following person is doing business as: DANK WAYZ 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761 BRIAN J PATTISON 2800 E RIVERSIDE DR. APT 356 ONTARIO, CA 91761 This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing. S/ BRIAN J. PATTISON This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/14/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JANUARY 8, 2021 County Clerk, Deputy I2443 NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 1/22, 1/29, 2/5 & 2/12, 2021 & Corrected on 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/21, 03/19/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2101401
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Antonio Javier Sezati filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Antonio Javier Sezati to Sean Miramontes
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: 04/05/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, San Bernardino
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: Feb., 04, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 02/26/21, 03/05/21, 03/12/21, 03/19/21
FBN 20210000375
The following person is doing business as: ANDRE AKOPYAN TILE 15904 STRATHERN ST STE#20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406; ANDRE AKOPYAN 15904 STRATHERN ST STE#20 VAN NUYS, CA 91406
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANDRE AKOPYAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202101MT

FBN 20210000433
The following person is doing business as: M&Z TRANSPORT 1253 W. LOMITA RD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; MIGUEL ANGEL MARTIN REYES SANCHEZ 1253 W. LOMITA RD SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MIGUEL ANGEL MARTIN REYES SANCHEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/25/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202102MT

FBN 20210000434
The following person is doing business as: 1 STOP HARDWARE CO 16000 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA, CA 92335; FREDDY J VELASQUEZ 16000 VALLEY BLVD FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FREDDY J. VELASUQEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202103MT

FBN 20210000437
The following person is doing business as: DIVINE’S BODY ART PAINTING 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324; MARIA O OSORIO-LOPEZ 1642 E WASHINGTON ST COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARIA D. OSORIO-LOPEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/05/2021, 02/12/2021, 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021 CNBB05202104MT
FBN 20210001179
The following person is doing business as: TAQUERIA EL GORDITO FELIZ 4857 S. TANGERINE WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762; DIEGO A PLASENCIA 4857 S. TANGERING WAY ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 02, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ DIEGO A. PLASCENCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202101

FBN 20210001221
The following person is doing business as: LA MODELO MIX MIXHELADAS 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; JOSE MAGANA JR 18411 VALLEY BLVD SP 47 BLOOMINGTON, CA 923316
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: FEB 03, 2001
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE MAGANA JR., OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202102

FBN 20210001486
The following person is doing business as: RENDON CUSTOM CABINETS & MILLWORK 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 N. EDGEMONT DR. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; KEVIN T RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; ANSELMO RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; MOISES RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KEVIN T. RENDON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202103

FBN 20210001484
The following person is doing business as: HENRY’S JUNK REMOVAL 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MILES H BRODERSON 32390 AVE. D #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 20, 2019
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/ MILES H. BRODERSON, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202104

FBN 20210001487
The following person is doing business as: JACTIVE 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; JACQUELINE A SOTO 5225 HUMBOLT AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JACQUELINE SOTO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202105

FBN 20210000976
The following person is doing business as: PARKER LANE 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; FELONDA PARKER 7828 N. HAVEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; SHAWNA LANE 7828 N. HAVENA AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FELONDA PARKER, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202106IR

FBN 20210000979
The following person is doing business as: DAPRINTPLUG 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; PRINTCO SUPPLY, INC. 15345 ANACAPA RD UNIT B VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JONATHAN GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202107IR

FBN 20210000980
The following person is doing business as: KILO’S TOWING & TRANSPORT 4747 HOLT BLVD MONTCLAIR, CA 91763;[ MAILING ADDRESS 435 E. MERION ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761]; KILO KUSTOMZ MOTORSPORTS, INC. 2501 GAREY AVE POMONA, CA 91767
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SANDRA L. GARCIA, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202108IR

FBN 20210000714
The following person is doing business as: WWW.HUMBLEGRAPHICS.COM 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATE EYE LLC 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202109

FBN 20210001613
The following person is doing business as: ENERGIA TERAPIA PSYCHIC 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395; LILIAN VILLEDA 16002 GREYROCK ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92395
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LILIAN VILLEDA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/18/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202110

FBN 20210000570
The following person is doing business as: SOLYART BARBERSHOP 800 E. LUGONIA AVE. SUITE D REDLANDS, CA 92374; SLEIMAN I MOUSSA 800 E. LUGONIA AVE SUITE D MOUSSA, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: SEP 11, 2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ SLEIMAN I. MOUSSA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202111IR

FBN 20210000555
The following person is doing business as: THE BIRRIA FACTORY 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346; MARCO A CHAVEZ 2294 BRADFORD AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 01, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARCO A CHAVEZ Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/20/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202112IR

FBN 20210000828
The following person is doing business as: A MIRROR IMAGE WINDOW TINT 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346; BENJAMIN P MUNOZ 27621 TEMPLE STREET HIGHLAND, CA 92346
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: APR 28, 2011
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/ BENJAMIN P. MUNOZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202113IR

FBN 20210000804
The following person is doing business as: MOUNTAIN HIGH WATER STORE 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; AUDELINA D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376; RENE D MONTERROSO 586 W FOOTHILL BLVD RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ AUDELINA D. MONTERROSO, WIFE Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202114MT

FBN 20210000857
The following person is doing business as: A-C FLOWERS 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017; ANA C MARTINEZ MENDEZ 421 UNION DR APT 108 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANA C. MARTINEZ MENDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202115MT

FBN 20210000619
The following person is doing business as: LOPEZ TRUCKING 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; MARIA D ESPINOZA 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; LUIS A LOPEZ 1210 GOULD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: OCT 01, 2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARIA D ESPINOZA, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202116MT

FBN 20210000636
The following person is doing business as: RICH AND FAMOUS BARBERSHOP 5480 PHIADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710; CHARLIE GARCIA 5480 PHILADELPHIA ST UNIT H CHINO, CA 91710
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CHARLIE GARCIA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202117MT

