# tn,ltuniu

# 9Btflll$l, u,o,rsr @rurins
No. 16-316C Fifed: 

### August 15,2016

ROSEMARIE ELIZABETH ANNE HOWELL, et al.,

### Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.



### Rosemarie ElizabethAnne Howell, pro se, Vancouver, Wash.



### Sosun Bae, Trial Attorney, 

### Civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C., 

### for defendant. 

### With Sosun Bae

### was Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

### DeputyAssistant Attorney General, 

### Robert 

### E. Kirschman, 

### Jr., Director, 

### Martin F. Hockey, 

### Jr.,Assistant Director, Civil Division, United States Department ofJustice. 

## OPINION

HORN. J.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Pro se plaintiff Rosemarie Elizabeth Anne Howell filed a complaint with the United States Court

### of Federal Claims on behalf of herself, her spouse Brian P. Howell, "JANE DOE(S) 

### and JOHN DOE(S) 'bio-logical' Ex-Rel(s) HOWELL(S)," 

### and "'The HOWELL FAMILY-OWNED "Sovereign" CORPORATION', 

### 'As'

### the Injured

### /'Legitimate' 

## I Her I Owner

## / True Beneficiary 

# i Person"

### on March 

### 9, 2016.1 

### Construed liberally, 

### in the 

### complaint, 

### plaintiffs allege multiple claims, including 

### fraud, racketeering, domestic terrorism, theft, and murder-for-hire funded by a "SLUSH FUND" of "the CLINTON(S), et
a1."2Although 

### the complaint lists

### four plaintiff parties, Rosemarie Howell

### wasthe only plaintiff to signthe complaint. The complaint, when filed, identified as the defendant:

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP. lNC.. et al.

1Capitalization, grammar, punctuation, emphasis, brackets, and other errors quoted in this Opinion are asthey appear in plaintiffs' submissions.

2 Plaintiffs also include language alleging misconduct by

### the United Parcel Service and 

### the United States Postal Service, although plaintiffs do not assert specific claims against those entities. 

# FILED

AUG

## | 5 2016

U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CI-AIMS 

## @99 Plaintiff; Subject Matter 

### Jurisdiction; Proper 

### Plaintiffs; Proper Defendants; Tort Claims; Criminal Claims; Fraud; 

### Racketeering.

usps-rRAcrrNc, 91J4 9999 4431 3048 1338 00 &CUSTOMER Fo. Tdchng or inquhes oo to aStS c; - - RECEIPT or cal l-8oo-222-r811("AlG, 

### et al."), and the community propefty comprised

thereof, "As" the "ultimate" Holding Company/ Responsible Person / lllegal Exactor / Un-Authorized User/ UnJustly Enriched (Quantum Meruit)

The Clerk's Office filed

### the complaint as itwas received. In subsequent filings, plaintiffs indicated the addition ofthe United States as another defendant along with AlG.

The complaint also includes allegations against 

### a myriad of "'Co-Conspirato(s)"' other than 

### the United States or

### AlG, including Prudential Bancorp, General Dynamics, Ford Motor Co., Pfizer, Inc., and State Farm. Although plaintiffs did not specifically identify 

### the United States 

### asthe defendant 

### until subsequent submissions 

### tothe court, the complaint listsfourteen formal "DEMAND(S),' 

### at least one of

### which lists "The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, 

### et al." as "Co-Conspirato(s)" 

### to "Fraudulent Case(s) (plural's)." This particular demand, "ITEM (Liability) No. 12," includes allegations against AIG acting in concert with the United States judiciary. Despitethe number of alleged co-conspirators 

### to the events described throughout 

### the complaint, plaintiffs make 

### it clear 

### that plaintiffs believe AIG is responsible for every claim:

It 

### is Equitable 

### to note that 

### "in EVERY" lssue/ Matter/ Other the 'Ultimate' Responsible Person / lllegal Exactor (U.S. VAmend.)/ Un-Authorized User 

## / Controller

## / Manager

## / Un-Justly Enriched (Quantum Meruit), 

### is

. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, lNC. et al. ('AlG, et al.').



### The complaint consists 

### of forty-six pages 

### of grievances 

### and demands, 

### and an additional sixteen appendices

### totaling 1

### 30 pages,

### for a cumulative 

### total

### of 176 pages. While 

### the allegations in

### the complaint and 

### the subsequent additions 

### and amendments with which Ms. Howell has inundated the court are often confusing and difficult tofollow, it appears that plaintiffs' claims stemfromtwo, alleged, distinct events.3 First, an alleged December 

### 26, 1984 incident 

### when, according 

### to Rosemarie Howell,

### AIG supposedly ordered 

### a "MURDER-for-HlRE" 

### "'HlT"' 

### on Brian Howell, and, second, 

### from an alleged March 

### 3, 1999

### traffic incident in which, according

## to Rosemarie Howell, hertruck was rear-ended. Plaintiff Rosemarie Howell also allegesthat

### AIG has made attempts 

### at her life since 1978-79, and that her parents and grandparents were "wrongfully EXECUTED," but she gives no details astothese events.

3 Since filing 

### the complaint, Ms. Howell has submitted an amazing quantity 

### of paper to the court, much ofwhich has been repetitive or not relevant to the case inthis court. As thevolume ofthe submissions increased, the court began 

### to return as unfiled a number 

### of plaintiffs' filings, which 

### were not in conformance with 

### the Rules of

### the United States Court of Federal Claims, some ofwhichwere exact copies of previous filings and some ofwhich were not relevant tothe case inthis court.Plaintiffsfurther allegethat 

### the December 

### 26, 1984 "'HlT"' 

### on Brian Howell was

ordered byAlG, orwas ordered by Mr. Howell's own parents, in order for AIGto steal a trust belonging 

### to Rosemarie Howell that allegedly had matured in 1983. Plaintiffs state:
"AlG, et al." used this TRUST Account that Legally Belongs to [me] to FUND [my] desired death (beg. 1978-79) executing the December 26, 1984

### 'HlT" and subsequent Malice Aforethought that proceeded.

Plaintiffs also state:



### the so called CUSTODIAN(S) lack of desire 

### to HAND-OVER said TRUST tothe RIGHTFUL OWNER, obviously orchestrated [in concert] with [the lNLAW(S)I [] a

### for profit "HlT" (December 

### 26, 1984)which made certain the life-altering injuries and neardeath of BRIAN P. 

### HOWE11......,..........and produced...........

[A] 'very' FRAUDULENT TRUST AGREEMENT
Among plaintiffs' many submissions to

### the court, plaintiffs even include an estimatefor dental work dated December 19. 2015. which "was never done 

### for loss of benefits and income; but is a result ofthe December 26, 1984 'HlT' "

With respect tothe 1999 traffic incident inwhich plaintiff Rosemarie Howell's truck

was allegedly rear-ended, Rosemarie Howell claims that significant injuries resultedfrom 

### the collision, andthat she was "inflicted on impact with atrauma induced degenerative spinal cord injury referred 

### to

### as'trauma induced syringomyelia."' According 

### to plaintiffs, the personwho rear-ended Ms. Howell's 

### carwas insured by Safeco Insurance Company. Safeco Insurance Company allegedly issued a claim number, but plaintiffs allege Safeco Insurance Company did not pay damages. Ms. Howell further alleges that onAugust 10, 2001, Safeco Insurance Company attempted to murder her, stating that Safeco Insurance Company "inflicted secondary lifealtering injuries intending my death."

