Whether the City of San Bernardino’s residents and taxpayers will be spared the expense of having to pay for its immediate past mayor’s failed effort to use the power of his office to construct a political machine will depend on the how rapidly the lawyer representing the city in a lawsuit brought against it by Valdivia’s one-time chief of staff can come up to speed with regard to the depredations virtually all of those in Valdivia’s political orbit were engaged in.
Valdivia’s political career kicked off with his failed 2009 run for Fourth Ward Councilman followed by his successful challenge of Third Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker in 2011. That was followed by his aborted run for Congress in California’s 31st Congressional District in 2014, his uncontested reelection as 3rd Ward Councilman in 2015, his successful run for mayor in 2018, his never-fully gestated run for Fifth District San Bernardino County supervisor in 2020 and his defeat in his run for reelection as mayor in 2022. Throughout the successful phase of his time as a politician, he tapped into the support of public employee unions, which bankrolled his campaigns in 2011 and 2018, and padded his political war chest in 2015 to the point that no one was willing to run against him.
Key to his rise as an elected official was political consultant Chris Jones, who was associated with both the firefighters’ union and police officers’ union, which made hefty contributions to those politicians in San Bernardino who prioritized paying police officers and firefighters top dollar salaries and providing them with generous benefits. Those unions simultaneously threw money into attack campaigns against any politicians who dwelled upon how the city’s deteriorating financial position was a consequence of its generosity to the city’s employees. Continue reading
Impromptu Murder Followed By Hacking Of Reche Canyon Couple Turns Out To Be One For The Books
The murder of Dan Menard and his wife Sephanie turns out to have been one for the books.
From the time it stormed its way into the public’s collective consciousness last summer, the case was filled with curiosities, questions and anomalies. Some, but not all of the questions have been answered. In numerous ways, the curiosities and anomalies persist with greater intensity than before.
Initially, in late August, the Menards, an older couple who led by that point had been leading a relatively staid and predictable existence, albeit in unconventional surroundings, garnered attention because they simply were not where they were supposed to be – at home with their Shih Tzu, Cuddles,.
Stephanie, 73, was suffering from muscular dystrophy and had limited mobility, needing to walk with a cane or a walker. Dan was in the middle stage of dementia. It is unclear how it was that they had taken up residence at Olive Dell Ranch in Colton’s rustic Reche Canyon in 2009, when Dan was 64 and Stephanie was 58 and already somewhat set in their way. Olive Dell Ranch lies along vast San Bernardino County’s frontier with Riverside County. While there’s no definitive evidence to prove that wife swapping occurs at Olive Dell Ranch, three is no question that it is a nudist resort. It is billed as a venue for RV camping and tent camping. Cabins can be rented there on a short-term basis rentals on a short-m basis. Children are not permitted on the premises. That the Menards were living in the midst of what many presumed was a “liberated” lifestyle jarred, at least in the conventional sense, with their more traditional orientation, which included Sunday participation in church service, which they attended, it seemed, every week.
So, when the Menards weren’t present when a friend arrived on Sunday morning August 25 to drive them to church, this seemed odd. Continue reading
Local Cops Defy President’s Call To Support Operation Alta California
By Richard Hernandez
In the recently intensified tension between the Donald Trump Administration and advocates of the undocumented immigrant community and the Democratic Party-dominated political establishment in Sacramento that backs them, San Bernardino County law enforcement this week doubled down on its decision to side with the later.
That decision comes roughly two-and-a-half months after the Republican-affiliated political and law enforcement leadership in San Bernardino County made an abrupt and unexpected left turn, undercut the U.S. Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, all follow-on agencies to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Office in its plans to initiate the Trump Administration’s Operation Alta California in San Bernardino and Riverside counties in April. Instead of federal officials going forth with Operation Alta California as had been planned, they held off for nearly two months and began the roundups of illegal aliens in earnest on June 2, doing so not in the more conservative, Republican-dominated areas of the state but rather in the Democratic stronghold and heartland of the influx of unregistered migrants into California, Los Angeles. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it and other federal agents arrested 4,635 individuals suspected of being in the United States illegally or under false pretenses in the 48 hour period of Tuesday and Wednesday, June 3 and 4. The lion’s share of this activity took place in Los Angeles County, indeed, within the City of Los Angeles. ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was only marginally active in San Bernardino County.
There were immediate reactions to the stepped-up immigration law enforcement, most notably in those areas where Operation Alta California was conspicuously taking place, in the form of widespread protests. Those protests manifested spontaneously, or so it seemed, at the locations where the ICE raids were taking place, the garment district and other industrial warehouses near downtown Los Angeles in the initial phase of operation Alta California, as well as around federal buildings and facilities. It would later be discovered that the protestors were using a sophisticated monitoring and communications network in an effort to check the federal authorities. Continue reading
Largest Jewelry & Armored Car Heist In History Three Years Ago Has Local Angle
A man from Rialto and another from Upland were among seven criminals who pulled off the what is believed to be the largest jewelry theft and armored car robbery in U.S. history, it was revealed this week.