FBN 20210000835
The following person is doing business as: CALDEZ HOMES 580 W 33RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; JEFFREY SANDEZ 580 W 33RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JEFFREY SANDEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 01/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/19/2021, 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021 CNBB07202118MT
FBN 20210001244
The following person is doing business as: KARE 12478 MAMMOTH DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392; KARELY CARRILLO ROMAN 12478 MAMMOTH DR VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KARELY CARRILLO ROMAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202101EM

FBN 20210001486
The following person is doing business as: RENDON CUSTOM CABINETS & MILLWORK 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE # 112 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 5601 N. EDGEMONT DR. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404]; KEVIN T RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376; ANSELMO RENDON 1240 N. FITZGERALLD AVE. SUITE #112 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KEVIN T. RENDON, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202102IR

FBN 20210001257
The following person is doing business as: B & B TRUCKING 821 WINDSONG LN SAN JACINTO, CA 92582; LOUIS BROWN III 821 WINDSONG LN SAN JACINTO, CA 92582
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LOUIS BROWN III, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202103IR

FBN 20210001253
The following person is doing business as: GOMAR TRANSPORTAT 1231 W. 19TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411; RODRIGO A GOMAR-MARTINEZ 1231 W. 19TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RODRIGO A. GOMARR-MARTINEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202104IR

FBN 20210001484
The following person is doing business as: HENRY’S JUNK REMOVAL 32390 AVE D. #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399; MILES H BRODERSON 32390 AVE D. #1 YUCAIPA, CA 92399
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 20, 2019
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/ MILES H. BRODERSON, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/04/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202105IR

FBN 2021001156
The following person is doing business as: LET’S GO 3200 E. GUASTI RD. SUITE 746 ONTARIO, CA 91761;[ MAILING ADDRESS 12442 LIME PL. CHINO, CA 91710]; DUNAMIS ALLIANCE LLC 12442 LIME PL. CHINO, CA 91710
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DEC 13, 2020
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JAMES TUTHILL, PRESIDENT Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/05/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202106IR

FBN 20210001041
The following person is doing business as: ACE PLUS TUTORING 1419 NORTHVIEW PLACE REDLANDS, CA 92374; ADRIAN N CRUZ 1419 NORTHVIEW PLACE REDLANDS, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ADRIAN N. CRUZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/02/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202107MT

FBN 20210001050
The following person is doing business as: LA COCINA DE YAYA 372 W 32RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; IDALIA C BAHENA 372 W 32RD ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ IDALIA C. BAHENA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/02/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202108MT

FBN 20210001151
The following person is doing business as: H & M TRANSPORTATION 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 10253 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92374]; HENRY P CERVANTEZ 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324; MICHAEL A NEGRETE 2276 MOUNTAIN WOODS ST COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ HENRY P. CERVANTEZ, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/04/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202109IR

FBN 20210001609
The following person is doing business as: WWW.HUMBLEGRAPHICS.COM; HUMBLE MEDIA 1266 N. MOUNT AVE COLTON, CA 92324; CREATIVE PRIVATE EYE LLC 1266 N. MOUNT VERNON AVE COLTON, CA 92324
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ABEL SILVA, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/17/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202110IR

FBN 20210001870
The following person is doing business as: AUTO PARTS SOLUTION 17460 ORANGE WAY FONTANA, CA 92335; MASALVA LLC 13581 FOXGLOVE WAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ABEL A. SALVADOR, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/24/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202111IR

FBN 20210001817
The following person is doing business as: THERAVILLE COUNSELING SERVICE A LCSW CORP. 155 W. HOSPITALITY LN. SUITE 245 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408;[ MAILING ADDRESS P.O BOX 559 BEAUMONT, CA 92223]; THERAVILLE COUNSELING SERVICES, A LICENSED CLINICAL WORKER CORP. 155 W. HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 245 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 02/24/2020
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/ CRYSTAL V. BURNS, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 02/23/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 02/26/2021, 03/05/2021, 03/12/2021, 03/19/2021 CNBB08202112IR

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the February 19 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 02-19-21

