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 im
portance 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 de
mands departure from observance of the doctrine
of Res judicata.

4. Whether the Tulsa County District Attorney His
tory 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 Defendants/Respondents Tulsa
County Oklahoma District Attorney Office 's de
struction of the one piece of tangible evidence (i.e.,
a glass saltshaker) with the petitioner 's DNA all
over it.

6. Whether the Nature Of The Action brought pursu
ant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of
1871, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985
gives rise to unlawful deprivation of rights and
conspiracy to interfere with rights, intentional in
fliction of emotional distress, disparate treatment
based on race, and defamation leading to the un
constitutional dismissal of the Complaint by Peti
tioner Pamela Smith.

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