Whether the district court had exclusive jurisdiction over the in rem eminent domain action

QUESTION PRESENTED ; The trustee and/or Ronald Douglas (the Debtor) in possession hereby serves this notice and partitions the Court to order, judge or decree: declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, and/or 536.050 RSMo declaratory judgments granting Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to the heretofore said Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), which suggests that the Federal Communications Commission along with the other defendants may conspiratorially act in furtherance of the heretofore exclaimed conspiracy. In violation of section 47 U.S.C. § 401(a), which provides the district court with jurisdiction over actions by the government in which it alleges failure to comply with the Communications Act, including the charge of broadcasting without a license, granted jurisdiction to the district court over any valid defense to the charges, United States v Dunifer 997 F. Supp. at 1238. (1) Whether we find the analysis in these cases to be persuasive and hold that the district court had and this court has exclusive jurisdiction over the in rem eminent domain action; where the Petitioner request that the Department of the Interior (DOI) develop regulations that would prohibit the sale or transfer of the 2411 and 2417 gardner property as condemned by the City of Moline Acres and Ameren U. E. on or about year 2000 [Moline Acres’ eviction of the Petitioner by their police officers’ unlawful kicking in the doors of the 2417 gardner real property on October 28-2002 and having Ameren U.E. unlawfully disconnect electric service before the electric and mortgage payments were due also the accumulation of theft & vandalism damages (with Safeco, the insurer, included responsibility)] except where such sale or transfer is authorized by an Act of Congress. Including the Debtor’s constitutional challenge to a provision of the heretofore said violations of law conspiratorially made by defendants during the last thirtyeight years (rulemaking) and/or Government owned stations section 47 USCS 305 adopted by defendants as unconstitutionally overbreadth, vague, in violations of Article XIX of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article XIX of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Communications Act 47 U.S.C. 303(g) “necessarily requiring the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress” — through the promulgation of rules and regulations — something that is typically conducted as a matter of course under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (“APA”) and