New Jersey prosecutors opposed George E. Norcross III’s efforts to turn the tactics he used in Camden’s waterfront land deals into nothing more than “tough business negotiations” and urged the judge to let a jury decide whether the Democrat power broker broke the rules of the law in his pursuit of lucrative wealth.
This argument, presented in point 146-page court document behind schedule Friday, two months after Norcross – an insurance executive and chairman of the board of Cooper University Health Care – urged Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw to hand down a 13-count racketeering indictment filed this summer against him and five others, arguing that the allegations are fatally flawed.
But prosecutors in their court papers insisted that the claims were better suited to a jury and argued that the indictment clearly described how Norcross and his co-defendants criminally profited from their control of Camden’s government and gained an advantage. in business transactions.
“By exploiting Norcross’s reputation for unfettered control of local government and overwhelming political influence throughout New Jersey, Norcross Enterprise has essentially taken over the Camden waterfront for itself,” wrote New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Michael D. Grillo and Assistant Attorney General Adam D. Klein : later adding, “This is by no means a hard bargain, and the grand jury had every right to call it extortion.”
How Warshaw resolves this issue in the coming months will determine the future of one of the most ambitious corruption investigations the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office has conducted in years. The judge set a January date to hear arguments on whether to allow the case to proceed.
A grand jury indicted Norcross and others in June, alleging that they manipulated the state’s tax credit program for their own benefit and used threats and intimidation to oust rivals in pursuit of land deals in Camden.
Since then, Norcross and his allies have relentlessly attacked the case – in court and in the press – and accused Attorney General Matt Platkin of waging “legal jihad” against them. They argue that he is abusing his power by criminalizing ordinary business negotiation tactics and lawful lobbying of government officials.
“This indictment has no weight in court,” their lawyers wrote in September. “Calling this an indictment in search of a crime is both too trite and too generous.”
» READ MORE: ‘Crime Thriller Without the Crime’: George Norcross’ Lawyers Urge Judge to Throw Out Racketeering Case
At this point in the case, prosecutors only need to show that the indictment outlines theoretical crimes that, if proven at trial, would violate state law. Arguments about whether the evidence supports the claim that Norcross and his co-defendants committed these crimes are typically reserved for the jury phase of the trial.
In their court papers Friday, prosecutors said the conduct of the unelected Norcross and his allies far exceeded the bounds of the law and accused them of using their “raw political power and functional control over the levers of government” to threaten rivals and gain influence in business negotiations.
“Nowhere should the promise of a level playing field be made easier than with an elected government – yet Norcross Enterprise extorted property and extorted action, letting its victims know that if they didn’t do what George Norcross wanted, they would “lose any potential opportunities business” “in Camden and actually suffered harm at the hands of the city,” they wrote.
They also rejected Norcross’s claim that many of the charges – based in part on allegations from 2012 – were barred by the statute of limitations under state law. They said the Norcross-led racketeering conspiracy continues to profit today from its illegal activities – primarily by obtaining and selling tax credits related to many of the business transactions covered by the indictment.
Also charged in the case are Norcross’ brother, Philip, CEO of the Parker McCay law firm; former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd; William Tambussi, a lawyer representing Norcross and local government entities; and businessmen Sidney R. Brown and John J. O’Donnell, who worked with Norcross on waterfront development deals. Each of them pleaded not guilty.
On Friday, the Attorney General’s Office also responded to the defense team’s release last week of a 2023 letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia showing that federal prosecutors declined last year to pursue the case against Norcross.
Tambussi’s attorneys said in a court filing that the pleading said Norcross and his co-defendants “committed no crime” and framed the current case against them as based on evidence previously rejected by federal authorities.
The AG’s office noted that the letter contained no such language. “This defense attorney suggested that federal prosecutors’ letters stating that no crime occurred signaled his intention to circumvent the legal process and indoctrinate the press, the public, and, worst of all, the potential jury pool, with a distorted version of the verdict. investigation,” prosecutors wrote.
They added that the Attorney General’s investigation “generated up-to-date evidence entirely separate from” other investigations conducted by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia and New Jersey.
Read the statement from the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office:
