By Richard Hernandez
More than 200,000 so-called limbo immigrants – ones who are technically in the United States illegally as the foreign-born children of parents who entered the United States illegally but have in some fashion registered as being present in the United States and California specifically – are now eligible to buy California taxpayer-subsidized health insurance available through the Affordable Care Act.
This generosity to non-citizens while American citizens, most particularly males between the ages of 18 and 62, are left to fend for themselves is a matter of some controversy. There is a legitimate philosophical difference between people with regard to whether certain American citizens/taxpayers should be excluded from the benefits provided to those who are neither American citizens nor taxpayers, particularly when those benefits are being paid for by American taxpayers.
Furthermore, there are divided opinions among legal authorities, including American courts of law, as to whether providing benefits to non-citizens that are not available to American citizens is both legal and constitutional.
At the center of this difficult circumstance are the “Dreamers;” the Dream Act, which existed in a legislative bill form but which was never officially passed into law; and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, the legality of which has not been fully established.
Dreamers are the young foreign-born children of immigrants who came into the United States illegally, i.e., in defiance of U.S. Immigration Law and were or are essentially officially undocumented, but who, for the most part, are being educated in public schools. They are said to have the “dream” of obtaining legalized status and being allowed to remain in the United States, which in virtually all cases is the country that they in their life experience are most familiar with. The vast majority of Dreamers are from Mexico.
The Dream Act bill laid out and would have provided if passed, a pathway to permanent residency for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States by their parents if those young people met certain qualifications, such as not having been convicted of a felony or what was deemed “a serious misdemeanor.” The bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives but did not gain passage in the U.S. Senate when it was kept from consideration by a bipartisan filibuster. Continue reading →

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVSB2330636
NOTICE TO MONIAK CONSTRUCTION CO, an unknown entity; RICHARD MICHAEL MONIAK, individual and doing business as MONIAK CONSTRUCTION CO; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive
(AVISO DEMANDADO):
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
BRYANT IDZIK, an individual; and MATHILDE BERGER, an individual.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino
247 W Third Street, San Bernardino California 92415 San Bernardino District- Civil Division
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
September J Katje
130 S Chaparral Court Suite 140
Anaheim CA 92808
Telephone: 714-400-2962
DATE (Fecha): 10/14/2024
Clerk (Secretario), by BRIANNA RIOS
Published in the SBCS  Rancho Cucamonga on: 11/08/2024, 11/15/2024, 11/22/2024, 11/29/2024

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIV SB 2431851,
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Dana Briones filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Madnis Mae Dalessio to Madnis Mae Briones.
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: 12/17/2024, Time: 09:00 AM, Department: S29The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District-Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the  SBCS Upland in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 11/05/2024
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS  Upland on 11/08/2024, 11/15/2024, 11/22/2024, 11/29/2024

Continue reading →

In a situation remarkably similar, and with multiple parallels, to the events that preceded the Colonies development debacle that cost San Bernardino County’s taxpayers $167 million, the board of supervisors on November 19 considered, but held off on, the sale of 1,252.21 acres of so-called surplus flood control property to a residential developer.
The 1,252.21 acres in question lie within what is now referred to as the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Area, contained within the current Rancho Cucamonga City Limits. The property, set amidst what under normal conditions is a dry alluvial creek, during fall, winter and spring rainstorms transforms into a raging river, was used historically by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to manage stormwater runoff from the San Gabriel Mountains flowing south into both the Day Creek and Deer Creek streams. Over the past four decades, according to Noel Castillo, San Bernardino County’s chief flood control engineer and Terry Thompson, the director of San Bernardino County’s real estate services department, improvements made by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, including the Day Creek and Deer Creek Debris Dam, spreading grounds, and channels, have rendered the property unnecessary for flood management and surplus to San Bernardino County Flood Control District needs.
Nearly 16 years ago, the county board of supervisors, as it was then composed, on February 24, 2009 declared a 1,200-acre portion of the property surplus, thereafter inviting proposals relating to the utilization of the property, preparatory toward the potential sale of the property. At that time, a portion of the flood control property fell within the Rancho Cucamonga City Limits and the majority of the property was situated on unincorporated county land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s sphere of influence.
The intent as enunciated by the county at that time was for the county to arrange an in-house purchase of the land from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District at market value as to be determined by an appraiser, a price estimated at somewhere between $50 million to $80 million. Thereafter, the county was, under the terms of a cooperative agreement with Rancho Cucamonga to jointly plan the development of the area. This represented some degree of complication, as the city prided itself on its relatively higher development standards to all, or most, of the surrounding jurisdictions, and ultimately, it was anticipated, all of the 1,200 acres would eventually be annexed into Rancho Cucamonga. Assuming the conflict in city vs. county standards would be resolved, the joint plan called for the issuance of a request for qualifications to developers willing to compete for an entitlement to build on one of two sub-areas within the 1,200 acres designated as “Area A” and “Area B.” The agreement specified that it would be the City of Rancho Cucamonga which would conduct the public hearings relating to the development proposals and select, i.e., recommend, what were to be deemed the two “best qualified” developers, in order of preference, to the county board of supervisors for the determination of which two development companies would be permitted to operate in each of the sub-areas. If the board rejected either or both of the city’s recommendations, the board would have the discretion to choose any developer, either from among those which had competed or those which had not submitted a proposal. Continue reading →

