You are on page 1of 32







Comes now Plaintiff Anthony Tricoli pursuant to OCGA 9-11-65

& 16-14-6(a&b), moves the Court for an order restoring him to his
position as President of Georgia Perimeter College pending the outcome
of this litigation, and shows the Court as follows:
Plaintiff Tricoli is filing this motion for an interlocutory injunction
because prior pleadings and accompanying evidentiary submissions in
this action have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the
merits, a balance of equities decidedly in his favor, irreparable harm to
Tricoli in the total destruction of his academic career, and a strong

public interest in ridding the University System of Georgia (USG) of a

plague of self-serving criminal violations--that pass for business as
usual--and restoring the USG to the mission of educating the young
people of Georgia and building a strong and vibrant economy for every
citizen of our state.
Background Summary
Plaintiff Anthony Tricoli was named President of Georgia
Perimeter College (GPC) in 2006. Tricoli replaced Rob Watts, who had
been serving as interim president of GPC. Upon Tricolis hiring, Watts
was moved to the central office of the University of System of Georgia,
(USG), where Watts became Chief Operating Officer and Two-Year
College Section Head, making Watts the direct supervisor at the USG of
Tricoli as president of GPC. When Watts left GPC and moved to the USG,
Watts insisted that Tricoli keep the GPC budget chief that Watts had
hired, Ron Carruth. Over time and with experience, Tricolis confidence
in Carruth diminished, but Watts would not allow Tricoli to replace
Carruth, insisting Carruth was the best budget officer in Georgia.
At the time of Tricolis hiring in 2006, the USG faced a budget
crisis and had decided to close one of GPCs campuses, which was
expected to result in a loss of 7000 students and $30 million in revenue.

Because of this budget crisis, Watts ordered Tricoli to work with

Carruth to eliminate almost 300 jobs at GPC as a budget cutting
Instead of following Watts directive, Tricoli undertook a dynamic
promotional campaign and increased GPCs enrollment and revenues,
both of which doubled in the course of Tricolis presidency from 2006 to
2012. No GPC employees lost their jobs. Tricolis annual contract was
enthusiastically renewed by the Board of Regents and Chancellor Erroll
Davis every year from 2007 through 2011, and Tricoli was dubbed the
USGs rising star for his energy, devotion to his job, and
accomplishments in raising the enrollment, revenue, and stature of GPC.
Tricoli continued to take active steps to secure GPCs financial
position. In response to issues raised by state auditors and Carruths
lack of cooperation, Tricoli sought to have Carruth removed. Again,
Watts refused. In addition to bringing in increased revenues, Tricoli
sought to eliminate waste in the budget. When Tricoli inquired into an
issue raised by state auditors, he learned for the first time that GPC was
paying an outfit called Skybridge Consultants over a million dollars a
year. This consulting contract had been initiated by Watts and Carruth
during their term together at GPC and never disclosed to Tricoli when

he assumed the presidency. When Tricoli determined that GPC received

no value for this large recurring annual payout to Skybridge, he ordered
the contract terminated. Skybridge was subsequently reassigned to
consult on a USG project in Sandersville, Georgia favored by the Board
of Regents Chairman Ben Tarbutton of Sandersville, Georgia.
Tricolis dramatic rise and revival of GPC came to a screeching halt
in late April of 2012. For some unknown reason, Tricolis annual
performance evaluation required by USG policywhich was conducted
by Rob Watts from 2007 to 2011, and was supposed to be conducted by
new Chancellor Henry Huckaby in 2012never occurred before the
USG policy deadline for notice of renewal or non-renewal of Tricolis
annual contract in April. USG policy required the evaluation and
renewal decision to occur by the Board of Regents regular April
meeting. Huckaby never conducted a 2012 evaluation and Tricoli
received no notice after the April Board meeting, contrary to the USG
Instead, on April 25, Carruth came into Tricolis office to inform
him that the school faced a budget deficit of between one and four
million dollars. Tricoli was shocked to hear that because the month
before, in March of 2012, Carruth had reported in his official report to

the GPC executive committee chaired by Tricoli that there was a $3.6
million fiscal year surplus and a normal budget cycle, and Carruth had
reported even rosier numbers in the past. Annual USG budget hearings
and the annual performance evaluations conducted by Rob Watts had
never mentioned any issue of deficit spending.
Upon hearing of the problem, Tricoli contacted the USG, informed
Chancellor Huckaby, and requested assistance from the USG budget and
compliance officers to determine the actual extent of the problem, as
Carruth gave uncertain and inconsistent responses. The next day the
USG announced that GPC was facing a $16 million budget deficit. A
Special Report later conducted by the USG, in the form of a self-audit,
found that Carruth had been spending GPC reserves without informing
Tricoli. The Special Report also confirmed that two sets of books had
been kept at GPC, one informing Tricoli of the rosy budget numbers and
another reporting deficit spending to the USG and state auditors over a
period of years. The Report also found that Carruth and other budget
officers had been emailing back and forth about a looming deficit crisis,
without informing Tricoli. It is undisputed that these emails go back to
at least as far as January 2012, well before Carruth reported a budget
surplus and normal budget process for the fiscal year to Tricoli in

March of 2012, only weeks before the announcement of the $16 million
deficit. USG officials said they had known of the deficit spending,
exhausting the reserves built up by Tricoli, for at least three years
though this was never mentioned in a USG budget hearing or
performance evaluation.
The same day the $16 million deficit was announced, and before
any investigation took place, Huckaby demanded Tricolis resignation. A
series of reports in the Atlanta media soon emerged--with USG officials,
including Huckaby and Tarbutton, as the named sources--in which
Tricoli was roundly blamed for the GPC deficit crisis. The Special Report
released in September of 2012 also laid the blame squarely on Tricolis
shoulders, despite the admissions that Carruth, Watts, and others either
actively misrepresented or withheld disclosure of the deficit spending
information from Tricoli.
When Tricoli refused to give in to Huckabys threats in April of
2012 to resign or be fired, Huckaby offered Tricoli a position in the USG
central office if he would resign quietly. After Tricoli, under duress of
continuing media attacks and threats from Huckaby, agreed to resign as
GPC president and accepted the USG position, Huckaby reneged on the
promised USG position. Instead, Huckaby and the USG purported to not

renew Tricolis contract as GPC president at its May meetingthough

the deadline under the USG policy for giving notice of non-renewal had
already passed. If the USG had fired Tricoli past the deadline for notice
of non-renewal, they would have had to give Tricoli a due process
appeal hearing. Tricoli requested one anyway, in order to investigate
and present evidence of what had occurred, including the knowingly
false reports concerning the GPC budget, but Huckaby refused to afford
Tricoli a hearing.
After this illegal ouster of Tricoli, the USG attempted to cover its
tracks by changing numerous policies that applied to the situation. The
USG changed the policy that allowed Carruth to spend college reserves
without authorization from anyonesuch reserve spending now
requires notification to the president and written authorization by the
USG. The USG changed its policy to require future presidents to attend
budget meetings that Tricoli was not supposed to attend under thenexisting policy (the Special Report faulted Tricoli for not attending those
staff budget meetings, though Tricoli acted in accordance with the
policy that existed at the time). The USG changed the standard written
offer and acceptance forms that made presidential employment subject
to USG policies, such as the policies requiring annual evaluations and

notice of non-renewal by the April Board meeting. In August of 2014,

after commencement of this litigation, the USG changed that policy to
allow notice of non-renewal after the May Board meetingconsistent
with the notice the USG purported to give Tricoli in May of 2012.
The USGs self-audit, the Special Report released over four
months after Tricolis ouster, did not make a definitive statement on
whether theft, fraud, or other criminal activity was involved in the $16
million deficit. The only overspending it identified involved a
misallocation of $6.7 million in employee fringe benefits by human
resources director James Rasmus, who remains in that position today.
That left over $9 million in state and federal funds unaccounted for. The
USG has not investigated further. The Attorney General announced he
was conducting an investigation, but this never occurred. The Attorney
General responded to CBS News that he relied instead on the USG selfaudit in which over $9 million in state and federal funds remains AWOL.
Upon Tricolis ouster, Watts resumed his former position as GPC
interim president, where he remains today. Watts cannot be made
permanent president because he lacks the required credentials such as
a doctoral degree. Watts has now served in this, his second stint as GPC

