Answers to 4 & 5: Yes.
“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. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-431.ZO.html
Lets look at Norton v Shelby what is a salient point.
" “The Defacto 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.”—Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886)"
The underlined is a constant legal rationale in all these de facto officer doctrine cases. Lakin didn't just disobey his deployment order because he wanted to watch Monday Night Football in the US or something; he thought his order to deploy was unlawful on the face of it, and therefore, challenged it as he is trained to do. Lakin did not find out later after the fact by reading FR figuring out Obama is not eligible under the US Constitution.
>Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).
I’ll see your that and raise you a US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
It could be used on those that gave that ruling (if they were still alive)... and EVERYONE WHO UPHOLDS/ENFORCES IT NOW.