Anaheim Press_8/7/2023

Investigation continues into fatal airplane crash at Van Nuys Airport

PG 02

LA council committee expresses frustration about homelessness data

ALosAngelesCity

committee Thursday expressed its continued frustration with the lack of data related to its efforts to address homelessness — with some members saying they are considering halting further funds to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority until they get access to that information.

In its fifth report to the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee Wednesday afternoon, Mayor Karen Bass’ office, LAHSA representatives and the chief administrative officer provided details on homelessness spending as well as data on the mayor’s Inside Safe initiative.

Matt Szabo, city administrative officer, informed the panel that LAHSA developed a data module within the Homeless Management Information System, or HMIS, to track key metrics of the mayor’s Inside Safe initiative, an effort to bring unhoused Angelenos inside to motels and address encampments.

The data also covers a number of individuals who, through Inside Safe, are currently permanently housed and those currently in interim housing, those who exited the program and those who are being served from the streets.

“My office and the mayor’s office continue to work with LAHSA and service providers to receive leveraged funding information which will be included in future reports,” Szabo said. “I know this has been something that this committee has asked for each time before ... we are still working on that information.”

Councilwoman Nithya Raman, chair of the housing committee, noted the report “increased in length, but hasn’t changed significantly.”

Orange County judge arrested in shooting death of wife

By City News Service By City News Service

Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson was arrested on suspicion of murder in the fatal shooting of his wife at their Anaheim Hills home, authorities said Friday.

Anaheim Police Department officers arrested Ferguson, 72, after they were called to his home just after 8 p.m. Thursday in the 8500 block of East Canyon Vista Drive regarding reports of a shooting. Inside the home, officers found 65-year-old Sheryl Ferguson, the judge’s wife, suffering from at least one gunshot wound, said Anaheim police Sgt. Jonathan McClintock.

Sheryl Ferguson was pronounced dead at the scene.

Judge Ferguson was booked into the Anaheim Police Department’s Detention Facility on suspicion of murder and was held on $1 million bail, McClintock said.

Other details were not released by police. The investigation was ongoing.

“Our thoughts go to the family,” Orange County Superior Court Presiding Judge Maria Hernandez said in a statement Friday morning.

Ferguson and his wife had two sons, Kevin and Phillip, both adults.

Councilman Bob Blumenfield, a member of the committee, thanked the mayor’s efforts to obtain data from LAHSA while also keeping track of the same data.

“There’s much more improvement to data collecting on the front end, but there’s a lot more work to do in terms of the exit data, not only for Inside Safe participants but for those in the tiny home program .”

Officials said while they continue to make improve-

ments in their data collecting, there are gaps in the exit data.

Blumenfield said that presented a “big problem,” as the city may be paying for rooms without anybody being in there.

“That’s horrifying, so we could be paying for weeks with for an empty room when somebody left two weeks earlier, and we could be using that room to house someone,” he added.

Mercedes Marques, the mayor’s chief of housing

and homelessness solutions, noted that collecting exit data is a requirement, but it has not been completely followed through, citing capacity issues with service providers. Marquez said the mayor’s office would need to provide training to address that issue.

Marquez reassured the committee that the mayor’s office is “constantly” verifying invoices and checking in

“We all pray for their comfort during this trying time,” Hernandez said. “Although no case has been filed with our court, when appropriate, we will take all necessary steps to ensure full compliance with our legal and ethical obligations. As this is a pending matter still under investigation, the court is unable to provide any further information at this time.”

Orange County Superior Court leaders were advised of the arrest on Thursday night by Anaheim police, Hernandez said.

Law enforcement sources told the Los Angeles Times that a son of the judge and his wife were at the home.

Ferguson, a native of Oakland, earned a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences and social ecology from UC Irvine in 1973. He earned his law degree in 1982 from Western State College of Law, beginning his legal career the following year in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, where he later became a senior prosecutor assigned to the Major Narcotics Enforcement Team. He was president of the North Orange County Bar Association from 2012-14. The Orange County Narcotics Officers Association named him prosecutor of the year four times.

He became a judge in 2015.

In 2017, he was admonished by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for comments he made on Facebook about a prosecutor who was campaigning to be a jurist and for maintaining “friends” status with three defense attorneys who had cases before him.

Sheryl Ferguson previously worked for the Santa Barbara and Orange County probation departments and later for the American Funds Service Company for almost 20 years prior to becoming a full-time mother.

Orange County man extradited from Romania to face rioting charges PG

Los Angeles City Hall looms over a nearby homeless encampment. | Photo courtesy of Ron Reiring/ Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson. | Photo courtesy of Anaheim Police Department

Wounded deputy testifies in trial of man charged with shooting her

By Terri Vermeulen Keith, City News Service

ALos Angeles County sheriff’s deputy testified Tuesday that she heard gunshots and that her vision went blank for a few seconds after she and her partner were shot as they sat in their patrol vehicle outside a Compton transit center in an attack caught on surveillance video.

Wearing a sheriff’s uniform while on the stand, Deputy Claudia Apolinar told the Compton jury hearing the case against Deonte Lee Murray that she didn’t immediately know where she had been shot but felt a “warm sensation in my mouth” and tried to speak over a police radio to report what had happened to her and her partner on Sept. 12, 2020.

She told jurors that she felt her tongue flapping around in her mouth and that the dispatcher was having difficulty understanding her plea for assistance.

“I knew I was hit in

the mouth,” Apolinar, the mother of a then 6-yearold child, told jurors. She said she subsequently tried to help her partner, Emmanuel PerezPerez, who was struggling to put a tourniquet on after she saw his face and right arm covered in blood.

“I didn’t know where the suspect was at, if he was going to come back,” the deputy told jurors, saying later that she did not see who he was and that neither she nor her partner fired any shots in response.

Surveillance video shows the gunman walking up to the passenger side of the sheriff’s vehicle, firing and then quickly fleeing, then Apolinar subsequently coming to her partner’s aid and the two — both of their uniforms stained with blood — hurrying to a waiting patrol vehicle that rushed them to a hospital.

She said she later learned that one round

struck her in the jaw and “nearly cut my tongue off” and that she also suffered gunshot wounds to both of her arms, which were broken in the shooting. The deputy said she still has scars on both of her arms and her face from the attack, and that she returned to work at the sheriff’s department last September.

Jurors are also expected to hear from Apolinar’s partner, who was shot in the forehead and an arm.

Deputy District Attorney Stephen Lonseth told jurors in his opening statement that Murray “lost it” after sheriff’s deputies shot and killed his best friend, Sam Herrera, while serving a search warrant in Compton two days before Apolinar and Perez-Perez were ambushed.

“He sought to take out revenge,” the prosecutor said of the now 39-year-old defendant.

Murray allegedly “unloaded over and over

again” by firing later that day upon a man he mistakenly believed was a detective in an unmarked car near the Compton courthouse, then fleeing in a black Mercedes that had been carjacked on Sept. 1, 2020, from a man who was shot in the leg with a rifle, Lonseth told the panel.

The defendant — who allegedly abandoned the Mercedes near an elementary school — was arrested Sept. 15, 2020, after leading police on a chase in which he tossed a “ghost gun” from the Toyota Solara he was driving and then fleeing into a neighborhood, where he was subsequently found hiding under a chicken coop in a resident’s back yard, the prosecutor said.

Ballistics testing subsequently determined that the .40-caliber weapon had been used to shoot the sheriff’s deputies, authorities said.

Jurors are also expected

to hear from witnesses expected to testify that he confessed to all of the crimes, Lonseth said.

Murray’s attorney Kate Hardie reserved her opening statement.

Murray was initially charged with the attack on the Mercedes owner, with prosecutors subsequently filing additional charges against him, including attempted murder of the two deputies.

Authorities said the Compton resident is an

ex-con with prior convictions including firearm possession by a felon or addict, burglary and criminal threats.

Apolinar was praised for helping her wounded partner despite her own injuries, with thenDistrict Attorney Jackie Lacey calling her actions “heroic.” The deputy was subsequently honored with the 2021 American Legion, Department of California’s Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for Valor award.

Investigation continues into fatal airplane crash at Van Nuys Airport

By City News Service

An investigation was continuing Thursday into the cause of a plane crash at Van Nuys Airport that killed two men aboard the single-engine Cessna.

Firefighters were sent to the airport in the 16300 block of West Waterman Drive at 10:37 a.m. Wednes-

day, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department.

“One small singleengine aircraft crashed at Van Nuys Airport and burst into flames,” the LAFD said in a statement. “Fire crews quickly extinguished the flames, but, sadly, both occupants on board were found to be deceased.”

Information was not immediately available on the identities of the two men who died.

In a news briefing at the airport Wednesday afternoon, LAFD Captain Erik Scott said the plane hit the ground “nose first” in a “very high impact” crash.

Firefighters from a

nearby fire station were on scene quickly and used foam in an effort to douse the intense flames from aviation fuel, Scott said.

Airport Police Captain Karla Rodriguez told reporters that an airport police officer witnessed the crash from a short distance away.

Runway 16-R was closed

for about 30 minutes, but Runway 16-L remained open, Rodriguez said, adding that there were no major impacts to airport operations.

“A single-engine CSA SportCruiser crashed at Van Nuys Airport in Los Angeles around 10:40 a.m. local time on Wednesday, August

2,” the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement.

“Two people were on board,” the FAA said. “The FAA and National Transportation Safety Board will investigate. The NTSB will be in charge of the investigation and will provide further updates.”

Second deposition sought of LAPD officer who allegedly fired rubber bullet

By City News Service

Attorneys for a man who says he was shot in the back of the head with a rubber bullet by Los Angeles police during a 2020 protest against the killing of George Floyd want a judge to allow them to further depose the officer who fired the weapon, arguing that the officer’s lawyer blocked key questions during the first session.

According to plaintiff Randall Stewart’s attorneys’ court papers, on May 30, 2020, the plaintiff and other protesters marched down Gardner Street, turned west on Third Street, and eventually stopped near Fairfax Avenue. When the protesters refused to vacate as the officers demanded, Officer

Bryan Dameworth of the Los Angeles Police Department began telling them to “leave the (epithet) area” while shooting rubber bullets into the crowd, one of which struck Stewart in the head, causing him severe and permanent injuries.

The allegations in the Los Angeles Superior Court suit were originally filed in March 2021 and recently expanded with additional claims, including assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil rights violations.

On Wednesday, Stewart’s lawyers filed court papers with Judge Daniel S. Murphy seeking a second round of deposition questions with Dameworth. According to the plaintiff’s attorneys,

during the first session on July 19, Dameworth’s counsel directed him not to answer questions posed to him about whether his actions conformed with his training in the use of the 40mm launcher, nor whether the protest started out peacefully.

“The record of deposition is replete with examples of unnecessary interruptions, testimonial statements by defendant’s counsel and coaching of the witness,” Stewart’s attorneys allege in their court papers.

Rather than continue with the deposition and continue to be interrupted, Stewart’s attorney suspended the questioning after more than three hours in order to seek an instruc-

tion limiting the defense attorney’s interruptions, according to the plaintiff’s lawyer’s court papers, which also state that they seek the appointment of a third-

party referee to oversee the remainder of the deposition.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Aug. 28.

Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek

Chauvin was convicted in April 2021 of murder in Floyd’s May 25, 2020, death and was sentenced in June 2021 to more than 22 years in prison.

| Photo courtesy of Rawpixel

Deputy Claudia Apolinar. | Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department/Facebook

Editorial editorial@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com

Graphics/Production production@beaconmedianews.com production@hlrmedia.com

Advertising advertising@beaconmedianews.com advertising@hlrmedia.com

Legal Advertising legals@beaconmedianews.com legals@hlrmedia.com

Business accounting@beaconmedianews.com accounting@hlrmedia.com

BEACON MEDIA ADDRESS: 125 E. Chestnut Ave., Monrovia, CA 91016 PHONE: (626) 301-1010 WEBSITE www.beaconmedianews.com

HLR MEDIA ADDRESS: 820 S. Myrtle Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016 PHONE: (626) 301-1010 www.HLRmedia.com

PRESS RELEASE SUBMISSIONS editor@beaconmedianews.com editor@hlrmedia.com

Lizzo fires back at harassment, hostile work environment allegations

The Arcadia Weeklyhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 004333 for the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Monrovia Weeklyhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of General Circulation in Court Case GS 004759 City of Monrovia, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Temple City Tribunehas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 012440 City of Temple City, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The El Monte Examinerhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS 015872 City of El Monte, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Azusa Beaconhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS 015970 City of Azusa, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The San Gabriel Sunhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 013808 City of San Gabriel, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Duarte Dispatchhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 013893 City of Duarte, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Rosemead Readerhas been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number GS 048894 City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Alhambra Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016581 City of Alhambra, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Baldwin Park Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS017174 City of Baldwin Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Burbank Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016728 City of Burbank, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Glendale Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016579 City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Monterey Park Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES016580 City of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The West Covina Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number KS017304 City of West Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The San Bernardino Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number CIVDS 1506881 City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California.

The Riverside Independent has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number RIC1505351 City of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California.

The Pasadena Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number ES018815 City of Pasadena, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Belmont Beacon has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number NSO30275 City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Anaheim Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number 30-2017-00942735-CU-PT-CJC City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California.

The Ontario News Press has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation in court case number CIVDS 1506881 City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, State of California. The Corona News

GDrammy-winning singer Lizzo fired back Thursday against allegations by three former backup dancers who accused her and her production company of harassment and hostile working conditions, calling the accusations “unbelievable” and “outrageous.”

“Usually I choose not to respond to false allegations but these are as unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous not to be addressed,” Lizzo wrote on her Instagram page. “These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.

As an artist I have always been very passionate about what I do. I take my music and my performances seriously because at the end of the day I only want to put out the best art that represents me and my fans. With passion comes hard work and high standards. Sometimes I have to make hard decisions but it’s never my intention to make anyone feel uncomfortable or like they aren’t valued as an important part of the team.”

The singer’s comments came two days after three former backup dancers filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court saying they endured sexual harassment, a hostile work environment and even weight-shaming at the hands of Lizzo and the Big Grrrls Big Touring company.

“The stunning nature of how Lizzo and her management team treated their performers seems to go against everything Lizzo

stands for publicly, while privately she weight-shames her dancers and demeans them in ways that are not only illegal but absolutely demoralizing,” the dancers’ attorney Ron Zambrano said in a statement announcing the legal action by Crystal Williams, Arianna Davis and Noelle Rodriguez.

According to the lawsuit, Davis and Williams met Lizzo in March 2021 while preparing to be contestants on the singer’s reality show, “Lizzo’s Watch Out for the Big Grrrls.” They also then met Shirlene Quigley, a judge on the show and the dance team captain. Quigley is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Quigley routinely preached her Christian religious beliefs to the defendants, and when she found out that Davis was a virgin, Quigley would routinely bring it up in conversations and even discussed it in interviews that were later posted to social media, “broadcasting an intensely personal detail ... to the world.”

Rodriguez was hired in May 2021 to appear in Lizzo’s “Rumors” music video.

Once the three plaintiffs were chosen as backup dancers for Lizzo, Quigley continued to preach Christianity while deriding premarital sex and routinely discussing her sex life with her husband, according to the suit.

During a February 2023 tour stop in Amsterdam, Lizzo invited the dancers to the Red Light District and took them to a bar that featured nude performers, according to the suit. The

complaint alleges that Lizzo invited dancers to touch and interact with the nude performers in a sexually charged atmosphere, then pressured Davis to touch the breasts of one of the nude female performers, to which Davis eventually acquiesced, fearing it might affect her job if she didn’t.

The suit also contends Lizzo took dancers and crew to a nude cabaret bar in Paris the following week.

The plaintiffs also allege that the management of Big Grrrl Big Touring treated Black members of the team differently, accusing them of “being lazy, unprofessional and having bad attitudes.”

According to the suit, Lizzo and another choreographer confronted Davis in an April 2023 conversation that included questions that were “thinly veiled concerns about Ms. Davis’ weight gain, which Lizzo had previously called attention to after noticing it at the South by Southwest music festival.”

The suit alleges that Williams was fired under the guise of budget cuts, while Davis was fired in May 2023 for recording a meeting the dancers had with Lizzo about their performances. Rodriguez quit after seeing Williams and Davis get fired, prompting what the lawsuit describes as an angry response from Lizzo.

“Lizzo aggressively approached Ms. Rodriguez, cracking her knuckles, balling her fists, and exclaiming, `You’re lucky. You’re so (expletive) lucky!”’ the suit states. “Ms. Rodriguez feared that Lizzo intended to hit her and would have done so if one of the other dancers had not intervened.”

The suit seeks unspecified damages. In her statement Thursday, Lizzo -- whose real name is Melissa Jefferson -- insisted she is “not the villain that people and the media have portrayed me to be.”

“I am very open with my sexuality and expressing myself but I cannot accept of allow people to use that openness to make me out to be something I am not,” she wrote. “There is nothing I take more seriously than the respect we deserve as women in the world. I know what it feels like to be body shamed on a daily basis and would absolutely never criticize or terminate an employee because of their weight. I’m hurt but I will not let the good work I’ve done in the world be overshadowed by this. I want to thank everyone who has reached out in support to lift me up during this difficult time.”

In response to Lizzo’s statement, Zambrano — the plaintiffs’ attorney — said the singer’s remarks only add to the women’s “emotional distress.”

“The dismissive comments and utter lack of empathy are quite telling about her character and only serve to minimize the trauma she has caused the plaintiffs and other employees who have now come forward sharing their own negative experiences,” he said in a statement. “While Lizzo notes it was never her intention `to make anyone feel uncomfortable,’ that is exactly what she did to the point of demoralizing her dancers and flagrantly violating the law.”

Lizzo performing in 2018. | Photo courtesy of David Lee/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)

ASAP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC is seeking an Accountant to inspect account books and accounting systems for efficiency and use of accepted accounting procedures. Position requires a Master’s Degree in Accounting or related, Knowledge of financial accounting and etc. Interested applicants can mail resume with code ASAP23 to:

ASAP International Holdings Inc., 81 N Mentor Ave, Pasadena, CA 91106.

New to investing? Here’s what you need to know

Understandingthe basics of investing is an essential first step toward building a strong financial foundation, but many people don’t know where to get started. Here are five concepts that can be helpful for new investors to grasp:

1. If you are young, time is on your side

Building wealth through investing is not about getting rich quickly. Rather, it’s about taking advantage of what works best for your circumstances. If you have recently entered the workforce, your biggest advantage is time. Earnings generated in your portfolio, even if modest in the beginning, can compound over time. The more time you give your money to grow, the greater the potential for growth over the long haul.

2. Be prepared for market swings

Any variable investment you choose – such as stocks, bonds or real estate – is subject to fluctuation. History shows that markets move up and down over time. Be prepared to see your portfolio suffer losses at various points throughout your investing life. Historically, markets have recovered from negative periods (although in some circumstances, individual investments such as a specific stock can suffer losses and never recover). Try to maintain a longterm view with your investments by not reacting to day-to-day events.

3. Find your comfort level in the markets

Markets are unpredictable, so it’s important that you’re intentional about the level of risk

you’re willing to accept. If you have a lower risk tolerance, you can choose investments that are less susceptible to fluctuations but be sure to consider the effects of inflation eating into your rate of return. On the other hand, if you have a higher risk tolerance and you can stomach watching your portfolio fluctuate more widely in value, you may want to pursue investments that offer potentially higher returns.

But remember, there are no guarantees. The key is to find a level of risk you can live with over the longterm and invest accordingly.

4. Spread your wealth through asset allocation

Asset allocation is the process of spreading your investment dollars across several categories of investments. The mix of categories, or asset classes, you own is an important factor in your overall portfolio performance. In other words, how you divide your money between stocks, bonds, cash, cash alternatives, mutual funds, and other asset classes will determine the outcome, and hopefully return, you realize.

As you select your investments, consider dividing your money among asset classes that respond differently to market forces. This investment concept, called diversification, can help you minimize the effect of market swings. If your investments in one class are performing poorly, investments in another class may be performing better. Ideally, gains in one class can help offset losses in another, which

can help minimize the overall impact of volatility on your portfolio.

5. Make your longterm financial security a priority

It can be challenging to focus on the longterm when you have other pressing financial obligations, such as paying off student loans or building an emergency fund. However, if you can allocate a small portion of your budget to your future goals, you may ease your financial burden down the road. Consider investing a percentage of each paycheck into a workplace retirement plan or an individual retirement account (IRA). You’ll become accustomed to living within the rest of your paycheck while the amount you have earmarked for retirement is given time to grow. If your company offers a match on those savings, be sure to take advantage of it.

A successful investor maximizes gain and minimizes loss. Though there can be no guarantee that any investment strategy will be effective, and all investing involves risk, these basic principles can help you strategically build your nest egg over time.

Jean D. Koehler, CLTC®, RICP®, CKA®, CRPC®, is a Financial Advisor with Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC. in Arcadia, CA. She specializes in fee-based financial planning and asset management strategies and has been in practice for 23 years. To contact her, please visit https://www.ameripriseadvisors.com/jean.d.koehler/ or call 626-254-0455. 55 East Huntington Drive Suite 340 Arcadia, CA 91006.

Photo courtesy of Jean D. Koehler

Judge agrees to hear from 3 women in Danny Masterson rape case

By City News Service

The judge in Danny Masterson’s trial agreed Friday to hear victim impact statements from two of the women whom the “That ‘70s Show” actor was convicted of raping, along with a woman named in a charge that was dismissed last month after two separate juries deadlocked on that count.

Superior Court Judge Charlaine F. Olmedo said she will allow Masterson’s defense team to make further arguments at the next court appearance Aug. 21 about whether she should hear the victim impact statement from the third alleged victim — a former longtime girlfriend of Masterson — in the dismissed count.

The judge rejected the prosecution’s request to allow three other women, including two who had testified about alleged uncharged crimes, to speak during Masterson’s Sept. 7 sentencing in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom.

Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller had argued that there was a “great societal impact” in allowing all of the women to speak at Masterson’s sentencing, saying that such statements “can resonate with the other

victims of sexual assault that are out there.”

One of Masterson’s attorneys, Shawn Holley, objected to the judge hearing from any of the other alleged victims, saying that the judge should only hear from the two women involving counts on which Masterson was convicted.

The judge is also set at the Aug. 21 hearing to hear arguments over whether the count that’s already been dismissed will be done with prejudice or without — the latter of which would allow prosecutors to potentially refile that charge in the future.

The 47-year-old actor was convicted May 31 of a pair of rape charges involving two women at his Hollywood Hills home roughly two decades ago, and was taken into custody shortly after the jury’s verdict. He is facing a maximum sentence of 30 years to life in state prison.

Jurors deadlocked on a rape charge involving a former longtime girlfriend of Masterson’s.

The jury was the second to hear the case against Masterson, who was charged in 2020 with three counts of rape by force or fear involving the three women on separate occasions.

During the first trial last

year, jurors leaned in favor of acquittal on all three counts — voting 10-2 on one count, 8-4 on another and 7-5 on the third — but they were unable to reach a unanimous decision, leading to a mistrial being declared on Nov. 30.

Prosecutors confirmed in January that they wanted to retry the actor, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo rejected a defense effort to have the charges dismissed.

In his closing argument of the retrial, Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller told the jury, “This defendant drugged and raped each one of these victims. ... It is time to hold Mr. Masterson accountable for what he has done.”

Defense attorney Philip Kent Cohen urged jurors during his closing argument to acquit his client, questioning the credibility of the women.

