Whether the process petitioner received in this case is sufficient to satisfy the substantive and procedural due process standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the process petitioner received in this case is sufficient to satisfy the substantive and procedural due process standard. 2. Whether “Rule 60(b)(4)” strikes a balance between the need for finality of judgement and the importance of ensuring that litigants have a full and fair opportunity to litigate a dispute. 3. Whether the evidence before this court negates the false narratives presented by the Defendant in Smith v. Department of Public Safety, CIV0035_C.J. and rises to the level of gross injustice that demands departure from observance of the doctrine of Res judicata. 4. Whether the Tulsa County District Attorney History file Inquiry Form (Exhibit A) filed November 8, 2019, No. 4:00_cv_00035, U.S. District Court clearly indicates “Rape by instrumentation” by Donald Reed Cochran with a glass saltshaker that was put the (victim’s) Pamela Smith’s vagina was shown to the victim by Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper George Randolph, #22, also negating the false narrative presented by the Defendant in Smith v. Department Public Safety, Civ_0035_CJ. ‘ 5. Whether there still exists an ongoing conspiracy to collude and hide Tulsa County Oklahoma District Attorney Office’s destruction of the one piece of tangible evidence (i.e., a glass saltshaker) with the petitioner’s DNA all over it. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued 6. Whether the Nature Of The Action brought pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. See. 1985 gives rise to unlawful deprivation of rights and conspiracy to interfere with rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, disparate treatment. based on race, and defamation leading to the unconstitutional dismissal of the Complaint by Petitioner Pamela Smith. ; ili ; RELATED CASES Smith v. Donald Reed Cochran, Department of Public Safety, No. 97-841970. Entered Sept. 17, 1997. Smith v. Donald Reed Cochran, State of Oklahoma Department of Safety, #159046, Dec. 17, 1998. Smith v. Tim Harris, Tulsa County District Attorney, No. 004-08-99011-00. Entered Mar. 3, 1999. Smith v. Donald Cochran, Appellant No. 01-5085. 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, Denver, CO. Entered Aug. 12, 2003. : Smith v. Donald Cochran, No 00-CV-0035-C(J). District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Entered Mar. 2, 2004. Smith and Rowe v. Tulsa County, CJ-2004-03615, Petition for Tulsa County Grand Jury. Entered June 4, 2004. Smith v. Tim Harris, Tulsa County District Attorney, Drew Edmondson, Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, No. CJ-2004-03615 Grand Jury. Entered Dec. 4, 2004. Smith v. Tim Harris, Tulsa County District Attorney, et al., No. 19-6123, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of Tulsa County. Entered Oct. 25, 2019. Smith v. PacerMonitor, LLC, 19CV11849, U.S. Attorney’s Office Civilian Crime Report, Southern District of New York. Entered Dec. 16, 2019. Smith v. PacerMonitor, LLC, Oklahoma Attorney General, Tulsa County District Attorney, 19CV11849, U.S. Southern District of New York. Entered Dec. 26, 2019. iv RELATED CASES Continued US. District Court for the Western District v. State of Oklahoma District Attorney, State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma Attorney General, No. CIV-19-426D. Entered May 9, 2019. Smith v. Tom Wiliford, Tulsa County, PacerMoniter, No. 20-CV-126-CVE-FHM. U.S. District Court. Entered Mar. 31, 2020.