Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	NOTE 12 – LITIGATION The Company recently was named a defendant in a Mississippi state lawsuit that is directly related to the RedLPR case (the “Mississippi case”). The Mississippi case also names RedLPR, LLC as a defendant. The Mississippi case was brought by Riverland Park Technologies (“Riverland”). Riverland is also a party to the RedLPR case. The Mississippi case was filed in the Circuit Court of Rankin County, Mississippi on September 21, 2020. The Company was named a defendant in a case involving a former employee who claims he is owed approximately $60 thousand in unpaid commissions. The Company’s position is that the former employee’s claims have no apparent factual basis and appear to be designed to force a quick “nuisance value” settlement. This case was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego on October 21, 2020. The Company is not a party to any other pending material legal proceeding. To the knowledge of management, no federal, state or local governmental agency is presently contemplating any proceeding against the Company. To the knowledge of management, no director, executive officer or affiliate of the Company, any owner of record or beneficially of more than five percent of the Company’s Common Stock is a party adverse to the Company or has a material interest adverse to the Company in any proceeding.

Litigation

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 12 – LITIGATION

The Company recently was named a defendant in a Mississippi state lawsuit that is directly related to the RedLPR case (the “Mississippi case”). The Mississippi case also names RedLPR, LLC as a defendant. The Mississippi case was brought by Riverland Park Technologies (“Riverland”). Riverland is also a party to the RedLPR case. The Mississippi case was filed in the Circuit Court of Rankin County, Mississippi on September 21, 2020.

The Company was named a defendant in a case involving a former employee who claims he is owed approximately $60 thousand in unpaid commissions. The Company’s position is that the former employee’s claims have no apparent factual basis and appear to be designed to force a quick “nuisance value” settlement. This case was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego on October 21, 2020.

The Company is not a party to any other pending material legal proceeding. To the knowledge of management, no federal, state or local governmental agency is presently contemplating any proceeding against the Company. To the knowledge of management, no director, executive officer or affiliate of the Company, any owner of record or beneficially of more than five percent of the Company’s Common Stock is a party adverse to the Company or has a material interest adverse to the Company in any proceeding.