In his rebuttal argument, Mueller said the three women were — like Masterson — members of the Church of Scientology, and told jurors that the church retaliated against them.

“What happened after they were drugged — they were raped by this man over here,” the prosecutor said,

pointing across the courtroom at Masterson. “You have an opportunity to show there is justice. It does exist.”

But Cohen questioned why the panel had heard “so much about Scientology,” asking jurors if there could be problems with the government’s case against Masterson.

Masterson’s lawyer said he was not alleging that there was some “grand conspiracy” against his client, but told jurors the alleged victims had spoken with each other despite an LAPD detective’s admonition and that their accounts have been tweaked throughout the years.

He said there was no forensic evidence to support the prosecution’s contention that the alleged victims’ drinks had been drugged by Masterson.

Outside the jury’s presence, the judge rejected Cohen’s requests for either a mistrial, another chance to argue before the jury or a special jury instruction as a result of the prosecution’s repeated references to the women allegedly being drugged.

The Church of Scientology issued a statement criticizing the prosecution’s characterizations of the church’s

actions.

“The church has no policy prohibiting or discouraging members from reporting criminal conduct of anyone, Scientologists or not, to law enforcement,” according to the statement. “Quite the opposite, church policy explicitly demands Scientologists abide by all laws of the land. All allegations to the contrary are totally false.”

A civil suit filed in August 2019 against Masterson and the Church of Scientology by the three women involved in the criminal case and one woman who was not a member of the church alleges they were stalked and harassed after reporting sexual assault allegations against the actor to Los

Angeles police. Regarding the lawsuit, the Church of Scientology issued a statement saying, “The church denies the allegations of harassment as obvious, cynical and self-serving fictions, and the church knows it will be vindicated.”

In December 2017, Netflix announced that Masterson had been fired from the Emmy-winning scripted comedy “The Ranch” amid sexual assault allegations. The actor said then he was “very disappointed,” and added that “it seems as if you are presumed guilty the moment you are accused.” He also “denied the outrageous allegations” and said he looked forward to “clearing my name once and for all.”

Danny Masterson. | Photo courtesy of Mitchell Weinstock/ Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Navy sailors from SoCal allegedly sold info to Chinese intelligence

By City News Service

ANavy sailor from Monterey Park was in federal custody Thursday for allegedly receiving bribes in exchange for sending sensitive military information, including plans for a large-scale U.S. military exercise in the Indo-Pacific region and diagrams and blueprints for a radar system, to a Chinese intelligence officer.

Petty Officer Wenheng Zhao, 26, also known as Thomas Zhao, was arrested Wednesday and is expected to be arraigned Thursday afternoon in downtown Los Angeles. Zhao was working at Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

A second sailor based in San Diego was arrested on similar charges, but it’s unclear if the cases are related.

The indictment alleges that Zhao, who held a security clearance, received bribes from a Chinese intelligence officer in exchange for disclosing nonpublic, sensitive military information.

Federal prosecutors allege that beginning in August 2021 and continuing through at least May of this year, Zhao sent U.S. military information, photographs and videos to the Chinese intelligence officer.

In exchange for bribes,

Zhao allegedly sent the intelligence officer operational plans for a largescale U.S. military exercise in the Indo-Pacific Region, detailing the specific location and timing of Naval movements, amphibious landings, maritime operations and logistics support, according to the indictment.

He also allegedly photographed electrical diagrams and blueprints for a radar system stationed on a U.S. military base in Okinawa, Japan.

Prosecutors contend Zhao obtained and transmitted details about the Navy’s operational security at the Naval Base in Ventura County and on San Clemente Island, including photographs and videos.

The intelligence officer directed Zhao to conceal their relationship and to destroy evidence of the scheme, prosecutors allege.

In exchange for the information Zhao provided — information he accessed as a result of his position within the U.S. Navy — the Chinese intelligence officer paid Zhao about $14,866, the indictment alleges.

“By sending this sensitive military information to an intelligence officer employed by a hostile foreign state, the defendant betrayed his sacred oath to protect our country and uphold the Consti-

tution,” U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada said in a statement. “Unlike the vast majority of U.S. Navy personnel who serve the nation with honor, distinction and courage, Mr. Zhao chose to corruptly sell out his colleagues and his country.”

Donald Alway, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, said that by “accepting cash bribes from a hostile nation whose leaders are intent on stealing American secrets, Zhao betrayed his military oath and sold out his country while he brazenly put Americans and our servicemen at risk.”

Zhao’s alleged actions “are a reminder that American citizens with access to state secrets or intellectual property are being targeted by the Chinese government,” Alway added. “The FBI will continue to seek out such behavior with our partners and hold offenders accountable.”

If he were to be convicted of the two counts in the indictment, Zhao would face up to 20 years in federal prison, prosecutors noted.

San Diego sailor arrested for allegedly selling defense information to China

A U.S. Navy sailor based out of San Diego has been indicted on espionagerelated charges for allegedly

sending sensitive military information to China, it was announced Thursday.

Jinchao Wei, 22, also known as Patrick Wei, is accused of accepting thousands of dollars from a Chinese intelligence officer in exchange for information concerning “the defense and weapon capabilities of U.S. Navy ships, potential vulnerabilities of these ships, and information related to ship movement,” according to a grand jury indictment.

Prosecutors allege he also provided the officer with photographs of military hardware and details about an upcoming maritime warfare exercise involving U.S. Marines.

Wei, who was assigned

as a machinist’s mate on the USS Essex, was arrested Wednesday at Naval Base San Diego.

U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman said Wei’s prosecution represents the first time an espionage-related charge has been filed against someone in the Southern District of California.

Grossman said that per the indictment, Wei was approached by a Chinese intelligence officer while his application to become a U.S. citizen was pending.

“Wei admitted to his handler that he knew this activity would be viewed as spying and could affect his pending citizenship application,” Grossman said. “Whether it was greed or for some other reason,

Taylor Swift takeover of Inglewood starts with pre-performance merch sale

By City News Service

The long-awaited Taylor Swift mini-residency at SoFi Stadium finally began Thursday, although hundreds of people lined up at the Inglewood venue Wednesday for a chance at buying Eras Tour merchandise before the shows even got started.

The pre-event merchandise sale began at 10 a.m. at the Lake Park adjacent to SoFi Stadium and continued until 7 p.m. The merchandise stands also opened from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Sunday, an off day in Swift’s six-night schedule at SoFi.

As of this writing additional performances of the Eras Tour at SoFi were set for Friday, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Tickets were highly coveted, and stadium officials warned

the public that people who don’t have tickets should not bother coming to the venue, thinking they can listen to the music by standing nearby or just hoping to soak up the atmosphere.

According to the stadium’s website, no one is permitted to remain in the parking lots or outside the stadium once the show has started, and only ticketed guests can access the venue.

On-site parking is very limited, and concert-goers are urged to purchase spots in advance, although most may be already sold out.

Metro officials urged Swift fans to take mass transit to the concerts to avoid the parking hassle. Additional bus and train service is being offered on show nights to help people

get to and from the stadium.

Fans can take the recently opened Metro K Line to the Downtown Inglewood Station and ride a free shuttle bus to SoFi. The shuttle will run from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. before each show, then 90 minutes after the concert ends. Riders can take the E (Expo) Line to the Expo/Crenshaw Station then transfer to the K Line.

Fans coming from the South Bay or other locations can take the C (Green) Line to the Hawthorne/ Lennox Station, where a free shuttle will also be provided during the same hours.

For out-of-town fans who may be staying at hotels near Los Angeles International Airport, the Metro 117 bus is acces-

sible from multiple stops on Century Boulevard and can be ridden to the Century/ Yukon station adjacent to the stadium. The bus will run until 90 minutes after the concert.

Metro plans to have agency staffers, ambassadors and additional security personnel present at multiple stations to help Swift fans who may be unfamiliar with the train system. Additional staffing will be available at the Expo/Crenshaw Station (for the E and K lines), the K Line Downtown Inglewood Station, the C Line Norwalk and Hawthorne/Lennox stations, and the Seventh/ Metro Center Station downtown, which serves the A (Blue), B (Red), D (Purple) and E lines.

Wei allegedly chose to turn his back on his newly adopted country and enter a conspiracy with his Chinese handler.”

The indictment alleges that beginning last year, Wei transmitted “documents, sketches, plans, notes, and other information” to the handler, who instructed Wei to destroy any evidence substantiating their relationship. Some of the information he allegedly sent included technical data for the USS Essex and other amphibious assault ships. Wei’s arrest coincided with the arrest of Zhao.

Officials declined to comment on whether both sailors were communicating with the same intelligence officer.

Wenheng Zhao participates in a military exercise in 2019 at Fort Hunter Liggett near Jolon, California. | Photo courtesy of Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michael Lopez/U.S. Navy

A custom Rams Taylor Swift jersey was the prize in a giveaway contest on Twitter. | Photo courtesy of SoFi Stadium/Twitter

The US is involved in 15 ‘shadow wars’: Here’s where and why

Theever-expanding Americanmilitary footprint covers nearly every continent. While the United States has long had a military presence in other nations, the scope significantly expanded following the passage of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force — which, in the wake of 9/11, permitted the support of foreign forces against various terrorist groups. The U.S. has since had 173,000 troops deployed in 159 countries as of 2020 and currently maintains at least 750 foreign military bases across 80 countries, according to the Conflict Management and Peace Science journal.

As the top military power in the world, according to the Global Firepower index, the U.S. has a vested interest in the national security of countries across the globe. In situations that do not warrant combative military intervention or would threaten relations with allies, the government may oversee or aid more minor disputes within countries, such as counterterrorism efforts. This type of involvement is known as a “shadow war,” a somewhat covert military operation conducted on behalf of a smaller power.

Stacker compiled a list of 15 “shadow wars” the U.S. is currently involved in and how those conflicts began, using various news, government and investigative sources.

Yemen

The U.S. has supported the Yemen government against terrorist organizations — including the Islamic State, or ISIS and al-Qaeda — since the country’s civil war began in 2014. According to the World Bank, this civil war has prompted one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. In February 2023, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $444 million in humanitarian aid to the region, bringing the United States’ total assistance to $5.4 billion.

Russia

The U.S. has provided military assistance to Ukraine since Russia invaded the country in February 2022. However, such support has been strategically targeted to avoid further escalating tensions with Russia. For example, the White House is reportedly reluctant to send advanced equipment to Ukraine, such as fighter jets that could instigate deadlier conflict. Since January 2021, the U.S. has provided Ukraine with $42 billion in security assistance for equipment such as aircraft systems, ammunition and more.

Syria

Since 2014, the U.S. has engaged in efforts to destabilize terrorist groups in Syria, including deploying nearly 900 U.S. troops. American support of the region began with the pro-democracy protests of the Arab Spring of 2011. During that time, the Syrian government’s destabilization led to a civil war. To this day, the U.S. continues providing military intelligence, surveillance, and air support.

Cameroon

Cameroon is one of 11 African nations with which the U.S. is engaged in military activity under Operation Juniper Shield, a military operation supporting the Global War on Terror. The campaign targets terrorist organizations Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa. The U.S. has provided Cameroon with nearly $67 million in support of counterterrorist missions, including intelligence and reconnaissance, and $10 million to bolster its national security.

Iraq

The Iraq War officially ended in December 2011, but U.S. troops returned to the region in 2014 to support counterterrorism operations. Military support aims to prevent and suppress the resurgence of ISIS in the area. Approximately 2,500 American troops remain in the region as of March 2023, providing instruction and assistance to Iraqi troops.

By Colleen Kilday, Stacker

Egypt

The U.S. has maintained a military presence in Egypt since 1978 to enforce the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. The U.S. has provided more than $50 billion in military aid to the country. American troops have recently taken a more active role in the nation’s national security by partnering with the Egyptian military in Enigma Hunter, a counterterrorist effort targeting ISIS.

Kenya

The U.S. maintains a military task force in Kenya in opposition to threats posed by the terrorist organization al-Shabaab. In 2020, the group launched an attack on a Kenyan military base in Manda Bay, where American troops were providing training, resulting in the deaths of an American soldier and two contractors. As of 2021, the Department of Defense funds $69 million in regional projects aimed toward counterterrorism measures.

Lebanon

American and Lebanese militaries have joined forces in opposition to Lebanonbased terrorist organizations, including ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Since 2012, the U.S. has provided the region with $2 billion in humanitarian aid, including $72 million specifically to increase the wages of the Lebanese Army and police forces.

Libya

American forces have

been engaged in several military operations in Libya since the 2012 Benghazi attack, which resulted in the deaths of a U.S. ambassador and two CIA contractors, instigating a campaign geared toward improving the safety of American diplomats. The U.S. has launched drone strikes against the region’s terrorist groups since 2020.

Mali

Mali is another of the 11 African countries with which the U.S. has engaged in Operation Juniper Shield. To combat terrorist organizations in the region — including al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram — the U.S. provides training and equipment to Mali military groups. The country is also the site of Operation Objective Voice, an antipropaganda information campaign.

Mauritania

Mauritania is another African country within the scope of the counterterrorism campaign Operation Juniper Shield. The country is also site to a base partially involved in the anti-propaganda campaign Operation Objective Voice. Additionally, during an annual event known as Exercise Flintlock, the U.S. provides the country with military training support in partnership with Canada and some European countries.

Niger

The U.S. provides counterterrorism support in numerous military campaigns currently

operating within Niger, including Juniper Shield, Jukebox Lotus and Objective Voice. The U.S. officially opened Niger Air Base 201 in 2019, serving as a base for American troops to operate drones and some small aircraft for military missions. The airfield cost approximately $110 million to construct.

Nigeria

The U.S. government maintains a steady military presence in Nigeria, supporting Operation Juniper Shield and Operation Objective Voice. The African nation has long been a military ally of the U.S., and in 2022, the White House approved the controversial selling of $1 billion in arms to the country. American support of the country dates back nearly two decades. Since 2000, the U.S. has provided over 41,000 training courses to Nigerian military personnel.

Somalia

Over the past decade, the U.S. government has provided $3 billion to Somalia in the fight against

terrorist groups al-Shabaab and ISIS. Aid given thus far also includes combat raids and military training and equipment. Under the Trump administration American troops withdrew from Somalia, leading al-Shabaab to regain its grip on the region. However, the group’s presence waned amid the return of U.S. troops under the Biden administration.

Afghanistan

Though American troops withdrew from Afghanistan in February 2020, the CIA remains involved in the region. Specifically, the agency is monitoring developments concerning the Taliban’s takeover of the area at sites located in Pakistan. Additionally, some American troops remain on guard at the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

Story editing by Brian Budzynski, copy editing by Paris Close, photo selection by Clarese Moller. Republished pursuant to a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This article was copy edited from its original version.

A U.S. soldier chats with members of Cameroon’s military. | Photo courtesy of Nipah Dennis/Getty Images/Stacker

| Photo courtesy of USAF/Getty Images/Stacker

| Photo courtesy of Delil Souleiman/Getty Images/Stacker

OC federal judge paved the way for Trump indictment, profs say

By Paul Anderson, City News Service

Afederal judge in Santa Ana likely had a hand in former Chapman University Law School Dean John Eastman’s identification as “Co-Conspirator 2” in the election fraud indictment to which ex-President Donald Trump pleaded not guilty Thursday, two Orange County professors told City News Service.

In January 2022, Eastman sued to stop Chapman University, where he resigned his position a year earlier, from releasing thousands of his emails on the university’s computer server to the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol.

In March of last year, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter made a rare legal ruling allowing some documents for which Eastman claimed attorney-client and work-product privileges to be turned over to the congressional committee. Carter ruled that the privilege claims could be overcome by a “crime-fraud exception,” because the federal judge found enough evidence in the civil proceeding to show Eastman and Trump engaged in criminal behavior.

UC Irvine political science professor and attorney Tony Smith told City News Service it was possible that special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed to investigate Trump, happened to come to the same conclusion based on the evidence and law.

“It’s either really good legal minds looking at the same law walking the same path,” Smith said. “But given that the ruling

from Judge Carter is part of the whole package of stuff Jack Smith would have had, it’s also not at all a stretch to see that Carter cleared the pathway and showed the way to go, even if Jack Smith would have come up with the same beliefs and understanding. This probably presented a shortcut to him.”

Chapman University law professor Mario Mainero, who has written a textbook on evidence, said Eastman and his attorneys ironically got themselves in the legal trouble with the way they handled the issue before Carter.

“It was not the smartest lawyering in the world by the folks representing Eastman,” Mainero said.

“They baited the judge into finding that. ... You had a batch of evidence that basically kind of baited the judge into releasing it by making the finding that he did.”

In the run-up to Carter’s ruling, the attorneys representing the congressional committee were offering an easier way out for the federal judge, with technical arguments that Eastman had waived privilege and violated university policy by working for a political candidate, so he should have no expectation of privacy. Carter brushed off that argument and sided instead with the congressional committee’s claim that fraud was committed.

“Eastman really pushed it, saying, hey, you need to find a crime fraud exception and you can’t find that, but, of course, Carter did,” Mainero said.

Mainero emphasized, however, that the standard of proof Carter was dealing with was preponderance

of the evidence, not the reasonable doubt standard in criminal courts that Smith will have to prove at trial.

“It’s a completely different standard,” Mainero said. “I assume the emails that were disclosed for the (congressional) hearings based on the Carter ruling might be evidence. But there has to be a lot more evidence and some of it was suggested in the indictment.”

Eastman is not named in the indictment, but it quotes Eastman’s speech before a crowd which included hundreds of Trump supporters who subsequently marched to the Capitol and were charged with various crimes in the riots that delayed the certification of President Joe Biden’s election.

Carter’s ruling “makes the job easier because (Smith) got a lot of emails he otherwise wouldn’t have gotten, but that’s only some of the evidence,” Mainero said. “I don’t know if Carter’s finding presaged this (indictment) neces-

sarily. The reality is this — you’re not supposed to indict based on anything other than a belief a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt. ... Freeing the emails is the more significant thing. ... But to my mind Carter’s finding had political value as well of course.”

The emails are “evidence of the agreement to essentially try to overturn the election by utilizing some of these ridiculous legal arguments,” Mainero said.

Smith and Mainero said the indictment does not yet charge any of the six alleged co-conspirators, in an effort to streamline the attempt to put Trump on trial.

“One reason is what I think is a fruitless one — that one or two of them will flip,” Mainero said. “But the second one is they could be named in a separate indictment, and where that helps is it can be a separate case. If you indict all seven that thing with all those lawyers will be tied up for years. The clean case is just against Donald Trump.”

It also makes it more

difficult for Eastman to cite the Fifth Amendment, for instance, Mainero said.

Mainero said it is likely that if Trump is elected president again, Jack Smith would be fired and prosecutors directed to dismiss the cases.

Smith said an unindicted co-conspirator will be given “an opportunity to flip and cooperate, but once indicted it is infinitely harder to cut that deal. Also, you lose credibility as a witness once they’re indicted.”

Smith said he expects that Eastman, who is in the process of a disbarment hearing that started last month, will lose his law license.

“He should be disbarred for just the frivolous lawsuits” challenging the election results, Smith said. “That’s enough to get disbarred.”

But Smith added that Eastman “spends whatever intellectual capital he has to try to overthrow the government. It is shocking. He is a traitor by any measure. And he’s not even

a good one. ... If he were a first-year law student he would fail his classes because he’s driven by the outcome he wants, not the actual arguments.”

Eastman’s attorney Charles Burnham issued a statement following the indictment accusing federal prosecutors of using “heretofore obscure federal statutes to indict its leading political opponent in multiple jurisdictions.”

Burnham said the indictment “relies on a misleading presentation of the record to contrive criminal charges against presidential candidate Trump and to cast ominous aspersions on his close advisers. ... With respect to questions as to whether Dr. Eastman is involved in plea bargaining, the answer is no. But if he were invited to plea bargain with either state or federal prosecutors, he would decline. The fact is, if Dr. Eastman is indicted, he will go to trial. If convicted, he will appeal. The Eastman legal team is confident of its legal position in this matter.”

Report: Majority of young people want stricter gun laws

By Suzanne Potter, Producer, Public News Service

Some 74% of young people in the U.S. believe gun violence is a problem, and almost 60% want to see stricter gun laws, according to a new report from American University, the Everytown for Gun Safety and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Researchers polled a nationally representative sample of more than 4,100

people, ages 14 to 30.

Wyatt Russell, senior program manager and policy analyst with the Polarization & Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University in Washington, D.C., said this generation - raised in an era where mass shootings are ubiquitous - says school safety is a major concern and is associated with negative mental

health outcomes.

“The average young person knows at least one other person who’s been injured or killed by a gun,” Russell pointed out. “We’ve seen an astonishingly high 25% of youth have been in an active shooter lockdown. Not a drill. A lockdown.”

A study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found gun violence was

the leading cause of death for kids in 2020 and 2021, more than any other type of injury or illness, which is the highest rate in the world among large, wealthy nations. Opponents of stricter gun laws cite concerns about personal freedom and self-defense.

Russell noted the survey found that a young person’s access to guns, identification with gun

culture and exposure to media relating to guns correlated with support for male supremacy, belief that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to overthrow the government, higher levels of racial resentment and post-traumatic stress disorders.

“We’re working to develop some inoculation strategies to help

young people stop harmful myths and disinformation, conspiratorial thinking, and supremacist ideologies that can influence gun violence,” Russell explained. “More specifically, extremist violence, as well.”

Among the young people surveyed, 40% said they have “somewhat easy” access to a gun, and 21% reported having “very easy” access.

Mario Mainero, Chapman University law professor, left, and UC Irvine law professor and attorney Tony Smith. | Photos courtesy of Chapman University/Twitter; UC Irvine

Study: Field sobriety tests may be insufficient for DUI cases involving THC

By City News Service

The use of field sobriety tests to determine if a driver is under the influence of THC may be effective in certain situations but may not be enough to determine impairment on their own, a report from UC San Diego researchers revealed Wednesday.

Cannabis and its most potent psychoactive component, tetrahydrocannabinol -- or THC -- is known to impair reaction time, decision- making, coordination and perception. In the last three years, California has seen a 62% increase in the number of fatal crashes involving drug-related impairment, the UCSD researchers said.

However, unlike the association of blood alcohol concentrations with impairment, THC blood concentrations do not correlate with driving performance, researchers found. Law enforcement officers instead rely on behavioral tests to determine a driver’s

level of impairment -- tests that were primarily created based on alcohol ingestion.

In the study published in Wednesday’s JAMA Psychiatry, researchers at UCSD’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research performed a doubleblind, placebo- controlled randomized clinical trial to evaluate how accurate field sobriety tests are in identifying drivers under the influence of THC.

“Driving is a complex task that requires intact attention and motor skills to stay safe,” said first author Thomas Marcotte, professor of psychiatry at UCSD School of Medicine and co-director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research. “While cannabis can be impairing, the effects vary for each individual. There is thus a public health need to confirm that evaluations of impairment are effective and unbiased, and this study is an important step

towards that goal.”

The study included 184 adult cannabis users between the ages of 21 and 55. During the experiment, 63 participants received a placebo cannabis cigarette while 121 participants received a THC cannabis cigarette. Participants who consumed the THC reported a median “highness” level of 64 on a scale of 0 to 100, suggesting the content was sufficient to achieve significant intoxication.

Trained law enforcement officers then performed field sobriety tests at four different time intervals, roughly one, two, three and four hours after smoking.

