Racketeering charges tossed against New Jersey Democratic power broker George Norcross
A New Jersey judge on Wednesday dismissed the racketeering indictment against Democratic power broker George Norcross, who had been charged with strong-arming political and business leaders to obtain the rights to properties and development on the Camden waterfront.
Judge Peter Warshaw decided "the indictment must be dismissed because its factual allegations do not constitute extortion or criminal coercion as a matter of law." The judge also concluded there was "no racketeering enterprise" as alleged.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who brought the charges, said the state would immediately appeal.
"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. 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," Platkin said.
Norcross, one of New Jersey's most powerful political figures, had been charged with using his influence to gain access to state-issued tax credits and bullying rivals so he could obtain property rights for a Camden, New Jersey, waterfront development project.
Lawyers for Norcross and his co-defendants, including his brother, his attorney and former Camden Mayor Dana Redd, had pleaded not guilty and sought the dismissal granted Wednesday, arguing exercising political influence is no crime.
The indictment quoted Norcross allegedly threatening a developer.
"George Norcross, in the presence of Philip Norcross, told Developer-1, Iif you f--- this up, I'll f--- you up like you've never been f----- up before. I'll make sure you never do business in this town again,'" the indictment stated.
The indictment also quoted Norcross allegedly recounting the conversation with the developer to a friend.
"I had to get on the phone last night with [Developer-1] for an hour and a half. He tried to f------ shake us down. As usual. ... And I told him, 'no' I said '[Developer-1], this is unacceptable. If you do this, it will have enormous consequences.' He said, 'Are you threatening me?' I said 'absolutely.'"
The judge decided the threats did not amount to a crime.
"Defendants correctly argue that when considering private parties negotiating economic deals in a free market system, threats are sometimes neither wrongful or unlawful," Warshaw wrote. "In these situations, there may be nothing inherently wrong in using economic fear to obtain property. In this context, what does it mean to be told he would be 'f---[ed] up like [he] [has] never been f----- up before' and that he will 'never do business in this town again?' Does it mean anything at all? This sabre-rattling sounds much like 'this town ain't big enough for the two of us.'"
