George Norcross’ co-defendant claims prosecutors misled the jury

One of South Jersey power broker George E. Norcross III’s co-defendants in a racketeering case brought by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office has accused prosecutors of an abuse of the grand jury process.

Advocate – said William Tambussi’s defense attorney in a court filing that prosecutors knowingly misled the grand jury about the lawyer’s work for the Camden redevelopment agency to create the impression that he had taken over a public entity to further Norcross’s business interests.

Norcross is accused of using threats, intimidation and control over government entities to obtain valuable waterfront property in Camden.

“The AG created the impression that Tambussi was directing a public agency … to take an obviously incorrect legal position in favor of George Norcross,” attorney Lee Vartan and others wrote in a Sept. 26 court filing. “But the AG knew that was not the case. Tambussi Law Firm investigated the legal matter on behalf of the client for the benefit of the client.”

The allegation was raised in one of several motions filed in recent days by Norcross’s co-defendants. The filings come a week after Norcross’s lawyers said in their own filing that the indictment did not detail any specific criminal activity and argued that the case was based on statute of limitations claims.

The six defendants asked the judge to dismiss the June indictment. Here are some of their arguments.

William Tambussi: AG misled grand jury

The indictment says Tambussi is Norcross’s longtime personal attorney, an adviser to the Camden County Democratic Committee and an outside adviser to public entities, including the Camden Redevelopment Agency.

Prosecutors say Tambussi, of Brown & Connery, helped Norcross obtain ownership of Camden from Philadelphia developer Carl Dranoff. Specifically, the indictment alleges that in October 2016, Tambussi worked with Norcross’s brother, Philip, and their law firms to develop a plan to get the Camden Redevelopment Agency to condemn Dranoff’s property rights, known as view easements, in order to support Norcross gain advantage in negotiations with the developer.

However, their planned legal case was never brought to trial, and Tambussi’s lawyers note that Dranoff was never informed about the behind-the-scenes legal discussions. According to prosecutors, Dranoff sold his rights later that month for much less than he thought they were worth.

According to Tambussi’s defense attorney, the indictment was based on misleading testimony given to a grand jury.

An FBI agent testified before a grand jury that Saundra Johnson, former executive director of the CRA, “had no memory of the planned condemnation action,” Tambussi’s lawyers wrote. And a state investigator testified that the CRA didn’t even try to take the actions it was legally required to do before it condemned the property.

This led the grand jury to believe “that Tambussi sought to advance the interests of the Norcross Enterprise by any means necessary,” Tambussi’s lawyers wrote.

However, his defense team argued that these statements misrepresented the legal actions Tambussi actually took. They argue that Tambussi did not attempt to condemn Dranoff’s fortune through prominent city officials. Instead, he prepared a motion asking the court whether the redevelopment agency had the authority to do so, his lawyers say.

The Attorney General’s Office knew about this, Tambussi’s lawyers wrote, because it had a copy of the draft complaint he had prepared.

Moreover, the defense team said, prosecutors knew that Tambussi and his lawyers were simply following their client’s directions because CRA official James Harveson testified that “it was his idea to explore the possibility of condemning Dranoff’s property rights.”

Tambussi’s lawyers said prosecutors disregarded the testimony because it was inconvenient to their case. Prosecutors instead relied on an FBI agent’s testimony about Johnson’s statements to investigators, but did not tell the grand jury that, according to Johnson’s account, Harveson was the main person in the waterfront redevelopment case. Tambussi’s lawyers said Johnson’s statement was also “uncertain” “because at the time she was out of the office caring for her sick mother in South Carolina” — but the grand jury didn’t hear that either.

They said the AG’s office influenced the grand jury process in other ways as well. For example, Tambussi’s lawyers say, prosecutors convened a grand jury in 2023 and held four hearings related to the investigation, three of which focused on Tambussi and his “state of mind regarding the provision of legal services.”

“None of the witnesses in 2023 testified or in any way suggested that Tambussi attempted to disregard his known legal obligations,” his lawyers wrote. While that testimony was favorable to Tambussi, the AG’s office convened a up-to-date grand jury in 2024 and did not present the panel with previous testimony, his lawyers say.

The AG’s office did not immediately comment on Tambussi’s claims. A spokesman for the office said earlier that prosecutors “are confident about the charges against us and look forward to the response in our letters to the court.”

Dana Redd: The mayor had no obligation to meet with Carl Dranoff

Dana L. Redd, former mayor of Camden, was charged with racketeering conspiracy and official misconduct.

Prosecutors say she supported the interests of the so-called “Norcross Enterprise” by refusing to meet with Dranoff to discuss one of his development projects while Norcross and others tried to buy the property rights he owned, affecting their plans for an office building and apartment convoluted.

The indictment says Redd stopped returning Dranoff’s calls in 2016 at the direction of Philip Norcross. At the time, Dranoff was trying to make progress on redeveloping a dilapidated building, known as the Radio Lofts, for which he had been granted development rights.

But Redd’s lawyers dismissed any suggestion of misconduct, saying Dranoff sought “special access” to the mayor by bypassing city agencies at a time when she was battling breast cancer and “other much more pressing issues in Camden,” such as poverty, drugs and violence .

“The indictment does not allege that Dranoff has become persona non grata in the city of Camden. Rather, the state alleges that Dranoff was denied special and personal access to a top official in Camden.” attorney Henry E. Klingeman and others wrote in the Oct. 1 lawsuit. “The mayor of any city, including Camden, has no obligation to meet with anyone, talk to anyone, or do business with anyone.”

Philip Norcross: Indictment criminalizes ‘routine practice of law’

Philip Norcross, CEO of the law firm Parker McCay, is accused of using his access to public officials to support his brother George extort money from business rivals, including Dranoff.

Prosecutors say Philip Norcross helped shape New Jersey’s economic development legislation to suit his brother’s preferences and directed Camden officials and nonprofit executives to take certain actions to advance George’s interests.

He allegedly joined Tambussi’s conspiracy, which aimed, for example, at having the city condemn Dranoff’s scenic easement.

However, lawyers for Philip Norcross said it is not a crime “for a lawyer to engage in difficult negotiations with his contractors or to have the access and ability to contact elected officials and make useful suggestions to them.”

His defense team said some of his alleged actions were protected by his constitutional right to petition the government.

“This may irritate those – apparently including Carl Dranoff – who resent highly experienced, respected local lawyers whose institutional knowledge thwarts their commercial ventures,” he added. defenseman Kevin Marino and others wrote on October 1. “However, it is not criminal under any law to have done anything that Philip Norcross is accused of doing.”

Staff writer Jeremy Roebuck contributed to this article.

Get in Touch

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

Latest Posts