Opinion ID: 2653912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Edward Freeman’s Affidavit

Text: Edward Freeman 4 is a retired HUD specialist and a civil rights analyst. His affidavit also challenged the HUD investigator’s methodology and conclusion. But, demonstrating flaws in the HUD investigator’s methods does not establish plaintiff Freeman’s causes of action. In addition to challenging HUD’s investigation, Edward Freeman’s affidavit draws the legal conclusion that the City “gives preferential treatment to Caucasians and discriminates against African Americans who are similarly situated” through inflated electric bills. But, as noted above, the Court does not accept legal 4 It is unclear from the record whether plaintiff Freeman and Edward Freeman are related. 13 Case: 13-14610 Date Filed: 02/20/2014 Page: 14 of 14 conclusions unsupported by the facts. See Evers, 770 F.2d at 986; see also Hilburn, 181 F.3d at 1228 (“[T]he absence of any specific facts which would substantiate [the expert’s] conclusion deprives [his conclusions] of any probative value.”). Notably, Edward Freeman’s conclusion is based on the same evidence discussed above: the consumption comparison chart, national and state averages of electricity consumption, and the City’s interrogatory responses. However, neither Edward Freeman nor plaintiff Freeman explained how this evidence satisfies the “similarly situated” requirements in plaintiff Freeman’s federal claims.