By Mark Gutglueck
Next week, on Monday, February 22, the City of Upland is set to hire as its new city attorney Stephen P. Deitsch, who in an earlier phase of his career was involved in structuring financing arrangements for the City of Fontana’s redevelopment agency, at an eventual total cost of $376.8 million to that city’s taxpayers, to allow a massive 9,135-residential unit development to proceed. Instead of assigning that $376.8 million price tag for the infrastructure to the development company that profited from the creation of the subdivision and the sale of the homes built there, Deitsch and his law partner assisted Fontana’s city manager in transferring that burden to the city’s residents.
The financing arrangements that Deitsch put his legal imprimatur upon defrayed $120 million in upfront costs the developer otherwise would have needed to bear. Having been spared the expense of paying for the project’s infrastructure, the owners of the development company invested those savings in the bonds the city issued to pay for 54 percent of the project’s infrastructure, whereby the development company realized an added return of more than $139 million on the project.
Deitsch and his law partner allowed that financing arrangement and its weight upon Fontana’s taxpayers to remain in place even after learning that the development company and city manager had constructed a kickback-laundering arrangement to reward the city manager for obtaining the Fontana City Council’s approval of the project and its one-sided developer dispensation agreement that profited the development company at the city’s expense.
Deitsch, who is at present serving as the city attorney in Arcadia and Big Bear Lake and was formerly the city attorney in Indian Wells and Shafter, has over the course of his 41-year legal career in California cultivated a range of experience with regard to municipal operations that extend to land use, financing, the provision of public services and regulations pertaining to legally required disclosure of governmental operations. He and his law firm, Best Best & Krieger, are being brought in to Upland to replace Steven Flower and his law firm, Richards Watson & Gershon.
Both Best Best & Krieger and Richards Watson & Gershon are full service law firms that specialize in the representation of governmental entities, in particular municipalities. With the hiring of Deitsch, the Richards Watson & Gershon firm is to close out its second run representing the City of Upland, with that most recent tour of duty having lasted from early 2017 to the present. Nearly a generation ago, Richards Watson & Gershon, following the 1996 retirement of longtime Upland City Attorney Don Maroney, was retained to provide legal services to Upland in the person of James Markman, one of the firm’s lawyers, who is also city attorney in Rancho Cucamonga and Brea. In 2004, after concerns emerged about the potential for a conflict of interest arising out of Markman’s dual representation of the adjoining cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, Markman left as Upland’s city attorney, and was replaced by his Richards Watson and Gershon colleague, Bill Curley.
In 2012, after the 2011 federal indictment of then-Mayor John Pomierski on political corruption charges and just prior to the filing of criminal charges against one-time Upland City Manager Robb Quincey, who had been handpicked by Pomierski to serve as Upland’s top municipal administrator and was suspended a little more than a month prior to Pomierski’s indictment and then fired four months later, the city ended its relationship with Richards Watson & Gershon for the first time, retaining the firm of Jones & Mayer in its place. For more than five years, Richard L. Adams II and Kimberly Hall Barlow, both partners with Jones & Mayer, alternated in the role of Upland’s city attorney. When Barlow proved too aggressive in dealing with some of the city’s establishment figures and businesses that were generally thought of or accepted as Upland institutions, the city terminated its relationship with Jones & Mayer, and again took up with Markman and Richards, Watson & Gershon.
In 2018, the city council as it was then composed moved to reduce the city’s recreational centerpiece, Memorial Park, by 12 percent, and sell 4.631 acres of the park to adjoining San Antonio Hospital for use as a parking lot. That council, consisting of four different council members than are now on the panel, relied upon Markman to engineer the sale of the park property without a vote of the city’s residents, as is required by state law with the sale of municipal parkland. Markman formulated the strategy of embarking on a validation effort, effectively inviting anyone opposed to the park acreage sale to challenge the action in Superior Court within 30 days. Markman’s calculation and that of four of the council’s members, was that no city residents would go to the expense of challenging the validation petition, and certainly would not be able to coordinate a fundraising effort to retain an attorney to formulate a response within the time limit. That proved to be wrong, however, as two such challenges to the parkland sale were mounted. Ultimately, the city was rebuffed in court, when Judge David Cohn found in favor of those making the challenge, noting along the way that the effort to make the sale without a vote was illegal. Ultimately, more than two years later, that vote was held, upon which the city’s voters nixed the sale.
As a consequence of the November 2018 and the November 2020 elections, all four of the city council members who supported the parkland sale in 2018 were either voted out of office or opted out of seeking reelection. The lone member of the city council who opposed the sale, Janice Elliott, remains in office.
In October 2019, after Judge Cohn’s ruling against the city on the park property sale, the city council moved toward firing Markman. In an effort to preserve Richard Watson & Gershon’s legal representation contract with Upland, Markman resigned as city attorney and was replaced by another member of his firm, Steven Flower. Over the last 16 months, Flower has provided legal advice and engaged in efforts to either justify action by the city council as it was previously composed or made efforts to insulate city staff members from challenges that ensued from their actions unpopular with a significant cross section of the city’s residents. With the resignation of Councilman Ricky Felix in May 2020 and the the electoral defeat of Mayor Debbie Stone in November 2020, Flower lost support on the council that was crucial to his survival as city attorney and the prospect that Richards Watson & Gershon would maintain its contract to provide legal services to City Hall. Additionally, since December 2020, when the two most recently elected members of the council, First District Councilwoman Shannan Maust and Third District Councilman Carlos Garcia, were installed, Flower has found himself in the position of being somewhat out of synchronicity with three of his five current political masters – Elliott, Maust and Garcia. Flower had established a rapport with the previous council, which had taken a direction on key issues that has now fallen out of vogue with a majority of the current council. In particular, Elliott, Maust and Garcia are on record as having opposed a massive warehouse project on the city’s west side intended to serve as a distribution center for online retail behemoth Amazon that the previously-composed council approved in April 2020. The Amazon project and the city’s approval of it is now the subject of costly litigation. Moreover, another project approved under Flower’s watch less than a months after the Amazon project was given go-ahead, a residential subdivision to be built on the city’s east side near 15th Street on what was formerly considered to be flood control property, is likewise undergoing a legal challenge that has delayed that project, resulting in further legal costs to the city that are enhancing Richard Waston & Gershon’s revenues. Last year, when a majority of the city council supported the warehouse and 15th Street projects, Flower made a political calculation to slip into his legal advice statements or findings favorable to those projects. The changeover on the council since then has made Flower’s political maneuvering now appear unwise.
