the community of nations, does not reach the humiliation which Petitioner states he would experience in complying with the agency’s drug testing requirements.”). In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs claims for violation of the UDHR must be dismissed. c. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs Tort Claims Some of plaintiffs claims sound in tort. See Compl. 7-8 (claiming damages for sexual harassment, physical harassment, libel, slander, and “pain and suffering”). The court does not have jurisdiction over tort claims; the Tucker Act specifically excludes tort from the subject matter jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The court has consistently declined to hear claims sounding in tort. See, e.g., Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. Durango Jail, 77 Fed.Cl. 92, 96
holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding when constitutional claims are premised on the notion that the united states has some contractual obligation to the plaintiff that it has failed to satisfy the claims are contractually based and must be heard in the court of federal claims holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act holding that plaintiffs negligence claims sounded in tort and thus could not be transferred to the united states court of federal claims