The Justice Department waged a legal battle against the chief U.S. District Court judge for the District of Columbia, but appeared to have messed up the paperwork.

Legal analyst Liz Dye, who writes at "Law and Chaos" and also co-hosts the site's podcast, pointed out that the DOJ's effort to claim Judge James Boasberg committed some form of "misconduct" failed to attach any proof of that misconduct.

"The complaint, addressed to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the DC Circuit, alleged that Judge Boasberg attempted to intimidate Chief Justice John Roberts at the March meeting of the Judicial Conference and made 'improper public comments' about pending cases in violation of the Judicial Canon," Dye wrote along with co-author Andrew Torrez.

Categorizing it as a "nastygram," the legal analysts explained that the filing was assigned by Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle.

He referenced a "vague" source of "information, simply dropping a footnote to 'Attachment A at 16.'"

The problem, however, is that there was no "Attachment A."

"Law and Chaos" filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find this mystery attachment, only to find out that it doesn't exist.

"This would suggest that the complaint was purely performative, lodged solely to discredit a jurist who has issued rulings adverse to the Trump administration. Under the guise of protecting the 'integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,' the Trump administration is in fact working to undermine it," the analysts suggested.

Legal analyst Anna Bower noted that the story in "Attachment A" states that the only source of the misconduct was that attachment.

"DOJ never even bothered to file the attachment," Bower needled.

The legal analysts said that it's clearly a matter of public interest, given Attorney General Pam Bondi posted about it on social media.

"And yet," the authors said, "the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy refused our request to expedite, claiming that it 'cannot identify a particular urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity beyond the public’s right to know about government activities general.'"

Lawyer Kel McClanahan, who represents the site, said that the court doesn't need to accept the allegations about Boasberg. Rather, all the court must do is "accept that DOJ has stated them in a formal judicial filing and cannot retreat from them now when it is inconvenient. According to DOJ’s own words, the document requested by Law and Chaos clearly raises 'possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence."

Read the full column about the matter here.