Mayor Bill Velto, who as a councilman last year supported the two projects now under legal challenge and therefore might otherwise be considered one of Flower’s pillars of support on the council, earlier this month questioned the soundness of Flower’s legal advice on other issues. With at least four-fifths and perhaps even all five members of the city council less than confident in Flower’s legal acumen and the quality and integrity of his counsel to them, it is now apparent that Upland is done with him and for the second time is done with his law firm.
Last year, prior to the November election and the addition of Upland’s two new council members and the elevation of Councilman Bill Velto to the status of mayor, the city council as it was then composed signaled that the city was to conduct a competitive process to seek legal representation going forward.
Not quite able to discern the writing on the wall, Flower and Richards, Watson and Gershon took part in that competition, as did the law firms of Best Best and Krieger; Jones and Meyer; Aleshire and Wyndler; Collantuano, Highsmith, & Whatley; Burke, Williams & Sorenson; Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart; and Casse & Sparks.
It was announced this week that the winner in the Upland legal representation sweepstakes is the law firm of Best Best & Krieger and that Deitsch, one of the firm’s partners, is to take on the assignment of Upland city attorney.
Given certain elements of Best Best & Krieger’s and Deitsch’s respective separate and now combined histories, the choice to hire them stands as a statement that any disputes that emerge between a majority of the Upland City Council and Upland’s residents over vision, priorities, policy or interests will be resolved without question in accordance with the wishes of the city council majority.
In the world of governmental legal representation, there are two schools of thought, two distinct philosophies, with regard to how a city attorney is to function.
The first of those embodies the approach that the city attorney represents all of the residents or citizens of the city in which he or she has the contract or assignment as city attorney, and owes his or her loyalty to those citizens. Under that philosophy, the city attorney examines all contemplated action and actual action by the city’s elected officials and its staff, and ensures that the actions of those at City Hall conform with the law and remain within the bounds of constitutionality. Such a city attorney strives to prevent the actions of city officials elected and hired from interfering with or harming the interests of the city’s residents, taxpayers and citizens, so that the city’s official policies and practices are consistent with the collective interests of the city’s residents.
The second school of thought is that a city attorney represents all of the citizens and residents of the city in which he or she is has the contract for providing legal services only insofar as the city’s elected political leadership embodies the citizenry’s will and expressed interests. Under that approach the city attorney examines all action and contemplated action by the city’s elected officials and its employees with an eye to ensuring that their actions conform with the law and remain within the bounds of constitutionality, but goes no further than that in terms of looking after the citizenry’s interests. Rather, city attorneys of the second school do not consider the city’s residents and citizens to be their clients but rather see themselves as working for the city’s elected officials, those primarily being the mayor and city council. Such city attorneys conceive of their role as being one of enabling the mayor and city council to put into play their vision of what they want and are determined to do without regard to whether that action actually corresponds to the preferences of the citizens who elected the city’s political leadership or those who did not participate in the political process.
Best Best & Krieger and Deitsch represent the latter approach to the role of a city attorney.
Deitsch believes his assignment as a municipal lawyer is to enable the city’s political leadership to accomplish whatever it wants to achieve, whether those goals are perfect or imperfect, high-minded or low-minded, sincere or insincere, corrupt or honest, well thought through or ill-considered. An illustration of his attitude in this regard consists of the work Deitsch did in Fontana in the 1980s when the law firm he was a member of, Sabo & Deitsch, represented the Fontana Redevelopment Agency.
At that time, Fontana suffered from a seemingly intractable image problem. The western unincorporated portion of Fontana was home to the Kaiser Steel Mill, an extremely heavy industrial operation that generated a substantial degree of air pollution and had resulted in the contamination of the mill property and the surrounding area. The mill, which at its peak employed more than 2,500 workers, ceased operations in 1983, throwing more than 1,800 steelworkers onto the unemployment rolls. Fontana was also the home of the Hells Angels, considered by law enforcement to be an outlaw motorcycle gang. Perhaps most damaging to the city’s reputation was that it featured the headquarters of a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, led by one of that organization’s grand dragons, George Pepper, a bus driver and Fontana resident who ran unsuccessfully for Fontana mayor in 1982.
Three entrepreneurs, brothers Dick and Bill Ashby and their business associate Larry Redman, saw opportunity in Fontana’s circumstance. They pitched to the city council, the city manager and the city’s planning and development staff the concept of creating a massive residential subdivision on property at the city’s extreme southwest corner. The project, dubbed Southridge Village, would be designed, the Ashby Brothers and Redman said, to appeal to so-called “yuppies,” defined as “young upwardly-mobile professionals.” They dedicated their company, the Ten-Ninety Corporation, and its corporate affiliates, Creative Communities, Inc., General Specifics Corporation and Rak Corporation, to obtaining clearance to undertake the Southridge Village development effort and construct the subdivision, marketing the homes along the way.
The Fontana City Council as it was then composed, encouraged by Fontana’s city manager, Jean Daze Ratelle II, embraced the Southridge village concept, directing Ratelle to explore the possibility.
Ratelle, who went by the name Jack, in consultation with the city’s planning staff, presented the idea to the planning commission, which after a review, gave a recommendation that the city give serious consideration to permitting the undertaking. With that green light, Ratelle pushed forward, full steam ahead. The development of Fontana, with an eye toward the future, was paramount, Ratelle said, and Southridge Village was Fontana’s future. Before long, all considerations fell in deference to achieving that imperative.
