Comprehensive budget legislation being pushed by the Donald Trump, referred to officially as the 2025 Budget Reconciliation and by President Trump as the Big, Beautiful Bill, called for the sell-off of public land across the country, including roughly 16 million acres in California. That included land in San Bernardino County dear to environmentalists, conservationists and those passionate about having wilderness remain as wilderness.
That provision of the bill was inserted by Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a crucial ally of the president in his struggle against the Washington, D.C. establishment. Lee’s provision would apply to between 600,000 and 1.2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land in the 11 Western states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
Land in San Bernardino County that was scheduled for placement on the auction block included acreage in the Angeles National Forest, extending to dense old growth trees in areas without access roads as well as on the northeast side of the forest; extensive and disparate areas within the San Bernardino National Forest, including near Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear Lake and in Barton Flats, an area south of Big Bear which stands at the west entranceway to the San Gorgonio Wilderness and the trailhead that leads ultimately to the Mount San Bernardino, Mount Shields, Mount Jepson and Mount San Gorgonio peaks; the Coyote Dry Lake Bed outside Joshua Tree National Park.
To the relief of those who want to prevent the privatization of those public lands, President Trump, even after the experience of his first term, remains virtually entirely focused on the executive function of government and has not yet grasped the importance or nature of legislative action and he has not personally bothered to cultivate the skill or ability to manipulate the Senate or the House through a combination of positive and negative reinforcement, standing strong and relenting, praise and pressure, backscratching and arm-twisting or outright political horsetrading. Nor does he have on his staff someone with that ability and he has no true allies in positions of power in either Congress or the Senate who have the status and leverage to husband a bill through the give-and-take of the legislative process.
After more than a month of using all of the force at his disposal to ramrod the bill through, while maintaining and vowing revenge against anyone who opposed the legislation he is championing, he learned, through a belated tallying, what everyone else knew from the start, which was that it is touch-and-go as to whether he has the votes needed to garner the Big, Beautiful Bill’s passage. At least 27 House Republicans have expressed opposition to one or more of the bill’s provisions. In the senate, Republican senators John Curtis of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina have all made clear that the bill will need to undergo substantial revision for them to support it. This means that in both houses, President Trump will need the support of a fair share of Democrats if the bill as originally drafted is to pass, and he has burned his bridges with virtually every Democrat in the country. Continue reading →

In the City of Big Bear Lake, where the political game is played as or more ruthlessly than anywhere else in San Bernardino County, the forces in control of the community this week installed two key functionaries to maintain the establishment’s hold on the machinery of governance.
The city council on June 11 appointed Jim Eakin and Ernesto Mendoza to the planning commission and reappointed Michael LoGrande and Lisa Bist to the panel.
The action came two months and two days after former Planning Commission Chairman Jeff Holoubek was removed in a coup, which no one affiliated with the city or familiar with the details is willing to talk about.
Key to understanding the reality of life in the rustic paradise hidden away in the northeast corner of the San Bernardino Mountains is that control over the machinery of governance in the county’s second smallest municipality population-wise and third smallest city geographically lies not with the city’s residents but a mix of the locally-based entrepreneurs and both national and international corporations running the community’s booming tourist industry.
A skiing mecca in the winter and early spring, a co-claimant with Lake Arrowhead as the boating capital of San Bernardino County from spring until mid-fall, a major swimming venue in the summer, a place where hiking, camping and fishing are ongoing year round and the spot for upland game bird and California mule deer hunting in season, Big Bear has almost as many outsiders breathing its rarefied,1.277-mile-high oxygen-thin atmosphere on a daily basis than natives who call it home. While its status as a tourist community first and foremost has proven highly profitable and advantageous to the operators of the community’s skiing resorts, lodges, hotels, motels, boating rental businesses, the owners/landlords of short-term rentals, property owners, investors, real estate speculators and the like, the influx of temporary residents into any given locale and in particular within the city limits of Big Bear Lake has left many of those who actually call Big Bear Lake home – the residents of the city – with the impression that they are second class citizens. Continue reading →

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2402334
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS: JUAN PACHECO, an individual; EDUARDO PACHECO ROJAS, an individual; STEVE NELSON, an individual; MARIE NELSON, an individual; CHARLES YOUMANS, an individual; All persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto; and DOES 1 through 48, Inclusive
(AVISO DEMANDADO):
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
Planet Home Lending, LLC
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
247 West 3rd Street, San Bernardino California 92415 San Bernardino District
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
Shannon A. Doyle, Esq.,
Ghidotti Berger, LLP,
1920 Old Tustin Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92705
DATE (Fecha): 3/9/2024
Clerk (Secretario), by /s/ Crystal D’Amico, Deputy
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 06/06/2025, 06/13/2025, 06/20/2025, 06/27/2025

Continue reading →

Former San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Robert Page has been sued by the United States Department of Justice in his present capacity as Orange County registrar of voters for unlawfully concealing from federal officials records relating to the removal of non-citizens from voter registration lists.
Page finds himself caught in a situation which not only involves conflicting provisions of state and federal law but a circumstance which was revealed as a consequence of a complaint which brought into focus the long-talked-about accusation that non-citizens have been voting in California elections with the assonance of public officials.
Because the matter involving Page and Orange County was complaint-driven and the specific complaint germane to a situation in Orange County, the action taken by the Justice Department so far does not pertain to San Bernardino County. The Sentinel is informed, nonetheless, that there are “at least hundreds” of similar instances of voter registration applications having been provided to non-citizens throughout Southern California, such that the demands made of Page by the federal government are likely to be visited upon San Bernardino County election officials. How the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office responds to the requests for information and/or action by the Donald Trump Administration, which in recent weeks has taken very aggressive action with regard to immigration enforcement in California, will be a controlling factor in whether Page’s successor as San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters, Stephenie Shea, will be subject to a civil court challenge similar to that faced by Page.
On Wednesday, June 25, the Department of Justice filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against Page, citing violations of Section 303(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Help America Vote Act, 52 U.S. CODE § 21083 and Section 8(a)(4) and 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S. CODE § 20507(a)(4).
According to the complaint, “The Attorney General recently received a complaint from the family member of a non-citizen in Orange County indicating that the non-citizen received an unsolicited mail-in ballot from the Defendant, despite lack of citizenship. On June 2, 2025, the Attorney General requested the following documents from the Defendant: 1. Records from January 1, 2020, to the present showing the number of voter registration records in Orange County canceled because the registrant did not satisfy the citizenship requirements for voter registration. 2. Records from January 1, 2020, to the present related to each cancellation described in Request No. 1, including copies of each registrant’s voter registration application, voter registration record, voting history, and related correspondence sent or received by the County of Orange Registrar of Voters in regard to the registration.”
The complaint continues, “On June 16, 2025, the defendant responded to our request. In his response, the defendant provided data but redacted the following information regarding the non-citizens identified on the Orange County voter registration list: the California driver’s license and identification card numbers, social security numbers, California Secretary of State-assigned voter identification numbers, language preference, and images of registrants’ signatures. The defendant relied upon several California statutes as the basis for the redactions. On June 17, 2025, plaintiff responded to the defendant indicating that the redacted data that was [not] provided prohibits the Attorney General from making an accurate assessment of the defendant’s compliance with HAVA and the NVRA. Moreover, plaintiff communicated that the defendant’s reliance on state law to prevent the Attorney General from receiving information it is entitled to receive is preempted by federal law. Defendant is required to ‘maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters[.]”
Those joining in on the civil enforcement action include U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bilal Essayli; United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division; Assistant U.S. Attorney David Harris, who is the chief of the California Central District office’s civil division; Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Hikida; Assistant Attorney General Michael E. Gates, of the office’s Civil Rights Division; and Maureen Riordan and Kevin Muench, the acting chief and an attorney, respectively, in the Justice Department’s voting session.
According to Essayli, Dhillon, Harris, Hikida, Gates, Riordan and Muench, Page has run afoul of Section 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1), referred to as the “Public Disclosure Provision” the National Voter Registration Act by refusing to make a straightforward revelation of the non-citizens removed from Orange County’s voter rolls.
“Voting by non-citizens is a federal crime, and states and counties that refuse to disclose all requested voter information are in violation of well-established federal elections laws,” Dhillon stated. “Removal of non-citizens from the state’s voter rolls is critical to ensuring that the state’s voter rolls are accurate and that elections in California are conducted without fraudulent voting.”
Riordan, in a letter dated June 2, asked Page for records going back five-and-a-half years documenting voter registration cancellations of those determined to not be U.S. citizens, those canceled voter’s voting records, their registration applications, voting histories and any correspondence related to the cancellations. It was Page’s response, deemed inadequate by federal officials, that triggered the lawsuit.
An effort was made by Orange County Officials to steer a middle path with regard to the requests by the federal officials for the voting registration data. An impasse developed as lawyers for Orange County felt that voter registration information is confidential, based on some ambiguous state law. Federal officials believe that an effort by a non-citizen, particularly a unregistered alien, to register to vote is a violation of the law and any information relating to such an attempt evidence to which prosecutors have an unfettered right.
The Sentinel has learned that as federal prosecutors were intensifying their pressure on Page to produce the sought-after information, Orange County Counsel Leon Page, whose blood relation to Bob Page is unclear, assigned Assistant County Counsel James David Paul Steinmann to intercede with Riordan to see if some compromise between the requirements of state law and federal law could be arrived at with regard to this case.
In an email from Steinmann to Riordan obtained by the Sentinel, Steinmann asked, “To avoid a lawsuit, would the USDOJ consider another mechanism to enable the county to provide the USDOJ with this sensitive information?” Steinmann was angling toward preventing the information, including the names, relating to the foreign-born residents who had applied for voting status without being legally eligible to vote in the United States from being publicly disclosed. Federal officials, who have not ruled out prosecuting those who broke laws pertaining to fraudulent voting, were flat out unwilling to provide such an assurance, as the names and other aspects of the personal lives of criminal defendants would be subject to disclosure during the prosecutorial process.
When Steinman asked, “Would the USDOJ be amenable to entering into a confidentiality agreement that would enable us to provide records with assurances that such sensitive personal identifiers will remain confidential and be used for governmental purposes only?” federal officials demanded that Page and the other Orange County officials quit stalling and produce the requested documentation.
The following day, the suit was filed against Page. The suit calls upon the court to order that Page produce the requested information in unredacted form.

Former San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Robert Page has been sued by the United States Department of Justice in his present capacity as Orange County registrar of voters for unlawfully concealing from federal officials records relating to the removal of non-citizens from voter registration lists.
Page finds himself caught in a situation which not only involves conflicting provisions of state and federal law but a circumstance which was revealed as a consequence of a complaint which brought into focus the long-talked-about accusation that non-citizens have been voting in California elections with the assonance of public officials.
Because the matter involving Page and Orange County was complaint-driven and the specific complaint germane to a situation in Orange County, the action taken by the Justice Department so far does not pertain to San Bernardino County. The Sentinel is informed, nonetheless, that there are “at least hundreds” of similar instances of voter registration applications having been provided to non-citizens throughout Southern California, such that the demands made of Page by the federal government are likely to be visited upon San Bernardino County election officials. How the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office responds to the requests for information and/or action by the Donald Trump Administration, which in recent weeks has taken very aggressive action with regard to immigration enforcement in California, will be a controlling factor in whether Page’s successor as San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters, Stephenie Shea, will be subject to a civil court challenge similar to that faced by Page.
On Wednesday, June 25, the Department of Justice filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against Page, citing violations of Section 303(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Help America Vote Act, 52 U.S. CODE § 21083 and Section 8(a)(4) and 8(i) of the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S. CODE § 20507(a)(4).
According to the complaint, “The Attorney General recently received a complaint from the family member of a non-citizen in Orange County indicating that the non-citizen received an unsolicited mail-in ballot from the Defendant, despite lack of citizenship. On June 2, 2025, the Attorney General requested the following documents from the Defendant: 1. Records from January 1, 2020, to the present showing the number of voter registration records in Orange County canceled because the registrant did not satisfy the citizenship requirements for voter registration. 2. Records from January 1, 2020, to the present related to each cancellation described in Request No. 1, including copies of each registrant’s voter registration application, voter registration record, voting history, and related correspondence sent or received by the County of Orange Registrar of Voters in regard to the registration.”
The complaint continues, “On June 16, 2025, the defendant responded to our request. In his response, the defendant provided data but redacted the following information regarding the non-citizens identified on the Orange County voter registration list: the California driver’s license and identification card numbers, social security numbers, California Secretary of State-assigned voter identification numbers, language preference, and images of registrants’ signatures. The defendant relied upon several California statutes as the basis for the redactions. On June 17, 2025, plaintiff responded to the defendant indicating that the redacted data that was [not] provided prohibits the Attorney General from making an accurate assessment of the defendant’s compliance with HAVA and the NVRA. Moreover, plaintiff communicated that the defendant’s reliance on state law to prevent the Attorney General from receiving information it is entitled to receive is preempted by federal law. Defendant is required to ‘maintain for at least 2 years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters[.]”
Those joining in on the civil enforcement action include U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bilal Essayli; United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division; Assistant U.S. Attorney David Harris, who is the chief of the California Central District office’s civil division; Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Hikida; Assistant Attorney General Michael E. Gates, of the office’s Civil Rights Division; and Maureen Riordan and Kevin Muench, the acting chief and an attorney, respectively, in the Justice Department’s voting session.
According to Essayli, Dhillon, Harris, Hikida, Gates, Riordan and Muench, Page has run afoul of Section 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)(1), referred to as the “Public Disclosure Provision” the National Voter Registration Act by refusing to make a straightforward revelation of the non-citizens removed from Orange County’s voter rolls.
“Voting by non-citizens is a federal crime, and states and counties that refuse to disclose all requested voter information are in violation of well-established federal elections laws,” Dhillon stated. “Removal of non-citizens from the state’s voter rolls is critical to ensuring that the state’s voter rolls are accurate and that elections in California are conducted without fraudulent voting.”
Riordan, in a letter dated June 2, asked Page for records going back five-and-a-half years documenting voter registration cancellations of those determined to not be U.S. citizens, those canceled voter’s voting records, their registration applications, voting histories and any correspondence related to the cancellations. It was Page’s response, deemed inadequate by federal officials, that triggered the lawsuit.
An effort was made by Orange County Officials to steer a middle path with regard to the requests by the federal officials for the voting registration data. An impasse developed as lawyers for Orange County felt that voter registration information is confidential, based on some ambiguous state law. Federal officials believe that an effort by a non-citizen, particularly a unregistered alien, to register to vote is a violation of the law and any information relating to such an attempt evidence to which prosecutors have an unfettered right.
The Sentinel has learned that as federal prosecutors were intensifying their pressure on Page to produce the sought-after information, Orange County Counsel Leon Page, whose blood relation to Bob Page is unclear, assigned Assistant County Counsel James David Paul Steinmann to intercede with Riordan to see if some compromise between the requirements of state law and federal law could be arrived at with regard to this case.
In an email from Steinmann to Riordan obtained by the Sentinel, Steinmann asked, “To avoid a lawsuit, would the USDOJ consider another mechanism to enable the county to provide the USDOJ with this sensitive information?” Steinmann was angling toward preventing the information, including the names, relating to the foreign-born residents who had applied for voting status without being legally eligible to vote in the United States from being publicly disclosed. Federal officials, who have not ruled out prosecuting those who broke laws pertaining to fraudulent voting, were flat out unwilling to provide such an assurance, as the names and other aspects of the personal lives of criminal defendants would be subject to disclosure during the prosecutorial process.
When Steinman asked, “Would the USDOJ be amenable to entering into a confidentiality agreement that would enable us to provide records with assurances that such sensitive personal identifiers will remain confidential and be used for governmental purposes only?” federal officials demanded that Page and the other Orange County officials quit stalling and produce the requested documentation.
The following day, the suit was filed against Page. The suit calls upon the court to order that Page produce the requested information in unredacted form.

