by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 6, 2025) — On June 3, The Post & Email reported on a citizen-led effort to convey a criminal complaint, signed by members of the public, to the office of U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi contending on March 15, 2025, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order which “willfully obstructed the constitutional authority of the Office
of the Presidency’s exclusive a Article II powers to enforce the Alien Enemies Act,
thereby undermining the President’s sovereign duty to protect the American people.”
Specific statutes the complaint’s sponsors claim Boasberg violated are 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and 18 U.S.C. § 2339B when he directed the government to return illegal aliens flown to El Salvador and Honduras under the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
The deportees, the administration claimed, were members of Tren de Aragua, which Bondi termed “one of the most violent criminal organizations in the world.”
“No reasonable or prudent individual, particularly one holding judicial authority, could
issue such an order without recognizing its grave implications for national security,” the complaint states of Boasberg’s conduct.
As of this writing, the complaint originator has not received a response to his request of U.S. Department of Justice Jared English and Assistant United States Attorney at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia Samuel White for a “secure electronic method” by which to send the complaint directly to Bondi or her designee.
“The USDOJ purports on its website that electronic contact is sufficient to at least initiate communications between the DOJ offices and complainants,” the project originator told us by email last month. “We know, for certain, the email addresses we’ve reached out to are valid and acting members of the USDOJ and that they are receiving our email requests. Given we have shown sufficient grounds to issue a Warrant, those members by ignoring our simple and quickly answerable requests are attempting to obstruct the Warrants being issued and thus the completion of justice being served.”
In a follow-up email to the DOJ contacts Sunday, the originator wrote:
To:
Mr. Jared English
Mr. Samuel White
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Correction and Resubmission of Prior Correspondence
Dear Mr. English and Mr. White,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am writing to respectfully clarify a previous communication that was submitted in error. The version you received was one of several early drafts and was inadvertently sent in place of the finalized version. This was a simple human error, and I sincerely regret any confusion it may have caused and ask kindly that it be disregarded.
Please find below the intended version of the correspondence, which more accurately reflects the legal concerns at issue and the professional tone intended to be respectfully conveyed. It outlines the constitutional and statutory basis for the complainants’ request and the importance of ensuring access to lawful redress.
________________________________________________________________________
“Mr. English and Mr. White
With all due respect, gentlemen, the complainants seeking a secure electronic method to file sworn complaints are simply exercising their constitutional right to petition the Attorney General for redress under the First Amendment. This request does not call upon either of you to exercise prosecutorial discretion—nor does it presume to assign you that role.
Let us be clear: no one is asking you to prosecute. The complainants are submitting complaints that allege violations of federal law, supported by oath or affirmation, and detailing how each element of the alleged offense, as defined by statute, has been met. Under the Fourth Amendment, when such a complaint is properly filed, “warrants shall issue.” That constitutional command contains no language suggesting immunity for any individual, regardless of office.
In this case, the accused is Judge James Boasberg. He has the right to face his accusers, just as the complainants have the right to confront him. Any obstruction of this process—whether by denying access to file or by suppressing the complaint—constitutes a deprivation of both parties’ Sixth Amendment rights.
Moreover, the coordinated refusal to transmit or acknowledge these complaints raises serious legal concerns. Under 18 U.S.C. § 241, it is a federal offense for two or more persons to conspire to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” any person in the free exercise of their constitutional rights. The statute provides for severe penalties, including imprisonment, and in aggravated cases, even life sentences or capital punishment.
The citizens who have come forward are not acting recklessly—they are invoking rights secured to them under the Constitution and federal law. If, in your official capacity, you act under color of law to suppress or obstruct those rights, you may be in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits the deprivation of rights under color of law.
This matter requires no further review or referral. It falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, as it involves allegations against a sitting federal judge and implicates the integrity of the judicial system itself.
The very need to draft and deliver this letter underscores a pattern of conduct on your part that, whether undertaken knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard, that may constitute a profound violation of your constitutional obligations. That two federal prosecutors—entrusted with the solemn duty to protect the rights of the people—would act in concert to obstruct those rights is conduct so egregious, so antithetical to the rule of law, that it shocks the conscience. Such actions not only betray the public trust but erode the foundational principles upon which your authority rests.
We trust that you will act in accordance with your oath and the law. Further delay or obstruction would not only be unlawful—it would be unconscionable.
Respectfully submitted,