UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

ROY PAUL BOUDREAUX 

Respondent 

Docket No. CG S&R 05-0016 

CG C~se Number 2078998 

Decision and Order 

Order Dismissine Complaint * 

-. - 

Issued: November 29,2005 

Issued bv: Judge Jeffie J. Massev 
BACKGROUND 

On August 19,2005, the undersigned issued an Order Denying Motions for 

Telephone Testimony filed by the United States Coast Guard YUSCG" herein) on 

August 10,2005. As that Order explained, based on the past circumstances of this 

particular proceeding, the undersigned was exercising her discretion to require the 

witnesses in question to appear and give live testimony at the hearing previously 

scheduled tsgo forward on August 26,2005, in Lafayette, ~ouisiana.' 

After the undersigned went on the record in this proceeding on August 26,2005, 

the USCG moved for reconsideration of the Motions filed on August 10. The 

undersigned agreed to reconsider her ruling on the Motions, heard the oral arguments of 

the USCG and Respondent's Counsel, then re-affirmed the denial of the August 10 

Motions. Thereafter, the USCG rested without calling any witnesses. The Respondent 

moved to dismiss the Complaint, and the undersigned granted Respondent's Motion. 

DISCUSSION 

The events that occurred on the record on August 26,2005, can best be 

understood only after a complete revizw of the Motions, Responses, and Orders issued in 

Lhis proceeding. While the undersigned could detail the history of this proceeding in this 

Order, no real purpose would be served by that litany. Any reviewing authority of this 

Order-which will take place after the USCG appeals this Order-will necessarily be 

' In fact, the hearing in this matter was scheduled by way of Order issued on June 29, 

200s. 
required to review the entire record of this proceeding and consider it before said 

reviewing authority will be able to publish an infonned review of this Order. 

Instead, after much consideration and review, the undersigned has concluded that 

this Order should contain only a few salient points that expand on the comments made on 

the record on August 26,2005. 

First, the undersigned's review of the record in this proceeding, in preparation for 

the draRingof this Order, has reminded her of the obstructive posture maintained by the 

USCG in tlus proceeding from the early stages of this proceeding! At the second PreHearing Conference held in this proceeding (on February 16,2005) the USCG indicated 

that it would not be complying with any subpoenas or interrogatories that the undersigned 

might require the USCG to answer. When asked to clarify exactly what those comments 

meant, the USCG representative would say only that "Once we get the order from you 

ma'am, you'll find out soon enough" 

During that same Pre-Hearing Conference, the USCG referenced another 

proceeding where it had refused to comply with Orders issued by the undersigned. 

Respondent's Counsel asked for the name of the proceeding, and was given the 

information he requested. - -. 

In fact, the obstmcfive conduct followed by the USCG in this proceeding was 

similar to the obstmctive behavior followed by the USCG in two other proceedings 

before the undersigned. All three of these proceedings involve the same Marine Safety 

The production of ev~dence made by the USCG on February 9,2005, failed to include 

copies of all proposed exhibits. The accompanying handwritten note suggested that if the 

undersigned wanted a copy of a chart that would be an exhibit, she could purchase it 

herself. Additionally, if the undersigned wantcd copies of photograpla the USCG 

proposed to use as evidence in its case in chief, the USCG would forward the negatives to 

her, and she could get her own photographs made. 
. C (: (' 

Office and the same Supervisory Investigating Officer. In fact, it was this Supervisory 

Investigating Officer who appeared on August 26 as the lead investigator for the hearing 

that was supposed to take place in this proceeding. 

It is beyond belief to conclude that the coincidence of this SIO's appearance as 

lead investigator on August 26 and the USCG's failure to present any evidence in this 

proceeding was anything other than a carefully designed plan. Building on the tactics 

utilized by the USCG in the other two proceedings, the USCG took their obstructive 

behavior to a new level in this proceeding. Willfully refusing to present evidence when a 

case is called for hearing is, in the opinion of the undersigned, the ultimate act of 

disrespect that a government regulatory authority can show towards its own system of 

due process.3 

Undoubtedly, the USCG will continue its planned irreverence towards the 

established system of due process by appealing this Order, claiming that it was compelled 

to follow the actions taken throughout this.proceeding because the undersigned is or was 

biased, or prejudiced, or othetwise pre-disposed to prevent the USCG from having a fair 

opportunity to present its evidence in this proceeding. Similar claims have been made in 

the appeals of the two other proceedings where the USCG has chosen a path of -. 

obstruction. 

'The crux of their arguments will he that the undersigned must be biased because 

she entered Orders that were in contravention of what the IJSCG wanted to happen. A 

review of the USCG's positions in this proceeding reveal that anytime the USCG doesn't 

Clearly, the regulations which establish the regulatory framework for Suspension and 

Revocation proceedings anticipate that the proceedings will he conducted so that both 

parties are assured the benefits of due process. See 46 LJSC §7702(a). 
get their way, they scream prejudice and simply refuse to comply with any Order they 

don't agree with. The USCG has demonstrated that unless they can get things to go the 

way they want them to go, then they are not interested in allowing this proceeding to mn 

its course. 

As noted by my comments on the record, the conduct of the USCG in this 

proceeding constitutes the worst kind of gamesmanship that I have encountered in a 

regulatory proceeding. The USCG has failed the taxpayers. The USCG has betrayed the 

obligations it voluntarily undertakes when it files a Complaint against a citizen of the 

United States. The USCG has prevented the Respondent from having a fair opportunity 

to substantively clear his professional reputation of the allegations made against him by 

the USCG.~ The USCG will undoubtedly be fabricating allegations of unfairness as a 

cover for its pre-meditated decision to derail this proceeding. 

The USCG's conduct in this proceeding is reminiscent of the scene in the Wizard 

of Oz where the "Wi~ard" uses loud noise, smoke and lights to distract Dorothy and the 

others from the reality of what is going on behind the curtain. For some time, the 

"Wizard" had been using trickery and illusion to convince others that he was all-knowing 

and powerful. But when the curtainwas - drawn back, he was revealed to be what he had 

been all along-+ siinple mortal who could not deliver on the boisterous claims he had 

been making. 

When the USCG filed its Complaint against the Respondent on January I 1, 2005, 

~t, claimed that it was ready to engage the Respondent in the due process system set up by 

4 A Suspension and Revocation proceeding is defined as "a trial-type proceeding far the 

suspension or revocation of a merchant mariner's license, certilicate of registry, or 

document issued by the Coast Guard that affords an opportunity for an oral, fact-finding 

hearing before an ALJ." 33 CFR $20.102 
the regulations. Along the way, the USCG refused to meet the challenges it was given 

through discovery orders. Instead, it chose fo blow smoke and make noise about the 

unfairness of the discovery process. Finally, when directly confronted with their 

obligation to present evidence supporting the allegations in the Complaint, they once 

again attempted to evade their responsibility with more smoke, lights and noise. By 

shouting "Look how unfair the judge is!" the USCG hopes to conceal the fact that theywhen they appeared on August 26,2005-never intended to let this proceeding go 

forward on the merits. 

Well-the curtain was drawn back on August 26. An objective review of the 

transcript &om August 26 reveals that the USCG never attempted to have its necessary 

witnesses present. Even tl~ough the Order issued on August 19 opened the door for the 

USCG to ask for a continuance if they needed it, they chose instead to show up on 

August 26, knowing they would not go forward with their case, hoping that the smoke, 

Iights and noise that are their claims of unfairness will somehow resonate with the 

reviewing au~hority.~ 

The USCG's attempts to excuse the inanity of their actions by placing blame on 

the undersigned should be exposed fq the subterfuge that it is. The decision to grant the 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was soundly grounded in the IJSCG's 

willful failure to present any evidence in this proceeding. 1'he USCG's failure to present 

any evidence is the direct product orits continued refusal to comply with Orders it does 

not agree w~tli. The USCCr's continued refusal to comply with issued Orders is nothing 

'The reasons argued in support of their oral Motions to Reconsider were repetitious and 

specious. If the USCG had filed their Motions to Reconsider, in writing, in advance of 

August 26, the outcome would have been the same (denial). Rut, then they would have 

been dpnied the use of these Motions as smoke, lights and noise. 

6 
more thm one particular SIO's campaign to demonize the wdersigned in lieu of fully and 

fairly engaging in the due process system established for Suspension and Revocation 

proceedings by the regulations. The integrity of the USCG's Suspension and Revocation 

system will be judged by whether or not one SIO is allowed to defeat the system with 

smoke, lights and noise. 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

The Complaint filed in this proceeding on January 1 1,2005, is hereby 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Any party wishing to appeal this Order should 

consult the applicable regulations governing appeals. See Appendix A, attached hereto 

for preliminary guidance. 

L-6ept of ~omhdd Security US G t;C 

- 

Dated the 29" day of November, 200< 
ATTACHMENT A 

TI'I'LE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS 

COIIE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 

PART 20 RULES OF PRACTICE, PROCEDURE, AND EVIDENCE FOR FORMAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OFTBE COAST GUARD 

SUBPART J - APPEA1,S 

33 CFR 5 20.1001 General. 

(a) Any party may appeal the ALJ' s decision by filing a notice of appeal. The party shall file the notice 

with the U. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center: Attention: Hearing Docket 

Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, MU 217-01-4022. The party shall file the notice 30 - days or less after issuance of the decision, and shall serve a copy of it on the other party and each 

interested person. 

(b) No party may appeal except on the following issues: 

(1) Whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence. 

(2) Whether each conclusion of law accords wit11 applicable law, precedent, and public policy. 

(3) Whether the AW abused his or herdiscretion. 

(4) Tl~e AU's denial of a motion for disqualification. 

(c) No interested person may appeal a summary decision except on the issue that no hearing was held 

or that in the issuance of the decision the ALJ did not consider evidence that that person would have 

presented. 

(d) The appeal must follow the procedural requirements of this subpart. 

33 CFR 5 20.1002 Records on appeal. 

(a) The record of the proceeding constitutes the record for decision on appeal. 

(b) If the respondent requests a copy of the transcript of the hearing as part of the record of proceeding, 

then,-- 

(1) If the hearing was recorded at Federal expense, the Coast Guard will provide the transcript on 

payrnent of the fees prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45; but, 

(2) If the hearing was recorded by aF@,eral contractor, the contractor will provide the transcript 

on tile terms prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45. 

33 CFR See. 20.1003 Procedures for appeal. 

(a) Each party appealing the AIJs decision or ruling shall file an appellate brief with the 

Commandant at the following address: U.S. Coast Guard Administrative LIIW Judge 

Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore. 

MD 21201-4022, and shall serve a copy ofthe brief on every other party. 

(1) The appellate brief must set forth the appellant's specific objections to the decision or ruling 

The brief rnust set rorth, in detail, the-. 

(i) Basis for the appeal; 

(ii) Reasons supporting the appp~l; and 

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal. 
(2) When the appellant reties on m~teria\ contained in the record, the appellate brief must 

specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the record. 

(3) The appellate brief must reach the Docketing Center 60 days or less after service of the AU's 

decision. Unless filed within this time, or within another time period authorized in writing by 

the Docketing Center, the brief will be untimely. 

(b) Any party may tile a reply brief with the Docketing Center 35 days or less after service 

of the appellate brief. Each such party shall serve a copy on every other party. If the party filing the 

repiy brief relies un evidence contained in the record for the appeal, that brief must specifically refer to 

the pertinent parts of the record. 

(c) No party may file more than one appellate brief or reply brief, unless-- 

(1) The party has petitioned the Commandant in writing; and 

(2) The Commandant has granted leave to file an added brief, in which event the Commandant will 

allow a reasonable time for the party to file that brief. 

(dl The Commandant may accept an amicus curiae brief from any person in an appeal of an 

ALJ's decision. . - 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have forwarded the attached document by Facsimile to 

the following person: 

I hereby certify that I have forwarded the attached document by Facsimile to the 

following person: 

CWO Jason Boyer 

Marine Safety Office Morgan City 

800 David Drive, Room 232 

Morgan City, LA 70380-1304 

(Pax #) (985) 380-5379 

ALJ ~ickeiing Centel 

Dated on November 30,2005 

Baltimore, Maryland