Listen to this article

South Jersey businessman and powerbroker George Norcross III officially filed a motion Sept. 24 to dismiss a 13-count indictment against him and several co-defendants.

As NJBIZ reported, Attorney Matthew Platkin announced the charges in June. The indictment accused Norcross and co-defendants of participating in a criminal enterprise – “The Norcross Enterprise” – allegedly using fear, intimidation and other tactics to control and steer Camden Waterfront redevelopment projects pertaining to a tax incentive program they helped create.

The co-defendants include:

• Philip Norcross – brother of George; attorney, managing shareholder and CEO of Parker McCay; member, Cooper University Health Care board
• William Tambussi – attorney and partner at Brown and Connery law firm; longtime personal attorney of George Norcross
• Dana Redd – former Camden mayor; current CEO of Camden Community Partnership
• Sidney Brown – CEO of trucking and logistics company NFI
• John O’Donnell – CEO of real estate company The Michaels Organization

All the defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges, maintaining their innocence.

‘Why the charges are legally deficient’

On Tuesday, the group joined on to Norcross’ motion to have the case tossed, his attorney Michael Critchley, of Critchley & Luria, said in a statement.

“All of his co-defendants joined in the Motion,” he said. “The Motion to Dismiss asserts that even assuming everything alleged in the indictment were true – and to be clear, it’s not – the allegations still do not establish any crime. Since the arguments made are detailed, we are providing this summary overview of why the charges are legally deficient.”

Critchley argued that all 13 counts rest on two types of supposed misconduct: unlawful threats and official misconduct.

“As our brief demonstrates, the only ‘threats’ alleged are nothing more than everyday hardball business negotiations,” said Critchley. “New Jersey courts, and courts around the country, have consistently and explicitly held that these types of alleged exchanges between sophisticated, legally represented, private parties negotiating business deals, may occur in a free economy. More importantly, they are not covered by the relevant statutes and therefore are not unlawful.”

“Similarly, official misconduct requires that a public official ‘commits an act relating to [their] office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of [their] official functions’ or ‘refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon [them] by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of [their] office,’” the statement continued. “The indictment does not identify a single, specific, legal duty that Mayor Redd allegedly violated, so there is no official misconduct.”

Coming to screen near you?

Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw Jr. is overseeing the case. In the 55-page motion, attorneys argue the state’s 111-page indictment reads less like a legal document and more like a screenplay for a “putative summer blockbuster.”

“Except the script is missing some critical plot lines. This is supposedly a story of ‘extortion’ – but there’s no violence or unlawful threats; only ordinary economic bargaining among sophisticated businessmen,” the motion argues. “It is pitched as a tale of ‘official misconduct’ – but there are no bribes, kickbacks, or even conflicts of interest, only routine politics.

“We are promised ‘racketeering’ – but no organized criminal elements ever appear; only respected, proven civic leaders and lawyers trying to revive a long-suffering city,” the motion continues. “Plus, the storyline is stale, with nothing of consequence happening in almost a decade. No wonder other studios – including U.S. Attorney’s Offices in New Jersey and Philadelphia – chose to pass on this story years ago, even when it was fresher. Simply put, this is a crime thriller with no crime.”

Attorneys stressed the statute of limitations argument, along with noting the remaining charges are considered derivative claims.

“Meaning all depend on establishing the underlying unlawful threats and official misconduct,” said Critchley. “Since the indictment fails to establish that the alleged threats or official misconduct are criminal, the remaining are legally invalid and must be dismissed as well.”

Counterpoint

Attorney General Platkin and his office had a much different take on the situation.

“The indictment unsealed today alleges that George Norcross has been running a criminal enterprise in this state for at least the last 12 years,” said Platkin during a June press conference in Trenton announcing the indictment. That event included the appearance of Norcross himself, who was seated in the first row, just feet from the podium during the announcement. “On full display in this indictment is how a group of unelected, private businessmen used their power and influence to get government to aid their criminal enterprise and further its interests. The alleged conduct of the Norcross Enterprise has caused great harm to individuals, businesses, non-profits, the people of the State of New Jersey, and especially the City of Camden and its residents.”

The Attorney General’s Office said it expected this motion.

“The defendants previously advised the Court and the parties they intended to make this motion to dismiss based on claimed legal deficiencies in the case as charged,” an OAG spokesperson told NJBIZ. “Defense motions to dismiss on these grounds are common. We are confident in our charges and look forward to responding in our briefs to the court.”

Warshaw will consider arguments on the motion during a Jan. 22 hearing.