then everything he touched, said, wrote, recorded etc. must be erased.
How can anyone think this is not a big deal?
______________
Because there are judicial rulings (forget what they’re called....something like ‘defacto executive’(?)) to the effect that he got into office and everyone acted in ‘good faith’, so ALL the actions have legal standing and remain.
Some of our lawyers can explain it better. Basically, common sense is not operative and administrative law is.
There is no case law to determine precedence therefore any decision must be determined on constitutional grounds by the SCOTUS. The correct defendents, plaintiffs and premise must be first established .
.. thus said my father before he passed. He was first in his law school class, clerked for the federal court and before the Gore-Bush decision wrote the cases down on which it would be settled and the judges votes! He was 100% correct !
On the other hand Fraud does have precedence It would be a Rico case because he did NOT act alone. Nancy P left a paragraph out when she certified his eleigibility to state SOS and the DNC who improperly vetted him would be held accountable Just my and dad’s opinion .
Can: his SS detail can be stripped ? His Pension and Ex-POTUS allotments be adiosed ?
All his records can probably become available ? Pull his passport ?
Be indicted for fraud ? Indicted for stolen valor ? Pull his citizenship ?
But if the good faith acts were based upon a fraud that 0 and any ONE else knew, they would be voided...and the case would end up being heard until the current Supremes are replaced by their grandchildren!
defacto officer doctrine
i think it does not apply because legality of him being president was greatly challenged at the time also likely fraud by deep state to stop the challenges-”no standing” etc
Thanks, RL. You made the same point I was making, but I did not know there was a legal precedent in government for defacto officer.
As a businessman, I am very familiar with the concept in corporate law. For example, if a corporation lets an employee or agent have a business card that says Vice President, and then allows them to sign contracts, then the corporation is estopped from using the fact they wern’t a real officer as a defense against being bound by the contract.
The key is that the corporation “clothed” the agent as an officer, even if they were not duly elected or appointed as such. So it is not the problem of the other parties who relied on the contract.
The corporation may have recourse against the “fraudulent” employee who exceeded their authority, but the contracts are still binding.
I am sure something like this doctrine would be used to validate the legal actions taken during the Zero presidency.
I understand what you are saying. Maybe just maybe Donald Trump will change it. Lawyers are a very big part of our problems. “Laws” so many ridiculous laws and regulations. I am surprised we can still pass gas without being fined. (If we can be, it wasn’t me! It was the dog! and it’s not my dog).