Does the State employee judge Andrew Wilkinson's orders refusing to join the State, and voiding the deeds of Petitioner that contested the State's colorable claim to the 'abandoned railroad' that Petitioner asked the court to quiet title thereto, constitute a 'taking' under the 5th amendment when the order exceeds the municipalities police power, prohibits the rightful owner of using and/or disposing of said land, exceeds the 'in rem' jurisdiction of the trial court, and when the deeds were valid transfers of land that indisputable complied with the subdivision ordinance because the trial court found facts and applied the doctrine of merger?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Town of Keedysville, Maryland’s (the “Town’) Subdivision Ordinance defines a “subdivision,” wherein that definition, in its pertinent part, excludes from its regulation: . the transfer or sale of land between owners of adjoining properties which does not involve the creation of any new buildable lots under the terms of the Keedysville Zoning Ordinance shall not constitute a subdivision... QUESTIONS A. Does the State employee judge Andrew Wilkinson’s orders refusing to join the State, and voiding the deeds of Petitioner that contested the State’s colorable claim to the “abandoned railroad” that Petitioner asked the court to quiet title thereto, constitute a “taking” under the 5th amendment when the order exceeds the municipalities police power, prohibits the rightful owner of using and/or disposing of said land, exceeds the “in rem” jurisdiction of the trial court, and when the deeds were valid transfers of land that indisputable complied with the subdivision ordinance because the trial court found facts and applied the doctrine of merger? i of xiii B. If so, did the trial court error in denying Petitioner’s jury trial on this substantively new claim for just compensation when the trial court : found the fact that the States name on the plat at issue was a “scrivener’s error, nothing more?” ii of xiii