I think this legal precedent may be fine for minor cases, but not in the case of 0b0la.
I'm sure many people feel as you do, but the reverse of your impression is the way it works. When there is a minor case, the de facto officer doctrine is NOT applied.
Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177 (1995)
Case involved unqualified civilian member of Coast Guard Court of Military Review who had passed judgement on James D. Ryder. Lower courts upheld the punishment of Ryder based on de facto officer. Supreme Court said that the conviction of Ryder could not stand, the tribunal was not qualified.
More discussion in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), but it is pretty dense going, the prose being loaded with older-style legal jargon; and also involving a sityuation where not only was there a question of the legitimacy of the officer, the argument was that the office itself was not ordained to exist.
A Vermont state case, STATE of Vermont v. George CUOMO, decided in 2013, is fairly short and adds a few insights into the limits of the doctrine.
There is a substantial body of case law, reflecting the fact that quite a few people attain office under dubious circumstances. It is not uncommon.