Whether District of Columbia courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving judicial taking of private property without due process and just compensation

1. Do the District of Columbia courts, under the Congressional authority of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving the judicial taking of private, non-commercial, non-industrial, non-agricultural, and non-income producing property used for shelter and not statutorily defined as being “in the District of Columbia ” 1 without due process of law as just compensation provided in advance? 2. Are the District of Columbia courts equipped to interpret federal banking regulations issued from the National Banking Act of 1864, the Bank Holding Companies Act of 1956, and title 12 of the US Code of Federal Regulations on Banks and Banking to determine the proper standing of a national banking association to initiate litigation as party to a case concerning private property unsuitable for its business use in the DC Superior Court? 3. Should District of Columbia courts allow attorneys to appear and litigate on behalf of national banking associations or any corporation without proof of the authorities they were delegated by board-level decision or active status in the bar association, as required by the rules of professional conduct, DC Appellate Court Rule 49, and 7 Corpus Juris Secundum § 62? 2 1 DC Code § 47-2201 Definitions, (d) "In the District" and "within the District" mean within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia and include all territory within such limits owned by the United States of America. 2 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 62 (1937): An attorney may not even appear in a cause of action without some form of authority from the party on whose behalf he appears. Lofberg v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 264 Cal. App. 2d 306, 308, 70 Cal. Rptr. 269, 270 (1968) 4. Should "void orders" issued by clerks or unnamed judges, whose clear bias mandates automatic disqualification by law, to attorneys unauthorized to appear in courts operating outside their jurisdiction be enforced by federal law enforcement officers deployed to transfer private, non-commercial property to agents not party to any case, thereby causing irreparable harm to private people peaceably acting in their private capacity? 5. Is the District of Columbia authorized to deploy US Marshals to seize private property by order of its courts which violates public policy on homelessness prevention? 3 Is this power granted at the discretion of its administrative law judges or is such enforcement limited to “lawful orders ” issued through due process of its courts? 3 (42 use §11301, 42 USC §11311, 42 USC § 3531)