Impeach Joe Biden

 

Articles of Impeachment Filed Against Biden by GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

Newly-elected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Jan. 21 announced she has introduced articles of impeachment against the new president, Joe Biden.

The Articles of Impeachment concern Biden’s alleged actions involving a “quid pro quo” deal in Ukraine and alleged abuse of power “by allowing his son, Hunter Biden, to siphon off cash from America’s greatest enemies Russia and China,” Greene’s office announced in a statement just a day after Biden was sworn in as the 46th U.S. president.

The move comes less than a month into Greene’s first term in Congress. Democrats control both the House and Senate, so it is unlikely that the attempt to impeach Biden, a Democrat, will succeed.

“President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency,” Greene said in a statement. “His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama’s Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family’s pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies.”

She added, “President Biden is even on tape admitting to a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government threatening to withhold $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid if they did not do his bidding. President Biden residing in the White House is a threat to national security and he must be immediately impeached.”

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Former Vice President Joe Biden (L) and his son Hunter Biden at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington on Jan. 30, 2010. (Nick Wass/AP Photo)

At an event in 2018, Biden said that in 2016 he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid from Ukraine unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired Viktor Shokin. Shokin at the time was investigating Burisma, an energy company in Ukraine for which Hunter was a board member from 2014 to at least 2018.

Biden in 2016 was responsible for overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.

“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden recounted at an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018. “Well, son of a [expletive], he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Hunter Biden has said he consulted for Burisma but critics have suggested he was not doing actual work in return for his substantial income—an allegation he denies.

Biden previously denied using his influence to get Shokin fired to prevent him from investigating Hunter’s involvement. Biden claimed that the reason that Shokin was fired was because Shokin was inept.

In direct contrast to Biden’s claims, Shokin said in a sworn affidavit obtained by investigative reporter John Solomon that he was told that he was fired in March 2016 because Biden wasn’t pleased with the investigations into Burisma.

Greene alleges that Joe Biden abused his power as the country’s vice president by allowing his son “to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept various benefits—including financial compensation—from foreign nationals in exchange for certain favors.”

“During his father’s vice presidency, Hunter Biden built many business relationships with foreign nationals and received millions of dollars from foreign sources, seemingly in exchange for access to his father. The financial transactions which Hunter engaged in illustrates serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family,” Greene’s office said.

“President Biden gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. Through blatant nepotism, he enabled his son to influence foreign policy and financially benefit as a result of his role as Vice President.

“He supported his son engaging in collusion with Chinese Communist party-linked officials. He allowed his son to trade appointments with his father and other high-ranking administration officials in exchange for financial compensation. He permitted his son to take money from Russian oligarchs, including Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow,” it continued.

The New York Post last year obtained emails and messages from a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden, allegedly showing that he had tried to arrange a meeting between himself, his father, and a top executive at Burisma. Both Bidens have denied that a meeting took place, with Joe Biden saying that the story by the outlet was “another smear campaign.”

Other emails obtained by the outlet allegedly show that Hunter Biden was engaged in deals involving a Chinese energy giant with ties to the Chinese military–the now-bankrupt Chinese oil giant CEFC China Energy.

Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, announced during a press conference in Nashville in October 2020 that Hunter and his associates brought him into a deal with CEFC China Energy in 2017.

A federal appeals court in New York in late December 2020 upheld the bribery conviction of Patrick Ho, a Chinese businessman and the former head of a think tank funded by CEFC China Energy.

Hunter is currently under federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware over his taxes. The details and nature of the investigation have not been publicly disclosed. The office said it couldn’t comment on ongoing investigations.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a friend and adviser to Biden, said in December 2020 that Joe Biden will not interfere in the investigation. The then-president elect said that he was “confident” his son did nothing wrong, and later said that accusations against Hunter Biden are “foul play.”

 

By Mimi Nguyen Ly

January 21, 2021

The Importance Of An Independent Judiciary

 

Study urges Congress to act to ensure independence of federal judges

Thu, 01/21/2021

LAWRENCE — Former President Donald Trump's removal of prominent officials not willing to do his bidding grabbed headlines throughout his tenure, but he also took less well-publicized steps to bring the federal bureaucracy under his control by dismantling key parts of the civil service. A University of Kansas law professor argues in a new study that these efforts, coupled with recent Supreme Court rulings, threaten the independence of a key group of agency adjudicators. The study urges Congress to take action to prevent cronyism and political bias in agency adjudications.

Richard Levy, J.B. Smith Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the KU School of Law, and Robert Glicksman of George Washington University have published a study in the Minnesota Law Review examining the independence of administrative law judges, or ALJs. In the study, the authors outline the attacks on the independence of ALJs in federal agencies that threaten to politicize the appointment and removal of officers intended to be impartial decision-makers. They recommend a legislative solution to ensure independence that would benefit both major political parties.

The basic separation of powers between the executive, judicial and legislative branches in American government is well understood. However, there is overlap when implementing law and determining how the law applies in given situations, the authors wrote. These situations arise frequently in federal agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and Social Security Administration. The agencies appoint adjudicators, including ALJs, who make rulings, but conflicts of interest can arise when agencies or employers prefer one policy but the law requires another.

“The question is, how do you properly balance the idea that the president is at the head of the executive branch and has responsibility to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed with the idea that due process and fundamental fairness in agency adjudications requires an impartial decision-maker?” Levy said.

Levy and Glicksman described recent Supreme Court decisions that have supported a strong unitary executive theory that gives the president greater control over the appointment and removal of officers in the executive branch, as well as executive actions by Trump that exempt ALJs from civil service merit selection requirements and weaken the statutory against removal for reasons other than good cause. Civil service protections for federal officers and employees have consistently expanded to prevent political patronage or a spoils system rewarding cronyism. As applied to ALJs, these protections were essential to ensure presidents and political appointees could not appoint unqualified or biased adjudicators or take disciplinary action against ALJs who refused to toe the line in their decisions.

“When we talk about a ‘war,’ we’re essentially talking about a war on the civil service,” Levy said. “The Trump administration’s argument is those protections led to the creation of the so-called deep state.”

The authors present an in-depth examination of the executive order removing ALJs from the established appointment system in which the most highly qualified judges as determined by civil service testing were presented as candidates for judicial openings. They determine the move was legally valid, yet opens the door to cronyism and the appointment of unqualified loyalists to such positions. They also discuss a recent Justice Department memo indicating that the department would only defend good cause removal protections for ALJs if those provisions allow for removal those who fail “to follow instructions” or in essence, make rulings favorable to the position of the executive branch.

“At the very least we have a looming constitutional crisis for ALJs, and a lack of protections for them for appointment and removals,” Levy said. “It seems to us a substantial threat to ALJ independence and judicial integrity.”

Given that threat, the authors argue a statutory response is required. They call for the creation of an independent ALJ corps using the “central panel” model that is already in place in numerous states’ laws. The approach would allow for independence of ALJs that adjudicate federal agency questions, while allowing for final review from the agencies. That would restore judicial independence and retain the agency’s ultimate policy authority and expertise, Levy said.

Congress could enact a law achieving those ends in a nonpartisan fashion, the authors said. Doing so would be mutually beneficial as it could prevent cronyism from whatever party is in power, retaliation upon changes of administration or unforeseen abuses of policy enacted by a preceding party.

“I think we have to start restoring safeguards that have been dismantled by partisanship,” Levy said.

While the hyperpartisan nature of American politics may make such an event difficult, it is not impossible, the authors wrote. Levy and Glicksman have already presented their arguments in a webinar sponsored by the Administrative Conference of the United States and been contacted by the National Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary and helped draft a report in support of a resolution by the American Bar Association in support of a central panel of federal ALJs.

“Ultimately, the independence of administrative adjudication is a critical protection for the rule of law. Although other recent threats to the rule of law may deservedly garner the headlines, we should not lose sight of the critical role that impartial agency adjudication plays,” the authors wrote. “Taking reasonable steps toward securing independent and impartial adjudication by agencies is a nonpartisan issue that Congress can and should address.”

The Great Controversy Between Good and Evil

Archbishop Viganò’s powerful letter to President Trump: Eternal struggle between good and evil playing out right now

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò warns the president that the current crises over the coronavirus pandemic and the George Floyd riots are a part of the eternal spiritual struggle between the forces of good and evil.

(Jun 6, 2020)

By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

---

Editor’s note: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has released this powerful letter today to President Trump warning him that the current crises over the coronavirus pandemic and the George Floyd riots are a part of the eternal spiritual struggle between the forces of good and evil. You are not alone in your beliefs on life, faith, family and freedom.

