Whether the Court should fill a statutory and jurisprudential void in Tucker Act inverse condemnation 'takings' law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether this Court should fill a statutory and jurisprudential void in Tucker Act inverse condemnation “takings” law to resolve the obvious constitutional dilemma that confronted the Court of Federal Claims below, where the court found that the Environmental Protection Agency took Petitioner’s property and sold some of it for $13.5 million, made no offer of compensation whatsoever, forced Petitioner to incur a decade of expense litigating against the government’s ferocious effort to avoid payment, and at trial the court found a compensable per se taking, but the court simply set aside the constitutional requirement of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and awarded nothing, on the basis that Petitioner’s evidence failed to prove a precise value of the property with “reasonable certainty”. I. Whether the Federal Circuit committed clear constitutional error where it ignored the conduct constituting the taking of Petitioner’s slag, impermissibly set aside the trial court’s fact findings underlying its conclusion that a taking of slag had occurred, and improperly substituted its own de novo findings of fact that themselves were contrary to the record, all in order to disturb the Court of Federal Claims' determination that the government did commit a compensable taking of Petitioner's slag and violated the Takings Clause by failing to pay for it? (108312961) i