InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 4
Posts 1510
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 08/23/2010

Re: Jayyy post# 10791

Saturday, 12/09/2017 10:06:35 PM

Saturday, December 09, 2017 10:06:35 PM

Post# of 13735
The ongoing claim of "INSOLVENT" is false. For proof, here is a direct quote from post 10721 from Jayyy when the statement of "company is insolvent" was challenged:
"No they are INSOLVENT. They OWE almost $3million dollars and took in 20k last quarter--THATS INSOLVENT"

Let's contrast that specific information with Websters definition of insolvent: "Unable to pay its bills"

ROTH is current in posting financials and the attorney letter on otcmarkets.com, so the attorney and exchange were paid.
Therefore the ongoing statements about insolvency are false by logical proof. The definition used in post 10721 conflicts with the actual definition of the word. The post I'm replying to acknowledged the current status and attorney letter asking "How did they pay for the lawyer?" The statement itself contradicts the claim of insolvent (unable to pay its bills) as it acknowledges that the lawyer was paid, it simply asks how.

In contrast to the verifiably false statements above about this company, my statements are backed up by publicly verifiable information. Investors are welcome to look it up, verify and decide for yourselves...

Jacob J. Rosenblum on what every lawyer knows.

“If the facts are against you, hammer the law. If the law is against you, hammer the facts. If the fact and the law are against you, hammer opposing counsel."