The Defendant’s (Brookfield Properties) strategy of “Avoidance” incorporates specific legal claims that attempt to shift responsibility and blame the Plaintiff, Michael Stuart, for the ongoing billing issues. This tactic serves to deflect attention away from the substantive claims of fraud and retaliation and instead focuses the litigation on procedural failures attributed to the veteran.
I. Claiming the Plaintiff Caused the Issues (Deflect and Blame)
Brookfield’s strategy of blaming the Plaintiff is primarily articulated through its Affirmative Defenses filed in its Amended Answer. These defenses shift the focus from the validity of the alleged debt to the Plaintiff’s conduct and compliance with procedural rules.
Specifically, Brookfield formally asserts that the issues and damages were caused by the veteran’s alleged failures:
- Actions or Omissions Caused Damage: Brookfield claims that the veteran’s own “actions or omissions” were the cause of the damages suffered.
- Failure to Exercise Ordinary Care: The Defendant alleges that the veteran failed to exercise “ordinary care”.
- Failure to Exhaust Remedies: Brookfield contends that the veteran failed to “exhaust all alternative remedies” required by the lease before initiating the lawsuit.
Brookfield’s claims attempt to portray the veteran as responsible for the complex billing problems and the resultant legal dispute, rather than acknowledging the systemic errors or intentional manipulation alleged by the Plaintiff.
II. Context: Blame as Part of the Avoidance Strategy
The assertion that the Plaintiff is to blame forms a key prong of Brookfield’s broader strategy, characterized by the sources as one of Delay, Deflect, and Discredit.
1. Avoiding the Core Facts
A crucial aspect of this avoidance strategy is that Brookfield’s formal legal defense in court is completely inconsistent with the informal “audit” defense they offered to the veteran and the housing agency.
- Inconsistency in Defense: While Brookfield’s assistant property manager claimed in an email that a new debt balance appeared following a “recent audit”, their formal legal filings—including the Amended Answer—make no mention of this “audit” or any “credit applied by mistake”.
- Refusal to Prove Debt: The legal strategy avoids arguing that the fabricated debt is legitimate. Instead of justifying the debt, they blame the Plaintiff for the dispute itself.
2. Procedural Attacks to Discredit the Plaintiff’s Evidence
In conjunction with blaming the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s lawyers heavily relied on technical and procedural attacks to prevent the court from examining the substantial evidence against them. This tactic is summarized as a “Don’t Look at the Evidence” Strategy.
These procedural objections included claims that the veteran’s evidence (which consisted largely of Brookfield’s own emails and ledgers) was:
- “Vague, general and indefinite”.
- “Hearsay” and not properly proven to qualify for an exception.
- Improperly Authenticated and filed as a “hodgepodge of screenshots and printouts”.
- Filed “without leave of court” and “untimely”.
By attacking the veteran’s efforts to present evidence on technical grounds, Brookfield attempts to discredit him as a pro se litigant and prevent the judge from reviewing the “smoking gun” documents—such as their manager’s contradictory sworn statement, which admitted the account had a credit balance at renewal, thereby refuting the existence of a prior debt.
3. Reinforcing a Pattern of Evasion
The avoidance strategy was visible even before the formal court responses. Brookfield initially ignored the original lawsuit filed by the veteran and failed to appear for two separate, court-ordered Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) hearings.
This behavior was seen as evidence of contempt for the court’s authority and a reinforcement of the narrative that the company was deliberately trying to operate outside the bounds of law and accountability. The subsequent move to blame the Plaintiff for the issues fit this pattern of evasion and disrespect for the legal process.