South Jersey powerbroker George Norcross was back in court today as his defense attorneys argued for the 13 count racketeering charges against him and five codify to be dropped.

Norcross, his younger brother, Phil Norcross, former Camden Mayor Dana Redd and three others are accused of executing a criminal enterprise using extortion and coercion to enrich themselves.

Senior correspondent Brenda Flanagan reports.

Lawyers today contended that just because the political kingmakers well connected to Camden City officials, that doesn't make it a crime.

It would be extraordinary for the court not to dismiss this case.

Defense attorneys portray South Jersey political powerbroker George Norcross as the ultimate deal maker with admittedly brash knuckle tactics.

But they argued he didn't commit any actual crime.

In a highly unusual legal maneuver.

The defense asked Judge Peter Warshaw to dismiss the case against Norcross.

His brother Philip, and four other co-defendants dubbed the Norcross Enterprise.

They're accused of using threats and extortion to manipulate a New Jersey tax credit program and take over a lucrative development on Camden's waterfront.

But the defense said there's no evidence of anything beyond wielding influence having access to power.

No allegation in this case that any bribe or kickback with the government.

The allegation is that he had control, de facto control because of his political influence.

That cannot be punished.

The defense noted Norcross has a big Rolodex.

State and Camden politicians answer his phone calls.

And yes, he and his brother get significant input, like when lawmakers drew up legislation for the economic Opportunity Act, which benefited the so-called enterprise as they scored deals in Camden.

But that access wasn't criminal, they argued.

You have access, and if you don't get it by violating the law, if you don't get it by paying bribes, if you don't get it by corrupting a public official, then you have committed a crime.

And God bless you for having better access.

Superior access.

Having won the favor and the trust of people who do make these decisions.

Attorneys for the defense didn't dispute the facts of the case.

The 111 page indictments rife with recorded conversations.

It displays Norcross as foul mouthed and intimidating.

But they said that's business.

And nobody should expect a level playing field.

Where is it written that the field must be level?

Where is it written That as the first sentence of their brief says, government is supposed to be open to everyone on neutral terms?

Is that Pollyannish?

Is it utopian?

Because it certainly isn't the way life really is.

While these defendants may believe they're entitled to a different type of criminal process than everyone else.

They're not.

Prosecutors said there's no case law to back up the extraordinary argument of no crime, no case.

A group of New Jersey grand juries looked at the months of evidence that were shown to them and concluded that these defendants had violated our laws most centrally by conspiring to strongarm private citizens into giving up their property rights so that defendants could profit through a tax credit scheme they engineered.

And they said the grand jury obviously found crimes were committed, not just Norcross flexing political muscle.

They'd have to accept that they used threats not only or economic harm.

I'll get to this a little bit later, but also threats of reputational harm.

The defense not only denied that Norcross had committed any crimes.

They also questioned the grand jury process that produced the indictment.

They were told this is a crime, that, you know, we don't have to hear what the witnesses said public.

This is what's put before them.

This is what they say the facts are.

But prosecutors shot back.

The judge couldn't just toss this case without considering all the reams of evidence that the motion to dismiss wasn't legally valid.

The reality is that if we accepted that premise that this was a valid motion to pursue, that you can take a snapshot of the state's evidence and make a decision, a legal decision about whether or not that conducts criminal would have a perverse result.

The judge listened intently and seemed very intrigued by defense arguments.

He wanted to hear all sides, including Jersey's ship and trade unions, that filed briefs supporting Norcross before rendering a decision.

In Trenton, I'm Brenda Flanagan, NJ.

Spotlight News.