Allegations of defamation, slander of title, and civil rights violations have been raised in a new federal lawsuit that claims city officials and agencies used social media campaigns and legal maneuvers to damage the reputation and property interests of two Detroit residents. The complaint was filed on April 6, 2026 by Charles E. Brooks Jr. and Charlene Brooks in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the City of Detroit, the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA), Buildings Safety Engineering and Environmental Department (BSEED), Mayor Michael E. Duggan, several city staff members, and board members associated with DLBA.
According to court documents, Charles E. Brooks Jr., described as a “world-renowned Master Builder,” along with his wife Charlene Brooks, allege that city officials acted with malice when they included Charlene Brooks in a blight lawsuit despite knowing she did not hold title to the disputed property at 4219 Chalmers. The complaint states that both plaintiffs were recovering from significant medical procedures at the time—Charles from a stroke since 2022 and Charlene from rotator cuff surgery in September 2024—yet were subjected to what they call an “abusive joinder” intended to maximize distress.
The filing outlines a series of events beginning with public notices about alleged blight at 4219 Chalmers in November 2024. Plaintiffs claim they provided evidence through social media posts that these allegations were false but say their efforts were ignored by defendants. On April 4, 2025, defendant Raymond Solomon II allegedly entered their property under false pretenses while plaintiffs were still recovering medically. Shortly after this visit, plaintiffs assert that city officials published a “diss track” video using Nas’ song “Ether” on official social media channels to humiliate them publicly.
Plaintiffs further allege that retaliatory inspections were conducted at their primary residence—referred to as “The Castle Estate”—by BSEED in an effort to create a defamatory narrative regarding decades-old construction work. They argue this was part of a coordinated campaign involving multiple city departments aimed at suppressing their public advocacy efforts related to neighborhood revitalization.
Legal arguments presented in the complaint include claims that defendants violated procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by obtaining an ex parte emergency order prohibiting transfer of their property without notice or hearing. Plaintiffs contend this action bypassed their right to be heard despite ongoing litigation between both parties since 2022. They also accuse defendants of publishing malicious instructions for the public to contact DLBA about purchasing their private estate—a move characterized as slander of title.
Among other allegations are trade libel relating to statements about rat infestation and abandonment; abuse of process for using court proceedings as retaliation rather than code enforcement; equal protection violations for selectively enforcing blight ordinances; First Amendment retaliation for public advocacy; fraud upon the court; intentional infliction of emotional distress during known periods of medical recovery; viewpoint discrimination; and municipal liability under Monell for policies involving social media “diss tracks.”
The complaint cites specific incidents such as statements made by John Roach claiming Charles Brooks was compelled to sell properties due to nuisance suits—claims plaintiffs deny—and references an April 12, 2025 admission by city officials describing the disputed property as a “magnificent work-in-progress,” which plaintiffs say contradicts earlier blight accusations.
In support of their case, plaintiffs have attached numerous exhibits including timelines documenting official visits (Exhibit A), screenshots from social media (Exhibits B–I), inspection reports (Exhibit K), building permits (Exhibit L), notices filed with courts (Exhibits L1/L2), ex parte orders (Exhibit M), news articles covering community reactions (Exhibits F1–F4), recorded deeds proving ownership (Exhibits E1/E2), email correspondence with DLBA attorneys proposing stipulated dismissals (as from Giuseppe Palazzolo), and additional communications showing attempts at redress.
The relief sought includes compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $40 million dollars, issuance of mandatory permanent injunctions requiring formal retractions and apologies on all official platforms, declarations that constitutional rights were violated under both First and Fourteenth Amendments, recovery of litigation costs including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest where allowed by law, as well as jury trial on all triable issues.
The pro se plaintiffs are representing themselves: Charles E. Brooks Jr. and Charlene Brooks list their address as 4234 Lakewood Street in Detroit. The principal attorney named for DLBA is Giuseppe Palazzolo according to attached correspondence regarding stipulated dismissal agreements. The case is assigned Case No.: 2:26-cv-11120 before Judge Mark A. Goldsmith.
Source: 226cv11120_Charles_E_Brooks_v_City_of_Detrioit_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
