• Fraudulent CPA firm Auditing Nevada PERS since 2008

    Written By: Cort Arlint, Esq., CPA, MBA

    Nevada PERS’ independent audit firm CliftonLarsonAllen LLP to pay $35 Million for their role in the embezzlement. With over 28 billion dollars in trust for Nevada workers at stake and having the same auditor since 2008, how can Nevadans rely on CliftonLarsonAllen’s audit opinion.

    While reviewing PERS’ financials I researched their independent auditing firm CliftonLarsonAllen LLP.  Turns out last year the audit firm settled for $35 million in a lawsuit for their role in a controller’s 20 year, $50 million dollar embezzlement scheme while they were the city’s independent audit firm since 1988.  During some years of the embezzlement the controller Rita Crundwell was taking more than half of the city’s revenue.  The city had to have pay and hiring freezes for city workers because of the lack of funds.  The firm was also performing the bookkeeping and personal tax returns of Rita Crundwell.

    Independent audit firms perform procedures to verify an entity’s financial statements are correct and then issue an opinion on whether they are fairly stated.  In the 2013 PERS report CliftonLarsonAllen stated “In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the system…  But how much value is their opinion when they are involved in a scheme to take money away from the citizens and put it in the hands of the criminal and help them cover it up by doing their bookkeeping and taxes?

    Unfortunately this brings back memories of Enron where the accounting firm Arthur Andersen collapsed virtually overnight because of their involvement in the audits of Enron.  No one would hire the firm because of their association with the scandal.  When I called the PERS office they didn’t even know about their auditor’s involvement in the Dixon embezzlement.

    Upon election to Nevada Controller I would immediately advocate changing PERS’ independent auditor and conduct an internal audit of the 28 billion dollars in trust to insure the integrity of the financials.

    Reference Articles:

    http://www.startribune.com/business/226068071.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/francinemckenna/2013/06/05/the-madoff-of-munis/2/

    http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/CliftonLarsonAllen-Pay-Settle-City-Lawsuit-68235-1.html

  • Cort Arlint Second Amendment and Nevada Gun Laws

    Cort Arlint Pictured Above at the Clark County Nevada Shooting Range

    The Second Amendment’s purpose was to establish American’s rights to self defense, resistance to oppression and defense of the state.  I firmly believe in individual’s rights and think they should be expanded not constrained.  The right to use firearms for lawful purposes should be protected.  Growing up on a 30 acre ranch in Montana my family used guns for hunting target shooting and protection while camping and hiking in the Rocky Mountains.  Firearms have been a part of my life and as a representative of the State of Nevada I will continue to advocate for the rights of law abiding gun owning Nevadans.   I have summarized some of the current court rulings and legislative actions affecting Nevadans.

    Nevada Law

    Nevada Constitution states, “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.  Nevada has restricted carrying concealed weapons by NRS 202.350 it is not a constitutional carry state.  While “open carry” is permissible in Nevada, a permit is required for a concealed weapon.  A shall-issue state, Nevada has a list of 10 separate grounds for denying a license.

    Recent legislation in Nevada included a gun bill SB76 which tried to eliminate the need for a CCW permit.  The bill didn’t pass, also another bill SB 221 was vetoed by the governor which would have required private transfers of firearms to go through a federal firearms licensee  and required a background check.

    Federal Law

    In 2008, the Supreme Court held in Colombia v. Heller the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Later in McDonal v. City of Chicago the Supreme Court furthered their ruling holding that self-defense is a basic individual right, and therefore, the Second Amendment applies to states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.