Inside Riverside

The Motives Behind Jeff Stone's New State Publicity Stunt

No one has ever accused Riverside County Supervisor of being a man of high intelligence or effective leadership. Instead many who know Jeff Stone joke that his frequent hare-brained schemes may have been formed after experimenting with substances in his the pharmacy he owns.

But make no mistake dear readers, whether you think Stone's crazy or just under the influence of some substance, when it comes to seeking publicity Jeff Stone's is a master.  We need look no further than his current publicity stunt to create a new state.

Stone's plan may be appealing on its surface but it ludicrous to propose the State of South California while excluding the majority of Southern California's population in Riverside County.  That's because Jeff Stone isn't serious about creating a new state.  He's interested in creating publicity to divert attention from the growing list of problems that are likely to end his political career in the next year.

What are those problems you ask?  

1. Money Laundering 

In February, San Jacinto billionaire Larry Minor was convicted of illegally laundering over $40,000 to Jeff Stone's failed 2010 State Senate campaign.  While Stone was not implicated in the scheme, it's hard to believe that Minor would have taken such legal risks without either direct or indirect pressure applied by Stone for Minor to give him more money than state law allowed.

2. Hiding Political Contributions

Last month California's Fair Political Practices Commission leveled a $16,000 fine against Jeff Stone's 2010 Senate campaign for failing to report $84,052 in contributions.  Stone's accountant, Joseph Kuebler agreed to pay the fine saying the fault for the violation was his. But didn't Jeff Stone have a legal responsibility to understand California's campaign finance laws when he sought a seat in the State Senate?  Shouldn't he have reviewed disclosure requirements before he signed his campaign reports under the penalty of perjury that they were true and accurate?

3.  Pay To Play Politics

Jeff Stone introduced and passed Riverside County Ordinance 884 that undermines the First Amendment by limiting protests outside of the Church of Scientology by its dissenters.  While Stone likes to quote Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers, when there's money on the table Stone appears to be willing to ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Scientologists are reported to have given the Stone's failed 2010 Senate campaign at least $50,000 in contributions. 

4. The Six Figure "Volunteer" Sister 

Lori Stone, the Supervisor's younger sister is an albatross around his political neck.  Sadly, Stone placed this her around his own neck.  He has no one else to blame but himself.  After getting elected to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in 2004, Stone brought little sister Lori on to his county staff. Nepotism laws prevented him from putting her on the county payroll, but that did not prevent Stone from giving his sister use of county cars, county phones, and county computers.  

Stone defended this saying Lori was a volunteer and a bargain for to the taxpayers.  However, he failed to mention that he was paying his sister a six figure salary out of his campaign account.  Over the course of three years Jeff Stone paid his sister over $330,000 to work in his county office.  Many question the legality of Stone having a campaign staffer working in a government office.  To avoid an investigation by District Attorney Paul Zellerbach whom Stone opposed in 2010, he ended little sister's employment.

There are many more reasons for this stunt, including Stone's goal to reinvent himself as a small government conservative to fend of a challenge from former State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth or to challenge Republican Ken Calvert for Congress next year.

As you can see dear readers, there are many motives behind the madness of Jeff Stone who we see once again is willing to say and do anything to get headlines and raise campaign cash.

Lackluster Challengers Take On County Elected Officials

The Riverside County Registrar of Voters released a list of candidates in the various races throughout Riverside County for the June Election.  Only one word comes to mind dear readers:  Yawn.

2nd District County Supervisor John Tavaglione is being challenged by Herb Higgins, a former Norco City Councilmember.  Higgins has not raised any money and does not have a campaign organization from what anyone can tell.  Tavaglione on other hand has locked up the key endorsements of his district and has over $400,000 in the bank.  That's hardly a contest.  Tavaglione's next four years are quite secure.

5th District Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley, despite being the target of a half-hearted recall last year, is running unopposed.

Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff is being challenged by his former Chief Deputy Frank Robles.  Robles is relying on the financial assistance of Los Angles County businessman Leo McIntrye.  Sniff, like Tavaglione, has picked up all of the major endorsements and has his deputies and their gigantic Political Action Committee in his corner.  Robles' failure to mount a takeover of the Riverside Sheriffs' Association last year pretty much doomed his campaign.

Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco is being challenged by Judge Paul Zellerbach. While this is being billed in the main stream media as the clash of the titans, in reality that's far from the truth. Pacheco too has all of the major endorsements for his race and has close to $500,000 on hand to Zellerbach's $0.00.  

Zellerbach came out swinging at Pacheco in his announcement claiming that under Pacheco, the District Attorney's office has been losing more than half of the cases it prosecutes.  Zellerbach's statistics were debunked last week by the Press Enterprise in an article that showed Pacheco's DA's office gets convictions of about 95% of the defendants it prosecutes.  It's going to be next to impossible to argue with those results, especially after the very newspaper that hates Pacheco has already outed Zellerbach for his exaggerations.

The only race really worth watching this spring is probably the one that will go down in the desert.

4th District County Supervisor John Benoit, who was appointed to the Board of Supervisors by Governor Schwarzenegger after the resignation and death of Roy Wilson, faces retired Palm Springs Police Chief Gary Jeandron.  Benoit is an experienced and hard edged campaigner with close to $300,000 in the bank and all of the endorsements one needs to get elected in eastern Riverside County, except one very important one.

The Riverside Sheriffs' Association is backing Jeandron.  This endorsement so outraged Benoit that he retaliated against them by cutting the pay of the Probation Officers the RSA represents and imposed furloughs on them.  The RSA didn't take it lying down and is now running radio advertisements in the desert informing the public of Benoit's role in cutting law enforcement since joining the Board of Supervisors.

Benoit is also being hobbled by his affiliation with developers Steve Holgate and Robert Osborne who have been indicted in the San Jacinto corruption case.  Benoit was forced to give $10,000 to charity that came from their tainted contributions.  And a few weeks ago a Sacramento political consultant had his office raided by Riverside County District Attorneys investigators.  The consultant was doing work for Holgate on behalf of Benoit in the 2008 Republican Primary Election.

While it is unknown how much money RSA will give Jeandron in his battle against Benoit, Jeandron is already running his own radio advertisements.  This is probably a good indication that he's had a major infusion of cash since announcing his candidacy.

Despite all of this, the odds are still in Benoit's favor.  He's been in office for over a decade, has a professional team with him, and never misses an opportunity to be in the media.  

We'll keep tabs on things for you as always, but leave you with one final thought:  In a county with over 2 million people, isn't there a better list of challengers out there?

Dennis Hollingsworth Fundraiser Guilty of Money Laundering

Republican Assemblyman Joel Anderson, a one-time fundraiser for Republican Senator Dennis Hollingsworth has been found guilty of money laundering by California's official political watchdog group, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

Assemblyman Joel Anderson reached a plea agreement with the FPPC where he will pay a $20,000 fine for the money laundering scheme he put in place to get around the California's campaign contribution limits.

According to the exhibits attached to Joel Anderson's plea bargain with the FPPC, Assemblyman Anderson steered $48,000 in contributions from five  of his San Diego County donors to the Fresno County Republican Party in May and June of this year. 

The Fresno County Republican Party then turned around, took a cut for administrative fees, and contributed $45,600 to Joel Anderson's campaign within days of receiving the contributions.

This money laundering scheme effectively allowed Anderson's five donors to give him $26,100 more than state law allowed.    

After a San Diego Union Tribute story broke that uncovered this money laundering scheme, Joel Anderson invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself in any criminal matter.  However, he did return these contributions along with an additional $31,000 he had also received from the Fresno County Republican Party.

The Placer County Republican Party and Stanislaus County Republican Party also gave Joel Anderson's campaign $31,000 each.  It turns out that all three of these County Republican Party's received $32,400 from Anderson before making the contributions back to him. 

Anderson also returned those two contributions as the FPPC began its investigation into his money laundering scheme.  Due to lack of sufficient evidence, the FPPC ended its investigation into this part of Anderson's money laundering scheme.

Like Anderson though, the Fresno County Republican Party did however make a plea bargain with the FPPC for its role in Anderson's money laundering scheme and has agreed to pay a $29,000 fine.

