◆ SpookStack

ob Gaim for demzes The motion to dismiss or for summery judgment should be grounded On the doctrine of officiel immnity,vis., that the acts of the Federal defendants were performed in the exercise of their officisl soot. 6 within the outer perimeter of those duties. Yatso, 360 U.8. 564 569, et seq. (1959); Holmes v. Bady, 341 F.2d WT, i i7o-hBo (hth Cir. 1965), cert. “den., 362 U.S. 892; Norton v. McShane, 332 F.2d 855 (Sth Cir. 1964), cert. den., 300 U.S. 91; West v. Garrett, 392 F.2a 543 (5th Cir. 1968). The motion should be supported by affidavits by each of the Federal defendants and by @ higher level superior. With reapect to the Treasury Department defendants, we enclose herewith copies of signed statements by the specifically named defendant Stanley Noel as well an by John BE. Wirtele, Owen D. Bean and Earl W. Hlake. These statenenta reflect that all their acts were performed properly and lcgnlly end in the course of their official duties. You should utilize those statements as the framework for the affidavits to be executed and filed in support of the motion for summary judgment on behalf of the Treasury ; Department employees. However the affidavits by those Treasury Department ‘ defendants ahould expressly recite, by way of conclusion, that all their acts vere performed in the exercise of their official duties or within the © > outer perimeter of those duties. The supporting affidavit by the higher level Treasury Dopartment official should recite that he has read the oeffidavits of the Treaeury defendants and that he concurs in their con- clusion that all their acts were performed in the exercise of their offi- cial duties or within the outer perimeter of such duties. Your memorandum of lav in support of the motion to Spates or for summary judgment should emphasize that the doctrine of official immnity has as its rationale not only the exonmeration of Goverment officials and erployees from a civil judgment for tort liability but also for relieving them of the burden and expense of going to trial in defense of acts per- formed tn the exercise of their official duties or within the outer perimeter’ of such duties. Gee Earr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 572 {21959); Tenney v.- Brandhove, 342 U.S. 367, 377 (1951). We have requented a report from the Mirector of ths FBI with respect to the acts by the specifically namcd defendant, FBI Agent Deen Parminn, as yell as his ascociates who may be encompassed within the "John Kilroy" alfee in the complaint. Upon our receipt of such report we will forward the same to you in order that you may prepere the necessary affidavits by the FRI defendants and their superior along the lines indi- cated above for the offidavits by the Treasury Department defendants and their superior. cr ore