Mary Dee has filed an opposition to the FTC’s request to modify the Digital Altitude preliminary injunction.

The FTC has requested the court cut off Force and Dee from victim-funds, which under the current injunction sees them collecting a monthly living expense.

As stated we’ve previously covered Michael Force’s opposition filing. Mary Dee filed her opposition later the same day, however the case docket hadn’t updated when we wrote our September 15th article.

For clarification, Mary Dee filed her opposition on September 14th. The FTC filed their reply to both oppositions on September 18th.

Among other things, Dee’s opposition takes aim at the FTC Act. Specifically, the FTC’s right to regulate “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce”.

The FTC’s response is simple: the FTC Act has ‘been in effect for more than one hundred years‘ and

numerous decisions have upheld the FTC’s authority to enforce the FTC Act’s general prohibition on deceptive marketing, including against constitutional challenge.

The other major argument pertains to Dee’s personal liability ‘because the FTC cannot satisfy the test for “piercing the corporate veil”‘.

The FTC contend the corporate veil doctrine is not as issue, rather Dee is

liable for violating the FTC Act because she participated in or had authority to control the conduct at issue.

The FTC further alleges that Dee is liable for equitable monetary relief because she knew of the deception, was recklessly indifferent to the possibility of deception, or was aware of a high probability of fraud but intentionally avoided learning the truth.

Other arguments brought up by Dee include

  • the FTC pretending not to know the extent of her husband’s assets (false)
  • representing that the FTC is aware of her and her husband’s personal situation, despite not having been brought up before the court
  • whinging about the FTC having not put together a plan or statement confirming “seized funds will be used for consumer redress” (false)
  • dismissing factual court findings as “arguments advanced by the FTC” and
  • incorrectly suggesting the FTC has misrepresented the extent of her frozen assets

With respect to Michael Force’s opposition, the FTC asserts

he offers no evidence to explain why he has not looked for work, nor why he still lives in the same expensive home he inhabited in February, when this case was filed.

Although Force claims that he has “had continued daily emails and even calls with the FTC,” and suggests that these efforts preclude gainful employment, that is inaccurate.

Force’s communications with the FTC have not been so frequent or lengthy that they would preclude a person from holding down a full-time job.

One delicious footnote in the filing calls out Force for stating “it can take over one year to replace a six-figure a year income” in his opposition filing.

The FTC points out that Digital Altitude was advertising a “six figure income in 90 days or less” for years.

A decision on the FTC’s motion remains pending. Stay tuned…


Update 22nd September 2018 – On September 19th Michael Force and Mary Dee were cut off from claiming monthly living expenses.