Whether judicial-prejudice requires-relief-from-judgment under-rule-60(b)

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether, in light of Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988), the provisions of 28 USC §455, Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge, . and/or Due Process require relief from judgment under a Rule 60(b) Motion for a New Trial when the discovery of judicial prejudice occurs post-trial and post-appeal and where it is the overall court record, itself, that proves judicial prejudice. 2. Whether purely punitive sanctions can be imposed against a Defendant in a Clean Water Act civil enforcement action without providing the basic Due Process protections normally afforded to defendants accused of criminal violations of the Clean Water Act where the only difference is whether the government seeks a term of incarceration for the alleged violation. 3. Whether a Defendant in a civil enforcement action can be found to have intentionally and flagrantly violated an unpublished, unannounced, improperly promulgated restriction on the use of his own private property. . 4. Whether a judgment in a civil enforcement action that is rendered and affirmed through the wholesale disregard of the law, the facts, and the record is void such that it may be ; vacated at any time pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 60(b)(4) and/or(6).