Mr. President,

In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute minority. And yet the former are the object of a sort of discrimination which places them in a situation of moral inferiority with respect to their adversaries, who often hold strategic positions in government, in politics, in the economy and in the media. In an apparently inexplicable way, the good are held hostage by the wicked and by those who help them either out of self-interest or fearfulness.
These two sides, which have a Biblical nature, follow the clear separation between the offspring of the Woman and the offspring of the Serpent. On the one hand there are those who, although they have a thousand defects and weaknesses, are motivated by the desire to do good, to be honest, to raise a family, to engage in work, to give prosperity to their homeland, to help the needy, and, in obedience to the Law of God, to merit the Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, there are those who serve themselves, who do not hold any moral principles, who want to demolish the family and the nation, exploit workers to make themselves unduly wealthy, foment internal divisions and wars, and accumulate power and money: for them the fallacious illusion of temporal well-being will one day – if they do not repent – yield to the terrible fate that awaits them, far from God, in eternal damnation.
In society, Mr. President, these two opposing realities co-exist as eternal enemies, just as God and Satan are eternal enemies. And it appears that the children of darkness – whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days – have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans. They seem to be so certain of already having everything under control that they have laid aside that circumspection that until now had at least partially concealed their true intentions. The investigations already under way will reveal the true responsibility of those who managed the Covid emergency not only in the area of health care but also in politics, the economy, and the media. We will probably find that in this colossal operation of social engineering there are people who have decided the fate of humanity, arrogating to themselves the right to act against the will of citizens and their representatives in the governments of nations.

We will also discover that the riots in these days were provoked by those who, seeing that the virus is inevitably fading and that the social alarm of the pandemic is waning, necessarily have had to provoke civil disturbances, because they would be followed by repression which, although legitimate, could be condemned as an unjustified aggression against the population. The same thing is also happening in Europe, in perfect synchrony. It is quite clear that the use of street protests is instrumental to the purposes of those who would like to see someone elected in the upcoming presidential elections who embodies the goals of the deep state and who expresses those goals faithfully and with conviction. It will not be surprising if, in a few months, we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches.
Although it may seem disconcerting, the opposing alignments I have described are also found in religious circles. There are faithful Shepherds who care for the flock of Christ, but there are also mercenary infidels who seek to scatter the flock and hand the sheep over to be devoured by ravenous wolves. It is not surprising that these mercenaries are allies of the children of darkness and hate the children of light: just as there is a deep state, there is also a deep church that betrays its duties and forswears its proper commitments before God. Thus the Invisible Enemy, whom good rulers fight against in public affairs, is also fought against by good shepherds in the ecclesiastical sphere. It is a spiritual battle, which I spoke about in my recent Appeal which was published on May 8.
For the first time, the United States has in you a President who courageously defends the right to life, who is not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world, who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship. Your participation in the March for Life, and more recently your proclamation of the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, are actions that confirm which side you wish to fight on. And I dare to believe that both of us are on the same side in this battle, albeit with different weapons.
For this reason, I believe that the attack to which you were subjected after your visit to the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II is part of the orchestrated media narrative which seeks not to fight racism and bring social order, but to aggravate dispositions; not to bring justice, but to legitimize violence and crime; not to serve the truth, but to favor one political faction. And it is disconcerting that there are Bishops – such as those whom I recently denounced – who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of churches.

The American people are mature and have now understood how much the mainstream media does not want to spread the truth but seeks to silence and distort it, spreading the lie that is useful for the purposes of their masters. However, it is important that the good – who are the majority – wake up from their sluggishness and do not accept being deceived by a minority of dishonest people with unavowable purposes. It is necessary that the good, the children of light, come together and make their voices heard. What more effective way is there to do this, Mr. President, than by prayer, asking the Lord to protect you, the United States, and all of humanity from this enormous attack of the Enemy? Before the power of prayer, the deceptions of the children of darkness will collapse, their plots will be revealed, their betrayal will be shown, their frightening power will end in nothing, brought to light and exposed for what it is: an infernal deception.
Mr. President, my prayer is constantly turned to the beloved American nation, where I had the privilege and honor of being sent by Pope Benedict XVI as Apostolic Nuncio. In this dramatic and decisive hour for all of humanity, I am praying for you and also for all those who are at your side in the government of the United States. I trust that the American people are united with me and you in prayer to Almighty God.
United against the Invisible Enemy of all humanity, I bless you and the First Lady, the beloved American nation, and all men and women of good will.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

  Homosexual widower’s can now receive survivor benefits for Homosexual couples

Hundreds of older homosexual Americans shut out from Social Security benefits after the death of their spouses are set to gain access to them under a federal court decision.
Plaintiff Michael Ely can receive benefits as a widower even though his partner of more than 40 years, James Taylor, died of cancer just six months after they officially married, rather than the required nine months, according to a May 26 ruling in Arizona District Court.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Macdonald also certified Ely, 67, as representative of a class estimated at more than 400 Americans who got hitched after their states legalized same-sex marriage but later lost their spouses in fewer than nine months.
“If Mr. Ely and Mr. Taylor had been legally able to marry nine months prior to Mr. Taylor’s death this might be a different case; however, they were not,” Macdonald wrote. “The unconstitutional infringement on Mr. Ely and Mr. Taylor’s fundamental right to marriage is now being perpetuated further by the denial of Mr. Ely to obtain survivor’s benefits.”
The Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) could appeal the decision in the Ninth Circuit, which could also lead to a Supreme Court case. The highest court ruled same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional in 2015, but some widows and widowers still can’t get benefits.
Representatives for the two government agencies, as well as their counsel, did not respond to requests for comment.

The gap in benefits left some members of the class action case homeless following the death of his husband, according to homosexual civil rights advocacy group Lambda Legal — which filed Ely’s initial case against the Social Security Administration in November 2018.
“This is a tremendous victory for many surviving same-sex spouses nationwide who have been locked out of critical benefits because they were unlawfully barred from marriage for most of their relationships,” Lambda Legal Counsel Peter Renn said in a statement. “No one should be penalized for being the victim of discrimination.”
Ely and Taylor wed in November 2014, less than a month after the same federal court ruled Arizona’s ban unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the decision while striking down the remaining bans nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Other putative class action members who could start receiving survivor benefits include lead plaintiff James Obergefell, who married in 2013 only months prior to his 45-year-old husband’s death from Lou Gehrig's disease. Obergefell and John Arthur had been together 20 years.
The estimated number of members came from an academic researcher’s comparison of death rates and probabilities against the number of people who entered same-sex marriages in 14 states still subject to bans until 2015. Macdonald called it a conservative estimate since it didn’t include potential cases from other states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier.
Ely and Taylor began living together in 1971, and they moved to Tucson in the early 1990s. They also held a commitment ceremony in 2007, more than 35 years after they began living together. Six years later, doctors diagnosed Taylor with cancer after finding multiple tumors.
"My late husband, who went by the nickname 'Spider,' was the love of my Life and we got married as soon as the law permitted,” Ely said in a statement. “My husband paid into social security with every paycheck, and I know he can rest easier now knowing that I, at last, will start receiving the same benefits as other widowers.”

 (Tobias Salinger, June 08, 2020)

All Lives Matter, All Killings Are Repulsive

Where is the media outrage on these deaths and shootings?

All Americans were rightly sickened by the brutal death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week, President Trump says. “My administration is fully committed that, for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain.”

Four days ago, another African-American man was killed, this time gunned down while standing outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Oakland, California.

Dave Patrick Underwood isn’t a household name. His death didn’t make nearly as many headlines. But his life mattered, too, and his murder should sicken every American.

Underwood was a law enforcement officer in the Federal Protective Service. He and a colleague were standing guard when the gunshots came, killing Underwood and sending his fellow officer to the hospital in critical condition. Oakland’s interim police chief says the shooting was most likely an attack that deliberately targeted uniformed officers.

All across America, violent domestic terrorists have exploited the real hurt and pain felt by thousands of peaceful protesters. The need to save innocent lives and protect our most vulnerable communities from these criminals should be obvious to every peace-loving citizen. Yet media talking heads and opportunistic politicians would rather keep exploiting fear instead of solving the problem and restoring order. That’s unacceptable.

“If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” President Trump said in an address last night.

Ending domestic terrorism shouldn’t be a partisan issue that Democrats leave to Republicans. Neither should loudly supporting the thousands of decent, brave law enforcement officers who put themselves on the line every night to keep us safe.

Violence against police officers is an affront to everything America stands for. Stories about the assaults against them over the past week need to be told, even if corporate media executives decide that it isn’t the “right” narrative to push:

• A Las Vegas officer is on life support after a gunshot to the head.
   
• Four police officers were shot last night during riots in St. Louis.
   
• An NYPD officer was struck by a vehicle in an apparent hit-and-run.
   
• Violent thugs beat a police officer on the streets of New York.  

How does any of this help our nation heal from the tragedy in Minnesota?

It doesn’t. No American, from any community, should ever feel unsafe on our streets—and that includes those who risk their lives to protect us. The rule of law applies to everyone, from bad cops who abuse their power to violent rioters who attack the police.

President Trump wants justice for all, with no exceptions. The actions he announced last night will bring order to our streets and get us closer to making sure that happens.

