Replies

I think what OldDoucheHand is trying to say is that if someone impersonates a police officer any tickets he issued that would have been issued by a real police officer are legally valid, and if you got one you’d be required to pay the fines or do the time.

"I think what OldDoucheHand is trying to say is that if someone impersonates a police officer any tickets he issued that would have been issued by a real police officer are legally valid, and if you got one you’d be required to pay the fines or do the time."

Good God, you're a child a "nerd and vacant" child. An absolutely idiotic child.

“I think what OldDoucheHand is trying to say is that if someone impersonates a police officer any tickets he issued that would have been issued by a real police officer are legally valid, and if you got one you’d be required to pay the fines or do the time.”

That’s not what he said. His statement was correct. Yours is stupid.

I think what OldDoucheHand is trying to say is that if someone impersonates a police officer any tickets he issued that would have been issued by a real police officer are legally valid, and if you got one you’d be required to pay the fines or do the time.

I posted this to another Douchebag for Obama today:

- - - - - - - - - -

To: jamese777; rxsid

The “de facto officer doctrine” has been on the books since 1886.

You're still a silly Obot. When ever I look at the details your story falls apart.

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 make 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.

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 about 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). "

We have seen Obama acting more than just as an intruder or usurper where RXSID gave you a presentation further up in the thread. We have statements from Michelle Obama, and Kenyan government officials that state unequivocally that Obama is a Kenyan and was born in Kenya:

I hope you enjoy making up your own interpretations of the law of the land as a hobby but your hobby bears no resemblance to real law.

Oh, I'm good at analyzing the law, which is better than most if not all the Obot lawyers that I converse with online, and I'm being very modest.

120 posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 9:05:03 PM by Red Steel

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

- - - - -