This article deals with the controversy over water use and the efforts involving multiple entities, including the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority and the Indian Wells Valley Water District to arrive at an affordable water replenishment plan in the northwest tip of the Mojave Desert.

An engrossing and equally rare dispute between two bureaucracies in which one is a primary constituent of the other is playing out in that region of California comprising the northwestern corner of San Bernardino County.
The issue of contention is water. It is a given that the cost of delivering the elixir of life to the furthest extension of the Mojave Desert is rising and will continue to do so. The larger question is whether agricultural production and industrial activity will need to end in the region. The controversy over the theft of water from Eastern Sierras has begun anew, as the long history of water disputes has opened a new chapter. Started in the early 1900’s when the fledgling Los Angeles Department of Water and Power “bought borrowed and stole” the majority of water rights in Inyo and Mono Counties triggering a series of water wars over the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct which exports water to Los Angeles to this day.
More recently, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (AGMA) of 2014 brought with it the cataloging of the Indian Wells Valley as one of 21 groundwater basins in the state to be classified as being in critical overdraft, another 127 basins have been classified as high priority. These designations triggered the creation of the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (Groundwater Authority) and approximately 266 similar Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in its efforts to overcome the depletion of California’s groundwater basins. Continue reading →

The jousting between the Donald Trump Administration and California’s political leadership over immigration law enforcement has resulted in troops from the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base being dispatched across the Southland as “peacekeepers” to prevent protesters from interfering with federal agents’ roundup of illegal migrants.
The use of the U.S. military in this way was not a second or even third option, but rather the administration’s fourth choice in how to ensure that “Operation Alta California” can proceed according to the current federal government’s stated intention of remove an estimated 2.2 million people who are in the Golden State illegally.
As of Tuesday, according to the United States Marine Corps, 719 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines stationed at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms were deployed to specific locations in Los Angeles San Bernardino and Orange counties, with the lion’s share – well over 600 – in Los Angeles County. Their mission, according to the U.S. Northern Command, calls for them to engage in “protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.”
The Donald Trump Administration previously intended to initiate on April 10 Operation Alta California in what was to be for a period of three to four weeks the limited arenas of Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
That plan fell through, though, when Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus gave indication that they would not permit the deputies from their departments to serve in a facilitating capacity in assisting the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in rounding up an estimated 250,000 illegal immigrants in both counties. The administration’s hope had been that once its success in dealing with the illegal immigration issue was established in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the fourth and fifth largest counties in the state, respectively, populationwise, that it would be able to induce law enforcement agencies elsewhere to lend it a hand in aggressive operations. Because Bianco and Dicus had gotten cold feet, Operation Alta California was postponed for more than seven weeks, until June 2, and its focus was moved to Los Angeles County, with its epicenter being the City of Los Angeles. Continue reading →