New Jersey Appeals Court Affirms Ruling to Dismiss Racketeering Charges Against George Norcross and Five Others
In a significant development for New Jersey's powerbroker elite, an appeals court has upheld the decision to dismiss racketeering charges against George E. Norcross III and five others accused of exploiting government programs and intimidating business rivals in Camden.
Last February, a Mercer County Superior Court judge dismissed the indictment against Norcross and his co-defendants, citing lack of evidence to support the state's allegations that they had collected millions of dollars in tax credits through questionable means and used intimidation tactics to control waterfront development projects. The three-judge panel from the state's appellate division has now confirmed this ruling.
The case centers around George Norcross, a prominent insurance executive and Democratic powerbroker, who was accused of using his influence to secure lucrative waterfront deals for himself and his allies. Prosecutors alleged that he had pressured government officials and business rivals to aid in his plans, including a notorious phone call to rival developer Carl Dranoff, in which Norcross threatened to "f*** you up like you've never been f***ed up before" if Dranoff did not relinquish his rights to the property.
The allegations spanned several years, from 2013 to 2019, and involved multiple defendants, including Norcross's brother Philip Norcross, an attorney; Dana Redd, the former mayor of Camden; Bill Tambussi, Norcross's longtime personal attorney; John O'Donnell, an executive at a residential development company; and Sidney Brown, a Cooper University Health Care board member.
The state's case was criticized for its lack of evidence, with prosecutors arguing that tax benefits reaped by Norcross and his allies extended the statute of limitations to pursue charges beyond the completion of the development deals. The three-judge panel questioned this argument and ultimately found the state's case to be flawed.
Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport's office has announced its intention to review the appellate division's decision, but it is unclear whether they will seek to appeal further. Norcross has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings, with his attorneys arguing that the charges were brought for political gain rather than any actual wrongdoing. The family connection between George and Philip Norcross adds another layer of intrigue to the case, with Lexie Norcross, the founder and chairwoman of PhillyVoice, being closely tied to her uncle through a familial relationship.
In a significant development for New Jersey's powerbroker elite, an appeals court has upheld the decision to dismiss racketeering charges against George E. Norcross III and five others accused of exploiting government programs and intimidating business rivals in Camden.
Last February, a Mercer County Superior Court judge dismissed the indictment against Norcross and his co-defendants, citing lack of evidence to support the state's allegations that they had collected millions of dollars in tax credits through questionable means and used intimidation tactics to control waterfront development projects. The three-judge panel from the state's appellate division has now confirmed this ruling.
The case centers around George Norcross, a prominent insurance executive and Democratic powerbroker, who was accused of using his influence to secure lucrative waterfront deals for himself and his allies. Prosecutors alleged that he had pressured government officials and business rivals to aid in his plans, including a notorious phone call to rival developer Carl Dranoff, in which Norcross threatened to "f*** you up like you've never been f***ed up before" if Dranoff did not relinquish his rights to the property.
The allegations spanned several years, from 2013 to 2019, and involved multiple defendants, including Norcross's brother Philip Norcross, an attorney; Dana Redd, the former mayor of Camden; Bill Tambussi, Norcross's longtime personal attorney; John O'Donnell, an executive at a residential development company; and Sidney Brown, a Cooper University Health Care board member.
The state's case was criticized for its lack of evidence, with prosecutors arguing that tax benefits reaped by Norcross and his allies extended the statute of limitations to pursue charges beyond the completion of the development deals. The three-judge panel questioned this argument and ultimately found the state's case to be flawed.
Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport's office has announced its intention to review the appellate division's decision, but it is unclear whether they will seek to appeal further. Norcross has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings, with his attorneys arguing that the charges were brought for political gain rather than any actual wrongdoing. The family connection between George and Philip Norcross adds another layer of intrigue to the case, with Lexie Norcross, the founder and chairwoman of PhillyVoice, being closely tied to her uncle through a familial relationship.
george norcross seems like a total player I dont think he should be able to just waltz outta trouble because of his fam connections its like, if you're gonna play dirty politics and get rich off it then deal with the consequences 
A group of powerful people in New Jersey get accused of racketeering but somehow they're still free? I get that the state didn't have enough evidence, but it seems kinda suspicious that they let these guys off with a slap on the wrist. And now there's talk of reviewing this decision... my gut says we'll see some more twists and turns in this case 
. The whole thing reeks of corruption and cronyism to me. And what's up with all these powerful people being connected through family ties? It's like they're playing a game of who can be related to whom the most 
.
it's like they're above the law, you know? I mean, if someone accused me of doing something wrong, I'd want my day in court too 
. And what's even more disturbing is the family connection between George and Philip Norcross - it feels like they're using their power and influence to get out of trouble, which isn't fair at all 
. It's like when you're playing a game and your opponent thinks they've won, but then the other player finds a loophole or makes an unexpected move. That's what happened here - the prosecution thought they had enough evidence to take down Norcross and his crew, but it turns out their case was built on shaky ground 
. This whole situation is just another example of how things don't always add up and sometimes the people we least expect to slip away do 
.
. On one hand, having people who know us and trust us is great for getting things done. But on the other hand, it can also lead to abuse of power or favoritism. Either way, this case just shows that even when we think we've got it all figured out, there's always room for more complexity and nuance 
And what's with the phone call to Carl Dranoff? was that just a normal Tuesday afternoon chat about business... or was that some kind of threat? 
. And what's going on with the state reviewing this decision again? Are they just gonna keep kicking it around until someone else makes a mess of it? 
. I mean, come on! Tax credits for millions of dollars? That's not even close to legit. And those threats? Unbelievable 
. Can't we just have a fair shake around here without all these rich folks using their connections to get off scot-free? 
. I mean, a powerbroker like George Norcross accused of racketeering charges? That's a big deal 
! The fact that the appeals court upheld the dismissal of the charges makes me wonder if there's more to this story than meets the eye 
. What's really going on behind the scenes? Is it just politics as usual or is there something more sinister at play? 
That's not just shady, it's downright disturbing. And let's be real, who wouldn't try to use their influence and power to get ahead in this world? It's all about who you know and who can help you out, right? 