The District Attorneys of these three counties and the Attorney General may still look into the matter further given the seriousness of the conspiracy to violate California's campaign finance laws.

Anderson, who represents an Assembly seat in San Diego County worked as a fundraiser for Dennis Hollingsworth when Hollingsworth was running for the State Senate in 2002.

Joel Anderson is also a likely candidate for Dennis Hollingsworth's Senate Seat.  Term limits are forcing Hollingsworth out of office. Hollingsworth is allegedly supporting Anderson in the race, which shouldn't be surprising as hypocrites usually stand with hypocrites. 

If Anderson does run for the State Senate he will be facing Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone in the June Republican Primary.  Many speculate that Anderson orchestrated the money laundering scheme because he was unable to compete with Jeff Stone's fundraising lead.

Given all that's happened now however, between money he had to refund and the $20,000 FPPC fine, Joel Anderson's money laundering scheme has cost him almost $160,000 that he can not use in his next campaign.  With Anderson possessing such amazing financial abilities, is it any wonder that the state continues to be mired in a never ending budget crisis?

While the FPPC has come to a an agreement with Joel Anderson in this matter, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis appears to be in the midst of a criminal investigation into this matter.  Her public integrity unit refused to comment on whether there is or isn't a criminal investigation into Joel Anderson's admitted money laundering.  That's usually a sure indication that there is one.

We also must note dear readers, that the law that Joel Anderson has admitted breaking is the same one that San Jacinto City Councilman Jim Ayres has been indicted for violating.  

The only difference between Jim Ayres and Joel Anderson is the fact that Anderson has admitted that he conspired with others to launder larger sums of money into his campaign than state law allows by concealing the true identity of the donors.  

Whereas Anderson freely admits breaking the law in his plea bargain with the FPPC, Jim Ayres denies the charges, which makes us wonder dear readers if it's only a matter of time before Joel Anderson is brought up on similar criminal charges by the San Diego District Attorney's office.

After all, Joel Anderson's plea bargain agreement with the FPPC is public record and could be used as evidence against him in any criminal prosecution.

John Benoit's $11 Billion Deal

Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the modern day Republican Party once said "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a close resemblance to the first."

No where is Reagan's point better exemplified than with Riverside County's own John Benoit.  

State Senator John Benoit becomes Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit this morning.  It's only costing us $11 billion.

In exchange for his vote for an $11 billion water bond, Republican Governor Arnold Schwazenegger appointed John Benoit to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of late County Supervisor Roy Wilson.   

We first reported that Benoit's appointment was in the bag based on information leaked from the Govenror's  Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy and his Appointments Secretary, John Cruz.  But then the appointment was delayed so the Governor could bank on Benoit's vote for his water bond.  

The Governor's office even instituted a whisper campaign that the appointment may be going to former Republican Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia to keep Benoit from backing out of the deal.

As we reported on October 26, 2009 part of the appointment deal was that "Benoit will be asked to vote for a water bill that is not good for Riverside County.  It's also possible that he'll be asked to break with his the out-of-touch Republican Party and back a Democratic bill."

Now we know that was clearly the case.  

On November 4, 2009 John Benoit played ball with Governor Schwarzenegger and voted for SBX7 2 that will place a bond for $11.14 billion on the November 2010 ballot.  Immediately after the vote, the Governor repaid Benoit for the vote and appointed him to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.

The water bond is filled with wasteful government spending, or as its commonly called, pork, and does relatively nothing to ensure a reliable supply of safe and clean water for Riverside County.

 According to the 

San Francisco Chronicle the bond contained:

-- $100 million for the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program for watershed restoration, bike trails and public access and recreation projects. -- $75 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for public access, education and interpretive projects, physical projects and "improving community sustainability." -- $250 million for dam removal on the Klamath River, a project to help restore salmon runs; and another $20 million for Siskiyou County to soften the impact on the economy from the loss of dams. -- $20 million for the Baldwin Hills Conservancy to be used to buy land to expand the small conservancy in the Los Angeles hills, which is near the home of Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista. -- $20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Huntington Beach (Orange County) for interpretive projects for visitors."

