enforcing and policing the criminal law is assigned to the courts of general jurisdiction and not to this court.” Id.; see also Bloemker, 229 Ct.Cl. at 692. Without such specific authority, this Court has generally held that it does not possess subject matter jurisdiction over agreements made in the course of criminal proceedings, such as plea agreements, immunity agreements, and witness protection agreements. Sadeghi, 46 Fed.Cl. at 662 (finding no jurisdiction over breach of a plea agreement); see also Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329, 1331, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2001) (finding that this court lacked jurisdiction over a post-trial stipulated release agreement); Kania, 650 F.2d at 269 (deciding that the court had no jurisdiction over an immunity agreement); Drakes, 28 Fed.Cl. at 194-95 (<HOLDING>); Grundy v. United States, 2 Cl.Ct. 596, 598-99
holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction holding the court of appeals had subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding a defendants waiver of appellate rights in a plea agreement holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement