Mary Dee has filed an opposition to the FTC’s request to switch the Digital Altitude preliminary injunction.
The FTC has requested the courtroom minimize off Power and Dee from victim-funds, which underneath the present injunction sees them amassing a month-to-month dwelling expense.
As said we’ve beforehand lined Michael Power’s opposition submitting. Mary Dee filed her opposition later the identical day, nevertheless the case docket hadn’t up to date after we wrote our September fifteenth article.
For clarification, Mary Dee filed her opposition on September 14th. The FTC filed their reply to each oppositions on September 18th.
Amongst different issues, Dee’s opposition takes purpose on the FTC Act. Particularly, the FTC’s proper to manage “unfair or misleading acts or practices in commerce”.
The FTC’s response is straightforward: the FTC Act has ‘been in impact for multiple hundred years‘ and
quite a few choices have upheld the FTC’s authority to implement the FTC Act’s basic prohibition on misleading advertising, together with in opposition to constitutional problem.
The opposite main argument pertains to Dee’s private legal responsibility ‘as a result of the FTC can’t fulfill the check for “piercing the company veil”‘.
The FTC contend the company veil doctrine just isn’t as subject, relatively Dee is
accountable for violating the FTC Act as a result of she participated in or had authority to regulate the conduct at subject.
The FTC additional alleges that Dee is accountable for equitable financial reduction as a result of she knew of the deception, was recklessly detached to the potential for deception, or was conscious of a excessive likelihood of fraud however deliberately prevented studying the reality.
Different arguments introduced up by Dee embrace
- the FTC pretending to not know the extent of her husband’s belongings (false)
- representing that the FTC is conscious of her and her husband’s private scenario, regardless of not having been introduced up earlier than the courtroom
- whinging concerning the FTC having not put collectively a plan or assertion confirming “seized funds will likely be used for shopper redress” (false)
- dismissing factual courtroom findings as “arguments superior by the FTC” and
- incorrectly suggesting the FTC has misrepresented the extent of her frozen belongings
With respect to Michael Power’s opposition, the FTC asserts
he gives no proof to elucidate why he has not appeared for work, nor why he nonetheless lives in the identical costly residence he inhabited in February, when this case was filed.
Though Power claims that he has “had continued day by day emails and even calls with the FTC,” and means that these efforts preclude gainful employment, that’s inaccurate.
Power’s communications with the FTC haven’t been so frequent or prolonged that they’d preclude an individual from holding down a full-time job.
One scrumptious footnote within the submitting calls out Power for stating “it could possibly take over one yr to exchange a six-figure a yr revenue” in his opposition submitting.
The FTC factors out that Digital Altitude was promoting a “six determine revenue in 90 days or much less” for years.
A choice on the FTC’s movement stays pending. Keep tuned…
Replace twenty second September 2018 – On September nineteenth Michael Power and Mary Dee have been minimize off from claiming month-to-month dwelling bills.