Court RICO summary of Dr. Anthony Tricoli Case


The Order dismissing Anthony Tricoli’s RICO action makes the following express findings:

Despite Defendants’ admissions that they committed many of the crimes alleged in Tricoli’s 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 acts—which 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 reports—criminal 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 Tricoli’s 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, quoting 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 Tricoli’s claims

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

The Court avoided admissions that Tricoli’s 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 Tricoli’s 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 Tricoli’s 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 Tricoli’s amended complaint. Under the law, Tricoli had an absolute right to amend his complaint according to OCGA 9-11-15.

The Order dismissed Tricoli’s RICO action based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity (stating the defendants are immune from suit even if they committed the crimes alleged—which are admitted)