The transition in the make-up of San Bernardino County Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman’s office has continued, with Chino Hills Councilman Ed Graham having quietly retired last month as district director for the Fourth District. Meanwhile, a good number of Republican activists and public pension reformers expressed dismay with the office’s restaffing.
Graham’s departure came less than a month after the official departure of Mike Spence, who had been Hagman’s chief of staff from the time he had become supervisor in 2014 and was Hagman’s chief of staff when he was assemblyman prior to that.
Four days after Graham, who had reached the age of 65, retired on December 2, Hagman hired Graham’s Chino Hills City Council colleague, Councilman Peter Rogers as the Fourth District’s senior field representative.
Like Spence, Graham worked for Hagman from the outset of his time as supervisor and for the six years, from 2008 to 2014, when Hagman was in the Assembly.
That Hagman has turned to Rogers to fill the senior field representative position is not surprising. Before he was in the state legislature, Hagman was himself on the Chino Hills City Council, as both a councilman and as mayor. The Fourth District encompasses Chino Hills, Chino, Montclair, Ontario and the southernmost portion of Upland.
Still the same, Hagman is a Republican, one who in 2014 used his image of fiscal conservatism and advocacy of governmental fiscal reform to galvanize the members of the GOP in the Fourth District. He was able to succeed in the election, even though Republicans are significantly outnumbered by Democrats in the district. Republicans turned out out in sufficient numbers to defeat what many saw as a formidable opponent – Democrat Gloria Negrete-McLeod, who at that time was an incumbent congresswoman. Since the California Assembly is universally considered to be lower down on the political food chain than the U.S. Congress, and because the Fourth District’s status as a jurisdiction in which registered Democrats overwhelmingly – by a margin of 73,278 or 42.9 percent to 48,465 or 28.4 percent – outnumber registered Republicans, Hagman is particularly beholden to the members of his party for showing an enthusiasm for his supervisorial candidacy in 2014. What is more, in 2013 Hagman lead the charge in the makeover of the GOP locally and statewide. As a subset of a larger strategy for the Republican Party involving former state senator and assemblyman Jim Brulte’s ultimately successful quest to capture the leadership of the state Republican Party, Hagman displaced Robert Rego as San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee Chairman. The 2013 remaking of the party, both statewide where the party is woefully outgunned by the Democrats and in areas such as San Bernardino County, where the GOP still has something of a political toehold despite growing Democratic numbers, was intended to stanch the political bleeding in the Golden State in the wake of the 2012 November election, which stands as the most resounding electoral defeat the GOP had ever sustained in California.
The Republicans, historically and more recently, particularly in California, represent a bulwark against what they have characterized as a trend toward socialism, including the growth of government. A roiling issue in this regard is the degree to which public employees, through their unions, have exhibited control over the electoral process. By pooling their money, oftentimes in the form of union dues, and using that cash to back candidates of their choice, particularly ones willing to raise public employee salaries and benefits, in particular public employee pensions, public employees have come to exercise an influence over government in greater proportion than their actual numbers. Overwhelmingly, the candidates the public unions support, in California and nearly everywhere else in the United States, are Democrats.
Hagman’s recently departed chief of staff, Spence, in many ways was considered Hagman’s alter ego, offering a reflection of their shared pro-business, pro-economic development ethos favoring the private sector over excessive public sector superimposition of excessive regulation and bureaucracy. Spence is an anti-tax advocate who has long crusaded for cutting government red tape and alleviating the financial burden on taxpayers. Among his bona fides is that at the age of 32 in 1998, he was so spirited in his efforts to prevent the City of West Covina from imposing several hundred dollar-per year assessments on homeowners that City Hall sued him over that opposition. Ultimately, the city was unsuccessful with that lawsuit and, inspired by his example at fighting City Hall, the city’s voters rejected the proposed tax increase. Spence was also for four years the taxpayer representative on the Mount San Antonio Community College Bond Oversight Committee.
Spence and Hagman share a hard-edged Republican streak, which was evident in the bare knuckled campaign waged against Gloria Negrete-McLeod for supervisor in 2014. Negrete-McLeod, an incumbent Democratic congresswoman, was portrayed in hit pieces originating with the Hagman campaign as soft on crime and an advocate of policies that are unfavorable to business interests. Spence served as the chief strategist for Hagman in the campaign.
Spence has long crusaded for paring back the bureaucracy of government and alleviating the financial burden on taxpayers. He was the youngest person ever elected to be a vice chairman of the California Republican Party. He has served on the executive board at the state and county level of the GOP.
Nevertheless, Spence is a creature of the government. Spence was student body president at Edgewood High School and he then attended and graduated from UCLA with a degree in political science. He had a quarter century experience in various political roles in the state capital, including serving as the chief of staff for then-assemblyman Joel Anderson (R- El Cajon) and for Hagman. He was elected six times to the West Covina Unified School District Board of Education. He was elected to the West Covina City Council in 2013.
As a government employee for a quarter of a century, Spence is a participant in various governmental pensions systems, including the California Public Employees Retirement System and the San Bernardino County Employee Retirement, and thus feeds at the very trough reformist Republicans are battling to eliminate or curtail.
In the same way, Graham, who had a 34-year career as public employee as a teacher and vice-principal, participates in the public employee retirement system. In the six years he was with Hagman while Hagman was in the Assembly, Graham participated in the California Public Employees Retirement System. During the last two years working as Hagman’s county representative, Graham received $83,000 in annual salary for a 30-hour per week job, while participated as a member in the San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association (SBCERA).
Since Graham’s departure, Hagman has not filled the position Graham occupied.
He did, however, hire Rogers and in one fell swoop advanced him to the position of senior field representative. Rogers will work 25 hours a week for a salary of $44,300. He will participate in SBCERA. Unlike Graham, Rogers has worked in the private sector most of his life. But he is now experiencing the benefit of a public sector job, which provides benefits that are generally superior to those provided in the private sector and which many reformers believe are too generous and should be targeted for being brought into line with those in the private sector, even as the commitments to current and future public sector pensioners have created what governments refer to as an unfunded liability that has the prospect of pushing local and state governments to the brink of seeing as much as a quarter of their operating budgets committed to paying pensions to retirees.
In 2015, Hagman hired Ontario City Councilman Alan Wapner as his office’s policy adviser. Wapner is a former Ontario police sergeant who retired on full disability as a result of an injury to his hip from constantly wearing a gun holster on the job.
Hagman’s penchant for choosing retired government employees collecting substantial public pensions to man key positions in his office overseeing local governmental operations such as Spence, Graham, Wapner and now Rogers is seen by some Republican advocates of government reform and particularly government-pension and benefit reform as running contrary to the conservative, anti-big government principle Hagman has ostensibly built his political career around.
Hagman contested that view.
Hagman said that he valued Spence, Graham, Wapner and Rogers because “they are local elected officials. They are basically paid very little, in terms of and as far as their experience goes. On a grander scale, I’m buying all that time they served in local positions and the knowledge that comes with that. I’m getting a full spectrum of work out of people with both short term and long term experience. Peter and I have been working together and he is up to speed with what the city and county are doing and he understands my goals. He could get that started immediately. It would take years to build up that kind of a relationship with someone completely new or unknowledgeable. He did not make a living off government before this.”
Hagman said he was very much alive to the need for pension reform at every level of government in California. “I agree there is a need for change,” he said. “When I was in the legislature, I wrote bills to stop the abuse and protect the taxpayers. The Democrats, who had complete control, did not support that, and those bills did not pass.”
In his current position as supervisor, Hagman said, he is being frugal with taxpayer money in terms of his staffing. “As far as my office staff goes, my people are making less, on average, than those for the other supervisors,” he said. And his people are not receiving perks, either, he said. “I made sure reforms were enacted so that our staff is not double dipping and not getting any extra benefits that are enhancing their pensions like cell phone allowances and car allowances. I believe I’m getting the most bang for the taxpayer’s buck with my staff for my district’s residents.”

Jeff Burum

The prosecution and the defense this week gave diametrically opposite descriptions of the developer at the center of the ongoing Colonies Lawsuit Settlement Public Corruption Prosecution. According to Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope, Jeff Burum is a mendacious businessman who would stop at nothing to enrich himself, including extorting and then bribing several of the county’s top ranking elected and appointed officials. Burum’s lawyer, former assistant U.S. Attorney and Federal District Judge Stephen Larson, conversely maintains Burum is a bighearted humanitarian who overcame poverty and familial disadvantage as a youth to transform himself into a successful real estate developer who never lost his feel for the downtrodden. Through a politically motivated prosecution brought by a corrupt band of public officials, Burum has been hounded out of operating a semi-charitable construction concern he founded dedicated to reclaiming blighted property in economically challenged communities to provide moderate-income and transitional housing to those more unfortunate than himself, Larson asserted.

By Ruth Musser-Lopez and Mark Gutglueck
The Colonies Lawsuit Settlement Public Corruption Prosecution headed into its second week of trial on Monday January 9.
Following last week’s opening statements by both the prosecution and the defense with regard to that portion of the case involving Jim Erwin, the matter this week turned to opening statements against the three remaining defendants whose fate is to be determined by a different jury.
Those charged in the criminal case are Rancho Cucamonga-based developer Jeff Burum, former San Bernardino Second District Supervisor Paul Biane, former sheriff’s deputy union president and assistant assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, who was the chief of staff to former Fourth District Supervisor Gary Ovitt.
Prosecutors allege those four along with former San Bernardino County First District Supervisor and one-time San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus were caught up in an extortion and bribery plot relating to the 2006 settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Colonies Partners LLC against San Bernardino County and its flood control district over drainage issues at the Colonies at San Antonio residential and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivisions in northeast Upland.
Erwin is being tried separately because the prosecution wants to use certain statements he made as evidence against him but are illegally inadmissible against his codefendents.
On Monday, January 9, 2017, Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope reiterated in large measure the assertions he made last week in his opening statement regarding Erwin. His presentation this week focused more on the prosecution team’s theory of guilt relating to Burum, Biane and Kirk. Based on the responding opening statement made by Erwin’s attorney, Raj Maline, last week, Cope refined his approach, spelling out with great specificity and detail the elements of the criminal enterprise he claims Burum engaged in to induce a majority of the board of supervisors in November 2006 to confer upon his company, the Colonies Partners, LLC, a $102 million payout to settle the lawsuit his company had lodged against the county.
To a certain extent, Cope’s presentation this week benefited by his gauging of Maline’s response last week in the latter’s opening statement on behalf of Erwin. The 63-year-old prosecutor, with his soft spoken voice and even-keeled and methodical manner, endeavored to fill in the gaps and provide greater context to his narrative. Maline last week had attempted to exploit the elements of Cope’s narrative that were not given explicit contexting and background, perhaps successfully it seemed based upon the body language of the jurors, who had appeared to react positively to the more energetic and boyish-mannered, 51-year-old defense attorney.
A key player in the matter, though he is not a defendant, is one who has previously pled guilty and turned state evidence against the others in a plea bargain, former San Bernardino County First District Supervisor Bill Postmus. Last week, Cope traced out how Burum, intent on achieving the settlement, with Erwin’s assistance utilized elements of Postmus’ lifestyle to threaten and extort him to settle the lawsuit on terms favorable to Burum’s company and then reward him with two separate fifty thousand dollar donations to two political action committees (PACs) Postmus controlled.
Cope last week also laid out how Burum utilized similar blackmail and bribery tactics to gain Biane’s support for the settlement. The third vote to approve the settlement, Cope last week said, came from Gary Ovitt, whose vote Cope said was delivered by Mark Kirk, his chief of staff. Like Biane, according to Cope, Kirk received a $100,000 donation to a political action committee (PAC) he had set up and controlled.
Last week Maline sought to counter Cope’s version of events and blunt his assertion that extortion and graft were central components driving the $102 million settlement, offering a more benign interpretation of Burum’s provision of political donations to Postmus, Biane and Kirk. He downplayed the suggestion that both Burum and Erwin had engaged in threats and veiled blackmail in the weeks and months prior to the vote, and strongly asserted that the settlement relieved the county of escalating costs resulting from damages caused by a flood control district manager, Ken Miller, who the defense asserted had attempted through deceit to defraud the Colonies Partners of their property and rightful income by draining excessive amounts of flood water onto their otherwise developable land.
This week, Cope marshaled his most convincing display yet when he told the jurors that just prior to the November 28, 2006 vote to confer the $102 million settlement on the Colonies Partners, Postmus confided to his board colleague, Fifth District Supervisor Josie Gonzales, that he was being blackmailed in the period prior to the settlement being reached.
An agitated, disheveled, distraught and nervous Postmus came to Gonzales, Cope said, and “threw himself into a chair in her office and said to her, ‘They’re bastards. Don’t let them do anything to you.’”
Cope emphasized, “Mr. Postmus was going to cast his vote in favor of this settlement. He knew this deal was wrong. He knew that his vote was cast in favor of a deal that he should not vote for. He also knew that because the developer involved in this case, Mr. Burum, told him that if this settlement were done, Mr. Postmus would be taken care of by him and he would be supported in office, and if he would leave office he would be taken care of in business and given a job. Mr. Postmus was under a lot of pressure because he knew that the vote he was going to cast was wrong.”
Ultimately, Gonzales, along with Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, voted against the settlement, but the provision of the $102 million to the Colonies Partners was approved on a 3-2 vote with Postmus, Biane and Supervisor Gary Ovitt prevailing.
By providing the backdrop to the scene just before this critical event, Cope was attempting to offer jurors an illustration of the hardball tactics that were being employed by both Erwin and Burum to exact from the supervisors a settlement, tactics which Cope said concluded with bribes in the form of payoffs into the defendants’ political action committees but which were preceded by threats, extortion and blackmail. Cope asked the jury to listen to the witnesses who would stand before them to learn how each of these methods were used to pressure the three supervisors to vote in favor of the settlement.
In addition to recounting the November 2006 encounter between Postmus and Gonzales, Cope told the jury, “The settlement was so wrong that none of the county’s attorneys were willing to endorse or sign the settlement. What you will be asked to decide is whether or not there was bribery involved and an unlawful taking of county funds that was eventually taken into the pockets of some of the defendants that we have here. You will learn of the efforts to conceal the things [done] to get this vote. You will learn how the efforts to conceal these activities were revealed by an investigation done by the district attorney and the FBI. You will learn how politics as usual turned into a quid pro quo. You will learn many things about our county and its politics that will surprise you and you will not like, but what you need to pay attention to is the effort to extract the settlement and how that money was wrongfully diverted into the pockets of some of the defendants.”
Cope then sized up the defendants for the jury. He said “Mr. Burum is a developer, an extremely successful developer and an extremely smart man. He is one of two managing partners of a group of investors called the Colonies Partners. He is sought after by politicians in the county. Many politicians seek him out for contributions, endorsements, advice. Politicians fear him because if they cross him he has the ability and resources to ensure that they will not be able to remain in office after the next election.”
Cope continued, “Paul Biane is also a real estate person. He knew Mr. Burum for a very long time. Mr. Burum identified him as a talent. He colluded with him in an election many years ago after Mr. Burum had begun the Colonies development and wanted the county to pay for the work that he was doing on the development. There was a member of the board of supervisors by the name of Jon Mikels who was adamantly against any kind of settlement. Mr. Burum recruited Mr. Biane to run against Mr. Mikels. Mr. Burum and the Colonies Partners put up a lot of money to assist Mr. Biane in that election. Mr. Biane was successful.”
The board of supervisors is at the very apex of power and authority in county government, Cope said, with each of its five members representing and overseeing a different geographical jurisdiction. He identified Biane as being the supervisor for the Second District, in which the Colonies development took place. Using the Latin term “quid pro quo,” which means “this for that,” and which in a legal context implies an illegal arrangement by which a public official agrees to do something in exchange for money or favors, Cope said a quid pro quo arrangement between the Colonies Partners began very early.
“Mr. Biane prior to his election met with Mr. Burum and Mr. [Dan] Richards [the other managing principal in the Colonies Partners] and talked about the Colonies and need for settlement. And it was made known to him that he was going to be elected to that position with the help of the Colonies for the purpose of finding a solution that would result in a settlement of the Colonies lawsuit. As I indicated, Mr. Biane was successful. This case will also tell you Mr. Biane’s involvement began very early on. Money was given to him through entities that he controlled, campaign funds, PACs [political action committees]. You will learn about the pressure that was put on him to ultimately arrive at the settlement.”
Cope said, “Mr. Burum is an individual who likes to win. So during the course of this Colonies lawsuit, you will learn that he has many assets that he brought to bear. Many would be what you would expect, attorneys, overtures to the media, advisors telling him how to deal with the media, how to get his message out to the public. As he perceived progress or non-progress, he changed his approach, so after the course of this case you will see how he went about influencing the members of the board of supervisors to get this settlement. Many things were not out in the public. Some were intended to be private, secret, as he would have people approach the supervisors and more than encourage them to arrive at the settlement. He would threaten them, raise things that were personal to them so that this settlement could be arrived at.”
Cope said, “Mr. Kirk happens to be very close, very knowledgeable about the board of supervisors. He was chief of staff to Gary Ovitt. Mr. Ovitt was a member of the board of supervisors, an important member, one of the three votes that eventually accomplished this settlement. Mr. Kirk is known to be a very strong-willed person, very capable. He had great influence over Mr. Ovitt. He was the person, you will learn, who managed just about everything that Mr. Ovitt did. You will learn that you had to go through Mr. Kirk to get to Mr. Ovitt. Mr. Ovitt will come in and tell you that from the very beginning he thought that the settlement was right, and he planned to vote on it. But Mr. Kirk said that he would deliver a settlement, and he knew that there was a reward in it.”
Cope then moved on to Jim Erwin, who, he said, “for many years had been the president of a police union of this county, the San Bernardino County Safety Officers Association. It is known by everyone as SEBA. When I refer to SEBA, I am speaking of the members of all county law enforcement who belong to this union. Mr. Erwin was the president of that union for many, many years, and as the president held a position that was important politically and in a way that yielded influence.”
Cope said SEBA was used to launder money originating with the Colonies Partners which went to politicians, including Postmus, Biane and Ovitt. “Money was donated to this organization, SEBA, that he was president of and went to important politicians, including Mr. Ovitt, Mr. Biane and Mr. Postmus, and this was a way to get money to important people on the board of supervisors from Mr. Burum, but in a way where he wouldn’t be identified as being directly connected and directly contributing to them,” Cope said, “because they were getting large sums of money at this time, more than ever before, through this police union. Mr. Erwin had great ability to get money to the politicians that were favorable to the Colonies. Mr. Erwin enjoyed the power that this money gave to him.”
Erwin ceased being SEBA president in “about 2005,” Cope said, but remained in substantial control of the police union in the role as its chief administrator from “2005 to a point in time when he joined the assessor’s office.”
Cope said Erwin subsequently left the assessor’s office and used the money Burum had donated to his political action committee to help former San Bernardino City Councilman Neil Derry in the 2008 Third District supervisorial race run against and defeat Dennis Hansberger, who had voted against the Colonies settlement. Derry then hired Erwin as his chief of staff, Cope said. “The position of chief of staff is significant,” Cope said. “It allows you to do a lot behind the scene. Both Mr. Kirk and Mr. Erwin used those positions of chief of staff and both used their positions in ways that enhanced their power.”
Following the prosecution’s opening statement, the legal counsel for each of the defendants had the opportunity to offer opening statements or wait until after the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. While Mark McDonald, the attorney for Biane, and Michael Scaffidi, the attorney for Mark Kirk, elected to defer making their statements until later, Stephen Larson, representing Burum, offered his opening statements beginning Tuesday morning, January 10.
Cope, Larson told the jury, had put “blinders” on them so that they were able to see only what he wanted them to see. He invited them to remove those blinders and see the entirety of the picture and come to understand “the rest of the story.”
The remainder of the story, Larson said, the jury would find disturbing because it does not implicate his client or the remainder of the defendants, but rather the county government itself and particularly the county’s flood control district and its lawyers.
The 52-year-old Larson was obliquely critical of Cope to the jury, saying that Cope had told them about the evidence but that he would show them the evidence, which vindicates his client. “He told you what the evidence is going to show,” Larson said. “I am actually going to show it to you.”
Referring to all of the criminal defendants, Larson said, “These men believe in the system and that this criminal justice system will vindicate them. You are going to hear what they have gone through. After hearing the entire story and all of the exhibits, we will prove and you will find that they are not just not guilty, these men are innocent. This is not going to be one of those criminal cases where there is a question as to whether the prosecutor proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is going to prove that they are innocent.”
Intimating the likelihood that Burum and the others would take the stand in their own defense and brave whatever Cope or other members of the prosecution team would throw at them, Larson said, “These four men are not thrilled to be here but are relieved that they will now have the opportunity to tell their side of the story.”
“At the end, you will not just know what our theory or speculations are, but what the evidence is,” Larson said.
Larson proceeded with a biographical sketch of his client, saying that “the only adjective Mr. Cope used that I agree with was that he is brilliant.” Burum persisted through, Larson said, “a tough childhood” living apart from his father “with his mom in Maryland,” an existence steeped, Larson said, “in poverty.” During this time he was very close with his brother, Phil, Larson said. “Phil Burum works with Jeff to this day,” Larson said. As a teenager, Larson said, “Jeff moved to live with his father in Phoneix,” but, Larson said, Burum’s “father died a couple years later.”
At that point, Larson said, young Burum was listless and idling but was reclaimed through the efforts of a mentor, Michael McLean, the stepson of the actor James Stewart. Thanks to McLean’s intervention, Larson said, Burum “went from being an average to an ‘A’ student. He graduated with honors. He proved to be a talented athlete and was on the tennis team. He lived with his tennis coach and received emancipation.”
It was during this time that Burum gave an early demonstration of his character and determination, Larson said. When the local school district sought to close down his high school, Burum, Larson said, “staged a peaceful sit-in. Some students were violent. Jeff was instrumental in making the protest peaceful and organized. Jeff always followed the rules. He obtained a scholarship and went to college at Claremont McKenna in Claremont. There he studied Mandarin.” Larson said Burum’s senior thesis pertained to “the reunification of China and Taiwan.”
Burum had developed an interest in politics and after professionally committing himself to a career in real estate, got his license “and became a successful real estate developer.”
Despite that success, Larson said, Burum “never forgot where he came from” and, drawing from the rough go of it he and his family had when he was a youth, concluded one of “the important things truly was affordable housing.”
Consequently, Larson said, Burum began a company that was dedicated to providing housing for moderate and low income buyers. “Eventually that company went national and is known as CORE, National Community Renaissance. This is not just about housing, but about community services, so to provide an integrated, approachable solution to housing, not just social services, but to give people a real chance to own their own home.”
National Core was changing people’s lives positively, Larson said, “in hundreds of communities across the country.” But because of the indictment, Burum “resigned from being the chairman of this non-profit that he had become the chairman of,” Larson said. “You will hear about the impact on him and his wife, and his ability to be in politics and do what he has done. The one thing that you should take away from all of this is that Jeff has been a fighter, whether for his family, or his partners in business. But he is honest, and he has followed the rules. He is kind and generous. He is always law abiding.”
As for the prosecution’s theory of his clients guilt, Larson said “The truth is often more complicated than that. No one will dispute that bribery is wrong and is criminal. Anyone who commits such a crime should be put in prison. None of these men would have been involved in any bribe. Jeff Burum has been actively involved in politics and elections. He has gone out of his way to know the law and comply with the law. He has been involved in city races and national campaigns. He has been a co-chair for presidential campaigns. He knows what is legal and what is not legal. He never crosses that line.”
Bypassing the elements of extortion contained in Cope’s theory of criminality, Larson addressed the issue of bribery, asserting, “There has to be a bribe in all of this for any of this to be true, any of the prosecution to be true,” going on to point out that the prosecution was using tortured language to leave the jury with the impression that bribery had occurred without actually saying so directly. He said there were “legal problems with the odd way in which these charges were brought. Jeff Burum was not charged with bribery. Instead, prosecutors are alleging he engaged in helping them [Postmus, Biane and Kirk] receive a bribe, which is the bribe that he is said to have made. Mr. Cope has already said that the critical issue is all of the five charges, not whether they had authority to approve the settlement or whether it was compromised. He has to prove that the settlement agreement was somehow corrupted. There are two big problems that the prosecution is not going to be able to overcome. The reason for these problems belies the rest of the story. There is no reliable or believable evidence that any of the supervisors were promised any kind of bribe in exchange for their vote. Mr. Postmus [denied there was] a quid pro quo. Only one person – Adam Aleman – the tipster or snitch, said it. You are going to find out that Adam Aleman is a liar and a crook, not someone you can believe. By the time this trial is over you are going to know all about Adam Aleman.”
Larson continued, “The question is ‘Where is the reliable evidence that any of the supervisors received a bribe?’ You have heard about the charges, contributions, meetings with and without lawyers, a whole lot of stuff, but if you strip it all way, you will find out that it is all legal. This is not evidence of a bribe. The prosecution will say that this is the evidence, that you heard about the tips and that bribery negotiations were going on for a three year period, but you are not going to hear anywhere where there was a bribe. The evidence is they voted for the settlement agreement because they knew it was best for the county, a good idea. Mr. Biane and Mr. Ovitt thought it was a good idea.”
Trying to determine what Postmus thought at that point will prove futile and is irrelevant, Larson said, because his reasoning at the time was so severely impacted by his drug use, and his recollection at this point has been compromised by the same.
“Bill Postmus used meth and not just once in awhile,” Larson said. “He signed, he would have done, anything. He was at the height of his addiction. He was not off meth until 2012, a year after the indictment. He was on meth when he was interviewed, when he testified to the grand jury. We do not know what Bill Postmus was thinking. But we do know what Paul Biane and Gary Ovitt were thinking. Together they are the ones who voted for it.”
Of that deal, Larson told the jury, “The prosecutor said it was rotten and wrong. You are going to find that they had to settle.” Larson said the law firms Munger, Tolles & Olsen and then Jones Day were taking the county on a very expensive ride.
“This was malpractice, what these lawyers were doing,” he said.
Larson said his client’s company was in the strong position legally, such that the prosecutions theory of a motive was utterly disprovable.
“There was no need for a bribe,” Larson said. “We will show you all of the reasons why there was no bribe, no motive. This was a good deal. The county knows it now. The county has come around on the issue. It turns out what the supervisors did was right.”
As for the political action committee contributions, Larson pointed out that, technically, what the prosecution refers to as PACs are “not PACs. Federal committees are PACs. These are recipient committees.”
Larson said that donors of all stripes are free to donate money to politicians and that those donations are not bribes unless there is some agreement ahead of time that the contribution is being made to influence a vote.
“The line that cannot be crossed is quid pro quo,” Larson said. Burum, he said, “gave them money with no strings attached. There is not a single shred of evidence that those contributions were made with strings attached.” That Postmus and Biane and Ovitt supported the settlement is incidental, Larson implied, citing as proof that $40,000 of the money given to the committee allegedly controlled by Biane, the “Young Republicans, went to support Dennis Hansberger, the guy who voted no on the settlement. The money was given no matter what, not quid pro quo, with no strings attached,” he said.
Larson took issue with labeling the donations bribes, given that they came after the vote rather than before it.
“Keep in mind that what Judge [Michael] Smith [before whom the case is being tried] said, in order to prove this bribery occurred that you will need to find that when the public official agreed to take a bribe, he represented that he would vote that way,” Larson said. “You will hear from the prosecution that those contributions in 2007 would influence a vote in 2006. The politicians that received the money did not know about the contributions until after they settled.”
Larson acknowledged that money has made its way into the political process and that his client and the Colonies Partners were participating in the political process. But that participation is entirely legal, he said, and singling his client out because of that participation is a perversion of the law. Moreover, he said, there were other issues involving county government and land use issues Burum was involved with at the time for which he had reason to be seeking political goodwill through providing political donations.
“There was the stuff going on in 2007 that had nothing to do with the settlement that was all over by then,” Larson said. “Mr. Burum came together with others to form the Rancho Alliance in 2007. They were going to purchase land for development in Rancho Cucamonga. That did not work out. That was a huge focus in 2007.” Larson said Burum and his associates had to create goodwill for that undertaking and others, including one to build an NFL stadium in Ontario “in order to go forward.”
By the time the contributions were made, the settlement was a done deal, Larson insisted, pointing out that $102 million payout had been submitted for validation through the courts and that the court signed off on the validation in March of 2007, prior to the provision of the first of the contributions to the PACs.
“It was submitted to a validation process where notice is given to the world,” Larson said. “It went to a judge. If there are no proper challenges and it is accepted, that prevents it from being challenged or overturned in any way. After that nothing could have been done to break the settlement. There were no strings attached by the Colonies to these contributions. No one but Adam Aleman said they were made as part of a quid pro quo. Those contributions were made for legitimate purposes. Take the blinders off,” Larson told the jury, “so that you will see all.”
Larson said the county flood control district had constructed the 20th Street Storm Drain, an appurtenance that collected water from the below ground level Foothill Freeway and a three square mile area above the freeway which was constructed during the same time frame and deposited that water on the Colonies property. The Colonies property formerly had on it a roughly 31 acre basin used for water retention purposes and the county had easements recorded in 1933, 1934 and 1939 which related to using the Colonies property for drainage, but that there were limitations to that use, Larson insisted. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1970s constructed a flood control channel designed to take storm water southward to the Prado Dam, he said, rendering the basin on the Colonies property and any other flood control facilities on the Colonies land obsolete. He said the county’s insistence on vectoring the water onto the Colonies property was an unjustifiable act on the county flood control district’s part that the court had determined damaged the Colonies Partners by interfering with their development plans and ability to complete and market the homes being built there. This was the gist of the lawsuit against the county, Larson said, which the Colonies Partners had prevailed upon during a trial in the courtroom of Judge Christopher Warner. Judge Warner ruled against the county in that lawsuit and a judgment against it was pending that could have reached more than $300 million, Larson said. Thus, Burum had no motive to bribe Postmus, Biane and Kirk, he asserted.
After Larson concluded, Cope called as the first prosecution witness former San Bernardino County Third District Supervisor Dennis Hansberger. Hansberger served on the board of supervisors in two temporal installments. His first two four-year terms on the board ran from 1972 until 1980, at the beginning of which he had been the youngest man before Postmus to serve on the board of supervisors in county history. He returned to the board in 1996, serving three consecutive terms until 2008.
Cope led off with Hansberger for a multitude of reasons. He has a historical comprehension of the county, operations within its governmental structure, the function of the board of supervisors, specific knowledge about what occurred in the time frame in question under focus in the prosecution, and he was the strongest voice on the board of supervisors in favor of the county’s position in the lawsuit brought by the Colonies Partners and he was the board member most opposed to a settlement of the lawsuit. Additionally, Hansberger, because of his professional affiliations, has expertise with regard to sand and gravel mining operations and properties associated with them. A major historic use of the Colonies property was a similar mining operation.
Hansberger voted with Supervisor Josie Gonzales in opposition to the settling of the lawsuit for $102 million in November 2006.
In response to Cope’s questions, Hansberger said he had voted against every settlement proposal during the nearly five years of civil litigation that preceded the final settlement, and he offered his rational for doing so.
He said it seemed to him the Colonies Partners “just had a desire to get money out of the property.”
He said his familiarity with sand and gravel operations and their attendant property drove him to the conclusion that the Colonies property was of minimal value, and that the Colonies Partners’ claim of damages, which steadily rose from several million dollars to eventually reach in excess of $300 million was not supportable. Hansberger, in his testimony which began on Wednesday January 11 and continued on Thursday morning, included statements that he consistently voted against settlement because there was no foundation based upon real estate value that justified payment to the Colonies Partners. Hansberger testified that in his opinion the property the county was using for flood control purposes was worthless for development purposes of the kind the Colonies Partners envisaged for a number of reasons, one of which was the cost of filling in a deep pit that had been a gravel quarry. Redressing the property would have been prohibitively expensive, he said, because of the large amount of fill that would be required. He cited the land’s zoning as open space and the flood control easements existing on the property as the grounds for his conclusion that the land was undevelopable as it then existed. Further, he said, the homeowners who purchased the sites surrounding the large excavated area believed that it would continue to be used for flood control and open space and would likely have protested and objected to the developers using it for anything but a natural wash area.
Hansberger testified that the back and forth between the Colonies and the county during settlement negotiations pertaining to monetary value of settlement would have ended if the matter had gone up on appeal and the court would have made a decision based upon a reasonable value.
In response to Hansberger’s first reference to the Colonies property being at that time “zoned as open space,” Larson raised an objection. Signaling, perhaps, that acknowledgement of the property being limited by open space zoning might prove problematic for his client during trial or on appeal, Larson objected a second time when the open space zoning was referenced and he appeared purposed to prevent references to the Colonies property as being so zoned. A side bar, that is a private conference involving the attorneys out of the earshot of the jurors or others in the courtroom, ensued, at Larson’s request. Nevertheless, further references to the property being zoned as open space made it into Hansberger’s testimony and onto the record.
Hansberger said the law firms of Munger, Tolles & Olsen and Jones Day had “strong reputations” and were “competent counsel.” He said that he valued the opinion of those firms and their lawyers, who shared his view that the Colonies Partners were seeking from the county, by both litigation and other means, something to which they were not entitled.
Hansberger said that Biane and later Postmus had inserted themselves into trying to negotiate one their own the terms of a settlement with the Colonies Partners and that this was not from his viewpoint desirable because their interaction did not include the counsel or supervision of lawyers who would “protect the integrity of the process.”
Biane early on was stampeding the board toward settling the case, Hansberger said, including having outside communications with Burum on potential settlement figures. At first he attributed this to the Colonies property lying within Biane’s Second District, but he soon recognized that there was more to it than that. Hansberger said he told Biane that it was “not proper to be doing this, particularly with constituents with whom you are so close.”
He said negotiating with the Colonies Partners was best left to county counsel or the county’s retained attorneys.
“It became his cause to get this done, and it was ever present in our discussions,” Hansberger said of Biane. Hansberger said he felt the county should not have paid the Colonies Partners anything but that at one point he was resolved to settle the matter if it could be done for no more than $7 million or $8 million, just to put an end to the suit. But the Colonies Partners continually escalated their asking price, he said. “I think in every case when the numbers came in higher, it was him (Biane) who was presenting them to us,” said Hansberger.
Initially, Postmus was also in favor of a settlement and occasionally “scolded legal counsel and other staff if they did not move forward,” but was less intense in his demands than Biane. But by late 2006, Postmus transitioned into being the board member making the hardest push toward a settlement with the Colonies, Hansberger said.
“He began to show some real emotion about this case,” Hansberger testified. “I did see a general change in him. It became an urgent matter with him after he was elected assessor. He was more aggressive in his approach toward a settlement. It built up over the weeks until we finally voted on a settlement.”
Hansberger testified that Kirk had a degree of sway over Ovitt. “Mr. Kirk had a role, it seemed to us, in the decision-making process with Mr. Ovitt,” Hansberger said. “Mr. Ovitt was very reserved. He (Kirk) became the surrogate for his boss on many subjects.”
Cope asked Hansberger about a settlement discussion involving Postmus, Biane, former state senator Jim Brulte, Jeff Burum, Dan Richards and the attorneys for both the Colonies Partners and the county in March 2005.
Hansberger said that Brulte participated as “an unexpected third party” who later turned out to not be an uninterested mediator but actually an agent of the Colonies Partners. At some point, Postmus ordered all of the attorneys to leave the room and a tentative settlement was reached with the five remaining individuals in the room to close out the litigation with a $77.5 million payout by the county. Hansberger said he had objected to the meeting in general and that he was never informed ahead of time it would take place outside the presence of the attorneys.
Nor was he informed, Hansberger said, that Brulte was employed by the Colonies Partners. “I didn’t know Mr. Brulte would be at the meeting,” he said, and did not learn the Colonies Partners employed him “until sometime later.”
Hansberger said, “In-house counsel strongly objected” to the deal on the grounds that “they had laid no foundation for it. No one had documented what that property was worth. They just wanted to settle it for money. Mr. [Paul] Watford [an attorney with Munger, Tolles & Olsen] was particularly vocal on the subject. He felt we were way off base in trying to settle it in that manner. They [Munger, Tolles & Olsen] were committed to the notion that we already had a favorable ruling from the appellate court and we would act upon that and if we lost in the Superior Court we would go back to the appellate court. He pointed out that the flood control district had done this work [the 20th Street Storm Drain] at the behest of the city of Upland, Caltrans and SANBAG [the county’s transportation agency], and indeed, if there was liability, it rested with them because they were the ones that funded and planned the activities that were ongoing.”
Munger, Tolles & Olsen resigned as the county’s attorneys after this incident. Negative publicity about the backroom deal resulted in the $77.5 million settlement worked out among Postmus, Biane, Brulet, Burum and Richards being rejected at that point.
Hansberger said that in the months just prior to the November 2006 $102 million settlement, Postmus, as the board chairman, on his own initiative hired an attorney, Dennis Wagner, as interim county counsel, the county’s top in-house attorney. Hansberger said he did not consider Wagner to be qualified for the position. Wagner had been Postmus’ personal attorney and through a series of questions by Cope which invited continual defense objections Hansberger suggested that Wagner’s hiring was a ploy to push the county into a settlement. “We were just told Mr. Wagner was going to represent us,” Hansberger said. “I knew Mr. Wagner well enough to tell him I didn’t think he should be representing us.”
Nonetheless, Wagner remained in the post. Yet even Wagner would not countenance the $102 million deal, Hansberger said. As the county was moving toward the settlement a few weeks later, Hansberger said, the board spoke with Wagner about the proposed settlement.
“He told us what he thought of it,” Hansberger said. “He didn’t agree with it. He said, ‘Having studied this and looked at the case, I don’t think you can settle this. I don’t want to be present for this settlement nor put my name on it. I would be risking my license.”
There was no county lawyer in-house or outside attorney representing the county who supported the settlement and none signed the documentation memorializing it, Hansberger said. He is set to return to the witness stand on Tuesday January 17.

The case that grew out of the August 17, 2014 murder of Robert Limon late last week rebounded to where it began, with his widow now being charged as an accomplice in her husband’s death.
Robert Limon’s body was found that day at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway industrial complex at 1528 Goodrick Drive in Tehachapi. The 38-year-old had been last seen by coworkers after leaving fieldwork about 5 p.m. He had been shot twice in the head.
Video surveillance of the railroad yard captured the images of a man later identified as Jonathan Michael Hearn, a 24-year-old firefighter with the Redlands Fire Department, fleeing the building in the minutes after the shooting of the 38-year-old Limon. Shortly thereafter, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Limon’s killer.
In relatively short order, suspicion with regard to Hearn’s involvement in the death evolved. Even before Limon was killed, another couple, Jason and Kelly Bernatene, who were quite close to Robert Limon and his wife Sabrina, had noted the presence of Hearn in the Limons’ lives, and after Robert Limon’s death told investigators they felt “creepy” about him.
Despite being fourteen years younger than Robert Limon and 11 years younger than Sabrina Limon, Hearn had befriended the couple, who had a son and a daughter.
As a teenager, Hearn was precocious, taking firefighting and emergency medical technician courses at Victor Valley College while he was yet a student at Arrow Christian High School in Hesperia. Even before he reached the age of majority Hearn had signed on as a
San Bernardino County Fire Department explorer in Hesperia. Having received his national emergency medical technician certification and diploma from a firefighter academy, Hearn was hired as a firefighter with the Redlands Fire Department when he was 21.
It is not clear how the Limons, who lived in Helendale, first came into contact with Hearn, who lived in Hesperia, although based upon some evidence presented to the court, it appears Hearn may have been introduced to the Limons by Jason Bernatene. Jason Bernatene was impressed with young Hearn’s relatively advanced professional progress, saying he considered Hearn to be one of the smartest people he knew. But something about his relationship with the Limons bothered him, and he confided to his wife, who was close to Sabrina Limon that the entire circumstance gave him “a weird feeling.” In time, his suspicions solidified and he confronted Hearn on two occasions about his relationship with Sabrina, either implying, or directly questioning whether, the two were having an affair. Hearn became angered at Bernatene’s intrusion. When Bernatene stated that Hearn should end the affair with Bernatene’s best friend’s wife, Hearn, Bernatene said, “ranted” but went no further than acknowledging that he had once kissed Sabrina.
Several weeks after Robert’s death, Sabrina Limon posted onto her Facebook page a remembrance of her husband, stating he was “an amazing man” who would “never be forgotten. Through this pain and unbelievable tragedy, Rob’s love continues on. God blessed us with Rob for the time he did, and the love he gave was more than some ever will feel or show. I will carry it with me where ever I go, and remind our children of it daily as they grow. It’s a feeling of joy, yet I’m totally numb to the fact that I’m left on earth now without him.”
During that interim, however, Kern County investigators were intently focusing on the apparent relationship between Hearn and Sabrina, which apparently was going on without Robert’s knowledge or consent. Detectives would tally a number of text messages that passed between them numbering over 2,000. Jason Bernatene also provided the investigators with a letter in which Hearn essentially expressed remorse to Bernatene for having manipulated him to get close to Sabrina. In the letter, Hearn refers to “my mistakes… having such horrible and dangerous consequences.”
One piece of evidence suggestive of Hearn’s guilt consisted of recorded phone conversations and text messages between Sabrina Limon and Hearn. At one point in one of the exchanges, Hearn stated, “You and I will be in eternity together and all this will seem like nothing. And hopefully in two or three years all of this will be done and over with…”
In another exchange between Hearn and Sabrina Limon, Hearn told Limon they could live together once her husband was out of the picture.
The final critical element that led investigators to conclude that Hearn and Sabrina Limon were involved in killing Robert Limon consisted of communication between the two in which Sabrina provided Hearn with information about where her husband was working and his schedule on August 17, 2014, the day of the killing. Detectives put all of that information in a probable cause declaration and obtained an arrest warrant for both.
On November 18, 2014, Hearn was arrested on suspicion of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in Robert Limon’s killing and Sabrina Limon was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder and being an accessory to murder.
The Kern County District Attorney’s Office backed the sheriff’s department on the Hearn arrest, and at his arraignment two days later, were able to convince the judge hearing the case to hold him without bail. Penultimately, however, prosecutors at that time were unwilling to file charges against Sabrina Limon, due to insufficient evidence. They asked detectives working the case to conduct a further investigation that might turn up evidence that would lead to the filing of charges against her. In the meantime, she was released.
At Hearn’s preliminary hearing on July 23 & 24, 2015, Kern County Deputy District Attorney David McKillop plied Bakersfield Superior Court Judge Charles Brehmer with 40 separate pieces of evidence to support his theory that Hearn and Sabrina Limon were having an affair, which created the motive for Hearn to kill Robert Limon. McKillop’s evidence in part consisted of photos of Sabrina Limon found at Hearn’s home, videos, recorded phone conversations and text messages, letters, guns found at Hearn’s home, a nylon case found in Hearn’s truck containing ammunition and money, and a motorcycle McKillop suggested Hearn rode to the railroad yard to partake in Limon’s killing. McKillop said Hearn disposed of evidence, which investigators were able to recover. Noting that the case against Hearn was largely circumstantial, Brehmer, nonetheless bound Hearn over for trial the following month. The trial was delayed 17 months, during which time, McKillop was no longer handling the case. The matter was scheduled to go to trial this week, on January 9.
Quietly, Hearn last week arrived at the terms of a plea arrangement with the deputy district attorney handling the matter, Eric Smith. Under the terms of that deal, Hearn, now 26, agreed to testify against Sabrina Limon, who is now being charged with conspiracy to commit murder, being an accessory to murder and poisoning her husband prior to his death. In exchange for his testimony, the district attorney’s office vacated the charge of first degree murder against him and he agreed to enter a plea of voluntary manslaughter, attempted murder and poisoning, for which he would be given a 25 year and four month prison sentence.
On Friday, January 6, Sabrina Limon was rearrested with regard to the death of her husband at her residence in the 3300 block of Ivy Garden Court in Camarillo and was charged with murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, accessory, conspiring to commit a crime and poisoning her husband. She was held on $3 million bail.
Based on elliptical statements made by both prosecutors and Judge Charles R. Brehmer, and the charges filed against her, there are indications investigators and prosecutors have grounds to believe Sabrina Limon poisoned her husband in March 2014 in what was an unsuccessful attempt on his life.
On Monday, January 9, Hearn came before Judge Brehmer, and entered his plea in accordance with the deal worked out with Smith.
Limon was arraigned on January 9, at which time she entered a not guilty plea. Her bail remains at $3 million.

By Count Friedrich von Olsen
As a member of the media, I’m supposed to be informing others. I must confess, though, that I am really in need of some informing myself. This sudden phenomenon of what is called “Fake News” has thrown me into a tizzy. I’m a little bit behind the times and am not so computer literate, but my butler, Hudson, is quite conversant with those newfangled contraptions of the cybernetic era. One of his duties is to troll the World Wide Web for these tidbits he thinks will interest me. He prints them out and leaves them for me to peruse over breakfast…
So, imagine, if you will, me sitting in the dining room of my Lake Arrowhead chalet, a glass of orange juice or grapefruit juice in hand, fresh from a slumber and the unreal world of my dreams, confronted by these reports that, in some cases, are further fetched than my recently concluded somnolent excursions…
So, dear readers, can any of you inform me as to which of the following are true?
Mike Pompeo, the Republican congressman from Kansas who was recently nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to head the CIA, told Congress that the intelligence community has made an assessment that Russian intelligence agencies undermined or at least attempted to undermine the recently-concluded presidential election and elect Donald Trump was an “analytical product that is sound…”
Indisputable proof has surfaced that our current president was indeed born in Kenya…
That the Russians have some really embarrassing and compromising information involving our president-elect in a St. Petersburg hotel room cavorting with some micturating ladies of the evening…
Pope Francis issued an edict before the election threatening to excommunicate anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton…
Fox News has been substituting the footage of well attended rallies in the nation’s capital for footage of other lesser attended rallies to make it appear that there is a groundswell of support for ending the Affordable Care Act…
Abe Vigoda, a star of both the big screen and the small screen perhaps most famous for his role in the Godfather who was supposed to have died just about a year ago, is actually still alive…

By Ruth Musser-Lopez
Statues are not plenteous in San Bernardino County but we do have a few.
Perhaps the most famous and prominent historic statue is the “Madonna of the Trail” on the corner of Euclid and Foothill Ave.(RT66/National Old Trails Road) in Upland placed there by the Daughters of the American Revolution in 1928. The west end competed with the City of San Bernardino, and ultimately came up with the money first with May Hart Smith of Ontario playing a predominate role in pushing the effort. That statue honors women, specifically pioneer women of the old west—like these women, the statue is strong and lovely, sturdy, resilient and significant…my personal favorite, but is not unique since 12 of them were reproduced and installed in 12 states along the National Old Trails Road, ours in 1928.
The most controversial historic statues, of course are the series of 12 staged life size nativity scene murals behind statues representing New Testament Bible figures and depicting the life and times of Jesus Christ. Traditionally displayed during the Christmas season in the large median of Euclid Ave. in Ontario, the first three were erected around 1959, followed by nine more in subsequent years, the last one in 1976, by the Chamber of Commerce, which had commissioned Los Angeles sculptor Rudolph Vargas to produce them. Their placement on public property was the subject of heated debate in the 1990s when a local atheist challenged the City based upon separation of church and state. The problem was resolved by the Assemblyman Neil Soto who arranged for the space to be rented for $1 during the season and private storage in off seasons.
A historic statue dedicated in 1916 and erected by a group of some of the last survivors of the Civil War includes a Civil War soldier standing at parade rest, mounted atop a large marble monument. On each of its four sides is a memorial to the soldiers and sailors who lost their lives in four different wars: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and the Mexican War of 1847 when California became a part of the United States.” It is located at Pioneer Park on 6th and E streets in the City of San Bernardino.
Not yet historic, is the very moving, life-like, bronze “Officer Down” statue that was placed in the corridor of the San Bernardino County government building just outside the meeting chambers. It depicts a deputy who gave his life in the line of duty and on the four sides of its platform are the names of officers who worked and died in the line of duty in San Bernardino County—gone but not forgotten.
The civil rights movement 50 years ago had an impact all over the country including in San Bernardino County. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is considered to be the leader of that movement in the 1960s and our county is not without its own tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. whose birthday we celebrate on Monday with a national holiday. In memory of this important figure in American history, a full-length statue figure of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stands on a square base with sloped sides in the City of San Bernardino. It is located in front of the city hall and is approximately 11 feet tall and weighs one ton.
Dr. King wears a suit and tie and his left hand is on his chest, but look close, on his wrist there is a wound that symbolizes the sacrifice for the civil rights movement and in place of the shirt cuff on his right wrist, the artist placed a slave shackle.
The statue’s creator was Mexico’s late Julian Martinez Soto, the sculptor of statues commemorating Mexican movie stars, of John F. Kennedy, and Mexican revolutionist Emilano Zapata. It is said that the photos Soto worked off of did not represent all of King’s angles so he rendered what he envisioned King’s spirit to be where he lacked knowledge of form. Reportedly, Soto died a pauper in Mexico, two weeks after completing the King statue.

The cactus mouse, known by its scientific name Peromyscus eremicus is a species of rodents in the family Cricetidae. They are one species of a closely related group of common mice often called deer mice.
Cactus mice are found in dry desert habitats such as the Mojave Desert and elsewhere in southwestern United States and northern Mexico, as well as islands off the coast of the Baja California peninsula and in the Gulf of Mexico. Low average temperatures and lack of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) might limit northern expansion. The cactus mouse occurs sympatrically with four other mice species, including the California mouse, canyon mouse, Eva’s desert mouse and the mesquite mouse.
Cactus mice are small, between 18 and 40 g in weight. Females weigh slightly more than males and are significantly larger in body length, ear length, length of mandible and bullar width of skull. An average cactus mice is 3 inches in length. Cactus mice can be identified by having naked soles on their hind feet, and almost naked tails which are usually the same length or longer than the animal’s body length. Its ears are nearly hairless, large, and membranous. Their fur is long and soft; coloration varies between subspecies, as well as between different populations. Color of fur varies from ochre to cinnamon, with a white stomach, and the sides and top of head slightly grayish. Females tend to be slightly paler in color than males, while juveniles appear more gray than their parents.
Cactus mice have adapted to the desert and have less need water compared to other non-desert mice. Among the cactus mouse’s adaptation to the desert is its lowered metabolism, which carries with it a lesser demand for both food and water. This characteristic, while serving to allow these creatures to live in a harsh climate, carries with it the consequence that females rarely if ever bear more than three offspring. Because of her lowered metabolism and water intake, the female is not able to produce milk very quickly or in great quantity.
In the event they cannot find sufficient water and food to stay active, cactus mice can enter into a state of torpor, sleeping or hibernating through a bout of scarcity.
Nocturnal creatures, cactus mice are opportunistic feeders, and will devour seeds, mesquite beans, hackberry nutlets, insects, green vegetation and leaves, grain, fuit or anything they can find.
Their predators include owls, snakes, foxes and other hungry carnivores in their area.
Species from Southern California have tested positive for hantavirus
Current population levels for the Cactus Mouse are stable in their range.

By Grace Bernal
Kids these days are wearing snow gear all day and it all begins with snow boots. I kind of like the trend, and who knew they would be so useful this season. I don’t know that I am alright in snow boots, but for sure the kids are. With that said, now is the time to stock up on a pair before they disappear from the shelves. There are many stylish boots out there and they can be found anywhere from Big 5, REI, to Nordstrom. It’s all about how you feel in them and how much you can get out of them. The cutest ones in my view have hints of fur popping out of them. But it’s all about preference, whether it’s the sturdy snow boot or the mega luxury fur one is up to you. These boots are perfect for cold days on the streets, on your way to work, or anything else. They are perfect with tights, big sweaters, skirts with long jackets, and even with a dress. Whatever your choice, I hope your boots are cozy and help you through the cold days ahead. Winter kids are the cool kids trending in snow boots!

There comes a time when what is needed is not just rhetoric, but boots on the ground. Baldwin Spencer

FBN 20160013753
The following entity is doing business as:
GARCIA’S TRANSPORT SERVICES 15490 JACKSON DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336 STEVEN A GARCIA 15490 JACKSON DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Steven A. Garcia
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/20/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/23 & 12/30, 2016 and 01/06 & 01/13, 2016.
FBN 20160013503
The following entity is doing business as:
SAFE INVESTMENT REALTY GROUP 8311 HAVEN AVE SUITE #180 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 AKXELEM TEJEDA PATZAN 10757 LEMON AVE 1PT 1925 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737.
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 11/03/2016.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Akxelem Tejeda Patzan
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/13/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/23 & 12/30, 2016 and 01/06 & 01/13, 2016.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Public Notice is hereby provided that the PanTerra D’Oro Private Society, a recognized Ecclesiastical Sovereignty and Body Politic, and the Court of the Ekklesia thereof (henceforth “Court”), has taken into the permanent archival records of the Court the archival record of the living man, kenneth scott, House of Cousens, established as a Court of Record, of all acts undertaken pursuant to his volitional free will acts to secure his intrinsic unalieanable rights of self-determination and thereby correct his status with respect to the United States, by revoking and terminating all attachment of bonded surety status to the bankrupt franchise of the United States (U.S. citizen, United States Person KENNETH SCOTT COUSENS), and to properly assert his political Status of Private Californian, Private American National as part of the organic, de jure perpetual Union of states, and has rescinded all signatures of suretyship attached to said franchise and revoked and terminated all known and unknown attachments by contract or other legal nexus thereto; and WHEREAS said declared political Status, Claim of Name et al, is chronicled —evidenced in the public— via his Declaration of Status with Brief in Support and Exhibits annexed thereto and recorded in Superior Court of Lamar County, Georgia (Document Number: BPA Book 43, Pages 902-962, April 6, 2015, 10:19 a.m.); and WHEREAS the Archivist of the Court has affirmed the complete record of the Court of Record inclusive of the lawful Declaration of Status of kenneth scott, Brief in Support and Exhibits annexed thereto and his Proof of Life and Claim of his Ancestral-Lineal Estate; and WHEREAS, the United States by and through holders of High Office thereof have been provided sufficient notice of these acts and have failed to rebut, object or provide evidence of any contrary, prior, equal or superior claims, the record of which is held in the private records of the Court, and therefore the Court of Record has been adjudicated and settled, and the Court has therefrom issued under its Sacred Seal its “Entry onto the Public Record of Notice of Declaratory Judgment, Foreign to the United States, Entered by Order of the PanTerra D’Oro Court of the Ekklesia, NOTICE OF ANNEXATION: Writ of Entry, Court of Record and Name, Archivist Declaration of Records, Writ of Pronuntio and Restitutuio for Nativity and Homestead, Declaration of Peace (of kenneth scott)”, now made public on November 8, 2016, at record file number 16-MC1294 in United States District Court, Southern California Division; and WHEREAS, the Court has entered its Declaratory Judgment that the living man’s name is now held in the private and is henceforth “kenneth scott” and the living man is forever severed from attachment to the public franchise and KENNETH SCOTT COUSENS is now restated as a Private Business Trust for purposes of settling any and all claims against the franchise and preserving and protecting the beneficial rights and equitable interests of the Living Beneficiary (Cestui Que Vie); and WHEREAS, all property belonging to the United States has been returned in conformity with 12 USC 95a(2), which is binding on the United States and all subdivisions, officers and actors thereof for a complete acquittal and discharge of all liabilities against said U.S. person; and WHEREAS, all relevant office holders have been properly notified of this change of status and provided twenty-one (21) days for rebuttal or objection, to which all have remained silent and have thereby acquiesced and affirmed these facts, including the mandatory requirement by their binding codes to correct their system of records, including but not limited to the Numident and CSP records of the Social Security Number belonging to the United States and attached to its franchise within the Social Security Administration system of records to a status of non-resident; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has been provided with all necessary notices and requirements for the settlement of any duties, taxes or otherwise pursuant to the Act of July 1, 1862, and having failed to respond has thereby acquiesced and affirmed that all such have been properly settled and paid in order to fulfill the necessary release of the estate and property thereof to the private trustees appointed for such purposes; and WHEREAS, final notice of docking of the vessel in commerce and discharging of its cargo have been issued, received and accepted; and WHEREAS, the record of notice, delivery, acceptance and closure is held in both the above noted private archival Court records and the public record system by and through the United States Post Office by its contract agency United States Postal Service, as follows: Melba Acosta Febo (Commissioner of Internal Revenue), International Registered Number RE 935 292 343 US, received on September 21, 2016; and John Koskinen (Commissioner Internal Revenue Service), International Registered Number RE 935 292 391 US, received on September 19, 2016; and Jeh Charles Johnson (Secretary of Department of Homeland Security), International Registered Number RE 935 292 405 US, received on September 19, 2016; and Carolyn W. Colvin (Acting Commissioner of Social Secuirty Administration), International Registered Number RE 935 292 388 US, received on September 21, 2016; and THEREFORE, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE is hereby issued for all parties of interest in this matter to come forth with any response, rebuttal or objection to these facts, and failing to do so, therefore BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the living man is now known as kenneth scott, is the true owner of the name KENNETH SCOTT COUSENS, and is now the Living Beneficiary and Cestui Que Vie of the KENNETH SCOTT COUSENS Private Business Trust and is Heir to the Ancestral-Lineal Estate held therein. All the records of the process are available for review upon written request to the Clerk of Court at clerk.of.court@panterrapca.org. Failure to respond, rebut or object to these facts within thirty (30) days of this Notice will constitute full adjudication and final res judicata of this matter.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/23 & 12/30, 2016 and 01/06 & 01/13, 2016.
SUMMONS (CITACIÓN JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): STEVEN ROBBINS.
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDADO EL DEMANDANTE): ABNB FEDERAL CREDIT UNION.
Filed IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO CIVIL DIVISION ON FEBRUARY 25 2016. CASE NUMBER: CIVDS 1603041
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 and legal papers are 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 versión. Lea la información a continuación.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar Una respuesta por escrito en esta Corte y hacer que se entregue Una copia at demandante. Una Carta o Una llamada telefónica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la Corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda 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 mes cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida al secretario de la Corte que le de un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la Corte le podrí quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mis advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos, legales. Es recomendable que líame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisión a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos 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.lawhe1pcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose 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 por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación de $10,000 o más de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and the address of the court are:
(El nombre y dirección de la corte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 247 WEST THIRD STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0210
The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner’s attorney, or the petitioner without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, dirección y número de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante si no tiene abogado, es): REA STELMACH, ESQ. 296671 SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU, LLP 11630 CHAYOTE ST., SUITE 3, LOS ANGELES CA 90049 TEL (909) 476-0651 FAX (213) 226-6964
Date (Fecha): FEB 25 2016
Clerk, by (Secretario, por) Anita Johnson, Deputy (Adjunta)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/23 & 12/30, 2016 and 1/06, 2017 & 01/13, 2017.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ROBERTA NICASIO CASE NO. PROPS 1600996
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both of: ROBERTA NICASIO: a Petition for Probate has been filed by ELIZABETH SALGADO in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Petition for Probate requests that ELIZABETH SALGADO 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 will avoid the need to obtain court approval for many actions taken in connection with the estate. However, before taking certain actions, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or have consented to the proposed action. The petition will be granted unless good cause is shown why it should not be.)
The petition is set for hearing in the S36 P at 8:30AM on 02/06/2017 at 247 W THIRD ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415
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 deceased, 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 subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code. A request for Special notice form (form DE-154) is available from the court clerk. Attorney or Party without Attorney: PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ (SBN: 283603) PM LAW, INC. 8350 ARCHIBALD AVENUE #203 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (909) 527-4336 info@PMLawInc.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30, 2016 and 01/06 & 01/13, 2017.

FBN 20160013171
The following entity is doing business as:
BARSTOW AUTO SALES 1230 WEST MAIN STREET BARSTOW, CA 92311 SALWA M MUSEITEF 1230 WEST MAIN STREET BARSTOW, CA 92311
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 8/01/2001.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Salwa M Museitef
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/02/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30, 2016 and 01/06, 01/13 & 01/20, 2017.
FBN 20160013124
The following entity is doing business as:
WOLF SNACKS 255 OAK DRIVE LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352 JASEN E MATTINGLY 255 OAK DRIVE LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JASEN E. MATTINGLY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/01/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30, 2016 and 01/06, 01/13 & 01/20, 2017.

CORRECTED FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
FBN 20160012745
The following entity is doing business as:
ORDONEZ TRANSPORT 8596 TANGELO CT FONTANA, CA 92335 HERIBERTO R ORD ONEZCEJA 8596 TANGELO CT FONTANA, CA 92335 [and] CARMINA GARCIA 3419 CREST AVE SE APT B ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87106 E
This business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ HERIBERTO ORDONEZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 11/17/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel Original Run: 11/25, 12/02, 12/09 & 12/16, 2016.
Corrected Run: 12/23 and 12/30, 2016 & 01/05 and 01/13, 2017.
Request for Statement of Qualifications
CFS-E Street, LLC (Owner) will accept Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) in writing for this solicitation until 5:00 p.m. PST on the 20th day of January, 2017, delivered to CFS-E Street, LLC c/o Valencia Car Wash, 24233 Creekside Rd. Valencia, CA 91355. The Owner is soliciting proposals from qualified contractors who are interested in bidding on the CFS E STREET OFFICE BUILDING – SAN BERNARDINO project. The project generally consists of a 44,000-square-foot ground-up office building, associated offsite work, and other tasks necessary to complete the work. Questions regarding this Request for Statement of Qualifications may be addressed in writing and delivered to: CFS-E Street, LLC, Attn: Mr. Jeffrey Paul, 24233 Creekside Rd. Valencia, CA 91355 or by electronic mail to: jeffpaulspa@hotmail.com. Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/6/2017 and 1/13/2017.
Title Order No.: 734758 Trustee Sale No.: NR-50160-CA Reference No.: Brighton at Terra Vista APN No.: 227-352-47 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE [ATTENTION RECORDER: PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE §2923.3, THE SUMMARY OF INFORMATION REFERENCED BELOW IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE RECORDED COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT BUT ONLY TO THE COPIES PROVIDED TO THE TRUSTOR.] NOTE: THERE IS A SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT ATTACHED YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT DATED 03/12/2014. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. On 01/27/2017 at 1:00 PM, Nationwide Reconveyance LLC As the duly appointed Trustee under and pursuant to Notice of Delinquent Assessment, recorded on 03/26/2014 as Document No. 2014-0106402 Book XX Page XX, of Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, property owned by: Ronald Jose Rodriguez WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER FOR CASH, (payable at time of sale in lawful money of the United States, by cash, a cashier’s check drawn by a State or national bank, a check drawn by a state of federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state.) At: THE FRONT STEPS LEADING UP TO THE CITY OF CHINO CIVIC CENTER, 13220 CENTRAL AVENUE, CHINO CALIFORNIA All right, title and interest under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment in the property situated in said County, describing the land therein: 227-352-47 The street address and other common designation, if any of the real property described above is purported to be: 7353 Ellena West #145, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address and other common designation, if any, shown herein. Said sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum due under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment, with interest thereon, as provided in said notice, advances, if any, estimated fees, charges, and expenses of the Trustee, to-wit: $14,601.84 Estimated Accrued Interest and additional advances, if any, will increase this figure prior to sale The claimant, Brighton at Terra Vista Homeowners Association under said Notice of Delinquent Assessment heretofore executed and delivered to the undersigned a written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale, and a written Notice of Default and Election to Sell. The undersigned caused said Notice of Default and Election to Sell to be recorded in the county where the real property is located and more than three months have elapsed since such recordation. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call 949-860-9155 or visit this Internet Web site www.innovativefieldservices.com, using the file number assigned to this case NR-50160-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE A DEBT COLLECTOR Date: 12/28/2016 Nationwide Reconveyance LLC For Sales Information Please Call 949-860-9155 By: Rhonda Rorie, AVP (IFS# 2006 Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 01/06/17, 01/13/17 & 01/20/17)
SUMMONS (Family Law)
CITACIÓN (Derecho familiar
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT (Name):ERICA JOSEPHIN ALCALA

AVISO AL DEMANDADO (Nombre): ERICA JOSEPHIN ALCALA

You have been sued. Read the information below. Lo han demandado. Lea la información a continuación
Petitioner’s name is: DANNY KYLE GLENN
Nombre del demandante: DANNY KYLE GLENN
Case number: FAMSS 1610213
Filed Superior Court of California County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District Oct 28 2015 by Jacqueline Segovia, Deputy
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, phone call, or court appearance 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.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp), at the California Legal Services website www.lawhelpca.org), or by contacting your local county bar association.

Tiene 30 días de calendario después de haber recibido la entrega legal de esta Citación y
Petición para presentar una Respuesta (formulario FL-120) ante la corte y efectuar la entrega legal de una copia al demandante. Una carta o llamada telefónica o una audiencia de la corte no basta para protegerlo. Si no presenta su Respuesta a tiempo, la corte puede dar órdenes que afecten su matrimonio o pareja de hecho, sus bienes y la custodia de sus hijos. La corte también le puede ordenar que pague manutención, y honorarios y costos legales. Para asesoramiento legal, póngase en contacto de inmediato con un abogado. Puede obtener información para encontrar un abogado en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en el sitio web de los Servicios Legales de California (www.lawhelpca.org) o poniéndose en contacto con el colegio de abogados de su condado
The name and the address of the court are:
(El nombre y dirección de la corte son): 351 N. Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415
The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner’s attorney, or the petitioner without an attorney, are: DANNY KYLE GLENN 1221 EAST ARROW HIGHWAY UPLAND, CA 91768 909-232-4628 IN PRO PER
(El nombre, dirección y número de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del
demandante si no tiene abogado, son): DANNY KYLE GLENN 1221 EAST ARROW HIGHWAY UPLAND, CA 91768 909-232-4628 IN PRO PER
This case is assigned to JUDGE KNISH DEPT. S53 for all purposes and is subject to CCP 170.6(2)
Date (Fecha): November 29, 2016
Clerk, by (Secretario, por) Jacqueline Segovia, Deputy (Asostente)
STANDARD FAMILY LAW RESTRAINING ORDERS
Starting immediately, you and your spouse or domestic partner are restrained from:
1. removing the minor children of the parties from the state or applying for a new or replacement passport for those minor children without the prior written consent of the other party or an order of the court; 2. cashing, borrowing against, canceling, transferring,
disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries of any insurance or other coverage, including life, health, automobile, and disability, held for the benefit of the parties and their minor children; 3. transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community, or separate, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life; and 4. creating a nonprobate transfer or modifying a nonprobate transfer in a manner that affects the disposition of property subject to the transfer, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court. Before revocation of a nonprobate transfer can take effect or a right of survivorship to property can be eliminated, notice of the change must be filed and served on the other party.
You must notify each other of any proposed extraordinary expenditures at least five business days prior to incurring these extraordinary expenditures and account to the court for all extraordinary expenditures made after these restraining orders are effective. However, you may use community property, quasi-community property, or your own separate property to pay an attorney to help you or to pay court costs.
ÓRDENES DE RESTRICCIÓN ESTÁNDAR DE DERECHO
FAMILIAR
En forma inmediata, usted y su cónyuge o pareja de hecho tienen prohibido:
1. llevarse del estado de California a los hijos menores de las partes, o solicitar un pasaporte nuevo o de repuesto para los hijos menores, sin el consentimiento previo por escrito de la otra parte o sin una orden de la corte; 2. cobrar, pedir prestado, cancelar, transferir, deshacerse o cambiar el nombre de los beneficiarios de cualquier seguro u
otro tipo de cobertura, como de vida, salud, vehículo y discapacidad, que tenga como beneficiario(s) a las partes y su(s) hijo(s) menor(es); 3. transferir, gravar, hipotecar, ocultar o deshacerse de cualquier manera de cualquier propiedad, inmueble o personal, ya sea comunitaria, cuasicomunitaria o separada, sin el consentimiento escrito de la otra parte o una orden de la corte, excepto en el curso habitual de actividades personales y comerciales o para satisfacer las necesidades de la vida; y 4.crear o modificar una transferencia no testamentaria de manera que afecte la asignación de una propiedad sujeta a
transferencia, sin el consentimiento por escrito de la otra parte o una orden de la corte. Antes de que se pueda eliminar la revocación de una transferencia no testamentaria, se debe presentar ante la corte un aviso del cambio y hacer una entrega legal de dicho aviso a la otra parte.
Cada parte tiene que notificar a la otra sobre cualquier gasto extraordinario propuesto por lo menos cinco días hábiles antes de realizarlo, y rendir cuenta a la corte de todos los astos
extraordinarios realizados después de que estas órdenes de restricción hayan entrado en vigencia. No obstante, puede usar propiedad comunitaria, cuasicomunitaria o suya separada para pagar a un abogado que lo ayude o para pagar los costos de la corte.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06, 1/13, 1/20 & 1/27, 2017.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE # CIVRS 1700005
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner BARBARA LYNNE TULLY has filed a petition with the clerk of this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BARBARA LYNNE TULLY to BARBARA LYNNE CLAYTON
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING
DATE: 03/03/2017
TIME: 8:30 A.M
Department: R-8
The address of the court is SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8303 NORTH HAVEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730.
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 consecutive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition
Date: JANUARY 6, 2017
s/ R. GLENN YABUNO, Judge of the Superior Court
Run dates: 01/06, 01/13, 01/20 & 01/27, 2017.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE # CIVRS 1700004
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner TINA MARIE YANEZ has filed a petition with the clerk of this court for a decree changing names as follows:
TINA MARIE YANEZ to MIREYA MARIE YANEZ
TINA MARIE BECERRA to MIREYA MARIE YANEZ
TINA MARIE MALDONADO to MIREYA MARIE YANEZ
TINA MARIE BECERRA-YANEZ to MIREYA MARIE YANEZ
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING
DATE: 03/03/2017
TIME: 8:30 A.M
Department: R-8C
The address of the court is SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8303 NORTH HAVEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730.
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 consecutive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition
Date: JANUARY 6, 2017
s/ R. GLENN YABUNO, Judge of the Superior Court
Run dates: 01/06, 01/13, 01/20 & 01/27, 2017.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE # CIVRS 1700005
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner BARBARA LYNNE TULLY has filed a petition with the clerk of this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BARBARA LYNNE TULLY to BARBARA LYNNE TULLY
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
NOTICE OF HEARING
DATE: 03/03/2017
TIME: 8:30 A.M
Department: R-8
The address of the court is SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8303 NORTH HAVEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730.
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 consecutive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition
Date: JANUARY 6, 2017
s/ R. GLENN YABUNO, Judge of the Superior Court
Run dates: 01/06, 01/13, 01/20 & 01/27, 2017.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE # CIVRS 1600472
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner ADAI HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ has filed a petition with the clerk of this court for a decree changing names as follows:
AMY ARIANNA HERNANDEZ to AMY ARIANNA HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ
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: 02/24/2017
TIME: 8:30 A.M
Department: R-8
The address of the court is SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8303 NORTH HAVEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730.
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 consecutive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition
Date: DECEMBER 28, 2016
s/ R. GLENN YABUNO, Judge of the Superior Court
Run dates: 01/06, 01/13, 01/20 & 01/27, 2017.
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20160013299
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Perfect Fuel Solutions, 1340 Orange Avenue, Redlands, CA 92373, Jodie Rienks, 1340 Orange Avenue, Redlands, CA 92373Bert J Rienks, 1340 Orange Avenue, Redlands, CA 92373
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/Jodie Rienks
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/7/2016
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: Not Applicable
County Clerk, s/TY
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).
1/6/2017, 1/13/2017, 1/20/2017, 1/27/2017

FBN 20170000024
The following entity is doing business as:
DIVERSIFIED TECHNICAL SERVICES OF AMERICA [and] DTS OF AMERICA 236 E. VALENCIA STREET RIALTO, CA 92376 MARKUS V WITHERSPOON 236 E. VALENCIA STREET RIALTO, CA 92376
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Markus V. Witherspoon
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 1/03/2017.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/6/2017, 1/13/2017, 1/20/2017 & 1/27/2017

FBN 20170000047
The following entity is doing business as:
OOO LA LA EVENT PLANNING [and] BEST COAST DJ’S 13851 BEECH STREET VICTORVILLE, CA 92392- 5531 LA SHAWN L BONELLO GILES 13851 BEECH STREET VICTORVILLE, CA 92392- 5531
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ LaShawn L. Bonella Giles
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 1/03/2017.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/6/2017, 1/13/2017, 1/20/2017 & 1/27/2017
FBN 20160013917
The following entity is doing business as:
SHALLYBIM ENTERPRISES 7656 BEAR CREEK DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336 SALEWA AWOSIKA 7656 BEAR CREEK DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92336
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Salewa Awosika
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/27/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/6/2017, 1/13/2017, 1/20/2017 & 1/27/2017

Corrected Fictitious Business Name Notice
ABANDONMENT OF A FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
FBN 20160012407
The following entity was doing business as:
HAIR CARE STOP 14676 PIPELINE AVE CHINO, CA 91709 MARISSA G MARKS 3100 CENTURION PL ONTARIO, CA 91761
RELATED FBN NUMBER: 20140010262
DATE ORIGINALLY FILED: 9/15/2014
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 7/01/2014.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Marissa Marks
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 11/09/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel Original Run: 12/09, 12/16, 12/23 & 12/30, 2016.
Corrected Run: 1/06, 1/13, 1/20 & 1/27, 2017
Corrected Fictitious Business Name Notice
FBN 20160012453
The following entity is doing business as:
STATE GREEN LANDSCAPING 934 GERONIMO AVE BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 JULIO C MALDONADO MESA 934 GERONIMO AVE BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ Julio C Maldonado Mesa
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 11/09/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel Original Run: 12/09, 12/16, 12/23 & 12/30, 2016.
Corrected Run: 1/06, 1/13, 1/20 & 1/27, 2017

FBN 20160013300
The following entity is doing business as:
E&A ECOLOGY COMPANY 202 W HOLT SUITE “D” ONTARIO, CA 91762 LUZ E SANCHEZ LOPEZ 9378 EXETER Montclair, CA 91763
This business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ LUZ E. SANCHEZ LOPEZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/07/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/6/2017, 1/13/2017, 1/20/2017 & 1/27/2017
File No. – 15-12235 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER THE ALTA LOMA GARDENS HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION) COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND A NOTICE OF DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT (LIEN) DATED 01-13-2016 UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. On 02-10-2017 at 1:30 PM, NEAR THE FRONT STEPS LEADING UP TO THE CITY OF CHINO CIVIC CENTER, 13220 CENTRAL AVENUE, CHINO, CA ALLIED TRUSTEE SERVICES, (Trustee) 990 Reserve Drive #208, Roseville, CA 95678, (877) 282-4991 under and pursuant to Lien, recorded 01-20-2016 as Instrument 2016-021145 Book — Page — of Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of SAN BERNARDINO County, CA, WILL CAUSE TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION to the highest bidder for cash, cashier’s check/cash equivalent or other form of payment authorized by 2924h(b), (payable at time of sale) the property owned by ANGELICA REGALADO, situated in said County, describing the land therein: A.P.N.: 0201-741-43-0000 The street address and other common designation, if any, of the real property described above is purported to be: 10446 ALTA LOMA DRIVE #1D AKA 10446 ALTA LOMA DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address and other common designation, if any, shown herein. Said sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to satisfy the sums due under the Lien. The estimated total unpaid balance at the time of the initial publication of this Notice of Trustee’s Sale is $8,845.04. THE PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD SUBJECT TO THE 90-DAY POST-SALE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 5715(B). Association heretofore executed and delivered to the undersigned a written Declaration of Default. The undersigned caused a Notice of Default and Election to Sell to be recorded in the county where the real property is located and more than three months have elapsed since such recordation. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the Association, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call 888-988-6736, or visit this Internet Web site www.salestrack.tdsf.com for information, using the file number assigned to this case: 15-12235. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. DATE: January 11, 2016 ALLIED TRUSTEE SERVICES, Trustee KATHLEEN YOUNG, Authorized Signature TAC#7314 Pub Dates: 1-20-17, 1-27-17, 2-3-17
FBN 20170000354
The following entity is doing business as:
PATTON’S METAL WORKING SOLUTIONS [and] PATTONS METAL WORKING SOLUTIONS [and] PATTON METAL WORKING SOLUTIONS 1095 E. CALIFORNIA ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761 PATTON SALES CORP 1095 E. CALIFORNIA ST. ONTARIO, CA 91761
This business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 1/01/2017.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ JONATHAN NOVACK
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 1/10/2017.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/13/2017, 1/20/2017, 1/27/2017 & 2/3/2017

FBN 20160013627
The following entity is doing business as:
FREEWAY AUTO MALL 333 S WATERMAN AVE. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ALL AUTO WHOLESALE, INC. 2042 GOLDENEYE PL COSTA MESA, CA 92626
This business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A.
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 17913). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
S/ CHRISTOPHER HAMMAD
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/15/2016.
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/13/2017, 1/20/2017, 1/27/2017 & 2/3/2017
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE # CIVRS 1700016
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner JENNIFER ANN MCCLOSKEY has filed a petition with the clerk of this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JENNIFER ANN MCCLOSKEY to JENNIFER ANN COSTNER
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: 3/10/2017
TIME: 8:30 A.M
Department: R-8
The address of the court is SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8303 HAVEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730.
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 consecutive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition
Date: JANUARY 12, 2017
s/ JON D. FERGUSON, Judge of the Superior Court
Run dates: 01/13, 01/20, 01/27 & 02/03, 2017.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE # CIVRS 1700014
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioners JULIE SILVIO and EDWARD GARCIA filed a petition with the clerk of this court for a decree changing names as follows:
MADISON CLAIRE GARCIA to MADISON CLAIRE GARCIA-SILVIO
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: 3/10/2017
TIME: 8:30 A.M
Department: R-8
The address of the court is SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 8303 HAVEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730.
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 consecutive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition
Date: JANUARY 11, 2017
s/ R. GLENN YABUNO, Judge of the Superior Court
Run dates: 01/13, 01/20, 01/27 & 02/03, 2017.

