Slightly less than ten years after the City of Ontario, led by City Councilman Alan Wapner, undertook a no-holds-barred and ultimately successful campaign to wrest control and ownership of Ontario International Airport from the City of Los Angeles, the ridership decline that occurred at the aerodrome over a decade ago which was used as Ontario’s justification for its takeover move has replicated itself.
Beginning in 2011, Wapner began a full-frontal attack on the City of Los Angeles, claiming the steady decline in the number of passengers at the airport from the 7.2 million that passed through its gates in 2007 was a function of the disregard and neglect that Los Angeles and the corporate entity, Los Angeles World Airports, which Los Angeles used to manage the operation of Los Angeles International Airport, Van Nuys Airport and Ontario Airport, had exhibited toward Ontario and its aviation facility.
Most airline industry analysts and Los Angeles city officials maintained that the decline in passengers at Ontario International Airport, known by its Federal Aviation Administration abbreviated designation ONT, was a consequence of the steep economic downturn that gripped the nation, State of California and the region beginning in the fall of 2007 and which maintained itself for more than a half of a decade as the “great recession.”
Wapner’s intent, which was shared by his council colleagues and that of Ontario’s top administrators, was to force the City of Los Angeles to disgorge the airport, and allow Ontario to take charge of its destiny rather than entrusting it to the megalopolis 45 miles to the west.
The larger city’s acquisition of the airport had come about as the consequence of a joint operating agreement Ontario forged with the City of Los Angeles in November 1967, when Ontario Airport yet had a sand-flea-infested gravel parking lot and fewer than 200,000 passengers passing through its gates annually. Under that agreement, Los Angeles was to use its stronger negotiating position with the airlines serving Southern California to induce them to utilize the Ontario facility. Using its leverage, Los Angeles persuaded a whole host of airlines to begin flying into and out of Ontario.
Though a benchmark of 10 million passengers at the airport by 1975 was not achieved, Los Angeles World Airports was nevertheless assiduously promoting Ontario International Airport.
In 1981, a modern, second east-to-west runway was built, necessitating the removal of the old northeast-to-southwest runway.
By the early 1980s Los Angeles had met all the criteria laid out in the 1967 joint powers agreement. The City of Ontario was at that time led by Mayor Robert Ellingwood, who was resistant to the concept of Ontario complying with the terms of the joint powers authority agreement and turning ownership of the airport over to Los Angeles. In 1985, during Ellingwood’s brief absence from the city, four members of the Ontario City Council as it was then composed voted to deed Ontario Airport to the City of Los Angeles for no consideration. That transaction was considered a public benefit transfer. With a few notable exceptions, such as Ellingwood, most Ontario officials at that time believed granting Los Angeles possession of the airport to be beneficial.
Indeed, over the four decades from 1967 until 2007, the relationship between Ontario and Los Angeles vis-à-vis the airport could not have been more positive or cordial.
All told, Los Angeles instituted some $550 million worth of improvements to the airport, including paving its parking lot, modernizing its runways, including the widening of taxiways and the addition of storm drains. Ontario Airport’s landing and take-off paths were converted into the longest such civilian facilities in Southern California, and Los Angeles erected a state-of-the-art control tower, and constructed two ultra-modern terminals at a cost of $270 million, augmented with a world class concourse. In 2007, 7.2 million passengers came through Ontario Airport, a 3,600 percent increase over what Ontario had been able to achieve on its own 40 years before.
Beginning in 2008 and until early 2014, passenger traffic at Ontario International declined steadily. This led to a deterioration in the working relationship between Los Angeles and Ontario. In his campaign, Wapner, called upon Los Angeles to simply deed the airfield and all it entailed back to Ontario. When this did not occur, he unleashed a strident and uncivil attack on Los Angeles, Los Angeles officials, and most pointedly against Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey.
Cooler heads, meanwhile, were seeking to restrain Wapner, asserting that he was needlessly antagonizing Los Angeles officials, who in any event did not have the antipathy toward Ontario he was alleging, reminding him that Los Angeles was in a much better position to negotiate with airlines domestically and worldwide than was Ontario. Moreover, it was pointed out, Ontario Mayor Paul Leon and then-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had grown up in the same neighborhood and were childhood friends. Leon’s connection to Villaraigosa could be used with far greater effect to negotiate an outcome favorable to Ontario, it was suggested, than Wapner’s more antagonistic approach. Wapner, ignoring such entreaties, stepped up his rhetoric, openly charging that Lindsey had evinced hostility toward the City of Ontario and its airport, and was deliberately mismanaging Ontario International operations to raise costs and minimize both revenues and ridership there as part of a plot to increase revenue and gate numbers at Los Angeles International Airport. Lindsey and her staff denied those accusations, pointing out that the airlines were being pushed by their own economic imperatives.
In 2013, in the waning days of Anthony Villaraigosa’s tenure as Los Angeles mayor, the City of Ontario, through the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, sued Los Angeles in the neutral forum of Riverside Superior Court, charging Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports with willful mismanagement of Ontario Airport, and seeking the return of the aerodrome to the city in which it is located.
Having already raised the campaign of attack against Los Angeles to a fever pitch, Wapner personalized it even further after the lawsuit was underway. The Wapner-directed attacks occurred against a backdrop of jockeying between the two cities over the “value” of the airport, i.e., the amount of money that was to change hands if the airport title were to be handed back to Ontario. Wapner insisted that the airport was a “public benefit asset” and had no “value” as such. He called for Los Angeles to simply deed the airport back at no consideration. Los Angeles, on the other hand, pointed out that over $500 million had been expended on improvements at the facility and that major portions of the funds for those improvements originated from revenue generated at Los Angeles International Airport or at Ontario International Airport while it was in the possession of Los Angeles, as well as from federal grants Los Angeles secured or from bonds issued under the authority of Los Angeles as a public agency.
Ontario privately tendered a $250 million offer to Los Angeles World Airports for transfer of the airport’s title and operational control. That offer included Ontario assuming $75 million of the outstanding bond debt obligations for past improvements to the airport, $125 million in future passenger facility charges to be realized at the airport and $50 million cash.
