George Norcross is a tough negotiator and undoubtedly South Jersey’s strongest advocate. Many in the NJ real estate market argue that without Camden’s strong belief in its future, it would still look the same as it did 30 years ago.

Many people say that if it weren’t for the jumpstart Norcross gave to Camden’s redevelopment, people living there would be left in economic despair disproportionately to other similar NJ communities.

For many people in South Jersey, George Norcross’s strong advocacy for Camden made him a hero for creating jobs and revitalizing one of New Jersey’s most historic communities. He invested his own money and took a business risk that a community many thought was beyond hope could come back. The risk paid off, and Camden’s renaissance gained momentum.

The urban redevelopment we see in urban areas like Jersey City, Paterson, Newark, Camden, and other NJ cities cannot happen without gaining local support (aka local policy) and creatively structuring public-private partnerships. If prosecutors can use racketeering laws against developers who can maneuver the political process required to make those projects happen, then why would any major developer take a chance on projects in the communities that need development the most?

Norcross and his defense team say the charges resemble “a crime thriller without the crime.” But the use of the blackmail law appears to be an improperly applied law that could have a far-reaching chilling effect on the long-term economic well-being of the state and increase the gap between rich and poor.

Alleged Norcross Criminal Attempt

As discussed in detail in last week’s column, Norcross is accused of leading a criminal organization that allegedly used coercion, extortion and other criminal acts to tailor redevelopment legislation to serve its own interests and obtain property rights and tax credits in Camden.

According to the 111-page indictment, Norcross and other defendants forced Camden property owners to spend valuable waterfront properties and related tax credits that were then transferred to Norcross partners. The indictment also alleges that Norcross threatened a rival developer who held the rights to the property that would become Triad1828 Center, the current home of Norcross’s insurance company, Conner Strong & Buckelew.

Norcross Claims Conduct Does Not Constitute Crime

Not surprisingly, Norcross and his legal team aggressively fought the charges, filing their own 55-page memorandum to dismiss the indictment.

Among other arguments, Norcross claims any alleged misconduct was merely “routine” politics and high-stakes business dealings. He also argues that criminal complaints were filed too late. “Although the indictment exceeds 100 pages and alleges more than a dozen counts, it still fails to properly allege a single crime,” Norcross said in support of his motion to dismiss the indictment.

In his memo, Norcross emphasizes that prosecutors must show the existence of a criminal organization involved in a “pattern” of criminal activity. Norcross argues that there was no underlying crime; hence there is no criminal enterprise, no conspiracy and no racketeering. As his lawyers wrote:

“The state’s 111-page indictment resembles the script of a summer blockbuster movie rather than a legal document. Except the script is missing some critical plot points. This is a so-called extortion story; but no violence or illegal threats; just ordinary economic bargaining between savvy businessmen. It is told as a story of official misconduct; but no bribes, kickbacks or even conflicts of interest; just routine politics. We are promised racketeering, but no organized crime element emerges; just respected, proven civic leaders and advocates trying to revitalize a long-suffering city.”

Norcross, who wants to dismiss the indictment, first argues that the alleged threats do not constitute a crime under New Jersey’s extortion or coercion laws. To be considered extortion, a threat must be made to harm someone or their property in order to get money or something of value from that person. Coercion, meanwhile, involves using threats or pressure to force someone to do or not do something.

Norcross argues that their interactions amounted to nothing more than “harsh” business dealings. “(T)he alleged ‘threats’ are just everyday economic threats—for exampleceasing to do business or violating a contract – these are not prohibited. “If it is a crime to warn of ‘consequences’ if a deal is not reached or to use profanity while doing so, New Jersey needs to build more prisons,” the filing states.

To support his point, Norcross cites various federal court and New Jersey decisions that suggest it may be permissible to foster economic fear. For example, United States / Sturm870 F.2d 769, 773 (1st Cir. 1989), a federal appellate court held that “there is nothing inherently wrong with using economic fear to obtain property.”

Regarding the allegations made against him, Norcross emphasizes that all of the alleged threats were made within the scope of business dealings. It also argues that many of the “threats” discussed in the indictment were made in response to a rival developer using its own heavy-handed tactics in a commercial negotiation.

“In fact, ‘threats’ of business consequences for refusing to enter into business agreements in business contexts are ubiquitous, and their criminalization is unprecedented,” says Norcross. “For good reason. Such tactics are not the ‘wrong’ or ‘illegal’ use of economic fear; They come with the territory.

Norcross also argues that there was no official misconduct, just routine policies. As Norcross and his attorneys describe it, Camden Mayor Dana Redd simply “observed stakeholders’ input, supported efforts to revitalize the city, and refused to meet with an out-of-town developer who stood in their way.”

“The indictment seems to be disturbed by the fact that some citizens have close connections with public officials, but this is a feature of democratic self-government, not a mistake. “And it’s certainly not a crime,” he adds.

click HERE To read Chapter 1: The Destruction of the Norcross Indictment by Donald Scarinci.