◆ SpookStack

. lim In sum, clearly, the panel has reached a: determination which will, in Judge Pell's words, result in "a potentially disastrous curtailment on necessary exchanges of information between law enforce- ment and agencies" [Slip Op. 111], contrary to well-established evidentiary rules and contrary to the Supreme Court's mandate that such rules should be given "firm application." See Butz v. Economou, ‘ ‘supra; Maiorana v. MacDonald, supra. The evidence adduced at the eighteen-month long trial considered under well-established rules makes clear that federal appellees are entitled to immunity, and the panel violated the mandates of the Supreme Court in denying immunity.. Moreover; for the reasons set forth by Judge Pell in his dissent, this evidence equally provides no support for the panel's conclusion that factual questions exist ‘concerning whether the federai officials were invoived in an unlawful conspiracy. -—Ss Rehearing in banc should be granted to give effect to the mandate of the Supreme Court and correct a serious miscarriage a ‘11/ Although we have not specifically reargued in this petition the issue regarding the lack of evidence presented by the appellants on their conspiracy claim, we agree with the conclusion of the State appellees: . The majority opinion misapplies the law under the evidence adduced at trial. There. can be no inference thé Defendants knew of a plan to either injure, imprison or otherwise deprive [plaintiffs] of their constitutional rights. Speculation is insufficient; there ‘were no facts on which to base an inference. - - - [State Defendants-Appelleés' Petition © . for Rehearing, p. 24.] ~ TE =