Richard E. Warner, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Ardolino, II, et al. v. City of Marathon, Florida

In this Taking by Regulation case, under the Fifth Amendment and Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 US 393, 413 (1922) (“Mahon”) et al., Petitioners (the “Estate”) ask this Court to clarify the Federal Common Law on the following questions: A. Who Decides? Did San Remo’s and this case’s using the Full Faith and Credit Statute/28 USC §1738, mistakenly delegate this Court’s final interpretation of the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, to State Courts? Do the Supremacy Clause, Marbury v. Madison, Trump v. Anderson, Exxon-Mobil v. Saudi Basic Industries, 42 USC 1983 et al., prevent State Courts from definitively interpreting the Fifth Amendment in Partial Taking-By-Regulation claims? B. Is “Reverse Spot Zoning” of an existing, legal business, a categorical, per se regulatory taking, under Penn Central? Are Florida Courts and this case mistakenly only using the multi-factor/development/residual value Penn Central formula, for this partial taking? Are reverse spot zoning and destroying an existing legal business by a secret zoning amendment and “abandonment” (the “Zoning Amendment”) both presumed to be per se Fifth Amendment takings? C. Who decides, “Was there a ‘Taking’?” Should the Fifth Amendment and Due Process,