Whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. imposes a mandatory duty on federal courts to vacate judgments tainted by fraudulent schemes targeting judicial institutions

1. In Hazel -Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford -Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), did the Court impose a nondiscretionary, mandatory duty on all federal courts, including those residing south of Canal Street, to vacate any judgment tainted by fraudulent scheme, driven by avarice, that directly targeted a federal court, other government institution, or both, with the intent to introduce compromised evidence into the trial process to influence the judge ? 2. Whether the district court applied the incorrect standard for fraud between ‘private’ litigants , reiterated in Marco Destin, Inc. v. Levy , 111 F.4th 214 (2d Cir. 2024), which, in the context of fraud between private litigants, is appropriate in that it places the burden on the private litigant to protect his interests, but whenever the fraud is directed at a federal court or institution, impacting public interests and faith in government institutions, any resulting judgment is unjust, and an unjust judgment should not be allowed to sit around speaking of government impotence ?