Standing in the way of the Southridge project were overwhelming infrastructure needs. The city did not have in place the basic improvements the project would require, such as streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, and sewers to accommodate what Redman and the Ashbys were contemplating. Nor did the City of Fontana have the financial means to pay to construct that infrastructure. Moreover, the local school district, Fontana Unified, did not have schools or available funding to adequately educate the vast number of students the 9,135 units would bring into the city.
Under normal and traditional circumstances, the developer creating the homes, factories or buildings housing commercial enterprises to be constructed in a community was called upon to furnish the necessary infrastructure to logically accommodate that development or otherwise provide the funding to defray the city’s cost of building that infrastructure. In the case of Ten-Ninety, however, Redman, and the Ashby brothers stated unequivocally that they did not have adequate capital on their own nor the availability of financing to pay for constructing both the homes to comprise the Southridge subdivision and its infrastructure. Confident they had the city council on the hook, the Ashby Brothers and Redman told its members that if the city would not underwrite the cost of the infrastructure, the project simply would not get built.
Ratelle had been hired as Fontana city manager on a 3-to-2 vote of the city council in 1973 after impressing a majority of the city council by arriving in the city driving a Pantera, referencing his law degree and more than two years experience as the assistant to San Diego County’s chief administrative officer, his three years experience as an associate administrative analyst with the City of San Diego and his three years as assistant city manager in Chula Vista.
During his tenure as city manager, Jack Ratelle had developed a Svengali-like hold on most of the city council members, beguiling and befriending those newly elected to the panel, remaining constantly on good terms with at least three and usually more of those officeholders, such that he could virtually dictate how those elected officials, constituting a majority of the panel, should and would vote on any matter that came before them. The creativity of his methods in achieving this were legendary. He had arranged to provide a city job to the son-in-law of one of the city council members. For another council member who owned a welding business, Ratelle had arranged to obtain for him work with a substantial number of the industrial operations around the city, boosting that council member’s income. Another council member, an instructor at one of the city’s junior high schools, had gotten himself in trouble with a 13-year-old student. Ratelle had pulled the police department off of him, convincing the police chief and the head of the police officers’ union that going easy on the councilman would be worthwhile for them in terms of funding that would be freed up for the department in upcoming budgetary cycles and in generosity that would be shown to the department’s officers in future employment contract negotiations. Ratelle had an intimate relationship with the woman who had been Fontana’s sole councilwoman in the late 1970s and early 1980s and was thereafter a member of the planning commission that first considered the Southridge village project. He had no trouble convincing the council majority, which was in any event already favorably disposed toward development in the city, that they had to do everything that could be done to make sure the Southridge project was carried through to completion.
The Fontana Unified School District was proving a problem. It was balking at having to accept the estimated 16,000 to 18,000 students the project was likely to generate. It had no schools in place to accommodate elementary school children and did not have available funding to construct a neighborhood school. Moreover, the district’s existing high schools and junior highs had inadequate classroom space to assimilate the adolescents that were to be sent their way. Even when Ratelle offered the district an assurance that Ten-Ninety would construct a grade school for the district, the school balked. Ultimately, after Ratelle approached the Colton Joint Unified School District, that entity agreed to extend its educational coverage to include the southern portion of Fontana.
Ratelle’s advocacy on behalf of the Ten-Ninety Corporation was extraordinary, even given the premium local government often puts on encouraging development. The Ten-Ninety principals and Ratelle had a special relationship. Ratelle had established a credit line at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. Ten-Ninety then made a habit of endowing that credit line. Ratelle established a pattern of frequenting Las Vegas on weekends, two or three times a month, making a show of his presence at the craps, roulette and less occasionally the blackjack tables at the MGM Grand. Upon returning to Fontana on Monday, he would regale city staff with tales of his gaming exploits in Sin City, bragging about winning on some occasions, lamenting his losses on others. In this way, Ratelle laundered the money he was receiving from Redman and the Ashbys.
To finance the Southridge infrastructure, the Fontana Redevelopment Agency issued $65 million in certificates of participation, a type of bond, along with securing $55 million in loans from the Glaziers Union.
Ratelle, who had a law degree from the University of San Deigo, was intimately familiar with legal processes and what it was going to take to legally wire the highly questionable arrangements he was making between the city and the Ten-Ninety Corporation. As Fontana’s city manager, however, he could not act as the city’s legal representative or be the attorney of record on the scheme he was cooking up.
It was thus no accident that at that point Ratelle was employing the law firm of Sabo & Deitsch to represent the Fontana Redevelopment Agency.
Sabo, who graduated from Youngstown State University in Ohio magna cum laude in 1969, in time gravitated toward a legal career, in particular finance law. He went to work for the renowned municipal-bond lawyer James Warren Beebe, mastering first the rudiments, then the finer points and in time all of the permutations of public financing instruments and arrangements. He attended the University of Denver College of Law in Colorado, thereafter passing the California bar in 1977. By his late 30s Sabo had earned the sobriquet of “the great enabler” or variously, “the great facilitator.” In the capacity of counsel to municipalities and local governmental agencies in and around San Bernardino County, he was instantly recognized, indeed had grown infamous, for being unwilling, or unable, or refusing, to say “No” to his clients.
During closed sessions, Sabo would assure the elected officials with the public agencies he worked for that as the voters’ choices, they embodied the authority to do virtually anything they wanted to do.
Sabo understood the ins and outs of public financing, forwards and backwards, top to bottom, inside out and upside down, both legitimate and illegitimate. In situations where a public agency needed more money than it could reasonably borrow at an even prohibitive interest rate, he could find a way for some lender somewhere to put the money up. This was often done by an agency borrowing against collateral, the value of which was astronomically inflated, based upon the most overcontrived and creative interpretations and descriptions that might be conceived of, certified by any of a host of sketchy underwriters Sabo had in his Rolodex, who for an extra point or two beyond the standard commission were willing to sign anything.
As the lawyer for a multitude of local cities and agencies, Sabo handled the legal paperwork for financing arrangements on undertakings that were both legitimate and illegitimate, along with ones that fell somewhere in the middle. The legal filings Sabo made for the well-founded and warranted use of governmental reach or redevelopment authority were straightforward and understandable. When Sabo was engaged in assisting governmental entities carry out actions that could not withstand the light of day, he would envelope the action taken in paperwork and legal filings that were so recondite, so convoluted and so incomprehensible that even if someone of his considerable legal skill were to examine it after the fact, it still could not be untangled.
This provided more than just the typical legal insulation that public agencies provide to their operations.
Only rarely were these masterpieces of falsification challenged, as when the FBI descended upon the offices at San Bernardino International Airport in 2011, armed with search warrants to look into the misdirection of funding by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority, a joint powers agency consisting of the County of San Bernardino and the cities of San Bernardino, Highland, Loma Linda and Colton, who were pooling their available tax revenue to effectuate the civilian use conversion of the former Norton Air Force Base that had been shuttered by the Department of Defense in 1994. The San Bernardino International Airport debacle was perhaps the one time in his career when the abuse of the governmental and legal system that Sabo was so skilled at perpetuating approached the point of redounding to a legal or professional castigation that threatened his licensing as a lawyer or which might have conceivably sent him to prison. Any possibility of that occurring passed, as the FBI and Securities Exchange Commission investigation into the misdeeds at San Bernardino International Airport by the airport authority had not concluded when, mercifully as far as Sabo was concerned, he died in December 2012.
Deitsch, a 1969 cum laude graduate of Brandeis University who went on to earn his law degree at the University of Pennsylvania in 1974, after passing the New Jersey Bar went to work for three years as a prosecutor with the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office. He thereafter moved to California, where he passed the California Bar in November 1979, going to work shortly thereafter as an attorney in the Office of Special Counsel for the United States Department of Energy in its Los Angeles office.
In 1981, Sabo and Deitsch formed a formed a partnership.
Just like Sabo’s mentor James Warren Beebe had instructed him in the legal intricacies of public finance and the advantages, vulnerabilities and applicability of various financing and investments, including deferred bonds, floating bonds, inverse floating bonds, income bonds, participatory bonds, step-up bonds and step-down bonds, plain vanilla bonds, yield bonds, payment-in-kind bonds, secured bonds and unsecured bonds, as well as extendable bonds, coupons and loans, Sabo imparted to Deitsch virtually all he needed to know to work in the arena of public agency finance law. In relatively short order, the law firm of Sabo & Deitsch was much in demand, and it was representing the cities of San Bernardino, Ontario, Fontana and Rialto, the three largest and the sixth largest population-wise of what are today San Bernardino County’s 24 municipalities.
Because they were willing to carry out things that lawyers with a little more integrity or bounded by ethical or moral principle could not bring themselves to do, Sabo and Deitsch were highly valued by public agencies and the ethically-challenged public officials who headed those agencies in the wide open Wild West atmosphere of San Bernardino County.
It was in Fontana, during his involvement in the highly questionable actions taken in support of Ratelle’s breathtakingly broad corruptions of governmental authority, that Deitsch came out from underneath Sabo’s shadow, demonstrating that his mentor in rigging public financing schemes had nothing on him when it came to facilitating abuses of municipal operations.
Sabo and Deitsch did not participate and enable these depredations at no benefit to themselves, and they extracted their own piece of the action through the highly questionable, indeed what is by many considered to be the illegal, practice of double- and triple-dipping. Double-dipping occurs when an attorney or a law firm, working in the capacity of general counsel, city attorney or formerly in the function of redevelopment attorney to a municipality or agency, after advising the entity it represents on the advisability of issuing and selling bonds as a form of financing or for creating revenue for one reason or another, then takes on the role of being bond counsel when those bonds are issued and sold. Typically, for doing bond issuance work, which consists primarily of rendering a legal opinion as to the tax status of interest payments and the authority of the issuer to sell the bonds as well as preparing certain documents, a bond counsel is paid a commission or fee equal to 0.5 percent of the entire bond issuance. Triple-dipping occurs when an attorney who is already double-dipping in terms of serving as a municipality’s or agency’s city attorney or general counsel while simultaneously functioning as its bond attorney further serves in the role of disclosure counsel. For serving as the draftsman of the official statements relating to such municipal bonds so that they meet all Securities and Exchange Commission requirements in terms of informing buyers about the relevant aspects of the issuance and limitations of the bonds, a disclosure counsel is typically paid 0.25 percent of the total bond issuance upon the sale of those bonds.
Thus, as a consequence of the issuance of the $65 million in certificates of participation to fund a portion of the infrastructure at the Southridge subdivision, the law firm of Sabo & Deitsch netted $487,500. That came in addition to the other pay the two partners received while working on behalf of the Fontana Redevelopment Agency.
Sabo & Deitsch further signed off on the $55,000,000 loan from the glaziers union that was used to finance the balance of the infrastructure built at and around the subdivision. There is nothing in the record available to the Sentinel to show the Sabo & Deitsch firm was paid any more than the standard fees it was paid for advising the city and its redevelopment agency with regard to the loans from the glaziers union to the redevelopment agency.
To retire that bonded indebtedness through constant payments to the bondholders and to pay off the loans provided by the glaziers union, the City of Fontana shelled out $376.8 million over thirty years, at a rate of $3.14 million per quarter or $12.56 million per year.
Thus, through the arrangement the Ten Ninety Corporation brokered with Ratelle, instead of paying to provide their development with its required infrastructure, the Ashley Brothers and Redman instead purchased $65 million worth of certificates of participation that, in addition to defraying 54 percent of the cost of providing the Southridge Village project’s $120 million in infrastructure, brought back to Redman and the Ashbys a return of approximately $204.1 million on their investments in those bonds. The Ashleys and Redman kicked back an unknown amount to Ratelle, and the legal team of Sabo & Deitsch was paid $487,500 for going along with the bond issuances.
At some point after the issuance of the certificates of participation and prior to the sale of those bonds, both Sabo and Deitsch became aware that the Ten Ninety Corporation was purchasing the certificates of participation. Deitsch had been present during public hearings at Fontana City Hall when Redman and the Ashby Brothers asserted they did not have sufficient capital to pay for the infrastructure improvements to facilitate the construction of Southridge Village. Neither Sabo nor Deitsch sought to rescind the bond issuance or block the sale of the certificates of participation upon learning that the Ten Ninety Corporation indeed had at least $65 million available to be spent toward the provision of infrastructure which they instead used to invest in the certificates of participation. Subsequent to the issuance of those bonds and their sale, both Sabo and Deitsch learned of the kickback arrangement between Ratelle and the Ten Ninety Corporation principals and the use of Ratelle’s credit line at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas to launder those kickbacks.
While it would have doubtless proven to be complicated to de-issue the certificates of participation or cancel out the bonds once they had been sold, given that the Ten-Ninety Corporation was the purchaser of the certificates of participation and the entire deal involved graft, bribery and collusion, Sabo and Deitsch could have involved legal and civil authorities such as the district attorney, California Attorney General, the FBI or the SEC to redress what had become an obvious corruption of the public process. They did not.
There was another depredation involving the Fontana Redevelopment Agency in the 1980s that occurred during the Sabo & Deitsch firm’s watch.
Neil Stone at that time served in the capacity of Fontana’s director of development and director of redevelopment. There were nine redevelopment project areas in Fontana, all of which had been created by Ratelle during the course of his run as city manager. One of those included the property upon which the Southridge Village development took place at the south end of the city. Stone owned property in the name of his children, which was different from his own, in another redevelopment area in the northwest quadrant of the city. Upon learning of that circumstance, Deitsch elected to take no action.
Deitsch ended his partnership with Sabo in 1989, at which point he joined Best Best & Krieger.
As was the case with Sabo & Deitsch, Best Best & Krieger has an established reputation for double and triple-dipping.
Many elected officials in San Bernardino County are not sophisticated enough to recognize the conflict of interest inherent in double-dipping as well as in triple-dipping. Essentially, when an attorney or a law firm has a financial interest in the issuance of bonds, the advice that lawyer or members of that law firm will provide tends to usher the elected decision-makers he/she or the firm is advising toward bond financing when the municipality or agency is in the position of seeking an infusion of money, even if there is a more advisable means of obtaining funding. Over the last four decades, the California Attorney General’s Office has issued differing opinions with regard to the practice of double- and triple-dipping. One opinion holds that double- or triple-dipping is a clear violation of the State of California Government Code relating to a public conflict of interest. Another opinion holds that there is no specific admonition against double- or triple-dipping, but that it is nonetheless inadvisable for a city or agency to allow its legal counsel to engage in such arrangements.
Currently, six of San Bernardino County’s 24 municipalities – Apple Valley, Big Bear, Colton, Fontana, Ontario and San Bernadino – employ town/city attorneys who are partners with the Best Best & Krieger firm. Best Best & Krieger also does legal work for the City of Redlands. Next week, upon Deitsch taking on the Upland assignment, seven of the county’s cities will have city/town attorneys employed by the firm.
Where those cities or the Town of Apple Valley will permit it to do so, Best Best & Krieger will double- and triple dip.
Sonia Carvalho, a lawyer with Best Best & Krieger who is currently the city attorney in San Bernardino and was formerly the city attorney in Colton, said it is entirely up to a majority of a city council’s members if that city is going to permit the city attorney it employs or the firm in which the city attorney is a partner to double- or triple-dip. “It’s their decision,” Carvalho said.
Because city council members generally rely exclusively on the city attorney for legal guidance, and because a city attorney is not required by law to inform the city council he or she serves of the California Attorney General’s Office’s opinions on the matter, when a city attorney suggests that the city may want to consider using bond financing and that his or her firm offers a full range of services including those of bond counsel and disclosure counsel, city council members tend to go along with hiring a member of the city attorney’s firm to provide those services.
In 2011, the California Legislature passed two laws which essentially shuttered all of the redevelopment agencies throughout California. Previously, redevelopment agencies that engaged in bond financing accounted for a considerable degree of the double- and triple-dipping that occurred in California. With the passage of the 2011 law, the frequency of double-dipping and triple-dipping in California lessened.
While the amount of double- and triple-dipping in California has diminished, it still takes place when a governmental entity elects to utilize bond financing and does not take steps to retain bond or disclosure counsel unconnected to the law firm providing that particular city with legal services.
In the contract that the Upland City Council is set to approve on Monday night, there is nothing that will prevent Best Best & Krieger from engaging in double-dipping or triple-dipping.
Shortly after it was publicly revealed that Deitsch is to become Upland’s next city attorney, the Sentinel dashed off a letter to him about his experience in Fontana and his history and the history of the firm he worked for and the firm he now works for engaging in double- and triple-dipping, specifically working as a municipality’s or agency’s legal counsel while simultaneously serving in the role of bond counsel as well as disclosure counsel in those instances where those entities utilized bond financing.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch about his recollections of the depredations Jack Ratelle engaged in as Fontana’s city manager, in particular how he had indulged Larry Redman, Bill Ashby and Dick Ashby in having the city and its redevelopment agency defray the cost of the infrastructure that needed to be built to allow the Southridge Village project to proceed.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch about the inconsistency between the assertion by Redman and the Ashby Brothers that they did not have the financing to undertake the infrastructure improvements the Southridge Village project required and the Ten-Ninety Corporation’s principals’ purchase of the certificates of participation issued to defray the cost of that infrastructure.
The Sentinel inquired as to whether Deitsch and his partner Sabo had learned that the Ashby Brothers and Larry Redmond were purposed to purchase the certificates of participation issued in conjunction with the project before those purchases were made or afterward.
Noting that both Deitsch and Sabo more than three decades ago said they were reluctant to or otherwise constrained from speaking about the graft involving the Southridge Village project and Redman’s and the Ashby brothers’ endowment of the credit line Ratelle had set up at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas as a way of laundering the kickbacks he was receiving, the Sentinel asked if Deitsch was now at liberty to comment on that issue.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if the arrangements to have the Fontana Redevelopment Agency cover the infrastructure costs at the Southridge development were completely on the up and up, and whether he had any misgivings about those arrangements.
