More on finality of court orders that declare that the Sun rises in the West

This is yet another hypothetical for law students.

Let's say a certain court and a certain judge who had authority to preside over a case as a finder of facts, found that the Sun rises in the West.

The losing party made a motion to vacate claiming plain error, and lost because such errors must be raised only on appeal.

The losing party sued in federal court and lost on the Younger abstention grounds, because state appeals did not run through yet.

The losing party appealed and the appellate court affirmed claiming that they cannot do anything, because they must defer to the factual findings of the lower court.

The losing party sued in federal court against and lost under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, because the federal court claimed issues of due process that the losing party is raising should have been raised on appeal.

Ok.  The losing party lost in state court and on all appeals from the state court order that says that the Sun rises in the West.

The losing party has lost in federal court without reaching the merits, because the state court already made its ruling which should be final and should not be disturbed.

Now, as to the losing party, for all purposes, the Sun rises in the West?

Yes, it must, it is now the law.

But does the Sun really rise in the West?

Look out your western-bound window in the morning and you will know.

Yet, if you move to vacate once again the obviously crazy decision of the court, you will now be sanctioned for frivolous conduct, ordered to pay your opponent's counsel fee and, possibly, blocked from access to court altogether as a "vexatious litigant".

But the Sun still rises in the East - yet, not for you...

This is just a hypothetical of how the law of finality works in American courtrooms.

You think it's crazy?  There are zillions of decisions that say exactly this, only instead of "Sun rises in the West" there is something slightly different, for example, a misrepresentation of documents which do not say what the court says they say, or misrepresentation of the law which does not say what the court says it says.

Yet, the result is the same - if the court says (erroneously, or with a purpose to hurt you) that black is white, A is Z and that, yes, that the Sun rises in the West - that's the law for you.

And don't you dare tell the judge that it is - what? - that's right, crazy, your Honor!