LOL, wow, what a riot. I scarcely even desire to respond to such nonsense because it seems only to be just a distraction and obfuscation of what is important in this process of getting the stock fully reporting and on the OTCBB exchange, though I will point out a few things just for the exercise of it.
The posters argument consists of many contradictions but it seems mainly to be making the point that acquiring a fully audited 10K filing including audited 2012 financials is NOT NECESSARY for submitting the Form 10-SB to the SEC and guess what, that is entirely ACCURATE. However, this fact does not necessarily mean that management does not have a "clue" or that their insistance in obtaining a fully reporting status with audited financials in some way hints at the improbability of the company accomplishing a successful audit and filing a 10K with the SEC. It is further purported that there is no "mechanism" to possibly file an audited 10K with the SEC before the Form 10 is sent in and this is just completely "wrong". Any Pink Sheets company at any time can decide to, on its own, adhere to the SEC "fully reporting" standards in order to provide their shareholders with greater transparency. The mere fact that Pink Sheets companies are not required to adhere to such a standard in no way prohibits them from doing so. Further, preparing past years with audited financial statements accompanying the 10-K document of course is not required, but again, doing so is not in any way, "wrong" or "could not be done as claimed by RFMK even if they wanted to". Oh, yes, RFMK management desires to do it and so they are doing it! 
Why should they go to so much trouble instead of just immediately submitting a Form 10, getting registered and then having the MM submit the 211? Well, I would think it is rather simple to understand. As stated in the posters argument, RFMK in 2007 removed itself from such SEC reporting requirement obligations and so going back to the SEC and begging for a re-newed registration status is difficult enough for the entity especially if they were still non-reporting. Of course they could have just simply submitted a Form 10 and crossed their fingers and hoped that the SEC would be so kind as to allow them to move forward with getting listed on the OTCBB, but eventually they would have to be fully reporting anyway, and waiting to the last minute of the official time frame to get fully reporting I would think could be quite risky; noting how long this audit process already has taken for RFMK (likely because of its sorted past via ex-CEOs).
The OTCBB is merely a privately owned quotation medium. In order for the company to get listed on the BB exchange, an MM must vouch for RFMK by submitting a 211 to FINRA. OTCBB is fully reporting and must file both quarterly and annual reports with the SEC such as the 10Q and the 10K, so one way or another this has to happen anyway. Did they maybe waste time by trying to audit too many past years? Maybe, but maybe not; we can only speculate as to the conversations which occurred between the SEC and the CEO as regards management working with the SEC to streamline the process and to deal with the sketchy past of the company because of the change in status, etc; all of this was discussed in an old shareholder update I believe.
For further info, I found a link in my favorites on all this stuff ("fully reporting"), etc.
http://www.spartansecurities.com/forms/otcbb.pdf
In order to get an OTCBB listing you need to
be fully reporting, etc., as I’ve explained. One of the
SEC reporting requirements is the company must
have financial statements audited. This must be done
by a PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board) qualified auditor. PCAOB is the entity that
qualifies auditors to audit public companies. In
order to get a Pink Sheets listing you do not need
audits, but you must produce financial statements for
the last two fiscal years and latest quarter that are
prepared and certified to be to US GAAP (Generally
Accepted Accounting Practices) standards....
...
In the case of an OTCBB listing the Market Maker
can rely on the representations management has
made in its filings and the auditors certification of its
financial statements thereby lessening the burden
on the Market Maker to substantiate the information
presented to the public...
So, the point is, with the company already having completed an audit of the last two fiscal years and there being an audited up-to-date 10-K filing with audited financials, the Market Maker can "rely" on such documents and filings in order to "lessen" the "burden" on the MM to "substantiate the information" and to convince FINRA to allow the 211 application to successfully permit the issue to be listed on the BB exchange. Sure, management could have just submitted a Form 10 which would likely have bounced right back in their face from SEC, getting us nowhere and then any 211 submitted by a market maker would have been dead on arrival, OR, they could proceed in a way such as they are doing right now, by taking the time to do it right and making sure all i's are dotted and all t's are crossed. As a shareholder, I am actually glad management has decided to go this higher quality route rather than just rushing through forms just to get them submitted, only to probably have them all rejected by the SEC and FINRA. I truly do not see how the posters argument really holds any weight, IMO it is just pure negative spin and blowing hot air making a mountain out of a molehile. It is meaningless conjecture and contradiction amidst mis-understandings and flat-out obfuscation. Classic shorty basher handbook time, I guess. The problem with iScum is that, just as the case is with the FoxNews guru's, the self-proclaimed penny saviours and experts remain in a bubble and just post and re-post links to their own spun posts as "DD" and then attempt to prove points based on this "DD" but injecting tidbits of truth with a mix of mis-understanding and conjecture does not necessarily make for a cogent argument or a meaningful one.
Hope this helps....
Do or do not, there is no try.
$RFMK
(0)
(0)
