that the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause are not money-mandating and claims based upon these provisions are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. E.g., Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed.Cir.1997); LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir. 1995); United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed.Cir.1983). The Court notes that the captioned and titled defendants in Mr. Baker’s complaint (“Transworld Systems, and Max Federal Credit Union,” “Doc Due Little Movies,” and “Max Federal Credit Union and Pentago Federal Credit Union”) are not the United States or any agency thereof. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2001); see also Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States and Federal Express Corp., 264 F.3d 1071 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because the United States or agency
holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit holding that neither mere participation in a federal program nor provision requiring compliance with federal law is sufficient to establish that the state consented to be sued in federal court holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court