NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-5071
JEAN DUFORT BAPTICHON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
.
Jean Dufort Baptichon, of Freeport, New York, pro se.
Roger A. Hipp, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With
him on the brief were Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Senior Judge Loren A. Smith
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-5071
JEAN DUFORT BAPTICHON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 08-CV-641, Senior Judge
Loren A. Smith.
___________________________
DECIDED: August 7, 2009
___________________________
Before RADER, PLAGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Jean Dufort Baptichon’s
complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Baptichon v. United
States, No. 08-641 (Fed. Cl. 2009). Because the trial court correctly enforced its
jurisdictional limits, this court affirms.
Mr. Baptichon apparently seeks $20 billion in damages for the value of a
“Presidential Medal of Merit” allegedly awarded to Baptichon by the President. The first
claim in his complaint seeks redress for “moral turpitude” but, of course, the Court of
Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to adjudicate general claims of moral deficiencies.
The second claim alleges violations of the United States Constitution and “Code of
Ethics and Professional Responsibilities” for awarding the medal, but again this court
finds nothing in the statutes giving jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims that would
empower it to adjudicate these allegations. The third and last claim cites to a “deep
national debt of gratitude” owed by the United States and the President. Once again,
the jurisdictional mandates of the Court of Federal Claims do not include “debts of
gratitude.”
Mr. Baptichon explains that “[t]he President of the United States made an offer of
the medal of merit at issue to the plaintiff/appellant who in turn accepted the offer and
relied in good faith to his detriment . . . by financially committing himself to politically and
socially support the defendant . . . .” Mr. Baptichon’s reference to 10 U.S.C. § 1122
and Executive Order 9857A in his briefing to this court seems to refer to the Medal for
Merit. That medal is a decoration that Congress authorized the President to award to
civilians who performed outstanding service to the Allied cause in World War II. The
record on appeal does not indicate whether Baptichon actually received the medal.
Even if he did, however, Baptichon has no redress. Baptichon has cited no statute or
regulation that provides for any monetary award attached to the medal or any additional
rights conferred when it is granted. Nor has this court found such a statute or
regulation. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
COSTS
No costs.
2009-5071 2