discretion to reorder its priorities from serving a subgroup of beneficiaries to serving the broader class of all Indians nationwide.”). Second, even assuming the first two elements of a trust (trustee and beneficiary) exist, there is no corpus over which the government exercises control. Plaintiffs point out no property interest or corpus that, the government is required to manage under the statutes cited by them. The health of individual Americans of Indian descent is not property subject to government control or management. To so rule would be to deprive individual Indians of a fundamental liberty. However, a corpus or property interest is an essential element of a claim for breach of trust. See Begay v. United States, 16 Cl.Ct. 107, 126-28 (1987), aff'd, 865 F.2d 230 (Fed.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because this court finds that the
recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that no reasonable interpretation of a general directive would create a property interest recognizing that a temporary use of property does not automatically create an expectation of privacy in that property holding that the existence of the general indiangovernment trust relationship does not create a property interest where one does not otherwise exist holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust