Here is the EXPLAINATION from the aba journal which makes no sence at all:
No MORE ‘Ellen Barshevsky’ and OTHER Comment Policy Notes
Dear Readers,
After reviewing our last week of comments, we have decided to become more assertive with our comment moderating.
We will more readily exercise our authority to remove inappropriate comments, those that are particularly off-topic and those that generally flout the rules of civil discourse and persistently disrupt the comment stream.
Specifically, we have tolerated for some time, often to the delight, but increasingly more often to the dismay of our regular readers, what we can only assume is the fictional “Ellen Barshevsky” and her various personas.
As of this morning, “Ellen” has formally been banned from commenting on the site. As is our practice, we generally attempt to warn commenters if they are crossing a line or abusing comments before we institute a ban. But because “Ellen” doesn’t attach a real e-mail address to “her” comments, this has been impossible.
Our comments and traffic to ABAJournal.com continue to increase. We get thousands of comments per month, and welcome robust discussion.
As a reminder, here is our comment policy. It remains fairly open, but has boundaries. We expect there to be debate and disagreement, but without personal attacks and name-calling.
ABA Journal Comment Policy:
Comments are a place for our readers to debate—sometimes quite vigorously—the issues we cover. Please respect our readers’ diversity of opinion and look for ways to further the discussion.
But there are also limits to that debate. Don’t use profanity or resort to name-calling, threats or personal attacks. Don’t spam the site with advertising. And don’t masquerade as someone you’re not. We reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate and block users who consistently violate our policies.
By posting a comment on this site, you are agreeing to allow the ABA Journal to reprint your comment in all forms of media at any time.
If you believe a commenter has violated our rules or if you spot an error in a post, please let us know.
Also, because of the increase in comments, we are especially appreciative of those who spot abuses before we do. Please don’t hesitate to report abuses using this form.
Happy reading,
Molly McDonough
Assistant Managing Editor/Online
ABA Journal
I want to know WHO this "Molly" thinks she is and how SHE weilds so much power. I don't think Molly is a real name, I don't know anyone who names their child Molly these days.
This is great news Ellen. I'm doing a news post about it this morning!
ReplyDeleteAre you REALLY a lawyer? Your rants seem pretty juvenile to me, not to mention the poor grammar, spelling and capitalization.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to figure out where you acquired your legal "expertise." I highly doubt you could have made it through law school with your command of the English language. Oy! Your posts and now your blawg are painful to read.
ReplyDeleteEllen, I have always valued your commentary on abajournal posts. Why not continue commenting about them here?
ReplyDeleteEllen, dear: best wishes on your new cyber enterprise. I wish to assure you also that I do NOT have possession of any cheese or other food items you may be missing. Honestly, if I had the cheese, I would return it. I well know that young associates need to eat.
ReplyDeleteEllen,
ReplyDeleteKEEP up the GOOD work so that you STICK IT to the MAN for NOT HAVING a NAME THAT FITS into Your Conformist Views of Society and who should or should knot be naemd Mollie!
Your odd use of ALL CAPS makes me think you clerked for Fifth Circuit Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, whose opinions are marked by the frequent and sometimes random use of italics.
ReplyDeleteEllen,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to miss your comments on the ABA website. While other posters invariably got stuck in their own ideologies and politics, you always kept things on the surface. I would actually hunt for your posts as they undoubtedly were the most humorous, if not irreverent.
Glad to see you started your own blog! Your crazy comments are better suited in an off-ABA medium. ;)
ReplyDeleteEllen, I am sorry that you got banished. This is not the spot for a smart girl like you. The ABA is stupid as their web traffic will be going down. I for one will not be visiting the web to read the articles. I went to the website,like thousands of others, to read your comments. Even though you probably could use a spell check, you were very theraputic to me, an older lawyer. Your youth and exuberance was refreshing. If I were 20 years younger, I'd give your boyfriend a run for his money. In any event, I wish you well, and all the success in life. Sincerely, Al Tidom
ReplyDeleteSincerely stated. God bless you, auld Al (and God bless England).
ReplyDeleteThis is a bogus BLAWG. Ellen Barshevsky has nothing to do with this. Another example of the ABA perpetrating a fraud. I suggest the ABA step up and permit Ellen to return and provide us with insight, like Al Todom says.
ReplyDeleteThe ABA banned me too without accusing me of using obscenities, advertising, masquerading as someone I'm not, name-calling, threats or personal attacks. They weren't specific about anything in particular I wrote. They said I should have my own blog.
ReplyDeleteSomeone on the ABA blog said they thought I am a "good writer".
The last thing I posted before the ABA blog banned me was on an article about pubic opinions of the Supreme Court. I posted something asking whether the Supreme Court knows that lawyers have assumed the role of prosecutors in indirect contempt. I rewrote my comment several times but what they really seemed to object to was anything that cited the Supreme Court case of YOUNG v. UNITED STATES EX REL. VUITTON ET FILS S. A. ET AL., 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 (U.S. 05/26/1987).
