Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Blazy v. Dep't of State
(2026)
Case details
Full caption
Louis J. Blazy v. Department of State
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
DECISION
REGARDING
SANCTIONS:
February
24,
2026
CBCA
7992,
7993
LOUIS
J.
BLAZY,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT
OF
STATE,
Respondent.
Louis
J.
Blazy
,
pro
se,
Alexandria,
VA.
Alexandra
N.
W
i
lson,
Of
f
ice
of
the
Le
g
al
Adviser,
Buildings
and
Acquisitions,
Departm
ent
of
State,
W
ashington,
DC,
counsel
f
or
Respondent.
Bef
ore
Board
Judges
GOODMAN
,
KULLBERG
,
and
CHADWICK
.
GOODMAN
,
Board
Judge.
Appellant,
Louis
J
.
B
lazy
,
f
iled
a
m
otion
in
these
consolidated
appeals
t
itled
“Motion
For
Procedural
Determ
ination
on
the
Validity
of
the
Contracting
Of
f
icer’s
Final
Decisions
and
Stay
Merits
Proceeding”
(appellant’s
m
otion).
W
e
deny
the
m
o
tion
in
a
decision
issued
concurrently
w
ith
this
d
ecision.
Here,
the
panel,
sua
sponte,
issues
a
s
anction
in
response
to
appellant’s
m
i
sconduct
with
regard
to
his
m
otion’s
content.
CBCA
7992,
7993
2
Background
Appellant’s
Sanctionable
Misconduct
Citations
to
Non-Existent
Decisions
Appellant’s
m
otion
contained
f
our
citations
to
decisions
that
appeared
not
to
exist.
For
each
citation,
th
e
B
o
ard
issued
an
order
directing
appellant
to
produce
a
copy
of
the
decision.
App
e
l
l
ant
did
not
s
ubm
it
copies
of
the
requested
decisions
because
t
hose
decisions,
upon
which
he
relied,
d
o
not
exist.
Appellant
o
f
f
ered
general,
u
npersuasive,
c
o
nf
using,
and
vague
explanations
f
or
why
he
cited
the
non-existent
decisions.
He
stated
that
“certain
legal
research
databases
.
.
.
may
not
f
ully
i
ntegrate
with
the
.
.
.
search
codes
used
by
the
Court
of
Federal
Claim
s.”
He
r
ef
erred
t
o
errors
in
“publicly
a
vailable
sources,”
“editorial
errors”
i
n
u
n
n
a
m
ed
“
secondary
ref
erence
sources,”
and
“m
istakes
i
n
[
unidentif
ied]
c
om
m
ercial
contract
law
digests,
and
training
com
pilati
o
n
s
.
”
I
n
o
ne
instance,
appellant
stated
that
a
non-existent
citation
was
used
as
“shorthand”
f
or
the
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
another
case
which
he
of
f
ere
d
a
s
a
s
u
b
stitute,
without
explaining
his
def
inition
of
“shorthand”
o
r
how
such
“shorthand”
translated
to
a
citation
f
or
another
decision.
In
another
i
nstance,
appellant
su
b
m
itted
what
he
characterized
a
s
an
existing
“decision,”
stating
that
it
was
the
decision
t
h
a
t
h
e
intended
t
o
subm
i
t
f
or
one
of
the
non-existing
decisions.
The
existing
“decision”
su
b
mi
t
ted
was
a
dism
issal
order
that
contained
no
substantive
inf
orm
ation
as
to
the
nature
of
the
case,
which
appellant
asserted
stood
f
or
a
l
e
g
a
l
principle,
w
hich
principle
was
in
n
o
way
discernible
f
rom
the
t
ext
of
the
dism
issal
order.
In
another
i
nstance,
appellant
subm
itted
an
e
xisting
decision,
again
stating
that
it
was
a
substitute
f
or
a
non-existing
decision
which
he
cited.
That
cas
e
d
i
d
not
stand
f
or
the
principle
cited.
Appellant
subm
itted
a
general,
non-specif
ic
explanation
of
his
search
m
ethod
and
a
list
of
databases
and
indexes
that
he
searched.
At
n
o
tim
e
did
he
state
that
he
h
ad
actually
read
any
of
the
cases
cited
o
r
identif
y
i
n
which
source
any
of
the
citations
to
t
he
non-existent
decisions
were
f
ound.
Appellant’s
explanation
f
or
citing
the
non-existent
decisions
of
f
ered
no
other
det
a
i
l
,
s
c
reen
shots,
or
copies
of
any
portions
of
the
resources
which
s
pecif
ically
contained
the
citations
of
the
non-existent
decisions.
CBCA
7992,
7993
3
Quoting
Non-Existent
Deposition
Dialogue
Appellant’s
m
otion
contained
f
our
excerpts
f
ro
m
d
e
positions
in
quotation
m
arks,
appearing
to
be
direct
q
uotations,
with
deposition
transcript
page
num
bers
cited.
1
Respondent’s
r
esponse
to
appellant’s
m
otion
noted
that
the
quoted
language
did
not
exist
on
the
pages
cited
or
any
where
in
the
deposition
transcripts.
T
he
Board
issued
an
order
directing
appellant
to
state
if
the
quotations
were
direct
quotations
o
r
c
o
n
structed
f
rom
t
e
s
t
i
m
ony
.
If
they
were
constructed
q
uotations,
the
Board
directed
appellant
to
quo
t
e
t
h
e
deposition
testim
ony
f
rom
which
he
created
the
construction,
with
transcript
page
citations.
Appellant
responded
that
t
he
f
our
quotes
w
e
r
e
c
onstructed
and
quoted
deposition
testim
o
ny
f
r
om
which
he
alleges
he
constructed
the
quotes.
The
t
r
a
n
s
c
r
ipt
page
num
bers
w
h
e
re
the
quoted
testim
ony
appears
do
n
ot
correspond
t
o
the
transcript
page
num
bers
init
i
a
l
l
y
cited
f
or
the
f
our
quotations
in
appellant
’
s
mo
t
i
o
n
.
The
actual
testim
ony
quoted
does
not
support
the
non-existent
“direct”
quotes
in
the
m
o
tion.
Discussion
Appellant
r
epr
e
sents
him
self
as
pro
se.
“W
e
construe
a
pro
se
litigant’s
pleadings
liberally
,”
but
such
lenience
does
not
af
f
ec
t
“
a
p
r
o
s
e
l
itigant’s
b
urden
of
proof
or
our
[
assessm
ent]
of
the
f
a
ctual
record.”
House
o
f
Joy
T
ransitional
Programs
v
.
Social
Security
Administration
,
CBCA
2535,
12-1
BCA
¶
34,991,
at
171,975
(citing
Haines
v.
K
erner
,
404
U.S.
519,
5
20
(1972);
G
reenlee
Construction,
Inc.
v.
General
Services
Administration
,
CBCA
416,
07-1
BCA
¶
33,514,
at
166,062).
The
lenience
af
f
orded
to
pro
se
litigants
does
not
relieve
appellant
of
a
f
undam
ental
standard
of
conduct
f
or
all
litigants—the
d
uty
of
candor
to
the
tribunal.
O’Brien
v
.
Flick
,
No.
24-61529-CIV,
2025
W
L
2
4
2924,
at
*5
(S.D.
Fla.
Jan.
10,
2025).
The
duty
of
candor
to
a
tribunal
requires
that
all
subm
issions
be
accurate,
com
plete,
and
truthf
ul.
The
violation
of
this
d
u
ty
is
m
isconduct
which
af
f
ects
th
e
B
o
a
r
d
’s
p
rocess
a
nd
p
roceedings
and
is
sanctionable
pursuant
to
Board
Rule
35,
which
reads
in
relevant
part:
(a)
Standards
o
f
conduct.
All
parties
and
their
representatives,
.
.
.
s
hall
obey
directions
and
orders
of
the
Board
and
adhere
to
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
of
conduct
applicable
to
such
parties
and
persons
.
1
The
d
epositions
are
subject
to
a
protective
order.
W
e
do
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
the
protected
m
aterial
in
this
decision.
CBCA
7992,
7993
4
(b)
Sanctions.
I
f
a
party
.
.
.
f
a
ils
to
com
ply
w
ith
a
ny
direction
or
order
o
f
the
Board
(
including
an
order
to
provide
or
p
e
r
m
it
d
iscovery
)
o
r
e
n
gages
in
misconduct
affecting
t
he
Board,
its
process,
or
i
ts
proceedings,
the
Board
m
ay
m
ake
such
orders
as
are
just,
including
the
im
position
of
appropriate
sanctions.