Both of the thieves from San Bernardino County are in custody as is one of the others. Four remain at large.
The heist took place in Lebec just off the I-5 Freeway, 72 miles north of Los Angeles a little less than three years ago after the gang trailed an armored truck carrying valuables that had been on display during an international jewelry trade show in the San Francisco Bay Area.
On June 11, a federal indictment was returned naming seven defendants, those being:
• Carlos Victor Mestanza Cercado, 31, of Pasadena;
• Jazael Padilla Resto, a.k.a. “Ricardo Noel Moya,” “Ricardo Barbosa,” and “Alberto Javier Loza Chamorro,” 36, of Boyle Heights
• Pablo Raul Lugo Larroig, a.k.a. “Walter Loza,” 41, of Rialto;
• Victor Hugo Valencia Solorzano, 60, of the Rampart Village neighborhood of Los Angeles;
• Jorge Enrique Alban, 33, of South Los Angeles;
• Jeson Nelon Presilla Flores, 42, of Upland; and
• Eduardo Macias Ibarra, 36, of the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles.
Continue reading
Article 7
This article involves medical issues
Article 8
This article deals with issues in the mountains
June 20 SBC Sentinel Legal Notices
SUMMONS – (FAMILY LAW)
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): ERNESTO GODOY
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED.
Read the information below and on the next page. Lo han demandado. Lea la informacion a continuacion y en la pagina siguiente.
PETITIONER’S NAME IS (Nombre del demandante): MADAI ROMERO
CASE NUMBER FAMMB2500070
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this Summons and Petition are served on you to file a Response (Form FL-120) at the court and have a copy served on the petitioner. A letter or phone call will not protect you. If you do not file your Response on time, the court may make orders affecting your marriage or domestic partnership, your property, and custody of your children. You may be ordered to pay support and attorney fees and costs. For legal advice, contact a lawyer immediately. Get help finding a lawyer at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.cagov/selfhelp), at the California Legal Services Website (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), or by contacting your local county bar association.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de haber recibido la entrega legal de esta Citacion y Peticion para presentar una Respuesta (formulario FL-120) ante la corte y efectuar la entrega legal de una copia al demandante. Una carta o liamada telefonica o una audiencia de la corte no basta para protegerio. Si no presenta su Respuesta a tiemp, la corte puede dar ordenes que afecten su matrimonio o pareja de heco, sus bienes y la custodia de sus hijos. La corte tambien le puede ordenar que pague manutencion, y honorarios y costos legales. Para asesoramiento legal, pongase en contacto de inmediato con un abogado. Puede obtener informacion para encontrar un abogado en el Contro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en el sitio web de los Servicios Legales de California (www.lahelpca.org) o poniendose en contacto con el colegio de abodgados de su condado.
NOTICE – Restraining orders on page 2: These restraining orders are effective against both spouses or domestic partners until the petition is dismissed, a judgment is entered, or the court makes further orders. They are enforceable anywhere in California by any law enforcement office who has received or seen a copy of them.
AVISO – Las ordenes de restriction se encuentran en la pagina 2 : Las ordenes de restriccion estan en vigencia en cuanto a ambos conyuges o miembros de la pareja de hecho hasta que se despida la peticion, se emita un fallo o la corte de otras ordenes. Cualquier agencia del orden publico que haya rocibido o visto una copia de estas ordenes puede hacerlas acatar en cualquier lugar de California.
FEE WAIVER : If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the clerk for a fee waiver form. The court may order you to pay back all or part of the fees and costs that the court waived for you or the other party.
Exencion de cuotas : Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario un formulario de execion de cuotas. La corte puede ordenar que ested pague, ya sea en parte o por completo, las cuotas y costos de la corte previamente exentos a peticion de usted o de la otra parte.
FL-100 PETITION FOR Dissolution (Divorce) of: Marriage
1. LEGAL RELATIONSHIP: We are married.
2. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: a. Petitioner [and] Respondent has [have] been a resident of this state for at least six months and of this country for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of this petition. (For divorce, at least one person in the legal relationship described in items 1a and 1c must comply with this requirement.)
3. STATISTICAL FACTS
(1) Date of marriage: April 16, 2001
(2) Date of Separation: May 1, 2002
(3) Time from date of marriage until time of separation: 1 years and months
4. MINOR CHILDREN: There are no minor children.
5. LEGAL GROUNDS: (1) irreconcilable differences
8. SPOUSAL OR DOMESTIC PARTNER SUPPORT: Terminate (end) the court’s ability to award support to Petitioner [and] Respondent.
SEPARATE PROPERTY: Confirm as separate property the assets and debts in
2004 BMW X-5 as to the PETITIONER
WELLS FARGO CHECKING ACCT NO. 5611 as to the PETITIONER
WELLS FARGO SAVINGS ACCT NO 8754 as to the PETITIONER
WELLS FARGO CREDIT CARD NO. 5032 as to the PETITIONER
COMMUNITY AND QUASI-COMMUNITY PROPERTY: There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be divided by the court.
Signed: Madai Romero 2-24-25
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y dirrecion de la corte son):
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOSHUA TREE DISTRICT
6527 WHITE FEATHER ROAD
JOSHUA TREE, CA 92252
The name, address and telephone number of petitioner’s attorney, or petitioner without an attorney, are: (El nombre, direccion y numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante si no tiene abogado, son):
STACY ALBELAIS ESQUIRE STATE BAR # 256154
LAW OFFICES OF STACY ALBELAIS
4505 ALL STATE DR. SUITE 204
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(951) 686-8662
stacy@familylawforyou.com
Filed: FEBRUARY 24, 2025 by Anabel Z. Romero, Deputy clerk (Asistente) for Aimee Eubanks, Clerk of the Court (Secretario)
Published in The San Bernardino County Sentinel on May 30, and June 6, 13 & 20, 2025.
Read The June 12 SBC Sentinel Here
Former Teacher Reports Irregularities In Etiwanda School District Preschool Programs
By Carlos Avalos
A former teacher is alleging that the Etiwanda School District’s administration in recent years compromised its educational mission in favor of maximizing funding it receives from the state, destroying the district’s once cutting-edge preschool program in the process, and is now disadvantaging the district’s youngest and most vulnerable students.
Antoinette Jensen taught for seven years in the Creating Learning Opportunities Utilizing Diverse Strategies (CLOUDS ) program within the Etiwanda School District. Initially, she taught as a permitted early child education preschool teacher at Grapeland Elementary, then at Golden Elementary for the 2022-2023 school year, followed by a position at Terra Vista Elementary for the 2023-2024 school year.
The district’s administrators spent more than a decade of building the CLOUDS program into what many considered to be a model program for integrating preschool students into a learning environment and bringing them up to speed with regard to basic academic skills so they take full advantage of the educational opportunities awaiting them in first grade, second grade and beyond, thoroughly familiarizing with how the State of California funds its public school system. Having learned how to tap into that generosity to be able to run legitimate programs aimed at targeting students of varying socioeconomic means and across the entire cognitive spectrum, those running the district eventually fell to manipulating the funding protocols to prioritize not furthering the education of the students the district was entrusted with but to bring substantial amounts of money into the district by enrolling more and more students into programs for which the state would provide augmentation funding whether or not the amalgam of students placed into those classes resulted in a beneficial learning environment or not, Jensen alleges.
In the case of the district’s CLOUDS program, according to Jensen, the teachers found themselves being overburdened with students across too wide of an age spectrum being intermixed in the classes, resulting in their focus and span of control being tested beyond the breaking point. This, Jensen says, resulted in the once successful educational atmosphere within the classes being ruined and student academic achievement plummeting.
As a consequence, according to Jensen, the Etiwanda School District disserves the special education students in its preschool program, exploits their special-needs status, and even tolerates the abuse of special education students in its pre-kindergarten programs. Continue reading
Bunton Out As County Counsel?
Those manning crucial posts within San Bernardino County government have been thrown into a tizzy over reports, none of which could be confirmed at press time, that County Counsel Tom Bunton is on his way out as the county’s top in-house lawyer.
The office of county counsel is the county’s stable of staff attorneys. Bunton, who was formerly assistant county counsel with the County of San Diego, assumed the role of county counsel in San Bernardino county in January 2022.
In recent days and weeks there have been mixed signals emanating out of floors four and five of the county administrative building located at 385 North Arrowhead Avenue in downtown San Bernardino.
One indication was that Laura Feingold, who was elevated by Bunton to the position of chief assistant county counsel 16 months ago, will be sliding into the post which is yet officially held by Bunton.
Undergirding that were a series of developments this week relating to the board of supervisors and the office of county counsel.
The board this week, on Tuesday June 10, held its regularly scheduled meeting. It was next scheduled to meet on June 24. The board customarily holds its regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month or, more rarely, the first and third Tuesdays of each month. Abruptly, however, after the close of normal business hours today, Friday, June 13, the June 24 meeting was canceled. Instead, announcement was given that the board would hold a specially called meeting next week, not on Tuesday but Wednesday June 18. Based upon the contents of the agenda, it appeared that the matters that would have been discussed and potentially voted upon at the June 24 meeting were going to be taken up at the June 18 meeting.
