Retaliation Unravels Multi-State Corporate Shell Game

By Paige Elizabeth | Occupy Freedom

Some fights begin with a whisper — a simple complaint, a reasonable request for help — and end up revealing the entire architecture of a corrupt system. What happened here started with a neighbor who refused to respect boundaries. What it uncovered was a property management operation built on negligence, retaliation, and a corporate shell game designed to avoid accountability.

I can’t name the company yet.
But that time is coming.

This case, now moving through Nevada District Court, is on the verge of a near half-million-dollar default judgment. It is the biggest victory to date in the consumer-rights work aligned with Occupy Freedom PAC — not because of the dollar amount, but because it reveals so clearly how ordinary people are harmed by opaque, unregulated housing operations that assume tenants are powerless.

Here’s exactly what happened.

THE BEGINNING: A NEIGHBOR WHO WOULDN’T STOP

This story starts like many do: with a neighbor whose behavior crossed every line.

• Harassment

• Intimidation

• Boundary violations

• Repeated breaches of the lease

• Behavior that made the environment objectively unsafe

Multiple tenants complained.
Management knew.
Nothing changed.

It should have been handled quickly.
Instead, it spiraled.

MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE: NOT FAILURE — RETALIATION

Property managers have a legal obligation to maintain habitability and address violations. But instead of enforcing their lease or intervening on behalf of multiple tenants, this company chose:

• gaslighting

• denial

• intimidation

• retaliation

• and complete refusal to intervene

When I reported the neighbor’s behavior, I wasn’t protected — I was punished. Management threatened me for filing complaints. They dismissed safety concerns. They allowed the neighbor to continue violating the lease without consequence.

This wasn’t incompetence.
It was deliberate retaliation.

HUD FOUND MERIT — BUT THE ABUSE WAS TOO BROAD TO PINPOINT A SINGLE PROTECTED CATEGORY

When local remedies fail, you escalate.

I filed a complaint with HUD.

And HUD did find merit:
They agreed the behavior warranted investigation.
They agreed something was very wrong.

But here’s where things became revealing:

HUD can only enforce when the abuse is tied to a protected category (gender, race, disability, etc.).
In this case?

The misconduct was so broad, so widespread, and so indiscriminate that HUD could not isolate it to discrimination “based on sex” alone.

In other words, the problem wasn’t targeted at me because I was a woman —
the problem was a management company that behaved illegally with everyone.

HUD’s finding wasn’t a dismissal.
It was validation:

“We see the issue.
But the abuse is universal, not specific.”

That alone says everything.

THE LAWSUIT IN NEVADA DISTRICT COURT

After retaliation escalated, the neighbor remained unchecked, and the living conditions deteriorated, I filed suit in Nevada District Court. The claims included:

• negligence

• breach of contract

• retaliation

• failure to maintain habitability

• failure to enforce the lease

• damages for the unsafe living environment

They were properly served.

And then… they vanished.

SIX MONTHS OF STRATEGIC SILENCE

This company did not:

• answer

• appear

• request an extension

• comply with service

• engage with the court

Six months of stonewalling.

This wasn’t oversight.
It was calculated.

Their silence was a strategy — one rooted in the assumption that their corporate structure, complexity, and legal intimidation would exhaust the average tenant into dropping the case.

They underestimated the wrong person.

THE MULTI-STATE SHELL COMPANY SCHEME: NEVADA → CALIFORNIA → DELAWARE

During those six months, something became very clear:

This wasn’t a simple LLC.
This was a network.

Behind the property management name were:

• Nevada LLCs

• California LLCs

• Delaware LLCs

• each with overlapping ownership

• each shielding liability for the others

• each designed to obscure the real controlling entity

This wasn’t coincidence.

This was an intentional corporate veil structure meant to:

• dodge accountability

• confuse legal responsibility

• deflect liability into dead-end entities

• prevent tenants from discovering who actually owned the property

But in our default judgment package?

We pierced every veil.

We mapped:

• the ownership

• the parent companies

• the managing entities

• the alter-ego relationships

• the financial and operational cohesion between shells

Every layer they relied on for protection collapsed.

THE DEFAULT: WHEN A COMPANY FORFEITS ITS OWN DEFENSE

After half a year of ignoring the lawsuit, the clerk entered a default — meaning:

• the defendants forfeited their right to contest

• the allegations are treated as admitted

• the only remaining step is the Court entering judgment

They had 30 days after default to fix it.

They did nothing.

And then — at the last possible moment — panic erupted.

THE LAST-MINUTE SCRAMBLE

On the final day they believed they could salvage themselves, the defendants suddenly filed:

• a motion to vacate

• a motion to compel arbitration

• and a motion for sanctions against me

Six months of silence.
Then a last-minute attempt to flip the table.

Their strategy was transparent:

• ignore the lawsuit

• hope the plaintiff gives up

• panic when that doesn’t happen

• file something — anything — to delay judgment

But here’s the most telling part:

None of those motions have been ruled on.

Because the Court asked for one thing only:

THE COURT REQUESTED MY JUDGMENT

Out of every motion and every filing, the Court specifically requested:

“Plaintiff’s proposed default judgment.”

This is the moment the case turned.

It means:

• the Court is ready to finalize

• the last-minute motions are not stopping anything

• the defendants’ strategy collapsed

• accountability is imminent

And the judgment amount?

$427,000.

Nearly half a million dollars for negligence, retaliation, uninhabitable conditions, and corporate misconduct.

WHAT THIS CASE REPRESENTS FOR OCCUPY FREEDOM PAC

This isn’t just a personal victory — it is a case study in how:

• corporate landlords abuse power

• complex shell companies hide liability

• tenants are retaliated against for reporting wrongdoing

• housing systems fail when oversight is absent

• the average citizen is expected to remain silent

Occupy Freedom PAC exists for exactly this reason.

This case proves:

• tenants can fight back

• retaliation can be exposed

• shell companies can be pierced

• silence isn’t a shield

• and justice is possible even when corporations assume otherwise

The judgment, once signed, will become the largest outcome tied to this work — and a blueprint for future consumer-rights actions.

THE BIGGEST WIN SO FAR — AND A BATTLE THAT IS FAR FROM OVER

This case is in its final stage.
The Court has the judgment.
The truth has been documented.
The pattern is clear.
Their delay tactics failed.

What happens next will be public.

This is more than a lawsuit —
it’s a moment of accountability for an entire system.

Stay tuned.
This is only the beginning.