In a civil matter the ABA was a part of, former judge Nottingham appointed civil defense counsel Chris Beall as prosecutor.Beall said I wasn't entitled to a lawyer, an evidentiary hearing, or an affidavit of probable cause and he and judge Naughty put me in jail three times totaling 5 months for engaging in pro se litigation (with no accusations or evidence that I disrupted a hearing). The ABA was a defendant in the pro se litigation and their lawyer Carolyn Lamm, now ABA president elect, wrote that the ABA's position is that Rule 65 doesn't apply to "vexatious" litigants. In my litigation, no rule 11 b (6) orders were ever issued and there were no evidentiary hearings. In my litigation, the ABA did not file a rule 11 motion but they filed a judgment they claimed was a rule 11 order against me and without a court garnishment order, they had my bank accounts taken down to $1 including my business account--the sole source of income for a family of four. In my litigation, ABA asst general counsel Patricia Larson wrote a letter to former judge Nottingham (who recently resigned after disclosures that he asked a prostitute to keep their relationship secret) and asked him to stay hearing my summary judgment motions. The magistrate made no findings of fact and ordered judge Nottingham not to hear my summary judgment motions and the defense counsel not to respond to them. The magistrate allowed the defense to plead affirmative responses of res judicata, statute of limitations, and immunity thru motion without an answer as required in Rule 8. Nottingham's dismissal did not comply w Rule 52a and when I asked him why he dismissed he said it was because of a pleading I filed in Steamboat Springs CO that was never served and had no response and told me to "sit down". Then I filed a related case assigned to Judge Urbina and Lamm didn't object when he ruled that Nottingham's fact less judgment caused res judicata to later events. Someone had me put in jail when the defense filed a motion to dismiss my appeal.
Anyway, Nottingham skipped the rules of criminal procedure to put me in jail and a number of ABA employees were aware of it and did nothing. I was in jail in WI under federal pay and I filed an open records request and the WI AG responded they had no criminal records. I filed an open records request with the CO U.S. Attorney too in August and more than the statutory 20 days--more than 3 months later -- have received no answer at all although they had custody of me for more than 4 months. The way Naughty had me allegedly kidnapped was thru direct orders to the U.S. Marshals--I think the same officers who were his body guards at the strip clubs and brothels. Someone from their office sent faxes to Wisconsin. They used an unsigned warrant that was blank where the statute number was supposed to be and a civil case number (despite U.S.C. Title 28 § 1693) I am a married woman in my 50's and don't have a criminal record.
Did you know that the ABA has already signed a consent decree and paid a $185,000 fine to the U.S. government related to its antitrust activities? See JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ASKS COURT TO HOLD AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
ABA Acknowledges Consent Decree Violations and Agrees to Pay $185,000 JUNE 23, 2006 http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2006/216804.htm
I guess the ABA was worried because a pro se litigant was successful in Canada in suing the Quebec Bar Association. Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36
The ABA might also have been so determined to keep me from a jury because I expressed interest in starting a new bar association --the "Citizens Bar Association"--and purchased domain names for it.
Hmm... I don't think Kay gets the bit...
ReplyDeleteHooray for Molly McDonough! "Ellen," your writing is awful, your opinions are transparent, and your diatribes juvenile. I doubt you are a lawyer, or even went to law school. You are a waste of cyberspace and I am glad you were banned from ABA Journal as your "comments" were horrible, and ended up turning intelligent discussions into a pro/anti ellen forum. You now have your 15 minutes, enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteI loved reading Ellen's comments Friday morning, and I actually looked forward to them, but I don't think I can handle a whole Ellen blog. I suspended my disbelief that she was not a real person in order to enjoy her comments. The blog is overwhelming, there can such a thing as too much Ellen. I am sorry she was banned.
ReplyDeleteCould your BF Allan take your spot on the ABA? We won't mind. Honestly.
ReplyDeleteI see an attempt to parlay this into a future book deal.
ReplyDeleteIf it is, I'd love to get your book.
The ABA is big on censoring. I see that Seiverding chick is still seething. I wonder if she paid her ABA dues?
ReplyDeletepeople like anonymous 11/21 559am are why i hate most of my fellow attorneys and the profession as a whole. anyway, thanks for the laughs ellen. i will no longer have a reason to read the amajournal online articles. you were it.
ReplyDeleteGo Ellen! I love your possibly fake but always entertaining comments. Also, Kay... you were banned because you are a few donuts short of a dozen. You can't piggyback on Ellen's banning because nobody actually likes you.
ReplyDeleteIn accord with statements made above, Ellen's posts were like the GEICO caveman commercials - a little here and there is funny, but an entire blog dedicated to this troll is a bit much and loses its novelty quickly. Goodbye my dear, you and your boyfriend will be missed.
ReplyDeleteWhat ever happened to this broad?
ReplyDelete