The Morning Report
Get the news and information you need to take on the day.
Sunday, Sept. 10, 2006 | It appears that Arthur Levitt and the Krolls not only disagree with our City Attorney Mr. Aguirre, but they also disagree with the attorney general of California, neither of which were paid 20 million dollars to come up with their conclusion.
Conflicts of Interest, Office of the Attorney General, Bill Lockyer. Attorney General Prepared by the Division of Civil Law
From page 67:
“In short, if the interest of a public officer is shown, the contract cannot be sustained by showing that it is fair, just and equitable as to the public entity. Nor does the fact that the forbidden contract would be more advantageous to the public entity than others might be have any bearing upon the question of its validity. (Capron v. Hitchcock (1893) 98 Cal. 427.)”
Further down on page 67:
“Generally, any contract made in violation of section 1090 is void and cannot be enforced. In addition, an official who commits a violation may be subject to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions.”
On page 74:
“In People v. Deysher (1934) 2 Cal.2d 141, 146, the court stated that: ‘However devious and winding the chain may be which connects the officer with the forbidden contract, if it can be followed and the connection made, the contract is void.’”
On page 80:
“Despite the wording of the section “may be avoided,” case law has historically interpreted contracts made in violation of section 1090 to be void, not merely voidable. (Thomson v. Call, supra, 38 Cal.3d 633; People ex rel. State of Cal. v. Drinkhouse (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 931.)”
And on page 81:
“In addition to the contract being void under section 1092, section 1095 provides that payment of any warrant or other evidence of indebtedness against the state, city, or county which has been purchased, sold, received, or transferred contrary to section 1090 or section 1093 is specifically disallowed. Any claim to payment pursuant to a contract, made in violation of section 1090, is effectively rendered worthless by this section.”