So you want other people to weigh the judgment of the anonymous attorneys that you supposedly got your testimony from, but it's "none of my damned business" to know who your sources are?
Ridiculous. If you expect anyone to take your sources seriously, you have to be willing to cite them. Otherwise, there's no reason to think you're not writing it yourself, and claiming that attorneys wrote it. None of the identifiable legal commentary you provided is particularly sophisticated or striking; it certainly doesn't read like it had to have come from the pen of an attorney.
On the other hand, maybe I should rebut you by playing your game. You say attorneys provided your caselaw analysis? Well, I've got a handful of federal JUDGES who tell me they're wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Their names? Their positions? Any information about them at all? Sorry...none of your business.
You may also be interested in the guy who claims to have a Kenyan birth certificate that he's attempting to sell for thousands of dollars on eBay. He takes a similar approach; he wants your trust and your money, but it's none of your business to actually see the item you're buying or even verify if he possesses it. But I'm sure he's trustworthy.
Naturally, I can't make you name your sources. But if anyone here is seriously considering trusting your "attorneys'" judgment, at least I can make them give a second thought as to how much faith they should put in secret unnamed, unidentified, uncredentialed "attorneys" who you refuse to provide any information about whatsoever. And whether they should consider that heavy blanket of secrecy and sourceless regurgitation when evaluating any other claims you happen to make.