Replies

"The de facto 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." — Ryder v. United States (94-431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995)

Good grief, wideminded, a thing like that would be harmless enough if it applied to dogcatchers; but as applied to an illegitimate POTUS, it's horrifically dangerous. This is like issuing a license to steal. Legal thinking like that does nothing to prevent a "fire-sale" of the United States of America.

You could put a rotten crook into office, and he can do stuff that cannot be undone. Regardless of whether he's punished after the fact, the damage is still there, and it is lasting damage.

Somehow I don't think this is what the Framers had in mind.

Thank you so very much for bringing Ryder v. United States (94–431), 515 U.S. 177 (1995) to my attention!!!

See the post below on Ryder as pointed out in the opening brief in Hollister v. Soetoro as that brief was posted from Scribd by rxsid.

It wouild be good not to represent that Ryder says more than it says because the de facto officer doctrine does not apply to decisions as yet unmade which is the point of Ryeder after all where Coastguardsman Ryder brought up the point before the decision was made as does Colonel Hollister in his case.