# ORIGINAL FILED

IJntbe 

# @nite! $rtstts @ourt of

# frlerul @lsfms

No. 18-841C 

### (Filed: July 19,2018)
*,f * ************ ********* **{. .** **** 

### EDWARD THOMAS KENNEDY"

Plaintiff, Pro Se 

### Plaintiff; Sua Soonte 

### Dismissal; Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction; RCFC 12(hX3); Proper Defendant; 

### Civil Rights 

### Claims;Tort Claims; Criminal Matters; 

### Frivolous Claims; CollateralAttack 

## of Prior Decisions; Equitable 

### Relief; 28 U.S.C. 

### $ | 63 | : In Forma Pauperis Defendant. 

### **:*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

### *,t***

Edward Thomas Kennedy, 

### Breinigsville, PA, pfS_Cg.
Sean 

### Kine, United States Department 

### of Justice, Washington, 

### DC, for defendant. 

### OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Chief Judge


### Inthis case, 

### plaintiff Edward Thomas Kennedy, proceeding p1q5e, appears

### to allege

### that various federal and state actors kept

## hin in constructive 

### financial imprisonment after a state 

### judge in Texas declined 

### to vacate a

### judgment against 

### him. Mr. Keruredy seeks $30

### million in damages 

### from each

### of several 

### individuals and entities 

### identified in his 

### complaint plus 

### attomey fees, costs, interest, and declaratory and 

### injturctive 

### relief. Mr. Kennedy also 

### filed an

### application to proceed 

### in forma 

### pauperis. As explained 

### below, the court lacks

### jurisdiction to consider 

### Mr. Kennedy's 

### claims. Thus,

### without awaiting a response 

### from defendant,the court grants 

### Mr. Kennedy's application to proceed 

### informa pauperis and dismisses his 

### complaint. 

## I. BACKGROT]ND
On 

### November 10, 2003, 

### Mr. Kennedy 

### filed adocument 

### titled "Petition in the Nature 

### of a Petition 

### toVacate a

### Void Judgment and 

### CollateralAttack Oklahoma Statute 

### Title 12, Sections 1031, 1038" in the 

### Tarrant County, Texas state

### district court.l,2 Seesenerally Pet., 

### Blumbers v. 

# t The court derives the facts 

### inthis section

### from the allegations set

### forth in 

### plaintiffs complaint andfacts

### of which the court may 

### takejudicial notice pursuant 

### to Rule 201 

### ofthe Federal Rules

### of Evidence. 

### 2 Oklahoma state 

### trial courts "have power to vacate or 

### modify [their] own judgments 

### or orders," on the basis 

### of fraud or otherwise, 

### within specified 

### time 

### limits. Okla. Stat.

### Ann.

### tit. 12, 

### JUL

# t9 20|8 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS



### THE TINITED STATES,



## 7017 

# I'r50 0000 13rrh q53?

### Mr. Kennedy has

### filed, since October 2017 alone, at least

### twenty-onefederal lawsuits 

### in

Pennsylvania, 

### New 

### York, and elsewhere, 

### four of which he has

### voluntarily dismissed.
On June 

### 12,2018, 

### Mr. Kennedy 

### filed the instant suit, 

### which shares 

### similarities 

### with the cases discussed above.5 Seeqenerallv 

### Compl. He names several defendants 

### inhis complaint: 

### Mr. Blumberg, Blumberg 

### & Associates 

### (Mr. Blumberg's former law 

### firm), Mr. Bagley, Blumberg

### & Bagley 

### LLP (Mr. Blumberg's and 

### Mr. Bagley's current 

### law

### firm), Judge Sudderth, the State Bar 

### of Texas, the State 

### of Texas, 

### Mr. Kennard, Nelson 

### & Kennard 

### (Mr. Kennard's 

### law firm), the State Bar 

### of Califomia, Patelco 

### Credit Union (a 

### Northem Califomia-based credit 

### union chartered under 

### Califomia law), Steven Temer 

### Mnuchin (Secretary 

### oftheTreasury), the 

### United States Departrnent 

### of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank 

### of New 

### York, Thomas 

### Marshall (General Counsel and Executive 

### Vice President

### ofthe United States Postal Service), Megan Brennan 

### (United States Postmaster General and 

### Chief Executive 

### Officer of the 

### United States Postal Service), the 

### United States Postal Service, and the 

### United States federal 

### govemment. Id. He contends that 

### "[e]ach defendant is an agent 

### ofthe other, and each has his place in the 

### chain" of responsibility and thus

### all defendants are

### "vicariously liable for each instance

### of 

### injury." Id. tT?1


### At bottom, 

### Mr. Kennedy alleges thatthe 

### identified 

### defendants-"directly, through an agent, or 

### in concert

### with one 

### another"-have kept 

### him 

### in "constructive financial imprisonment." Id. flfl 

### 2-3. Mr. Kennedy refers 

### tothe 

### identified defendants as 

### "[k]idnappers" and 

### "[b]andits," apparently 

### in connection 

### with his description 

### of financial imprisonment as a loss 

### ofliberfy and his allegations thatthe 

### identified defendants have refused to 

### retum stolen 

### property. Id.

