Judges tosses Norcross indictment

A Superior Court Judge has dismissed a racketeering indictment against Democratic powerbrokers George E. Norcross, the New Jersey Globe has confirmed.

Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw also dismissed the charges in the 112-page indictment against other defendants, including former Camden Mayor Dana Redd, attorney William Tambussi, John O’Donnell, Sidney Brown, and Norcross’ brother, Philip, an attorney and business partner.

Warshaw found that the indictment’s “factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law” and found “there was no racketeering enterprise.”  He determined that Redd “did not commit any act of official misconduct,” And that all charges were outside the statute of limitation.

“It follows that if the facts alleged do not, as a matter of law, constitute a crime, the indictment is manifestly deficient and facially and palpably defective,” Warshaw wrote in his decision.   “The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law.”

Attorney General Matt Platkin quickly announced that he would appeal Warshaw’s decision.

“We disagree strongly with the trial court’s decision, and we are appealing immediately,” he said.  “After years in which the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently cut back on federal public corruption law, and at a time in which the federal government is refusing to tackle corruption, it has never been more important for state officials to take corruption head on.”

Platkin said he “never promised that these cases would be easy, because too many have come to view corruption as simply the way the powerful do business in New Jersey.”

“That corruption has consequences: it breeds a loss of trust in government and in our public servants, at a time when we must work to protect and restore faith in our institutions,” he said.  “Today is a reminder of how much work remains, and how difficult it will be to clean up government in our state. But along with the career law enforcement officers and prosecutors who have worked on this case for years, I won’t back down from that fight.”

Warshaw disagreed with the state’s allegation that Norcross and others were “really just attacking the persuasiveness of the indictment’s narrative by challenging how alleged conduct should be interpreted.”

“Again, that is simply not what defendants have done,” Warshaw stated.

Warshaw said the validity of the thirteen-count indictment was dependent on the existence of unlawful threats.

“The State argues that the grand jury’s determination that these unlawful threats occurred is presumptively valid and entitled to deference. Defendants argue that the grand jury was wrong on the law and that the court has the obligation and duty to dismiss the indictment now,” Warshaw said.  “The court agrees with the defense assertion.”

According to Warshaw, the state “is not wrong when it advances the idea of the truly level playing field, where critical decisions are made on the basis of developer qualifications and public benefit, as opposed to George Norcross’s selfish interests.”

“The court is not called upon to consider whether the redevelopment could have proceeded in a better, more fair, less political way,” the judge stated. “The court is asked to evaluate whether this ‘threat’ was criminal.”

In June, prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Norcross and others for allegedly creating a criminal enterprise that used “threats and fear of economic and reputational harm” to obtain lucrative property rights along the Camden waterfront and influencing tailor-made legislation that came with bankable tax breaks for Norcross’ businesses and the non-profit Cooper University Health Care that he runs.

Norcross and others filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in September, saying the case against them was “legally flawed.” His attorneys maintained no crime was ever committed.

“To try to make this seem less like the criminalization of everyday business dealings, the State alleges that George Norcross exercised substantial political influence in Camden and beyond. Merely by virtue of his ‘reputation’ in this regard, the State says, Norcross instilled ‘fear’ that caused others to hand over property,” the defendants said in their court filing.  “But the notion that the politically powerful are walking extortion machines is untenable and perverse. Contrary to the State’s facile allusions, a ‘mob boss’ and a ‘political boss’ are not the same thing. Both hold ‘power.’”

The Norcross legal team instead maintains that “power derived from a history and practice of committing crimes is very different from power derived from political influence within a lawful democracy. “

They argued that because Norcross holds no public office – something prosecutors acknowledge – and that he could only succeed by petitioning those in office.  They say that activity is “immune under the federal and state constitutions — whether successful or not, and whether conducted for benevolent purposes or selfish ones.”

Tambussi’s attorneys, Jeff Chiesa and Lee Vartan, hammered the attorney general’s office for “a misguided prosecution that should never have been brought.”

“Vanity prosecutions have no place in our justice system,” Chiesa and Vartan said.  “This prosecution could have cost Bill Tambussi his good reputation, career, and freedom. Thankfully, the Court pushed back and dismissed this wrong-headed prosecution.”

prosecution

This story is developing.