‘What did these men do?’ judge asks in throwing out indictment of NFI’s Brown

This article has been updated to reflect some of the contents of the decision throwing out an indictment against NFI CEO Sidney Brown and others.

The indictment against New Jersey political power broker George Norcorss that also caught up Sidney Brown, the CEO of truckload carrier NFI Industries and a member of the family that owns the company, has been dismissed by a New Jersey judge.

The dismissal Wednesday morning set aside the June indictment of Norcross, a southern New Jersey insurance executive who has never held office and didn’t have a formal role in any political organization but who has long wielded significant power in state politics. The dismissal also overturned the indictment of five other persons, including Brown.

Other defendants whose indictments were dismissed besides George Norcross and Brown were former Camden Mayor Dana Redd, attorney William Tambussi, businessman John O’Donnell and Philip Norcross, an attorney and George Norcross’ brother.

At issue in the case were development rights in Camden, a waterfront city across from Philadelphia that long ago fell on hard times. One of the pieces of development that was a focus of the activities at the core of the indictment was the TRIAD1828 Centre, an office building that is now the headquarters of NFI.

While the attention in both the indictment and its dismissal focused on Norcross, Judge Peter Warshaw of New Jersey Superior Court for Mercer County – home of Trenton, the state capital – did take several pages in his 96-page decision to single out Brown and O’Donnell, the two businessmen who were part of the group that the original indictment dubbed the “Norcross enterprise.”

“What did these two men do?” Warshaw asks at the start of his discussion about Brown and O’Donnell.

Reviewing a key part of the indictment where discussions among Norcross and some of the other defendants took place, Warshaw said a reading of what went on showed “it is clear that Brown and O’Donnell are simply listening to experienced counsel discuss a legal strategy which could ultimately make them money, which was their sole apparent purpose for being involved in any of this.

“They listened to the lawyers and agreed to proceed as the lawyers suggested. There was no protracted discussion, no back and forth, no debate. The lawyers recommended what to do and the executives agreed. No doubt, the plan was to put pressure on Developer-1 but wasn’t that the point?”

Developer-1 is not identified in the judge’s dismissal of the indictment. But other documents in the case identify him as Carl Dranoff. He is a Philadelphia-based developer whose development rights in Camden were the focus of Norcross’ pressure campaign.

Brown: ‘did absolutely nothing wrong’

Brown, who has been silent on the indictment since June, letting his lawyer Lawrence Lustberg speak instead, released a statement to FreightWaves that called the case “baseless” and provided his answer to the judge’s question: “I did absolutely nothing wrong.”

“The answer, giving the State the benefit of every positive inference and accepting every fact alleged in the indictment as true, is simply nothing criminal,” Brown said. “I have always had faith and confidence in our judicial system, and I strongly believed that the Judge would come to the right decision. Despite the state’s best efforts to do otherwise, I am walking away from this case with my good name, and the good name of NFI, intact.”

Wiretaps reported on in the indictment revealed a hardball approach by Norcross and his allies to persuade a developer to yield ownership and development rights to various parcels in Camden.  The indictment included a few examples of profanities that could have been viewed as physical threats by Norcorss. 

The argument of the Norcross attorneys as they sought to have the indictment dismissed was that what went on was tough politics, not criminal acts.

Brown’s attorneys had filed a separate motion to have the case against the NFI CEO dismissed, citing his minor role in the activities. The indictment mentions Brown only once in its recaps of various meetings the former defendants in the case held about the development, and Brown was a defendant in only six of the 13 counts.

In dismissing the indictment, Warshaw said there was no evidence the so-called Norcross enterprise existed.

‘Boorish and indecorous’–but not criminal

Reviewing some of the saltier language in the original indictment directed by Norcross at Dranoff, Warshaw conceded that George Norcross’ “threat” – the judge’s quote marks – may have been “boorish and indecorous.”

“Clearly, this is a steel cage brawl between two heavyweights, both accompanied at times by

at least one lawyer,” Warshaw wrote. “Neither seems to like or trust the other. Each is trying to prevail in the negotiations and there is substantial money at stake. Beyond that, power and control along the waterfront is in play.”

But he said elsewhere in his dismissal that “not every threat is criminal or even wrong.”

Summing up what occurred, Warshaw asked whether the various actions reached the standards laid down in state coercion and extortion acts. “This court finds that the answer to these questions is no,” he said.

NJ AG will appeal

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin released a statement that said his office “strongly disagreed” with the decision and planned to 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,” he said. “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.”

The dismissal did not turn solely on the judge’s finding that there was no criminal intent by George Norcross and the other defendants. Warshaw also ruled that the timing of the events that ended in 2016-2017, and the indictment itself, should have meant that the legal action was “time-barred.”

More articles by John Kingston

XPO lawsuit against 2 ex-employees gives look into noncompete agreements

Chalk up another nuclear verdict: More than $21M in Los Angeles case

3 ratings agencies weigh in on Patriot Rail’s finances amid debt structure change

The post ‘What did these men do?’ judge asks in throwing out indictment of NFI’s Brown appeared first on FreightWaves.