FBN 20160013694
The following person is doing business as: DR. HALL OF FAME, 435 ARROWHEAD AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408, DR. HALL OF FAME, INC, 24113 EUCALYPTUS AVE RIVERSIDE, CA 92553
This business is conducted by an: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOAQUIN MAGALLAN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/19/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013700
The following person is doing business as: Z BEST PEST MANAGEMENT, 212 LIDO ST REDLANDS, CA 92374, JEFF L DEVEREAUX, 212 LIDO ST REDLANDS, CA 92374
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JEFF L. DEVEREAUX
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/19/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013736
The following person is doing business as: LWT PRODUCTIONS, 16841 CASCADE PLACE FONTANA, CA 92336, JOSE E. COLAZANTTI, 16841 CASCADE PLACE FONTANA, CA 92336
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 06/01/2009
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE E. COLAZANTTI
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/19/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013769
The following person is doing business as: PACK-RITE SOURCING, 6 CENTERPOINTE DR. SUITE 700 LA PALMA, CA 90623, JUAN D BARREDA BARRIOS, 6 CENTERPOINTE DR. SUITE 700, LA PALMA CA 90623
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JUAN D BARREDA BARRIOS
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/20/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017

FBN 20160013751
The following person is doing business as: VELOTUNE,25745 BARTON RD. UNIT 602 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354, JOSE L FUENTES, 25745 BARTON RD. STE 602 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE L FUENTES
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/19/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017

FBN 20160013767
The following person is doing business as: INDIA NAAN CAFE, 700 EAST REDLANDS BLVD SUITE R3 REDLANDS, CA 92373, JAL HOLDINGS GROUP, INC. 700 EAST REDLANDS BLVD SUITE R3 REDLANDS, CA92373
This business is conducted by an: CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 02/22/2012
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JESSE SINGH
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/20/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013797
The following person is doing business as: LOPEZ TRANSPORT, 17410 CERES DR FONTANA, CA 92335, JOSE G LOPEZ, 17410 CERES DR FONTANA, CA 92335
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE G LOPEZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/21/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013796
The following person is doing business as: SABAJAN’S TRUCKING, 8640 PECAN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739, NESTOR G SABAJAN, 8640 PECAN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA91736
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ NESTOR G SABAJAN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/19/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013750
The following person is doing business as: LEARN TO LOVE TODAY,[AND] SOUL FED, [AND] HOUSE ACTION, 2618 COPPER LN APT.7, JAZMIN L HARRIS, 2618 COPPER LN. APT. 7 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JAZMINE L HARRIS
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/20/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
The registered FBN No. 20160013789 was filed in San Bernardino County on 02/19/2013. The following entity has abandoned the business name of: CAST CARE SOLUTIONS, 26749 9TH ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346, MARIA R CASTANEDA, 26749 9TH ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346, [AND] GIOVANNI R CASTILLO, 26749 9TH ST HIGHLAND,CA 92346
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/ MARIA R CASTANEDA
This business was conducted by: GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
Related FBN No. 20130001786 was filed in San Bernardino County on 2/19/2013
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013798
The following person is doing business as: RAPID REGISTRATION SERVICE, 165 W HOSPITALITY LN STE 7 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408, JERAMY T PEREZ, 13949 CAMEO DR FONTANA, CA 992337 [AND] JANNET B PEREZ, 13949 CAMEO DR FONTANA, CA 92337
This business is conducted by an: GENERAL PARTNERSHIP .
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 11/20/2012
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JANNET B. PEREZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/21/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

ABANDONMENT OF USE OF FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
The registered FBN No. 20160013727 was filed in San Bernardino County on 01/12/2015. The following entity has abandoned the business name of: DIJA BEAUTY SALON, 9950 FOOTHILL BLVD STE J RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730, KHADIJA OFIR, P.O. BOX 3281 ONTARIO, CA 91761
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/ KHADIJA OFIR
This business was conducted by: INDIVIDUAL
Related FBN No. 20130001786 was filed in San Bernardino County on 1/12/2015
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 12/30/2016, 1/06, 1/13, 1/20, 2017.

FBN 20160013569
The following person is doing business as: RA. GAMES, 1964 W. 9TH ST SUITE F UPLAND, CA 91786, RANA SAFAR, 1964 W 9TH ST SUITE F UPLAND, CA 91786
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RANA SAFAR
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/14/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.
FBN 20160013672
The following person is doing business as: CLT ENTERPRISE, 390 W ST ANDREWS ST ONTARIO, CA 91762, CYNTHIA L TOLENTINO, 390W ST ANDREWS ST ONTARIO, CA 91762
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CYNTHIA L TOLENTINO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/16/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

FBN 20160013648
The following person is doing business as: JAS TRANSPORTATION, 17015 MERRILL AVE D130 FONTANA, CA 92335, GURBANT SINGH, 17015 MERRIL AVE D130 FONTANA, CA 92335
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ GURBANT SINGH
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/16/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.
FBN 20160013683
The following person is doing business as: SOLAR SHINE INC, 264 N CHURCH AVE RIALTO, CA 92376, SMILE LOGISTICS, INC,1412 S WHITE AVE UNIT 1 POMONA, CA 91766
This business is conducted by an: A CORPORATION..
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JAVIER ZARAGOZA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/16/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

FBN 20160013634
The following person is doing business as: OJEDA BROTHER’S TRUCKING, 24699 4TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410, NEFER OJEDA ELENES, 24669 4TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ NEFER OJEDA ELENES
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/16/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.
FBN 20160013654
The following person is doing business as: EL SALITRE AUTO REAPIR & BODY, 16018 KATHERINE ST FONTANA, CA 92335, JORGE A SEPULVEDA, 16018 KATHERINE ST FONTANA, CA 92335
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JORGE A SEPULVEDA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/16/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

FBN 20160013949
The following person is doing business as: SEITZ FINANCIAL GROUP, 3110 E GUASTI RD SUITE 310, ONTARIO CA 91761, EARL G SEITZ, 31802 COUNTRY VIEW RD TEMECULA, CA 92591
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ EARL G SEITZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/28/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

FBN 20160013898
The following person is doing business as: HAPPY MAGIC WOK, 4200 CHINO HILLS PKWY # 335 CHINO HILLS, CA 91709, QING QUAN CHEN, 2728 PENN MAR AVE EL MONTE, CA 91732
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ QING QUAN CHEN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/27/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.
FBN 20160013949
The following person is doing business as: SEITZ FINANCIAL GROUP, 3110 E GUASTI RD SUITE 310, ONTARIO CA 91761, EARL G SEITZ, 31802 COUNTRY VIEW RD TEMECULA, CA 92591
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ EARL G SEITZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/28/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.
FBN 20160014015
The following person is doing business as: A & J PEST SOLUTIONS, 11789 TARA LN ADELANTO, CA 92301, RAUK G RAMIREZ JR, 11789 TARA LN ADELANTO, CA 92301
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RAUL G RAMIREZ JR
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/29/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

FBN 20160014015
The following person is doing business as: A & J PEST SOLUTIONS, 11789 TARA LN ADELANTO, CA 92301, RAUL G RAMIREZ JR, 11789 TARA LN ADELANTO, CA 92301
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RAUL G RAMIREZ JR
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/29/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

FBN 20160013300
The following person is doing business as: E & A ECOLOGY COMPANY , 202 W. HOLT BLVD SUITE D, ONTARIO,CA 91762, LUZ E SANCHEZ LOPEZ, 9378 EXETER AVE MONTCLAIR CA 91763
This business is conducted by an: INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ LUZ E SANCHEZ LOPEZ
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/07/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

FBN 20160014009
The following person is doing business as: SARAH DYKEMA REAL ESTATE, 1560 CARNATION WAY UPLAND, CA 91786, JD DESIGN & MARKETING INC, 1560 CARNATION WAY UPLAND, CA 91786
This business is conducted by an: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JEFFREY A DYKEMA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on 12/29/2016
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 1/06/, 1/13, 1/20, 1/27/ 2017.

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the January 6 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

sentinel-01-06-17

R. Lewis Cope

By Ruth Musser-Lopez and Mark Gutglueck
This week, the long awaited Colonies Lawsuit Settlement Public Corruption Trial got underway in earnest, with the jury previously selected to pass judgment in the case against defendant Jim Erwin hearing opening statements from both the prosecution and the defense.
Erwin is one of four remaining defendants of the five who have been charged in the case.
In February 2010, charges were first filed against Erwin, a one-time sheriff’s deputy who was the elected treasurer and later the president of the union representing San Bernardino County’s Sheriff’s deputies, and a once-powerful county politician, Bill Postmus, who was both chairman of the board of supervisors, the chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party apparatus and later county assessor. Those charges came more than three years after Postmus vacated his position as supervisor when he was elected assessor in November 2006, shortly after which he hired Erwin to serve in the capacity of assistant assessor. The February 2010 criminal charges alleged that Postmus and Erwin were intertwined in an extortion and bribery circumstance relating to one of Postmus’s last acts as supervisor, when he and then-supervisors Paul Biane and Gary Ovitt approved the $102 million settling of a lawsuit brought by the Colonies Partners development consortium against the county and its flood control district over drainage issues. Those drainage issues existed at the Colonies at San Antonio residential and Colonies Crossroads commercial subdivisions in northeast Upland.
Both Postmus and Erwin pleaded not guilty to those charges in the immediate aftermath of that original criminal filing. Thirteen months later, however, Postmus in March 2011, pleaded guilty to 10 felonies and other misdemeanors in connection with the Colonies case as well as allegations of abusing his elected office as county assessor to bolster his political career, and drug use/possession. He agreed to turn state’s evidence and testify against the four defendants at trial in exchange for leniency.
Postmus then served as the star witness before a grand jury, which heard the testimony of more than 40 witnesses and then in May 2011 handed down a 29-count indictment naming Biane, who had been voted out of office as the county’s Second District supervisor in 2010; Mark Kirk, who had been the chief of staff to Gary Ovitt; Jeff Burum, one of the Colonies Partners’ two managing principals; and Erwin. The charges in the indictment superseded those filed against Erwin in the criminal case leveled against him 15 months previously. The indictment essentially rehashed the charges contained in the February 2010 criminal complaint, but enlarged upon the action of Biane, Kirk and Burum, and included them as defendants.
According to the indictment, Burum, seeking to profiteer from an excessive legal settlement, utilized a public relations consultant, Patrick O’Reilly, and Erwin to threaten and extort Postmus and Biane with exposure of issues relating to their respective lifestyles to convince them to settle the lawsuit the Colonies Partners had lodged against the county. Ultimately that information was withheld in conjunction with Postmus, Biane and Ovitt approving the settlement of the lawsuit for a $102 million payout, according to the indictment, and Burum then rewarded Erwin, Postmus, Biane and Kirk with the provision of $100,000 kickbacks to each of them disguised as political contributions to political action committees each of them had set up or in some fashion controlled. The indictment alleged that the $100,000 paid to Kirk was provided to him for delivering then-supervisor Ovitt’s vote in support of the settlement.
In his opening statement on Wednesday, San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney R. Lewis Cope described the alleged unlawful extraction of a wrongful settlement as a “carrot and stick” scheme plotted by Burum and carried out largely with the assistance of Erwin. The prosecution team consists of members of the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office and the California Attorney General’s Office, most notably Cope and Supervising California Deputy Attorney Melissa Mandel.
Two juries have been impaneled for the trial – one for Erwin and the other for his three codefendants. That arrangement has been made because the prosecution wants to use certain statements Erwin made as evidence against him but are legally inadmissible against his codefendants. The jury impaneled to decide Erwin’s fate was present in the courtroom on Wednesday January 4 and Thursday January 5, while the jury for the other three defendants was not present. Both juries are to be present on Monday January 9 to hear opening statements with regard to the other three remaining defendants.
While it was anticipated that in his opening argument given on Wednesday Cope would dwell in almost total measure with regard to the action of Erwin, as it turned out his presentation focused nearly as much on the action of the other defendants as it did on Erwin. To the extent that Cope made allegations against Erwin, he did so within the greater context of the action of what he essentially described as a criminal enterprise by all four of the defendants and Postmus. That enterprise, Cope averred, revolved around Burum.
Cope said Burum used a “carrot and stick” approach to get the board of supervisors to approve a settlement favorable to his company, and that Erwin was instrumental in the application of the stick. “Mr. Burum,” Cope said, “is a well known developer with great resources. He is particularly well known by those who are politically inclined. He is a power broker, someone they want to see if they want to gain office, particularly if you are a Republican. There were politicians who felt they needed his endorsement if they are going to advance in their careers. He was a very important person in that realm and people sought him out.”
Referencing the county government center, located “less than a block away from here, the county and its representatives entered into a dirty deal, a deal that was born of greed and corruption and bribery, knowing it was a bad deal, knowing they would profit from it, knowing it was bad for the county,” Cope said. “All of the county’s attorneys recommended against it.”
Burum’s company, the Colonies Partners had “filed a lawsuit against the county,” and “wanted that lawsuit settled,” Cope said. “He wanted it settled because he wanted the money and the land that was part of the deal.”
Cope continued, “Mr. Erwin had a very interesting role and the evidence will show that at one time he was in charge of SEBA [the Safety Employees Benefit Association], the police union. Being in charge of that he had access to their resources. He was powerful but he wanted more. He wanted a greater political career. He wanted more power. We will explore how he went about gaining that power. He did that by facilitating the settlement. He did that by threatening members of the board of supervisors. He did that by telling them he would expose things about them they didn’t want the voters to know, that would damage their careers. He was serving Mr. Burum in moving the settlement along in ways that were not proper, in ways that were dark.”
Biane, Cope said, was another cog in the wheelhouse of corruption. Cope said that Biane, who was a real estate professional before he was elected to the board of supervisors, “was one of the supervisors who endorsed this settlement with Mr. Burum and the Colonies for $102 million. He did that against the advice of the best attorneys the county could hire. He did this despite the value of the property that would be exchanged was far in excess of what was required. The evidence will show he did know that.”
Continuing, Cope said, “Mr. Kirk was the chief of staff to Gary Ovitt. Mr. Ovitt relied a lot on Mr. Kirk. Mr. Kirk wanted to see the deal go through from the very beginning because he knew he would profit from it. Another person was Bill Postums. Mr. Postmus was also a member of the board of supervisors at the time the deal was entered into. He was an individual who also profited from this event. How did they profit? Kirk, Erwin, Biane and Postmus all set up PACs [political action committees].” PACs, Cope said, “are a mechanism whereby people can donate money to serve political purpose. It is perfectly legitimate and legal for a person to donate money to those. But in this case, the donations were essentially payments as bribes. Mr. Burum gave each of them $100,000 at the end of the settlement. [The money] did not all come at once. We will talk about the time period when the money came into the PACs. It is important for the case to know how significant PACS are to the men who have power. There are lots of things people can do [with PACS]. If you are clever, there are ways that you can use them to gain power and influence. So this became a very powerful motivator. What can you do with money in a PAC? You can donate to your election process. Mr. Postmus put [the money] into his campaign fund. Then you can go out and use it as political expenditures.”
In Erwin’s case, Cope said, he used the money to support the supervisorial candidacy of San Bernardino City Councilman Neil Derry, who in 2008 ran against supervisor Dennis Hansberger, one of the two supervisors who voted against the $102 million settlement. Erwin did so at least in part, Cope said, with the expectation Derry would hire him as his chief of staff. When Derry defeated Hansberger, Cope said, Derry indeed hired him.
In similar fashion, the $100,000 supplied to Kirk’s political action committee was part of an illicit manipulation of the political process, Cope said.
“Gary Ovitt was ostensibly Mark Kirk’s boss,” Cope said. “Mr. Kirk was his chief of staff. It was recognized that Mr. Kirk was very powerful in that position. You had to go through Mark Kirk to get to Gary Ovitt. Mr. Kirk’s word was important. He let it be known to Mr. Burum that he would deliver Gary Ovitt’s vote.”
Cope said that Burum, in conjunction with Erwin and another individual, Patrick O’Reilly, utilized the political ambitions of Postmus, Biane and Kirk to achieve the settlement on terms favorable to his company.
“These are politicians that wanted to be more than what they were,” Cope said. “Mr. Biane wanted to move up. He wanted a further, more important political office. He did not want something that would interfere with that pursuit. Mr. Postmus wanted further political office.”
Thus, Cope asserted, they wanted Burum’s monetary assistance, but they were wary of the negative publicity they might get if they came across as openly militating on his company’s behalf.
“These men are trying to help Mr. Burum, but at the same time they worried about the voters,” Cope said. “They are trying to help Mr. Burum arrive at a settlement but can’t, for political reasons, go too far. So, Mr. Burum changed tactics and as the time got closer to where the deal had to be made, he had to get Mr. Erwin to help him. Mr. Erwin worked, under the direction of Mr. Burum, to induce Postmus and Biane to settle.”
In this regard, Cope said, Burum had relied upon the advice provided to him by another politician he hired, former California State Senator Jim Brulte, who is now the chairman of the California Republican Party. Cope said that Brulte counseled Burum that “you have to change the narrative of what is in the news space if you want to change the environment in which the politician will settle” the lawsuit. “And by the way,” Cope said, “Mr. Burum did listen to Jim Brulte’s advice with respect to the media and made an active effort to change where the media would begin to move toward their position. Mr. Brulte worked on press releases, op eds, a sophisticated, well considered effort to change the narrative.” But, according to Cope, “That by itself was not sufficient, so Mr. Burum had to change the position.” To do this, Cope said, Burum employed “Patrick O’Reilly, an excellent media specialist in Riverside. He helped as well with the media narrative… to justify what they were going to do. Mr. Brulte and Mr. O’Reilly received good money from Mr. Burum for what they did.”
Cope said “Mr. Brulte was a very powerful man. He led our state legislature. He is currently the head of the Republican Party in California. He is a strategist with an understanding of how Sacramento works. Mr. Burum employed him. The reason he employed him was to obtain a settlement. Mr. Brulte helped him in many different ways. He helped fine tune the message Mr. Burum would give.”
In contrast to Brulte and O’Reilly being paid for their services directly, Cope said, “Mr. Erwin was more on a success fee arrangement. You bring me the settlement and you’ll be rewarded. We will talk about how that reward occurred. He [Erwin] gave him [Postmus] a vision of what his possibilities were. He introduced Mr. Postmus to Mr. Burum’s lifestyle. Mr. Postmus will tell you he explored the possibility of going for higher office.” Cope then quoted Postmus’s statements to the FBI to the effect that “Jeff [Burum] was very clear. If I was to ever leave office, he would take care of me, in helping me to get a job, but we have to get all of this behind us first before I can. If it is settled, afterwards there will be contributions.” Cope then told the jury, “He said that to the FBI, to the investigators. He said it to friends and associates. That FBI interview will be interesting for you to look at. Look at it carefully.”
Cope said that initially, Postmus did not seem to understand the term quid pro quo, which is Latin for ‘something for something.’ “Read it from beginning to end, because in the beginning he [Postmus] was confused and then it becomes clearer what he actually means,” Cope said. “Mr. Burum was offering him a future, but he had to come through with the settlement. If that didn’t happen, there would be no help. Mr. Kirk was going to bring in Mr. Ovitt’s vote and he got rewarded.” Furthermore, Cope said, Erwin served as “a secret intermediary” between Burum and Postmus. Cope said he would be able to establish his assertions because Postmus will testify. “Mr. Postmus has pled guilty to all the charges filed on him,” Cope said. “He was previously charged and pled guilty. There is a possibility he will spend as long as five years in prison for the things he has done.”
Cope said there were two pieces of land involved in the case, one being the 434 acres the Colonies Partners purchased in 1997 for 16 million and the other being undeveloped property in Rancho Cucamonga. The Upland property had formerly been owned by the San Antonio Water Company and contained within it flood control easements recorded in 1933, 1934 and 1939 on 67 of those acres. Those easements allowed the county flood control district to vector storm water running off of the nearby mountains and foothills there, Cope said. Meanwhile, Cope said, the California Department of Transportation, known by its acronym Caltrans, had pushed ahead with its plans to complete the 210 Freeway, also known as the Foothill Freeway. The freeway project was undertaken in conjunction with a joint powers agency, SANBAG, an acronym for San Bernardino Associated Governments, which involves all 24 of the county’s cities and the county, and serves as the region’s transportation agency. To accommodate the freeway project, the Colonies Partners sold a swathe of some 43 acres of its land across which the freeway would span, for which Caltrans paid $17 million, Cope said. Additionally, Cope said, the City of Upland successfully requested that the freeway be completed below grade. This created a situation in which a tremendous amount of water would flow onto the freeway during storms, Cope said, and the county’s flood control district took charge of the situation by completing the 20th Street Storm Drain, a 72 inch diameter pipe to whisk that water away and then vector it into the 67 acre flood control basin on the Colonies property. Cope said the 1933, 1934 and 1939 easements gave the county the right to do that. The county and its flood control district, Cope acknowledged, were obliged to construct the basin to handle that flow. The county maintained, he said, that the basin could be built for $3 million, while the Colonies Partners insisted the price of the basin’s construction would be considerably higher, as much as $23.5 million. It was this dispute over the continuing use of the 67 acres on the Colonies property for flood control purposes and the cost of the flood control basin that served as the basis for the Colonies Partners’ lawsuit against the county to extract an unnecessary settlement, Cope said.
According to Cope, the county was represented in that lawsuit by two very capable law firms, the first being Munger Tolles & Olsen and the second being the firm of Jones Day. In waging its defense of that suit, Cope said, the county had the 1933, 1934 and 1939 easements in its favor. Additionally, Cope said, the county could marshal to its defense that CalTrans, SANBAG and the City of Upland shared whatever conceivable liability the situation entailed, since those entities were responsible for the creation of the circumstances that led to the issues the Colonies Partners were contesting in the lawsuit. Thus, Cope said, the county’s financial responsibility amounted to perhaps ten percent and certainly no more than 20 percent of whatever damages the Colonies Partners might demonstrate that the company had suffered.
The county suffered a setback when the judge hearing the matter, Peter Norell, ruled that the county had abandoned the easements, thus eradicating its right to channel the water onto the Colonies Property. The county did not accept that ruling, however, Cope said, and appealed it to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. While that appeal was pending, during a negotiating conference in March 2005 involving on one side Burum and Colonies co-managing principal Dan Richards, Jim Brulte and the Colonies Partners’ lawyers and, on the other side, Postmus, Biane and the county’s attorneys, Postmus and Biane ordered all of the attorneys representing both sides to leave the room. About 90 minutes later, Postmus and Biane announced to those waiting outside that they had come to an accommodation with Burum and Richards. The suit would be settled, Biane said, by the county paying the Colonies Partners $77.5 million.
“This shocked and dumbfounded the attorneys because just a few weeks prior they had informed the board of supervisors that the value of the settlement was a very much lower price then what Mr. Biane and Mr. Postmus had arrived at. This created a big problem because the attorneys could see through it. They felt it was too much.” Despite instructions not to do so, Paul Watford and Stephen Kristovich, the attorneys from the Munger Tollles & Olsen law firm representing the county, wrote a memorandum to the board of supervisors on April 4, 2005 decrying the proposed settlement and soon thereafter resigned. “Biane and Postmus did not want a written record of what they did. They did not want it circulated. We don’t know how it happened, but this memo somehow got out to the public,” Cope said, creating “big problems” for Postmus and Biane. Ultimately, that settlement proposal was withdrawn. This was frustrating for Burum, Cope said, who “had it [the settlement he wanted] within his grasp,” only to see the prospect for it dashed by the revelation.
At one point, while the members of the board of supervisors were engaged in a closed session discussion of the Colonies matter, according to Cope, Postmus was using his blackberry to inform Erwin of what was being said in that supposedly confidential forum, and Erwin was relaying the information to Burum.
As much as Burum was interested in a generous cash settlement of the lawsuit, Cope said, more desirable was another settlement proposal involving the conveyance of property the county owned but no longer needed in Deer Canyon at the north end of Rancho Cucamonga. If the Colonies Partners could get that land, Cope said, the company could develop it and make hundreds of millions of more dollars. A land transfer would have required the approval of four members of the board of supervisors, Cope said, and the votes to do so never lined up or stayed in place long enough to effectuate that.
Burum continued to both pressure and charm Postmus, Cope said. “One of the things he did was to set up a meet and greet event for Mr. Postmus at the Redhill Country Club,” Cope said, and Burum also accompanied Postmus oversees. “In September 2005 Mr. Postmus went on a trip to China with other delegates from the county and Mr. Burum,” Cope said. “Mr. Postmus will tell you he went to Hong Kong where he bought for himself a couple of suits. Everything else was paid for by Mr. Burum.” Upon returning to San Bernardino, Cope said, Postmus aggressively stormed into the county chief administrator’s office, stating that the lawsuit with the Colonies partners had to be settled at once. “When Mr. Postmus came back from China, he was insistent, saying ‘We’ve got to get this Colonies thing done,’”Cope said, quoting him.
Cope said that “eventually the case went to a judge, Judge Christopher Warner.” At that point, Munger, Tolles and Olsen had been replaced as the county’s attorneys by the law firm of Jones Day. “Judge Warner’s ruling was not a good one for the county,” Cope acknowledged. Nevertheless he said, the county’s attorneys were confident they could get, as they had with the ruling by Judge Norell, a reversal. Jones Day felt there were issues that would vindicate the county upon appeal, including, according to Cope, that the flood control easements yet existed and that the $17 million paid out to the Colonies Partners through the previous CalTrans “settlement was intended to take care of all future damages” as a result of the construction of the 210 Freeway. Moreover, according to Cope, the county had yet to explore wringing from the City of Upland and SANBAG their fair share of any conceivable liability that grew out of the situation. “The county did not seek settlement from SANBAG or the City of Upland or Caltrans,” Cope said. “It was only San Bernardino County that was on the hook and Jones Day was telling the board of supervisors you don’t want to settle, leaving yourself on the hook when you have other parties responsible. In a lawsuit like this when you settle for more than you should, you might create problems in the future in getting money from the other side. How are you going to get money out of SANBAG, Upland and Caltrans?””
At that point, the November 2006 election was approaching, in which Postmus was running for assessor and on the ballot was Measure P, an initiative sponsored by Paul Biane to raise the compensation of the members of the board of supervisors from $99,000 in salary plus benefits per year to $151,000 in salary plus benefits annually. Because both supervisors had something riding on the election, that left them vulnerable to Burum and Erwin, Cope said. At that point, it was conveyed to Postmus and Biane that Burum and Erwin had prepared political hit pieces – that is, mailers, handbills or fliers – with derogatory information about them – the two highest ranking members of the county Republican Central Committee, namely that Postmus was a drug addicted homosexual and Biane was a homosexual who was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. What was conveyed to them was that a private investigator had been going over their affairs with a fine-toothed comb, including digging through their garbage.
“Postmus is a clean cut guy, upstanding, he’s young and somebody people from the desert would like to vote for. He comes from a religious family. His father was in law enforcement. Mr. Erwin knows that he’s a homosexual. At that time in this county if you were Republican, that was the kiss of death. If that was made public, that would be the death of his political career. He also knew Mr. Postmus was a drug addict. He started with doctor-prescribed medications and then methamphetamine he was introduced to by one of the people he met for sexual liaisons. Yet, he was able to still do his job, still get elected to the assessor’s office. Now, in terms of what is happening and where we are at with the settlement, it is very important. Erwin wants the settlement to happen because he knows it is going to benefit him as well. What will Bill Postmus’ dad or family think? There is the threat the fliers will be sent out over the election in 2006.” Ultimately, the hit pieces did not go out, Cope said. Three weeks after the election, a grateful Postmus and Biane voted to approve the $102 million settlement.
“Mr. Erwin talked about the mailers that were going to be sent,” said Cope. “He had mock ups and showed them. This was an arrangement of great benefit to Mr. Burum and Mr. Erwin. He provided a role that was beneficial to Mr. Burum. He knew they would not agree to the settlement without an incentive. Mr. Erwin was perfectly situated for that role.”
Less than two months after the settlement was voted upon, Burum used a private jet to fly Erwin and O’Reilly to New York, where they stayed at a luxury condominium and went to an off-Broadway show and then to an upscale jewelry store where Burum purchased both men a watch, including a Rolex for Erwin that cost more than $12,000. They then flew to Washington, D.C., where they spent the night at the Mandarin Hotel in separate $400 per night rooms and met with Congressman Kevin McCarthy for lunch.
“After a night in the Mandarin, they flew back,” said Cope. “It was a nice, short, extravagant thank you for helping Mr. Burum get $102 million.”
Mr. Erwin had hired on to the assessor’s office and, according to Cope, in filling out his statements of economic interest, Erwin omitted mentioning the trip, the accommodations or the watch.
“If you don’t disclose those things, it’s a crime,” said Cope. “He didn’t report the watch [and] he didn’t report the airplane trip because to do so would show his direct connection to Mr. Burum. That was something he did not want to do.”
In 2007, between March and the end of June, the Colonies Partners issued separate $100,000 checks to political action committees prosecutors say were controlled by Biane, Erwin and Kirk, and two $50,000 checks to each of two political action committees controlled by Postmus.
According to Cope, Erwin “took money out of his PAC so he could pay his legal bills.” He also falsified a document with the falsified signature of Steve Hauer, believed to be an unwitting principal in Erwin’s PAC.
“Steve Hauer will come in here and will be asked if his signature is on that letter,” said Cope. “His answer will be ‘No.’ That was a method by which Mr. Erwin would hide the source this PACs money was coming from. Evidence will show Mr. Erwin was involved in doing things in a way to keep the public from noticing.”
Cope said, “Mr. Burum knew the public servants he was dealing with were flawed people. That worked to his benefit. He was able to capitalize on those flaws and motivate them to do what he wanted them to do. Mr. Erwin played a very important role in that. It was a very savvy, very well coordinated dance, this conspiracy to achieve this goal. There are people who will testify, people you perhaps will not like very much. Test what they say in light of all of the evidence. They were targeted because they had those flaws. Certainly, Mr. Erwin was very familiar with those flaws. He knew he would be successful and these other men would also benefit if he was successful. His work helped lay the groundwork for the bribery. He was excited about this. He went about his work with great relish. He profited by it. He did it by capitalizing on the weakness of others and by corrupt means that have brought us all here.”

Raj Maline

Immediately following the conclusion of Cope’s presentation on Wednesday afternoon, Raj Maline, Erwin’s attorney, offered his opening statement, which served as both a rebuttal of most if not all of Cope’s assertions as well as an exploration of further territory. When his remarks were not concluded in the late afternoon of Wednesday January 4, he returned to the courtroom the following day to finish. Like Cope’s prosecutorial-angled diatribe that sought to orient Erwin’s jury to the overarching context of the theory of criminal collusion involving all four current defendants, Maline’s remarks went beyond a straightforward defense of his own client and in several specific instances appeared calculated to refute the characterization of guilt lodged against Kirk, Biane and more expansively, Burum.
Saying he was “proud to be representing Jim Erwin, Maline asserted that the prosecution had engaged in a selective presentation of fact, conjecture and misrepresentation, which he likened to his own experience attending a Lakers game when he was inadvertently caught on the Staple Center’s “Kiss Cam” seated next to a woman who was not his wife, which implied he and she were a couple. “That was the picture painted of me in a snapshot. But if you go outside of the frame, that has nothing to do with reality. The story you just heard has no basis in reality,” Maline said.
It was the county and county officials who abused the defendants in the case his client is caught up in, Maline said, not the other way around.
Maline said, “I do agree with Mr. Cope that there was a dirty deal. There were corrupt county officials, but not the county officials he said. It was the county officials that did corrupt things and pulled dirty deals on Jeff Burum.”
According to Maline’s narrative, the property purchased in northeast Upland by the Colonies Partners for development was indeed once a flood drainage area, but was no longer one during the time the lawsuit was launched. He said massive scale flooding that occurred in the region in 1969 resulted in the Army Corps of Engineers having “constructed a channel that went alongside [the property] that sent [the floodwaters] down to Prado Dam,” rendering the huge flood basin there obsolete and eradicating the need for the flood water spreading grounds. “It was a natural kind of flood control system. The natural habitat allows water to stop going forward and instead it seeps into the ground. When the Army Corp built this channel, all of sudden he channel took care of all the water. That archaic flood control area could be developed for other purposes.” After other “developers took a shot at using that property” but did not progress along that track, Maline said the “growing population of the area” and “transportation needs and plans underway for development of 210 extension through Upland that would bring more cars and people to the area” inspired a young developer, to take a chance at transforming the property. “That young developer was Jeff Burum,” Maline said. “He got in. He saw an opportunity. He pooled his money with 23 other people called the Colony Partners, which included a U.S. senator, doctors and lawyers, and he took a chance.”
The Colonies Partners, Maline said, paid $16 million for the land in 1997. “This property was a wasteland for many years. No one would touch it. It had been used for years for natural flood control. A lot of developers passed. Mr. Burum had a vision.” Maline said that Cope’s insinuation that the Colonies Partners investment entailed just $16 million was far off. “They needed $100 million to build the infrastructure before anyone could build on it, just to get things going,” Maline said.
As the company started to develop the property, Maline asserted, the county interfered with its plans. During phase one of the project, Maline said, “Mr. Burum learned that the county flood control district is contemplating diverting excess water from the 210 Freeway extension. There are three square miles of a watershed area northwest of the Colonies. The county has to deal with water and storm water and what to do with it. The county comes up with a plan to build the storm drain and dump the water onto the Colonies property. At that point the developer who had the property cannot use the property for what it was bought for.”
Maline continued, “In 1998, discussions began as to what to do with the water. It is not an option for Mr. Burum to have the water all dumped on his land. That is the county’s responsibility. That is not fair. A series of discussions are held.” During those discussions, Maline said, the county, in the personage of flood control director Ken Miller offered the Colonies Partners an assurance that if the county were to be allowed to use the property for storm water runoff, no more than 650 cubic feet of water per second would be conveyed there. Maline said that assurance prompted Burum to go along with the county. He said that Burum’s reaction was “Now, if it is only that much you are going to dump, I can build my houses, and I will even pay to divert your water. I will do it myself and I will build the connection to the storm drain.” Thus, Maline said, “They made a deal.” But there was a catch, Erwin’s lawyer said. “Mr. Miller knew that he was lying. He knew as early as 1997 that the water discharge rates would be in excess of 650 cubic feet per second. He misrepresented.”
Maline asserted, “Private land owners are not responsible for water. Government has a responsibility for flood water. That is the reason why the county has [a] flood control [division]. Mr. Burum does not want the storm drain [to empty] onto his property. He will not be able to use 70 acres, and then what will have to happen is the bulk of his property [will need to] be used to convey water over to that channel. That is 70 acres that he would not be able to use and he bought it for development, fair and square.”
When Burum raised that issue, Maline said, the county’s response eventually became ‘We have an easement that allows us to use it as a flood control system.”
The county was bullying Burum, Maline said.
“So when Mr. Burum signed that agreement, he [Miller] knew that they were going to dump in excess [of 650 cubic feet of water per second]. Mr. Burum said, ‘Hold on. I already have plans [to develop] in place.’ The county did something else. The further evidence of corruption is that the county said [as of] stage two and stage three of your development, you are not going to be able to do it unless we can turn on that storm drain. Who was going to pay for that kind of flood control? Mr. Burum was to pay. In secret, the storm drain got turned on.”
Maline said Miller and the county engaged in “a shakedown of Mr. Burum. The county would not approve future phases unless he allowed the storm drain. Mr. Burum had no choice. He had to file the lawsuit. They [the Colonies Partners] simply asked the judge to make a finding, a ruling of what the county has and what he had. He did not ask for one dime.”
Thus, Maline said, Cope’s characterization of Burum being motivated by greed was absolutely false.
Maline said that both Judge Peter Norell and Judge Chrisopher Warner made the determination that the county had misapplied its easements.
Ultimately, Maline said, Warner made a determination that the county’s flood control authority on the Colonies property did not go beyond the scope of what was spelled out in the 1933, 1934 and 1939 easements and that by the county substantially overusing those easements, they had been extinguished, that is, were no longer applicable.
According to Maline, “Judge Warner ruled the Colonies has fully performed under the 1999 agreement; that the Colonies designed, constructed and paid for basin B and the design for basin A, despite no requirement to do so because of the county’s breach; that the county failed and refused to negotiate in good faith with the Colonies despite a contractual obligation to do so; and the county held the Colonies property hostage.”
Basin A was the facility that would hold the water coming in from off the site; Basin B was to hold the drainage generated on the site.
Furthermore, according to Maline, Warner stated, “The court found Mr. Burum to be a very credible witness. He answered questions without hesitation or equivocation. The court does not find Mr. Miller to be a credible witness because he did not appear to be forthright in his responses.”
After Warner entered a tentative ruling in favor of the Colonies Partners on the lawsuit, he encouraged both the county and the Colonies Partners to enter into a mediation to head off the need for him to enter a final judgment and then make a determination as to monetary damages.
Maline said that the county, at the urging of its law firm, Jones Day, did not seriously negotiate but instead seemed purposed to allow the judge to finalize his rulings so the county could again appeal the matter to the appellate court.
Given the nature of Warner’s rulings, Maline said the county’s prospects at the appellate level were dim, and that Burum was not pushing for a settlement, as Cope maintained in his opening statement.
“Mr. Cope is telling you something, but it wasn’t right, because the county needed to settle,” Maline said. “Judge Warner strongly directed both parties to settle before his statement of intended decision became a final judgment in 30 days. Mr. Burum did not want to settle. It is the county who wanted to settle. At that point the bargaining power is now with the Colonies.” Maline said the Colonies Partners stood to gain as much as or more than $300 million by not settling the lawsuit and instead waiting to let Warner make a final ruling.
Maline said Postmus had become hopelessly addicted to drugs by the time he was assessor. He related several instances when that drug use manifested in erratic or untoward behavior on Postmus’ part. He said his client, Erwin, at one point intervened and checked Postmus into a rehab center in Lucerne Valley. When Postmus again began using drugs, Maline said, Erwin resigned from his post as assistant assessor. He said his client was later summoned to testify about the situation at the assessor’s office and that he told the truth in that forum, angering both Postmus and Aleman. He said Postmus’s drug use has rendered his word and recollection unreliable.
Maline dwelled at length on Adam Aleman, upon whose representations, he maintained, the bulk of the prosecution’s case relies.
He said that the two major prongs of the case – the extortion of Bill Postmus and Paul Biane before the settlement and the provision of bribes to Postmus, Biane, Kirk and Erwin after the settlement – were fabrications put forth by Aleman. Noting that Cope had referenced “threats, mailers, flyers, drug use, those types of things,” Maline said, “I can assure you, ladies and gentleman, that most of these things that he intends to show as evidence is Mr. Aleman’s statements over a period of time. Mr. Aleman got into a position where he was involved with the district attorney’s office. In 2007 Mr. Postmus won the election for county assessor and he picked two assistant assessors, Mr. Erwin, my client, and Mr. Aleman, who had been an assistant of his when he was on the board of supervisors. When he was brought over to the assessor’s office, he [Aleman] was number two in command. Adam Aleman and Bill Postmus defrauded the assessor’s office and the county from 2007 to 2008.”
Aleman is, Maline said, “a self-admitted and convicted liar, a master manipulator [who had] a unique relationship with his boss, Bill Postmus. He started working with Mr. Postmus at 20-years-old at the board of supervisors. Postmus was running his political machine, raising money, supporting candidates, enhancing his Republican status and power under the cover of the assessor’s office. Setting up a political base is legal if you are doing it on your own time. He also brought over staff who had nothing to do with assessors business, brought over [others engaged with] political activity. His friends, lovers and political cronies were brought over to the assessor’s office. They had nothing to do with land appraising or assessing. This had to do with the political operation.”
Maline continued, “Mr. Erwin was running the assessor’s office, making sure the work was done. In secret, the other half of the assessor’s office was the political operation. Mr. Aleman was heading that up. He was 23 or 24 years old. He had no experience, no college education. He was not even an appraiser. So he was definitely not qualified for the job. Eventually, with their political activities they got caught. This is how they got caught. The grand jury reconvened to investigate the assessor’s office. The grand jury asked for documents because there were secret meetings on political strategy and who they can support politically. A female staff member is reporting, writing down all minutes about political activity. Their cover would be blown if they turned over the minutes. So Aleman’s job was to change minutes, to substitute words to make it seem like it was assessor’s business. Mr. Aleman did not count on the staff member keeping the original. She had a hunch that is what they were going to do, so she kept the original, and she turned it over and they got caught.”
Maline said, “That is where the legal odyssey of Adam Aleman began. Of course, he did much more than just that. Aleman was Postmus’s fixer. He literally covered up for Postmus on a full time basis because Postmus was not able to go to meetings. Aleman would lie for him. Postmus would end up in places, passed out with strange people. He would dust Postmus off, cover for him.”
When the district attorney’s office investigators showed up, they wanted Aleman’s computer, but, according to Maline, Aleman “knew there was damaging material on the computer. So he destroyed the computer and removed the hard drive. When he was questioned regarding the hard drive, he said he didn’t have it anymore. The hard drive in the computer he literally destroyed with a screwdriver and other tools. They investigated the extent of his malfeasance in his office. On June 30, 2008 Mr. Aleman was arrested.”
In time, Aleman began cooperating with the district attorney’s office. In the course of that cooperation, he provided information which Maline said contradicts the notion that Postmus was being extorted on the basis of his homosexuality.
“Aleman worked for him [Postmus] at the board of supervisors for three to four years,” Maline said. “Strangers would show up there and be demanding money. Mr. Postmus would send Mr. Aleman down to the county building across the street to get money. Postmus had been with these men on previous occasions and had promised them things. Mr. Aleman was very sure that Mr. Postmus had had relationships with those men and they were coming to him for money. They would show up. He would be telling these men where he worked.”
That Postmus was openly involved in these homosexual liaisons belied, Maline suggested, the narrative Cope had put forth to suggest he was being blackmailed over that issue by Burum. “He wasn’t afraid that anyone would expose his being gay because many people knew he was gay,” Maline said.
After his arrest, Aleman was charged with nine felony counts, including three counts of PC 134, false evidence preparation; one count of PC 132, offering false evidence; one count of Government Code Section 6200, relating to the destroying/altering of public records; and one count of PC 594 vandalism.
The legal cloud hanging over Aleman, Maline said, led him into becoming a font of disinformation.
“He was afraid about the criminal charges,” Maline said. “He was looking at 8 years. He was facing multiple felonies. He approached the district attorney’s office and said he wanted to become a snitch if he could get a better deal somehow. He was on an audition for eight months, trying to impress them on all the things he thinks he knows about in the county. At 24-years-old, he doesn’t know much but he’s got to give them something, information about Mr. Postmus. He was setting Mr. Postmus up.”
Maline said he carried a recorder in his pocket with which he audio recorded his boss. “He hoped he would get Mr. Postmus to say some incriminating things,” Maline said. “He would text him. One day in one of the interviews he mentions the Colonies case. The investigators stop. From the way the interview is conducted we know that is an important thing.”
Maline said Aleman suggested the PAC contributions were “done illegally because Mr. Kirk took out $10,000 from his PAC. He didn’t mention the bribes. He did mention the Colonies and from that point on most of the discussions are regarding the Colonies case. He talked about the mafia in Victorville. He doesn’t mention anything about threats by Mr. Erwin prior to the settlement. Most information he gives the investigators he knows nothing about. He talks about meetings he has had with Jeff Burum. He never met Jeff Burum even once but he talks about Mr. Burum like he’s his old buddy, old pal.”
The two investigators working on Aleman, Maline said, “are a guy named [Hollis] Randles and a guy named [Robert] Schreiber.”
Randles and Schreiber were two district attorney’s office investigators who were instrumental to what Maline described as a “political prosecution” of Postmus, Biane, Burum, Erwin, and Kirk.
Postmus referred to Randles and Schreiber as “the thug squad,” Maline said. “Bill Postmus said the thug squad made him say things he didn’t want to say,” Maline said. Maline said Randles and Schreiber pounded on both Postmus and Aleman, asking them leading questions until they elicited the preordained responses they were seeking.
Another sign that the prosecution was political, Maline said, was the manner in which the investigators and eventually the prosecution team utilized deputy county counsel Mitch Norton, who was involved in the Colonies litigation from the beginning until the end. Norton from 2002 until 2006 contended that the Colonies Partners were seeking compensation in the company’s lawsuit that was excessive but later asserted the settlement was a just one, Maline said.
Maline charged San Bernardino County District Attorney with engaging in a political prosecution.
“District attorney is a political office,” Maline said. “We will show this was a political decision to prosecute even though there was overwhelming evidence of innocence. This will be shown by the bizarre way the investigators went about not looking for the truth but for a predetermined outcome. Any responsible law enforcement agency would have walked away from this case. We’re here because the elected district attorney of this county made a political decision to go after four innocent men for his own personal agenda when he announced the indictment with great fanfare on television.”
At that point, Maline, who was using a projector to display graphics to the jury, had a slide which stated that Ramos and Erwin had once been friends and that Erwin once supported Ramos politically, that Erwin supported Neil Derry, who successfully ran for Third District supervisor in 2008 and that Ramos did not support Derry. On the same slide there was a graphic showing political consultant David Ellis, who had worked on Ramos’s campaigns, as an intermediary between Ramos and Erwin. As Maline began to further expound on the political implication of the one-time Erwin-Ramos alliance, Cope objected, and there followed a several minute side-bar conference at the bench with Judge Michael A. Smith, Cope and all of the defense attorneys present. Following that conference with Smith, who on Wednesday had deferred a ruling on a request by the prosecution to quash a defense subpoena for Ramos to testify, Maline concluded his opening statement without any elaboration or elucidation of the Erwin/Ellis/Ramos connection. He instead alerted the jury to a political contribution disclosure statement, Form 700, that would be the subject of examination during the trial. Maline detailed and listed the items that were allegedly not disclosed which the prosecution, he said wrongfully concluded was evidence of a cover-up of payoffs from Burum. Maline told the jury that there was nothing wrong with political contributions and that the trip was made partly to smooth relationships after the settlement battle. Maline’s explanation was that Erwin, who considered Ramos a friend, had sought the district attorney’s advice as to how to report. Instead, with the implication that Ramos was disgruntled with Erwin for being in league with Derry and because Ramos was politically motivated to obtain a conviction in a highly publicized case, Maline said, Ramos and the district attorney’s office, for politically motivated reasons, chose to torturously mischaracterize the incomplete Form 700 as evidence of the crimes they were wrongfully accusing Erwin of engaging in.
Maline ended the statement by asking the jury to find his client, Jim Erwin, innocent of the charges against him.