In

### the complaint, plaintiffs demand immediate payment from 

### AlG, and "pro rata" payments 

### from other named co-conspirators, 

### in

### the amount 

### of $112,893,809,252.00. Plaintiffs appear

### to derive 

### the $112,893,809,252.00 figure 

### from 

### a $19,630,391,358.30 demand against alleged co-conspirator Safeco lnsurance Companyfor 

### the 1999 traffic incident, plus

### the accrual 

### of interest at twelve percent per annum, 

### from January 1999 through August 201 3. The $19.63 billion 

### figure is a combination 

### of an insurance claim 

### totaling $19,579,307,200.00, 

## and

# a demand

# for litigation expenses totaling 

### $51,084,158.30. Plaintiffs 

### provide 

### no figures

### to explain 

### how plaintiffs reached the approximately $19.63 billion and$51 million figures for the insurance claim and demand 

### for litigation 

### expenses. Plaintiffs include 

### further demands 

### in the sixteen appendices attached

### tothe complaint, which also include letters sentto

### the co-conspirators in past years demanding awards ofthefollowing:


### 1. AT&

### T isto provide unlimited, FREE services 

### to myself, my family, and 

### my proceeding 

### family, 

### for 

### the balance 

### of our lives.

### The invasion 

### of privacy is illegal.

## 2. Comcast Corporation is

### to provide unlimited, FREE services 

### to myself, 

### my family, 

### and proceeding 

### family, 

### forthe balance 

### of our lives. The invasion

### of privacy, 

### the illegal pornographicfilms, 

### the illegal searching of my home, more than once, is illegal. 

## 3. Ford Motor Company is

### to reimburse ALL monies paidfor the2006, F350, write offthe remaining balance owed onthe 2006, F-350, sign over the title tothe2006, F-350, aswell as fix the damages. 

## 4. Ford Motor Company 

### is

### to provide 

### two (2) NEW, 

### 2008, F-350 trucks loaded, FREE of charge, with lift kits and tires, identical to the2006, F

### 350 purchased

### and damaged 

### beyond repair. Damaging private, personal property is a criminal offense, punishable by law. 

## 5. Ford Motor Company 

## is

## to provide unlimited, 

### FREE

## of charge, mechanical services, for the balance of my life, myfamilies lives,the life 

### of any vehicles purchased, procured. 

### From Ford Motor Company. Stalking and endangering lives is a criminal offense, punishable by law. 

## 6. Honeywell /

### ADT is

### to provide FREE, unlimited services, 

### for life, life 

### of family.


## 7. The

### job Brain

### was offered 

### at Owens-lllinois, the

### job the tap, gps and videos, Safeco Corporation, Comcast Corporation, damaged need to be reinstated, immediately, orthe dollar amount 

### will be adjusted

### to reflect 

### damages, 

### pay, benefits, pension, 

### 401k. 

### etc. Brain 

### is an excellent 

### employee

### and 

### I am fortunate 

### he can 

### work after everything 

### he was through. This 

### was very damaging 

### and unnecessary. 

### Any employer is fortunate to have an employee such as Brianwith his caliber ofwork. 

## 8. Quest isto provide unlimited, free services for life, life of my proceeding family. 

## 9. Dish is

### to provide unlimited, free services 

### for life, life 

### of my proceeding family.

10.ALL ASSOCIATES ARE TO PROVIDE FREE, Unlimited services for life, life of all proceeding family.

'1 1.SWWashington Medical Center, ALL Associates are to stay away from my property, this property neverfor sale. I had plans when purchased.

12.Safeco Corooration. isto:

o Release all copies and originals of my records, bills, personal information, recordings, etc.

4

### .ALL videos 

### are

## to be collected 

### and handed 

### over

## to mv possession.



## . Safeco Corporation 

### is not

### to interfere 

### in my medical care, insurance, or nay of my business for my entire life.



## . Safeco Corporation

# isto adhere

# to all subpoenas immediately.

13.

### ALL Safeco Corporation, 

### Associates, Businesses, 

### Friends, Board members,

### ALL associated businesses are 

### to back off 

### of myfinancials and correct their theft, illegal attacks and bills, including but not limited 

### to, Columbia Collectors, 

### Washington Mutual Bank, 

### SW Washingtor Medical Center, etc. Money Laundering is a criminal offense, punishable by law.


### 14.ALL Safeco Corporation, 

## ALL Business Associates,

### ALL Board Members are

### to stay away 

### from myself, myfamily and my proceeding family, forthe length ofour lives.

Another words, keepyour illegal business deals away from my family.

15.

### Safeco Corporation

### andALL Associated individuals, businesses, partners, board members, physicians, ALL parties, need to collect allthe recordings and deliver them.

16.Safeco Corporation isto adhere to all subpoenas immediately.



### As noted above, since

### the complaintwas filed 

### on March 

### 9, 2016, plaintiffs have submitted 

### a continuous 

### stream 

### of documents 

### to the court, including 

### many irrelevant and/or incomprehensible submissions. The 

### court notes

### just afew examples, including: 

### the same day that 

### the complaint was

### filed, plaintiffs filed 

### a "MOTION To TENDER The 

### DEMAND(S) 

### SATISFIED,' requesting 

### "Habeas Relief," "Seizure 

## by Default (Quo 

### Wananto)," 

### and 

### thatthe demands 

### of

## a November 

### 2, 2015 submission 

### be fulfilled, although 

### the November 

### 2,2015 submission 

### was not attached 

### tothe March 

### 9, 2016 complaint and was only sent tothe court as an appendix onJune 3,2016. Moreover, the submission isvirtually identical to the list of demands filed March 9,2016. On March 28, 2016, defendant submitted 

### a motion

### to stay 

### the plaintiffs' 

### 'MOTIONTo TENDER The DEMAND(S) SATISFIED." On

### April 18,2016, plaintiffs submitted another version ofthe "COMPLAINT' togetherwith other documents, setting out nearly identical demands, but listing 

### the United States 

### as 

### a defendant 

### in addition 

### to

### AlG. Next, 

### on April 26, 2016, plaintiffs submitted

### a letter to

### the United States Social Security Administration. Then, on 

### May 

## 3,2016, plaintiffs submitted multiple documents, including: 'COMPLAINT,' 

### 'SUMMONS,"PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS ToThe COURT's ORDER OfApril 2'1,2016," 

### 'MOTION

### To JOIN PARTIES,''MEMORANDUM In SUPPORT 

### Of MOTION 

### TO JOIN 

### PARTIES,"AFFIDAVIT In Support Of MOTION To JOIN PARTIES,'"-MOTION To JOIN 

### PARTIES

# - FINDINGS 

### Of FACT

## & CONCLUSIONS

### Of LAW," 

### and 'PLAINTIFF'SOBJECTION And RESPONSE To DEFENDANT(S) 

### MoTloN TO STAY RESPONSE TO



### PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS." Subsequently, 

### onJuly 11, 2016, plaintiffs 

### filed another 'MOTION To TENDER The DEMAND(S) SAT|SFlED," along with additional documents.
Despite plaintiffs'frequent failure to comply with the court's Rules and procedural requirements, inthe beginning the court exercised leniency andfiled some ofthe pro se plaintiffs' submissions until it became beyond burdensome, duplicative, and not helpful to 

### the resolution ofthe case before the court. As the case proceeded, as noted above, the court beganto return submissions which were duplicative, nonconforming withthe court's Rules, 

### or not relevant. For example,

### the referenced November 2, 20'15 submission was virtually identical to

### the list of demands filed March 9, 2016. On May 13,2016, plaintiffs submitted the same letter to the Social Security Administration that had been submitted
onApril 

### 26,2016, and which had previously been returned, unfiled on May 6, 2016.

On May 3,2016, defendant movedto dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuantto Rule 12(b)(1) 

### ofthe Rules of

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims (RCFC) (2016), for lack of subject matterjurisdiction, and RCFC 12(bX6) (2016), for failure to state 

### a ctaim uponwhich relief may be granted. On June 3,20't6, plaintiffs submitted an "OBJECTION and RESPONSE To DEFENDANT'S MOTIONTO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLA|NT," which was filed as plaintiffs' response to defendant's motionto dismiss on June 

### 28,2016. 

### Along 

### with

### this response, plaintiffs 

### again submifted

## a revised 

### list 

### of 'QEMANS.IS) 

### (plural's),"

### which

### was nearly identical

### to the complaint 

### and

### tothetwo subsequent attempted, revised complaints, that had each been returned to plaintiff unfiled, as well as 

### a new "MOTION To TENDERTHE DEMAND(S) SATISFIED," and multiple memoranda and affidavits in support ofthat motion, which alsowere returned unfiled to plaintiffs.



