TRENTON — A New Jersey judge on Wednesday questioned state prosecutors in their racketeering case against George E. Norcross III, asking why the Democratic power broker’s alleged threats against the developer went beyond acceptable difficult bargaining and crossed the line into criminality.
“It sounds like two guys had a similar boxing demeanor, but one might have had more energy,” Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw said of the 111-page indictment handed up in June by a grand jury that charged Norcross and his associates for suppressing developer Carl Dranoff and others in order to acquire valuable waterfront property in Camden.
Norcross, 68, and his five co-defendants – his brother Philip Norcross, former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd, attorney William Tambussi, businessman Sidney R. Brown and businessman John J. O’Donnell – sat quietly in the fourth-floor courtroom Trenton, and their lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the indictment.
Prosecutors say Norcross told Dranoff in the summer of 2016 that if he didn’t agree to sell his property rights on the energy broker’s preferred terms, Norcross would “fuck you up like you’ve never been screwed up before” and “make sure you never do that again.” business in this city.
The judge noted that under New Jersey law, certain threats in the context of business negotiations are perfectly legal. “Isn’t that what it’s all about: two guys fighting for position?” Warshaw asked Deputy Attorney General Michael D. Grillo. “Someone will win, someone will lose?”
Grillo responded that such threats were only legal if they were constrained to “businessmen’s own personal contacts.”
“When Mr. Norcross threatens unrelated projects, it becomes criminal extortion,” Grillo said, arguing that Norcross threatened Dranoff’s broader portfolio in Camden. The indictment says that two years after Norcross extorted Dranoff, the power broker continued to target the developer, causing city officials to harm his other businesses in Camden.
Norcross’s threat communicated to Dranoff that “by [Norcross’] ability to exercise control over Camden’s government, Mr. Dranoff would be prohibited from doing business in the city at all – with anyone,” Grillo said elsewhere. “It’s a threat from a completely different animal.”
“Perfectly Routine”
George Norcross and five co-defendants pleaded not guilty to charges including racketeering, extortion and professional misconduct.
Attorneys for Norcross – an insurance executive, chairman of the board of Cooper University Health Care and a longtime leader of the South Jersey Democratic Party – argued in a lawsuit that his alleged threats were nothing more than “tough business negotiations.”
Even if the judge ultimately rejects Norcross’s motion to dismiss the indictment — a motion that must meet a high bar — Wednesday’s daylong argument was a preview of a potential trial.
Prosecutors said Norcross and his associates were tyrants who used their control over Camden’s government to force their victims to give up their assets – fearing they faced financial and reputational ruin. “Instead of suffering pain … his victims gave in to his threats,” Grillo said.
For its part, the defense characterized the Norcross-led waterfront redevelopment as a city “renaissance” and portrayed Dranoff as a “career victim” who was paid millions of dollars for his property rights – not the typical portrayal of an extortion victim.
“He should have said, ‘Thank you, Mr. Norcross,'” said Norcross’s attorney, Michael Critchley.
Yakov Roth, Norcross, also a lawyer, said the episode featured two “sophisticated businessmen” negotiating a deal that would be “mutually beneficial.” Norcross’s threat was “purely economic” and closely related to the contract, he added.
“He says, ‘If you screw up this plan to revitalize this city, don’t expect to get a chance in this city again,’” said Roth, a Washington-based attorney at Jones Day who has successfully represented clients accused of corruption before the U.S. Supreme Court . “I think that’s a completely routine statement that would be made in a business context.”
“Law Reform Effort”
The defense also argued that the charges had expired and that the indictment sent a chill through routine legal practice.
Kevin Marino, a lawyer for Philip Norcross, told the judge that the indictment criminalizes conduct protected under the First Amendment to petition the government.
For example, the indictment states that one of the purposes of the criminal conspiracy was to “influence the New Jersey Legislature” to adopt economic development legislation in 2013 “in a manner that significantly increased tax credits awarded for projects in Camden and which was adapted to further the economic development interests of George Norcross and his friends.
According to the indictment, when George Norcross and his associates extorted money from Dranoff and others, they used the property to build an office tower and apartment intricate and obtained multimillion-dollar tax credits to cover construction costs, using a state economic development program they helped shape.
“This is an attempt at law reform,” Marino said, describing prosecutors’ attitude as “We don’t like the fact that these guys have power. These guys have juice.”
“We are not denying extraordinary access,” Marino said elsewhere. “We focus on extraordinary access. “This is how Camden went from one of the most dangerous cities in the country to a city that President Obama visited and called a true Renaissance story in the United States.”
At one point, the judge seemed to share some of the defense’s skepticism. “The whole idea of people who are not in office being trusted advisors or people who can have a voice, maybe even the last voice in the room – is that in itself criminal?” – asked Warsaw.
Prosecutors countered that the defense had incorrectly presented the indictment. Even if Philip Norcross was doing “legal work legally,” he could still be charged with a crime “if the conduct served a criminal purpose,” Grillo said.
For example, prosecutors said, the indictment alleged that when the Camden-based nonprofit Cooper’s Ferry Partnership tried to redevelop an office intricate known as L-3, Philip Norcross in 2014 demanded that the organization partner with the Norcross brothers’ preferred investor .
In another episode cited in the indictment, Philip Norcross allegedly ordered Mayor Redd to ignore Dranoff’s phone calls in order to pressure the developer to give up his property. “If you consider all of this to be true in their context, that would be sufficient evidence of criminal behavior,” Grillo said.
More broadly, prosecutors said the grand jury properly charged the crimes charged in the indictment, adding that many of the defense arguments “were better suited to the trial” or at least represented a separate motion questioning the sufficiency of the evidence.
But defense attorneys said it’s up to the judge, not the jury, to determine the law and whether the actual allegations described in the indictment violate it.
“The question for the court is: Is the indictment based on facts that constitute extortion?” Roth said. “This is a traditional legal issue for the court. It is time for the court to decide this.”
