Lindsey Halligan, the loyalist lawyer President Donald Trump handpicked to prosecute his enemies last year, has accused a federal judge of abusing his power by asking her to explain how she remains the top federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia after a court formally disqualified her more than a month ago.

Halligan’s response to the judge Tuesday — a remarkably defiant document that strains the boundaries of standard legal rhetoric and logic — represents the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) latest pugilistic attempt to keep her at the helm of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the largest and most prestigious federal prosecutor offices in the country.

In November, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie determined that Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi circumvented the Constitution and federal law in appointing Halligan to lead the office. She then dismissed the DOJ’s criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — two cases that Halligan alone brought just days after her appointment.

Then, last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak ordered Halligan to explain how her continued identification as the top federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia did not amount to making false or misleading statements to a court — and why he shouldn’t strike her identification as a U.S. attorney from a criminal indictment secured after her disqualification.

In response, Halligan characterized Novak’s questions as “a thinly veiled threat” against her authority and claimed the previous unlawful appointment ruling only prevented her from working the dismissed cases against Comey and James.

“This Court appears to be under the misimpression that because Judge Currie’s rationale for dismissing the indictments was her conclusion that Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed, the United States must acquiesce to that rationale in all other cases or else it is ‘ignor[ing]’ Judge Currie’s orders,” the response, which was authored by Halligan, states.

“The bottom line is that Ms. Halligan has not ‘misrepresented’ anything and the Court is flat wrong to suggest that any change to the Government’s signature block is warranted in this or any other case.”