Court

RICO summary

The Order dismissing Anthony Tricolis RICO action makes the following express
findings:

Despite Defendants admissions that they committed many of the crimes alleged in
Tricolis complaint, they are immune as state employees under the doctrine of
sovereign immunity.

The Court reached this legal conclusion of sovereign immunity protection for the
admitted criminal conduct by applying law from the Georgia Tort Claims Act
(GTCA), even though Tricoli brought his claims under a different statute, the Georgia
RICO Act.

The Court said that Georgia RICO predicate actswhich consist of criminal
violations such as knowing falsification of state agency reports, fraud in the use of a
state computer network, mail fraud, wire fraud, theft by deception, and extortion--
are not distinguishable from tort claims such as defamation and tortious
interference with contract since they are based on the same conduct.

Thus the Court found that breach of a private tort duty not to defame Tricoli is
indistinguishable from the alleged indictable offenses such as federal mail and wire
fraud, state computer fraud, and fraud in state agency reportscriminal offenses
that may be prosecuted under the RICO statute, which also authorizes a civil action
against those who committed the criminal acts.

Though the Court did not address the matter, the effect of the Order of dismissal is
that the state is also immune from injunctive relief in spite of the law enacted by the
Georgia legislature that specifically authorizes injunctive relief based on criminal
violations of the Georgia RICO Act. The injunctive relief authorized by the statute
specifically authorizes reorganization of a state government entity being conducted
as a RICO enterprise. OCGA 16-14-6(a)(3) & OCGA 16-14-3(6).

(As described below in Procedural irregularities, the Court did not consider Tricolis
motion for injunctive relief, to place him back in the presidency of GPC and remove
the defendants who had admitted to criminal conduct in knowingly falsifying and
misrepresenting the GPC budget reports).

Specifically, following exactly from the Order, the Court held that:

*Theft of state and federal funds, and knowing falsifications of state agency reports
to cover it up (criminal offenses under the RICO Act), are immunized under the tort
exception for negligence in the financial oversight duties of state employees.

Takeaway: state financial oversight can include theft of funds and knowing
misrepresentations of accounts. In this case, it is undisputed that over $9 million in
state and federal funds is missing.

*Knowing dissemination of misrepresentations of state agency business via mail
and wire, in violation of federal mail and wire fraud acts and the state computer
fraud statute (criminal offenses under the RICO Act) are immunized under the tort
exception for defamation by state employees.

Takeway: Not only can state employees intentionally defame anyone for any reason
without consquences, they can do so using criminally falsified state agency reports,
and disseminate them over the wire in violation of state and federal criminal
statutes.

*The above criminal offenses by state employees, many of them admitted, are
immunized by the tort exception for exercise of administrative functions.

Takeaway: Computer fraud, extortion, and theft by deception are, according to the
Order, discretionary administrative functions of the state.


Unsupported findings of fact foreclosing Tricolis claims

The Court acknowledged that the Attorney Generals claim that Tricoli did not have
a written employment contract was false, but ignored Tricolis motion for sanctions
based on that knowing misrepresentation.

The Court avoided admissions that Tricolis contract was breached--and that
Defendants changed USG policies violated in the process, after the fact, to cover that
up--by stating that Tricoli had no contract because of his forced resignation, even
though that occurred after the admitted breaches of the contract and USG policy. In
other words, defendants were free to breach the contract when it was in effect
because they later forced him to resign through illegal means. And they are not
guilty of any USG policy violations because they changed the policies later to erase
the prior violations.

The Order stated that the decision to oust Tricoli was based on later unidentified
findings of misconduct by Tricoli. Not only is this statement not true-- it has not
even been alleged by Defendants

Procedural irregularities foreclosing Tricolis claims

The Order signed by the judge on November 19 and filed with the clerk on
November 21 (the effective date of the order) did not consider Tricolis Motion for
Interlocutory Injunction filed on November 19 and supported by an Amended
Verified Complaint (not yet filed when the order was entered).


The Order was thus entered without any consideration of Tricolis amended
complaint. Under the law, Tricoli had an absolute right to amend his complaint
according to OCGA 9-11-15.

The Order dismissed Tricolis RICO action based on the doctrine of sovereign
immunity (stating the defendants are immune from suit even if they committed the
crimes allegedwhich are admitted)