Norcross lawyers says state seeks to criminalize everyday business dealings in bid to dismiss indictment

Lawyers for Democratic powerbroker George E. Norcross III and others today reaffirmed their argument to dismiss a 13-count indictment because the embattled state Office of Public Integrity and Accountability failed to identify a crime they committed.

“Our brief clearly and concisely demonstrates that, despite its epic length, the State’s 111-page indictment is devoid of any factual allegations that satisfy the elements of the crimes charged,” said Michael Critchley, Norcross’ attorney.  “The indictment describes nothing more than hardball negotiations between sophisticated businessmen, represented by experienced counsel, and constituents petitioning public officials. Courts throughout the country, including New Jersey, have consistently held that this commonplace conduct is not only legal, but in many cases, also constitutionally protected.”

Norcross and others filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in September, saying the case against them was “legally flawed,” and today filed a reply to the OPIA’s opposition.

“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 argue 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.”

“Foundational Supreme Court precedents make that abundantly clear; the State’s only response is meaningless, circular wordplay.,” the lawyers maintain.  “The indictment paints George Norcross as a villain who used political influence to advance his own private interests.  Many others would call him a hero who used sheer force of personality to save the city of Camden.”

Instead, the lawyers maintain, “citizens can have that debate.”

“If  they do not want their elected officials to collaborate with — or, on the state’s account, kowtow to — Norcross, they can vote them out, and replace them with candidates who promise a new approach to democratic government,” they say in today’s filing.  “But this is not the purpose of a criminal jury.  Wealth, success, and power may make someone an attractive target for prosecutors, but at least in America they are not grounds for imprisonment.”

In a separate filing, attorneys representing Norcross’ longtime lawyer and co-defendant, William Tambussi, maintain that prosecuting a lawyer for the “routine practice of law sets a dangerous precedent in this state.”

“No other state prosecutor has brought such a case. The New Jersey AG should not be allowed to be the first and cause irretrievable damage to the attorney-client relationship,” said the attorneys, Jeff Chiesa and Lee Vartan.   “The case against William Tambussi must be dismissed.”

They say a similar case could not be brought in federal court “because of a statutory safe harbor protecting routine lawyering.”

Chiesa, a former U. Senator, New Jersey Attorney General, and Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Vartan, a former top state and federal prosecutor, maintain that “they have done so to ensure that lawyers can zealously represent their clients without fear of what the AG is attempting here—falsely targeting a lawyer because the prosecutor doesn’t like the lawyer’s client.”

Chiesa and Vartan argue that the only evidence that Tambussi was part of the alleged criminal acts was his legal research and a motion he prepared for his clients.

“Those clients authorized his work and, in fact, remain his clients today. The attorney general can point to no other prosecution like this one, and with good reason,” they stated.  The New Jersey Supreme Court, the federal courts, and Congress have extended special protections to lawyers to protect them from civil and criminal liability for their routine practice of law.”

Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw has set a hearing date of January 22 to consider arguments to dismiss the charges.

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.