So apparent and obvious was Benoit's vote trading that Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton used it as an example of how political payoffs work.

"Then there's another type of pork called a payoff. Politicians usually don't even have to talk about it. There's just an unspoken understanding. For example: Sen. John Benoit (R-Palm Desert) wanted to be appointed by the governor to a vacant seat on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. And he was, after providing key votes for the water package."

To then save face and repair his wobbly conservative credentials, Benoit decided to delay his swearing in until today.  This was allegedly done to align a runoff special election for Benoit's vacated senate seat with the June 2010 primary election, thus saving Riverside County about $250,000.

But even this so-called cost saving measure has turned out to be a part of Benoit's dirty deal for Wilson's seat.

John Benoit delayed his swearing in until today to give the advantage in the special election to Republican Assemblyman Bill Emmerson. By moving the date, any member of the Assembly contemplating a re-election run would have to decide whether to run for the open Senate seat or for the Assembly again. Running for both at the same time would be problematic.

It appears dear readers, that part of Benoit's deal with Republican Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth was the help Emmerson get into the Senate.  Emmerson would provide Hollingsworth with a moderate Republican that would be able to vote for budgets because he's open to tax increases and not opposed to public financing of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

Bill Emmerson is the termed out Assemblyman from Redlands who last month left his wife and rented a house in Hemet so he can run for Benoit's seat.  The delay in the special election was meant to discourage Republican Assemblymen Brian Nestande and Jeff Miller from running for Benoit's seat.  

Nestande, Benoit's protege who took his old seat in the State Assembly, quickly got the message and immediately signaled that he was happy in the Assembly.  

Jeff Miller on the other hand didn't fall in line and even wrote a scathing editorial which appeared in Sunday's Press-Enterprise attacking the pork filled $11 water bond that John Benoit, Bill Emmerson, and Dennis Hollingsworth all supported to advance their own self-centered political agendas.

So there you have it dear readers.  Now you know the how John Benoit got a seat on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.  It wasn't pretty and it brings a new level of sleazy politics to Riverside County.  But that's what you get when you have a politician like Benoit who's wrapped up with the likes of indicted developer Steve Holgate on the Board of Supervisors.

There is a bright side to all of this. If anyone is worried about John Benoit's seven years in Sacramento making him too partisan and ineffective, there's no cause for concern.   Benoit can be quite effective and non-partisan- as long as there's something in it for him.

The lines between the world's oldest profession and its second oldest profession have never been more blurred.

John Benoit Lied About Tainted Campaign Funds

As we reported last week, Republican State Senator John Benoit has received at least one campaign contribution (possibly more) tied to the money laundering scandal involving indicted San Jacinto developer Steve Holgate.

John Benoit who served in the California Highway Patrol with Steve Holgate has denied having a close, personal friendship with the indicted developer.  Benoit instead distanced himself from Holgate, calling him "an acquaintance" rather than a "friend."

The Californian reported that John Benoit at first denied receiving a campaign contribution from one of the donors, Accurate Business Services, that was reimbursed by Steve Holgate for contributions to indicted San Jacinto City Councilman Jim Ayres when Ayres ran for the State Assembly.

According to The Californian:

 "After initially saying he did not receive a contribution from a key figure in the San Jacinto campaign money-laundering case, Sen. John Benoit, R-Palm Desert, acknowledged Wednesday that a Temecula woman gave money to his 2008 state Senate campaign through her bookkeeping business."

John Benoit's initial denial of the contribution is troubling.  So is Benoit's characterization of Steve Holgate as merely "an acquaintance."  Especially when this so-called acquaintance spent over $100,000 last year to help get John Benoit elected to the State Senate.

While state contribution limits prevent a single donor from giving more than $3600 to a candidate for the legislature, there are ways around the law.

One is the illegal way of laundering money to candidate through other donors as it appears Holgate did in 2006 for Jim Ayres' Assembly race.  The alleged money laundering scheme between Jim Ayres and Steve Holgate is at the heart of District Attorney Rod Pacheco's corruption case against them, three other San Jacinto City Councilmembers, a San Jacinto School Board Members, and three other local businessmen.