### fllf 1-3. 

### Mr. Kennedy vaguely alludes

### to "personal 

### property" and 

### "trade secrets," 

### id.fl 3 1,

### but does 

### not otherwise 

### identif) the 

### property or tuade secrets he alleges to have been stolen beyond stating generally that money is owed to 

### him.
In his 

### complaint, 

### Mr. Kennedy alleges: 

# e After Mr. Blumberg 

### "lied under oath 

### in documents and records" 

### provided to 

### him 

### in connection 

### with the

### Tanant County case 

### in 2003, Judge Sudderth 

### "ignored [his] petition to 5 The day 

### prior, 

### Mr. Kennedy 

### filed two other, unrelated actions in this court, neither 

### of which is assigned to the undersigned; both caseswere dismissed on June 29, 2018,

### for lack

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. Kennedy 

### v. United States, 

### No. 18-830C, 2018 

### WL 3214049 

### (Fed. Cl. June

### 29,2018); Kennedyv. United States, 

### No. l8-826C,2018 

### WL 3214115 (Fed. 

### Cl. June 

### 29,2018). Also on June 11, 2018, 

### Mr. Kennedy 

### filed anaction in the 

### United States 

### Tax

### Cout. Kennedv 

### v. Comm'r, 

### No. 011586-18 

### (T.C. 

### filed June 

### 11,2018). Since

### filing the instant 

### complaint, 

### Mr. Kennedy has

### filed six additional actions 

### in this court, one 

### of which is assigned 

### to the 

### undersigned. Kennedy 

### v. United States, 

### No. 

### 18-1030C(Fed.Cl.filedJuly11,2018); K9.ucdy_y-U!4gd 

### ftate!, No. 18-1029C (Fed. 

### Cl.

### filedJuly 11, 2018); Kennedv v. 

### United States, 

### No. 18-1028C (Fed. 

### Cl.

### filedJuly 11, 2018); Keruredy

### v. United States, 

### No. l8-1027C (Fed. 

### Cl.

### filedJuly 11, 2018); Kennedv 

### v. United States, 

### No. 18-1006C (Fed. 

### Cl.

### filed July 11, 2018); Kennedv v. 

### United States, 

### No. 18-942C (Fed. 

### Cl.

### filed June28, 2018).

-3-vacate avoid

### judgment." Id. tTll

### 7-8. By doing so, 

### Mr. Blumberg and Judge Sudderth "proceeded under 

### color of 

### law and stolefunds

### from [Mr. Kennedy]" by denying 

### him funds that he asserts were 

### rightfully his, 

### resulting in a 

### "loss

### of [financial] 

### liberty." Id. flfl 

### 9-10. Since, according 

### to 

### Mr. Kennedy, the 

### Tarrant County court lacked

### jurisdiction to enter
avoid 

### judgment, 

### Mr. Blumberg and Judge Sudderth breached 

### their duty 

### "to prove

### jurisdiction when objection to

### jurisdiction is asserted." 

### Id. lTli 11-12. 

# e The 

### identified defendants breached 

### theirduty to

### allow Mr. Kennedy 

### to "proceed 

### without 

### injury, secure 

### in his capacities," and 

### to "exercise his 

### risht to 

### liberfv." Id. tT'lT 16-18. 

# o The 

### identifrea

### a"f"naittr, 

## particul*l[ose who areattomeys, have 

### "breach[ed]their oaths 

### of 

### offices." Id. fl

### 26. Further, 

### "[t]he business 

### model ofDefendants is based on a

### foundation of deceptions, 

### lies[,] and

### fraud." 

### Id.fl28.



# . Mr. Blumberg, 

### Mr. Bagley, 

### Mr. Kennard, and Patelco 

### Credit Union "stole[ 

### Mr. KerLnedy's] personal 

### property and trade 

### secrets." Id. 

### fl 31. 

# o Mr. Kennedy "has the 

### right to demand and redeem 

### la*d.rl money'' from Patelco 

### Credit Union and the Federal Reserve Bank 

### of New 

### York, and 

### only recently became aware that he could do

### so. Id. lftf 32-33 

### (relying on 12 

### U.S.C. $

### 411). Thus, Patelco 

### Credit Union has been 

### "unlawfully using the 

### interest" on 

### Mr. Kemedy's money since 1985, when he deposited his 

### first paycheck. Id. 'lT'lT33-34.


### Mr. Kennedy demands, 

### from each 

### identified defendant, (1) the greater 

### of"$1,000for each day 

### of 

### unlarldll behaviors" or $5

### million for "general damages," 

### id.fl43, and (2) the greater 

### of"$5,000 for each

### failure toact" or $25

### million for "damages 

### for the 

### injury caused 

### by defendant[s]' absence

### of required 

### actions," id. fl

### 44. He also demands the 

### retum of the 

### "value 

### of all bonds created in these matters 

### in this case," id.

### fl 51, permanent 

### injunctions enjoining the 

### identified defendaats 

### "from interfering in any 

### way

### with [his] 

### la*firl rights" and ordering the 

### identified defendants 

### to "provide him 

### with a

### laufirl govemment" and 

### "honor their fiduciary duty 

### to [him]," id.'lfti 48-49, and declaratoryjudgments that "defendants have acted contrary 

### to constitutional right, power, or 

### privilege" and 

### "in excess

### of statutory 

### jurisdiction [and] 

### authority aad short

### of statutory 

### right," id. flfl 46-47.

A

# II. LEGALSTANDARDS 

## A. Pro Se

### Plaintiffs
Pro se pleadings are 

### "held to less stringent standards than

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by lawyers" and are

### "to be 

### liberally construed." Erickson 

### v. Pardus, 551 

### U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per 

### curiam) (intemal quotation marks 

### omitted). However, the 

### "leniency afforded to a ple_se 

### litigant 

### wilh respect to mere

### formalities does not relieve the burden

### to meet

### jurisdictional requirements." Minehan 

### v. United States, 75 Fed.

### C|.249,253 (2007); accord Henke 

### v. United States, 60 F.3d 

### 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995) 

### ("The fact that [the

### plaintiff] acted p1q59 in the

### drafting of his 

### complaint may 

### explain its ambiguities, but 

### it does 

### not excuse its 

### failures, 

### if such there 

### be."). In other words, a pro se

### plaintiffis not excused 

### from his burden 

### ofproving, by a preponderance 

### of evidence,that the court possesses 

### jurisdiction. See 

### McNutt v. Gen. 

### Motors Acceptance Corp., 

### 298u.S. 178,179 (1936); 

### Banksv.unitedStates,T4lF.3d1268,1277 (Fed.Cir.2014)(citing Reynolds v.

### Army 

### &

### Air Force 

### Exch.

### Serv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988)). 

## B. Subject 

### Matter Jurisdiction
Whether the court possesses 

### jurisdiction to decide the merits 

### ofa case is a 

### "threshold 

### matter." Steel Co.

### v. Citizens 

### for a Better 

### Env't, 523 

### U.S. 83,94-95 

### (1998). Subject matter 

### jurisdiction cannot be

### waived or

### forfeited because

### it "involves a

### court's power 

### to hear a case." 

### United States 

### v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 

### 625,630 (2002), quoted 

### in Arbaueh 

### v.

### Y 

### & H Corp., 546 U.S. 

### 500,514(2006). "Without 

### jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at

### all in any cause. 

### Jurisdiction is power 

### to declare the 

### law, andwhen 

### it ceasesto exist, the 

### only function remaining tothe court is that 

### of arurouncing thefact and dismissing the 

### cause." Ex parte 

### McCardle, 74 U.S. (7

### Wall) 506,514 

### (1868). Therefore, 

### it is 

### "an inJlexible matter that must be considered before proceeding 

### to evaluate the merits 

### ofa case." Matthews 

### v. United States,72 Fed.

### Cl.274,278 (2006); accord 

### K-ConBlde. Svs.. Inc. 

### v. United States,778F.3d 1000, 1004-05 (Fed. 

### Cir.2015). Eitherparty, or the court sua sponte, may challenge the 

### court's subject matter 

### jurisdiction at any time. Arbaueh, 546 U.S. at506; seealso Jeunv. 

### United States, 128 Fed.

### Cl.203,209-10 (2016) (collecting cases).


### ln determining whether subject matter

### jurisdiction exists, the court generally 

### "must accept astrue

### all undisputed facts asserted in the 

### plaintiffs complaint and draw 

### all reasonable inferences 

### infavor 

### ofthe 

### plaintiff." Trusted 

### Integration. Inc.v. 

### United States,659 

### F.3d 1159,
1 163 (Fed. 

### Cir. 201 

### 1). However, the court has no subject matter 

### jurisdiction over

### frivolous claims. Moden 

### v. United States, 404 F.3d, 1335, 1340-41 (Fed. 

### Cir.2005). For example, there is no subject matter

### jurisdiction over claims that are 

### "so insubstantial, 

### implausible, foreclosed 

### by 

### prior decisions

. . . ,or otherwise 

