Report Of Total Unit Operations Income Statement - Kentucky: Fill & Download for Free

Plenty of examples. The below is not necessarily complete, especially for the 2005 and 2006 Terms. Data and most summaries taken from Scotusblog. Most prominently, Ginsburg has been a loyal adherent to Scalia's Confrontation Clause doctrine, while Roberts rejects Scalia's approach.In the 2014 Term:Comptroller of Md. v. Wynne (Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Kagan dissenting; Scalia joined Ginsburg's dissent but not vice versa): Maryland’s personal income tax scheme, which taxes income that its residents earn both within and outside the state but does not provide residents with a full credit against the income taxes that they pay to other states, violates the dormant Commerce Clause.Kimble v. Marvel Enters., Inc. (Roberts, Thomas and Alito dissenting): A patent holder cannot charge royalties for the use of his invention after its patent term has expired.In the 2013 Term:Kaley v. United States (Roberts, Breyer and Sotomayor dissenting): When challenging the legality of a pre-trial asset seizure under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1), a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe that he committed the crimes charged.BG Grp. PLC v. Argentina (Roberts and Kennedy dissenting): When reviewing an arbitration award made under an international treaty, U.S. courts should interpret and apply "threshold" provisions concerning arbitration using the framework developed for interpreting similar provisions in ordinary contracts. Under that framework, the local litigation requirement is a matter for arbitrators primarily to interpret and apply, and courts should review their interpretation with deference.Navarette v. California (Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting): Under the totality of the circumstances, the traffic stop precipitated by an anonymous but reliable tip to 911 complied with the Fourth Amendment because the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated.Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg and Alito dissenting; both Scalia and Ginsburg joined Thomas's dissent but neither joined each other's separate dissent): Michigan's suit against the Bay Mills Indian Community to enjoin the tribe from operating a gaming facility on non-Indian lands is barred by tribal sovereign immunity.In the 2012 Term:Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Scalia, Kennedy and Ginsburg dissenting; Ginsburg joined Scalia's dissent only in part): The “first sale” doctrine, which allows the owner of a copyrighted work to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy as he wishes, applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.Florida v. Jardines (Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Alito dissenting): A dog sniff at the front door of a house where the police suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.Missouri v. McNeely (Roberts, Thomas, Breyer and Alito dissenting in part; Scalia and Ginsburg joined Sotomayor opinion which was a majority opinion in part and plurality in part): In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.Arlington v. FCC (Roberts, Kennedy and Alito dissenting): Courts must apply the Chevron framework to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency’s statutory authority (i.e., its jurisdiction).Maryland v. King (Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting): When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold a suspect for a serious offense and bring him to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (All-time great dissent by Scalia!)Maracich v. Spears (same lineup): An attorney’s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the “litigation exception” to the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (same lineup; Scalia wrote dissent for himself and partly joined Kagan's dissent, which Ginsburg joined in full): Assuming for the sake of argument that the biological father in this case is a "parent" for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Act still does not bar termination of the biological father's paternal rights.In the 2011 Term:Reynolds v. United States (Scalia and Ginsburg dissenting): The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provi­sions apply to them.Williams v. Illinois (Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting; Roberts in plurality): The admission of expert testimony about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts did not violate the Confrontation Clause.In the 2010 term:Michigan v. Bryant (Scalia and Ginsburg dissenting separately): A statement given to police by a wounded crime victim identifying the person who shot him may be admitted as evidence at the trial if the victim dies before trial and thus does not appear. Because the primary purpose of the interrogation was to enable police to deal with an ongoing emergency, the statements resulting from that interrogation were not testimonial and could be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause.Va. Off. for Prot. Advocacy v. Stewart (Roberts and Alito dissenting): Ex Parte Young allows a federal court to hear a lawsuit for prospective relief against state officials brought by another agency of the same state.Sykes v. United States (Scalia dissenting and Ginsburg and Kagan dissenting separately): Using a vehicle while knowingly or intentionally fleeing from a law enforcement officer after being ordered to stop constitutes a violent felony, as proscribed by Indiana law, for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).In the 2009 Term:Alabama v. North Carolina (Roberts, Thomas and Breyer dissenting): North Carolina acts as a host state for a radioactive waste disposal facility utilized and partially funded by a commission of southern states. When North Carolina was unable to finance its share of the facility, the commission withdrew funding, and the facility shut down. The Court held that the terms of the agreement among the states did not allow the commission to impose financial sanctions against North Carolina, and that North Carolina did not breach its contractual obligation or its implied duty in any event. It also held that North Carolina was not protected from suit by the commission by the doctrine of sovereign immunity because the commission was itself made up of sovereign states.In the 2008 Term:Arizona v. Gant (Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Alito dissenting): Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle (Roberts, Stevens and Souter dissenting): Section 16(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Arbitration Act entitles any litigant asking for a section 3 stay to an immediate appeal from that motion's denial.Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito dissenting): The Comptroller's regulation purporting to pre-empt state law enforcement of fair-lending laws is not a reasonable interpretation of the National Bank Act.Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Alito dissenting): A state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is testimonial evidence subject to the Confrontation Clause.Spears v. United States (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito dissenting): A district judge may categorically disagree with the Sentencing Guidelines' 100:1 crack-to-powder equivalency.Vaden v. Discover Bank (Roberts, Stevens, Breyer and Alito dissenting): A federal court may "look through" a § 4 petition to compel arbitration to determine whether it is predicated on a controversy that "arises under" federal law.In the 2007 Term:Danforth v. Minnesota (Roberts and Kennedy dissenting): Teague does not constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion.Ky. Ret. Sys. v. EEOC (Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Alito dissenting): Kentucky's system does not discriminate based on age against workers who become disabled after becoming eligible for retirement.United States v. Santos (Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Alito dissenting): The word "proceeds" in the federal money laundering statute refers to criminal profits rather than criminal revenues.In the 2006 Term:James v. United States (Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg dissenting): Attempted burglary is a predicate felony under ACCA.Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg dissenting): The Due Process Clause bars punitive damages for harms to individuals not involved in the litigation.In the 2005 Term:United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito dissenting): Erroneous deprivation of defendant's choice of counsel entitles defendant to reversal of conviction.

This is where they have their Corporate Center:3160 NW 1st Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33169 Tel 786 235 9026 but they don’t answer their phone so you have to leave them a message.The Investor Contact is listed as:Patrick Greenish, presidentTel 786 235 [email protected] Statement Pursuant to the Pink Basic Disclosure GuidelinesLudwig Enterprises, Inc. A Nevada Corporation 1702 “A” Street #C-350 Sparks, Nevada 89431786-235-9026Ludwigent :: Home [email protected] 6162 End Third Quarter 2019 Report For the Period Ending:September 30, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) [1]The Old History of its Financial Highlights[2]- The company was organized in 1988.- Became a public company in 2006- For the past 3 years has been fundedby an Angel Investor- Was issued a Patent in 2009 for itsrevolutionary Transmission Method- Has Authorized 75,000,000 CommonShares – Issued 74,420,999- The Float is 7,394,398 shares- Company has 554 shareholdersThe above data is not current, nor is it accurate so why doesn’t the SEC make sure that investors are protected by the current information and require the company to update its pubic web pages and data?From their old data:“Ludwig Enterprises, Inc.[3] is a revolutionary broadcasting company, offering programming that caters to a rapidly growing, multi-cultural market. They bridge the generations from hip youth culture forging new expressions of Americana to their grandparents who are the custodians of great worldwide traditions. These markets are largely excluded from today’s commercial broadcasters. Ludwig Enterprises is helping to move analogue radio into the digital age, harmonizing all ages and cultures as they add to America’s rich treasure of diversity.Ludwig Enterprises, Inc. is launching the first nationwide World radio network in the U.S. that really is for US! The One™ radio is bringing HD quality digital audio to a vast audience of diverse ages and origins, whose interests go unsatisfied by today’s domestic programming. The One™ radio is reaching out to a $1.5 trillion marketplace, and an audience which is almost completely ignored. The segment of listeners born abroad is over 30 million alone, which invites new for exciting programming and a new frontier for advertisers.Many listeners miss the classic the radio programs of the past, and just as radio played a vital role as a touchtone for American culture throughout the last century, so to The One™ radio is designed to be a centerpiece around which other cultures can unify and feel as much at home in the United States as they did in the countries they came from.It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans are 55 and over. That means 70 million potential listeners are not able to enjoy the programming they love due to the homogenized formats that even satellite and internet radio offer. As listeners enter their golden years, radio plays an ever increasing role in ones window to the world and an important link to news and entertainment, especially if other areas of their lives become more limited. The One™ radio’s programming is designed to serve this, ever growing, abundant marketplace as well as providing youth culture with a vital link to its heritage.Ludwig Enterprises, Inc.[4] has developed a patented new radio that receives signals from the new Digital Television format (ATSC also known as HD-TV). The One™ radio offers 50 channels of diverse, HD quality, digital programming…Filipino, Pakistani, Hebrew, Chinese, Greek, Russian and many more, in addition to great English programming, old time radio shows, news 24 hours a day, audio books, educational and religious programming, as well as music ranging from Techno to Classical.The One™ radio receiver, developed by Ludwig Enterprises, Inc., is mobile, handheld and compatible with most docking stations, for your home, in the car or on the go.The One™ radio utilizes social networking capabilities to link advertisers and listeners via a unique technology that lets the advertiser know exact demographic / statistical data within 96 hours of playing a commercial in each of Ludwig’s 50 primarily markets, offering advertisers virtually real-time feedback for maximum market penetration. The privacy of the listener is protected as well because the regional data collected is not specific to the individual.INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYThe One™ radio’s unique patented technology utilizes a “carousel” that interleaves information streams in a repeating pattern for inclusion into a digital video broadcast (Digital TV: also known as HD TV), allowing Ludwig’s data carousel to deliver multiple dynamic digital audio programs, not just one.COMPETITIONThe nearest competitor to The One™ radio is Sirius/XM radio. There is very little overlap in our target audience since The One™ radio is reaching out to new markets that they do not serve, catering to expanding multicultural, 55 plus and emerging youth markets, with an emphasis on family unity.For legal reasons The One™ radio, like Sirius/XM, is considered a subscription based service. The similarities STOP there. Unlike Sirius/XM Ludwig does not charge a monthly fee. A small one-time subscription fee is charged upon activation and the unit itself is included free of charge. This is the benefit of utilizing existing terrestrial data transmission infrastructure rather than more costly satellite transmission, as well as Ludwig’s main source of revenue being derived from advertising and the sale of syndication time.”None of the above information is currently accurate, currently relevant or appropriate to the company.