41
CFR
6101.35
(2024)
(em
phasis
added).
The
Board
i
ssued
seven
orders
with
inquiries
to
appellant
with
regard
to
the
inf
orm
ation
which
i
s
the
subject
of
this
decision.
W
h
ile
appellant
stated
that
his
r
esponses
were
of
f
ered
to
“clarif
y
”
the
s
ubm
ission
o
f
the
inf
orm
ation
at
issue,
t
h
e
vagueness
of
his
r
e
sponses
only
created
additional
conf
usion
and
f
ailed
t
o
credibly
explain
how
s
u
c
h
n
o
n
-
existent
and
m
isleading
inf
orm
a
tion
could
have
been
subm
itted.
Appellant
did
not
express
an
apology
to
the
Board
in
a
ny
o
f
his
responses
but
m
aintained
that
the
inf
orm
ation
was
subm
itted
“in
good
f
aith”
and
resulted
in
“harm
less
e
rror.”
Appellant’s
actions
did
not
result
in
“harm
less
error.”
Rather,
the
results
of
appellant’s
actions
are
as
f
ollows:
(1)
Appellant’s
subm
ission
of
citations
to
non-existent
decisions,
quoting
non-existent
deposition
l
angu
a
g
e
,
and
m
i
scharacterizing
existing
deposition
language
violates
appellant’s
duty
of
candor
to
the
Board.
2
(2)
Appellant’s
actions
in
(1)
above
constitute
m
isconduct,
which
v
iolate
Bo
ard
Rule
35,
a
s
they
af
f
ect
the
Board,
its
process,
and
its
proceedings,
resulting
in
(a)
the
waste
of
the
Board’s
and
opposing
counsel’s
resources
to
determ
ine
the
validity
and
accuracy
of
inf
orm
ation
subm
itted
by
appellant;
and
(b)
excessive
t
im
e
and
ef
f
ort,
and
delay
,
f
or
the
panel
to
deliberate
and
to
resolve
appellant’s
m
otion.
(3)
Appella
n
t’s
vague,
conf
using,
and
unpersuasive
responses
to
the
Board’s
orde
r
s
r
a
ise
questions
as
to
the
credibility
and
veracity
of
his
responses.
2
In
r
esponse
to
a
Boa
rd
order,
a
ppellant
stated
t
hat
he
d
id
not
use
artif
icial
intelligence
(AI)
to
d
r
af
t
his
m
otion.
A
characteristic
of
using
A
I
is
i
t
s
p
r
o
p
e
n
s
i
t
y
to
“hallucinate,”
m
eaning
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
inf
orm
ation
which
appears
credible
and
r
eal
but
which
is
actually
f
a
lse,
non-existent,
or
a
m
ischaract
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
of
existing
inf
orm
ation.
There
is
no
prohibition
against
using
AI
at
the
Board.
However,
“[
i]f
using
AI,
parties
r
eta
i
n
f
u
ll
responsibility
f
o
r
the
accuracy
o
f
a
l
l
subm
issions
to
the
Board.”
Annual
Report,
United
S
t
a
t
e
s
C
i
v
i
l
i
a
n
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
,
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
5
,
https://cbca.gov/f
iles/2025-CBCA-Annual-Report.pdf
(last
visited
February
2
3,
2026).
CBCA
7992,
7993
5
Sanction
Appellant’s
actions
as
d
escribed
herein
constitute
sanctionable
m
i
sconduct
pursuant
to
Board
Rule
35.
W
e
i
s
s
u
e
t
h
is
f
orm
al
adm
o
nishm
ent
to
appellant
t
o
a
lert
appellant
that,
as
the
case
proceeds,
if
he
continues
such
c
onduct,
additional
a
n
d
harsher
sanctions
will
be
i
m
p
osed,
which
could
include
d
ism
issal
of
the
appeals
without
proceeding
to
the
me
r
i
t
s
.
Rule
35(b)(6).
Al
l
a
n
H.
G
oodm
a
n
ALLAN
H.
GOODMAN
Board
Judge
W
e
concur:
H.
C
h
uc
k
Kul
l
berg
Kyl
e
C
h
a
d
w
ic
k
H.
CHUCK
KULLBERG
KYLE
CHADW
ICK
Board
Judge
Board
Judge
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access