Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jamese777
Here you go.

"The de facto officer doctrine (DFOD) would not save Obama or the Dems from destruction. If the truth ever became evident, we would see a conspiracy to commit fraud and obstruction of justice. In all the cases, the officers in question became known after the fact...that the defendants found out later that the officers had no right to their offices. Millions of people have known otherwise that Obama was not eligible, and numerous of court cases have been filed against Obama for more than 2 years.

You couple the obstruction of justice charges and conspiracy to commit fraud along with the public have known for a very long time Obama was ineligible, it is inconceivable that Obama is covered under the de facto Doctrine. Judges could try and expand legal reasoning for the DFOD. In the words of X-judge Alcee Hastings, 'We make crap up' to "mitigate the damage" they would think could happen to the country. But politically Obama and the Dems would be done. You could stick a fork in them. "

And the funds that pay Jammmesseeee could go dry.

84 posted on 11/08/2010 5:36:22 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

Here you go.
“The de facto officer doctrine (DFOD) would not save Obama or the Dems from destruction. If the truth ever became evident, we would see a conspiracy to commit fraud and obstruction of justice. In all the cases, the officers in question became known after the fact...that the defendants found out later that the officers had no right to their offices. Millions of people have known otherwise that Obama was not eligible, and numerous of court cases have been filed against Obama for more than 2 years.

You couple the obstruction of justice charges and conspiracy to commit fraud along with the public have known for a very long time Obama was ineligible, it is inconceivable that Obama is covered under the de facto Doctrine. Judges could try and expand legal reasoning for the DFOD. In the words of X-judge Alcee Hastings, ‘We make crap up’ to “mitigate the damage” they would think could happen to the country. But politically Obama and the Dems would be done. You could stick a fork in them. “


I agree with you that the correct way to go after Obama is not by filing more civil lawsuits that go nowhere due to plaintiffs who do not have standing to sue.

You have correctly named three felonies that should be investigated by a Grand Jury: Conspiracy, Fraud and Obstruction of Justice.

Grand juries can subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath. Grand juries were utitlized in Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, the Governor Rod Blagojevich impeachment and removal and the Valerie Plame-CIA Leaks incidents, just to name a few well known political scandals.

I wonder if you can name a single major political figure who was forced out of office by a civil lawsuit.

The “defacto officer doctrine” would cover the rest of the Obama administration from loss of position and actions taken, not Obama himself, if he were to be charged with a crime, indicted on criminal charges, or impeached and removed from office.


107 posted on 11/08/2010 8:44:44 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson