Richard Lesher Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 29 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Coupling this with previous info (please correct if wrong). SCV is an approved non-profit BUT the paperwork for the Bingo business is so FUBAR the state can’t figure out if it’s being run correctly. Hmmm, can CA shut down the Bingo if not resolved? The Mayor of Santa Clara is an honorary board member. The first level of Bingo enforcement is the Santa Clara Police Department (the city issues the license) The auditor's report also means the city hasn't been keeping tabs on Bingo either. Otherwise, SCV would have the reports they make when they close out bingo every night that make up the monthly report that goes to the City Bingo inspector. I could not have wished for a more critical Independent Auditor's Report to support my claims. Remember, Doctors have doctor's speak. Lawyers have lawyer's speak. Scientists have science speak. Accountants have accountant's speak. The CPA's are not going to identify fraud. They are paid by SCV to audit the finances and report on their compliance as it pertains to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. What SCV cannot say now is that my claims of fraud and theft cannot be discounted. What SCV is challenged with is 2023 is locked in place (the year is over). Any changes they claimed to have made will show the performance when they reregister again in March (2.5 months away). What SCV is challenged with now is continuing to say they are addressing the items mentioned in the auditor's report while at the same time continuing employment of the CFO, and Bingo Manager (I suggest others as well, but come on, these two are at the front of the line). *********** Per SCV's own tax returns from 2021 to 2022 they lose a balance sheet net value of $3,000,000. That number itself per CPA speak is erroneous. It could be worse. It could be better. Which do you think it REALLY IS? Per CPA speak they cannot even validate how much money or investments SCV has to pay their operations and debts. So the balance sheet is erroneous as well. ************ Now............................. $3M net value is gone. Bingo is paying out more in cash prizes than taking in revenue (also unverifiable per the CPA), as reported by SCV, and the Bingo manager lives in Hawaii. ******** I'm just touching on the major things. I can also now articulate that SCV used the federal loans and grants to pay Bingo cash prizes because the pure accounting loss of Bingo games is greater than the loans and grants. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES FOLKS MISUSE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IS AGAINST FEDERAL LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 years in jail. $10,000 fine. If there is not fraud or theft (explicitly from Bingo), then someone made a decision to give away more money than taken in from Bingo Games, and also decided to get federal assistance to fund that decision. ************** Remember, the internet is my therapeutic decompression venue. DCP, Reddit, my Alumni forms are not my audience. Regulators and Law Enforcement are my audience now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Ok I screwed up, I read the doc but didn’t check who sent it. Thought it was from the state or county but now see it’s the auditors report…. 🤦♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 7 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Ok I screwed up, I read the doc but didn’t check who sent it. Thought it was from the state or county but now see it’s the auditors report…. 🤦♂️ It's not like this stuff is easy to follow, tbf. 👍🏽 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy18 Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 I am an auditor at a public accounting firm and can clarify the accounting lingo and provide some general insights into this report, AMA. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 11 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said: It's not like this stuff is easy to follow, tbf. 👍🏽 Actually I concentrated on the text of the document and didn’t look at the heading (which had the companies name). 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Maybe it’s a good thing I’m retired and not in the working world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 1 minute ago, JimF-LowBari said: Actually I concentrated on the text of the document and didn’t look at the heading (which had the companies name). 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Maybe it’s a good thing I’m retired and not in the working world I appreciate you wherever you are. 😎 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 8 minutes ago, Rudy18 said: I am an auditor at a public accounting firm and can clarify the accounting lingo and provide some general insights into this report, AMA. The full document is available here https://rct.doj.ca.gov/verification/web/Search.aspx by searching Vanguard Music and Performing Arts; next page click RCT number 009838; next page click Audited Financial Statement 2022. I'm particularly curious about statements regarding cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Rudy18 said: I am an auditor at a public accounting firm and can clarify the accounting lingo and provide some general insights into this report, AMA. Ok. I’ll take you up on the AMA: Are you in general agreement with what our esteemed colleague RL is saying about this letter & the documents, with published numbers, behind it? I am not accusing RL of being wrong or misleading us, just asking to see if what he is saying is supported by the facts publicly available. You understand the nuances & terms of art. I don’t. Sort of a Trust, but Verify situation Edited January 18 by IllianaLancerContra Further pontificating 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KVG_DC Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Rudy18 said: I am an auditor at a public accounting firm and can clarify the accounting lingo and provide some general insights into this report, AMA. I'll take up an AMA too. I sense a lot of "well the numbers don't seem like outright lies to us here and the math checks, but if something breaks about where that Bingo money went, don't come at us with a lawsuit, bro!" in this letter. Is that an accurate read? Edited January 18 by KVG_DC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy18 Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 18 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Ok. I’ll take you up on the AMA: Are you in general agreement with what our esteemed colleague RL is saying about this letter & the documents, with published numbers, behind it? I am not accusing RL of being wrong or misleading us, just asking to see if what he is saying is supported by the facts publicly available. You understand the nuances & terms of art. I don’t. Sort of a Trust, but Verify situation I am not super well versed in SCV’s financial statements specifically, however some of what RL is saying certainly appears to be true - though he certainly has a negative/pessimistic view - but the issue at hand is that SCV’s accounting records are so bad that it is impossible to verify whether the numbers they are claiming for 2021-2022 are accurate. In most instances where there is a scope impairment due to a lack of sufficient appropriate audit evidence the auditors would choose to deliver a “disclaimer of opinion”, however the missing records cover so much of the organization’s operations and are of such material amounts that Qualified or Adverse are really the only options left. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts