George Norcross’ codefendant accused prosecutors of misleading a grand jury in racketeering case

One of South Jersey power broker George E. Norcross III’s codefendants in the racketeering case brought by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office has accused prosecutors of abusing the grand jury process.

Attorney William Tambussi’s defense team said in a court filing that prosecutors knowingly misled grand jurors about the lawyer’s work for Camden’s redevelopment agency in order to create the impression that he’d hijacked the public entity to further Norcross’ business interests.

Norcross is accused of using threats and intimidation, as well as exerting control over government entities, to obtain valuable waterfront property in Camden.

“The AG made it look like Tambussi was directing a public agency ... to take obviously incorrect legal positions to benefit George Norcross,” attorney Lee Vartan and others wrote in a Sept. 26 court filing. “But the AG knew he was not. Tambussi’s law firm was researching a legal question at the direction of a client for the benefit of the client.”

That allegation was made in one of several motions filed in recent days by Norcross’ codefendants. The filings come a week after Norcross’ lawyers, in their own brief, said the indictment failed to detail any specific criminal activity and argued that the case relied on time-barred allegations.

The six defendants have asked a judge to dismiss the June indictment. Here are some of their arguments.

Tambussi is Norcross’ longtime personal attorney, counsel to the Camden County Democratic Committee, and outside counsel to public entities including the Camden Redevelopment Agency, according to the indictment.

Prosecutors say Tambussi, of the firm Brown & Connery, helped Norcross obtain Philadelphia developer Carl Dranoff’s property rights in Camden. Specifically, the indictment says that in October 2016, Tambussi worked with Norcross’ brother Philip and their respective law firms to devise a plan to get the Camden Redevelopment Agency to condemn Dranoff’s property rights, known as a view easement, in an effort to help Norcross gain leverage in his negotiations with the developer.

Their planned court action was never filed, however, and Tambussi’s lawyers note that Dranoff was never made aware of the behind-the-scenes legal talks. Dranoff sold his rights later that month for far less than he thought they were worth, according to prosecutors.

According to Tambussi’s defense team, the indictment was built on misleading testimony to the grand jury.

An FBI agent testified before the grand jury that Saundra Johnson, the CRA’s former executive director, “did not recall the contemplated condemnation action,” Tambussi’s lawyers wrote. And a state investigator testified that the CRA had not even tried to take the actions it was legally required to take before condemning a property.

This left grand jurors believing “that Tambussi was seeking to advance the interests of the ‘Norcross Enterprise’ through whatever means necessary,” Tambussi’s lawyers wrote.

But that testimony misrepresented the legal actions Tambussi actually took, his defense team said. Tambussi did not attempt to condemn Dranoff’s property through the city’s eminent domain powers, they said. Rather, he prepared a filing to ask a court whether the redevelopment agency had the authority to do so, his attorneys said.

The Attorney General’s Office knew this, Tambussi’s lawyers wrote, because it had a copy of the draft complaint he had prepared.

In addition, the defense team said, prosecutors knew that Tambussi and his law partners were simply following directions from their client because a CRA official, James Harveson, testified “it was his idea to explore condemning Dranoff’s” property rights.

Prosecutors disregarded this testimony because it was inconvenient to their case, Tambussi’s lawyers said. Instead, prosecutors relied on the FBI agent’s testimony about Johnson’s statements to investigators — but they did not tell the grand jury that by Johnson’s own account, Harveson was the point person on waterfront redevelopment. Johnson’s statement was also “uncertain,” Tambussi’s lawyers said, “because she was out of the office at the time caring for her ailing mother in South Carolina” — but the grand jury didn’t learn of that, either.

They said the AG’s office tainted the grand jury process in other ways, too. For example, Tambussi’s lawyers said, prosecutors convened a grand jury in 2023 and held four sessions related to the investigation, three of which focused on Tambussi and his “state of mind in providing legal services.”

“None of the witnesses in 2023 testified or in any way suggested that Tambussi attempted to disregard his known legal duties,” his lawyers wrote. While this testimony was beneficial to Tambussi, the AG’s office convened a new grand jury in 2024 and did not provide the earlier testimony to the panel, his lawyers said.

The AG’s office had no immediate comment on Tambussi’s claims. A spokesperson for the office previously said prosecutors are “confident in our charges and look forward to responding in our briefs to the court.”

Dana L. Redd, the former mayor of Camden, was charged with racketeering conspiracy and official misconduct.

Prosecutors say she advanced the interests of what they call the “Norcross Enterprise” by refusing to meet with Dranoff to discuss one of his development projects while Norcross and others were trying to buy property rights he held that affected their plans for an office tower and apartment complex.

Redd stopped returning Dranoff’s calls in 2016 at the direction of Philip Norcross, according to the indictment. At the time, Dranoff was trying to make progress toward redeveloping a blighted building, known as Radio Lofts, for which he’d been granted development rights.

But Redd’s attorneys dismissed any suggestion of wrongdoing, saying Dranoff had sought “special access” to the mayor while bypassing city agencies at a time when she was battling breast cancer and “other far more significant issues in Camden” like poverty, drugs, and violence.

“The indictment does not allege that Dranoff became persona non grata in the City of Camden. Rather, the state alleges that Dranoff was denied special and personal access to the highest-ranking official in Camden,” attorney Henry E. Klingeman and others wrote in an Oct. 1 filing. “A mayor of any city, including Camden, is under no duty to meet with anyone, speak with anyone, or do business with anyone.”

Philip Norcross, CEO of the law firm Parker McCay, is accused of using his access to public officials to help his brother George extort business rivals including Dranoff.

Prosecutors say Philip Norcross helped shape New Jersey economic development legislation to his brother’s preferences and instructed Camden officials and nonprofit executives to take certain actions aimed at advancing George’s interests.

He allegedly joined Tambussi in the plot to have the city condemn Dranoff’s view easement, for example.

But Philip Norcross’ attorneys said it’s not a crime “for a lawyer to engage in tough negotiations with his counterparties or have both the access and the ability to engage with and make helpful suggestions to elected officials.”

Some of his alleged actions are protected by the constitutional right to petition the government, his defense team said.

“It may vex those — apparently including Carl Dranoff — who resent highly experienced, well-respected local lawyers with institutional knowledge thwarting their commercial endeavors,” defense attorney Kevin Marino and others wrote Oct. 1. “But it is not criminal under any reading of the law to do anything Philip Norcross is accused of doing.”

Staff writer Jeremy Roebuck contributed to this article.