The results found that officers classified a significantly higher proportion of participants in the THC group as being impaired based on the field sobriety tests compared to the placebo group at three of the four time points

measured. For example, one hour after smoking, they labeled 98 participants (81%) from the THC group as being impaired based on their performance, and 31 participants (49%) from the placebo group.

But regardless of whether the test subjects received THC or placebo, officers suspected that 99% of those who failed the tests had received THC.

Study participants also completed a driving simulation, and their performance was “significantly associated with the results of select field sobriety tests,” though officers were not privy to this information, the researchers wrote.

The researchers concluded that existing field sobriety tests “may be sensitive enough” to detect those under the influence of cannabis. However, the overlap in poor test performance between the placebo and THC groups, and the high frequency at which officers

suspected this was because of THC consumption, suggest that field sobriety tests alone may be insufficient to identify THCspecific driving impairment, they wrote.

“Field sobriety tests are useful additions to overall evaluations of drivers, but are not accurate enough on their own to determine THC impairment,” said Marcotte. “New effective measures for identifying cannabis impair-

ment are needed to ensure the safety of all drivers on the road.”

The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research has partnered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol on a followup study to test various methods of detecting cannabis-impaired driving. The study aims to recruit 300 participants and is set to begin in late summer.

California to get $582M to make homes more energy efficient

By Suzanne Potter, Producer, Public News Service

Starting next year, low and middle-income families in California are expected to be able to apply for up to $14,000 in grants and rebates to make their home more energy-efficient. The U.S. Department of Energy has just released guidelines that allow California to receive $582-million from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Melissa Yu, senior energy campaigns representative for the Sierra Club in the San Francisco Bay Area, said families will get big discounts on electric heat pumps, water heaters, stoves, and dryers.

“Especially for households with lower incomes, up to 100% of the appliance and the installation costs are going to be discounted at purchase, “ she explained.

Rebates will also cover

upgrades to your breaker box, electric wiring, heating and air conditioning systems, and insulation. The California Energy Commission is expected

to move quickly and open up applications early next year. The idea is to reduce indoor air pollution from gas appliances, which contribute to premature

death and bronchitis.

Yu said everyone needs to switch from gas-burning appliances to models that run on electricity generated from renewable sources like

solar and wind.

“In California, homes and buildings are roughly responsible for 25% of total greenhouse gas emissions,” she explained. “The more

we’re putting out all of these polluting appliances, the more we’re going to exacerbate the issue.”

Just over 40% of California’s energy still comes from fossil fuels like oil and gas that spew carbon emissions and drive climate change, which is linked to the fires, drought and floods that have ravaged the state. Energy efficiency upgrades can provide greater climate resilience against extreme heat and cold snaps, wildfire smoke and air pollution.

Disclosure: Sierra Club contributes to Public News Service’s fund for reporting on Climate Change/ Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest, visit https://publicnewsservice.org/dn1.php.

Photo by Elsa Olofsson on Unsplash

Photo by Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash

San Gabriel City Notices

PUBLIC NOTICE: CITY OF SAN GABRIEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL

You are invited to participate in a public hearing before the San Gabriel City Council. You will have an opportunity to present your opinion regarding this item at the meeting or in writing prior to the meeting. Please submit all written comments to the City Clerk Department, in person or electronically using the online public comment form at https://www.sangabrielcity.com/PublicComment by the hearing date to be considered by the City Council. The meeting will be broadcast on the City of San Gabriel’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/CityofSanGabriel

HEARING DATE: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 TIME: 6:30 p.m.

LOCATION OF HEARING: Council Chambers located on the second floor of San Gabriel City Hall (425 South Mission Drive, San Gabriel, CA 91776) The meeting can be viewed live at: https:// www.youtube.com/CityofSanGabriel

PROJECT ADDRESS: 535 W. Roses Road, San Gabriel CA 91775

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project, Project Nos. CUP23-003 and VAR23-001 is for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance request for the approval of a new wireless telecommunications facility which will exceed the maximum allowable height and consists of a 49-foot monopine structure with ancillary equipment. The project site is located in the R-1 zone. On June 12, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the proposed project with a 3-1 vote. This hearing is for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, per Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

PROJECT ADDRESS: 330 West Las Tunas Drive, San Gabriel CA 91776

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The application, Project No. PPD21008 is for a Precise Plan of Design for the approval of a new medical office building at the address 330 W. Las Tunas Drive. The project site is in the Medical Facilities (MF) Zone within the Mission District Specific Plan area. On June 26, 2023, the Design Review Commission approved the proposed project with a 3-1 vote. This hearing is for an appeal of the Design Review Commission’s decision to the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project was reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, per Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32 (In-Fill Development).

QUESTIONS: For additional information or to review the applications, please contact Christine Song, Senior Planner at (626) 3082806 ext. 4625 or csong@sgch.org

Per Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to only raising those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division at or prior to the public hearing.

SAN GABRIEL CITY COUNCIL

Julie Nguyen, City Clerk

Published on August 7,2023

SAN GABRIEL SUN

Probate Notices

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF JOANNE HARRIET GETZE

Case No. 23STPB07281

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of JOANNE HARRIET GETZE

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Richard Getze in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Richard Getze be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.)

The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the

LEGALS

as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for petitioner: LYNETTE S KIM ESQ

SBN176759

KIM MEDIATION AND LAW APC

3701 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 508 LOS ANGELES CA 90010 CN998821 GETZE

Aug 7,10,14, 2023 SAN GABRIEL SUN

pear 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 a.

Date: 09/01/2023 Time: 8:30AM Dept:

authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held on Sept. 15, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 5 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.

Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account

NOTICE

OF

PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

ROBIN GIBBS

CASE NO. 23STPB08231

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of ROBIN GIBBS.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by REBECCA SUE JANES in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that REBECCA SUE JANES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.)

The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 08/31/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 29 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for Petitioner

WILLIAM HAYES - SBN 059479, THE HAYES LAW FIRM 729 MISSION ST. #300 SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030, Telephone (626) 403-2292 8/3, 8/7, 8/10/23 CNS-3725383# EL MONTE EXAMINER

Public Notices

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME PETITION OF Robert Ramirez FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER:23PSCP00282 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona Ca 91766, East Judicial District TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS:

1. Petitioner Robert Ramirez filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name a. OF Robert Ramirez to Proposed name Robert Barraza 2. THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall 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 reason for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must ap-

G. Room:302 The address of the court is same as noted above. 3. a. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the day set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: Rosemead Reader DATED:June 28, 2023 Salvatore Sirna JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Pub. July 17, 24, 31, August 7,2023 Rosemead Reader

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME PETITION OF Luis Miguel Vargas Gomez FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER: 23NWCP00277 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 12720 Norwalk blvd, Norwalk Ca 90650, Southeast Judicial District TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: 1. Petitioner Luis Miguel Vargas Gomez filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name a. OF Luis Miguel Vargas Gomez to Proposed name Louis Michael Vargas 2. THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall 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 reason 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 a.

Date: 09/25/2023 Time: 9:30AM Dept:

C. Room:312 The address of the court is same as noted above. 3. a. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the day set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: Arcadia Weekly

DATED: July 19, 2023 Olivia Rosales JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Pub. July 24, 31, August 7, 14, 2023

Arcadia Weekly

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME PETITION OF Kyle Tremayane Baric FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUM-

BER: 23AHCP00266 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 150 W Commonwealth Ave, Alhambra Ca 90801, Northeast Judicial District TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: 1. Petitioner Kyle Tremayane Baric filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name a. OF Kyle Tremayane Baric to Proposed name Kyle Tremayne Meril 2. THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall 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 reason 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 a. Date: 09/13/2023 Time: 8:30AM Dept: 3. The address of the court is same as noted above. 3. a. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the day set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: Monrovia Weekly DATED: June 26, 2023 Robin Miller Sloan JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Pub. August 7, 14, 21, 28, 2023 MONROVIA WEEKLY

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME PETITION OF Sierra Jency Robinson FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER: 23AHCP00267 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 150 W Commonwealth Ave, Alhambra Ca 90801, Northeast Judicial District TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: 1. Petitioner Sierra Jency Robinson filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name a. OF Sierra Jency Robinson to Proposed name Sierra Jency Meril 2. THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall 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 reason 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 a. Date: 09/15/2023 Time: 8:30AM Dept: X. The address of the court is same as noted above. 3. a. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the day set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: Monrovia Weekly DATED: June 26, 2023 Robin Miller Sloan JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Pub. August 7, 14, 21, 28 2023 MONROVIA

Trustee Notices

NOTICE OF

TS No.

EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank, check drawn by state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, or savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 to the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state, will be held by duly appointed trustee. The sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. BENEFICIARY MAY ELECT TO BID LESS THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE.

Trustor(s): Kenneth L. Dymmel and Ruth E Dymmel, husband and wife as joint tenants Recorded: 3/6/2007 as Instrument No. 20070485203 of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of LOS ANGELES County, California; Date of Sale: 8/15/2023 at 10:00 AM Place of Sale: Behind the fountain located in Civic Center Plaza, 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766 Amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $1,409,148.07 The purported property address is: 2168 HIGHLAND OAKS DR, ARCADIA, CA 91006 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 5765-030-003 5765-030004 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 855 238-5118 for information regarding the trustee’s sale or visit this internet website http://www.qualityloan.com, using the file number assigned to this foreclosure by the Trustee: CA-20-886816-AB. 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 website. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. NOTICE TO TENANT: You may have a right to purchase this property after the trustee auction pursuant to Section 2924m of the California Civil Code. If you are an “eligible tenant buyer,” you can purchase the property if you match the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. If you are an “eligible bidder,” you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, 48 hours after the date of the trustee sale, you can call 855 238-5118, or visit this internet website http://www.qualityloan. com, using the file number assigned to this foreclosure by the Trustee: CA-20-886816AB to find the date on which the trustee’s sale was held, the amount of the last and highest bid, and the address of the trustee. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 15 days after the trustee’s sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 45 days after the trustee’s sale. If you think you may qualify as an “eligible tenant buyer” or “eligible bidder,” you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase. NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE

OWNER-OCCUPANT: Any prospective owner-occupant as defined in Section 2924m of the California Civil Code who is the last and highest bidder at the trustee’s sale shall provide the required affidavit or declaration of eligibility to the auctioneer at the trustee’s sale or shall have it delivered to QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION by 5 p.m. on the next business day following the trustee’s sale at the address set forth in the below signature block. The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the property address or other common designation, if any, shown herein. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the sale is set aside for any reason, including if the Trustee is unable to convey title, the Purchaser at the sale shall be entitled only to a return of the monies paid to the Trustee. This shall be the Purchaser’s sole and exclusive remedy. The purchaser shall have no further recourse against the Trustor, the Trustee, the Beneficiary, the Beneficiary’s Agent, or the Beneficiary’s Attorney. If you have previously been discharged through bankruptcy, you may have been released of personal liability for this loan in which case this letter is intended to exercise the note holders right’s against the real property only. Date: QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION 2763 Camino Del Rio S San Diego, CA 92108 619-645-7711 For NON SALE information only Sale Line: 855 238-5118 Or Login to: http://www.qualityloan.com Reinstatement Line: (866) 645-7711 Ext 5318 QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION . TS No.: CA-20-886816-AB IDSPub #0187070 7/24/2023 7/31/2023 8/7/2023 ARCADIA WEEKLY APN: 8440-006-011 TS No: CA0700063219-1 TO No: 190868046-CA-VOI NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE (The above statement is made pursuant to CA Civil Code Section 2923.3(d)(1). The Summary will be provided to Trustor(s) and/ or vested owner(s) only, pursuant to CA Civil Code Section 2923.3(d)(2).) YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED November 27, 2017. 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 September 7, 2023 at 09:00 AM, Vineyard Ballroom, Doubletree Hotel Los Angeles-Norwalk, 13111 Sycamore Drive, Norwalk, CA 90650, MTC Financial Inc. dba Trustee Corps, as the duly Appointed Trustee, under and pursuant to the power of sale contained in that certain Deed of Trust recorded on December 4, 2017 as Instrument No. 20171392431, of official records in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, California, executed by RANDALL STEVEN STEWART, A SINGLE MAN, as Trustor(s), in favor of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., as Beneficiary, as nominee for STEARNS LENDING, LLC as Beneficiary, WILL SELL AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, in lawful money of the United States, all payable at the time of sale, that certain property situated in said County, California describing the land therein as: AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED OF TRUST

