de facto officer

Something occurred to me this afternoon.

We were discussing the difference between de jure and de facto officers in Poli Law Review.

De jure officers are public officers who have lawful title over the office. Meaning, they were appointed or elected in the proper course of things. But they may not have possession of the office because of a confluence of events such as, well, being unlawfully separated from it or by being ousted from the office.

De facto officers meanwhile, are those persons who do not have lawful title over the office but have possession of the office, and are holding it by mere acquiescence of the people. Not having lawful title over the office means that something is wrong or irregular with their appointment or with the way they were elected into office (among other things).

Which got me thinking….

Can you give an example of a de facto officer?

Let me see….

No lawful title. Either faulty appointment or fraudulently elected… but is holding office only with the mere acquiescence of the people.

Fraudulently elected.

Holding office.

Only holding it because of the acquiescence of the people.

Gloria? Haha. By jove.

;)