Los Angeles officials scoffed at that offer, giving indication they would accept no less than $450 million for the airport and the property on which it sits, which in any case they considered to be a generously charitable counterproposal reflecting a roughly $100 million discount of the cost of the improvements made to the airport during Los Angeles’s 47-year managerial run there.
In August 2015, just as the matter was headed to trial before Riverside Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask, Ontario and Los Angeles forged a tentative settlement, announcing that ownership and management of Ontario International Airport would be returned to the city whose name the aerodrome bears. Mayors Eric Garcetti and Paul Leon disclosed that Ontario was to lay out $150 million for the airport and provide another $60 million to purchase assets technically belonging to Los Angeles World Airports that were in place at Ontario Airport and which were crucial or indispensable to its operations. In addition, Ontario had agreed to assume the debt service on roughly $60 million in bonded indebtedness Los Angeles had taken on over the years to make improvements at the facility.
In December 2015, Los Angeles and Ontario signed an agreement finalizing the transfer as of November 1, 2016, with Ontario paying Los Angeles $60 million out of its various operating funds and another $30 million taken out of its reserves, and committing to make payments of $50 million over five years and $70 million in the final five years of the ten-year ownership transition. In addition, Ontario absorbed $60 million of the airport’s bond debt.
Ignored in all of the hoopla, self-congratulating and general backslapping among Ontario officials over Ontario’s reclaiming of the airport was that in the previous two years, even as Ontario was badmouthing Los Angeles and suing it, ridership at the airport, which at one point had dwindled to less than 4 million annually, was again beginning to inch up under Los Angeles World Airports’ direction as the economy was making a turnaround. Nor did Ontario officials dwell on how, in the immediate aftermath of the deal giving the city ownership and control of the airport, the number of passengers going through the airfield’s turnstiles actually declined, an outgrowth of the consideration that Ontario did not have the leverage to offer the various airlines incentives, such as preferable gate positions at Los Angeles International Airport, to induce them to increase, or even maintain, flights into Ontario.
Under Ontario leadership and management over the last three-and-a-half years, the airport has been making some level of a comeback, though it has yet to see the passenger numbers it did in 2007 when Los Angles was calling the shots. In 2018, China Airlines, a Taiwanese carrier, launched nonstop service between Taiwan’s Taoyuan International Airport and Ontario International Airport, a development which boosted the airport’s status as a true international facility. Previously, the airport boasted flights to Mexico offered by both AeroMexico and Volaris, though the addition of those flights came in 2014, while the airport was being managed by Los Angeles World Airports.
Ontario’s most spectacular show on the international flight stage came while the airport was still owned and managed by Los Angeles, in June 2013, when Chinese President Xi Jinping flew into Ontario International Airport for a summit with then-President Barack Obama. That raised hopes that some of the 20 airlines that are based in the People’s Republic of China would initiate regular direct flights to and from Ontario International Airport. Ontario officials have not been able to make any headway in that regard.
On occasion, huge Russian Antononv-124 strategic airlift jets have landed at Ontario Airport.
Last month, with the coronavirus crisis continuing to put a damper on air passenger travel, the number of passengers who passed through Ontario International Airport’s gates dropped by 85 percent, officials announced.
Unlike the way Wapner and Ontario officials used the economic downturn which created a drawdown in passengers flying into and out of Ontario to assert Los Angeles was mismanaging the airport, no one took the opportunity the recent passenger dip presented to criticize Ontario officials for their mishandling of the airport’s management.
Ontario officials themselves sought to overlook the ridership decline, instead seeking a silver lining in the cloud.
Simultaneous with the decrease in passengers, the airport saw extraordinary growth in commercial air freight into the facility, with the amount of tonnage escalating by 24 percent, the third straight month of better than 20 percent gains as commercial cargo is being brought into an increasingly sedentary population, quarantined at home in an effort to stymie the spread of the virus.
Ontario processed over 81,000 tons of commercial cargo last month, which qualified as 24.1 percent more than May 2019. From January through May, freight into and out of the airport eclipsed 342,000 tons, a 18.3 percent increase over the same five months of last year.
“The global coronavirus pandemic continued to drive dramatic changes in cargo and passenger volumes as Southern Californians remained at home and relied on the e-commerce supply chain for many of their household supplies,” said Mark Thorpe, chief executive officer of the Ontario International Airport Authority. “At the same time, like airports across the U.S., we saw another month of significantly lower passenger volumes. Nonetheless, we are optimistic that passenger traffic will pick up in the coming months based on flight schedules published by air carriers.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Two-and-a-half weeks into the loosening of restrictions imposed by the State of California and San Bernardino officials relating to public movement and commercial enterprises that by their nature involve the large-scale congregation of people, the corona crisis, by several objective measurements, appears to be intensifying in San Bernadino County.
For two months, a substantial percentage of both the inhabitants of San Bernardino County and the California population generally complied with state directives intended to slow the spread of the potentially fatal disease. The first of those was issued on March 11 with Governor Gavin Newsom and California’s public health authorities calling for all gatherings with 250 people or more to be rescheduled or canceled. Following that there was a March 15 directive that all “non-essential” businesses be closed, and then a March 17 order that all restaurants statewide should suspend dine-in service. Newsom on March 19 mandated that the state’s residents, within certain parameters, stay at home and self quarantine. On March 17, San Bernardino County’s public health officer, Dr. Erin Gustafson, ordered that as of March 18 all movie theaters, gyms, health clubs, bars, adult entertainment establishments, and other businesses that serve alcohol but do not serve food were to close.
Thereafter a whole host of retail and service establishments were shuttered, including all types where individuals routinely come into close physical contact with one another, such as hair and nail salons, barber shops and tattoo parlors.
Initial statistics based upon testing of San Bernardino County’s population showed an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, but the gradual swelling of the county’s numbers were not out of proportion with either neighboring counties nor most jurisdictions elsewhere in the state. The measure of the spread of the contagion might have been compromised by the county’s dearth of testing supplies, brought on by the general nationwide shortage of such kits and primarily the reagent used in them. The short supply of these crucial testing tools came about as a consequence of the heightened demand for them locally and nationally, and the failure of then-San Bernardino County Public Health Director Trudy Raymundo to order and secure stores of those supplies when she had the chance in the early stages of the outbreak.
After two months of the public’s general compliance with the shuttering of society and the collapsing economy it provoked, the mood of the citizenry chaffing under the seemingly interminable restrictions, manifesting in occasional public protests and isolated showings of defiance, apparently convinced both state and local officials to loosen the restrictions in gradual steps in correspondence with end of May and into the beginning of June. Parks, which were formerly off limits, were opened. Restaurants opened earlier this month, and today the State of California gave clearance for nail salons, tattoo studios, and providers of other personal care services to resume operations, including those in which a professional engages in touching a client’s face in order to perform facials, electrolysis, and waxing, and in other cases a client’s body as with estheticians and cosmetologists, those engaged in skin care and electrology, as well as those offering body piercing and massage therapy. At this point, some consider the state to have achieved progress, putting it more than two-thirds of the way back to the tenor of social interaction formerly taken for granted, with California not yet prepared to permit schools, youth sports venues, indoor playgrounds, live theaters, saunas and steam rooms, nightclubs, concert venues, festivals and theme parks to open.
Beginning late last week, however, there was an alarming uptick in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the county, such that in a five day span the three largest jumps in the number of positive cases occurred.
As of press time today, San Bernardino County had 8,714 confirmed cases of the virus. The death toll in the county from the disease had reached 230. In the less than three weeks since the advent of June, the county has confirmed more than 3,350 new cases, which is more than 38 percent of the entire total of cases confirmed in the county since the beginning of March. Between Saturday, June 13 and today, the county sustained another 1,553 cases and 23 further deaths.
What is unknown, precisely, is whether the huge leap in the number of cases is the reflection of an actual upsurge in the spread of the condition or a function of the improvement in testing capability.
There was anecdotal evidence to suggest that San Bernardino County has suddenly transformed into California’s coronavirus hotspot. As of last week, San Bernardino County was seeing nearly double the increase in cases per capita of the surrounding counties. This week, that dubious distinction had intensified to the point that the number of cases in San Bernardino appears to be advancing at a rate of three times those in most of the rest of Southern California.
One telling manifestation is that in a setting within the county where there is little in the way of social distancing, the sheriff’s department’s academy held on the grounds of the Frank Bland Regional Training Center in Devore, a whopping 20 percent of the cadets there tested positive for COVID-19 between June 8, when two of the those in attendance at the facility were diagnosed as having come down with the virus, and Wednesday June 17, when 33 were confirmed to have contracted the potentially deadly malady.
Word was that few, if any, of the trainees were seriously ill. All 160 in attendance were tested for the disease, as were instructors and trainers.
The academy activities at the training center have been suspended, with classes now being conducted remotely and cybernetically, and cadets quarantined at home.
Governor Newsom yesterday, Thursday, June 18, ordered all Californians to wear face coverings while in public or in places where they are likely to come into contact with others, including in retail settings and while utilizing public transportation, as well as in any sort of medical setting.
-Mark Gutglueck

Malcolm Harsch, whose formerly mysterious death on May 31 prompted what are now recognized as spurious accusations that he had been lynched, died by his own hand, it was confirmed by multiple sources including a video of the fatal incident.
Harsch’s death came in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25, and amid growing unrest nationally over that incident and the general issue of police brutality, especially as employed against African-Americans. That unrest, which manifested as protests which escalated into widespread looting and riots in many urban settings across America, formed a backdrop for questions about what had befallen Harsch, a 38-year-old African-American who was living within a homeless encampment near Victor Street and Circle Drive in Victorville next to where he was found hanging from a tree with a cord around his neck.
As incomplete information about what had occurred emerged, suggestions that Harsch had been murdered turned to speculation of a lynching, which then devolved into rampant reports to that effect.
A coincidental circumstance further west in the Mojave Desert across the San Bernardino/Los Angeles County line in Palmdale on June 10, in which Robert Fuller, a 24-year-old African-American man was likewise found dead hanging in a tree, prompted widespread reports and speculation that a serial killer targeting African-American men was on the loose in the midst of the contretemps that had grown out of the George Floyd killing.
The confluence of the Floyd/Harsch/Fuller events had the potential for touching off a major social conflagration, given the tinderbox of animosity on both sides of the racial divide as police forces nationwide, chastened by the public reaction to the Floyd killing, grew less aggressive in their tactics, even in the face of looting and other lawlessness that accompanied the protests, leading to an impromptu culture of vigilantism among non-African-American citizens concerned about their physical safety, damage to their property or theft during rioting and looting. That vigilantism led to the open carrying and in some cases the brandishing of firearms among counter-demonstrators, including two highly publicized incidents in San Bernardino County.
On Wednesday, June 17, what some feared would be the catalyst for the racial inferno that many dreaded occurred when Fuller’s half brother, Terron Jammal Boone, was killed by deputies with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department in Rosamond, just across the Los Angeles County line at the extreme western extension of the Mojave Desert in Kern County. Boone was fatally wounded in a hail of gunfire after he himself allegedly fired on deputies.
With tensions at fever pitch, the following day, representatives of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department contacted members of Harsch’s family, some of whom had previously openly suggested that Harsch had been lynched, and showed them the first of two surveillance films which electronically documented Harsch’s suicide. The second of those surveillance films was shown to them earlier today.
In one of those videos, taken from the vantage of a nearby empty building on Victor Street, Harsch, in a white shirt, is seen close to two tents in the homeless encampment. He can be seen hurling objects at one of the tents.
According to authorities, at that point Harsch was engaged in an argument with his girlfriend, who was inside the tent, and the items he threw at the tent were donuts.
At 5:57 a.m., according to the timestamp on the video, Harsch can be seen wrapping a blue cord, what investigators said was a high definition media interface cable, one consisting of copper wire surrounded by insulation and rubberized-plastic, around his neck. He then walked toward a tree close by, wrapped the other end of the cable around one of the tree’s branches, and dropped downward. The branch bends, apparently from the downward force of Harsch’s weight tugging on it. His body at that point is below the video’s visual field. The branch and other parts of the tree can be seen rapidly trembling for several minutes before becoming still.
According to the video timestamp, Harsch’s last moments of life on this earth took place around 6 a.m. May 31.
The sheriff’s department would normally not make such disturbing imagery public, officials said, but it was felt that given the circumstances, something needed to be done to “dispel the myth” that Harsch had been lynched by a person or persons unknown.
Harsch’s most proximate known relative was his brother, De’Avery Richardson, a soldier stationed at the U.S. Army installation at Fort Irwin, north of Barstow. A teleconferencing session with Richardson and other members of Harsch’s family in Ohio was arranged by the sheriff’s department, authorities said.
Harsch’s family is represented by Najee Ali, who is also a spokesman for Fuller’s family. After the Harsch family was shown the video, Ali released a statement. “The Victorville Police Department officials released new video evidence to family members,” Ali said. “On behalf of the family of Malcolm Harsch, unfortunately it seems he did take his own life. The family wants to sincerely thank everyone for their support and prayers.”
While the video seems to present clear evidence that Harsch fordid himself, it does raise other questions.
Harsch’s girlfriend called 911 just after 7 a.m., roughly an hour after Harsch’s death. What is depicted on the video suggests that she was not aware of what had occurred until that time, as she had emerged from the tent just to prior to that. The video, however, depicts an individual who was also at the homeless encampment at that time, identified by authorities only by the moniker “Manpower.” Manpower is visible near the homeless encampment outside of the tents there, within visual range of Harsch and the tree as Harsch is approaching the tree with the cord around his neck. Authorities believe Manpower may have witnessed the suicide. Attempts to locate him as of today, however, have been unsuccessful.
Manpower is seen in the video accompanying Harsch’s girlfriend around 7 a.m. when they approach the tree and she discovers her boyfriend is dead.
Shortly thereafter, other denizens of the encampment, apparently summoned by Harsch’s girlfriend, went to the tree, unfastened him and took him to the ground. One of those went to the Victory Outreach church, which is proximate to the site, for help. Two of those who responded from the church attempted cardio-pulmonary resuscitation on Harsch until paramedics arrived.
He was pronounced dead on the scene after an ambulance and other authorities had responded to that location.
According to the sheriff’s department, Harsch had twice been booked into jail in recent months for undisclosed alleged offenses. On one of those occasions, he was subject to a suicide watch.
Authorities were able to shed some limited light on what had prompted Harsch to fordo himself.
Sometime around 3:15 a.m., Harsch, was seen walking down a nearby street, and was heard shouting indiscriminately, profanely and somewhat insensibly. He was encountered by a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputy at 3:17 a.m. The sheriff’s department provides contract law enforcement services to the City of Victorville.
The deputy noticed blood on Harsch’s shirt, and asked about it’s origin. According to an audio recording from a recorder on the deputy’s belt, Harsch somewhat angrily responded that he had cut his hand.
Upon the deputy running a record and warrant check on Harsch, which apparently came up negative, Harsch was no longer detained.
Sometime thereafter, at about dawn, Harsch and his girlfriend began arguing, exchanging mutual accusations of infidelity.
One of the last exchanges the couple had was the woman telling Harsch “I’m going to make one of your homeboys my new boyfriend,” she told deputies.
An analysis of the blood on Harsch’s shirt confirmed it was his own, according to the sheriff’s department.

The common sun rose is a species of plant endemic to California. It bears the scientific name of Crocanthemum scoparium, but is sometimes included in the genus Helianthemum. Its common names include peak rockrose, Bisbee peak rushrose, broom-rose and peak rushrose. There are two recognized varieties, both uncommon.
It is found in dry, sandy areas in hills and low mountains, primarily along the coast from the Bay Area southward, with a concentration in San Diego County. It is also present in the San Bernardino Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains within San Bernardino County.
Crocanthemum scoparium is a small perennial shrub bearing long, smooth stems and small flowers each with five bright yellow petals. It falls within the cistaceae (rockrose) family.
Under normal conditions these plants are about a foot-and-a-half tall and roughly a foot-and-a-half wide. They are semi-deciduous, meaning they lose their foliage for a very short period, when old leaves fall off and new foliage growth is starting. In the case of the crocanthemum scoparium, this occurs in the summer, when the bright green foliage withers and drops off.
A perennial, this shrub sports hairs generally in stellate clusters and is rarely glandular, except in its inflorescence. The growth can vary from very sparse to dense, dependent upon the degree of irrigation and its extent of exposure to the sun and withering or drying conditions.
The stems of the plant are generally erect, and more or less broom-like. The leaves are cauline and generally alternate and linear to lanceolate or oblanceolate.
The inflorescence is a raceme or is panicle-like, meaning the oldest flowers are borne towards the base and new flowers are produced as the shoot grows, with no predetermined growth limit. The flowers consist of five sepals, with the outer two generally narrower; and the petals yellow. The fruit is generally three-valved. Each flower will produce at least three seeds and sometimes many more.
Its name helianthemum is from the Greek for sun flower.
This species will persist and be especially abundant after fire scorches the earth near where it has gown in the past.
One insect known to feed off of it is the common gray moth, know scientifically as the Anavitrinella pampinaria.

From Wikipedia and https://calscape.org.

Regular readers of this column have probably been wondering where I’ve been off to for these last many weeks. Well, the truth of the matter is I’ve been hunkered down, much like everyone else, either at home or at work. For me, my workplace is our family manufacturing concern, which fortunately, has weathered the storm.
There are several sad truths here. One of them is that I am rarely on the streets anymore, which is where I draw most of my inspiration, just by observing what everyone is wearing, picking up on trends, seeing the patterns, watching how what some are wearing is influencing others. What I have seen is that no one, or at least very few people, are bothering much with how they dress anymore. They have been, for the most part, lounging around home, half the time, I suspect, in their bedclothes, and they will don, at most, an oversized shirt and a pair of pants or more likely sweatpants, some tennies or loafers, and make a run to the grocery store. I saw one day a man walking about downtown wearing a bathrobe and slippers! Another time, there was a lady in the frozen food aisle wearing what I thought had to be a nightie. The only thing missing was the curlers in her hair! Maybe I should have written a column about that.
