Marion Murphy Van Der Veen’s net worth, biography, fact, career, awards and life story

Marion Murphy Van Der Veen Wiki – Marion Murphy Van Der Veen Biography

Marion Murphy Van Der Veen is the wife of Michael Van der Veen, an American attorney who specializes in criminal and personal injury law. He represented former president Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

She is serving as the Secretary-Treasurer at The Lerro Corporation as per her LinkedIn Profile. The company is a technology leader that has excelled at helping clients utilize innovation to their best advantage. Today, Lerro is the industry’s most trusted integrator of multi-format, broadcast-quality video technology. From design to equipment, to installation, training, and support we are experts in providing our customers with video systems that perfectly fit their needs.

Marion Murphy Van Der Veen Age

Marion Murphy Van Der Veen’s age is unknown.


Van der Veen is married to a woman named Marion. The couple has two daughters and resides in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

Trump Impeachment Lawyer

Trump is being represented by three lawyers for his second impeachment trial which accuses him of allegedly inciting the deadly Capitol riot. Trump’s new defense team was assembled last minute after another group formed by South Carolina GOP attorney Butch Bowers quit.

Michael Van der Veen is the founder of the Philadelphia law firm van der Veen, O’Neill, Hartshorn, and Levin. H specializes in personal injury and is best known for his local radio ads in Philadelphia. He has led a number of high-profile cases, excelling in both civil litigation and criminal defense.

Van der Veen is a member of the bar in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey and is also the treasurer of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers’ Association, according to his website.

According to Trump’s lawyers, you are clearly an idiot.

In actual fact, the former president was impeached for using the word “fight” – a crime committed by everyone in Congress and a good number of other people you might know.

Madonna, for instance. Johnny Depp too. Seriously, America. If it’s OK for Madonna to talk about fighting, or voguing, or being a material girl, what’s the big deal?

If the star of Pirates of the Caribbean can talk about walking the gangplank or shivering his timbers, then who is to deny our beloved former president the right to also don an eyepatch and wave a cutlass in our general direction?

There was lots of video on the day of the greatest Trump lawyering of all. Mostly the same video, played over and over again, sometimes two or three times in quick succession like a Max Headroom compilation of politicians saying the word “fight”.

There was President Biden and Vice-President Harris. There were a bunch of former Democratic presidential candidates. Also some House impeachment managers.

The only challenge for Trump’s lawyers is that none of them led to an insurrection. None of them urged a mob to storm Congress. None of them timed their fight song for the precise moment when elected officials were carrying out their constitutional duty to certify an election’s results.

But we digress. Back to the best lawyering in the land, a veritable elite strike force of jurists not seen since the last one outside that landscaping business next to the sex shop in a particularly lovely corner of Philadelphia.

The strike force featured a new striker. Not the bumbling, rambling Bruce Castor, or the endlessly pedantic David Schoen. No, this time Trump bestowed upon his historic impeachment trial a personal injury lawyer from – yes, you guessed it – Philadelphia. An ambulance chaser, best known in Philly for his radio ads, asking if you’ve tripped while walking down the street.

“If the walkway isn’t clear, and you fall and get hurt due to snow and ice, call 215-546-1000 for Van der Veen, O’Neill, Hartshorn and Levin,” the ads say, according to the Washington Post. “The V is for Victory.”

Last year Mr V was actually suing Trump for his unfounded claims about mail-in voter fraud. This year, he is not so much chasing the ambulance as driving it.

First, Mr V claimed that Trump was encouraging his supporters to respect the electoral college count, not to “stop the steal” as the entire mob was screaming in front of him. Then he claimed that the first of the mob to be arrested was a lefty antifa stooge, not a Trumpy fascist thug.

But mostly he claimed that he – and his client – were defending the constitution at the precise moment when they were burning it to crispy charcoal husk.

OK, so the Trump mob unleashed violence to stop the constitutional counting of the electoral college votes. But the idea that Congress might stop Trump’s free-speech rights to whip up that mob is an outrageous, unconstitutional human rights abuse that threatens to silence all politicians everywhere.

OK, so the Trump mob might have silenced Mike Pence permanently by hanging him on the gallows they built on the steps of Congress. But if Congress tries to stop a president from using a mob to intimidate Congress, where will it end?

Pretty soon, Mr V argued, we won’t even have access to lawyers. The hallowed right to counsel, if not ambulance chasers, might be threatened. “Who would be next,” he asked, indignantly. “It could be anyone. One of you! Or one of you! It’s anti-American and sets a dangerous precedent forever.”

To his great, sighing chagrin, Mr. V lamented the state of political discourse. “Inflammatory rhetoric from our elected officials – from both sides of the aisle – has been alarming, frankly,” he said, in sorrow, as if his client were just a hapless symptom of a bigger sickness: a pandemic of mean words from Democrats.

“This is not whataboutism,” he declared, after rolling his whataboutery video for the second or third or fourth time. “I’m showing you this to show that all political speech must be protected.”

The key to the defense was about incitement to violence and the legal test of Brandenburg v Ohio. Appropriately enough, the Brandenburg in question was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan and the test – as Trump’s lawyers helpfully explained – was about whether the free speech in question “explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action”.

“Mr Trump did the opposite of advocating for lawless action,” said Mr V. “The opposite!”