With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". together and cumulatively with other instances permitting an inference of discrimination, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act. In particular, the evidence supports an inference of a pattern or practice of discrimination in the “the terms, conditions, or privileges” of rental, or interference with exercise of rights of a tenant, through withholding repair and maintenance, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) or § 3617. See 24 C.F.R. § 100.65 (prohibited actions under § 3604(b) include “[flailing or delaying maintenance or repairs ... because of race”); Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771, 780-782 (7th Cir.2009) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); see also Radcliffe v. Avenel Homeowners

A: holding that affidavit in support of summary judgment may not be based upon factual conclusion or conclusions of law
B: holding that violation of  3604b and  3617 may be based upon postrental management and administration of rental units by condo association
C: holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law
D: holding fha claim stated against association where bylaws authorized association to stop illegal conduct and expressly made any violation of local or federal law a violation of the associations rules
B.