### completely devoid 

### of merit as not

### to involve afederal 

### controversy." Id. at 1341 

### (intemal quotation marks 

### omitted). 

### Ifthe court 

### finds that 

### it lacks subject matter j

### urisdiction over a

### claim, Rule 12(h)(3) 

### ofthe Rules

### ofthe United States Court

## of Federal

### Claims C'RCFC") requires the court 

### to dismiss that 

### claim.

## C. The

### Tucker 

### Act
The

### ability ofthe 

### United States Court 

### of Federal

### Claims ("Court of Federal 

### Claims") to entertain suits against the 

### United States is 

### limited. "The United States, as sovereign, is immune 

### from suit save as 

### it consents to be

### sued." United States 

### v. Sherwood,312 U.S. 

### 584,586 (1941). The 

### waiver of 

### immunity "may not be 

### infened, but must be 

### unequivocally expressed." United States 

### v. White Mountain Apache

### Tribe, 537 

### U.S. 465,,472 

### (2003). Further, 

### "[w]hen waiver legislation contains a statute 

### of limitations, the 

### limitations provision constitutes a

### condition on the

### waiver

### of sovereign 

### immunity." Block v. 

### North Dakota ex 

### rel. Bd. 

### of Univ.

### & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983).
TheTucker 

### Act, the 

### principal statute goveming the

### jurisdiction 

### ofthis court, waives sovereign 

### immunityfor claims against the 

### United States, 

### not sounding 

### intort, that are founded upon the 

### United States 

### Constitution, afederal statute or regulation, or an express 

### or implied contract 

### with the 

### United States. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1a91(aX1) 

### (2012); White Mountain, 537 U.S. at 

### 472- However, theTucker 

### Act is 

### merely 

### ajurisdictional statute and "does not create any substantive 

### right enforceable against the 

### United States

### for money 

### damages." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 298 

### (1976). Instsad, the substantive 

### right must appear in another source 

### of law, such as a 

### "money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or 

### regulation that has been 

### violated, or an express or 

### implied contract 

### with the 

### United States." Loveladies 

### Harbor, Inc. v. 

### United States, 27 

### F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) (en banc). 

## D. Statute of 

### Limitations

Besides meeting the 

### TuckerAct requirements, any action 

### in the Court 

### of Federal Claims must be

### "filed within six years after such 

### claim 

### first accrues"

### to

### fallwithin the 

### court's 

### jurisdiction. 28 

### U.S.C. $

### 2501.

### A cause 

### of action accrues 

### "when 

### all the events 

### which 

### fix the 

### govemment's alleged 

### liability have occurred 449!the

### plaintiff was 

### or should have been aware

## of their existence." Hooland Band 

### ofPomo Indians 

### v. United States,855 

### F.2d 1573,1577 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988), quoted 

### in San Carlos Apache 

### Tribev. United States, 639 

### F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2011). The 

### limitations period set

### forth in 28 

### U.S.C. $2501 is an 

### "absolute" 

### limit on the

### ability of the Court 

### of Federal

### Claimsto exercise

### jurisdiction and reach the 

### merits of a

### claim. John R. Sand

### & Gravel Co.v. 

### United States, 552 

### U.S. 130, 133-35 (2008). 

# III. DISCUSSION
Under a 

### liberal construction 

### of 

### Mr. Kennedy's pro se 

### complaint, he is 

### alleging claims 

### for embezzlement, 

### perjury, fraud, conspiracy, harassment, breach 

### of fiduciary duty, negligence, 

### violation 

### of 12 

### U.S.C. $411, and

### civil rightsviolations against various federal, state, and private 

### individuals and 

### entities. Mr. Kennedy also appears

### to collaterally attack decisions issued 

### by courts in theWestem 

### District of Oklahoma andTarrant County, 

### Texas.Without inquiring into whether 

### Mr. Kennedy's claims are barred 

### by claim and/or issue preclusion based on 

### prior court decisions, 

### it is clear thatthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction over his claims. Consequently, 

### Mr. Kennedy's complaint must bedismissed.

-6-

## A. The 

### United States 

### Isthe 

### Only Proper Defendant 

### inthe 

### Court of Federal 

### Claims

Although the 

### court has 

### liberally construed the 

### complaint in the 

### light most favorable 

### to 

### Mr. Kennedy, the 

### crux

### ofthe allegations contained therein are lodged against (1) attomeys (and 

### their lawfirms) and 

### ajudge involved in his 

### prior court cases, i.e., private individua.ls and state govemment 

### officials, and 

### (2) state agencies responsible 

### for supervising attomeys and t}re courts, 

### including the state

### itself. Mr. Kennedy also names Patelco 

### Credit Union, a

### private entity, as a 

### defendant. However, in the Court 

### of Federal Claims, 

### "the only proper defendant

. . . isthe 

### United States, 

### not its 

### officers, nor any other 

### individual." Stephenson v. 

### United States,58 Fed. 

### Cl. 186, 190 (2003); accord 

### RCFC 10(a). Because 

### "the United States 

## itself isthe

### only proper defendant in the Court 

### of Federal Claims, this court lacks 

### jurisdiction "over any claims alleged against states, 

### localities, state and 

### local govemment entities, 

### or state and 

### local govemment 

### officials and 

### employees." Anderson 

### v. United States, 117 Fed. 

### Cl. 330, 331 

### (2014). Similarly, the Court 

### ofFederal Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction "over suits against private 

### parties." Edelmarut 

### v. United States,76 Fed. 

### Cl.376,380 (2007). In otherwords, 

### "ifthe relief sought 

### [in the Court 

### of Federal

### Claimsl is against other than the 

### United States, the suit astothem must be ignored as beyond the

### jurisdiction 

### ofthe court." Sherwood,312 U.S. 

### at584. Accordingly, to the extent that 

### Mr. Kennedy complains 

### of improper conduct by parties otherthanthe 

### United Statesfederal govemment, 

### this court lacks

### jurisdiction over those claims, andthey must bedismissed. 

## B. The 

### Court of Federal Claims 

### Lacks

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Mr. Kennedy's 

### Civil Rights and 

### Tort Claims
To the extent that 

### Mr. Keruredy asserts 

### civil rights 

### violations and commissions 

### ofvarious torts, his claims are outside the reach 

### of this 

### court's Tucker Act j

### urisdiction.
First, the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims is 

### not afederal 

### district 

### court. Ledford v. United States, 297 

### F.3d 1378,1382 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2002); see also 

### Lightfoot v. Cendant 

### Morte. Com., 137 S. Ct. 553, 563 (2017) 

### (distinguishing between the 

### "Court ofFederal Claims" and 

### "federal 

### district courts").
Second, 

### only federal 

### district courts possess 

### jurisdiction to entertain claims 

### alleging

### civil rights 

### violations. See.e.s., Jones 

### v. United States, 104 Fed. 

### CI.92,98 (2012) 

### (explaining that the Court 

### ofFederal Claims has 

### nojurisdiction over claims based on, among other causes 

### of action, alleged 

### "violations of

. . .

### civil rights"); Marlin v. 

### United States, 63 Fed. 

### Cl.475,476 (2005) 

### (explaining that Bivens claims and claims 

### allegingviolations of 42 

### U.S.C. $$ 1981, 1983, and 1985 must be heard 

### in federal 

### district courts). 

### Third, this court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain claims sounding in

### tort. 28 U.S.C. $ 1491(a); 

### Rick's Mushroom Serv.. 

### Inc.v. 

### United States,521 

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

### Cir.2008). Under the Federal

### Tort Claims 

### Act, 28 

### U.S.C. S$ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680,

### jurisdiction over

### tort claims against thefederal government lies 

### exclusively in federal 

### district 

### courts. U.S. 

### Marine. Inc.v. 

### United States,722 

### F.3d 1360, 1365-66 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2013). Claims 

### of fraud, conspiracy, harassment, breach 

### of

### fiduciary duty, and negligence sound in

### tort. See. e.s.. Lawrence Battelle. 

### Inc.v. 

### United States, 117 Fed. 

### Cl. 579, 585 (2014) (fraud and negligence); Sellers v. 

### United

-7-States, 110 Fed. 

### Cl. 

### 62,68 (2013) (negligence); 

### Coxv. 

### United States, 105 Fed.

### CL.213,218

(2012) (harassment, fraud, and breach 

### offiduciary duty); Phans 

### v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 321 

### ,325 (2009) 

### (fraud); Gant v. 

### United States, 63 Fed. 

### Cl. 3 I I , 3

### l6 (2004) (conspiracy, fraud, and negligence).


### In short, the court must dismiss any 

### civil rights or

### tort claims asserted 

### by 

### Mr. Kennedy. 

### C. The

### Court of Federal 

### Claims Lacks 

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Criminal Matters Next, 

### Mr. Kennedy alleges that 

### criminal 

### activity has occurred 

### in the 

### form 

### ofperjury and 

### embezzlement. However, 

### it is

### well established thatthe Court 

### of Federal

### Claims "has no 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under thefederal 

### criminal code." Joshuav. 

### United States, 

### l7 F.3d378,379 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) 

### (intemal quotation marks 

### omitted) (summarily affrrming a

### Court of Federal Claims dismissal order); see also 

### Hufford v. 

### United States, 87 Fed. 

### Cl. 696,702 (2009) 

### (collecting cases). Therefore, 

### to the extentthat 

### Mr. Kennedy seeks redress 

### for criminal violations, such claims must bedismissed as beyond the

### jurisdiction 

### ofthis court. 

### D. The

### Court of Federal 

### Claims Lacks 

### Jurisdiction Over 

### Mr. Kennedy's 

### Statutoty Claim
Mr. Kennedy also asserts that he is entitled to "demand and redeem 

### laufirl money" 

### from Patelco 

### Credit Union and the Federal Reserve Bank of 

### New 

### York pursuant

### to 12 

### U.S.C. $ 41

## l. In its entirety, that statute 

### (which was last amended 

### in 1935) provides:

Federal reserve notes, 

### to be issued atthe discretion 

### of the Board 

## of Govemors 

### ofthe Federal Reserve System 

### for the purpose

### of making advances 

### to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set

### forth and 

### for no other purpose, are 

### authorized. The said notes shall be 

### obligations 

### ofthe United States and shall be receivable 

### by all national and member banks and Federal reserve 

### banls and 

### for all taxes, customs, and other 

### public dues. They shall be redeemed 

### in 

### lawftl money on demand atthe Treasury Department 

### ofthe United States, 

### in the 

### city

### of Washington, 

### District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

12 

### U.S.C. $411 

### (2012). In other words, cash can be

## (l) usedto pay govemment debts, 

### (2) deposited 

### in banks, and 

### (3) redeemed 

### for 

### "la*frrl money" atthe Treasury Department or any Federal Reserve bank.
The purpose 

### of this statute is

### to "make clear that

### the [Federal Reserve] notes [i.e., cash] areauthorized currency 

### ofthe United States." Provenza 

### v. Comptroller of Treasury,497 A.2d 83

### l, 833-34 

### (Md. Ct. Spec.

### App. 1985). To the extentthat this statute imposes a

### duty on the federal govemment, the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve banks must redeem cash 

### for laufirl money when cash is presented 

### for redemption. However, 

### Mr. Kennedy asserts that he 

### "may demand 

### lar+firl money at any 

### time," Compl. fl 36,

### without presenting cash equal 

### in value to

-8-the amount 

### of lar,rfirl money 

### demanded. Such anallegation is

### frivolous on its 

### face. As such, the

allegation 

### fails to invoke the

### jurisdiction 

### ofthis court. 

## E. The

### Court of Federal Claims Lacks 

### Jurisdiction to 

### Entertain 

### Plaintiff s

### Collateral

Attack Against the Decisionsof 

### Other Courts
In additiontoalleging claims 

### involving 

### civil rights, torts, 

### criminal matters, and statutory 

### violations, 

### Mr. Kennedy appears 

### to be

### collaterally attacking unspecified decisions 

### of the 

### United States 

### District Court 

### for theWestem 

### District of Oklahoma andtheTarrant County, Texas state 

### district 

### court. However, theTucker 

### Act does 

### not provide the Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### with jurisdiction to entertain 

### collateral attacks onthe decisions 

### ofother courts. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1a91(a);
see.

