Corruption charges against New Jersey power broker George Norcross dismissed
Since the early 1990s, Norcross has exerted significant influence in South Jersey and state politics, maintaining his power and prestige even in the wake of an indictment.
TroibNews 
A judge has dismissed the indictments against New Jersey Democratic power broker George Norcross and five co-defendants, possibly concluding a case that significantly impacted New Jersey politics and elevated Attorney General Matt Platkin's profile.
In a ruling on Wednesday, Judge Peter Warshaw dismissed the racketeering charges against Norcross; his brother Phil; attorney Bill Tambussi; former Camden Mayor Dana Redd; John O'Donnell, former CEO of the Michaels Organization rental company; and Sidney Brown, CEO of logistics firm NFI.
The indictments claimed that they profited from real estate transactions on the Camden waterfront, funded primarily by state tax incentives that the Norcross "enterprise" allegedly helped devise.
“The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law,” remarked Warshaw, a Mercer County Superior Court judge, in a comprehensive 100-page decision that also noted that the alleged offenses fell outside the five-year statute of limitations.
Platkin announced plans to appeal the ruling.
“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 stated. “But I have 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.”
Despite the indictment, Norcross, who has never held elective office, has maintained significant influence in South Jersey and state politics since the early 1990s. He has retained his power and status, counting members from various political backgrounds, such as Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Chris Christie, among his allies. His brother, Donald Norcross, serves as a Democratic member of the House.
The state accused George Norcross and his associates of leveraging government influence to pressure a developer into selling property rights and ensuring a nonprofit selected a developer favored by the Norcross brothers. Notably, Norcross allegedly threatened developer Carl Dranoff, saying he would “fuck you up like you’ve never been fucked up before” and that Dranoff would never do business in Camden again.
“The Norcross enterprise manipulated government programs and processes designed to attract development and investment to instead suit their own financial desires,” Platkin said at a June press conference announcing the indictment. “Instead of contributing to the successes of the city of Camden, through a series of criminal acts alleged in the state’s case, the Norcross enterprise took the Camden waterfront all for themselves.”
Norcross’ legal defense hinged on his lack of public office, with his attorneys contending that the state was attempting to criminalize aggressive business negotiations and a private individual's right to lobby government.
Warshaw noted that while Norcross’ alleged threat could be described as "boorish and indecorous," it did not constitute a crime. “In these situations, there may be nothing inherently wrong in using economic fear to obtain property,” Warshaw commented.
He characterized the conflict between Norcross and Dranoff as “a steel cage brawl between two heavyweights” and described the situation as “sabre-rattling sounds much like 'this town ain’t big enough for the two of us.'"
While recognizing Norcross' “selfish interests,” Warshaw emphasized that “the court is not called upon to consider whether the redevelopment could have proceeded in a better, more fair, less political way. The court is asked to evaluate whether this ‘threat’ was criminal.”
The dismissal was anticipated by many insiders in New Jersey politics, who perceived the case as weak, especially given Norcross' powerful position. In earlier oral arguments, Warshaw, appointed by Christie, asked prosecutors whether the grand jury determined that Norcross and his co-defendants had violated the law or were influenced to act a specific way.
This ruling is a setback for Platkin, who is viewed as politically ambitious and helped initiate the investigation into the state's tax incentive program during his tenure as chief counsel to Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.
Throughout the proceedings, Norcross has demonstrated his ongoing sway in New Jersey politics. In January, Murphy and four former governors, including Christie, showed their support by attending a groundbreaking event in Camden for Cooper Health, which Norcross chairs.
Although Norcross has experienced some reduction in influence, this is attributed more to political shifts in South Jersey than to the indictment. His close friend, former Senate President Steve Sweeney, lost his seat in 2021 to political newcomer Ed Durr during a Republican wave election that impacted several Democratic legislative seats in South Jersey. Nevertheless, Democrats have begun to recover some of their losses, with Sweeney now among several candidates vying for the party's gubernatorial nomination.
Warshaw concluded that the defendants did not form an “enterprise” that committed illegal actions. He characterized Brown and O'Donnell, who benefited from tax incentives, as simply “sophisticated businessmen” who “backed the right horse when it came to selecting an investment partner.”
Warshaw stated that Tambussi, who has represented Norcross while also serving other governmental and political clients, “simply represented clients.”
Regarding Phil Norcross, who may have contributed to writing the tax incentive legislation and allegedly influenced a nonprofit to favor a specific developer, Warshaw noted that “that he was allegedly implementing his brother’s partially self-serving agenda does not diminish his right to lobby.”
Finally, Warshaw rejected allegations that Redd had provided official favors to Norcross in exchange for a state job that paid $275,000, as well as expedited legislation benefiting her public pension, stating that “official misconduct requires a misuse of public office, but the misuse does not include every bad or self-interested act performed by a public servant.”
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
In a ruling on Wednesday, Judge Peter Warshaw dismissed the racketeering charges against Norcross; his brother Phil; attorney Bill Tambussi; former Camden Mayor Dana Redd; John O'Donnell, former CEO of the Michaels Organization rental company; and Sidney Brown, CEO of logistics firm NFI.
The indictments claimed that they profited from real estate transactions on the Camden waterfront, funded primarily by state tax incentives that the Norcross "enterprise" allegedly helped devise.
“The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law,” remarked Warshaw, a Mercer County Superior Court judge, in a comprehensive 100-page decision that also noted that the alleged offenses fell outside the five-year statute of limitations.
Platkin announced plans to appeal the ruling.
“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 stated. “But I have 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.”
Despite the indictment, Norcross, who has never held elective office, has maintained significant influence in South Jersey and state politics since the early 1990s. He has retained his power and status, counting members from various political backgrounds, such as Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Chris Christie, among his allies. His brother, Donald Norcross, serves as a Democratic member of the House.
The state accused George Norcross and his associates of leveraging government influence to pressure a developer into selling property rights and ensuring a nonprofit selected a developer favored by the Norcross brothers. Notably, Norcross allegedly threatened developer Carl Dranoff, saying he would “fuck you up like you’ve never been fucked up before” and that Dranoff would never do business in Camden again.
“The Norcross enterprise manipulated government programs and processes designed to attract development and investment to instead suit their own financial desires,” Platkin said at a June press conference announcing the indictment. “Instead of contributing to the successes of the city of Camden, through a series of criminal acts alleged in the state’s case, the Norcross enterprise took the Camden waterfront all for themselves.”
Norcross’ legal defense hinged on his lack of public office, with his attorneys contending that the state was attempting to criminalize aggressive business negotiations and a private individual's right to lobby government.
Warshaw noted that while Norcross’ alleged threat could be described as "boorish and indecorous," it did not constitute a crime. “In these situations, there may be nothing inherently wrong in using economic fear to obtain property,” Warshaw commented.
He characterized the conflict between Norcross and Dranoff as “a steel cage brawl between two heavyweights” and described the situation as “sabre-rattling sounds much like 'this town ain’t big enough for the two of us.'"
While recognizing Norcross' “selfish interests,” Warshaw emphasized that “the court is not called upon to consider whether the redevelopment could have proceeded in a better, more fair, less political way. The court is asked to evaluate whether this ‘threat’ was criminal.”
The dismissal was anticipated by many insiders in New Jersey politics, who perceived the case as weak, especially given Norcross' powerful position. In earlier oral arguments, Warshaw, appointed by Christie, asked prosecutors whether the grand jury determined that Norcross and his co-defendants had violated the law or were influenced to act a specific way.
This ruling is a setback for Platkin, who is viewed as politically ambitious and helped initiate the investigation into the state's tax incentive program during his tenure as chief counsel to Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.
Throughout the proceedings, Norcross has demonstrated his ongoing sway in New Jersey politics. In January, Murphy and four former governors, including Christie, showed their support by attending a groundbreaking event in Camden for Cooper Health, which Norcross chairs.
Although Norcross has experienced some reduction in influence, this is attributed more to political shifts in South Jersey than to the indictment. His close friend, former Senate President Steve Sweeney, lost his seat in 2021 to political newcomer Ed Durr during a Republican wave election that impacted several Democratic legislative seats in South Jersey. Nevertheless, Democrats have begun to recover some of their losses, with Sweeney now among several candidates vying for the party's gubernatorial nomination.
Warshaw concluded that the defendants did not form an “enterprise” that committed illegal actions. He characterized Brown and O'Donnell, who benefited from tax incentives, as simply “sophisticated businessmen” who “backed the right horse when it came to selecting an investment partner.”
Warshaw stated that Tambussi, who has represented Norcross while also serving other governmental and political clients, “simply represented clients.”
Regarding Phil Norcross, who may have contributed to writing the tax incentive legislation and allegedly influenced a nonprofit to favor a specific developer, Warshaw noted that “that he was allegedly implementing his brother’s partially self-serving agenda does not diminish his right to lobby.”
Finally, Warshaw rejected allegations that Redd had provided official favors to Norcross in exchange for a state job that paid $275,000, as well as expedited legislation benefiting her public pension, stating that “official misconduct requires a misuse of public office, but the misuse does not include every bad or self-interested act performed by a public servant.”
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