The property heretofore described is being sold “as is”. The street address and other common designation, if any, of the real property described above is purported to be: 757 N. MORADA AVENUE, WEST COVINA, CA 91790 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 without covenant or warranty, express or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the Note(s) secured by said Deed of Trust, with interest thereon, as provided in said Note(s), advances if any, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, estimated fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee and of the trusts created by said Deed of Trust. The total amount of the unpaid balance of the obligations secured by the property to be sold and reasonable estimated costs, expenses and advances at the time of the initial publication of this Notice of Trustee’s Sale is estimated to be $569,913.56 (Estimated). However, prepayment premiums, accrued interest and advances will increase this figure prior to sale. Beneficiary’s bid at said sale may include all or part of said amount. In addition to cash, the Trustee will accept a cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or 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 California Financial Code and authorized to do business in California, or other such funds as may be acceptable to the Trustee. In the event tender other than cash is accepted, the Trustee may withhold the issuance of the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale until funds become available to the payee or endorsee as a matter of right. The property offered for sale excludes all funds held on account by the property receiver, if applicable. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. 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

Monterey Park City Notices

LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF MONTEREY

LEGALS

PARK

ORDINANCE NO. 2234

AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 21.55 ENTITLED “FIREARM PROTECTION ZONE” TO THE MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE

The Monterey Park City Council introduced an Ordinance at the July 19, 2023 regular City Council meeting.

Ordinance No. 2234 added a new Chapter to the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) regulating firearms dealers within the City’s jurisdiction; specifically, creating a Firearm Health Protection Zone to separate firearms dealers from certain sensitive receptors.

Adoption of Ordinance No. 2234 took place at the August 2, 2023 regular City Council meeting at 6:30 p.m., in the City of Monterey Park, California.

For a copy of the Ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (626) 307-1359.

Approved as submitted above:

Justin A. Tamayo, Deputy City Attorney

ATTEST:

Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

Published August 7,2023

MONTEREY PARK PRESS

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-R65

A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE REQUIRED TO FULFILL THE VOTERS’ INTENT IN FUNDING THE CITY’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM DURING FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 AND AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF APPROPRIATE TAXES.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Monterey Park as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:

A. On August 20, 1946, the City’s voters approved a ballot measure which authorized the City to participate in the “State Employee Retirement System” (now the California Public Employee Retirement System) and also authorized the City Council “to levy and collect, annually … a special tax sufficient to raise the amount estimated by [the City] Council to be required to provide sufficient revenue to meet the obligations of said City” to the retirement system;

B. On April 8, 1952, the City’s voters approved a ballot measure which extended the City’s authorization to participate in the retirement system to include fire and police personnel. That ballot measure affirmed the City Council’s authority “to levy and collect taxes sufficient to pay all costs and expenses … to be paid by the City” to the retirement system;

C. In 1978, California voters amended the California Constitution through Proposition 13. That Proposition generally limits the property tax rate to 1% except for indebtedness approved by the voters before July 1, 1978 or bonded indebtedness approved by the voters after July 1, 1978;

D. In 1982, the California Supreme Court determined that a pre1978 voter-approved pension program was an indebtedness that local officials could finance with a property tax rate outside the usual 1% limit (Carman v. Alvord (1982) 31 Cal.3d 318); and

E. In 1985, the Legislature capped existing tax rates at the 198283 or 1983-84 level, except for rates supporting general obligation bonds, water contracts, and lease purchases (AB 13, Roos, 1985)

SECTION 2: The amount of tax revenue required from taxable property within the City to pay for the retirement system during fiscal year 2023-2024, beginning July 1, 2023 is $8.7 million.

SECTION 3: The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to levy taxes as follows:

A. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, the rate for the City is fixed and is levied on all taxable property within the City using the assessed value of such property. Tax Districts are identified below and the corresponding tax collected from each District is listed in the table set forth in subsection C.

B. TAXATION DISTRICT NO. 1 consisting of all that portion of the City of Monterey Park included within the boundaries thereof as fixed by special election held August 19, 1920, (Resolution No. 245); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park at annexation election held January 23, 1923, and known as Garvey Avenue Tracts (Ordinance No. 120); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park at annexation election held on July 8, 1925, and known as New Avenue Tract (Ordinance No. 174); all

that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park at annexation election held July 10, 1928, and known as Keith Tract (Ordinance No. 207); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park by annexation election held on April 22, 1930, and known as Midwick View Estates Tract (Ordinance No. 230); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park known as Jebbia Annexation (Ordinance No. 467); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park known as Midwick Country Club Annexation (Ordinance No. 468); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park known as the Fitzgerald Annexation (Ordinance No. 484); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park known as the Hellman Estate Annexation No. 2 (Ordinance No. 724); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park known as Poteete Annexation (Ordinance No. 850); all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park by Ordinance No. 489 and known as the Hamilton Homes Annexation; all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park by Ordinance No. 510, and known as Hamilton Homes Annexation No. 2, all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park by Ordinance No. 520, effective October 7, 1948, known as the Jebbia Annexation; Wheeler Annexation, effective February 21, 1949, (Ordinance No. 532); Garvey Annexation, effective May 11, 1949, (Ordinance No. 537); Garvey Avenue Annexation No. 2, effective October 13, 1949, (Ordinance No. 547); Monterey Pass Annexation, effective October 13, 1949, (Ordinance No. 548); Reservoir Annexation, effective January 16, 1950, (Ordinance No. 553); Hellman Estate Annexation effective April 26, 1951, (Ordinance No. 590); Industrial Center Annexation effective October 1, 1951, (Ordinance No. 601); Wheeler Annexation No. 2, effective March 25, 1953, (Ordinance No. 638); and O’Brien Annexation, effective November 16, 1953, (Ordinance No. 649); Wheeler Annexation No. 3, effective February 27, 1959, (Ordinance No. 844).

C. TAXATION DISTRICT NO. 2 consisting of all that territory annexed to the City of Monterey Park by Ordinance No. 940, known as Southwesterly Atlantic Annexation No. 1; and Ordinance No. 1000, known as Southwesterly Annexation No. 3; and Ordinance No. 1093, known as Southeasterly Annexation No. 1; and Ordinance No. 1421, known an Southwesterly Annexation No. 4A.

D. Tax Table:

SECTION 4: Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of this Resolution is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a matter that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the issue will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 5: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

SECTION 6: Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 7: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 8: Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 2023.

Jose Sanchez, Mayor

ATTEST: Maychelle Yee, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Karl H. Berger, City Attorney State of California ) County of Los Angeles) §. City of Monterey Park )

I, Maychelle Yee, City Clerk of the City of Monterey Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-R65 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes: Council Members: Lo, Yiu, Ngo, Wong, Sanchez Noes: Council Members: None

Absent: Council Members: None

Abstain: Council Members: None

Recusal: Council Members: None

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2023.

Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

Monterey Park, California

Published August 7,2023

MONTEREY PARK PRESS

Probate Notices

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

OLIVIA PRZEBINDA

CASE NO. 23STPB08042

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of OLIVIA PRZEBINDA.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by IRENE PRZEBINDA in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that IRENE PRZEBINDA be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows:

08/29/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 29 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for Petitioner JASON A. FETCHIK - SBN 227832, DRISKELL, GORDON & FETCHIK LLP 180 N. GLENDORA AVENUE, SUITE 201 GLENDORA CA 91741, Telephone (626) 914-7809

7/31, 8/3, 8/7/23

CNS-3724375# PASADENA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF LOUIS MESQUITA

Case No. 23STPB07983

To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of LOUIS MESQUITA

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Carmen Adelmann and Elvy Rodriguez in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS AN-GELES. THE PETITION FOR PRO-

BATE requests that Carmen Adelmann and Elvy Rodriguez be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 28, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 67 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

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 ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.

Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for petitioner: BLANCA PACHECO ESQ SBN 225243 LAW OFFICE OF BLANCA PACHECO 3223 E BROADWAY LONG BEACH CA 96803 CN998603 MESQUITA Jul 31, Aug 3,7, 2023 WEST COVINA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RAYMOND ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ CASE NO. 30-2023-01338444-PR-LACMC

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of RAYMOND ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JANET RODRIGUEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of ORANGE.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JANET RODRIGUEZ 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 with limited authority. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consent-

ed to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 08/31/23 at 1:30PM in Dept. CM06 located at 3390 HARBOR BLVD, COSTA MESA,, CA 92626

NOTICE IN PROBATE CASES

The court is providing the convenience to appear for hearing by video using the court’s designated video platform. This is a no cost service to the public. Go to the Court’s website at The Superior Court of California - County of Orange (occourts.org) to appear remotely for Probate hearings and for remote hearing instructions. If you have difficulty connecting or are unable to connect to your remote hearing, call 657-622-8278 for assistance. If you prefer to appear in-person, you can appear in the department on the day/time set for your hearing.

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for Petitioner

ROBERT L. COHEN, ESQ. - SBN

150913

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. COHEN, INC.

8081 ORANGETHORPE AVE BUENA PARK CA 90621

Telephone (714) 522-8880

8/3, 8/7, 8/10/23

CNS-3725209#

ANAHEIM PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: FERNANDO RAMIREZ

CASE NO. 23STPB06491

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of FERNANDO RAMIREZ.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by EMILY PADILLA in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MICHAEL SENUEH

SIFUENTES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows:

08/30/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 2D located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

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 con-

tingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

In Pro Per Petitioner

EMILY PADILLA

8507 MAGNOLIA AVE #72

RIVERSIDE CA 92504

Telephone (951) 785-6100 8/3, 8/7, 8/10/23

CNS-3725989#

PARK PRESS

BALDWIN

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF ESTHER D. TAMEZ aka ESTHER DIAZ TAMEZ

Case No. 23STPB07910

To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of ESTHER D. TAMEZ aka ESTHER DIAZ TAMEZ

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Camelia Gray Tamez Cuevas, Doris Marilyn Tamez Lopez and Rodolfo Robin Tamez in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Camelia Gray Tamez Cuevas, Doris Marilyn Tamez Lopez and Rodolfo Robin Tamez be ap-pointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the dece-dent.

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s lost will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. Copies of the lost will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held on Sept. 15, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 11 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

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 ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either

(1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.

Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for

Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for petitioner: KEVIN STAPLETON ESQ SBN 80702 STAPLETON & STAPLETON

401 E ROWLAND AVE COVINA CA 91723

CN998651 TAMEZ

Aug 7,10,14, 2023 WEST COVINA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF

LEO STAVINSKY

Case No. 23STPB08116

To all heirs, beneficiaries, cred-itors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of LEO STAVINSKY A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Aaron Stavinsky in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Aaron Stavinsky be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administra-tion authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objec-tion to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held on August 30, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Dept. No. 9 located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

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 ap-pearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issu-ance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.

Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for petitioner:

JAMES L LEESTMA ESQ SBN 207311 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES LAMBERT LEESTMA 7301 TOPANGA CYN BL STE 202 CANOGA PARK CA 91303 CN998652 STAVINSKY Aug 7,10,14, 2023 WEST COVINA PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:

JEAN ELEANOR MOWER AKA JEAN E. MOWER CASE NO. 30-2023-01338473

PR-PW-CMC

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of JEAN ELEANOR MOWER AKA JEAN E. MOWER.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LISA JOAN BELK in the Superior Court of California, County of ORANGE.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LISA JOAN BELK be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the dece-

dent’s WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The WILL and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.)

