Judge dismisses racketeering charges against NJ power broker George Norcross and 5 co-defendants

A New Jersey judge on Wednesday dismissed racketeering charges against George E. Norcross III and his five codefendants, delivering a stunning setback to prosecutors who had accused the Democratic power broker of using threats and intimidation to obtain valuable waterfront property in Camden and millions of dollars in tax credits.

“The indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law,” Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw wrote in a 100-page opinion granting Norcross’ request to dismiss the 13-count indictment, which was handed up by a grand jury in June.

Warshaw also found that the charges were time-barred under the statute of limitations.

In addition to Norcross — the 68-year-old chairman of Cooper University Health Care in Camden and executive chairman of insurance firm Conner Strong & Buckelew — Warshaw also dismissed charges against Norcross’ brother Philip, CEO of the law firm Parker McCay; attorney William Tambussi; former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd, and two businessmen, John J. O’Donnell and Sidney R. Brown.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said his office would appeal the decision.

“We disagree strongly with the trial court’s decision, and we are appealing immediately,” Platkin said in a statement. “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.”

‘A steel cage brawl’

The case revolves around Norcross’ involvement in the redevelopment of the Camden waterfront over the past decade. When Norcross and his partners wanted to build an office tower and apartment complex, they had to deal with Philadelphia developer Carl Dranoff, who owned property rights that affected their plans.

After months of negotiations, Norcross in the summer of 2016 allegedly told Dranoff he would “f— you up like you’ve never been f— up before” if the developer did not agree to Norcross’ preferred terms, the indictment says. Norcross also allegedly said he would make sure Dranoff never did business in Camden again.

Dranoff ultimately succumbed to the pressure campaign, according to the indictment, selling his property rights for less than he believed they were worth. That allowed Norcross and his partners to obtain millions of dollars in tax credits for their development projects, the state says.

While prosecutors argued that Norcross’ threats constituted extortion, defense lawyers argued in court last month that the negotiations amounted to nothing more than acceptable hard bargaining.

Warshaw agreed with the defense. “Clearly, this is a steel cage brawl between two heavyweights, both accompanied at times by at least one lawyer,” the judge wrote. “Neither seems to like or trust the other. Each is trying to prevail in the negotiations, and there is substantial money at stake. Beyond that, power and control along the waterfront is in play.”

In that context, Norcross’ alleged threat is not criminal, the judge said, because New Jersey law permits certain coercion “when considering private parties negotiating economic deals in a free market system.”

“This sabre-rattling sounds much like ‘this town ain’t big enough for the two of us,’” Warshaw wrote.

“George Norcross’ ‘threat’ may be boorish and indecorous,” the judge said. “His statement does not satisfy any reasonable person’s view of how something as important as how Camden’s waterfront redevelopment plans should be decided. … However, 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.”

In another episode cited in the indictment, Norcross in October 2016 allegedly told Dranoff there would be “enormous consequences” if the developer didn’t reach an agreement. On a secretly recorded phone call the next day, Norcross recounted to a friend that when Dranoff asked if that was a threat, Norcross replied, “Absolutely,” the indictment says.

“When [Dranoff] asks George Norcross if he is threatening him, what is he really doing?” the judge wrote in his opinion. “Does he seek to confirm that he is, indeed, in physical or other danger, or is he goading and needling his adversary?”

The L-3 deal

In another instance two years earlier, prosecutors say, Norcross and his brother Philip coerced Cooper’s Ferry into surrendering its interest in an office complex known as L-3 to the Norcross brothers’ preferred developer.

Specifically, in an April 2014 meeting, Philip Norcross told Cooper’s Ferry CEO Anthony Perno he “was not allowed to use” the nonprofit’s preferred developer and “should only use” another investor, the indictment says. Philip Norcross said this “in a manner that [Perno] took as threat to CFP,” the indictment says.

Prosecutors say Perno ultimately relented, in part because he was aware of George Norcross’ history of retaliatory conduct against the nonprofit and his reputation for political hardball. Cooper Health, the hospital network chaired by George Norcross, later acquired an ownership stake in the entity that obtained the property.

The judge found those allegations no more persuasive than the ones involving Dranoff. “This was not an express threat,” the judge wrote, referring to the meeting with Philip Norcross, “so what is to be implied by it?”

“The apparent political muscle and brass knuckle vindictiveness of the Norcross brothers is alleged to have been known by [Perno], but that does not convert Philip Norcross’ strong statement of unsolicited and unwelcomed opinion into a threat,” Warshaw wrote.

The judge added “there is never even a line drawn between the alleged threat and what Philip Norcross would actually do about noncompliance.”

Warshaw said that without establishing any unlawful threats, the rest of the charges outlined in the indictment collapse. He added that prosecutors had failed to establish that Norcross led a racketeering enterprise.