president for over two years, though USG policy on interim

appointments is that they should not last more than a year.
Tricoli, on the other hand, has been irreparably harmed in that,
after being falsely and very publicly blamed in the media for the GPC
deficit crisis, based on knowingly false state agency reports by
Defendants, he was ousted as GPC president under unsavory
circumstances and has been unable to obtain another job in his
profession. He lost his home in Atlanta. He has applied for over 200
university administration positions across the country, but has been
unable to secure a jobafter being the USGs rising star. When Tricoli
has been called back for interviews for jobs in his chosen profession,
Defendants have actually contacted the schools in question to call their
attention to the negative Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles. Schools
have objected to the USG concerning this interference--which they say
harmed Tricolis chances of securing a position. No one at the USG has
ever responded. Tricoli currently remains unemployable in his chosen
For purposes of this Motion for an Interlocutory Injunction
restoring Tricoli to his position as GPC president, Plaintiff relies on
Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions

(Defendants Responses / Admissions), Plaintiffs Requests fro

Admissions (Plaintiffs Requests), Plaintiffs Notice of Filing of Evidence
of Written Contract and Motion for Sanctions (Plaintiffs Notice),
Plaintiffs Supplement to Notice of Filing of Evidence of Written Contract
(Plaintiffs Supplement), and the Affidavit of Anthony Tricoli, as well as
their supporting exhibits. In addition, all facts stated herein will be
averred in Plaintiff Tricolis Amended Verified Complaint in support of
this Motion.
Background Summary of Legal Issues
In the course of the pleadings, Defendants have admitted much of
the criminal conduct from which Tricolis claims arise. Upon challenge
by the Attorney General to make Open Records requests and present
evidence supporting his claims (ironically, a duty that does not fall to
Plaintiff Tricoli at the motion to dismiss stage), Plaintiff has obtained
and filed overwhelming evidence, supported and verified by his
Affidavit and Defendants admissions, that Defendants both knowingly
breached Tricolis employment contract and violated USG policy in
ousting him from the presidency of Georgia Perimeter College (GPC).
Moreover, the Attorney General has admitted to a pattern of criminal
acts by University System of Georgia (USG) Defendants, for which the

Georgia RICO Act provides injunctive relief. OCGA 16-14-3(6), 16-143(9)(A), 16-14-4 & 16-14-6(a).
The Attorney General has claimed sovereign immunity to Tricolis
breach of contract claims, asserting that Tricoli has no written contract
on which to suedespite the written, mutually-signed offer and
acceptance forms stating terms of employment, including application of
USG policy to presidential employment.
There is no merit to the Attorney Generals arguments that the
knowingly false reports on the Georgia Perimeter College (GPC) budget
in violation of OCGA 16-10-20 merely breached some private duty to
the Plaintiff, conferring tort immunity on the state government
defendants. Nor is there any legal basis for the Attorney Generals
argument that Tricoli was not entitled to rely on these reports on
matters under the jurisdiction of the State, or that the obligation fell on
Tricoli to perceive this duplicitous game and pierce the veil of the
knowingly false set of books in order to redirect his attention to the real
set of booksthe one withheld from him that had not been falsified.
OCGA 16-14-2 (legislative intent of Georgia RICO is to protect state
from harm and prevent subversion of its economy) & 16-10-20


(knowingly false report sufficient to complete the criminal RICO

predicate act).
Similarly, the position taken by the USG and the Attorney General
is that, on the one hand, the information showing a $16 million deficit
was readily and publicly available for a period of two to three years.
Defendants Response to Request No. 20. On the other hand, these same
state officials claim they were not aware of it until they used that
information to oust Tricoli in April and May of 2012. Plaintiffs Supp., p.
9, Exh 6 (Regents Chairman Tarbutton claims the USG had not
previously known of the state audits and financial statements
contradicting the official budget reports made to Tricoli by GPC and USG
budget officials). That, obviously, is so patently self-contradictory that it
cannot be given any credence as a defense. In fact, these selfcontradictory claims are themselves knowing misrepresentations in
violation of OCGA 16-10-20 (knowingly false report on matter under
state jurisdiction), and therefore Georgia RICO predicate acts.
In addition, in the USG Special Report produced by Defendants
themselves (Tricoli Affidavit, Exh. 5), the Attorney General abdicated his
responsibilities and ceded investigation and oversight to the USG, which
was allowed to conduct a self-audit to clear itself of wrongdoing, even

though the Report admits that it cannot account for over $9 million in
GPC spending of state and federal funds during fiscal year 2012. That
Report is also truly special in that it holds Tricoli accountable for the
sudden $16 million budget deficitthat appeared in April 2012, a
month after the chief GPC budget officer, Defendant Ron Carruth,
reported a $3.6 million surplus and a normal budget process in March
of 2012, and after Defendants Rob Watts and Hank Huckaby both failed
to mention anything about deficit spending in USG budget hearings or
Tricolis annual performance evaluation required by USG Policies 2.3
and 2.4.2 prior to April each year. Plaintiffs Supp., Exh. 11. The budget
reporting discrepancies were not accidental or even attributable to
incompetence in light of the Special Reports admission that system
budget officials were frantically emailing each other back and forth
about the impending budgetary train wreck as early as January 2012,
while excluding Tricoli from these communications. Tricoli Aff., Exhs. 1
& 5. This use of the USG computer network to effect this fraudulent
scheme to deceive Tricoli on the actual state of the GPC budget is also a
Georgia RICO predicate act. OCGA 16-9-90 et seq., the Georgia
Computer Systems Protection Act (GCSPA), OCGA 16-14-


3(9)(A)(xxviii). See Plaintiffs Supp., Exh. 12 (USGs standard GCSPA

employee criminal liability acknowledgement form).
Nonetheless, the Special Report found Tricoli miraculously
responsible for that $19.6 million point swing between a $3.6 million
surplus and a $16 million deficit (sometimes reported as a $25 million
deficit and a 28.4 million point swing), within a months time, by citing
USG policies and procedures that were not in place at the time, but
which the USG changed after the fact in an attempt to hold Tricoli
accountable. E.g., Plaintiffs Supp. pp 10-11 & Exh. 7 (reference to USG
policies removed from USG president contracts).
In an even bolder gambit, the Special Report, in which the USG
audited itself and absolved itself of all blame, faulted President Tricoli
the same President Tricoli who by all accounts led GPC out of the budget
crisis he inherited when he took the job in 2006 and built up a $20
million reserve fund by 2008--for wasteful, uncontrolled spending. One
example of wasteful spending cited is quite revealing. It was the $1.5
million a year paid to Skybridge, consultants hired by Defendants Rob
Watts and Ron Carruth prior to Tricolis arrival at GPC. Tricoli Aff., Exh.
5. The existence of this contract was withheld from Tricoli for the first
several years of his presidency. When Tricoli discovered it through

budgetary due diligence, and determined that Skybridge Consultants,

hired through their previous USG personal and political connections, did
not actually perform any work or provide any benefit to GPC, Tricoli
ordered the contract terminated. Yet there it is in the USG Special
Report as an example of Tricolis fiscal mismanagement. Bold as that
sounds, Defendants did not stop there, however. They went on to report
to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, despite the admissions in the Special
Report that Carruth spent GPC reserves while withholding that
information from Tricoli (Tricoli Aff., Exh. 1 & Defendants Response to
Requests 19 & 20), that Tricoli had personally dipped into GPCs
reserves to create the budget crisis. Plaintiffs Supp., Exhs. 5-6. After
Tricoli was blamed for wasting the reserves he created, though the
Special Report admits that Carruth spent them without Tricolis
knowledge, the USG went back and changed the policy that allowed
Carruth to spend down the reserves on his own authority to instead
require prior written approval to use reserve funds. Plaintiifs Notice.,
p. 6. These and other knowing misrepresentations riddling the Special
Report are violations of the Georgia Criminal Code, OCGA 16-10-20.
The Attorney General has actually admitted to the means by
which the USG attempted to cover its tracks by changing USG policies

after the fact. See Defendants Response to Request No. 10. The USG
changed policies after the fact to place Tricoli in non-compliance for
purposes of the attempts to lay all blame on him in the Special Report.
Defendants also altered USG policy after the fact to camouflage its own
violation of policies in place at the time of Tricolis illegal ouster. Thus
stands the corruption-ridden milieu in which Tricoli was ousted, and
the grounds on which he seeks immediate re-instatement.

Defendant Admissions and Self-contradictions in Public Statements

on Matters under State Jurisdiction
The scenario described above, demonstrating a pattern of
racketeering activity pursuant to OCGA 16-14-1 et seq., is based
largely on admissions by the Attorney General in Defendants Response
to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions (Defendants Responses). In other
instances, Defendants purported denials, in response to Plaintiffs
Requests for Admissions, are directly contradicted by Defendants own
Contradicting Defendants denial of Request for Admission No. 6,
for example, the Huckaby letter of May 10, 2012 conclusively shows that
Defendants purported to give notice of non-renewal of Tricolis


contract in May of 2012, a month after the contractual deadline

according to USG policy. Defendants Response, p. 7; Plaintiffs
Supplement, p. 7 & Exh. 4
Defendants admit that the relevant policy in place at the time, USG
2.4.2, called for notice of non-renewal in April, and was changed after
the fact and during the pendency of this litigation to conform to
Defendants actions by re-setting the deadline for May. Response to
Request No. 10.
It is undisputed that Defendants did not afford Plaintiff an annual
performance review prior to the notice of non-renewal as required by
USG 2.3.
Defendants admit that the USG is a state entity within the meaning
of OCGA 16-10-20, such that knowing misrepresentations by and
through the USG are violations of that criminal statute and a RICO
predicate act. Response to Request 11.
The Attorney Generals denials that (1) Tricoli was made a firm
offer to reassign to the USG central office, which (2) Tricoli accepted in
writing, and that (3) Defendants subsequently ousted him after


procuring his resignation as GPC president in this duplicitous fashion by

(4) purporting to not renew his annual contract as GPC president--are
all contradicted by Defendants own public statements as recorded by
WABE, the Atlanta Business Chronicle, and the Atlanta JournalConstitution. Responses to Requests 12-18. These knowingly false, selfcontradicted denials support an award of litigation expenses under
OCGA 9-15-14 & 13-6-11. The knowingly false statements to the
media, memorialized in Plaintiffs Supplement were also violations of
OCGA 16-10-20. Plaintiffs Supplement pp. 8-9, 12-14 & Exhs 5, 6 & 810. Consistent with Defendants demonstrably false denials of these
statements, they were made with the intent to harm Plaintiff Tricoli via
a scheme to defraud transmitted by wire, radio, or television in violation
of 18 USC 1343, also a Georgia RICO predicate act.
Defendants admit that employees of GPCs Office of Financial and
Administrative Affairs were sending emails in January of 2012 that
referenced declines in fund balances over the past several fiscal years
causing shortfalls that required external resources to ensure that GPC
could meet its short-term operational needs in April of 2012. The
Attorney General denies that anyone outside of the GPCs finance office


received the emails, attempting to shield the USG and Attorney

Generals office, but by the same token admitting that the violations
were committed by the referenced GPC employees, Defendants Ron
Carruth, Sheletha Champion, and Mark Gerspacher. Response to
Request 19. These admitted emails referencing declining reserves
confirm the RICO predicate acts because they occurred at the same time
the very same Defendants were, according to GPC official reports on
matters under state jurisdiction within the meaning of OCGA 16-1020, reporting to Plaintiff Tricoli that GPC was operating at a revenue
surplus under a normal budget process. Plaintiff Supp., p. 16, Exh. 11;
Tricoli Aff., Exh. 4. They also violate the GCSPA and 18 USC 1343.
The Attorney General of Georgia makes the accusation that Tricoli
did not perform the necessary financial due diligence associated with
his responsibilities as President, while at the same time admitting that-contrary to the knowingly false budget reports made to Tricoli-Defendants Watts, Huckaby, Wrigley, Fuchko, and Tarbutton all had
ready access to Annual Financial Reports,basis and Budgetary
Compliance reports, operating results, cash flow statements, and audit
issues giving them ample notice of budget shortfalls for fiscal years