The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: 08/30/23 at 1:30PM in Dept. CM05 located at 3390 HARBOR BLVD., COSTA MESA, CA 92626

NOTICE IN PROBATE CASES

The court is providing the convenience to appear for hearing by video using the court’s designated video platform. This is a no cost service to the public. Go to the Court’s website at The Superior Court of California - County of Orange (occourts.org) to appear remotely for Probate hearings and for remote hearing instructions. If you have difficulty connecting or are unable to connect to your remote hearing, call 657-622-8278 for assistance. If you prefer to appear in-person, you can appear in the department on the day/ time set for your hearing.

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

In Pro Per Petitioner LISA JOAN BELK 1525 W. TONIA CT. ANAHEIM CA 92802 8/7, 8/10, 8/14/23

CNS-3726671# ANAHEIM PRESS

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: VESTA ANN CLINTON CASE NO. 23STPB08352

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of VESTA ANN CLINTON. A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CHRISTIAN CLINTON in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CHRISTIAN CLINTON be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests the decedent’s WILL and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The WILL and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and

shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows:

09/05/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 29 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for Petitioner

ANTHONY J. VULIN - SBN 86676 624 WEST 9TH STREET, SUITE 201 SAN PEDRO CA 90731, Telephone (310) 548-0746 8/7, 8/10, 8/14/23

CNS-3726773#

GLENDALE INDEPENDENT

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CESARIA RIOS DE ANAYA

CASE NO. 23STPB08169

To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the WILL or estate, or both of CESARIA RIOS DE ANAYA.

A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by RUBEN ANAYA JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of LOS ANGELES.

THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that RUBEN ANAYA JR. be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.

THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.

A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows:

08/30/23 at 8:30AM in Dept. 67 located at 111 N. HILL ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.

IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code. Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.

YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of

an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.

Attorney for Petitioner

LEMUEL B. MAKUPSON - SBN 207383, THE LAW OFFICE OF LEMUEL B. MAKUPSON, APC 680 E. ALOSTA AVENUE, SUITE 106 AZUSA CA 91702, Telephone (626) 577-5147 8/7, 8/10, 8/14/23

CNS-3726789# BALDWIN PARK PRESS

Public Notices

CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): CIV SB 2222830 SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): Jun Son Yoo, Trustee of the Jun Son Yoo Family Trust Dated Oc-tober 18, 2018; Bank of the Hope, a Cali-fornia Corporation Nava’s Beauty Salon and Barber Shop; Any and All Persons Unknown Having or Claiming to Have Any Title or Interest in or to the Property Sought to be condemned Herein; and Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive

The property interests the SBCTA seeks to condemn herein consists of a perma-nent street easement and a temporary construction easement, with a term of twenty-four months, over portions of the real property located at 930 - 932 E. Holt Boulevard in the City of Ontario, and fur-ther identified as portions of San Bernar-dino County Tax Assessor’s Parcel Num-ber 1049-131-05.

Plaintiff’s Title Thereto. YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DE-MANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): San Bernardino County Transportation Au-thority

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 re-sponse. 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 af-ford 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 Califor-nia Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo. ca.gov/selfhelp), or by con-tacting your local court or county bar associa-tion. 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 días, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versión. Lea la infor-mación a continuación. Tiene 30 DÍAS 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 al de-mandante. 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 más 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 más cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida al secretario de la corte que le dé un formulario de exención de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumpli-miento y la corte le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin más advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomenda-ble que llame 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 le-gales 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.lawhelpcalifornia. org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en con-tacto 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 ó más de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar

Fictitious Business Name Filings

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Knights of Columbus Council 17085 – St. John The Evangelist 19510 Van Buren Boulevard F3399 Riverside, CA 92508

Riverside County

Harold Patrick Mullen, 36682 Acanthus Dr, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532

Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Harold Patrick Mullen

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on May 19, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner.

A new Fictitious Business Name

Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use 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).

I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# R-202307810 Pub. 07/03/2023, 07/10/2023, 07/17/2023, 07/24/2023

Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as ROSS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION

205 e 5th St corona, CA 92879

Riverside County

Mailing Address

205 e 5th St corona, CA 92879

Riverside County

Scott Ross

205 e 5th St, corona, CA 92879

Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on October 16, 2000. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Scott Ross

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on July 18, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner.

A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use 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).

I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# 202310773 Pub. 07/24/2023, 07/31/2023, 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023 Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Your Home Sold Guaranteed Realty – Ruben Muro Group 4160 Temescal Canyon Rd, Ste 500 Corona, CA 92883 Riverside County Pro Group Corona Inc (CA), 4160 Temescal Canyon Rd, Ste 500, Corona, CA 92883 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a corporation. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. David Ray Clark, CFO Statement filed with the County of Riverside on July 26, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use 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).

I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# R-202311139 Pub. 07/31/2023, 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023, 08/21/2023 Riverside Independent

LEGALS

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT

File No. FBN20230006495

The following persons are doing business as: Alexis An, 4219 Sierra Vista Dr, Chino Hills, CA 91709. Alexis Yrigoyen, 4219 Sierra Vista Dr, Chino Hills, CA 91709. County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on June 21, 2023. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ Alexis Yrigoyen, Owner. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on June 27, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920. A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. 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) File#: FBN20230006495 Pub: 07/31/2023, 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023, 08/21/2023 San Bernardino Press

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT

File No. FBN20230007346

The following persons are doing business as: Tieman Group, 9453 E 9th St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Mailing Address, Po box 3255, rancho cucamonga, CA 91729. Kingtec Group Company Limited (CA), 9453 E 9th St Unit B, Rnacho Cucamonga, CA 91730; Bei Liu, Secretary. County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino This business is conducted by: a corporation. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on July 18, 2023. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars

($1,000). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ Bei Liu, Secretary. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on July 24, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920. A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. 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) File#: FBN20230007346 Pub: 07/31/2023, 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023, 08/21/2023

San Bernardino Press

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS

NAME STATEMENT

File No. FBN20230007456

The following persons are doing business as: YISHAN INSURANCE AGENCY, 3530 E DELIGHT PASEO #207, ONTARIO, CA 91761. YISHAN INTERNATIONAL INC (CA), 3530 E DELIGHT PASEO #207, ONTARIO, CA 91761; YISHAN CAI, PRESIDENT. County of Principal Place of Business: San Bernardino This business is conducted by: a corporation. Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on July 24, 2023. By signing below, I declare that I have read and understand the reverse side of this form and that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code that the registrant knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250- 6277). /s/ YISHAN CAI, PRESIDENT. This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on July 26, 2023 Notice- In accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 17920. A Fictitious Name Statement generally expires at the end of five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the County Clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any change in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to Section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. 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 com -

mon law (see Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code) File#: FBN20230007456 Pub: 07/31/2023, 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023, 08/21/2023

San Bernardino Press

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as Bleulids 21131 Grand avenue Wildomar, CA 92595

Riverside County

Brianna Kristen Gutierrez Pallanes, 21131 Grand avenue, Wildomar, CA 92595

Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Brianna Kristen Gutierrez

Pallanes

Statement filed with the County of Riverside on July 25, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use 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).

I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.

Peter Aldana, County, Clerk

File# R-202311125 Pub. 07/31/2023, 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023, 08/21/2023

Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as

LIQR UP 15685 Las Posas Dr Moreno Valley, CA 92551

Riverside County Sahagun Enterprises LLC (CA), 11875 Pigeon Pass Rd suite B13 PMB 10033, Moreno Valley, CA 92557

Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a limited liability company (llc).

Registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein on July 14, 2023. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Veronica C Sahagun, CEO Statement filed with the County of Riverside on July 14, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use 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). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# 202310655 Pub. 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023, 08/21/2023, 08/28/2023 Riverside Independent

The following person(s) is (are) doing business as (1). Concrete Polishing Team (2). ConcretePolishingTeam.com 27247 Flagler Street Menifee, CA 92586

Mailing Address, 27247 Flagler Street, Menifee, CA 92586. Riverside County Jeffery Bruce Young, 27247 Flagler Street, Menifee, CA 92586 Riverside County

This business is conducted by: a individual. Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed herein. I declare that all the information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true any material matter pursuant to Section 17913 of the Business and Professions Code, that the registrant knows to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousands dollars ($1000).)

s. Jeffery Bruce Young Statement filed with the County of Riverside on August 3, 2023

NOTICE: In accordance with subdivision (a) of section 17920, a fictitious name statement generally expires at the end of the five years from the date on which it was filed in the office of the county clerk, except, as provided in subdivision (b) of section 17920, where it expires 40 days after any changes in the facts set forth in the statement pursuant to section 17913 other than a change in the residence address of a registered owner. A new Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before the expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use 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). I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Peter Aldana, County, Clerk File# R-202311579 Pub. 08/07/2023, 08/14/2023, 08/21/2023, 08/28/2023 Riverside Independent

Woman drops suit alleging boss called her a heifer while pregnant

City News Service

SouthBay Pavilion mall. The lawsuit’s allegations included wrongful discharge, employment discrimination, retaliation, interference with pregnancy disability leave and harassment.

Herrera-Ceja was hired as a relationship banker responsible for selling financial services and fostering client relationships with the bank, the suit stated. Throughout her employment, she consistently exceeded her monthly sales goals, according to the suit. Herrera-Ceja says she became pregnant in March 2016 and told Jernigan about a month later that she was due to deliver in early November of that year.

open position for a relationship banker, the suit states.

Herrera-Ceja said she arrived as scheduled for her interview at the Long Beach branch, but the branch manager was not there. When the plaintiff called the Long Beach branch manager to ask what happened, the latter told her that Jernigan had called and said HerreraCeja would not be attending the interview, according to the lawsuit.

away without answering, the suit alleged.

Later, Jernigan threatened to revoke her planned vacation, even though Herrera-Ceja had booked international flights and hotels, according to the plaintiff.

Aformer JP Morgan Chase Bank employee has dropped her suit alleging a supervisor called her a “heifer” and that she was wrongfully fired in 2019 from a Carson branch for taking an extended medical leave after the birth of her second child.

An attorney for plaintiff

Joanna Herrera-Ceja filed court papers Wednesday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Teresa A. Beaudet

asking that her client’s case be dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning it cannot be refiled. The court papers do not state if a settlement was reached or if Herrera-Ceja is not pursuing the case for other reasons.

In September 2021, Beaudet denied a Chase motion to force the case into arbitration, saying bank lawyers had not shown the existence of an arbitration agreement that covered the

claims in her suit.

Chase lawyers maintained Herrera-Ceja indeed agreed to arbitrate any disputes when she was hired in August 2015 by electronically signing her approval in two places.

The suit filed in January 2021 also named as defendant Ashli Jernigan, identified in the complaint as the branch manager at the Chase branch in Carson on Avalon Boulevard in the

The plaintiff took her maternity leave under the state Family and Medical Leave Act in October 2016 and returned in February 2017, at which time she asked Jernigan if she could transfer to a branch closer to home in order to care for her newborn and reduce her commute time, the suit stated.

Jernigan replied angrily that she would speak to Chase’s executive director, the suit alleges. Meanwhile, Herrera-Ceja contacted the branch manager at a branch in Long Beach closer to her home, where there was an

Herrera-Ceja said the Long Beach branch interview was rescheduled for later that day when she was offered and accepted the position. But when Herrera-Ceja told Jernigan that she was transferring to Long Beach, he refused to allow her to leave, explaining that the plaintiff was one of her best bankers, the suit alleged.

Jernigan later changed Herrera-Ceja’s hours so that the plaintiff had to leave work later in the day than she wished, called her “selfish” and said that she only cared about money, the suit alleged.

