This is what I see given as the de facto officer doctrine:
“one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised . . . . under color of a known election or appointment [that would otherwise be] void by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public.”
The point here is that before Obama did a thing as supposed POTUS, the public DID KNOW THE IRREGULARITY. Kerchner filed his case BEFORE Obama’s term would have started had he ever been lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote and qualified according to the 20th Amendment. He threw down a yellow flag and called foul.
Obama has done NOTHING without the public knowing of the irregularity and ineligibility, because we’ve know it all along, and this lawsuit has been pending since before Obama pretended he was the POTUS.
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.