### e.&, Shinnecock 

### Indian Nation v. United States,782F.3d 1345,1352 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2015) 

### ("Binding precedent establishes thatthe Court 

### of Federal

### Claims has no

### jurisdiction to review the 

### merits

### ofa decision rendered 

### by afederal 

### district court."); Vereda. Ltda. 

### v. United States,2Tl
F

### .3d 1367 

### , 1375 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2001) 

### ("[T]he Court 

### of Federal

### Claims cannot entertain a

### taking claimthat requiresthe court 

### to scrutinize the actions

### of another 

### tribunal." (intemal quotation marks 

### omitted)). Mr. Kennedy's recourse conceming 

### prior adverse decisions is 

### "the statutorily defined appellate process," Shinnecock Indian 

### Nation,782F.3d at 1353 

### (citing 28 U.S.C. $ 1291), whether 

### in stateor federal court.



## F. Mr. Kennedy's Claims 

### Are 

### Time-Barred
Even 

### if this court otherwise had

### jurisdiction to entertain any 

### of 

### Mr. Kennedy's claims, they are

### likely baned 

### bythe six-year statute 

### of limitations generally applicable in the Court 

### of Federal

### Claims. See 28 U.S.C. $

### 2501. The 

### only specific conduct 

### towhich 

### Mr. Kennedy refers 

### in his 

### complaint is (1) Judge Sudderth having 

### "ignored" his 

### November 10, 2003 

### petition 

### with respect 

### to 

### Mr. Blumberg's allegedly improper acts and 

### (2) his 

### ownfailure to demand 

### lawful money 

### beginning 

### in 1985. Further, 

### Mr. Kennedy 

### voluntarily dismissed a subsequent 

### lawsuit that he

### filed against 

### Mr. Blumberg on 

### March 10,

### 2004. Therefore, the six-year statute 

### of limitations imposed 

### by 28 

### U.S.C. $2501 began

### to run, att}re latest, on 

### March 10,2004, and expired, atthe latest, on 

### March 10,

### 2010. Because 

### Mr. Kennedy 

### did not

### file the instant 

### complaint 

### until June 12, 2018, this court lacks

### jurisdiction to entertain his claims. 

### G. The 

### Court of Federal 

### Claims Lacks 

### Authority to 

### Grant Equitable 

### Relief Finally, in additionto monetary 

### relief, 

### Mr. Kennedy seeks certain permanent 

### injunctions and declaratory

### judgments. However, 

### it is

### well settled thatthe Court 

### of Federal

### Claims generally lacks the

### authority to grant such equilable 

### relief. See Bowen 

### v. Massachusetts, 487 

### U.S. 879, 905 (1988) 

### (holding thatthe Court 

### ofFederal Claims lacksthe "general equitable powers

### ofa district court 

### to grant prospective 

### relief'). This court is 

### only authorized 

### to award equitable 

### relief in certain specified 

### situations. See 

### id. at 905 n.40; Gonzales 

### & Gonzales Bonds

### & Ins.

### Aeency. Inc.v. 

### Dep't of Homeland Sec.,490 F.3d 

### 940,943 (Fed. 

### Cir.2007); Kanemoto 

### v. 

### Reno,4i F.3d 

### 641,644-45 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994). None 

### ofthose circumstances applies 

### here. See28U.S.C. $ 1491(a)(2) 

### (providing the court 

### with

### jurisdiction to issue, "as 

### incident 

### ofand collateral

### to" an award

### ofmoney damages, "orders 

### directing restoration 

### tooffice or 

### position, placement 

### in

-9-appropriate 

### duty or retirement status, and 

### correction

### ofapplicable records"); id. (providing the

court 

### with

### jurisdiction to render 

### judgment in nonmonetary disputes arising under the 

### Confiact Disputes 

### Act 

### of 1978); 

### id. $ 1491(bX2) 

### (providing the court 

### with

### jurisdiction to award declaratory and 

### injunctive relief in bid protests); 

### id. $ 1507 

### (providing the court 

### with

### jurisdiction to issue declaratory

### judgments under 26 

### U.S.C. S7428).



## H. The 

### Court Declines to

### Transfer This Case
When the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims lacks

### jurisdiction over a

### claim, 

### it is empowered to transfer such 

### claim to anappropriate court 

### if doing so 

### "is in the interest 

### ofjustice." 28 U.S.C. 

### $ 1631. "Transfer is appropriate when three elements are 

### met: (1) [t]hetransferring 

### court lacks subject matter

### jurisdiction; (2) the case could have been

### filed in the court 

### receiving the transfer; and (3) the transfer is 

### in the interests 

### ofjustice." Brown v. 

### United States,74Fed. 

### Cl. 546, 550 

### (2006). The

### failure of even one 

### of these elements renders transfer improper. 

### Transfening 

### Mr. Kennedy's case

### to anappropriate 

### district court

### will not "serve the interests 

### ofjustice." Khalil v. 

### United States, 

### 133Fed. 

### Cl.390,393 (2017). In 

### Khalil, another 

### judge ofthis court declined 

### totransfer the case because 

### doing so

### would "serve[] no purpose" since the 

### plaintiff sclaims had already been considered 

### by a

### district 

### court. 

### Id. Inthe instant case, 

### Mr. Kennedy has

### similarly "already availed 

### himself of the 

### opportunity," id., 

### to present his claims against thefederal govemment 

### to a

### district 

### court. In otherwords, the courtsthat 

### would have

### jurisdiction have already considered

### plaintiff s

### claims. Therefore, as 

### in K-halil,

### transferring 

### Mr. Kennedy's claims 

### would be

### futile. In any event,transferring a casewhere the 

### plaintiff wants 

### to 

### 'test his 

### skills as a 

### litigator" does 

### not advance the interests 

### ofjustice. Accordingly, the court declines totransfer any part 

### of 

### plaintifPs caseto another court. 

## IV. APPLTCATTON 

### TO PROCEED 

## INBMAPA.qBEBIS
To proceed 

### with a

### civil action 

### in this court, a

### plaintiff must either pay $400 

### in

### fees-a $350

### filing fee plus a$50 

### administrative fee----or request authorization to proceed 

### without payment 

### of fees 

### by submitting a sigaed 

### application to proceed 

### in forma pauperis.6 See 28 U.S.C. $$ 1915, 1926; RCFC 

### 77(c); see also

### Waltnerv. 

### United States, 93 Fed. 

### Cl. 139, 141 n.2 

### (2010) (concludingthat 28 

### U.S.C. g 1915(a)(1) applies

### to both prisoners and nonprisoners 

### alike). Plaintiffs wishing to proceed 

### in forma pauperis must submit an

### afftdavit that 

### (1) lists 

### all oftheir assets, (2) declares thatthey are unable to pay the fees, and 

### (3) states the nature

### ofthe action and 

### their 

### beliefthat they areentitled 

### to redress. 28 

### U.S.C. $ 1915(a)(1). Evaluation

### ofa plaintiffs ability to pay is 

### "left tothe discretion 

### of the 

### presidingjudge, based on the 

### information submitted by the 

### plaintiff." Alston-Bullock v. 

### United States

### , 122 Fed. 

### Cl. 38, 45 (2015).


### 6While the Court 

### of Federal

### Claims is not generally considered

### to be a 

### "court of the 

### United States" 

### within the meaning 

### of

### Title 28

### of the 

### United States Code,the court has 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate applications to proceed 

### in forma 

### pauperis. See 28 

### U.S.C. $2503(d) (deeming the Court 

### ofFederal Claims to be a 

### "court of the 

### United States" 

### for purposes 

### of28 

### u.s.c. $ 1915).

-10-As noted above, 

### Mr. Kennedy 

### filed, concurrent 

### with the 

### complaint, anapplication 

### to

proceed 

### in forma 

### pauperis. 

### Mr. Kennedy has

### fulfilled all three requirements, and the court is satisfied that he is unable

### to pay the

### filing fee otherwise required 

### by RCFC 

### 77.1(c). Therefore, the court grants 

### Mr. Kennedy's application andwaives 

### his

### filing fee. 

## V. CONCLUSION
The Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims lacks 

### jurisdiction over claims 

### involving 

### civil rights, torts, 

### or criminal matterst 

### to entertain 

### frivolous claims or 

### collateral attacks on the decisions 

### of other courts; and, 

### with exceptions not relevant here, 

### to award equitable 

### relief. Therefore, the court has no

### jurisdiction to consider any aspect

### ofMr. Kennedy's 

### complaint. Further, 

### nansferring 

### Mr. Kennedy's case

### to a

### district court is 

### not in the interests 

### ofjustice. Accordingly, 

### Mr. Kennedy's complaint is 

### DISMISSED 

### WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

### for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. Mr. Kennedy's applicationto proceed 

### in forma oauoeris is 

### GRANTED. No costs. The 

### clerk is directed 

### to enter

### judgment accordingly. 

### IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

-11-