Why we think that audit is fake
I’ve spent months working to explain how this whole thing was made up and why it’s so hard to believe.
The truth is, I don’t have much confidence in the auditors’ ability to verify the accuracy of my claims.
In the past, I’ve written about auditors misreporting their findings, using them to defend frauds against victims, and debunking claims about audit systems.
But I’m still waiting for my money back.
So, I decided to write about the audit process itself.
This article will focus on the way that the audit was conducted, and the frauds it’s supposed to debunk.
The Audit of the Fulton County Audits: Frauds or Fakes?
is the latest installment of a series that examines the fraud perpetrated against the county by the Fulton Department of Finance and Administration.
It focuses on the falsification of records, which occurred in January 2017, and claims that the Fulton audit system was compromised in part by a security breach.
The Fulton auditors say they “are confident that their audit will be able to identify and verify fraud, while also protecting the taxpayers of Fulton from fraudsters.”
But if you want to dig deeper into the fraud claims and how they were made, you’ll need to read about the Fulton Auditor’s claim that the auditor “did not disclose any fraud.”
Falsified records are not necessarily frauds.
Frauds are the actions of people who are using fraudulent information to deceive people into paying them for services.
Fraudsters don’t lie to get their way; they’re liars.
If fraudsters can lie to make you pay for services they do not deserve, that is fraud.
Fraud is a crime that should be prosecuted, but the Fulton auditing office is a federal government agency that is supposed to be transparent and objective.
The audit process is meant to help the auditor determine if fraud occurred, and it’s a process that has been proven to be accurate.
The auditors found that the following records are accurate: “The Fulton County Department of Education did not receive any student-related fees or expenses in fiscal year 2017.”
This is misleading because the auditor said the Fulton district did not actually receive any money.
It also is misleading that this information was omitted from the records, because it would have shown that students were receiving money.
The district received $2,400 from the Fulton school district for each of the first three years it was a public school, which totaled $7,936, and $1,600 for each subsequent year.
The auditor also found that “the Fulton County School District received no payments from the city or county.”
The district had $2.1 million in revenues in fiscal 2017, which equals $2 million.
So what happened to the $1.5 million in revenue that the district received for the last year?
The district used that money to pay itself for “operating expenses,” including a $50,000 salary for the district’s chief financial officer, which was $25,000 more than what was actually spent on salaries.
The city paid $100,000 in taxes to the Fulton city government in fiscal 2016.
The amount the district spent on operating expenses is only a small part of the amount the school district received.
Fulton also received $1 million from the U.S. Treasury in fiscal 2015, and its total revenue was $5.3 million.
The rest of Fulton’s revenue came from property taxes.
In other words, Fulton’s financials came from the federal government, not the Fulton public schools.
The F.D.A. is responsible for auditing the financial statements of public school districts, and there are different rules for different schools.
However, the Fulton auditor claims that it could not determine whether the district used any of the money from the Federal Government to pay its salaries or to pay for other things, including its operating expenses.
The federal government does not reimburse schools for salaries.
It is the school districts responsibility to make sure that the financials they receive are accurate.
“The auditors were also unable to determine whether Fulton was receiving a payment from the City of Atlanta for its payroll, for other purposes, or whether Fulton had any other payments or other receipts from any other source.”
This statement appears to contradict the Fulton Superintendent’s statement in the auditor’s report.
The Atlanta city government paid the district for salaries for two years, from 2010 to 2012.
The school district paid the city $4.7 million for salaries, and another $3.2 million for other expenses.
When the city pays the district, it is usually in full, meaning that the city is reimbursed.
When schools receive money from outside the city, the amount paid must be accurate because it’s used to pay teachers salaries, for building projects, and other things.
D, on the other hand, reimburses the city for the expenses of operating schools.
It reimburses schools for a variety of expenses that