Can Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) be used for the purpose of obtaining relief from the operation of a subsisting, final judgment, when exceptional circumstances existed, such as in Klapprott v. U.S., 335 U.S. 601, 613 (1949)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Can Fed. Gute. Civ. Foc COUN) be use Fee “ihe Porgose OF obtaining KeleF From “The oferation Sudsemedl, hen Exceetionsl Ciecumstances existedssuch . as in:Cklacerott vy. U.S. “235 US. 60\, 613.1944) CCiwl deFerdadT sho was Til, Pennclest and meacsercted And Thee Fore Unable Te Aves and dedend {ts Case, Qcanted reves 2) 7 . 2.) TS The’ Answee is Yes 6a Question ctoore, T wootd Then Ike To Know if QW ate Couct of Avveal ered When it Tanored mY Contention, of Fed Ruciv Pro bobih\ where L Conteaded Thal Excee torial Circuestances existed in Case because FlaatlF Oiddt Steak. Laghishs was UMeferabes nad er GPA of 240 cits (Gi v. Vosilano 131 EJuré : 29 _4¥6, 494 CS.D.ALY. 2o0t) Caelies Grented becuse PlaintiGF Aid ast Understand Feo— Ceducts Bvt To i's langusse atest’). Di Cou Taroed Plant hfs Coateatior, | and Grated Bekead RestondesT ceieF, When Such eee Coaleation of RespoadedT didal Ads cess Fed & Civ Foc LOEMG) iF adds Coatending Thal PleintAF eses usias fel BO Feoe GOS aS a Ind Aoveal. wren PlaintitF oT No Poiay was Ustas, Fed 8. Civ Foc 60) . ‘ To Attack Ondecliins Judsemeat: a 4.) Did Coucls eccd When it Avoided To Address Prisoa Mafl Box Rule CHoustoa ve Lace Hy 2.5, 266 (1980) Throush Fed A. Civ. Koc GO)6 Motion. At which WF Addcess They would oF agrte Thal PlaintiSf Nom tas Consbec Erle Weel’ wheo siver To akhicec Goer Maiiins To Cov .