[5]The following information is from a press release which appears to have been syndicated on the financial news networks on December 19,2019:Ludwig Enterprises Inc., Acquires Direct Mortgage Investors Inc.[6]SPARKS, NV / ACCESSWIRE / December 19, 2019 / Ludwig Enterprises Inc., (OTC PINK:LUDG) Board of Directors is pleased to announce the positive consolidation efforts of Direct Mortgage Investors Inc. (Direct) and the Ludwig team. This is the first of several acquisitions that will allow the company to execute its business plan to roll-up mortgage companies and financial services companies related to the mortgage industry.Direct Mortgage Investors' management team has worked very hard to transition the daily tasks of the mortgage operation under LUDG. This transition has been deemed successful to date. Direct Mortgage Investors Inc[7]., is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Ludwig Enterprises Inc.Based in Chicago IL, Direct is a mortgage broker that was formed via multiple brokers and offices coming together in 2017. Direct is licensed in 14 states. The firm has approximately 80 loan officers in multiple offices in Illinois, Michigan and Florida. The principles of Direct, on average, have more than twenty years of experience in the mortgage business.During the 2018 fiscal year, Direct did $2.4 million in revenue and a little more than $100,000 in profit. For the first nine month of the 2019 year, Direct reported $3.99 million in revenue and $95,000 in net income. The acquisition of Direct is envisioned to be a positive transaction for the shareholders of Ludwig.Contact:Jean CherubinCEOLudwig Enterprises, Inc.[8][email protected]: Ludwig Enterprises Inc.But if you email or phone either contact listed in this answer, you get no response.Further Due Diligence from the most available SEC filings[9] doesn’t provide much more evidence of this company being anything but a shell company nor a fully going concern at the moment: Official site of OTCQX, OTCQB and Pink MarketsTHE COMPANY HAS TOO MANY NOTES TO ITS FILINGS WITH http://PINKSHEETS.COMLUDWIG ENTERPRISES, INC. CONSOLIDATED(A Development Stage Company)NOTES SEPTEMBER 30, 2019NOTE A – 1988 ‐Ludwig Enterprises was incorporated and issued 1,000 common shares at $1.00 per share.NOTE B – February 8, 2006 ‐ Ludwig Enterprises, Inc. a Nevada corporation was formed and capitalized at 75,000,000 authorized shares with 1,000 shares issued.NOTE C – March 28, 2006 ‐ Ludwig Enterprises, Inc. of Kentucky merged with its wholly owned Nevada subsidiary, the subsidiary survived and becoming the parent. The Kentucky corporation was dissolved.NOTE D ‐ March 28, 2006 ‐ Immediately following Ludwig Enterprise, Inc. of Kentucky’s merger into its Nevada subsidiary the company issued a 60,000 to 1 reverse split changing the issued shares from 1,000 common shares to 60,000,000 common shares.NOTE E – 1988 to February 25, 2007 ‐ the Company had 544 shareholders. February 25, 2007 five (5) additional shareholders were added to the shareholder list for a total of 549 total shareholders of record.NOTE F ‐ February 25, 2007 ‐ the company issued a total of 825,000 restricted shares to five individuals for services rendered.NOTE G – September 30, 2009 7,500,000 treasury shares were sold at $.01 per share.NOTE H ‐ May 1, 2009 MDI Corporate Actions at Nasdaq approved issuers request for a 100:1 reverse split. The split was effective this date. Issuer’s trading symbol was changed to LUDG with CUSIP number 54973P 20 3NOTE I – September 30, 2009 the company issued 7,500,000 restricted common shares from Treasury to retire a debt owing to Worthington Financial Services, Inc. in the amount of $75,000. Each share was exchanged at the rate of $0.01 per share.NOTE J ‐ September 30, 2009 September 30, 2009 the issuance of the shares below to retire debt triggered non‐dilution protection on 546,650 common shares. This action required the total issued share distribution to be increased to 74,421,000.NOTE K ‐ April 28, 2010 The Board of Directors of Issuer and New World Global, Inc. entered into a “debt for equity exchange” of $20,000.00 for 20,000,000 restricted common shares of Issuer. This action triggered Non dilution rights of Issuer’s largest shareholder, Worthington Financial, Inc. resulting in 77,636,612 additional shares being issued to Worthington. Additionally, other shareholders with Non‐Dilution rights received 99,196,785 shares. A total of 196,833,397 new common shares being issued.NOTE L ‐ June 21, 2011 Ludwig Enterprises, Inc. Board of Directors announces a Reverse Stock Split of one hundred to one (100:1) for is sole class of stock. The Board of Directors met (06/20/2011) and voted to recommend the action. A special shareholders meeting was held (06/20/2011) consisting of shareholders holding in excess of 50%+ of the company's stock, the action was voted on and approved with the effective date to be July 5th 2011 at 12:01 AM. The Reverse Split is proportional. No rights of any shareholder will be altered or diminished. All fractional shares resulting from the split will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. This action will result in a decrease of the issued number of shares from 271,254,396 to approximately 2,713,108 common shares.NOTE M ‐ July 5, 2011 Board of Directors voted unanimously to exchange $62,500.00 of debt for common shares at par value. This action triggered non‐dilution rights on 223,046,752 (pre split) shares due to lock‐up leak‐out agreements. July 6, 2011 was the effective date of reverse split.NOTE N – January 5, 2012 Issuer’s $73,500 Line of Credit was cancelled. Issuer was subsequently able to acquire up to $25,000 of short term funding from an alternate source to meet day‐to‐day expenses that tend to accelerate during the 1st Quarter of each year. It is Issuer’s position, as soon as possible, to convert the short‐term obligation into a long‐term instrument.NOTE 0 ‐ March 5, 2012 Board of Directors and a majority of the shareholders voted and affirmed a 350:1 