Another sad truth is the wave of bankruptcies we have been hit with, largely as a result of this coronavirus lockdown.
Clothing retailer J. Crew, which operated more than 20 Southern California locations under the J. Crew and Madewell banners, has filed for bankruptcy protection. J. Crew had 182 J. Crew retail stores and 140 Madewell stores. These offered stylish youth-oriented brands. It needed $400 million in financing to remain afloat, but couldn’t get it, since it could not guarantee in the current environment that it will continue to have a flow of customers into its stores. J. Crew wanted to spin off its Madewell division in an IPO to help pay down its debt load, but creditors objected.
Neiman-Marcus filed for bankruptcy but is struggling to stay afloat. Word came this week that it may have turned a corner on raising $675 million in new financing to stay solvent to the point where it can start reopening stores.
Neiman-Marcus was an iconic chain of American luxury department stores which featured multiple high quality clothing lines for both men and women, but particularly women. In 1927 Neiman-Marcus premiered the first weekly retail fashion show in the United States. The loss of Neiman-Marcus in the fashion world would be an incalculable loss.
True Religion Apparel Inc., the Manhattan Beach-based designer and maker of designer jeans very much popular with celebrities, has declared bankruptcy.
All of this was followed with the bankruptcy filing of J.C. Penney! Will it never end?
One can hang on to the hope that bankruptcy does not necessarily mean that a company will go permanently out of business, as those seeking Chapter 11 protection are trying to stay alive by wiping out their debt or renegotiating that debt. What might happen is these companies will close the stores that are not profitable, and sustain the rest. Some will need to borrow money, and will be able to structure themselves back into profitability if they can get the funding and maintain a customer base. That is hard to do, though, when stores aren’t open.
All of this leaves me depressed. Life will go on, no matter what, but for me, style and fashion is what makes life interesting. Let us not forget what a wise man once said:
“What a strange power there is in clothing.” -Isaac Bashevis Singer

FBN 20200004294
The following person is doing business as: STRATTON BAIL BONDS
6844 TIARA AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346 MICHAEL GUTIERREZ 6844 TIARA AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346 [and] NANCY LOZANO 6844 TIARA AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346
Mailing Address: 31 W CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92701
This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
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/ MICHAEL GUTIERREZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/06/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 04/28/2020
County Clerk, Deputy C9754
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 05/29, 06/05, 6/12 & 6/19, 2020.

FBN 20200004319
The following person is doing business as: THE CUT SHOT 9153 LEMON AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 TWILA KNIGHT POULIOT 9153 LEMON AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 [and] MATTHEW R POULIOT    9153 LEMON AVE ALTA LOMA, CA 91701
This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ TWILA KNIGHT POULIOT
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/06/2020
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 A8608
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 5/29/20, 6/05/20, 6/12/20 & 6/19/20.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004235
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: New Line Network, 16277 Montgomery Ave, Fontana, CA 92336, Keytonn Alonso, 16277 Montgomery Ave, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Keytonn Alonso
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/1/20
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/ A8608
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 5/29/20, 6/5/20, 6/12/20, 6/19/20
FBN 20200004868
The following person is doing business as: MOSAIC SUITES 948 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. #938 SUITE 129 ONTARIO, CA 01762 JUDITH P. ZAMORA 2302 S. CALDWELL AVE. ONTARIO, CA 91761
Mailing Address: 2302 S. CALDWELL AVE. ONTARIO, CA 91761
This 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/ MICHAEL GUTIERREZ
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/27/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 05/26/2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/05, 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004987
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Willy’s Speed Shop, 6905 Palm Ave, Highland, CA 92346, Mailing Address: PO BOX 930, Highland. CA 92346, Kenneth M. Brana, Socal Engineering, CA 6909 Center St, Highland, CA 92346
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/ Kenneth Brana
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/1/20
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).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/5/20, 6/12/20, 6/19/20, 6/26/20

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARIA DE JESUS PARRA
NO. PROPS 2000267
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARIA DE JESUS PARRA
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARIA D. PARRA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARIA D. PARRA 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 1:30 p.m. on JULY 14, 2020 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 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
MARIA CARMEN ZELADA PUTNAM
NO. PROPS 2000282
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARIA CARMEN ZELADA PUTNAM aka MARIA PUTNAM
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ANDREA MARIA PUTNAM RAMIREZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANDREA MARIA PUTNAM RAMIREZ 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. S35 at 9:00 a.m. on JULY 23, 2020 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 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JOHN JULIAN KELLY
NO. PROPS 2000288
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JOHN JULIAN KELLY aka JOHN J. KELLY aka JACK KELLY
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by AUDREY RACHEL KELLY in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that AUDREY RACHEL KELLY 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. S37 at 1:30 p.m. on JULY 21, 2020 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 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
VIVIAN A. DIXON
NO. PROPS 2000298
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VIVIAN A. DIXON aka VIVIAN ANN DIXON aka VIVIAN A. BROOKS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TENISHA JENKINS LIVAS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TENISHA JENKINS LIVAS 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 1:30 p.m. on JULY 16, 2020 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 6/12, 6/19 & 6/26, 2020
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20200004595
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Rodriguez Courier Services, 1473 Randy St, D, Upland, CA 91786, Jose R. Rodriguez, 1473 Randy St. #D, Upland, CA 91786,
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/ Jose R Rodriguez
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/15/20
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 06/23/15
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).
6/12/20, 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
CHERYL LYN SCOTT
NO. PROPS 2000131
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHERYL LYN SCOTT
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JEFFREY SCOTT, in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JEFFREY SCOTT 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 wills and 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. S35 at 8:30 a.m. on JULY 15, 2020 at the San Bernardino Justice Center, 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:
R. SAM PRICE, ESQ.
SBN 208603
300 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 475-8800
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 6/19, 6/26 & 7/03, 2020
FBN 20200004634
The following entity is doing business as: GRAND TERRACE HAPPENINGS 21712 VIVIENDA AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 JEFFREY E MCCONNELL 21712 VIVIENDA AVE GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313
This 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/ JEFFREY MCCONNELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/18/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/12, 6/19, 6/26 & 7/3, 2020.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVDS2009782
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner TORI TAN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
TORI FENGZHUO TAN to TORI TAN
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: 07/23/2020
Time: 10:30 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: May 29, 2020 By Justin Manassee, Deputy
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/03 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004767
The following entity is doing business as: ALLIES’S CRAFT HOUSE 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407 ALEXANDRA J BECKER 3898 SCARLET OAK CT SAN BERNADINO, CA 92407
This 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/ ALEXANDRA BECKER
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/21/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FBN 20200004634
The following entity is doing business as: GROOVE’S KITCHEN 12838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710 JOAQUIN FLORES 2838 YORBA AVE CHINO, CA 91710
This 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/ JEFFREY MCCONNELL
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/29/2020
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: May 16, 2020
County Clerk, Deputy
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 6/19, 6/26, 7/3 & 7/10, 2020.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005319
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Kwang Construction Service, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763, Whole Home Project Resource LLC, 5670 Arrow Hwy, Montclair, CA 91763
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/ Wen Chih Shen
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/11/20
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).
Published in the San Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20200005118
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: US China Properties Group, 12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3358, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729, Carlton Premier Realty, Inc,12736 N. Bend Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, I DECLARE THAT ALL INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. A registrant who declares as true information, which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of a crime. (B&P Code 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Laura Zhang
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 6/5/20
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/ 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 Bernadino County Sentinel 6/19/20, 6/26/20, 7/3/20, 7/10/20

Clicking on the blue portal below facilitates an electronic pathway to the PDF version of the June 12 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel. The full download duration is roughly 14 seconds.

Sentinel 06-12- 20

Upland municipal officials, including city management and the city council, this week prevented the city’s treasurer from alerting the city’s 76,000 residents of the looming pension debt crisis that is threatening to bankrupt City Hall.
More than seven months after effectively moving to muzzle Larry Kinley, who in 2016 was elected to the treasurer’s post by an overwhelming 62.46 percent of the vote, the city council this week for the eighth straight month prevented him from providing the city’s residents with a notation of the amount of money the city’s taxpayers are on the hook for to keep retirement stipends flowing to former city employees. Simultaneously, the council stopped Kinley from making a written public disclosure of the dramatic escalation in those payments that will occur in future years when the city’s current workforce retires, depleting the city of the money it will need to deliver services and maintain infrastructure.
Because cities such as Upland generally create their year-to-year budgets on the basis of current operations without making any preparation or allowance for how accumulating costs will burden the city in future years, the future debt is referred to as an “unfunded liability.”
For two closely related reasons, city employees and elected city officials would prefer that the city’s residents ignore this unfunded pension liability. Kinley believes city officials’ efforts to downplay that troubling financial indicator is grossly irresponsible.
Kinley worked for Bank of America for 42 years, the last 15 of which he was a manager in the problem loan administration department dealing with borrowers with financial difficulties. After his retirement, Kinley in 2013 by chance heard that Standard and Poor’s Financial Services intended to downgrade the City of Upland’s credit rating. As an Upland resident, and indulging the interest and expertise he had cultivated professionally, he began looking into the situation involving his city, coming across as well an auditor’s opinion from the certified public accounting firm Mayer Hoffman and McCann from 2012 stating that there were serious questions with regard to the city’s solvency to the point that in a short while “it will be unable to continue as a going concern.”
Delving further into the matter, Kinley discerned that the major factor forcing the city closer and closer to the fiscal abyss was its pension debt, which was then, and is yet, growing at an alarming pace. Based on his analysis, Kinley determined that the pension debt escalation grew out of the consideration that the city for decades had made what he says were unjustifiably generous commitments to pay city employees retirement benefits which are in the cases of the city’s lower paid employees, three times what are provided to employees in the private sector, and in the case of the city’s higher paid employees, five, six and even seven times what is a standard retirement stipend in the private sector.
At that point, Kinley set about trying to calculate what the city’s unfunded pension liability was at that time. Based on data he obtained from the California Public Employees Retirement System, with which the City of Upland is contracted to deliver pensions to its employees, what Kinley found was that as of June 30, 2012, which at that point was the last date for which figures were available, the City of Upland’s unfunded pension liability for its safety [i.e., police and fire department] employees, current and future, calculated on an actuarial value of assets basis was $33,370,136 and calculated on a market value of assets basis was $54,213,809. Kinley further learned that as of June 30, 2012 the city of Upland’s unfunded pension liability for its miscellaneous [i.e., those other than policemen and firefighters] employees, current and future, calculated on an actuarial value of assets was $21,234,203 and calculated on a market value of assets basis was $34,780,257.
In this way, Kinley derived a $88,994,066 figure, using market value actuarial terms.
In 2016, when the city’s then-current treasurer, Dan Morgan, opted out of running for reelection as treasurer to instead seek a seat on the city council, Kinley tossed his hat into the ring, as did Stephen Dunn, who had departed as Upland city manager that year and had served in the role of Upland’s finance director prior to that. Campaigning on a platform that made reference to the unfunded pension liability while noting that Dunn was a pensioner drawing a $104,000 annual pension who therefore might not be sensitive to the need for pension reform, Kinley handily won the 2016 election for treasurer, capturing 16,625 votes or 62.46 percent to Dunn’s 9,992 votes or 37.54 percent. Kinley’s performance in that election made him the top vote-getter among all of the city’s elected officials, including the council members and the mayor.
In addition to carrying out the standard duties of the city’s treasurer, Kinley was resolved as well to see that he continued in his elected capacity to bring the same degree of focus to the unfunded pension liability issue as he had as a candidate. He saw this as part of an effort to get Upland’s citizenry to take up and embrace the concept of pension reform, such that the burden of paying for the hefty pensions would be transferred from the taxpayers and future taxpayers to the city’s employees, who would be called upon to up drastically their contribution toward sustaining the pension fund as a part of contract negotiations.
Each year, Kinley would recalculate the degree to which Upland’s unfunded pension liability would increase. He also kept an eye on how much, as a percentage of the budget, payments into the retirement pool consumed money from the city’s general fund. As treasurer, he approached other officials at City Hall, informing them that he wanted to kickstart the pension reform movement in Upland by having the city carve out for him an opportunity to weigh in, albeit briefly, during city council meetings, through a forum from which he could give a brief overview of the city’s financial picture, perhaps from a seat provided for him on the council dais. Marty Thouvenell, Upland’s former police chief, at the time Kinley came into office was serving as the city’s interim city manager. Thouvenell was originally supposed to remain in that capacity for only a brief interlude while a full-fledged city manager was being recruited, but as it turned out, he remained in that post for 18 months, a duration in place that was actually longer than the tenures of the two city managers who served before him and the two who served after him. When Kinley engaged with Thouvenell, who was a pensioner himself, and told him of his plans to spark pension reform from the bully pulpit within the council chambers as a co-equal with the rest of the city’s elected leadership, Thouvenell immediately let it be known that no one was interested in hearing Kinley prattle on about how the sky was falling and City Hall would be buried under an avalanche of pension debt. There would be no forum for him as city treasurer, Thouvenell told him.
If Kinley wanted to sound his dire warnings about the unfunded pension liability at those forums, he would not be given a platform to do so as city treasurer, but had to present a speaker card to the city clerk and make his presentation from the podium provided to members of the public. On those occasions when Kinley summoned up the dignity to do so, if his message did not contain itself to the three minutes allotted to public speakers, Mayor Debbie Stone, who had received 588 fewer votes for mayor than Kinley had received for treasurer in the 2016 election and who had heard as much about the city’s unfunded pension liability as she could stand, would shut off the microphone.
Kinley battled on, undercut at virtually every turn. He was able to score one significant and meaningful breakthrough, though it was grudgingly conceded to him. Using his status as city treasurer and the authority of his elected position, he arranged to have not only a reference to the unfunded pension liability made in the city’s comprehensive annual financial report, but a projection of where that liability stood as of June 30, the end of each fiscal year, based upon actuarials composed of the pensions being provided to the city’s retirees, their ages and current average life expectancy.
Last year, taking stock of the implication of his calculation that at the end of Fiscal Year 2018-19 as of June 30, 2019 that Upland’s unfunded pension liability had reached $112,039,675, up from $99,976,917 at the end of Fiscal Year 2017-18, Kinley felt it his duty to redouble his efforts to get the issue front and center before the residents of Upland. At the rate it is metastasizing, the runaway unfunded pension liability train by 2030 will monopolize 60 percent of the city’s general fund, meaning the city will be paying 60 cents out of every dollar it spends to pay people who are no longer working for the city. Desperate for a forum from which to project his alarm, Kinley set his sights on the monthly treasurer’s report that traditionally was posted publicly as part of the first city council meeting of each month. Treasurer’s reports are a relatively common document among municipalities, one which lays out what the city has over its history up until the present salted away in terms of its surpluses garnered from revenue in excess of its expenditures in current and past budgetary cycles, and delineates how and where that money is invested. Typically a treasurer’s report is current to approximately 60 days prior to its issuance, and it shows the amount of money the city has in investment funds, shared investment funds with other municipalities, interest-bearing bank accounts and change funds, securities, money market funds, government agency securities, corporate bonds and U.S. Treasury notes. Municipalities generally present their treasurer’s reports to the treasurer before they are made public, so that the treasurer can inspect and sign it. Figuring that the treasurer’s report is a listing of the net assets the city has, and further figuring that any indebtedness against those assets would impact the total amount of available savings, Kinley believed that the city’s outstanding debt would be properly listed on the treasurer’s report.
Realizing, however, that he was isolated on the issue in the city, Kinley decided against going out on a limb and simply altering the treasurer’s report from what was presented to him using his own authority. Instead, he sought backing for what he was going to do by going further up the governmental evolutionary chain, getting from state financial affairs experts clearance for what he planned to do.
“I called the state treasurer’s office to ask if there is something I can do to ensure I am able to fulfill my duties as I see them,” Kinley previously told the Sentinel. “I was handed over to one of their lawyers. The first question I was asked was ‘Who do you report to?’ I said, “Per the city’s organizational chart, I report to the citizens of Upland. That is the only line going to anyone above me. The lines from me or to me go down to the rest of the city staff.’ The lawyer’s comment was, ‘Therefore, since there is no one in the city with higher authority on financial issues than you, you are independent and you can add the information you deem relevant to the treasurer’s report.’”
Kinley next consulted the California Government Code relating to a municipality’s financial reports. California Government Code § 53646 requires and authorizes municipalities to carry out financial reporting no less frequently than quarterly. There is nothing in California Government Code § 53646 which expressly forbids a city treasurer from making mention of the city’s unfunded financial liabilities in a statement of investment policy, which, California Government Code § 53646 states, “the board [i.e., the city council] shall review and approve at a public meeting.”
Indeed, in subparagraph 3, California Government Code § 53646 reads, “The quarterly report shall include a statement denoting the ability of the local agency to meet its pool’s expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may, not be available.”
If questioned about what he was next going to do, Kinley was prepared to contend that the city’s unfunded pension liability has the potential for preventing the city from meeting future expenditure requirements.
Based on that, when the treasurer’s report was next given to him, Kinley took what he calculated would be the first incremental step. “What I wanted to do in the treasurer’s report was add a comment as the treasurer about the city’s pension liability, to see if I could get it in there,” Kinley told the Sentinel last year. “I wanted to provide both sides of the balance sheet, the net, if you will, which would include not just our assets but our liabilities.” He handwrote onto the treasurer’s report a note that showed his calculation of what the city’s unfunded liability was at that point.  Then he signed the report.
City Manager Rosemary Hoerning and Finance Officer Londa Bock-Helms were having none of that, however. Hoerning went to the city’s finance committee, consisting of Councilwoman Janice Elliott and Councilman Rudy Zuniga, Bock-Helms and Kinley, who has essentially been disenfranchised from it. The committee made a directed determination that the language Kinley was seeking to include should not be contained within the report. He was proffered a clean version of the report for his signature and his signature only.
“I told them that if they were going to erase my input, I just wouldn’t sign the report,” Kinley said. “And I didn’t.”
Thereafter, Hoerning and Bock-Helms changed the title of the treasurer’s report to the treasury report. They now sign it in lieu of Kinley.
The degree to which Hoerning and Bock-Helms are invested in the California Public Employees Retirement System perhaps explicates why both are so adamantly opposed to Kinley’s efforts to draw attention to the unfunded pension liability sword of Damocles hanging over all of Upland’s citizens’ heads, which might touch off a reform movement contrary to their personal interest. The California Public Employees Retirement System formula for someone in the position Hoerning holds calls for her highest annual salary times her number of years times the multiplicand of 2.5 percent. Earlier this year, the city council conferred upon Hoerning a three-year contract starting at $230,000.04 in salary before benefits annually. Thus, were Hoerning to retire today, she would be entitled to receive a pension of $184,000.03 annually for the remainder of her life, based upon $230,000.04 X 32 (years) X .025. If Hoerning serves out the full three years on her contract, she will then qualify for an annual pension of $201,250.03, based upon $230,000.04 X 35 (years) X.025. The California Public Employees Retirement System formula for someone in the position Bock-Helms holds calls for her highest annual salary times her number of years times the multiplicand of 2.25 percent. A calculation with regard to Bock-Helms’s eventual pension is less precise, given the relative dearth of publicly available information pertaining to her job history and future unknowns. Nevertheless, what is known is that Bock-Helms in 2016 was employed with the City of Murrietta with the title of finance manager, for which she was provided an annual salary before benefits of $113,725. She left Murrietta in 2017 to take a lesser position in Upland, bearing the title of finance officer, which entailed a salary reduction to $105,000 per year. This year, while yet holding the title of finance officer, she is being provided with a salary before benefits of $118,632.85. Bock-Helms is on a trajectory to promote in the relatively near term to the position of finance manager, and eventually, if she remains in Upland, to finance director, a post that now, if filled, would pay in the $150,000 range and would be likely to top out at $160,000 to $175,000 by the time Bock-Helms will be eligible for retirement. Thus, if she retires with 35 years as a municipal employee, she will likely be, at the very least, eligible for a pension of $126,000 per year, based upon $160,000 X 35 years X .0225, annually for the remainder of her life.
The city’s employee unions are among the heaviest contributors to the mayor and council members’ campaign funds. Advocates pushing finance reform in the city have suggested that the council members, individually and collectively, fear that their participation in efforts to reform the city employees’ pension system will result in the employees and their unions withdrawing their political support from the incumbents and bankrolling their opponents.
The slight to Kinley and the fashion in which city officials are seeking to prevent any heed being given to the ticking time bomb of Upland’s unfunded pension liability made its way into the public consciousness this week, prompting Councilman Zuniga at the Monday night council meeting at which the council was set to accept the treasury report, to say, “I’d like to ask the city manager or Londa Bock-Holms if they can explain why the city treasurer’s signature is not on the document and does it need to be on the document [i.e., the treasury report], and why the PERS [California Public Employees Retirement System] liability doesn’t show up on this document. I know why, but I would like it to be explained to the community.”
“So, this is the treasury report, and we provide this report to the treasurer, so he does get a copy of it,” Hoerning said. “In the past he, as the treasurer, has signed the report. However the reason for the signatures on the report is to certify the six items that are listed on the front of the report where the signatures are contained. It doesn’t require that the treasurer sign the report. However, when the treasurer was signing the report, he would alter it, so our finance officer, Londa Helms, would sign the report as it stands, which is just reflective of all of our treasury investments, and then the treasurer would make alterations to the report and then sign it. So, it didn’t have her concurrence with any corrections. The correction that he was making to the report is regarding the city’s unfunded liability position, which is included in part of our CAFER [comprehensive annual financial report] document, and is indicative of information that is not necessarily germane to this particular report. That is the reason why he has elected not to sign the report.”
Zuniga asked if it “is legal for the city manager to sign this report instead of the city treasurer?”
“Well, it doesn’t require that the city treasurer sign the report,” said Hoerning “I sign it as a matter of a second, so I’m reviewing the report that Londa has signed, so it has two official signatures on it.”
Hoerning said the treasurer’s report is an outline of how the city’s monetary reserves are being invested.
“Mr. Kinley has been notified that he can come up with his own type of report and produce it,” Zuniga said. “He can go in front of the council and let the community know what’s going on and how much is owed in this unfunded liability, and he refused to do so, correct?”
“That’s correct,” said Hoerning. “He always has an opportunity to speak or write a separate report and submit it to the city.”
“So there’s other ways he can push that communication of what’s unfunded in our city, but it doesn’t belong on this report,” said Zuniga. “This is an investment report. That’s all this one is.”
Councilman Bill Velto asked, “So, Mr. Kinley is shown this report, correct?”
“That’s correct,” said Hoerning.
“And Mr. Kinley is not required to sign the report, correct?” Velto asked.
“He’s not,” said Hoerning. “He’s given the opportunity to sign it, if he would like. In past practice the treasurer has signed the report, but they’ve signed the report without making corrections to the report or altering it.”
Hoerning said she was “not aware of past treasurers making changes to the reports.”
Velto asked, “The changes he chooses to make, are they inconsistent with his role?”
The question stymied Hoerning, who made an atypical five second pause in the cadence of her speech before answering, “They are inconsistent with this particular report. This is the investment report.”
During the evening’s public comment session, Marjorie Mikels told the council, “We are a general law city and we have a duly elected treasurer. His name is Larry Kinley. The people voted in a man with 40 years of banking experience.”
Mikels said that Mayor Debbie Stone had deliberately disenfranchised him.
“You never talk to him, Mayor Stone,” she said.
The council is overstepping its authority by preventing Kinley from carrying out his function as he deems appropriate, Mikels said.
“The government code gives him certain responsibilities,” Mikels, an attorney, said. “You have interfered and obstructed him in the performance of his duties as our elected treasurer. The city manager and someone called the finance manager signed off on the treasurer’s report. It’s illegal. You don’t want Mr. Kinley to disclose the truth about the unfunded pension benefit at this time that could bankrupt this city.”
-Mark Gutglueck