In a replay of their 2022 match-up and its results as well as a reversal of the early returns on election night, incumbent Greg Wallis has defeated Christy Holstege in this year’s race to represent the 47^th Assembly District.
On Wednesday afternoon, November 20 at which point Wallis had taken a 115,639 vote to 110,658 vote lead, Holstege conceded, doing so on her social media account Wednesday afternoon.
The state of the vote tally this week contrasted with what the initial returns showed on election night and shortly thereafter. Holstege held a narrow lead over the incumbent when the votes from both San Bernardino and Riverside counties, over which the 47th District is spread, were counted on the night of November 5. That lead held through the following day, with the California Secretary of State’s website showing that Holstege was leading 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent just after 5 p.m. on November 6. Over the next three days, however, Wallis (R-Rancho Mirage) closed the gap and surpassed the challenger.
As was the case in 2022, Holstege won by a respectable margin in the more populous Riverside County portion of the district, but was hopelessly outdistanced in San Bernardino County.
The 47th District covers Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Yucaipa, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and San Jacinto in Riverside County and Yucca Valley, Yucaipa, Redlands and Highland in San Bernardino County
A factor in the election was the particular brand of Holstege’s liberal populism. A sexual assault survivor, she is married to a man and has a child, but celebrates her bisexuality. This has played well in Palm Springs, which has a city council composed entirely of those within the lesbian-bisexual-gay-transsexual-queer community and where she is currently a councilwoman and was formerly mayor. Her orientation and the causes she espoused served her well on the Democratic side of the political divide, enabling her to handily capture the Democratic nomination for Assembly, but her presentation has alienated and galvanized the Republicans and more conservative elements of the district, including members of her own party, against her. Continue reading →

The 59.6 square mile, 224,274-population town of San Bernardino isn’t big enough, apparently, for Rochelle Clayton and Sonia Carvalho.
Over the next several weeks, the city council as it now exists will partially recompose itself by shedding Fifth Ward Councilman Ben Reynoso, Sixth Ward Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin and Seventh Ward Councilman Damon Alexander and take on in their places, respectively, Kim Knaus, Mario Flores and Treasure Ortiz. As the calendar progresses into the first weeks and months of 2025 and the latter three acclimate themselves to their positions of authority, either Clayton will be relieved of her current status as acting city manager and be returned to her original position of assistant city manager or she will be promoted to full-fledged status as the city’s top administrator. If, indeed, Clayton is entrusted with the administration of San Bernardino’s municipal government, the continuation of Carvalho’s now more-than-six-year-long tenure as San Bernardino City Attorney will no longer be tenable. She will be forced to leave the city, taking her firm, Best Best & Krieger, with her.
On the other hand, if the city council, in the aftermath of an outside consulting firm’s ongoing evaluation of the performances of the city manager, city attorney and city clerk, ultimately decides to stay the course with Carvalho, the likelihood that the city council would elect to permanentize Clayton in the city manager role is virtually nil and, moreover, her remaining in the assistant city manager position from which she rose into the interim manager post she now holds would present such an awkward circumstance that she would probably have to depart the city altogether. Continue reading →