Lawyers and supporters of South Jersey powerbroker George Norcross are calling on Attorney General Matt Platkin to resign after a court overturned a racketeering charge against him and five other defendants, vowing to retaliate against the prosecution.
In June, Platkin’s office filed a 13-count racketeering indictment against Norcross, a powerful political figure for almost 40 years, sending shockwaves through the state. According to the indictment, the organization pushed legislation to establish significant tax benefits for the property while extorting a developer to buy prime beachfront land in Camden at a low price.
On Wednesday morning, a state judge rejected the indictment. The judge agreed with the defendants’ argument that the charges in the indictment did not amount to a crime. Additionally, the judge decided that the charges were not filed within the relevant statute of limitations.
Norcross’s lawyer, Michael Critchley, charged that the attorney general was promoting the false indictment in order to raise his political profile. Although Platkin is not a candidate, Critchley claimed that the attorney general prioritized his goals over the law.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Critchley stated, “I believe it’s time for us to have an attorney general who is capable of doing the job and isn’t a politician posing as a law enforcement official.” Because, based on his actions throughout his tenure as attorney general, Mr. Platkin is merely attempting to lay the groundwork for a future in politics.
Norcross’s brother, Philip Norcross, who owns the politically influential Parker McCay law firm, Dana Redd, a former state senator and mayor of Camden, and Norcross’s longtime lawyer, Bill Tambussi, were also charged in the indictment. Sidney Brown, the CEO of the trucking company NFI, and John O. Donnell, the president of a real estate developer with connections to Norcross, were also charged.
According to Critchley, Platkin has agreed to file an appeal, and the group’s lawyers are currently reviewing the ruling and getting ready for it. According to him, they haven’t ruled out any other options, such as filing a civil lawsuit for prosecutorial misconduct against the troubled Office of Public Integrity and Accountability.
According to Critchley, there needs to be compensation for the harm [Platkin] caused them on a professional and financial level as well as to their family, wives, and kids. He simply cannot abandon his behavior. And as I already stated, he will be held responsible in one way or another.
The OPIA, the attorney general’s office that filed the accusations, received a lot of criticism. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have been made against the OPIA, and the lawyers stated that the office need supervision.
Attorney Kevin Marino, who represents Philip Norcross, stated that there has been a great deal of drama surrounding the OPIA. It’s not too cliché, in my opinion, to argue that we could probably use an OPIA for the OPIA.
Platkin said in a statement today that he never promised that these cases would be simple because too many people in New Jersey have come to believe that corruption is just the way the wealthy operate.
The indictment could not stand on its own merits, according to the defendants’ attorneys. The judge accepted the lawyers’ position in support of their petition to dismiss, which stated that even if all of the accusations in the indictment were true, the behavior would not constitute a crime.
“These things don’t add up to a crime, even if [prosecutors] could prove every single word of the indictment and every reasonable, rational inference to be drawn from those words,” Marino said.
Judge Peter Warshaw of the Superior Court probably knew Platkin would appeal when he drafted his ruling. The lawyers stated that they are not concerned.
According to Marino, he will have to deal with 96 pages of unquestionable conclusions.
Brown’s lawyer, former U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman, commended Warshaw’s decision.
This case highlights the value of an independent court functioning as a check on the executive branch’s excess in our democracy.According to Hillman, that is a fact rather than a political assertion. When you take the time to read it, you will find that it is a masterful opinion that is thorough, analytical, insightful, true to the law, and intellectually honest. It also evaluates each defendant separately and individually.
Lee Vartan, Tambussi’s lawyer, said that Warshaw’s decision supported our stance and our argument as a whole and accused the attorney general of trying to criminalize the ordinary practice of law.
The attorney general’s prosecution was motivated by vanity. It lacked both legal and factual substance, and it was similar to what OPIA 00, the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability, has repeatedly done: bring baseless charges and, in some cases, worse, conceal the truth from the charged defendants, Vartan said.
Critchley responded, “Everything is on the table,” when asked about the possibility of legal litigation by Norcross and others.
People who have been mistreated, like the defense in this case, must have a method to get their complaints addressed. Critchley.
Furthermore, they don’t anticipate that future attorneys general will continue to pursue the case. Unless Platkin is reappointed by the next governor, he will not serve as attorney general again.
According to Critchley, a new attorney general will be appointed. Anyone who approaches this study with a detached, unemotional mindset will probably say, “I don’t want to be holding this leaking bag of you-know-what.”
Platkin reiterated his criticism of the Norcross defense in a statement following the lawyers’ press conference.
Defense counsel’s irrational threats are unworthy of any reaction. In addition to being incorrect, this judgment set no precedent: according to Platkin, no one has found a single instance when a court granted a request to dismiss similar to this one without even looking at the months’ worth of evidence that the grand jury had relied upon. If upheld, this ruling would convey to all citizens of our state that there are two distinct criminal justice systems: one for the wealthiest and most connected individuals and another for the general public.
