OK, I got the name wrong.
In retrospect I should have looked it up to be certain.
But is the underlying argument wrong because of it?
My erring on the name of the law firm doesn’t change the facts of the argument unless you wish to resort to logical fallacies.
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.