J 

lf n tbe Wniteb ~tates Qeourt of jf eberal Qelaitns 

No. 17-541C 

(Filed: September 14, 2017) 

************************************* 

* 

BARTN. VELARDE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

************************************* 

OPINION AND ORDER 

FILED 

SEP 1 4 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

Bart N. Velarde, a pro se plaintiff, alleges that the United States has committed 

violations of law as a result of its conduct in the Philippines throughout its history. The 

Government has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For 

reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion to dismiss Mr. 

Velarde's claims. 

Background 

Mr. Velarde is a U.S. citizen and a resident of the State of Michigan. Compl. at 2. 

He alleges that the United States has committed three violations of law resulting from its 

involvement in the Philippine Revolutionary War, the Spanish-American War and the 

American-Filipino War: "[m]urder, [g]enocide [and] [c]rimes [a]gainst [h]umanity." Id. 

at 3. Mr. Velarde further alleges that the United States is responsible for the deaths of 2.5 

million innocent Filipino men, women and children through the use of armed forces and 

that from 1899 to the present, the United States has covered up and perpetuated these 

alleged violations by adopting a policy of "neocolonialism." Id. at 4-5, 9. 

On April 17, 2017, Mr. Velarde filed a complaint before this Court against current 

U.S. President Donald J. Trump, seeking $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 

million in punitive damages from the Government for the alleged violations described 

above. Id. at 11. The Government filed a Rule 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss on June 9, 20 17. 

7017 1450 ODDO 13 46 4162 
Gov.'s Mot. at 1. The parties completed briefing on the motion to dismiss on August 28, 

2017 and the Court has deemed oral argument unnecessary. 

Discussion 

The Tucker Act ordinarily is the focus of subject matter jurisdiction in this Court, 

and states: 

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have 

jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the 

United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act 

of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or 

upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or 

for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding 

in tort. 

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(I). The Tucker Act itself "does not create a cause of action." RHI 

Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459, 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, a plaintiff 

must identify a "separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money 

damages" in order to invoke the Court's jurisdiction over a claim. Greenlee County, Ariz. 

v. United States, 487 F.3d 871, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Fisher v. United States, 402 

F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Failure to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act 

requires the Court to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(l). Outlaw v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 

656, 658 (2014). When deciding a Rule 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss, a court must assume 

all the undisputed facts in the complaint are true and draw reasonable inferences in the nonmovant' s favor. Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 91 (2007). Courts hold pleadings made 

by pro se plaintiffs to a less stringent standard and liberally construe language in the 

plaintiffs favor. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

However, Mr. Velarde's claims do not survive the 12(b)(I) motion to dismiss. 

This Court only has jurisdiction to entertain claims against the United States. 28 

U.S.C. § 149 l(a)(I ); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941); Moore v. Public 

Defenders Office, 76 Fed. Cl. 617, 620 (2007) ("When a plaintiffs complaint names 

private parties, or local, county, or state agencies, rather than federal agencies, this court 

has no jurisdiction .... "). Mr. Velarde has not named any federal agency or the United 

States as a defendant; rather, he has named the current President of the United States, 

Donald J. Trump, as the sole defendant. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction 

over Mr. Velarde's claims. 

Additionally, Mr. Velarde fails to identify any separate source of substantive law 

creating a right to monetary damages. In his complaint, the only source oflaw Mr. Velarde 

2 
refers to is A1iicle II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "The President, Vice 

President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on 

Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 

Misdemeanors." U.S. Const. art. II, § 4. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction 

over invocations of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution because monetary damages are 

not available under this provision. Delmore v. United States, No. l l-556C, 2011 WL 

5120484, at * 1 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 30, 2011 ). Further, in his response to the Government's 

motion to dismiss, Mr. Velarde points to "the new [e]conomic definition of Modern 

Politics" to establish this Cami's jurisdiction over his claims. Pl. 's Resp. at 6. However, 

this is not a valid source of substantive law creating a right to monetary damages. 

Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Velarde's claims. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, the Government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. No costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

3 

wWW"~ c _ 1a 

THOMAS C. WHEELER 

Judge