Pamela Smith v. PacerMonitor, LLC, et al.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.