She can't re-litigate, forum shop or resurrect any part of Barnett v. Obama, including Quo Warranto, which was specifically dismissed by Judge Carter in Part C of his October 29 order, Pages 25-26. The only recourse she has is an appeal in the 9th Circuit, and her chances of winning on appeal are non-existent, given the pathetic quality of her case, her non-existent legal skills, and the fact that her appeal (if she manages to file one) will most likely be joined to that of Kreep's, whom she detests as a rival.
If she wants to file Quo Warranto, she needs to do so as a new case (which the DOJ also argued) but, as Carter wrote, "Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. D.C. Code §§ 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia."
And, as Carter noted, "The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged. Compl. ¶¶ 32 - 35."
So, in effect, he told Orly to follow the law and go bang her head against the DC court's wall, which she doesn't want to do.
Thanks for the more detailed explanation and confirmation of my impressions.
Her only plaintiff with possible quo warranto standing seems to be Alan Keyes. Orly seems to be incapable of framing a proper legal filing that a judge can rule on and then she insults the judge when he calls her on it. She needs to step back and refer Keyes to competent local DC counsel for the quo warranto.
For the 9th Circuit appeal, I hope she defers entirely to experienced appeals counsel who could argue the part of the case involving only Keyes where Judge Carter viewed the decision as so evenly balanced that he “hadn't made up his mind” even after the Oct 5 hearing.