# DtscusstoN

The court recognizes that plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, withoutthe assistance of counsel. When determining whether a complaint filed by 

### a pro se plaintiff issufficient 

### to invoke review by 

### a court, pro 

### se plaintiffs 

### are entitled 

### to liberal construction 

### oftheir 

### pleadings. See Haines

### v. Kerner,

### 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (requiring 

### that allegations contained in a pro se complaint be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"), reh'o denied, 405 U.S. 948 (1972); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 

### 89, 9a 

### Q007); Huqhes 

### v. Rowe,449 U.S. 

### 5, 9-10 (1980); Estette

### v. Gambte,429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), reh'q denied, 429 U.S. 1066 (1977); Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320, 

### 1322(Fed.Cir.2014); Diamond v. United States, 115 Fed.

### C|.516, 524,aft'd, 603 F.App'x 947 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 1909 

### (2015). "However, "'[t]here is no duty on the part ofthetrial court to create a claim which [the plaintiffl has not spelled 

### out in his [or her] 

### pleading.""' Lenqen

### v. United 

### States, 100 

### Fed. 

### C|.317,328 (2011) (alterations 

### in original) (quoting Scoqin 

### v. United 

### States,33 Fed. 

### C|.285,293 (199S) (quoting Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. "1975))); see also 

### Bussiev. United 

### States,96 Fed.

### C|.89,94, atfd,443 F.

### App'x 542(Fed. Cir.2011); Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. 

### Cl.249,253 (2007). "While a oro se ptaintiff is held to 

### a less stringent standard than 

### that of 

### a plaintiff represented 

### by an attorney,

### the pro se 

### plaintiff, nevertheless, 

### bears

### the burden 

### of establishing 

### the Court's 

### jurisdiction 

### by a preponderance 

### ofthe 

### evidence." Riles

### v. United States, 

### 93 Fed. 

### Cl. 163, 165 (2010)(citing Huqhes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. at 9 and Tavlor 

### v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359

(Fed. Cir.) ("Plaintiff bears 

### the burden of showingjurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence."), reh'q 

### and reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. 

### Cir.2002)); see also Shelkofskv v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 133, 139 (2014) ("[W]hile the court may excuse ambiguities 

### in

### a pro 

### se plaintiffs complaint, 

### the court 'does not excuse 

### [a complaint's] failures."' (quoting Henke

### v. United States, 

### 60 F.3d 

### 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)); Harris

### v. United States, 113 Fed. 

### C|.290, 292 (2013) ("Although plaintiff's pleadings 

### are held 

### to 

### a less stringent standard, such 

### leniency'with respect 

### to mereformalities 

### does not relieve the burden 

### to meetjurisdictional requirements."' (quoting Minehan v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. at 253)).


### As threshold issues, 

### the court considerswhether 

### the pro

### se representative, Rosemarie Howell, may properly represent allthe plaintiffs listed inthe complaint. Inthe complaint, 

### five plaintiffs 

### are named, including Rosemarie Howell, Brian Howell, "JANE DOE(S) 

### and JOHN DOE(S) 

### 'bio-logical' Ex-Rel(s) HOWELL(s)," 

### and 

### "'The HOWELL FAMILY-OWNED'Sovereign'CORPORATION."'As noted above, the only plaintiff to sign 

### the complaint and 

### to submit 

### filings has been Rosemarie Howell.

### As such, Rosemarie 

### Howell appears

### to be attempting 

### to serve 

### as 

### a pro

### se representative 

### for all named olaintiffs.
According to RCFC 83.1(a)(3) an "individual who is not an attorney may represent oneself or a member of one's immediate family, but may not represent a corporation, an entity, 

### or any other person in any other proceeding beforethis court." RCFC 83.1(a)(3) (2016); see also Talasila. Inc.v. United States 

### ,240 F.3d 1064, 1066 (Fed. Cir.) ("[Plaintiffl must be represented by counsel in order to pursue its claim against the United States in 

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims."), reh'q and reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2001); Finast Metal Prods., lnc. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 

### 759,761 (1987) ('[A] 

### corporate'person'can 

### no more 

### be represented 

### in court 

### by

### a non-lawyer-even its own president 

### and sole 

### shareholder-than can any individual."); Affourtit 

### v. United States, 79 Fed. 

### Cl.776,779 (2006) 

### ('A corporation appearing before 

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims

. 

### . . 

### must 

### be represented

### by an attorney."). 

### This rule applies despite possible financial hardship imposed 

### onthe plaintiffs. See Richdel. Inc.

### v. Sunsoool 

### Coro.,699 F.2d 1366, 1366 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1983) (holdingthat

### the plaintiff's "substantial financial hardship" 

### did not waive the rule requiring corporations to be represented by counsel); see also Balbach v. 

### United States, 119 Fed. 

### Cl. 681, 683 (2015) ("A 

### pro se plaintiff cannot represent a corporation



### . . .The Court cannot 

### waive

### this rule, 

### even

### for cases 

### of severe financial hardship." (citing Affourtit v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. at 780)). 

### Although 

### the complaint 

### names "'The HOWELL FAMILY-OWNED 'sovereign' CORPORATION,"'as a plaintiff inthis case, the complaint does not provide any additional information about this corporation. Specifically, plaintiffs' submissions tothis court do not describe 

### the corporation and 

### do not explain how or

### why Rosemarie Howell should be permitted to represent the corporation inthis lawsuit. Therefore, tothe extent Ms. Howell 

# is attempting

# to represent 

## "'The HOWELL FAMILY-OWNED 'Sovereign' CORPORATION,"' 

### the complaint 

### must 

### be dismissed because, pursuant 

## to RCFC 83.1 (a)(3), a pro se plaintiff cannot represent a corporation.Also named as a plaintiff inthe complaint is Brian Howell. Brian Howell is identified

asthe spouse of Ms. Howell. In plaintiffs' March 9, 2016filing of "FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS 

### OF LAW," plaintiff Rosemarie Howell states 

### "lwas married

### to BRIAN PAUL HOWELL on OCTOBER 25, '1980.'Plaintiff Rosemarie Howell also refersto Brian Howell 

### as her husband in an e-mail,which was included in

### thefilings submitted

### to the court, asking for Brian Howell's pension information. This court has held that a spouse is considered immediate family when considering the ability of a pro se litigant to represent the spouse. See Kooanv. United States, 107 Fed. C|.707 

### ,708-05 (2012) (refening to an order granting defendant's wife, who is not an attorney, the abilityto represent defendant pursuant 

### to RCFC 83.1(aX3)); 

### see also Black's Law Dictionarv 

### 720 (10th ed.2O14) (defining immediate family as including a person's spouse); Chief War Eaqle FamilvAss'n &Treatv 

### of 1837

### & 1917 Reinstatement 

### v. United States, 

### 8'l Fed. 

### Cl.234,234 (2007\ 

### (defining "immediate 

### family members" 

### as

### a person's parents, spouse, children, and siblings) (citing Black's Law Dictionarv 638 (8th ed. 2004)). Assuming forthe sake ofthe motion to dismiss that Brian Howell is currently the spouse of Rosemarie Howell, he is a member of Rosemarie Howell's immediate family and she may properly represent Brian Howell as a pro se representative, assuming they remain married.

In addition 

### to Brian Howell, the complaint also names unidentified "JANE DOE(S) and JOHN DOE(S) 'bioJogical' Ex-Rel(s) 

### HOWELL(S)'as plaintiffs.The relationship 

### of Ms. Howell tothe "JANE DOE(S) and JOHN DOE(S) 'bio-logical' Ex-Rel(s) HOWELL(S),' however, is unclear in

### the complaint, and this court cannot ascertain whether Jane and John Doe are part of Ms. Howell's immediate family. Inthe complaint, plaintiff Rosemarie Howell describes her immediate family in different ways, and, at one point, she includes her

### five children,their spouses, and grandchildren, but

### the complaint 

### does not provide sufficient identifying information.a 

### The United States Court 

### ofAppeals 

### for 

### the Federal Circuit has not clarified whether "immediate family" relates to multi-generational spans or to the spouses of children. Additionally, somejudges on this court have disagreed asto particular interpretations of "immediate family," but generally have maintained 

### a narrow construction. See ChiefWar Eaqle FamilvAss'n &Treatv of 1837 & 1917 Reinstatement
v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. at 234 (declining to include grandparents inthe definition of "immediate family"). Given thatJane and John Doe have not been identified to the court 

### andthe court cannot determine whether 

### a familial relationship exists between plaintiff 

### Rosemarie 

### Howell

### andJane 

### andJohn Doe, 

### Ms. Howell cannot represent these unidentified individuals as a pro se representative.

4Under section "ITEM (Liability) No.4" in

### the list of demands, and under a section titled 'ROSE A. HOWELL, and EX-REL's HOWELL(S)'plaintiffs claim,"'AlG, et al.'cannot 

### pay 

### for the 

### lnjuies that 

### I have sustained 

### in "one 

### Life Time";

### or,the TRAUMA 

### that [my] CHILDREN have endured; or, the immense losses that have so "liberally" been inflicted; or,the protracted HELL that 'is'/ has been politically imposed." The complaint also states: 

### "Since my parent's 

### and grand-parent's 

### have beenwrongfully EXECUTED 

### (28 U.S.C. 52674 112) 'OUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY' includes: Myself (Rosemarie alkla Rose), Brian, [our] Five Children and their Spouses, and [our] grandchildren and [our] preceding family members thereof."

### Plaintiffs 

### alsofiled their lawsuit 

### in this court against 

### an improper defendant,

'AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, lNC., et al." Pursuant to RCFC 10, all claims in 

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims must have "the United States designated as 

### the party 

### defendant." RCFC 10(a) (2016);see also 28 U.S.C S 1491(aX1) 

### (2012).The United States Supreme Court has indicated, for suitsfiled in

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims and its predecessors, "ifthe relief sought is against others than the United Statesthe suit astothem must be ignored as beyond thejurisdiction ofthe

### court." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (citation omitted); see also Kurtv. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 384, 386 

### (2012). Stated difierently, "the only proper defendant 

### for any matter beforethis court isthe United States, not its officers, nor any other individual." Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 588; Mav 

### v. United States, 80 Fed.

### C!.442,444 ("Jurisdiction, then, is limited to suits against the United States."), 

### affd, 293 F.App'x 775 

### (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, 

### this court cannot consider plaintiffs' claims against any defendant other than the United States.
Although 

### the only proper defendant 

### inthis court is

### the United States, plaintiffs 

### consistently identify 

### AIG

## as the defendant 

### and, 

## in plaintiffs' "OBJECTION and RESPONSE 

### To DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

### TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT," plaintiffs attempt to further 

### justify naming AIG as adefendant. Plaintiffs argue that "[t]he Court may at any time, on motion oron its own, onjust terms add ordrop

### a party," and that "[t]he Court hasthe authority to dismiss non-essential parties to preserve jurisdiction." Plaintiffs cite Grupo 

### Datafluxv. Atlas Global Grp., 

### L.P.,541 U.S. 567 (2004) 

### to support their argument. Plaintiffs fail

### to note that this decision refers to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), notto the Rules of

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims. ld. at 572-73. Further, Grupo Dataflux v.Atlas Global Grp., L.P. clarifies thatthe rule permitting the court to add adefendant applies to

### the United States District Courts.

## $g id. at 572- 

### 73 ("it iswell settled

### that [FRCP] 

### 21 invests 

### district courts

### with authority 

### to allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped.") (emphasis added).

The RCFC, notthe FRCP, governthe actions ofthe United States Courtof Federal Claims. Insupport oftheir argument, plaintiffs cite FRCP 21,which states that "the court may at any time, onjust terms, add ordrop

### a palry." Fed. R.Civ. Pro. 21 (2016). While the corresponding RCFC 21 uses identical text, RCFC 20(a), "Persons Who May Join or BeJoined," restricts the eligible parties inthis court. See RCFC 20(a) (2016); RCFC 21. 

### RCFC 20(a)(1) specifies

### the different 

### types

### of plaintiffs

### that may bejoined. RCFC 20(aX1). However, RCFC 20(a)(2), which pertains tothe type of defendants that may be joined, simply says "[Not Used]." RCFC 20(a)(2) (brackets in original). Thus, the language 

### of RCFC 20(a) makes it clear that

### the United States isthe only proper defendant inthis court, andthat 

### this court does not have

### the authority 

### to add defendants otherthan the United States. Therefore, as explained above, AIG may not be identified as a defendant inthis court, neither in

### the complaint, nor as an added party. Further, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt

### to allege claims against Pfizer, Ford, 

### or any other defendant 

### or "Co

### Conspirato(s)" 

### that is not 

### the United States, 

### this court does 

### not havejurisdiction to adjudicate those claims. Accordingly, all of plaintiffs' claims against defendants other than the United States are dismissed for lack of subiect matter iurisdiction.Separate from

### the defects in plaintiffs' complaint concerning

### the proper plaintiffs

and proper defendant inthis court, defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. TheTucker Act, 28 U.S.C.g 1491, grants jurisdiction to this court asfollows:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall havejurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim againstthe United Statesfounded either uponthe Constitution, 

### or any

### Act

### of Congress 

### or any regulation 

### of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract withthe United States

orfor liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.



### 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1a91(a)(1). As interpreted by

### the United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1)founded on an express or implied contractwiththe United States, (2) seeking a refund 

### from 

### a prior payment made

### to the government, 

### or (3) based 

### on federal constitutional, 

### statutory,

### or regulatory 

### law mandating compensation 

### by 

### the federal government for damages sustained. See United States 

### v. Navaio Nation,556 U.S. 287, 

### 289-90 (2009); United States

### v. Mitchell,463 

### U.S.206,216 (1983); 

### see also Greentee Cnty., 

### Ariz. v. United 

### States,487 F.3d 

### 871,875 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q and reh'o en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. 

### denied,552 U.S. 1142(2008); 

### Palmerv. United States, 168 F.3d 1910, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

"Not 

### every claim invoking 

### the Constitution, 

### a federal statute, 

### or

### a regulation is cognizable undertheTucker Act. The claim must be one for money damages against the United States

. . . ." United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. at 216; see also United States v. 

### White MountainApache Tribe, 

### 537 U.S.

### 465,472 (2003); Smith

### v. United States, 709 

### F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied, 134 

### S. Ct. 259 (2013); RadioShack Corp. v. United 

### States,566 F.3d 1358, 1360 

### (Fed. 

### Cir.2009); Rick's Mushroom 

### Serv.. Inc. v. United 

### States, 52'1 

### F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) ("[P]taintiff 

### must.



## . . identify a substantive source 

### of law that creates

### the right 

### to recovery 

### of money damages against 

### the United States."); Golden

### v. United States, 118 Fed. Ct.

### 764,768 (2014). In Ontario Power Generation, Inc.

### v. United States, 

### the United 

### States Court

### of Appeals 

### for the Federal Circuit identified three types of monetary claims for whichjurisdiction is lodged in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court wrote:

The underlying monetary claims are ofthree types.

. . . First, claims alleging 

### the existence 

### of a contract between 

### the plaintiff and 

### the government fall 

### within

### the Tucker 

### Act's

# waiver. Second,

### the Tucker 

### Act's waiver 

### encompasses claims 

### where 

### "the plaintiff 

### has paid money 

### over

### to the Government, directly or in effect, and seeks return ofall or part ofthat sum." Eastport S.S. lCorp. 

### v. United 

### States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 

### 605-06,] 372 F.2d 

### [1002,] 1007-08 [(1967)] (describing illegal exaction ctaims 

### as ctaims "in 

### which 'the Government 

### has

### the citizen's money 

### in its pocket"' (quoting Clapp v. United States

, 127 Ct. Cl.505, 117 F. Supp. 576, 580 (1954))

. . . . Third, the Court of Federal Claims hasjurisdiction overthose claims where "money has not been paid but 

### the plaintiff asserts 

### that he 

### is nevertheless entitled

### to a payment from thetreasury." Eastport S.S., 372 F.2d 

### at 1007.

10

### Claims in this third category, 

### where 

### no payment 

### has been made 

### to the

government, either directly or in effect, require that the "particular provision of law relied upon grants the claimant, expressly or by implication, a right to 

### be paid 

### a certain sum." 

### ld.; see also lUnited States 

### v. lTestan, 

### 424 U.S. 1392,) 401-02 [1976] ("Where

### the United States 

### isthe defendant and the plaintiff is not suing for money improperly exacted or retained, the basis of thefederal claim-whether 

### it be the Constitution, 

### a statute,

### or a regulationdoes not create a cause of action for money damages unless, asthe Court 

### of Claims has stated, 

### that basis 

### 'in itself



# . . can 

### fairly be interpreted as 

### mandating compensation

### bythe Federal Government 

### for the damage sustained."' (quoting Eastport 

### S.S., 372 F.2d 

### at 1009)).

### This category is 

### commonly referred 

## to as claims brought under

## a "money-mandating" statute.

Ontario Power Generation, Inc.

### v. United States, 369 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004);

see alsoTwp. of Saddle Brookv. United States, 't04 Fed. Cl. 101


### , 1OG (2012).


### To prove

### that

## a statute 

### or regulation 

## is money-mandating, 

## a plaintiff must demonstrate 

### that an independent source 

### of substantive 

### law relied upon "'can 

### fairly be interpreted 

### as mandating compensation by

### the Federal Government."' United States v. 

### Navaio Nation, 

### 556 U.S. 

### at 290 (quoting United States 

### v. Testan, 

### 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976)); see also United States v.White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. at 472; United States

### v. Mitchell, 

### 463 U.S. at 217; Blueport Co., LLC

### v. United States, 533 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

### 555 U.S. 1153 (2009).

### The source 

### of law granting monetary relief must be distinct from the Tucker 

### Act itself. See United States

### v. Navaio Nation, 556 U.S. at290 (TheTucker Act does not create "substantive rights; [it issimply 

## al jurisdictional provision[] 

### that operate[s]

## to waive sovereign immunity 

### for claims premised 

### on other sources 

### of law (e.9., statutes 

### or contracts)."). 

### "'lf the statute 

### is not money-mandating, 

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims lacksjurisdiction, and 

### the dismissal 

### should be

### for lack

### of subject matterjurisdiction."' 

### Jan's Helicopter 

### Serv., lnc.

### v. Fed. Aviation

### Admin.,525 F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. 

### Cir.2008) (quoting Greenlee Cntv.. Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d at 876); Fisher

### v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The absence of a money-mandating source is "fatal tothe court'sjurisdiction under the

### TuckerAct."); Peoples v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 553, 

### 565-66 (2009

When deciding a case based on 

### a lack of subject matterjurisdiction orfor failure to state a claim, this court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged inthe complaint

are true and must draw all reasonable inferences inthe non-movant's favor. See Erickson 

### v. Pardus, 

### 551 U.S. 

### at 94 ("[W]hen ruling on 

### a defendant's motion

### to dismiss, ajudge must accept as true all ofthefactual allegations contained inthe complaint." (citing Bell Atl. Corp.v.Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544,

### 555-56 (2007) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002)))); Fid. &Guar. Ins. Undenarriters. Inc.v. United States, 805 

### F.3d 1082, 1084 (Fed. 

### Cir.2015); Trusted Inteqration. 

### Inc.v. United States,659 F.3d

1'159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 201 1).

"Determination ofjurisdiction startswiththe complaint, which must bewell-pleaded in

### that it must state 

### the necessary elements of

### the plaintiffs claim, independent

### of any

11

### defensethatmaybe interposed." Hollevv. United 

### States,124F.3d1462,1465 (Fed. Cir.)

(citing Franchise 

### Tax Bd. 

### v. Constr. Laborers Vacation 

### Trust,463 U.S. 1 (1983)), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl.203, 208 (2011): Gonzalez-McCaullev Inv. Grp., lnc. v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 710, 713 (2010).

### A plaintiff need only state inthe complaint "a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction," and "a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." RCFC 8(a)(1), (2) (2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2) (2016); see also Ashcroft

### v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 

### 662,677-78 (2009) (citing Bell 

### Atl. Corp. v. 

### Twomblv, 

### 550 U.S. 

### 544,555-57,570 (2007)).To properly 

### state 

### a claim

### for relief, "[c]onclusory allegations 

### of law 

### and unwarranted inferences 

### offact 

### do not suffice to support a claim." Bradlevv. Chiron Coro., 136 F.3d 1317

, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also 

### McZeal

### v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 

### 501 F.3d 1354, 1363 

### n.9 (Fed.

### Cr.2007) (Dyk, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (quoting C.Wright and

### A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 1286 (3d ed. 2004)); Briscoe v. LaHue, 663 F.2d 7'13,723 (7th Cir. 1981) ("[C]onclusory 

### allegations unsupported 

### by any factual assertions 

### will not withstand a motiontodismiss."), affd, 460 U.S. 325 (1983). "A plaintiff sfactual allegations must 'raise 

### a right

### to relief above 

### the speculative 

### level' 

### and cross 

### 'the line

### from conceivable to 

### plausible."'Three S Consultinq

### v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 510, 523 (2012) (quoting Bell

### Atl. Corp.

### v.Twomblv, 

### 550 U.S. 

### at 555),

### affd, 562 F.

### App'x 964 (Fed. Cir.), reh'o denied (Fed. Cn.2014). As stated inAshcroft v. lqbal, "[a] pleading that offers'labels and conclusions' or 'aformulaic recitation ofthe elements of a cause of action will not do.' 550 U.S. at555. Nordoes a complaint suffice if ittenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further 

### factual enhancement."' 

### Ashcroft

### v. Iqbal,

### 556 U.S. 

### at 678 (quoting Bell

### Atl. Corp. v. Twomblv,550 U.S. at 555).

Defendant moves to dismiss the claims asserted in plaintiffs' complaint as outside ofthe court's subject matterjurisdiction under theTucker Act,28 U.S.C. 

### g 1a91(a)(1), or for failure to state a claim uponwhich relief may be granted, RCFC 12(bXO). In plaintiffs' "OBJECTION and RESPONSE To DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT,' plaintiffs arguethat a court may resolve issueswithout addressing subject 

### matter 

### jurisdiction. Plaintiffs 

### claim 

### that, "[t]he Supreme 

### Court 

### has recognized two 'threshold grounds'on which a court can resolve a case without addressing subject matter 

### jurisdiction: (1) personaljurisdiction 

### and (2) forum 

### non conveniens." (internal citations omitted). First, plaintiffs 

### cite Ruhrqas 

### AGv. Marathon Oil Co., 

### 526 

### U.S.574 (1999), to argue that, ifa courtfinds personaljurisdiction, the court need not address subject matter jurisdiction. Tothe contrary, "[flederal courts may hear onlythose cases over which they have subject matterjurisdiction." See Semiconductor Enerqv Lab. 

### Co., Ltd.

### v. Naoata, 706 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Subject matterjurisdiction must be 

### presentforthe court 

### to rule 

### on 

### a case, and 

### a case must be dismissed 

### if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See RCFC 12(b)(1)-(2); see also Semiconductor Enerqv Lab. Co.. Ltd.v. Naqata, 706 F.3d 

### at 1368. Plaintiffs misread the Supreme Court's opinion in Ruhrqas to indicate that ifa court has personaljurisdiction, it need not have subject matterjurisdiction.

Plaintiffs 

### also argue 

### thatforum non conveniens allows 

### a court 

### to hear 

### a claim 

### without subject matter 

### jurisdiction. Plaintiffs 

### also fundamentally misunderstand the doctrine offorum non conveniens, which allows a United States District Court to dismiss

12"when an alternative forum hasjurisdiction to hear [the] case, and.

. .trial in



### the chosen 

### forum would establish.

. .oppressiveness 

### and vexation

### to a defendant.



### .. out

### of all proportion

### to plaintiffs convenience, 

### or



## .. .the 

### chosenforum 

### [is] inappropriate 

### because

### of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems."

Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd.v. Malavsia Int'l Shippinq Corp., 549 U.S.

### 422,429 (2007) (quoting American Dredqinq Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443,447-48 (1994) (quoting PiperAircraft Co.


### v. Revno,

### 454 U.S.

### 235,241 (1981); Koster 

### v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Casualtv 

### Co., 330 U.S. 

### 518, 524 (1547))) (ellipses 

### and modifications 

### in original). Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, forum non conveniens is not 

### a method of allowing jurisdiction when subject matter jurisdiction 

### does not exist, rather, 

### it is a method 

### of decliningjurisdiction when jurisdiction may exist, butwhen another court is a more appropriate and convenient forum. See id.; see also Halo Creative & Desiqn Ltd.v. Comptoir Des lndes lnc., 816 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2Q16) ("Forum non conveniens

. . .allows afederal district court to dismiss asuit over which itwould normally havejurisdiction iftrial in aforeign forumwould 'best serve the convenience ofthe parties and the ends ofjustice."'). The Supreme Court has explainedthat 

### a District Court may dispose of an action pursuant to the doctrine 

### of forum non conveniens without 

### first determining 

### whether

### the court has subject matter jurisdictionto hear the case because aforum non conveniens dismissal is a not based on 

### the merits 

### of a case. See Sinochem 

### lnt'l Co. Ltd.

### v. Malavsia Int'l Shippinq Corp., 549 U.S. at 432. The subject matter jurisdiction requirement, however, 

### is not ovenidden by the doctrine

### offorum non conveniens.

Inthe complaint, plaintiffs appear to allege claims underthe Employee Retirement lncome Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.A. S 1001 (2016), which was enacted to "protect interstate commerce and the interests of participants in employee benefit plans." 

### 29 U.S.C. S 10001(b). Plaintiff Brian Howell allegedly holds pensions within

### the ERISA framework with General Dynamics, Sulzer Pumps, and Continental Casualty Co., among others, forwhich plaintiffs appear to be seeking payment. Plaintiffs appear to argue that 

### this court has jurisdiction 

### to hear ERISA 

### claims because ERISA pensions allegedly represent government contracts. Plaintiffs state "ERISA 

### claims are contracts. 28 U.S.C. 

### $1491 (aX1). 

### lnthis case government contracts 

### that are 

### void 

### ab intio." Ostensibly, plaintiffs 

### askthat

### the United States and 

### AIG pay 

### these pensions, although 

### the listed ER|SA-governed pensions, according to the complaint, are held by General Dynamics, 

### Sulzer Pumps, 

### and Continental Casualty 

### Co., among others. 

### The ERISA statute, however, 

### clearly assigns exclusivejurisdiction 

### for claims under ERISA

### tothe United States District Courts, and, in certain circumstances, itgrants concurrent jurisdtction to District Courts and to state courts. See 29 U.S.C. S 1132(e\(1), (f), (k) (2012) ("the district courts 

### of

### the United States shall have exclusivejurisdiction 

### of civil actions under this subchapter brought 

### by 

### the Secretary 

### or by 

### the participant, beneficiary, fiduciary.

. . . State courts of competent jurisdiction and district courts of

### the United States shall have concurrentjurisdiction 

### of actions under paragraphs (1XB) 

### and (7) 

### of subsection (a) of 

### this section.") Moreover, plaintiffs' argument fails on

### the plain language of 

### 28 U.S.C. $ 1501

## , which states, 

### "[t]he United States Court

## of Federal Claims 

### shall 

### not have jurisdiction of any claim for a pension." 28 U.S.C. S 1501 (2012). Any claims asking the 

### federal government 

### to intervene 

### andforce private employers

### to pay

### the pensions

IJallegedly 

### due

### to plaintiffs, 

### orfor the government 

### to pay 

### the pensions 

### in place 

### of the



### private employers, 

### lie outside 

### the subject matterjurisdiction 

### ofthis court and are
dismissed.

Plaintiffsfurther appear

### to make allegations concerning social security disability benefits. From 

### the confusing language in

### the complaint, itseems 

### that plaintiffs

### do not demand that the United States pay social security benefits. To the contrary, the complaint apparently suggests thatthe United States has been paying plaintiffs for social security disability benefits, and plaintiffs believe AIG should reimburse the United States forthose payments: 

### "AlG, et 

### al." 

### is DEMANDED 

### to RE-IMBURSE 

### "the Government, Social 

### Security Department"

### for 

## "all" past paid Social Security Disability Payments made (412811999-present) which [must be] Funded 

### "out-of AlG, 

### et al. legitimately owned 

### Asset's"

## - "AlG, 

### et al." is

### the cause infact 

### of said Disability (r.e., Life-Altering Injuries) and therefore, Responsible As A Matter of LAW.
Regardless, plaintiffs may not bring a social security claim inthis court. The Court of Federal Claims does not havejurisdiction over claims arising underthe Social Security Act. See Addams-More v. United States, 81 Fed. 

### Cl.312,315, affd, 296 F.App'x 45 (Fed. Cir.2008) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470,1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding "that the Claims Court has nojurisdiction under the Tucker 

### Act

. . .over claims to social security benefits.")). The statute at42 U.S.C. S405(g) (2012) instructs that any claimsfor review 

### of social security benefits payment "shall be brought in the district court[s]," and 

### 42 U.S.C. S405(h) further specifies

### that no decision "shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, 

### or governmental agency except 

### as herein provided."

### 42 U.S.C. S405(g), (h). Accordingly, any claimthat plaintiffs intendedto bring againstthe United States regarding social security benefits are dismissed for lack of subject matterjurisdiction.

Defendant 

### also has argued

### that

### this court lacks subject matter 

### jurisdictionto consider plaintiffs' allegationsthat sound in tort or criminal law. Plaintiffs make multiple allegations against AlG, while also implicating the United States, including fraud, "Felony Theft [in concert] 

### with'AlG, et 

### al.,"'and "RICO Enterprising." Plaintiffs demand 

### thatAlG 'RESTORE [our] Reputations" and 

### thatAIG "VACATE, REVERSE, 

### and DISMISS 'all' Judgments

## / Sentences

## / charges

## / other 

### [] in 'every' Case



### . 

### . . ."

### To 

### the extent that 

### plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims 

### of conspiracy, misrepresentation, 

### theft, including identity theft, fraud, and racketeering, those claims sound intort or allege criminal acts.

The Tucker Act expressly excludes

### tort claimsfrom thejurisdiction of

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims. See 

### 28 U.S.C. S 1491(a) ("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 liquidatedor unliquidated damages in cases not soundinq intort.") (emphasis added); 

### see also Keene Corp. 

### v. United 

### States,508 

### U.S.200,214 (1993); Rick's Mushroom Serv.. Inc.

### v. United States, 521 F.3d 

### at 1343;Alves

### v. United States,

14133 F.3d 

### 1454,1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brown

### v. United States, 105 F.3d

### 621,623 (Fed.



### Cir.) ("Because Brown 

### and Darnell's complaints

### for 'fraudulent assessment[s]' are grounded upon fraud,which is atort,the court lacksjurisdiction over those claims."), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 1997); Golden Pac. Bancorp v. United States, 15 F.3d 1066, 1070 n.8 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied, en banc suqqestion declined (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied,513 U.S. 961 (1994); Hampel v. United States, 97 Fed. 

### Cl.235,238, aff

### d,429 F.App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 201 1), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1105 (2012); Jumah v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 603, 

### 607 (2009) 

### ("[]t is well-established 

### that 

### the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims

### does not have 

### jurisdiction

### over

## tort claims. Here, 

## Mr. Jumah seeks damages 

## for '[n]eglect, 

### Im]isrepresentation, 

## flalse Ii]mprisonment, 

### [c]onspiracy, Ii]ntentional Ii]nfliction of emotional [d]istress, [i]nvasion 

### of [p]rivacy, [n]egligence 

### and [t]respass 

### and [p]unitive [d]amages.'These are all claims sounding intort." (internal citation omitted; all brackets in original)), 

### aff'd,385 F.App'x 987 (Fed. 

### Cir.2010); Woodson 

### v. United 

### States,89 Fed. Cl. 640, 

### 650 (2009); Fullard 

### v. United 

### States,77 Fed. Cl.

### 226,230 (2007) ("This court lacks 

### jurisdiction over plaintiff's conspiracy 

### claim because 

### the Tucker 

### Act specifically states that

### the Court 

### of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims 'sounding intort."'); Edelmann 

### v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 376, 

### 379-80 (2007) ("This 

### Court'does not havejurisdiction over claimsthat defendant engaged in negligent, fraudulent, or other wrongful conduct whendischarging its official duties'

. .

## . [and] Plaintiffs' claims offraud, 

### misrepresentation, 

### slander, perjury, harassment, intimidation, 

### coercion,

### theft, and defamation, andtheir claims that the Government deprived Ms. Edelmann of her right to

afair trial, are tort claims." (quoting Cottrell v. United 

### States,42 Fed. Cl. 144,1a9 (1998)); McCullouoh v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 1, 3 (2006), appeal dismissed, 236 F.App'x 615 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir.), cert. 

### denied,552 U.S. 1050 (2007); Aqee 

### v. United States, 

### 72 Fed. Cl. 284, 290 (2006); Zhenqxinq 

### v. United 

### States,71 Fed. Cl.

### 732,739, atl'd, 

### 204 F.App'x 

### 885 (Fed. 

### Cir.), reh'q denied (Fed. 

### Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs' claims sounding intort, such as misrepresentation and conspiracy, must be dismissed 

### for lack of subject matterjurisdiction.

To the extent that plaintiffs are alleging acts of criminal conduct, such as criminal conspiracy, identity theft, criminal fraud, and racketeering, this court also lacksjurisdiction 

### to adjudicate 

### those claims. See Joshua 

### v. United 

### States,17 F.3d 

### 378,379 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Cooper v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl.306, 312 (2012) (holding that "this 

### court does not havejurisdiction 

### over [plaintiff's] claims because 

### the court may review neither criminal matters, nor the decisions ofdistrict courts.") (internal citations omitted); Mendes 

### v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 759, 762, apoeal dismissed, 375 F.App'x 

### 4 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hufford

### v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 696, 702 (2009) (holding that the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims lackedjurisdiction over claims arising from the violation 

### of a criminal statute); Matthews

### v. United 

### States,72 Fed. Cl.

### 274,282 (finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs criminal claims), recons. denied, 73 Fed. Cl. 524 (2006); McCullouqh 

### v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. at 

### 4 (finding that the court lacked 

### jurisdiction 

### to consider plaintiff's criminal claims). Accordingly, plaintiffs' allegations asserting criminal acts, such asfraud, racketeering, identity theft, and "Felony Theft" must be dismissed for lack of subject matterjurisdiction.

Furthermore, plaintiffs' claims appear totryto implicatethe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. S552 (2012), but it is unclear exactly how. Plaintiffs refer to:

15

### ln Re (Govemment).

APPEAL(OlP) No. 201 5-0471 5 And 

### *'FREEDoM OF INFORMATION ACT

### APPEAL" (OSG) No. 201 5-1 19560.

Plaintiffs' claim lists

### a ""FO|A' 

### APPEAL' and an Office 

### of Information Policy (OlP) case number. Regardless, the Court of Federal Claims has nojurisdiction to adjudicate FOIA claims, as Congress explicitly vested exclusivejurisdiction regarding those matters inthe United States District Courts. See 

### 5 U.S.C. S 552(aX4XB); 

### see also Gaines

### v. United States, 226 Ct. Cl. 691, 692 (1981) ("Congress hasvested jurisdiction not in [the United States Court of Federal Claimsl but inthe district courts over Freedom of Information and Privacy Act claims."). Therefore, any FOIA appeals may not be the basisfor filing a claim inthis court, and must be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction.

In "PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION and RESPONSE To DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO 

### DISMISS' plaintiffs 

### also appear 

### to allege "contracts-based claims." 

### Although plaintiffs 

### correctly indicate 

### that 

### this court has subject matter

### jurisdiction

### to consider breach 

### of contract claims against 

### the United States, plaintiffs do not explain their "contracts-based claims" or setforth any facts to support 

### a breach of contract claim. Specifically, plaintiffs 

### do not appear 

### to even allege 

### that 

### a contract 

### exists between plaintiffs 

### and

### the United States.As a result, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief with regard to any alleged contract claims.5
Further, in plaintiffs' "OBJECTION and RESPONSE 

### To DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

### TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLA|NT," plaintiffs, for the first time, raise constitutional clause violations against 

### the United 

### States. Plaintiffs 

### allege violations 

### of the Takings 

### Clause, Due Process 

### Clause, Privileges 

### and lmmunities Clause, Cruel 

### and Unusual Punishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Privacy Clause, and Commerce Clause.
Regarding plaintiffs' claims alleging aviolation of due process, 

### the United States 

### Court 

### of Appeals 

### for

### the Federal Circuit 

### has held 

### that 

### this court 

### does not possess jurisdiction 

### to consider claims 

### arising under

### the Due Process Clauses 

### ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments tothe United States Constitution. See Crocker v. United States, 

### 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997) (citing LeBlanc

### v. United States, 

### 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995)) (nojurisdiction over 

### a due process violation under

### the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); see also Smith

### v. United States, 709 F.3d 1114, 1116 (Fed. 

### Cir.) ("The 

### law 

### iswell setlled

### that

### the Due Process clauses 

### of both 

### the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not mandate the payment of money and thus do not provide

a cause ofaction under the TuckerAct." (citing LeBlancv. United States, 50 F.3d at 1028), cert. denied, 134 S.

### Ct.259 (2013)); In re United 

### States,463 F.3d 1328, 1335 n.5 (Fed. Cir.) ("[B]ecause the Due Process Clause is not money-mandating, it may not provide the

5

### Tothe extent plaintiffs allege 

### aviolation 

### ofthe Contract Clause 

### ofthe United States Constitution,this court does not havejurisdiction 

### to entertain such a claim because the Contract Clause "is a prohibition directed atthe states, and not the federal government." McNeil 

### v. United States, 78 Fed. 

### Cl.211,225 (2007), 

### affd,293 F.App'x 758 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also U.S. Const. art. l,

### $ 10, cl. 1.
tobasis forjurisdiction under the Tucker Act."), reh'q and reh'q en banc denied (Fed. Cir.

2006), cert. denied sub nom. Scholl v. United States, 552 U.S. 940 (2007). The court also 

### does not havesubject mafterjurisdiction 

### for claims brought under 

### the Privileges and lmmunities Clause 

### of

### the United States Constitution. McCullouqh

### v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. at

### 4 ("[N]either 

### the FifthAmendment Due Process Clause.

. . nor

### the Privileges 

### and lmmunities Clause provides 

### a basis for

### jurisdiction in

### this court because 

### the Fifth Amendment is not asource that mandates the payment of money to plaintiff.").

Furthermore,

### this court does not havejurisdiction over claims brought under the Cruel 

### and Unusual Punishment Clause of

### the Eighth Amendment 

### tothe United States Constitution. 

### See Tasbv 

### v. United States, 

### 91 Fed.

### Cl.344,346 (2010) ("[T]he Eighth 

### Amendment prohibitions 

### of excessive 

### bail 

### or fines, 

### as well

### as cruel

### and unusual punishment, are not money-mandating.") (citation omitted)); Hernandez v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 193, 198 (2010) ("Plaintiff avers 

### that his rights under 

### the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Ninth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were

### violated. None of these claims allege 

### aviolationfor which money damages are mandated."); Trafnv v. United States, 503 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("The Court of Federal Claims does 

### not have

### jurisdiction over claims arising under 

### the Eighth Amendment, 

### as 

### the Eighth Amendment 'is not a money-mandating provision."') (citations omitted).


### In addition, 

### this court 

### does 

### not have subject matterjurisdiction 

### over claims grounded 

### in

### the Equal Protection Clause 

### of

### the FourteenthAmendment 

### to 

### the United States Constitution. Seg LeBlancv. United States, 50 F.3d at 1028 (indicating that a claim under 

### the Equal Protection Clause 

### of 

### the Fourteenth 

### Amendment 

### is not sufficient 

### for jurisdiction in

### the United States Court 

### of Federal Claims because 

### it does not "mandate payment of money by the government." (citing Canuth v. United 

### States,224 Ct. Cl.422,
aas (1980))); Potter v. United States, 108 Fed. 

### Cl.544,548 (2013) (findingthat "this Court 

### lacks jurisdiction 

### over violations under 

### the Due Process Clauses 

### of the Fifth and FourteenthAmendments



### . . . becausethey 

### do not mandate payment 

### of money by the government.") (internal citations 

### omitted) (modifications 

### in original); 

### Warren

### v. United 

### States, 106 Fed. 

### Cl. 507,511 (2012) (holding

### that, since 

### the "FourteenthAmendment guarantee 

### of equal protection" 

### is not money mandating, "[a]ccordingly,

### the court lacks jurisdiction overthese claims.").

Likewise, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims rooted in,
as plaintiffs frame it, the "'Privacy 

### Clause'of the U.S. Fourth Amendmenf)," asthe court 

### has nojurisdiction over any claim based on

### the Fourth Amendment. 

### See LaChance v. United States, 15 Cl. 

### Ct. 127,130 (1988) ("[T]he fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money bythe United States." (citing Shaw v. United States, 

## I Cl. Ct. 796, 800 (1985))); Roberson v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl.

### 234,240 ("The Fourth Amendment 

### is not money-mandating." (citing Brown

### v. United States, 105 F.3d 621


### , 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997))), appeal dismissed, 556 F.App'x 966 (Fed. Cir.2014); Haka v. United States, 107 Fed. 

