Mary Dee files expenses opposition, FTC responds to both objections
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.
So both of them are still being paid from FROZEN FUNDS?
So at this rate what will be left to pay victims they stole from?
How is this even possible?
They are the worst of the worst. Again, more proof of their arrogance and ignorance. Surely the leaders of Digital Craptitude knew this, but were too busy taking other people’s money.
When will the govt start going after Jason Stone, Jesse Singh, Mack Mills, Alex Zubarev, John Lavenia, and the other top earners who all got started for free and then turned around to sell 60.000 packages.
I agree with you mostly, but how do you know all of them got in for free? Do you know it’s fact?
I believe some of them got in WAY after and did have to pay.
Terrence, earlier FTC said they probably won’t recover much and sometimes it’s the way things go.
So paying them is the solution? New kind of madness!
What they got paid could have paid the net losers they stole from are they not suffering a lot more?
I know it’s not the solution, but right now FTC just wants to take whatever they can and close the case.
That’s what the FTC normally does.
If it was the SEC and had to do with the financial sector, they take those way more seriously.
Look at Zeek Rewards.
So the plan is to keep paying them a monthly income taken from the victims funds until there’s nothing left and then find out they cannot pay anything because they both failed to get a job in that time and have to declare bankruptcy?
Nice plan lol.
That last bit was hilarious for a guy spouting on about being able to earn a six figure income in 3 months for so long. Of course he meant through shady means and any way to do that legitimately takes upwards of a year according to him. That probably isn’t legal either. 😛
Ever get the feeling the system is designed to protect the wealthy regardless of the way it was acquired and how they conducted themselves?
They should stop giving them a fee ride with what is essentially a leave with pay situation and let them find out for themselves just how ‘easy’ it is to earn money legitimately 😛
That may be the fraudsters’ plan but, it sure as h*** isn’t the FTC plan.
In addition, the FTC action is “civil” IOW, penalties can only be financial and administrative. There’s no word yet if “criminal” charges will be filed.
I seen Mary Dee comment on Sarah Pesso ‘s Facebook post last week, they are both slimy.
Isn’t she supposed to stay off social media ??
Might be in her best legal interests but there’s no law stopping her.