New Jersey’s attorney general was on George E. Norcross III’s efforts to recast tactics he used to prevail in the Camden Waterfront land deals as nothing more than “hard business negotiations” and urged a judge to allow a jury to decide whether the Democratic powerbroker had broken the law in his pursuit of lucrative property.

That argument, stated in a 146-page court report late Friday, came two months after Norcross — an insurance executive and chairman of the board at Cooper University Health Care — forced Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw to file a 13-count indictment against him and five others this summer, claimed the allegations were fatally flawed.

But prosecutors, in their court filings, insisted those allegations were better suited to a jury, arguing the indictment was clear in its description of how Norcross and his co-defendants criminally profited from their control of Camden’s government and gained the upper hand in business deals.

“By leveraging Norcross’ reputation for unfettered control over local government and overpowering political influence across New Jersey, Norcross Enterprise essentially took Camden Beach for itself,” wrote Assistant New Jersey Attorney General Michael D. Grillo and Deputy Attorney General Adam D. Klein , later adding, “It’s not hard to negotiate by any means, and the grand jury was well within their rights to call it blackmail.”

How Warshaw decides that question in the coming months will determine the future of one of the most ambitious corruption investigations the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office has conducted in years. The judge has set a date in January to hear arguments on whether the case should continue.

A grand jury charged Norcross and the others in June, alleging they manipulated a government tax credit program to benefit themselves and used threats and intimidation to challenge rivals in pursuit of Camden land deals.

Since then, Norcross and his allies have relentlessly attacked the case—in court and in the press—accusing Attorney General Matt Platkin of conduct a “legal jihad” against them. They claim he is abusing his power to criminalize normal business negotiation tactics and legal lobbying of government officials.

“This prosecution has no business in a court of law,” their lawyers wrote in September. “It is both too trite and too generous to call it a prosecution in pursuit of a crime.”

» READ MORE: “A crime thriller without a crime:” George Norcross’ lawyers urge judge to throw out extortion case

At this stage of the case, prosecutors must show only that the indictment contains theoretical crimes that, if proven at trial, would constitute violations of state law. Arguments about whether the evidence supports the view that Norcross and his co-defendants committed these crimes are usually reserved for the jury phase of the proceedings.

In court papers Friday, prosecutors said the conduct of the unelected Norcross and his allies far exceeded the bounds of the law, accusing them of using their “raw political power and functional control of the levers of government” to threaten rivals and gain influence. in business negotiations.

“Nowhere should the promise of a level playing field be more blunt than with an elected government—yet the Norcross Enterprise extorted property and forced action by suggesting to its victims that if they did not do what George Norcross wanted, “they would lose all potential business opportunities’ in Camden and truly suffer at the hands of the city,” they wrote.

They also rejected Norcross’ contention that many of the charges — which are based in part on allegations dating back to 2012 — are time-barred under state law. They said the Norcross-led racketeering conspiracy continued to profit from their illegal activities to this day — primarily by obtaining and selling tax breaks tied to many of the business deals implicated in the indictment.

Also charged in the case are Norcross’ brother Philip, CEO of law firm Parker McCay; former Camden Mayor Dana L. Redd; William Tambussi, an attorney who has represented Norcross and local governments; and businessmen Sidney R. Brown and John J. O’Donnell, who partnered with Norcross on waterfront development deals. Each has pleaded not guilty.

The Attorney General’s Office on Friday also responded to the defense team’s disclosure last week of a 2023 letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia showing that federal prosecutors declined to pursue a case against Norcross last year.

Attorneys for Tambussi wrote in a court filing that the letter said Norcross and his accomplices “had committed no crime” and cast the current case against them as one built on evidence previously dismissed by federal authorities.

The AG’s office noted that the letter contained no such language. “This defense attorney would suggest that the federal prosecutors’ letter stating that ‘no crime’ occurred signals his intent to circumvent the legal process and indoctrinate the press, the public and, worst of all, the prospective jury pool, with a skewed version of the investigations,” prosecutors wrote .

They added that the prosecutor’s investigation “generated new evidence completely separate from” other investigations by federal prosecutors in Philadelphia and New Jersey.

Read the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office application: