this prperly constitoted tribonl as inquiry as to the amount of
Componsstion to be modo Court Awrded that duo procss of law, thot is
required by the Fadaral Constitution,willfollow; thereforeg whot is the
amoont of the Companstion ? (Bxckos v. Fort Steot Onin Dapot Co. 1G9 U.5.57
509 (1898));

As y Rn toh Cs
compenastion, how will tho Potitionar racaive the compensation made Count
Aworded? (F.RC.P.Rule 71.1 ()()@))

Are these judiciasl decisions on the rights ofa property ouner namel H Ry
violating tho TAkings Clause?

into question, and naithar the United States nor any faderal department, offg
agency, offcer, or employee is a party, the initial documant fled shall recite-that
28U.S C 2403) may apply (Rules of tho Sop.Ct.0f U.S, ApriL I9, 2013 pg.38 ; 28US
$2403(2)

Ifis Unknaun to the Sole Petitioner, namely kiti R. Payne, if . cirther the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California or the U.S.Court of Appeals for
The Nwth Cirewlt of Glltornia have car ti fied to the Atborney General the fact
or UsCA courts, of the fact that the constitotionslity of aN Act of Congress
Was drwn into question? (Z8U.S.C.8 Z403): Rules of SCUS. Julyo1,2013 pg.39

Burcu as a Division of Economic Justice of the offre of the Attorney Genaral
of thestate of Clifornia be established in order to assure such
protections to Its residents?

Whether the Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the government's actions in seizing his property without just compensation