You lacked even a passing familiarity, to the point of not knowning the name of the firm, of which you were claiming to have an org chart level of understanding. It completely undermined your contentions.
I personally didn’t think much of Taitz herself, or her ill advised attempts to smear the judge, including accusations regarding this law clerk. But, Perkins Coie does represent Obama, and was the clerk’s previous employer. That did create the appearance of impropriety. Questions about the judiciousness of the hire were fair game as a result, whether I agreed with the motivation behind those questions, or not.
The fellow in question is Siddharth Velamoor.
He worked for Perkins Coie out of their Seattle office.
His specialty is apparently product liability.
http://www.martindale.com/Siddharth-Velamoor/33735949-lawyer.htm
Judge Carter ruled exactly as predicted by virtually every individual with legal experience who weighed in on this issue.
The appearance of impropriety? The appearance, perhaps. But only an appearance and a weak one at that. Even a cursory examination of the facts clears the matter up.
The claim that hiring a clerk from among the many hundreds, if not thousands, of associates who work for a nationwide legal firm that also handles legal matters for BHO somehow provides evidence of actual impropriety is groundless.
Especially when the individual in question apparently specializes in a field of law that is entirely unrelated to the issued at hand.