You falsely and repeatedly state "COMPANY IS INSOLVENT" yet admit that "your own definition" of insolvent is different than Websters published definition. ROTH is paying its bills and you have no evidence otherwise. In fact your own post with financials indicating an increase in cash from last quarter of only $361 without considering a shareholder advance of $3580 proves that the accusation of insolvency is definitively false.
You also make reference to"real cash" as if cash from a shareholder advance does not or is not paying the bills. In any case yet more proof that the insolvent claim is definitively false.
You also falsely state that the financial report is late. The year end results are timely if filed within 90 days, thus due roughly the end of September.
If the company really pulled "shenanigans" then it would be unnecessary, for example, to falsely claim a "verbatim excerpt" from a Consumer Reports article when the article in question was verifiably modified to remove the subject sentence and conceal the change with modifying the punctuation to falsely implicate ROTH and Sucanon in an FDA warning that in fact had nothing to do with the company or product. It is verifiable in post 4477 and many subsequent posts.
You state "Warning. Always consider the source of information posted here." I agree that is excellent advice. It would appear logically that information posted here can only be considered reliable if backed up by verifiable information. I will state further that if you can really prove anything at all that I have posted is factually incorrect then have at it. Any can readily check that my information is verifiable from publicly available sources and cited in their entirety without modification. Any can also readily note that the suggestion to consider the source of information was brought up before but it didn't appear to be received well. Any can also see the inconsistency of that logic
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
