Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"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)."
Now honestly - answer my question! - do you really think that is going to happen?
Inquiring minds want to know!
No ... I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think there is an ounce of integrity left at the Federal Level ... including the Federal Judiciary, and particularly the SC.
That the federal election board would allow this fraud to be on the ballot shows that we are unlikely to see these criminals forced to abide by the law ... that he's even supported by the Republicans ought to be the biggest clue that this two party system is a fraud, and just theater for the sheep.
So, no, I expect the tyranny and lawlessness to continue unabated.
I wonder how man people actually listened to this?
I just did, 40 minutes well spent. Keep track of Rick Wiles to see where this goes. At the end, this debt collector tries to portray Obama as a victim. This guy did not want to find this information, and is now frightened of the ramifications.
Thanks ergohead
"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)."
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama .. or the constitutional requirements to hold office.
Your cited case is a state matter, and a matter of commerce/commercial contract law, with long standing precedent in general commerce law wherein if a representative or officer of an interest contracts with another in good faith, and that officer represents himself as authorized to contract, the other interested party may not and should not be penalized by voiding a contract for internal deficiencies of the other contracting party.
This is basic level stuff ... in the absence of such, any contract could be voided simply by declaration that the contracting officer acted outside of his authority.
The situation faced with Obama is entirely different ... apples and oranges. For you to apply this type of logic, you'd also have to agree that an impostor posing as a Law Enforcement Officer could make a lawful arrest, and that upon exposing that person as an impostor with no lawful authority to make such arrest ... the arrested would remain arrested under defacto color of law. Color of law is an act of fraud ... and it has no legal standing in a legitimate court ... of course that doesn't mean it isn't a well practiced fraud .. but a fraud nonetheless.
We're dealing with a unique situation here ... we have an impostor ... posing as president ... he has no lawful authority to act as president, and consequently, anything he signs or authorizes is null & void.
Take your cited case ... instead of a county representative which was accused of overstepping their authority (based on internal procedures and duties) ... replace that person with someone ... say the janitor "Posing" as a county representative, but never was .... he couldn't obligate the county in a contract because he was an impostor. If the case could have bee proven that the county commissioner in that case was an impostor, the contract would have been voided .... there would have been no legal alternative.
And that's your problem. If you draw a line, all you will see is the line. Not what the word is actually doing. This is especially true because a curve is not a line. It is a curve.
Go count pixels. You will see that the words all curve just as they should.
Sorry, I didn't have time to find that. I'll try again next week.
I do not think Trump would open himself up to a law suit if he was not sure about the BC.
Being sure and being right are two different things, which Trump will likely find out to his detriment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
