damages, however, is not “property” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. As explained earlier in this ruling, a demand is not the same as an entitlement. See supra Section I.A.2. Even if plaintiff s demand represented a genuine obligation of the government, the failure to pay such a monetary obligation would not amount to a taking. Cf. Adams v. United States, No. 00-447C, 2003 WL 22339164, at *8 (Fed.Cl. Aug. 11, 2003) (explaining that plaintiffs statutory right to underpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act is not a property interest for purposes of the Takings clause, but rather an ordinary obligation to pay money under a compensation statute), aff'd, 391 F.3d 1212, 1220, 1224 (Fed.Cir.2004); Kitt v. United States, 277 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Cannon v. District of Columbia, 873
holding that obligation to pay pension benefits gave rise to a constructive trust relationship and obligation was not discharged in bankruptcy recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money holding that declaratory judgment requiring party to pay a specific sum of money is properly characterized as a money judgment holding that general obligation to pay money under a disputed provision of the tax code was not a taking holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation