Should Chief Chancellor Andre Bouchard be impeached?


Chief Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard and his court appointed custodian of TransPerfect Global, Inc, Robert Pincus are being sued in the United States Southern District Court of New York by a high level executive, Timothy Holland, who claims Bouchard and Pincus have violated his constitutional rights-specifically his 1stand 4th amendment rights. The right to free speech and the right to be secure in your papers and possessions are basic human rights that we Americans cherish and are fundamental to our freedoms as Citizens of the United States. When these rights are violated, there definitely could and should be civil and criminal consequences.

Having investigated this TransPerfect case and written about it frequently, there are some very disturbing issues about Chancellor Bouchard’s actions that need to be examined in regard to his rulings. Let me be specific about what has occurred so far in relation to the established and legal DELAWARE JUDGES’ CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS” : Under Canon 1: A judge should uphold the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary. Rule 1.1 Compliance with the law. Rule 1. 2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. Rule 1.3 Avoiding abuse of the prestige of the Judicial office.

Chancellor Bouchard from the legal opinions I have gleaned and from the Court records has not been in compliance with the law. The law clearly states that a company can only be sold by order of the Judge when disagreements occur in a company that has only 2 stockholders. TransPerfect has 3 stockholders. Bouchard in his order to sell this very profitable company is violating Delaware’s business law. If anything, Bouchard has put the prestige of his judicial office at risk. Nobody who is in business with a Delaware corporation right now feels any confidence in Delaware’s Judiciary. As to Canon 1, Bouchard has failed miserably and is suspect in my opinion.

Under Canon 2A Judge should perform his duties of judicial office impartially, competently and diligently. Rule 2.1 Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office. Rule 2.2 With Impartiality and Fairness. Rule 2.3 Without Bias, Prejudice and Impropriety. Rule 2.4 With No External Influences on Judicial Conduct. Rule 2.5 With Competence, Diligence and Cooperation. Rule 2.6 Ensuring the Right of All Parties to be Heard.

Chancellor Bouchard has in no way been fair or impartial without bias, prejudice and impropriety. If anything he has been the exact opposite. He has exhibited grotesque bias against Phillip Shawe in favor of the Plaintiff Elizabeth Elting. Bouchard has not allowed testimony to be presented or all parties to be heard in regard to Phillip Shaw’s position in this remarkable case. Bouchard’s former business relationship with Elting’s attorney Keven Shannon and appearing together with him on an educational panel in New Orlean’s reeks of impropriety. Indeed as to Canon 2, Chancellor Bouchard fails miserably and is suspect in my opinion.

Canon 3 and Canon 4: A Judge should regulate extra judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflicts with judicial duties. Rule 3.1, A Judge should be careful with Extrajudicial activities in general. Rule 3.2 Avoid Appearances before Governmental Bodies and Consultation with Governmental Officials. Canon 4: A judge should refrain from political activity inappropriate to the judge’s judicial position.

Again, Chancellor Bouchard appeared with the plaintiff’s attorney in a public forum during the decision stage of this trial. This attorney is an old buddy and business associate of Andre Bouchard. This is a violation of the Chancellor’s direction of avoiding improprieties. Bouchard appeared at Legislative Hall in Dover on May 18th, lobbying for a bill to do away with the Sussex County Register of Wills. This was a political action that violates his judicial direction and was totally inappropriate. As to Canon 3 and 4, Chancellor Bouchard has failed miserably and is suspect in my opinion.

Back to the lawsuit against Bouchard in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK by TIMOTHY HOLLAND. Chancellor Bouchard appointed Robert Pincus as a Custodian to run the business and set up the sale of the company, costing the company approximately $8,000,0000 so far in audits and salaries-clearly lining the pockets of Bouchard’s cronies. Bouchard gave Pincus unlimited power in his duties, way beyond what would be normal in private industry. By order of Pincus, all the employees including the Plaintiff were forbidden to talk about the case with the threat of their jobs being terminated- a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Additionally many of the e-mails of the employees were searched, including cell phone records-a clear violation of their 4th amendment rights. Robert Pincus, as an agent of Bouchard’s Court and apparent direction as to how to proceed, with unlimited governmental powers, creates a definite cause for a constitutional alarm and concern over judicial impropriety in this controversial case.

An objective observer (possibly a Delaware Legislator), taking into consideration Chancellor Bouchard’s seemingly controversial acts in regard to the official Delaware Code of Judicial Conduct, could be deeply concerned. Additionally, if it is proven in US District Court that Bouchard violated Timothy Holland’s civil rights, an objective observer (possibly a Delaware Legislator) might think all of these in combination would be grounds for Bouchard’s removal from the bench. It is possible to impeach a Delaware Judge by way of the legislature. It takes a majority of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 majority of the Senate to get it done. Perhaps it should be considered? We will see.