The de facto doctrine doesn’t apply if someone knowingly commits fraud to criminally assume a position he is not eligible for. 0thugga has lied and covered up with assistants all his records. He has knowingly committed crimes to hide his ineligibility.
I am not smart enough to know this myself but have read enough of the eligibility threads to know it. El Gato and Red Steel and others know the details. Maybe one will chime in if they’re around.
I don’t think anyone really knows how much, if any, the de facto officer doctrine would cover the situation where the office was obtained by fraud. Certainly people who obeyed the orders of the putative office holder would not be punished. But how much of his/her acts would remain, it’s hard to say. In this case though the solution would be simple in concept, but perhaps politically non-viable. Congress could just pass a law saying that Public law AAA to ZZZ were re-passed and then have acting President Biden sign it. The fly in the ointment would be that Republicans might not go along with such a blanket approach.
To cite the Vermont case and Norton v Shelby County (below) where they echo the same as a 1995 US Supreme Court case Ryder v. U.S. , 1995 concerning the De Facto officer doctrine.
In three or four cases that I've read including the likely latest decision from SCOTUS, that their rational argument is that the defendants believed at the time that the de facto officers were legally able to function in their offices. That same rational does not hold up with LTC Lakin since it is the very reason he is contesting if Obama can give lawful orders.
In the STATE_V_OREN.92-113; 160 Vt. 245; 627 A.2d 337,
it states:
"Whether the officer with defective title appeared to be an intruder or usurper depends on whether other government officials and the public reasonably believed that the officer was entitled to exercise the powers of her office during the period of defective title. Id. at 261. Under the de facto officer doctrine, it is irrelevant whether defendant understood the deputy sheriff was a law enforcement officer on the occasion in question."
This passage from the Vermont Supreme Court's opinion makes two statements. One is that the "public reasonably believe" the officer is entitled to office. With Obama, there are millions of American who have more than reasonable suspicions that Obama has usurped the presidential office. How many lawsuits have challenged Obama's presidency?
And number two.
At the time of his unlawful act, the defendant believed that the officer was entitled to his office. It is also stated that the defense discovered after the fact that the deputy sheriff usurped the office. The difference here is that LTC Lakin reasonably believes that Obama was and is an Usurper. Lakin has questioned the authorities and his chain of command without satisfaction for over a year and a half, which he has documented.
The Vermont opinion further states,
"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be "in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper." Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 323 (1902). "
And from Norton v. Shelby County,
“The Defacto Officer Doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.”—Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886)
We have all seen Obama acting like an intruder or usurper the latest being his support of a radical Imam to build the ground zero mosque. Didn't the State Department send him on a trip paid by us tax payers? We have statements from Michelle Obama, and Kenyan government officials that state unequivocally that Obama is a Kenyan and was born in Kenya:
This country and its government cannot say Oh, we just found out that Obama is a usurper. We didn't know...no one told us. We had no idea! That would be complete BS.
Acquiescence by this government who have their collective heads where the sun doesn't shine isn't an excuse. Millions and millions of people have questioned Obama before he was "president" and during it.
This is an utter failure of this country led by Democrats who know and Republicans who acquiescence their duties to defend and protect the Constitution of the Unites States.
As for LTC Lakin, he didn't disobey an order to deploy because he just didn't want to go to a war zone, and say Obama is an Usuper after the fact. to get out of it. He invited his court martial because he knew before Obama is not qualified for Office. Millions of other Americans believe Obama is not qualified for office. It is the very reason why he has disobeyed the order to deploy to the war zone that directly comes from the White House and was echoed down through the chain-of-command. LTC Lakin questioned Obama's credentials to hold presidential office for a very long time and never got a satisfactory answer for his questions - NONE.
After saying all of this, I wouldn't be surprised that the judiciary in this country would expand the De Facto Officer Doctrine to cover for Obama, but if they are not careful, they could or would tacitly, inadvertently, endorse government malfeasance who knowingly supported a usurper.
If Obama is ever found to be illegal, LTC Lakin will be the winner as he was right. And if it happens while his case is still in contention, I doubt a military panel would convict him if Obama is ever held to illegally hold presidential office, even as de jure or de facto.