Insurance executive and Democratic power broker George Norcross III moved to dismiss a 13-count racketeering indictment Tuesday, saying state prosecutors sought to criminalize normal behavior.
Norcross’ attorneys say the charges as outlined in the indictment read like “a screenplay for a putative summer blockbuster” but in reality amount to “a crime thriller with no crime.” The Office of the Attorney General alleges Norcross and others leveraged Camden government to stall work by a rival developer in the city so they could claim land, easements, and tax incentives.
“This is supposedly a story of extortion — but there’s no violence or unlawful threats; only ordinary economic bargaining among sophisticated businessmen. It is pitched as a tale of official misconduct — but there are no bribes, kickbacks, or even conflicts of interest; only routine politics,” the attorneys said in their 55-page filing.
In sum, Norcross attorneys argue the state pursued criminal charges for legally permissible threats, mischarged official misconduct, and brought its 111-page indictment years after the statute of limitations had lapsed on the allegations.
In a statement, Office of the Attorney General spokesman Michael Symons said, “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. 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.”
The indictment alleges Norcross leveraged the Camden Redevelopment Agency to challenge a view easement held by developer Carl Dranoff that limited the height of buildings in adjacent lots — including one Norcross and his allies sought to develop — and obtain the easement rights through eminent domain.
Dranoff, fearing financial harm spurred by Norcross’s power in Camden County, in October 2016 sold the easement, related development rights, and $18 million in tax credits for just $1.95 million.
The power broker’s attorneys say in the new filing that there was nothing illegal about the maneuvering, which included Philip Norcross — George Norcross’ brother and a co-defendant — advising then-Camden Mayor Dana Redd, another co-defendant, to stop returning the developer’s calls.
“The thinking was that Dranoff would hold out ‘until you got a bat over his head,’ figuratively speaking; the prospect of having the City condemn his easement (likely at a lower value than he was being offered) was legal leverage that might finally lead to a compromise,” the filing reads.
Norcross’ attorneys argue that the threats were not unlawful because they did not include an underlying criminal element, like a threat of physical harm or promise to release embarrassing personal information, and that federal courts have said leveraging economic fear can be permissible.
The developer ran into roadblocks on a separate Camden site months later.
Norcross and his allies began publicly deriding Dranoff to force him to cede development rights at the Radio Lofts site, a former Radio Corporation of America building that could not be redeveloped because the Camden Redevelopment Agency failed to secure funding for environmental remediation at the urging of Norcross and others, prosecutors said.
Dranoff sued the city, the redevelopment agency, and others after Camden moved to end his development rights in 2018 but later settled, paying the city $3.3 million and ceding his rights because, prosecutors allege, he feared corruption would keep him from receiving a fair shake before the court.
Norcross’ attorneys charged their client’s behavior there also failed to rise to the criminal level.
“The only ‘threats’ alleged are nothing more than everyday, hardball business negotiations. 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,” they said.
They added the alleged coordination with Camden government was an ordinary political interaction between officeholders and their constituents.
Norcross’s attorneys said Philip Norcross did not cross a legal line when pressuring the nonprofit Cooper’s Ferry CEO to choose a developer they preferred for a project near the Camden waterfront and, later, to resign.
Philip Norcross told Anthony Perno, the nonprofit’s then-CEO, that he was not allowed to use his preferred developer and should only partner with Ira Lubert, a Pennsylvania real estate mogul with financial ties to George Norcross.
Norcross’s attorneys said that didn’t amount to a threat, and even if it did, it would be within legal bounds.
“Philip Norcross would have every right to make those threats. After all, as the Indictment alleges, CFP is a private organization supported financially by the Cooper Foundation (the charitable arm of Cooper Health) in exchange for a seat on the Board of Directors and a voice in the management of its affairs,” they wrote in the motion to dismiss.
They said Norcross and others could not face criminal charges for pressuring Perno to resign because extortion requires a threat made to obtain property from another, and Perno’s resignation was not property. Prosecutors alleged Norcross and allies pushed Perno out so they could make patronage hires at the nonprofit and elsewhere.
Norcross’ attorneys also argue that Redd, who is accused of official misconduct, could not face charges over allegedly pressuring Perno because she sat on Cooper’s Ferry Board in her personal capacity and, therefore, could not face official misconduct charges over any action taken there.
“Ultimately, the Indictment seems to bristle at the fact that the Mayor was especially responsive to the wishes of certain constituents. But that is politics, not a crime,” Norcross’s attorneys said.
They added the charges against their clients were issued were time-barred, noting the statute of limitations on coercion offenses was five years and seven years for official misconduct.
Even Norcross’ use of profanity comes under legal scrutiny by his attorneys. The indictment alleges Norcross threatened a developer by saying he would “f**k you up like you’ve never been f**ked up before.” Norcross’ attorneys cite a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says profane words are “often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force.”
“Sure, Norcross’s language may have gotten heated, but using expletives in business negotiations is not a crime either,” Norcross’ attorneys said.