The other way is a legal way where a major donor can contribute money to another campaign committee separate and apart from the official campaign.  These are called Independent Expenditure Committees. The First Amendment prohibits the State from placing contribution or spending limits on these types of campaign committees.  However, these committees are prohibited from coordinating their activities with the candidates they are supporting.  

Last year Steve Holgate bypassed state contribution limits and provided an additional $100,000 of support to John Benoit's State Senate campaign by giving the money to a front group called "The Conservative Leaders of America."

Conservative Leaders of America then paid the Sacramento-based Republican political consulting firm of Gilliard, Blanning,Wysocki and Associates $95,222 to campaign for John Benoit and against his opponent, Republican businessman Russ Bogh.  

We here at Inside Riverside believe that based on the information that is available, there needs to be a closer examination and greater scrutiny of John Benoit's ties to Steve Holgate.  Benoit's denials of easily provable facts and Holgate's $100,000 spending spree on John Benoit's behalf warrant such a a review.

While both The Press-Enterprise and The Californian are looking at ties between Benoit and Holgate, The Desert Sun has yet to print a single line about this story.   

Is The Desert Sun trying to protect Benoit from criticism within his soon-to-be Supervisorial District? After all The Desert Sun did strongly advocate Benoit's appointment.  To report that Benoit may be knee deep with a crooked developer might be in the best interest of their readership, its certainly not in the best interest of the paper's credibility.

But perhaps a serious examination of Benoit's relationship with Holgate is already taking place.  A spokesman for the Riverside County District Attorney's Office refused to comment when asked if John Benoit was under criminal investigation along with Steve Holgate and Jim Ayres.

Round and round the San Jacinto political corruption case goes.  Where the charges of money laundering, bribery, and tax evasion stop, no one quite knows yet dear readers.

Is John Benoit Under Criminal Investigation?

The Press-Enterprise is reporting that Republican State Senator John Benoit is linked to indicted developer Steve Holgate.

According to Senator (soon to be County Supervisor) John Benoit, Steve Holgate is also a retired CHP officer who has been a political ally of Benoit's for several years.

The Press-Enterprise reports that John Benoit received at least three contributions in his 2008 Senate primary campaign against fellow conservative Republican Russ Bogh from individuals or businesses that also gave money to Jim Ayres in 2006, but were illegally reimbursed by Holgate.

John Benoit defends the indicted Holgate in the article saying "We have ever reason to believe he's above board."

Benoit would be wise to read the Grand Jury's indictment of Holgate and the others in San Jacinto.  It is evident that the San Jac Nine broke the law, conspired to do so, and are guilty as charged.

Benoit's comment makes us wonder if he is also dirty in this and trying to hide that from the DA and the public.

Were these three contributions to John Benoit also reimbursed by Steve Holgate?

If so, did John Benoit know of this money laundering scheme?

Is John Benoit also under investigation by District Attorney Rod Pacheco?

Hold on to your hats dear readers, this one is going to be one helluva ride!

San Bernardino County Scandal Spills Into Riverside County

The San Bernardino County's District Attorney's investigation into public corruption has led to three resignations and arrests.  

Republican party political operative Adam Aleman was the first to be arrested following his resignation as an Assistant Assessor to then San Bernardino County Assessor Bill Postmus.  

After Aleman's arrest and his cooperation with investigators, his former boss, County Assessor Bill Postmus was arrested on drug charges when investigators discovered methamphetamine in his home while executing a search warrant.  Postmus then resigned as Assessor and recently entered a drug rehabilitation center.

Jim Erwin, the Chief of Staff to County Supervisor Neil Derry has also been arrested, which of course led to his resignation.  Now before going to work for Supervisor Derry, Jim Erwin had been an Assistant Assessor to Bill Postmus, and before that he was the head of the San Bernardino County Deputies union.  Jim Erwin's previous claim to fame had been having a sexual relationship with the County's chief negotiator during contract talks for the deputies.

The heart of the San Bernardino County District Attorney's corruption investigation appears to be the $102 million settlement the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors agreed to pay Colonies Partners and developer Jeff Burum in a flood control dispute in Upland, California.  Bill Postmus was a County Supervisor at the time, and he along with County Supervisor Paul Biane threw the lawyers for the County out of the room and reached the questionable deal with the Colonies.

The Rise and Fall of Bill Postmus is well detailed by InsideSoCal in it's "Behind the Story."

 The Press Enterprise Reported on March 27, 2009 that Burum celebrated his windfall by taking San Bernardino County political operative Jim Erwin and Inland Empire lobbyist Patrick O'Reilly on his private plane to New York City.   Once in NYC Burum gave Erwin a watch valued at over $12,675 and O'Reilly a watch worth more than $18,100.  Burhum put them up in expensive hotels, took them to the hit Broadway show Rent, wined and dined them at top restaurants, and even arranged for the services of some prostitutes, before flying off to Washington DC for more fun and games.

The question that must be asked dear readers is what was Jeff Burum rewarding Jim Erwin and Patrick  O'Reilly for?  Burum said in the article above that "O'Reilly and Erwin were instrumental in the settlement."   

What exactly does that mean dear readers?  Were political operative Jim Erwin and lobbyist Patrick O'Reilly in the settlement conference that lawyers were not allowed to attend?  What were their roles in the questionable settlement?  Were bribes arranged and paid?  If so, did Erwin or O'Reilly deliver the cash?  Is that what this corruption investigation is all about?

Of interest to us dear readers is the involvement of Patrick O'Reilly in this mess.  O'Reilly is a fixture in the Riverside County political establishment and has been for years.  Along with San Diego consultant Tom Sheppard's Campaign Strategies, O'Reilly has an active hand in several campaigns in Riverside County.

Patrick O'Reilly's past and current political clients include the following politicans:

Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster

Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley

Riverside County Supervisor Roy Wilson

Former Riverside County Supervisor Tom Mullen

Former Riverside County Supervisor Jim Venable

Former Riverside County Supervisor Norton Younglove

Former Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle  (the Royal Doyle himself!)

Former Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask

Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge

Former Riverside City Councilman Dom Betro

Former Riverside City Councilman Ed Adkison

Former Riverside City Councilwoman Maureen Kane

According to our sources, Patrick O'Reilly helped get these people elected, then used his relationship with them to sell his lobbying services to those with business before the County and the City of Riverside.  His biggest source of business had been developers.  They would pay him, he'd walk them into meet a County Supervisor or a City Councilmember and viola!  More houses were being approved without the adequate infrastructure of roads, schools, waters, and parks were suddenly approved.

O'Reilly is also alleged to have used his relationships with the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to get the public relations contract for County Supervisor Tom Mullen's pet project, the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP).  Our sources dear readers say that the County Board of Supervisors spent more on O'Reilly's public relations operation for RCIP than they allocated towards the environmental science!

Some say O'Reilly was responsible for the badges for campaign contribution scheme that helped bring down former Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle.  And its possible that because of his relationship with Patrick O'Reilly, former District Attorney Grover Trask never investigated O'Reilly or his clients for their possible illegal activity.

After the publication of the Press Enterprise's story,  Patrick O'Reilly has taken the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions from reporters.   Not a good sign.

It will be very interesting dear readers to see where the San Bernardino County District Attorney goes with this one, and it will also be quite interesting to see if the Press Enterprise continues to dig into this story as they have been.  So far dear readers, the signs look good so far.  If not, we will be here to bash them and tag them with the moniker the Press Enquirer once again.

While we have shown nothing but contempt for that rag of yellow journalism that calls itself the Press Enterprise, we must now give credit where credit is due, dear readers.  The Press Enterprise has done a remarkable job of covering this story and letting the chips fall where they may.

It is perhaps dear readers the last dying gasp of the Press Enterprise, as it struggles to stay solvent as newspapers with larger readerships and more credibility go under across the country.  These stories won't save the PE from going under, but at least some of the reporters over there can claim that when print journalism came to an end in Riverside County they actually went digging for a real story to go out on a high note rather than simply finding the stories that fit their editors pre-arranged headlines.