The Sentinel asked if at any point during his having been the Fontana Redevelopment Agency attorney, Deitsch in private or in closed sessions or in the backroom had tried to dissuade the Fontana City Council, which doubled in the role of the city’s redevelopment agency board, from underwriting the infrastructure costs for the Southridge project.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch why he and Sabo had gone along with the Fontana Redevelopment Agency’s continued subsidization of the Southridge Village development through the issuing of bonds and the securing of loans to cover the cost of infrastructure after the graft involving Ratelle, Redman and the Ashby brothers became apparent.
The Sentinel asked Deistsch when he learned about the bribery and graft that was taking place.
The Sentinel asked if, when the information about Ten-Ninety kicking back to Ratelle surfaced, the discovery had given Deitsch pause.
The Sentinel asked why, in the aftermath of the discoveries about the bribes and kickbacks passing from Redman and the Ashby brothers to Ratelle, why Deitsch did not take some action to end the redevelopment agency’s subsidization of the Southridge Village project.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if, essentially, he believed then and now believes that the belated discovery of the collusion between Ratelle and the Ten-Ninety Corporation’s principals, coming after the bonds were issued and the loans made, administratively precluded action from being taken to in some fashion rescind the infrastructure subsidization.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch why, after he learned that the Ten-Ninety Corporation was the purchaser of the certificates of participation and the deal involved graft, bribery and collusion as well as the misrepresentation that the Ten-Ninety Corporation could not secure financing to carry out the provision of infrastructure, he did not involve legal and civil authorities such as the district attorney, the California Attorney General, the FBI or the Securities and Exchange Commission in redressing the situation.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch why he and Sabo did not take some steps to address the criminality Ratelle and Ten-Ninety were engaged in.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if he and Sabo were concerned that if they raised the issue of the untoward arrangements involving Ratelle and the Ten-Ninety Corporation, Ratelle would terminate the Sabo & Deitsch law firm’s contract for the provision of legal services to the city.
The Sentinel inquired if it was the consideration that Sabo & Deitsch had a lucrative contract with the city for the provision of legal services to the city and Ratelle’s ability as city manager to terminate the law firm’s contract which purchased his and Sabo’s silence.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if he could defend his action or lack thereof with regard to his involvement as the Fontana Redevelopment Agency attorney during the Southridge Village development chapter of Fontana’s history.
The Sentinel asked if from his perspective at this point Deitsch believes that it was his relative youth and inexperience in the 1980s that accounted for his lack of confidence in himself and his standing which stopped him from preventing Ratelle and the Ten-Ninety Corporation from bilking the City of Fontana and its taxpayers out of the $376.8 million total paid to retire the bonded and loan indebtedness in full or the $204.1 million paid to the Ten-Ninety Corporation to retire the bonded indebtedness.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if he and Sabo had shrunk from taking action because of threats made by the principals of the Ten-Ninety Corporation against him or his law firm.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if, with more than three decades of hindsight, he now wishes he and Sabo had handled the situation in Fontana in the 1980s differently, and if he were confronted with that situation today, what he would do.
With regard to Fontana Redevelopment Agency Director Neil Stone’s ownership of property within a redevelopment project area in the city, Deitsch was asked if he considered that circumstance to be legal. Deitsch was asked why he and Sabo did not redress that situation at the time.
The Sentinel also sought from Deitsch his attitude with regard to the double- and triple-dipping he and Sabo engaged in and the double and triple-dipping Best Best & Krieger has engaged in. He was asked point blank if he considered double- and triple-dipping to be a lawful practice. He was asked if he considered double-dipping or triple-dipping to be ethical.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if he sees any conflict in a lawyer to a public agency or municipality serving in the capacity of agency counsel or city attorney who is advising that entity with regard to means of financing and making recommendations in that regard, followed by that attorney serving as bond counsel when that agency or municipality issues bonds as a means of financing. He was asked a similar question with regard to such an attorney serving as disclosure counsel with regard to the issuance of bonds.
Deitsch was asked if he believed it to be legal or ethical for one member of a firm to advise a public agency or municipality with regard to its financing options and for another member of that attorney’s firm to subsequently function in the capacity of bond counsel or disclosure counsel if and when that agency or city resolved to issue bonds to meet its financing needs.
Deitsch was asked if he sees a conflict in an attorney offering advice to a client to engage in the issuance of bonds when that attorney and/or that attorney’s firm stands to derive income by providing a service ancillary to the issuance of those bonds, such as fees or a percentage paid to bond counsel or disclosure council with regard to the bonds’ issuance.
Deitsch was asked if he could offer a defense of both the Sabo & Deitsch and the Best Best & Krieger firms’ patterns, when redevelopment agencies yet existed, of engaging in double- and triple-dipping with regard to the city attorney’s function, redevelopment agency attorney’s function and the bond counsel’s function. He was asked about his awareness of the conflicting California Attorney General’s Office opinions with regard to the practice of double- and triple-dipping.
The Sentinel asked Deitsch if he believed his past history of double- and triple-dripping compromised his integrity and could yet damage his credibility with Upland’s mayor and city council.
Deitsch was asked if he could be relied upon to properly ride herd on city staff in Upland should one or more of the employees at Upland City Hall run afoul of the law, given the manner in which he and Sabo allowed Jack Ratelle and Neil Stone to engage in illegal or highly questionable activity in their capacities as high ranking staff in Fontana.
Just prior to press time, the Sentinel had not heard back from Deitsch, at which point an attempt to reach him by phone was made. That effort proved successful. Deitsch was pleasant, and straightforwardly confirmed that he had received the Sentinel’s email. Asked if he could speak to the issues in the email, Deitsch said, “I appreciate the email. I have no comment, but I thank you very much. I appreciate the call.”
Within the legal community, Deitsch is well thought of. The Best Lawyers in America®, a publication which highlights what its publisher and editors say are the top six percent of private practicing attorneys in the United States, has consistently included Deitsch in its 2012 through 2021 editions in the publication’s sections relating to lawyers engaged in practicing land use and zoning law as well as municipal law.