After Herrera-Ceja became pregnant again in January 2018, Jernigan asked, “Wow, you heifer ... how come you didn’t want to tell me?” but the plaintiff walked

In another interaction, Jernigan “violently swung” a chair before placing it between her and the plaintiff at a time Herrera-Ceja was six months pregnant, the suit alleged. Jernigan also allegedly harassed her for wearing flat-heeled shoes instead of high heels and commented on her growing belly size.

Herrera-Ceja gave birth to her second child in September 2018, but later suffered postpartum depression and was placed on medical leave that was extended three months later with Chase’s approval so she could have more time to recuperate, according to her court papers. She says she later found out that Chase had posted her position as open to applicants.

Herrera-Ceja says she abided by Chase’s instructions for requesting additional leave time in May 2019, but the bank refused and she was fired the following month.

Orange County man extradited from Romania to face rioting charges

By City News Service

The lead defendant in an indictment charging three Southern California men linked to a white supremacy group with planning and engaging in riots at political rallies has been extradited to the United States from Romania to face charges Wednesday.

Robert Rundo, 33, of Huntington Beach, allegedly a founding member of the Rise Above Movement, was transported by special agents with the FBI from Romania to Hollywood Burbank Airport, where he arrived Tuesday evening.

During a hearing Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court, Rundo pleaded not guilty to the charges and was ordered jailed without bond.

Rundo, along with two other defendants, is charged with conspiracy to violate the federal Anti-Riot Act for his activities with RAM, a white supremacist organization that describes itself “as a combat-ready, militant group of a new

nationalist white supremacy and identity movement,” according to the indictment.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, Rundo also is charged with one count of rioting.

The two other defendants in the case are Robert Boman, 30, of Torrance, and Tyler Laube, 27, of Redondo Beach.

Boman and Laube are charged with conspiracy to violate the Anti-Riot Act. Boman also is charged with one count of rioting.

A trial date is scheduled for Dec. 12 in Santa Ana federal court.

According to the indictment, the defendants participated in the conspiracy in varying ways, including by recruiting RAM members, coordinating and participating in hand-to-hand and other combat training, traveling to political rallies to attack protesters and other persons, and publishing photographs and videos of violent acts to recruit other members for future events.

Federal prosecutors allege that various members of the conspiracy directly participated in attacks at political rallies in Huntington Beach on March 25, 2017; in Berkeley on April 15, 2017; and in San Bernardino on June 10, 2017. In the months following these events, the defendants allegedly trained for future events and celebrated their assaults, which included online posts with photos of RAM members assaulting people.

In June 2019, a Santa Ana federal judge dismissed the indictment against Rundo and the other defendants, finding that the federal riots act — under which they were charged — “is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.”

In March 2021, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and criminal charges were reinstated.

Both the conspiracy and rioting charges carry

sentences of up to five years in federal prison, prosecutors noted.

Also in 2019, three members of RAM were sentenced to between two and three years behind bars for assaulting antiracism protesters at a white

nationalist rally in Virginia and political gatherings in California.

Benjamin Daley, 30, of Torrance; Michael Miselis, 34, of Lawndale; and Thomas Gillen, 29, of Redondo Beach, each pleaded guilty in U.S.

District Court in Charlottesville, Virginia, to conspiracy to riot. The RAM members were caught on camera assaulting counterprotesters before a planned “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, prosecutors said.

A man identified as Robert Rundo assaults a man identified as an “Antifa protester” in Huntington Beach in 2017. | Photo courtesy of captainsoncho/Instagram

| Photo courtesy of Can Pac Swire/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Former SWAT sergeant rebuts city of Los Angeles’ lawsuit dismissal motion

Aformerlongtime

Los Angeles police sergeant who alleges the SWAT unit is run by a “SWAT Mafia” of veteran officers who favor using deadly force has responded to a motion by the City Attorney’s Office to dismiss his case on grounds he is not a whistleblower, saying those candidates who “learned toward shooting” were preferred over “critical thinkers.”

Sgt. Timothy Colomey joined SWAT in 2008 and was the most senior sergeant in the unit. He filed his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit in January 2021 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

According to court papers filed with Judge Jon R. Takasugi asking for dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit, the City Attorney’s Office maintains Colomey has not presented a basic case for whistleblowing

because he did not engage in “protected activity” as required by the state Labor Code.

“In other words, plaintiff is not a whistleblower,” the City Attorney’s Office’s court papers state. “The conduct plaintiff reported consists solely of internal personnel matters.”

However, in a sworn declaration brought Tuesday in opposition to the city’s dismissal motion, Colomey says he was the supervisor in charge of the LAPD SWAT training school from 2013-19 and acquired firsthand knowledge of how candidates were chosen to participate in the school and how it was run.

Colomey says that as the supervisor overseeing the school, he observed that those in charge of selecting candidates looked for those who “leaned towards shooting

By City News Service

instead of being slow and methodical before using force, while disqualifying those officers who were “critical thinkers” or “unwilling to go along with the aggressive, quick-shooting SWAT culture during trainings.”

In September 2018, the LAPD’s Internal Affairs group began investigating an anonymous complaint that compared the culture within SWAT to the LAPD Rampart Scandal from the late 1990s, Colomey says.

Colomey says he told an Internal Affairs interviewer that he had learned there was a group of “powerful” police officers who “wielded undue influence in SWAT, which they used to create a conformist culture within the unit that was aggressive and promoted the use of lethal force.”

Colomey further says he told the interviewer that

while he does not use the term “SWAT Mafia,” he had heard the officers in question refer to themselves by that term. On numerous SWAT calls in which he was the supervisor on scene, some of the officers in question attempted to take control of the scene and minimize Colomey’s involvement, including by telling him, “Hey Sarge, move away” or “Stay here, Sarge” while the officers proceeded to engage a suspect, Colomey says.

The officers were “essentially informing me that they did not want me in the building with eyes on the situation when they entered and made contact with the suspect,” according to Colomey.

Colomey says he was cleared of any misconduct by the Internal Affairs probe.

“Although the anonymous complaint alleged wrongdo-

ing by me, other SWAT supervisors and even Chief (Michel) Moore, I was not found to have engaged in any wrongdoing and no allegations of misconduct were sustained against me,” Colomey says.

Colomey was hired in 1995, joined the LAPD SWAT Unit as a sergeant 2 in September 2008, and remained in the unit until October 2019. According to the plaintiff’s suit, SWAT lieutenants and sergeants

are all aware of the alleged SWAT Mafia’s existence and influence and a significant number of the supervisors participate both in acquiescing to the group as well as in undermining nonconforming officers and supervisors.

Colomey left SWAT in 2019 for a post at Los Angeles International Airport. A hearing on the city’s dismissal motion is scheduled for Aug. 15.

San Bernardino County Workforce Development Department earns national achievement awards

Inspired by the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to meeting the needs of employers and jobseekers and fostering a vibrant local economy, the San Bernardino County Workforce Development Department (WDD) has been honored with eight 2023 Achievement Awards from the National Association of Counties (NACo).

Among the services and initiatives for which WDB was honored were the Rapid Response Community Resource Fair, Economic Recovery Business Outreach Program and, in partnership with the Public Defender’s office, the Record Clearing, Resource and Employment Fairs.

Thanks to strong and stable leadership and policy direction from Board of Supervisors Chair Dawn

Rowe and her colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, San Bernardino County received a record-breaking 160 NACo awards this year. The awards reflect the Board’s efforts to cultivate the innovation that leads to the development of outstanding public service programs.

The NACo awards recognize the best of the best among county governments across the U.S. nationwide, 40,000 County elected officials and 3.6 million county employees provide important services, such as caring for our physical and mental health, maintaining roads, ensuring public safety, strengthening environmental stewardship, administering elections and much more.

“The Workforce Development programs and services recognized by NACo high-

By Staff

light the extraordinary work being done by Workforce Development to enhance career opportunities for our residents and help businesses grow,” Rowe said.

The first Rapid Response Community Resource Fair was developed shortly after United Furniture Industries (UFI) abruptly laid off more than 300 employees in the High Desert without advance notice just days before Thanksgiving 2022. When Workforce Development was alerted, staff quickly mobilized businesses and community partners to help connect those laid off to available employment opportunities, as well as various other community resources. Approximately 275 of the affected UFI employees were offered new employment opportunities as a result.

The Economic Recovery Business Outreach Program was a pilot program that tapped into the widereaching business network of chambers of commerce.

This collaboration between WDB and various chambers of commerce throughout the county was designed to leverage the relationship between chambers and small businesses by building awareness and accessibility to the Workforce Development services available to them. Outcomes as a result of this partnership include various successful services including job listings, job fairs, positions filled, and job training assistance, among others.

Perhaps the most impactful program receiving this recognition is the Record Clearing, Resource and Employment Fairs. Workforce

Homelessness

with service providers.

“I wouldn’t tell you that it is never true that an extra day is paid for, but it is not usual because we check every invoice before it goes the CAO,” Marquez said.

Blumenfield said this issue with receiving data from LAHSA is “frustrating to say the least,” adding the city provided the agency an extra $4.9 million out of the budget last year, and another $1 million to pay for HMIS enhancements. Yet, city officials have not received all the data they have requested

to access.

LAHSA officials told the board that they never denied them access, but rather there’s a process they must follow. The HMIS is overseen by the Los Angeles Continuum of Care, which provides counsel to LAHSA.

“I just want to be clear that the CoC Board has operational authority over the HMIS,” said Emily Vaughn Henry, deputy chief information officer for LAHSA.

Henry said they are in the process of updating the agency’s HMIS “all access

policy,” which would need to be approved by the Continuum of Care board. It’s taking time because it also impacts the cities of Glendale, Pasadena and Long Beach as they’re partners as well.

“I appreciate that, but I just want to put it out there — I’m at the end of my rope on this,” Blumenfield said. “I want to stop any dollars going to LAHSA until we have access to this data.”

He added, “I don’t have a mechanism to do that quite yet, but that’s literally where I’m going.”

Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez echoed her colleague, adding that “there’s a fundamental problem with getting some very basic information.” She said the issue is costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The mayor and City Council approved an initial $50 million in December 2022 for Inside Safe. The report from Szabo, city administrative officer, showed that as of July 14, the city expended approximately $18 million of the $50 million from the Homelessness Emergency

Development and the Public Defender’s Office have partnered with businesses and community organizations to increase economic access and equity. The partnership was designed to bring critical resources directly into the community – to churches, community centers, community colleges, and America’s Job Centers – for those looking to remove barriers and increase their access to employment opportunities and other services. The Public Defender helps participants by providing expungement or record-clearing services, and Workforce Development brings employers with job opportunities, all within the same location. The events have been well received and proven useful to the community, making this a long-term partnership, not

only between Workforce Development and the Public Defender’s Office but a long list of other community organizations that have also participated.

“Our team and board feel fortunate to be recognized for these awards,” said William Sterling, chairman of the WDB. “The underlying factor of the programs being recognized are partnerships. We feel fortunate for our staff and the relationships developed with other departments and organizations and the impact these services have had within our communities, which is at the core of what public service is supposed to be.”

To get connected to workforce resources, call (800) 451-JOBS (5627) or follow them on social media @ SBCWorkforce.

Account, or HEA.

City officials expected $32 million to be obligated through June 30, which is the end date for the 2022-23 fiscal year.

In May, the Council approved the mayor’s budget for the 2023-24 budget, which allocated $250 million for Inside Safe. The council approved an initial $67.5 million to be expended by the mayor and the remaining $184.3 million to be released as the funds are expended.

As of July 14, no money

has been expended from the $250 million, according to the report.

As part of the plan, the mayor’s office would need to provide biweekly progress reports starting July 1. The compromise would allow the council to halt the replenishment of the Inside Safe account.

The committee unanimously approved the report. It will also be discussed by the council’s Budget, Finance and Innovation Committee before heading to full Council at a future date.

| Photo courtesy of Oregon Department of Transportation/ Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)