reverse split. Future balance sheets will be adjusted to reflect a modification to the number of issued shares.NOTE P ‐ April 26, 2012 Debt for Equity Exchange $20,000 for 2,000,000 common shares. This action triggered certain non‐dilution rights.NOTE Q ‐June 29, 2012 Worthington Financial Services, Inc. and Issuer terminated their join Lock‐up/Leak‐ out agreement with non‐dilution protection.Note R ‐ June 29, 2012 Worthington Financial Services, Inc. exchanged $100,000 of debt owed to it for Ludwig common shares at par being equal to 100,000,000 common shares.Note S – May 2, 2014 Patron Corp. acquired Issuer’s Notes Payable from Worthington Financial, Inc.Note T – May 2, 2014 Patron Corp. purchased the portion of issuer held patent(s) / intellectual properties not owned by others for the sum of $150,000. This amount being the book value of patents at $14,785 plus $135,215 in excess of book. This amount being retired from debt held by Patron Corp. on the balance sheet of Issuer.Note U‐ December 16, 2016 the Board of Directors cancelled and rescinded a June 29, 2012 board resolution to reserve 35,000,000 common shares and or options for said shares. No shares or options had been issued.Note V ‐ Updates 2019:March 22, 2019 The company announced its hire of Cortil Duane Roberts as its new vice president in charge of acquisitions.April 2, 2019 The company executed a purchase agreement for Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc. Issuer executed a purchase agreement for Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc. subject to closing.May 31, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting approved a 2019 Equity Incentive Plan to distribute to current and future employees, officers, directors up to 12,000,000 common shares of the company. Shares authorization rights will be held in an Incentive Plan Trust to be disbursed by the company’s CEO in such amount and time as he directs. The company further authorized issuance of 32,200,000 shares to be used for acquisitions.May 1, 2019 The company and Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc. executed an extension for closing.May 31, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting approved a 2019 Equity Incentive Plan to distribute to current and future employees, officers, directors up to 40,000,000 common shares of the company. The shares will be issued and held in an Incentive Plan Trust to be disbursed by the company’s CEO in such amount and time as he directs. The company further authorized issuance of 30,000,000 shares to be used for acquisitions.June 12, 2019 Board of Directors approved an amendment to the acquisition agreement of Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc. June 20, 2019 Issuer acquired Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc.June 23, 2019 Issuer acquired Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc. as a 100% owned subsidiary for 32 million common shares of issuer.On or about September 9, 2019 Issuer entered into five short term convertible notes for a total of $55,000 due February 9, 2020 at an interest rate of 15% per annum.The notes are convertible into 100,000 common shares for each $1,000 of principle.Basis of Accounting The Corporation’s policy is to prepare its financial statements on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Financial StatementsThe financial statements and notes are representations of the Corporation’s management who is responsible for their integrity and objectivity. The accounting policies conform to the basis of accounting defined above and have been consistently applied in the preparation of the financial statements.Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.Property and Equipment The Company owns no real property or equipment.Personal property items (equipment and furniture) acquired by the Company are or will be recorded at cost. The property will be depreciated over its estimated useful life using the straight‐line method with and estimated zero salvage value.Intangible Assets The company holds certain license rights for the use of technology formerly held by Compress Technologies, Inc.’s (CTI) technologies those rights have been transferred to Thomas E. Terwilliger. Ludwig paid no cash for these rights. Ludwig and CTI exchanged a right to use of CTI’s technology for a Ludwig technology currently being developed.OTC Markets Group Inc. OTC Pink Basic Disclosure Guidelines (v2.0 February 2019) Page 22 of 22 NOTE K – Current Liabilities Contingent and Conditional Current liabilities include the following: Issuer has in the 3rd Quarter of 2019 entered into $55,000 of short term convertible notes.Line of Credit The company entered into an agreement for a Cash Access Account in the amount of $25,000. $20,357.95 of the Credit Line was expended during the 1st Quarter 2012. $4,642.05 remains available for operations. The line of credit is collateralized by future revenues of the. The interest rate is 15% annualized on funds withdrawn from the credit line. $20,000 of the $25,000 of borrowed funds has been converted to common stock in a debt for equity exchange.Sufficient Cash for Operations Issuer has $204,427 of cash or cash equivalents available. Based upon the current rate of consumption issuer could be able to operate at its current size for the next fiscal year without need for additional funding. Additional funds may be sought for future acquisitions.Patents May 2, 2014 Patron Corp. purchased the portion of issuer held patent(s) / intellectual properties not owned by others for the sum of $150,000. This amount being the book value of patents at $14,785 plus $135,215 in excess of book. This amount being retired from debt held by Patron Corp. on the balance sheet of Issuer. April 25, 2012 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Ludwig Enterprises patent # 8,166,190 Method and system for multiple data channel transfer using a single data stream. See Note T above. July 15, 2009 filings were sent to the US Patent and Trademark Office as required. The company filed US Provisional Application Serial Number 61/134/920 on July 15, 2008 regarding its proprietary technology.END OF NOTESTransfer Agent Name: Standard Registrar & Transfer Company, Inc. Phone: 801-571-8844 Email: [email protected]“As of January 1, 2019 the number of shares outstanding of our Common Stock was: 303,191,762 As of September 30, 2019, the number of shares outstanding of our Common Stock was: 335,391,762” [10]2006 Year Established Loans Funded $400m 70+ Loan OfficersLicensed in 12 States[11]View source version on Industry-Leading Flat-fee Press Release Service:Ludwig Enterprises Inc., Acquires Direct Mortgage Investors Inc.Latest Report09/30/2019 Quarterly ReportFiscal Year End12/31COMPANY OFFICERS & CONTACTSJean CherubinPresident, CEOThomas TerwilligerExecutive AssistantCOMPANY DIRECTORSJean CherubinChairman, President, CEOSERVICE PROVIDERSAccounting/Auditing FirmRonald La Duke, CPA3160 NW 1 AvenueSuite 3 Pompano Beach, FL 33064Securities Counsel Yates Law Firm8704 Zachary Circle Suite 3Louisville, KY 40214502-797-6861CONTACT THEM [email protected] [email protected] www.mtg101.comOak Lawn, IL Plantation, FL United StatesPhone:1-855-456-9782Phone: 954-919-1210Fax-Ph: +1 (800) 437-1490Securities Counsel Name: Frank Yates, Esq. Firm: Yates Law Firm Address 1: 202 Pheasant Ave., Ste 101 Address 2: Fairdale, Ky., 40118 Phone: 502-797-6861 Email: [email protected] or Auditor Name: Jean Cherubin Firm: Jean Cherubin Address 1: 3160 NW 1 Avenue Address 2: Pompano Beach, Florida Phone: 954-317-3355 Email: [email protected] Relations Consultant Pending News!Full Disclosures: Alex S. Gabor[12] at the time of this writing owns no shares directly or indirectly in this company mentioned in this answer.Footnotes[1] https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/235378/content[2] Ludwigent :: Home[3] Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc.[4] Direct Mortgage Investors Inc.[5] Ludwig Enterprises Inc. LUDG Board[6] Ludwig Enterprises Inc., Acquires Direct Mortgage Investors Inc.[7] Direct Mortgage Investors, Inc.[8] Direct Mortgage Investors Inc.[9] https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/235378/content[10] https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/financial-report/235378/content[11] HOME | Dmidmi[12] Alex S. Gabor

According to Gizmodo:43 states allow tipped employees to be paid less than minimum wageMatt Novak7/21/14 3:10pm10.3K41Tipping culture in the United States is a mess. In fact, it's perfectly legal for many employers to pay restaurant servers and bartenders less than minimum wage. There are just seven states where tipped and non-tipped employees have the same minimum wage.Below you can read more about the history of tipping in America, and just how broken our current system really is.The Gratuitous Injustice of American Tipping CultureC.A. Pinkham7/21/14 10:50am"Unless a waiter can be a gentleman, democracy is a failure. If any form of service is menial, democracy is a failure. Those Americans who dislike self-respect in servants are undesirable citizens; they belong in an aristocracy."Viewed through a modern lens, William Scott's words in his 1916 book The Itching Palm seem equal parts quaint, commendable, and utterly, heart-wrenchingly depressing. Quaint because it's impossible to imagine a waiter as a gentleman in modern society, commendable because Scott's idea that everyone is worthy of self-respect regardless of their profession deserves more regard than it gets, and depressing because anyone who expressed the entirety of that sentiment in 21st Century America would be laughed out of the room. Both servers and customers are beneath us now; we force the servers to grovel for tidbits left out of the kindness of customers' hearts, and we extort customers into paying their salaries.Outstream Video00:0000:00No matter where you go and who you talk to, it seems like everyone hates America's tipping culture. Finding someone who thinks our current system is just fine and dandy is more difficult than keeping track of which Kardashian is which. The fact that the above quote is now nearly 100 years old proves that opposition to America's tipping culture isn't something new, but no matter how much people claim to hate it, no one seems to want to do anything about it.Less than 100 years ago, people genuinely believed that there was no such thing as "menial service" to an American, that waiters could be gentlemen, and that service didn't mean servitude. They believed the idea of tipping was a fundamentally demeaning and classist notion of which they wanted no part. Since then, we appear to have come a long way down a road paved with good intentions.What the hell went wrong?How Did We Get Here?Though tipping* culture originated in Europe (specifically in Tudor Englandaround 1600) and came to America shortly after the Civil War, Americans were by and large against tipping as being incompatible with the ideals of an egalitarian society until the early 20th century. The reason? Because "it createdan aristocratic class in a country that fought hard to eliminate a class-driven society." Tipping certainly happened in America at the turn of the century and the following two decades, but public opinion was decidedly against it. Scott summed up the prevailing viewpoint:In the American democracy to be servile is incompatible with citizenship. Every tip given in the United States is a blow at our experiment in democracy. The custom announces to the world…that we do not believe practically that "all men are created equal."So what changed? Prohibition. Yes, our problematic tipping culture is another thing for which we can ultimately blame the Temperance Movement (and holy crap, there were a lot of things to blame it for already). Lack of profit from alcohol sales meant that suddenly, businesses actively encouraged tipping in order for their workers to be able to make ends meet. This change to the status quo wasn't met with universal acclaim; six states made tipping illegal during this time period, though all such laws were eventually repealed by 1926. Once it was in place, tipping wasn't going anywhere without a fight.The Fair Labor Standards Act — the act that determines the minimum wage, along with a whole host of other regulations regarding labor practices — isn't even as old as American tipping customs; its original iteration dates to 1938. It's been amended numerous times since then, most frequently to raise the minimum wage, and for the first three decades of its existence, tipped employees were subject to the same minimum as non-tipped workers. In 1966, however, Congress was persuaded to allow tipped workers to be paid at 50% of the Federal minimum wage. The number then fluctuated over the next 30 years between 50% and 60% of the minimum. It still wasn't much, but at least it scaled with the minimum wage itself.Then, in 1991, restaurant industry lobbyists helped push through an amendment that uncoupled the tipped minimum wage from the Federal minimum wage. The minimum wage for tipped employees has been frozen under Federal law at $2.13/hour ever since. Despite the fact that the minimum wage for non-tipped employees has since increased from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour, the tipped minimum wage has not budged one cent in over two decades.**Who Does it Benefit?It certainly isn't helping servers and bartenders, the overwhelming majority of whom would much rather make a decent guaranteed wage like their counterparts in every other country. It's not doing anything for customers, either, many of whom feel extorted and uncomfortable buying into a coercive system that abuses the parties on both ends. So who stands to gain?The sad truth is that it benefits the same group as virtually everything else in America: corporations and business owners. How it helps them is obvious: they get to off-load their labor costs to their customers, paying one third of the minimum wage to the majority of their front-of-house employees.There's actually one other group it benefits, though: the customers who've figured out how to hack the system by not tipping regardless of the caliber of their service. Granted, this approach requires a capacity for greed that would make Gordon Gecko blush and a lack of basic empathy typically only found in serial killers, but to their credit, it works. The really obnoxious ones can't resist advertising that they don't tip, proudly proclaiming that the system is broken and they won't support it, a veneer of truth used as a slipshod cover for the fact that their actions only serve to prop up the system they claim to abhor.Thus the most painful part of American tipping culture is that the only groups it tangibly benefits are the worst people involved in the whole enterprise. It's a system designed to take advantage of anyone with the barest shred of human kindness. Given that, and given the fact that most people are not fundamentally evil, what keeps it going at this point?Enter the National Restaurant Association — the so-called "other NRA."Much like its better-known counterpart, the other NRA has poured millions of dollars in campaign contributions into the American political system in the last thirty years, 83% of which have gone to Republicans. Unsurprisingly, NRA Lobbyists were the ones responsible for the uncoupling of the tipped minimum wage as a percentage of the standard minimum in 1996. This is an organization that proudly boasts of their efforts to prevent both the raising of the minimum wage and the end of the tipped minimum wage, not to mention successfully preventing localities from being able to vote for themselves on paid sick daylegislation. Most egregiously, they're also the organization responsible for foisting Herman Cain on the American public. They're a fundamentally anti-democratic organization whose goals, if realized, would effectively ensure a permanent American working class. Make no mistake — wherever you find the insidious tendrils of worker mistreatment and the propping up of our reprehensible tipping culture, the National Restaurant Association is not far behind.The NRA's chief opposition is Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC), an organization that represents 13,000 workers, 100 employers, and 2000 consumers in 32 cities across the country. Founded in 2008, the organization's stated goal is "to improve wages and working conditions for the nation's 10 million restaurant workers" by tackling a variety of issues including the sexual harassment, racism, and classism endemic to the restaurant industry. This year, they shifted part of their focus to eliminating the tipped minimum wage altogether. While the ROC is still David to the NRA's Goliath, the ground is shifting rapidly, as evidenced by the fact that the NRA has gone so far as to conduct political campaign-style opposition research and use shadowy third-party subordinates to try to smear them. They've even dispatched a real-life Bond villain lobbyist Richard Berman, a man described by labor activists as "Dr. Evil."Remember the lobbyists from Thank You For Smoking? Berman is basically that, only less charming and more an amalgamation of creeping darkness given form. His preferred tactic is just to make stuff up in support of such causes as animal cruelty, getting rid of and preventing environmental regulations, and the evils of greedy teachers. This is generally accomplished by creating a surrogate website to launch unfounded attacks on his target du jour. A full list of his shill websites can be found here. He's basically syphilis wearing a people suit.When an organization sics that guy on you, you know they're running scared. One can only hope ROC justifies those fears moving forward.But Why Are Average Americans Resistant to Changing It?American Exceptionalism. No, seriously.You can't divorce the discussion of American tipping culture from the nature of Americans' toxic relationship with wealth and the value of human life. In order to understand why so many Americans don't think tipped employees deserve a living wage (and why those same Americans tip badly regardless of service), you have to understand why those employees are regarded as less than worthy in the first place. The idea of American Exceptionalism sits squarely at the heart of that discussion.There's a reason non-Americans find our tipping culture so patently baffling; to the residents of basically any other First World Nation, the idea that food service workers should make $2.13/hour and have their entire income subsidized by what essentially amounts to coerced charity doesn't just border on the preposterous, it stages an armed incursion into Bananatown. It's tempting to make some glib response like "they're laughing at us," but that's as unhelpful as it is untrue. They're not laughing; they're shaking their heads in uncomprehending horror and confusion. How could we allow it to get to this point? How could we possibly have so little regard for the well-being of our fellow man? How could so many of us proudly advertise such deliberate cruelty, even holding it up as the model of a just, healthy society?But that's the secret: it isn't deliberate cruelty at all. It's something far, far worse.Americans are taught from moment one that we're the Greatest Country in the History of Humanity™. We're also taught that the reason we're the Greatest Country in the History of Humanity™ is because anyone can make it here if they try. What being taught both of those things does is inexorably lead to the conclusion that those in poverty deserve their misery. Because they deserve their misery, it is therefore not just beyond our responsibility to provide a safety net for them, but providing them things like worker protections, paid sick leave, basic medical care, and above all fair pay is thus actively unethical. Give a man a fish and he'll become an unending burden on the limited resources of the state. Teach a man to fish and you've placed the burden for his education on those who have no responsibility to help him — he should be able to figure out for himself how to fish, and if he can't, well, that's not our problem.Now, obviously, to any thinking person, every statement in that paragraph is wrong in every possible way a human being can be wrong about anything. It's wrong in so many different rage-inducing directions and in such an all-encompassing way that it feels almost impossible to even begin to categorize the ways in which it is wrong. The particular irony of the fact that many of the people who proudly don't give a shit about the poor consider themselves ardently Christian is so staggering that it'll make your head hurt and your soul cry if you think about it for longer than ten seconds. But while everything there is so wrong that it's amazing the cognitive dissonance required to believe all the contradicting accompanying implications at once doesn't cause space-time anomalies, people believe it because facing the truth of American society is just too painful. Such is the callous, terrible legacy of Objectivism, which would be the world's most laughably inept socio-economic philosophy if not for the horrifying fact that there are people who think it would actually work, many of whom are among the most prominent names in Congress.Every part of the wealth = worth philosophy is inherently a selfish paean to one's own pathos, but not just in the obvious ways. The real reason people believe it is that they can't confront the fact that the game is rigged from the word go. They have to pretend that if they worked hard enough, they would be just as successful as those whose wealth dates back decades and centuries, because seeing the truth and working to change it is too painful for them to contemplate. I strongly suspect that even a lot of the most flag-toting, eagle-humping, ardently pro-'MURICA people in this country have at least a tiny sliver of doubt worming its way through their consciousness about our country's primacy in the history of man, even if they can't bear to admit it to anyone, least of all themselves. British author Terry Pratchett has pointed out numerous times that when the human brain sees something too horrible to cope with, it simply ignores it altogether — the indifference with which many Americans treat our poor proves him right.The philosophy that those we see as beneath us (including service workers) deserve their misery — because if they didn't deserve it they wouldn't be suffering it — is exactly the reason tipping culture exists, and why so many people so ardently resist the idea of fair pay for fair work. Ultimately, tipping hasn't changed because people can't bring themselves to care about those they see as beneath them. The aristocratic class early-20th century Americans feared has come to pass, only a significant portion of the country will do whatever they can to avoid seeing it.Would Changing it Work?Yes.But What About Job Creators and Welfare Queens and Obummer And —Please stop talking, Fox News pundit.But Seriously, What About —FINE.The fact of the matter is that paying tipped workers would not and does not hit restaurants' bottom line in a way that even remotely approaches cost-prohibition. Labor costs are not what sink full-service restaurants unless they're so horribly mismanaged that changing wages wouldn't save the place anyway. Small pricing increases to offset labor costs are more than made up for from the customer's perspective by the 20% they're no longer being asked to tip.It's likewise important to point out that there are seven states where tipped and non-tipped employees have the same minimum wage: Alaska ($7.75), California ($9, in the process of raising to $10), Minnesota ($7.25), Montana ($7.65), Nevada ($8.25), Oregon ($9.10), and Washington ($9.32).*** Interestingly, this isn't the case of the biggest states with the most liberal city-dwellers choosing to pay their tipped employees fairly, as there appears to be absolutely no correlation between the size of a state's economy (they rank #1, #14, #17, #26, #31, #45, and #48 in GDP) or its political leanings (Alaska and Montana aren't exactly known as bastions of liberalism or urbanization) and what they choose to pay tipped employees.The data also shows that paying tipped and non-tipped workers equally does nothing to hurt those states' economies: research shows that these seven states actually experience above-average employment growth, an increase in per capita restaurant sales, and no decrease in employment (there actually appears to be a slight growth in employment relative to states with the sub-minimum tipped wage). The fact that restaurants successfully operate within these states gives the lie to corporations' claim that their profit margins are so thin they couldn't possibly pay their workers fairly. It's not as if there are fewer restaurants in those states, either — only two of the seven are even in the bottom half of number of restaurants per capita (Nevada at #38 and Minnesota at #42). Montana even sits at #2 overall, trailing only the District of Columbia. Restaurants in states with fair wages get by just fine.Oh, and there's also the fact that a fair wage for service workers rather than a mandatory tipping culture functions just fine in every other country on the planet. That too.What Should We Change It To?Here's a far more interesting and divisive question, yet it's one that doesn't get talked about nearly enough.The simple answer would be to change the system to an hourly wage and make tips what they are in other countries: an occasional extra reward for exceptional service, but not something workers have to rely on. In theory, this sounds ideal, and it's certainly possible it'd work just fine. It does everywhere else, after all.What worries me, though, is that Americans typically aren't good at half-measures, nor are we very good at seeing any sort of grey area — if tipped workers had to be paid the same as non-tipped workers, there would be absolutely no reason to tip anything from the perspective of the vast majority of Americans. This would be fine if the minimum wage was, say, $12-15/hour, but there's absolutely no chance of that happening due to the tremendous number of Americans who've been brainwashed into believing that raising the minimum wage hurts the economy (NOPE NOPE NOPE).Restaurants will pay service workers the minimum they can get away with, because businesses are by their very nature sociopathic entities. That isn't a knock on business owners and CEO's (well, except for the ones who actually are psychopaths); businesses have to be inherently sociopathic to succeed. Businesses that operate on altruism rather than profit motive will fail, another of the seemingly limitless reasons corporations are in no way people. Considering that restaurants currently pay their servers $2.13/hour, does anyone really think there's any chance they'd pay their employees anything beyond their absolute minimum obligation under the law? The idea that the service industry wage market would suddenly self-regulate to something reasonable is patently laughable considering its utter, abject, and all-encompassing failure to ever do so in any capacity.The real problem is that working as a server or bartender in America is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of a minimum wage job. It's not justthat no one deserves to work for less than a living wage, as those making the current minimum do (including non-tipped employees, obviously). That's certainly true, but the nature of working as a server is different from minimum wage jobs in a few key ways. An employee at, say, McDonald's will show up at work at a set time, work a certain number of hours, and leave. A server or bartender, meanwhile, will likewise show up at a set time, but how long they stay — or if they even stay at all — is often determined entirely by management. If the restaurant doesn't have customers (or if the manager is looking to cut labor hours), shifts will be cut short and people sent home. This is one of the only practices that works fine under the current system, because if you're not getting customers as a server/bartender, there's absolutely no reason for you to be there anyway, but it's a problem if you're making minimum wage. Even if you work a full shift, unless you're pulling a double or closing, the nature of the industry means servers and bartenders are going to work for short periods of often brutally-intense activity (lunch, dinner) then go home, but only get paid a few hours at the minimum wage.If servers were minimum wage workers, the vast majority would thus make even less than they currently do. Considering that the poverty rate for tipped workers is more than double that of non-tipped workers, that's a potentially catastrophic situation for a not-insignificant percentage of the American labor force (servers and bartenders combined comprised roughly 2% of the employed American labor force in 2012).****But let's say you don't buy that explanation. Let's say you're hell-bent on an hourly wage for servers for whatever reason: you think some people will still leave tips, you think the wages market would self-regulate, whatever. Fine. For the sake of this argument, let's even assume the minimum wage goes up to $10/hour everywhere. Even if we assume I'm completely wrong (always a possibility), there's still a potentially much better system for everyone involved, and it's already in place in at least one restaurant in America — and we have ample evidence that it works.Packhouse Meats in Newport, Kentucky (just across the river from Cincinnati) came up with a really intriguing and wholly unique solution to the tips vs. wages conundrum. Packhouse owner Bob Conway bans all tipping within his restaurant; there are signs on the walls that tipping isn't allowed, cash tips are returned, and the credit card receipts don't even have a tips line. Instead, his servers have two choices, which they can pick between at the end of every shift: they can take a flat $10/hour rate (low, but not as catastrophically low as would be $7.25) or get paid with a commission of 20% of their food sales. Again, the choice is up to the servers.Here's why that system works: there's a minimum in place that servers can't fall under, but unless business is horrible that day, servers don't need to worry about having to take the minimum. Unsurprisingly, Conway reports that the vast majority of server shifts end with them going for the 20%. In general, a percentage of sales model allows servers to control their own destiny far more than a simple hourly wage system would. Maybe the best thing about the percentage of sales model is it actually accomplishes what tipping was meant to do (incentivize selling) without succumbing to tipping's lack of a guaranteed living wage. As a former server, I'd have picked that system (or at least a moderately tweaked version of it for fine dining that accounted for, say, 10% of alcohol sales for servers and 20% for bartenders) over any simple hourly model. If you sell $500 in food sales on a dinner shift (an eminently reasonable target number), you'd earn $100 for a five-hour shift, giving you an hourly rate of $20.It's also better for the restaurant than a flat hourly model, because it ensures they're not paying servers more than they can afford; after all, they're paying employees out of sales they've already made, so costs are predictable and controllable. Conway had to raise his prices to make it work, but not to a prohibitive degree — he reports that his modest price increase hasn't done anything to hurt his business. We know this works because we've seen it work. The argument cannot credibly be made that this system is not tenable.Regardless of which system you prefer, the sad truth of the whole situation is that business interests' need to prop the system up is probably enough to stop it from changing unless people actually start to give a crap about this issue. As we've seen in this country, the rights of businesses almost always trump the rights of actual human beings. All the current tipping system does, though, is widen the divide between the American aristocracy and everyone else. Something has to give.It's time to end this farce once and for all.* Let's just get this out of the way right now: the idea that "tips" is an acronym for "to insure promptness" or "to insure proper service" is completely and totally false. Anyone who tells you otherwise is talking out of their ass.** It's also important to note that the $2.13/hour figure is a bit of a smokescreen, because that goes straight to tax obligations for the server and the restaurant. The vast majority of the time as a server, you're going to be receiving checks that say "This is Not a Check" on them. It's a running joke-that-isn't-really-a-joke within the industry that if your checks actually have money on them, you're really, really screwed.*** Seattle has taken the idea to raise the minimum wage further, enacting a seven-year-plan to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. I can't even imagine how pissed the National Restaurant Association is about the fact that they pushed that through. Additionally, lawmakers in Hawaii have voted to raise the state's minimum wage to $10.10/hour by 2018, at which point the new wage will apply equally to tipped and non-tipped workers.**** For those who are curious as to how I got this number (because apparently, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics doesn't track it directly), I came up with approximately 2% by adding the number of servers working in 2012 to the number of bartenders, then averaged the number of total employed US citizens for all twelve months in 2012, then divided for a workable percentage. The actual number is around 2.0449% of the employed US Labor Force for that year. Keep in mind that this is only servers and bartenders and does not include other food service workers.