1. Did the District Court err in denying McNeley Request for an Evidentiary Hearing Motions in light of the 5th and 14th Amendment constitution rights violated (ECF No. 13,17.) On 01/25/2019, Motion 18 re-set for hearing on 4/2/2019, at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero; See Order 30.

2. "Fraud upon the State Court " versus a frivolous lawsuit, within the meaning of Rule 60'(b)(3) saving clause by distinguishing from intrinsic and extrinsic fraud. The question presented is The subornation of perjury by an attorney and/or the intentional concealment of documents by an attorney are actions which constitute "extrinsic fraud upon the court ", intentionally and unintentionally or just intentionally protected or unprotected by immunity or is detected "fraud upon the court " predominantly voidable to set aside judgment within appellate courts ' review of a state-courts ' decree or final judgment order overrule frivolous defiance?

3. The question is whether the intentional perjury and/or concealment of documents by an attorney are actions which constitute extrinsic fraud. See Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., 354 S.C. 72 (2003) 579 S.E.2d 605. A lawyer should not suppress evidence that he or his client has a legal obligation to reveal or produce. " ABA Code, 102 (a) (3) States that while representing a client, a lawyer shall not conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal. .. See S. Williston, Life and Law 271-72 (1940). [Bus. & PROF] CODE 6103 (West 1974), a violation of the Oath or Duties of an attorney is a cause for discipline. Section 6068 (d) Makes it the duty of an attorney ("[n]ever to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of a fact or law."

4. An allegedly tortious act occurring long after the state-court rendered its judgment cannot be [barred] by Rooker-Feldman because there was [no] opportunity to complain about the allegedly injurious act in the state-court proceedings. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F. 3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2004). The underlying concept is that "[a] state-court judgment is subject to collateral attack if the statecourt lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, or the judgment was procured through ("extrinsic fraud. ") Lake v. Capps {In re Lake), 202 B.R. 751, 758 (9th Cir. BAP 1996). Also see Davis v. Davis, 236 S.C. 277, 113 S.E.2d 819 (1960), the Court considered the effect of an attorney 's statement to the lower court during a divorce action. The Court determined that, by representing to the court that a party was in default when she was not, "[t]his reasonably was held to have been "extrinsic fraud " upon her and upon the State-court " and vacated a prior judgment as a result. Id. S.C. at 281, 113 S.E.2d at

Did the District Court err in denying McNeley Request for an Evidentiary Hearing Motions in light of the 5th and 14th Amendment constitution rights violated