that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims ‘sounding in tort.” ’); Edelmann v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 376, 379-80 (2007) (“This Court ‘does not have jurisdiction over claims that defendant engaged in negligent, fraudulent, or other wrongful conduct when discharging its official duties’ ... [and] Plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, misrepresentation, slander, perjury, harassment, intimidation, coercion, theft, and defamation, and their claims that the Government deprived Ms. Edelmann of her right to a fair trial, are tort claims.” (quoting Cottrell v. United States, 42 Fed.Cl. 144, 149 (1998)); McCullough v. United States, 76 Fed.C tates, 88 Fed.Cl. 759, 762, appeal dismissed, 375 Fed.Appx. 4 (Fed.Cir.2009); Hufford v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl, 696, 702 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Matthews v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 274,
holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident holding that because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the united states court of international trade the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over a matter that was protested or protestable holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud