context: Plaintiff also asks this court to "seize All Bonds (Special Documents of Title UCC SS 7201, UCC SS 7202, UCC SS 8102 et seq) and-Accounts regards Me and My PERSON; wind-up the Ens Legis: WILLIAM FREDERICK KEMP JR. The Federal Circuit has explained that the Court of Federal Claims "does not have general equity jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that "[t]he Tucker Act does not provide a means by which the Court of Federal Claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a pre-award protest or the application of section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code"
citation_a.sentence: Shemonsky v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) (upholding decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the court’s jurisdiction did not extend to injunctive or declaratory relief); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003); Choate v. United States, 60 F.3d 840 (Fed.Cir.1995) (holding that “[t]he Tucker Act does not provide a means by which the Court of Federal Claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a pre-award protest or the application of section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: upholding decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the court's jurisdiction did not extend to injunctive or declaratory relief
citation_b.sentence: Shemonsky v. United States, 215 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) (upholding decision of the Court of Federal Claims that the court’s jurisdiction did not extend to injunctive or declaratory relief); see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2003); Choate v. United States, 60 F.3d 840 (Fed.Cir.1995) (holding that “[t]he Tucker Act does not provide a means by which the Court of Federal Claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a pre-award protest or the application of section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code”).