### Cl. 111,113-14 (20't2); Kam-Almaz 

### v. United States, 

### 96 Fed. 

### Cl. 84, Bg (2011) ("[T]his Court 

### does not havejurisdiction 

### to hear claims contesting 

### the laMulness 

### of a search and seizure because due process and FourthAmendment claims are reserved to the 

### DistrictCourt." (citing LeBlancv. United States.50 F.3d 1025,1028 (Fed. Cir. 1995))),

17

### affd,682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. 

### Cir.2012). Accordingly, 

### all ofthe plaintiffs' above-identified

constitutional claims are dismissed for lack of subject matterjurisdiction.

Plaintiffs also appear to tryto allege aviolation of the Takings Clause of

### the Fifth Amendment 

### tothe United States Constitution. but Dlaintiffs demonstrate afundamental misunderstanding 

### of the Takings Clause 

### by invoking 

### it against private entities and individual 

### persons. For instance, plaintiffs 

### state, "'AlG, 

### et al.' took and kept 

### on taking (lllegally Exacting what does not belong thereto (U.S. V Amend.))."

Plaintiffs also state: 

### "AlG, 

### et al." RICO Enterprising 

### by andthrough consecutive politically motivated 

### "HlT(S)' 

### for 

### the premeditated intent

## / purpose 

### of ILLEGALLY EXACTING (U.S. 

### VAmend.) """""Sovereign Wealth(s)

### / Sovereign(s)" that 

### "are"

### the Legal, 

### Vested, Rightful, "Legitimate" Birthright

# / Heritage of ROSEMARIE E.A. (nee'VIKARA) 

### HOWELL""' Manifested Damages of an Inconceivable Degree;
NONETHELESS, 

### "AlG, et al." is Legally Responsible 

### and [must 

### be] held Accountable 

### AsA Matter 

### of LAW.

Tothe extent plaintiffs allege any violation ofthe FifthAmendment Taking Clause by 

### the United States, plaintiffs appear

### to be arguing 

### a conspiracy between 

### the United States and AlG, as follows:



### Plaintiffs' "demands"

### are well-pled [vested claim's] 

### that 

### the UNITED STATES [in concert] with AlG, et al. (defendant's and co-defendant's) 

### '?nauthorized" TAKING (citing

### the 

### "Takings Clause" olthe U.S.V Amend) has [made certain] whenviolating an 'infant child' (l.e., the plaintiff) and kept

ontruckin' with the "intent" of Defrauding the plaintiff out-of [her] Inheritance.
Although plaintiffs try to assert a claim under theTakings Clause,which, if properly filed, could fallwithin the purview ofthis court'sjurisdiction, plaintiffs do not even identify

a property interest owned by plaintiffs that was allegedly taken bythe United States, which is a necessary part of avalid Fifth Amendment Takings claim. The United States Court of Appeals 

### for

### the Federal 

### Circuit has established 

### a two-part 

### test 

### to determine whether government actions amount

### to ataking 

### of private property under

### the Fifth Amendment. See Klamath lrr. Dist.

### v. United 

### States,635 F.3d

### 505,511 (Fed. 

### Cir.2011); Am. Pelaoic Fishinq Co.

### v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (citing M &

### J Coal Co. v. United States, 

### 47 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 

### 516 U.S. 

### 808 (1995)), reh'q denied (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1139 (2005). A courtfirst determines whether a plaintiff possesses a cognizable property interest inthe subject ofthe alleged 

### takings. Then, 

## the court must determine

### whether

## the government

### action

## is a "'compensable taking ofthat property interest."' Huntleiqh USA Corp v. United States, 525 F.3d 1370, '1377 (Fed. Cir.) (quoting Am. Pelaqic Fishinq Co., L.P.

### v. United States, 379 F.3d 

### at 1372), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1045 (2008).

18To establish ataking, 

### a plaintiff must have 

### a legally cognizable property interest,



### such

### asthe right

### of possession, 

### use, 

### or disposal 

### of the property. 

### See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV 

### Corp.,458 

### U.S.419,435 (1982) (citing United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945)); CRV Enters., Inc.

### v. United 

### States,626 F.3d 1241

### ,1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 

### 563 U.S. 

### 989 (2011); Karuk 

### Tribe of Cal. v. Ammon, 209 F.3d 1366,1374-75 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q denied and en banc suqqestion denied (Fed. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 941 (2001). "'lt is axiomatic that only persons with 

### a valid property interest 

### at the time 

### of the taking are entitled 

### to compensation."' Am. Pelaqic Fishinq Co. 

### v. United States, 379 F.3d

### a| 1372 (quoting Wvatt 

### v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002) and citing Cavin
v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131

, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Therefore, "[i]fthe claimant fails to demonstrate the existence ofa legally cognizable property interest, the courts [sic] task is

### atan end."Am. Pelaqic Fishino Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (citing Maritrans lnc. v. United 

### States,342 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and M &J Coal Co.v. United 

### States,47 F.3d 

### at 1154). 

### The court does not address 

### the second step "without first identifying a cognizable property interest."Air Peqasus of D.C.. lnc.v. United States, 424 F.3d 1206, 1213 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Am. Pelaoic Fishinq Co.

### v. United 

### States,379 F.3d at 1381 and Conti 

### v. United 

### States,291 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir.), reh'q en bancdenied (Fed. 

### Cir.2002), cerl. denied, 

### 537 U.S. 1112 (2003)), reh'q denied 

### and reh'q 

### en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2005). Only ifthere is

### to be

### a next step, "'after having identified avalid property interest, 

### the court must determine whether 

### the governmental 

### action 

### at issue amounted 

### to a compensable taking 

### of that property interest."' Huntleioh USA Corp. v. United 

### States,525 F.3d 

### at 1378 (quoting Am. Pelaqic Fishinq Co. 

### v. United 

### States,379 F.3d 

### at 1372).
Here, plaintiffs have failed

### to allege ordemonstrate 

### a legally cognizable property interest 

### and make 

### only unsupported, bald allegations 

### which are insufficient

### to support plaintiffs' 

### takings claim. 

### As noted above, "conclusory allegations unsupported 

### by any factual assertions will not withstand a motion to 

### dismiss." Briscoe v. LaHue. 663 F.2d at 723; see also Bradlev v. Chiron Corp., 136 F.3d 

### 1317,1322 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1998) (noting, in discussion of motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), that "[c]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences offact do not suffice to support a

### claim"). In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the factual allegations setforth inthe complaint "must be enough 

### to raise 

### [plaintiffs] rightto 

### relief above 

### the speculative 

### level." BellAtlantic Corp.

### v. Twombly, 

### 550 U.S.

### at 555 (quoting C. Wright and

### A. Miller, Federal Practice

### and Procedure S 1216, p.235-36 (3d ed.

### 2004). As stated inAshcroft v. lqbal, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions'


### or 'aformulaic recitation of

### the elements 

### of a cause 

### of action

### will not

### do."' Ashcroft v. lqbal, 556 U.S. at678 (quoting BellAtlantic Corp. v.Twomblv, 550 U.S. at

### 557). Because plaintiffs offer only vague and conclusory allegations that trusts and property were stolen by

### AlG, not

### the United States, without even demonstrating a legally cognizable property interest, the courtfindsthat plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the Takings Clause ofthe Fifth Amendment.

CONCLUSION



### Defendant's 

### motion

## to dismiss

## is GRANTED, 

### and plaintiffs' complaint is

19DISMISSED. The Clerk's Office shall enter JUDGMENT consistent with this Opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ARIAN 

### BLANK HORN 

### Judge

20