Magistrate Judge Netburn also properly called into question the reliability of Mr. Freeman's
sources. For example, as to one of Mr. Freeman's sources, Mr. Freeman cited a proposition made
by "a former U.S. intelligence officer who wishes to remain anonymous." (Expert Rep. of Charles
W. Freeman, Jr., Ex. 3 ("Freeman Repmt"), ECF No. 7351-3, at 4 n.7.) Mr. Freeman originally
"attest[ ed] to [the source's] accuracy," but later admitted in his deposition the citation was written
by an anonymous internet blogger and conspiracy theorist. (Charles W. Freeman, Jr. Deposition,
Ex. 8 ("Freeman Dep."), ECF no. 7351-8, at 32-34.). This kind of dishonesty from Mr. Freeman
is sufficient to render his testimony umeliable and therefore inadmissible. See Bazile v. City of
New York, 215 F. Supp. 2d 354, 381 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2002) (holding that "expert testimony is
admissible only if the witness is qualified and if his testimony is both relevant and reliable.").
Hey #lawsky new nightmare fuel just dropped