Corporation); 19 U.S.C. § 1619 (Customs “moiety statute” providing awards for information concerning import and export violations). Nor is there any basis on which to conclude plaintiff acted as a confidential informant pursuant to any express or implied agreement with the government. See Katz v. Cisneros, 16 F.3d 1204, 1210 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Absent privity [of contract] between [plaintiff] and the government, there is no case.”); San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957, 959 (Fed.Cir.1989) (explaining that “[t]o recover for breach of contract, [plaintiff] must allege ... (1) a valid contract between the parties, (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract, (3) breach of that duty, and (4) damages caused by the breach”); contra Varga .Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (citing cases). Also misplaced is Mr. Hicks’
holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the due process clause requires notice of right to optout of suits for money damages holding that the court of federal claims had jurisdiction to decide an alleged due process violation related to his claim for damages under a moneymandating statute holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that the court lacks jurisdiction over an alleged violation of the due process clause because the clause does not obligate the government to pay money damages