Mary Dee is fighting the FTC's attempt to cut off her monthly living expenses from frozen Digital Altitude funds, and the federal agency just dismantled her defense point by point.

Dee filed her opposition on September 14th, challenging the FTC's authority to regulate what it calls unfair or deceptive business practices. The FTC shot back four days later with a simple retort: the FTC Act has existed for over a century, and courts have repeatedly upheld the agency's power to police deceptive marketing. Constitutional challenges haven't worked before. They won't work now.

Her second major argument was that the FTC can't prove she's personally liable because it failed to pierce the corporate veil. The FTC didn't bother with that technical argument. Instead, the agency pointed out that Dee is liable because she participated in and controlled the conduct that violated the law. The FTC went further, alleging that Dee either knew about the deception, was recklessly indifferent to it, or deliberately avoided learning the truth despite obvious red flags.

Dee's other objections collapsed under scrutiny. She claimed the FTC was pretending not to know her husband's asset holdings. False, the FTC said. She argued the agency was making claims about her personal situation without proper court presentation. She complained the FTC hadn't detailed how seized funds would go to consumer redress. False again. She tried dismissing factual court findings as mere FTC arguments, and suggested the agency misrepresented her frozen assets. None of it stuck.

The FTC's response to Michael Force, her co-defendant, was even sharper. Force claimed he couldn't work because he was constantly communicating with the FTC about the case. The agency laughed that off. The communications, while ongoing, weren't frequent or lengthy enough to prevent someone from holding a full-time job.

Force also never explained why he hasn't sought employment or why he still lives in the same expensive home he occupied when the case started in February. The FTC has ordered both defendants to live off the monthly allowance from frozen assets, not their old lifestyle.

Then came the moment that perfectly captured Force's hypocrisy. In his opposition, Force wrote that "it can take over one year to replace a six-figure a year income." The FTC's response was to pull up Digital Altitude's old marketing materials, which promised customers they could make "six figure income in 90 days or less."

A court decision on whether Dee and Force lose their monthly allowance is pending.

🤖 Quick Answer

What is Mary Dee's main dispute with the FTC regarding frozen Digital Altitude funds?
Mary Dee is opposing the FTC's decision to restrict her access to monthly living expenses from frozen Digital Altitude assets. She filed an opposition on September 14th, arguing the FTC lacks authority to regulate business practices and that personal liability cannot be established without piercing the corporate veil.

How did the FTC respond to Mary Dee's constitutional challenge?
The FTC rejected Dee's authority argument by emphasizing the FTC Act's century-long existence and consistent judicial validation of agency powers. The agency stated that constitutional challenges against FTC regulatory authority have repeatedly failed in courts and present no novel legal grounds.

What was Mary Dee's secondary legal argument in her opposition filing?
Dee argued the FTC cannot establish her personal liability because the agency failed to pierce the corporate veil separating her individual assets from Digital Altitude

🔗 Related Articles

- Michael Force & Mary Dee cut off from Digital Altitude victim funds
- DOJ challenges Rodney Burton’s “crime is legal” release filing
- India grants SEBI regulator streamlined court
- Mirror Trading International an illegal company in Canada
- 18 QNet Vihaan arrests in India, BFH covers up fraud