Of note is that the board of supervisors has no meetings scheduled for July, such that there will be a 48-day gap between the June 24 meeting and its next regularly scheduled meeting on August 5.
Placed on the agenda for a closed door executive session of the board to take place prior to the public portion of the June 18 meeting was an item worded thusly: Public Employee Appointment (Government Code section 54957) Title: County Counsel
That seemed to imply that a change in who will hold the position of county counsel is in the offing.
At a meeting of the board on April 1, the supervisors, in a closed session engaged in evaluations of the job performance of both Bunton and County Chief Executive Officer Luther Snoke. When the board emerged from that closed session, there was no report of any action taken. If an elected body takes action during a closed session, under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law, a report of that action is supposed to be made. In most jurisdictions in California, as is the case in San Bernardino County, the primary counsel for the agency – in this case, Bunton – makes that announcement. Since Bunton and Snoke were the subject of the evaluations, they were most likely not present during the April 1 closed session as is normally the case, although that is not publicly known to absolutely be the case. As there was no report out from the meeting, it is unknown, precisely whether Bunton was given a positive evaluation.
He has remained as county counsel in the intervening time. Nevertheless, rumors are extant within county governmental circles that Feingold’s stock is on the rise.
Bunton, at least until recently, was believed to have rock solid job security, given the amount of inside information – much of it potentially and actually damaging to the members of the board of supervisors – he is privy to.
From the outset of his time as county counsel, Bunton has been entrusted with a compendium of exceedingly sensitive information pertaining to how the county is run, places and occasions where its employees and both low and high officials have made mistakes, engaged in wrongdoing and/or misfeasance and malfeasance. Bunton has been present during virtually all closed door executive meetings of the board. In those sessions, in addition to Bunton providing the board with briefings relating to pending or ongoing litigation, real estate purchases or sales were discussed, negotiations for the sale or purchase of real estate took place, the job performance of key county staff members was evaluated, discussion of staff hirings, discipline and firings occurred and board members disclosed information or details with regard to action in which they were involved. The disclosures and information brought forth during these closed sessions are supposed to be held in the strictest confidence.
Very early in his tenure as county counsel, Bunton became aware that the district attorney’s office under District Attorney Jason Anderson had neglected to monitor the county’s real estate fraud prosecution program funding in violation of California Government Code § 27388. Around the same time, Bunton learned of a extortion scheme then-County Chief Executive Officer Leonard Hernandez was engaging in which he was withholding from disclosure information about bribe money being filtered to members of the board of supervisors. When press efforts to obtain documentation that would unmask the nature of the blackmailing that was ongoing, including Hernandez’s meeting calendar, through the California Public Records Act, Bunton choreographed county officials through the crisis by instructing them to simply brass it out and refuse to hand over the requested documentation.
When the county botched its emergency response to the 2023 arctic storm that blanketed the county’s mountain communities, which included the deaths of several individuals who were snowed in and isolated, Bunton shepherded the county out of harm’s way. When Russian mobsters hacked into the sheriff’s department’s computer and communication system, with the entire system rendered unusable and at risk, not to mention gigabytes of information relating to highly questionable actions by law enforcement officers now potentially at risk of discovery by the public at large, Bunton advised the county to accede to paying a $1.1 million ransom so the sheriff’s department could recover control of its database. When the county board of supervisors at last resolved to be rid of Hernandez as county chief executive officer, Bunton assisted in formulating a strategy to freeze him out of the county administrative suite while he was on vacation and then negotiated a $650,000 payout to keep him silent about the damaging information pertaining to the members of the board he had accumulated while he was running the county.
Bunton attended and graduated from Indiana State University Kelley School of Business with a four-year degree in 1988 and thereafter attended Georgetown University’s School of Law graduating in 1993. He practiced law in Indiana and passed the California Bar in 1997. He thereafter worked for the law firms of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps in San Diego and then Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in its San Diego Office before working as a litigator with Baker McKenzie for a short spell. He began as a senior deputy county counsel with San Diego County in September 2001, remaining in that post until 2016, when he promoted to chief deputy county counsel. In March 2019, he reached the number two position in that office as assistant county counsel.
As of right now, Bunton is being provided with an annual salary of $346,497.76, in addition to which he is provided with $27,354.34 in perquisites and pay add-ons and $150,505.54 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $524,357.64.
While Bunton’s departure from the graft encrusted San Bernardino County government has not been confirmed, those in the know say that by virtue of his having demonstrated skill in purchasing the silence of so many top tier county employees when they have made their exodus from the county, he should be able to wring from the taxpayers’ stewards no less for himself and can look forward to a payout of approaching $1 million to go quietly into the good night.