IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA ANTHONY S. TRICOLI, y tHE ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. y JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ROB WATTS; RON CARRUTH; JIM ) RASMUS; MARK GERSPACHER; ) SHELETHA CHAMPION; HENRY ) HUCKABY; JOHN FUCHKO; STEVE ) WRIGLEY; BEN TARBUTTON; THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY. SYSTEM OF GEORGIA; SAM OLENS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA; and ROBIN JENKINS Defendants. SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF FILING CONTRACT EVIDENCE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS / REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES ‘TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS / AND REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FILING OF EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ‘AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Comes now Plaintiff Anthony Tricoli by way of Supplement to his Notice of Filing Evidence of Written Contract and Motion for Sanctions, and in reply to Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions (Defendants’ Responses), and Defendants’ Response to Filing of Evidence of Written Contract and Motion for Sanctions (defendants’ Response to Filing), and shows the Court as follows: On September 22, 2014, at the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the ‘Attorney General argued for dismissal of Plaintiff's contract claims, based onsovereign immunity, supposedly for lack of a written contract. The Attorney General further argued that Plaintiff should make an Open Records request in order to obtain his written contract. Accordingly, Plaintiff made such requests to Georgia Perimeter College (GPC) and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (USG). Documents obtained pursuant to those requests are hereby attached as exhibits. At the September 22 hearing, Plaintiff also served the Attorney General with Requests for Admission related to the contract claims and sovereign immunity defenses. On October 22, 2014, the Attorney General served Plaintiff with Defendant ‘The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions (Defendants’ Responses, attached hereto as Exhibit 1). In reply, Plaintiff relies on documents obtained pursuant to the Open Records requests, as well as exhibits to the Affidavit of Anthony Tricoli, originally filed on September 19, 2014, attached hereto as exhibits in support of Plaintiff's Filing of Evidence of Written Contract and Motion for Sanctions. These documents produced by Defendnts contradict their Responses to the Requests for Admissions. On October 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed Plaintiffs Notice of Filing of Evidence of Written Contract and Motion for Sanctions (Plaintiff's Notice of Filing), containing some of the evidence of Plaintiff's written contract with the USG from the Open Records request to GPC.1 On October 28, 2014, the Attorney General filed 1 The Attorney General claims it has not received a service copy of this pleading. However, Plaintiff has verified that it was mailed on the date stated, Defendants seek to make this an issue based on an unrelated case in which service copies wereDefendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing of Evidence of a Written Contract and Motion for Sanctions (Defendants’ Response to Notice of Filing), further denying that Plaintiff was employed pursuant to a written contract—contradicting the written documentation previously supplied. Subsequent releases of documents by the USG in response to the Open Records requests provide further evidence, not only that Tricoli was employed as a USG president, pursuant to a written contract incorporating USG policies~in addition, the documents produced provide further evidence of the USG backtracking to alter its policies to make it appear, in retrospect, that Tricoli was out of compliance with policies that were altered after the fact to create this false appearance. Worse, the USG policy changes camouflage the USC’s violations of its own previously-existing policies. ‘The materials attached to this reply rebut the Attorney General's Responses and demonstrate that Plaintiff was employed pursuant to a written contract with the University System of Georgia (USC). In addition, the Attorney General’s Responses further illustrate why Plaintif's claims under the Georgia RICO Act, OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq. are not premised on any tort duty to Plaintiff, and therefore are not governed by the Georgia Tort Claims Act (GTCA) as alleged by the Attorney General. Rather, Plaintif’s contract claims are based on a written contract and the RICO claims are premised on violations of the Georgia Criminal Code, as enumerated as predicate offenses by the Georgia Legislature in the Georgia RICO Act. inadvertently mailed out after the filing date. However, a mailroom error in another case is not a legal defense to the actions of these Defendants. Nor is ita reason to strike the probative evidence of what really occurred, as urged by the Attorney General, who is seeking to avoid and obscure the truth in this matter by any means possible.Defendants do not enjoy sovereign immunity for either set of claims. Rather, Defendants are subject to suit for breach of contract claims under OCGA § 50-21-1, and Plaintiff Tricolt has statutory standing to institute a civil action against them for their RICO predicate acts pursuant to OCGA § 16-14-6(c). The Attorney General's attempted application of the GT'CA does not alter that result in either instance. Albertson v, Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia, 272 Ga, App. 389, 392, 613 SE2d 119, 122 (2005) claims filed under separate statutes, such as OCGA § 50-21-1 and OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq,, do not fall under the GTCA and are not subject to its, sovereign immunity waiver exceptions). Responses to Requests for Admission For ease of following, prior to summarizing the misrepresentations of law and fact in Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff's frequests for Admissions (Defendants’ Responses), Plaintiff will address Defendants’ Responses in order: REQUEST NO. 1 (Exh. 1, p.2) ‘The Attorney General denies that Anthony Tricoli was employed pursuant to a written contract with the USG by stating that USG presidents “are not entitled toa written employment contract” pursuant to USG Policy 2.1. However, regardless of whether presidents are entitled to such a written employment contract, Plaintiff has produced and filed a written, mutually-signed document containing an offer and acceptance of terms of employment that satisfy all the clements of a written contract. Tricoli contract, Exhibit 2 (Exh. 1 to Tricoli Aff.). The USG may not alter thelaw of contract formation by its own fiat. Ambati v, Board of Regents, 299 Ga. App. 804, 685 SE2d 719, 724 (2009). ‘The written contract produced pursuant to the Open Records requests contains the terms of employment, requires Tricoli’s written ac jptance, and also states that applicable USG policies are included in the terms of employment. Ambati, 685 SE2d at 724 (USG policies explicitly incorporated in written employment contract are included as terms of the contract). Furthermore, Plaintiff Tricoli maintains that there does exist.a more comprehensive writing containing both the terms of employment stated in Exhibit 2 and the referenced USG policies—that Defendants have not produced (“the missing document”) pursuant to Plainitiff's Georgia Open Records Act request for all documents referencing his terms of employment with the USG, Similarly, Defendants have not produced, pursuant to specific Open Records requests, documents that are known to exist related to Plaintiff Tricoli’s annual performance evaluations by Defendant Rob Watts REQUEST NO. 2 (Exh. 1, p.2) ‘The USG denies having a copy of Tricoli’s written contract, in part, by qualifying the written, signed offer and acceptance as “a signed acknowledgement accepting...appointment.” Nonetheless, regardless of Defendants’ re- characterizations, i is a written contract incorporating its stated terms of offer and 2 [tis undisputed that the 2012 annual performance evaluation--that was supposed to be conducted by Chancellor Huckaby prior to the Board's Apri] Board meeting and deadline for notice of non-renewal, as required by USG Policy 2.3 & 2.4.2— never occurred,