Ivy-League Lawyer Accussed of Fire Bombing NYC Police Car June 1, 2020 During George Floyd Riots

                                                               

An Ivy League-educated lawyer and member of a Brooklyn community board was among those arrested for hurling a Molotov cocktail at a marked NYPD vehicle amid George Floyd protests, it was revealed Sunday.
Colinford Mattis, 32, was allegedly behind the wheel of a tan minivan as his passenger, fellow attorney Urooj Rahman, allegedly hurled the incendiary at an empty NYPD vehicle outside the 88th Precinct stationhouse in Fort Greene early Saturday.
Mattis, a graduate of Princeton University and the New York University School of Law, is an associate at corporate Manhattan firm Pryor Cashman.
He was furloughed in April amid the coronavirus crisis, his employer confirmed.
“As we confront critical issues around historic and ongoing racism and inequity in our society, I am saddened to see this young man allegedly involved in the worst kind of reaction to our shared outrage over what had occurred,” managing partner Ron Shechtman said in a statement to The Post.

 

Brooklyn Community Board 5 in East New York lists Mattis as one of its members, though the board’s president and reps didn’t immediately return calls Sunday.
Rahman, 31, meanwhile, is also registered as an attorney in New York state, who was admitted to the bar in June 2019 after graduating from Fordham University School of Law. It was not immediately clear on Sunday whether she was affiliated with any law firm.

see also

Woman who threw Molotov cocktail at NYPD car hit with federal charge

It’s unclear how she and Mattis know each other.
The Brooklyn residents are federally charged with causing damage by fire and explosives to a police vehicle, during demonstrations over the death of Floyd.
“No rational human being can ever believe that hurling firebombs at police officers and vehicles is justified,” said Brooklyn US Attorney Richard Donaghue.
Both attorneys are expected to be arraigned Monday.
Pryor Cashman said Mattis’ employment status will be reviewed “as we obtain further information this week.”
If convicted, each of them faces up to 20 years behind bars with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

SSA Firing Of Veteran Attorney Was Not Justified, Must Pay Court Costs For His Appeal

Military Veteran Attorney Challenges Termination By SSA

McGuffin v Social Security Administration (2017-2433 (11/7/19) involves a Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) challenge to termination of a military veteran. The court’s opinion contains detailed facts. Here are the key points.

McGuffin was hired by Social Security Administration (SSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina, in its Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (SSA/ODAR).
He was an attorney advisor and his duties entailed researching and drafting decisions that were then handed off to an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Without re-hashing the complex rules applicable to his hiring, the key factor is that after serving one year he would, as a military veteran, attain civil service status subject to all the required adverse action procedures.
In contrast, a non-veteran coworker hired at the same time would serve a 2-year probationary period.  The facts demonstrate that agency officials were made well aware that they had one year to terminate McGuffin due to his veteran status. Facts also demonstrate that a few days before his year was up, the bosses rushed a decision to terminate McGuffin for “failure to demonstrate” the ability to do the job notwithstanding several compliments from some of the ALJs he wrote decisions for. 

McGuffin appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Center (EEOC) alleging disability discrimination. During the EEOC hearing, McGuffin elicited testimony from agency witnesses that there had been a rush to terminate his employment before he attained civil service status and that his military status was a factor since it meant he only faced a one-year probation period.  After his unsuccessful EEOC appeal, McGuffin took his case to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). There he argued that SSA had violated USERRA. The MSPB ruled against him, so he took his argument to the federal appeals court.
The court concluded that Mr. McGuffin had met his burden under USERRA. This meant that SSA had to prove it terminated McGuffin for a valid reason. Where the MSPB found that SSA proved it terminated because he was a poor performer who failed to show he met the requirements of “productivity, timeliness and quality after a year of training,” the court begged to differ, finding that the evidence does not support that conclusion. 

The court opined that the agency applied McGuffin to a higher standard than that it was supposed to apply during the first year, namely it held him to meeting his “fair share” of work on cases. In fact the bosses seemed “fixated” on McGuffin not being able to meet his fair share even though the personnel advisors cautioned them that this was an evaluation factor that was not applicable during the first year. In fact, McGuffin’s evaluation report a few months before his termination indicated that he had successfully performed in the two work requirements applicable during the first year on the job, as evidenced by several favorable comments from various ALJs that he supported. (p. 19)

The court has now reversed the MSPB, found that USERRA was violated, and remanded for the Board to determine an appropriate remedy. Moreover, the court ordered the government to pay Mr. McGuffin’s costs.