2009, 2010, and 2011. Response to Request No. 20. Likewise, the USGs
Office of Internal Audit and Compliance (OIAC) had access to the same
information. Response to Request 19.
No USG Defendant ever shared such a concern about deficit
spending with Tricoli during those yearsat the same time it is
undisputed that he was being given knowingly false reports on these
matters. Responses to Plaintiffs Open Records requests--that so far
have not been forthcoming from the USG--will demonstrate no mention
of any budget shortfall in USG Budget Hearings and annual performance
evaluations by Watts and Huckabyat the same time that GPC budget
officials were, as Defendants admit, relaying knowingly false
information to Tricoli. The USGs OIAC, despite claiming to have had
access to this information since 2009, was also never heard from on this
issue until April of 2012. Response to Request 19.
All knowingly false statements in the Responses, intending to
misrepresent or deceive and contradicted by Defendants own public
records and public statements on matters under state jurisdiction, are
themselves violations of OCGA 16-10-20.


Authority for relief requested

Plaintiff Tricoli filed this action as authorized by OCGA 16-146(c), which provides that any person injured by reason of any [RICO]
violationshall have a cause of action. Such action is authorized against
any person conducting a RICO enterprise, which includes any
association including governmental entities such as GPC, the USG, and
the Attorney Generals office. OCGA 16-14-3(6). In particular, Georgia
RICO makes it unlawful for any personthrough a pattern of
racketeering activity, such as the systematic violations of OCGA 16-1020 admitted by Defendants in this action--to maintain control of such a
governmental entity enterprise. OCGA 16-14-4(a). It is also unlawful
for any person employed by or associated with any [such governmental
entity] enterprise to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly,
such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, such as the
admitted OCGA 16-10-20 and 18 USC 1343 violations. OCGA 16-144(b). Moreover, Georgia RICO prohibits government employees in a
governmental entity RICO enterprise from conspiring or endeavoring to
violate any provisions of the statute. OCGA 16-14-4(c), such as by the
admitted misrepresentation and withholding of information from
Tricoli in violation of OCGA 16-10-20.

Furthermore, these admitted criminal violations estop a

defendant in any subsequent civil action or proceeding as to all matters
proved [e.g., admitted] in the criminal proceeding. OCGA 16-14-6(e).
Defendants have admitted criminal violations of 16-14-4(a-c). There is
no other reasonable conclusion to draw from the admissions that GPC
and USG budget officials were communicating among themselves at
least as early as January of 2012 concerning an imminent budget
collapse while reporting to Tricoli only that the budget was in fine
shape, while at the same time delaying Tricolis performance evaluation
required by USG policy 2.3 past the deadline for giving notice of nonrenewal of the employment contract under USG policy 2.4.2. It may also
be taken as an admission that defendants subsequently endeavored to
change the policies regarding presidential service in order to effect ex
post facto compliance with the policiesafter blatantly violating the
USG policies in existence at the time. See Defendants Response to
Request No. 10.
The Georgia RICO Act specifically authorizes injunctive relief to
address grievances caused by violations of OCGA 16-14-4. OCGA 1614-6(a&b). This injunctive relief afforded by OCGA 16-14-6(a&b) is
consistent with the relief authorized by OCGA 9-11-65, which provides

for interlocutory injunctive relief to restore the status quo and prevent
further harm. Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 S.E.2d 634, 638 (Ga.,
2011). Such interlocutory relief may be awarded in the discretion of the
court upon consideration of the following factors: likelihood of success
on the merits, the balancing of the equities between the parties,
avoidance of irreparable harm, and promotion of the public interest. Id.
at 638-39.
Likelihood of success on the merits
Admissions that Defendants, while sending dire emails about a
budget disaster starting in January, were reporting to Tricoli that all was
well with the GOC budget, establish prima facie violations of OCGA 1610-20. Defendants are setopped from defending these admissions of
criminal conduct in a civil suit. OCGA 16-14-6(e).
Defendant Huckaby forestalled the performance evaluation
required by USG policy 2.3 to let the scenario play out.
Tricoli has presented evidence of a written contract incorporating
USG policies. It is undisputed that this contract was breached and these
USG policies were first violated by Defendants, then changed after the
fact by the USG to cover their tracks.


The allegations of breach of contract and criminal RICO predicate

acts will be established at trial by uncontroverted evidence in the form
of Defendants own documents and admissions.
The equities favor Plaintiff Tricoli
There is no doubt that the harm now suffered by Plaintiff Tricoli
outweighs any harm to the Defendants that might flow from granting
the injunction. Defendants are admitted wrongdoers, not innocent
persons under OCGA 16-14-6(a). The best face the Attorney General can
put on it is that they have sovereign immunity for their reprehensible,
criminal actions. They diverted all responsibility for their actions to
Tricoli, under carefully contrived circumstances. Meanwhile, they
maneuvered to deprive Tricoli of all due process concerning his
removal, first by tricking him into resigning with a false promise, then
illegally purporting not to renew his contract as president.
One of main malefactors, Watts, usurped Tricolis position, and
the principal confederate, Carruth, retired with a full pension. Carruth
was hired by Watts and continued to report to Watts what he would not
report to Tricoli, and Watts also kept it from Tricoli, as Carruth spent
down GPC reserves put in place at Tricolis direction, wasting this
resource without the presidents knowledge. Both Watts and Carruth

actively misled Tricoli, one by commission and the other by omission.

Watts has overstayed his interim position by over a year already,
according to USG policy limiting interim appointments to a maximum of
one year. Replacement of Watts would prejudice both Tricoli and the
replacement president.
Moreover, Defendants orchestrated the ouster to work maximum
harm on Tricoli, in contrast to other USG presidents who stepped down
amid budgetary problemsthat perhaps not by coincidence are quite
common within the USGwith full pensions or were allowed to take
other positions without the hounding and harassment Tricoli has
experienced. This termination of,by all accounts, a dynamic and
successful GPC president was conducted with extreme prejudice
Defendants covered up their own wrongdoing through
scapegoating Tricoli, changing their own policies retroactively, and
through their own self-audit, with cooperation from the Attorney
General who abdicated his responsibilities and has failed to pursue
admitted criminal acts or account for over $9 million that remains
untraced to this day.


Tricoli is being irreparably harmed

As averred in the Amended Verified Complaint, Tricolis career
was destroyed by the USGs near diabolical portrayal of him in the press,
after sandwiching him between the deceptions of Carruth and Watts in
order to sandbag him out of his position as GPC president. Through a
series of criminal misrepresentations, he was painted as totally
incompetent for believing GPC and USG budget officials. Defendants
who knew better claimed Tricoli dipped into the reserves, per the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Defendants also pilloried Tricoli in the
press with false claims, since abandoned, that Tricoli hired friends with
criminal records, per WSB-TV. The traps sprung on Tricoli were planned
and premeditated to produce the maximum harm.
Then Defendants followed him around the country, showing
unparalleled malice, hounding him and prospective employers to make
sure he did not get another job. He lost his home in Atlanta in the
process. At age 57, he has gone from a successful career in his chosen
field to facing trying to start a new career path. Hundreds of interviews
later, it is evident that what went down at GPC has barred Tricoli from
his chosen profession. Moreover, where Tricolis ability to work in his
chosen profession is concerned, he has no adequate remedy at law.

While he may be awarded damages or other relief in this action, none of

that will restore his ability to work in his chosen field, helping young
people who started at the same disadvantage he did. Tricoli Aff., 1-5.
The only way to erase that irreparable harm is to reverse Defendants
illegal actions and place him back in his position as GPC president.

Restoring Tricoli as GPC president serves the public interest

Restoring Tricoli to his position as GPC president from which he
was so sleazily removed would also restore confidence--not only in the
proper rule of law, where state officials are not free to engage in
unfettered criminal activity, but in the proper governance of GPC and
the USG to serve the interests of Georgias students and support a strong
and viable economy for the state, consistent with the legislative intent of
the Georgia RICO Act. OCGA 16-14-2.
Tricolis accomplishments in building the enrollment and stature
of GPC is undisputed, and should be rewarded, not punished. Future star
prospects for the USG should not be deterred from coming to Georgia by
a RICO-infested climate. Apparently Tricolis success created political
enemieswho should not be enabled or emboldened to retard the
progress of the state or its university system out of their own petty

envies. Perhaps most importantly, Tricoli proved himself to be an

energetic and responsible steward of GPC finances. He ordered the
reserves that were wasted by Defendants to be created. He never would
have knowingly allowed their plan to dissipate them to proceed. If he
had known about the spending down of the reserves he would have
stopped it. If it had not been hidden from him until it was too late to do
anything about it, he would have corrected it
He saved GPC from one financial crisis at the beginning of his
tenure. Defendants made sure he did not get a second chance to repeat
that performance. Defendants even actually used as examples of
Tricolis supposed wasteful spending, to misrepresent the facts to justify
his illegal ouster and the breach of his contract, wasteful spending
initiated by Defendants that Tricoli eliminated. GPC entered a consulting
contract with Skybridge Consultants before Tricoli became president.
Watts and Carruth knew of this contract and kept it from Tricoli. When
he discovered it in the course of his governance of the institution and
could not discern any benefit from the mystery consulting contract, he
ordered it terminated, according to his stewardship responsibilities as
president. In fact, he did the due diligence Defendants accused him of
not performing. It was not long after the elimination of this phantom,

pet consulting contract that the plan to eliminate Tricoli lept into full
Plaintiff intends to prove at trial that elimination of such pet
projects and pork barrel spending were the principal motivation for
Tricolis ouster, and he has requested appointment of special attorney
general to investigate for that purpose. Over $9 million of the alleged
budget overspending remains unaccounted forin short, there is no
indication Defendants stewardship has served the public interest. In
fact, 300 positions were lost and GPC suffered a 7000 drop in
enrollment due to the contrived budget crisisvirtually erasing
Tricolis accomplishments.
The purpose of the Georgia RICO statute is to prevent just such
harm to the state, its institutions, and its economy. OCGA 16-14-2.
Defendants, on the other hand, did not hesitate to harm the school
through their manipulative actions. They showed no compunction about
violating the Criminal Code of Georgia. That is the very reason for the
RICO statute, to prevent governmental entities from being co-opted by a
pattern of criminal activity. OCGA 16-14-2, 16-14-3(6) & 16-14-4.
The Attorney General and the USG need not wring their hands
and wonder what are we going to do if we cant falsify state college

budge reports and relay more false reports to the AJC in order to oust a
president who cut a phantom consulting contract out of the budget.
Contrary to what Sam Olens says, the sky wont fall if state employees
cannot commit criminal acts with sovereign impunity. The USG will just
have to be staffed with people focused on creating the best educational
system in the countrythe one that students and taxpayers deserve.
The USG and AG are fighting it hard, but what is so wrong with that? All
they will have to do is stop committing RICO predicate acts and focus on

Wherefore, premises considered, Plaintiff prays for the Court to enter an

Order requiring the reinstatement of Tricoli as GPC president pursuant
to OCGA 16-14-6(a); removal of Watts pursuant to OCGA 16-146(a)(1), barring further retaliation by defendants pursuant to OCGA
16-14-6(a)(2) before a final determination on the merits pursuant to
OCGA 16-14-6(b).

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of November, 2014.



/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys

Georgia Bar No. 378099

P.O. Box 192

Athens, GA 30603
1671 Meriweather Drive
Bogart, GA 30622
(706) 543-1844 f
(706) 207-6982 p


Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that all Defendants in this action have
been served this Motion for Interlocutory Injunction via US mail, this 19th
day of November, 2014, as follows:

Samuel S. Olens
Dennis R. Dunn
Kathleen M. Pacious
Annette M. Cowart
Loretta L. Pinkston
Christopher A. McGraw
C. McLaurin Sitton
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300


/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys
Georgia Bar No. 378099

P.O. Box 192

Athens, GA 30603
1671 Meriweather Drive
Bogart, GA 30622
(706) 543-1844 f
(706) 207-6982 p