Are the Appellees' inverse condemnation actions without eminent domain proceedings but for 'private benefit' consistent with United States property acquisition procedures?

1. Are the Appellees [’] -Defendants [’] inverse condemnation actions without eminent domain proceedings but for “private benefit ” consistent with any proper United States property acquisition procedure? 2. Does local government noncompliant public administration under O.C.G.A. § 36-66-2 supersede the United States Constitution to take property interest for “private benefit! ” 3. Should the trial court decide on Constitutionally protected property interests and due process? 4. Does the trial court order properly overlook the United States Supreme Court jurisdiction? 5. Is it proper to consider the AppelleesDefs., Geosam et al., and the United States or it’s Departments or Agencies as the same entity? 6. Is Fed. R. Civ. P 71.1 for condemning real or personal (Indigenous) property appropriate for private benefit matters? 7. Should the PETRS f]-APPELLANTS [’]PLS.[ ’] Complaint for property deprivation conversion without due process be overlooked?