Perhaps you're right.
He's clearly the most sleazy writer I've ever had the misfortune of reading.
However, regardless of the conclusions or presumptions made, there were facts within the article that need to be addressed.
What is your take on these facts?
In fact, the balance sheet for the year ending Dec. 31, 2006, reported total assets of only $455,727 against total liabilities of $833,317 and the company had a working capital deficit of $727,903.
Later in the article:
As of Sept. 30, 2007, RCC reported exactly the same total assets of $455,727 against total liabilities of $833,317 and had the same working capital deficit of $727,903 as it reported at the end of 2006.
What is your opinion?
Are these lies? I assume they are public record so correct me if I am mistakenly assuming that they are true.
Are the results of the two years a remarkable coincidence, in that they seem to indicate exactly the same results?
Is the company publishing misleading information, or is it a result of incompetency?
Given that many companies make mistakes, evidenced by the numerous amendments that are made to previous filings, why haven't these been corrected?
Is this evidence of sloppiness, deceit, incompetence or what?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
