.

User avatar
as stars burn
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:10 pm

oh my dear god, secured transactions is so bad. Frisch's examples are so damn long, I can't follow him at all, and my head is going to explode. Holy shit.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:17 pm

Image

Ha ha. Get it?

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:19 pm

Yeah MBE review on 2X. Wasting less time.

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Kretzy » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:36 pm

locusdelicti wrote:Image

Ha ha. Get it?


This was WAY too funny to me this evening. My partner is appalled at how lame I've become. I need a drink.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:38 pm

Not sure if any of you are having the same experience, but it seems to me like the civ pro essays are testing massive minutia compared to the other subjects and most of it seems to be completely buried within the long outlines and not addressed at all in the lectures (even in passing). Though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, minutia is a synonym for civil procedure. Silver lining: imma know civ pro pretty well after today. hopefully. maybe. I'll at least have 200 flashcards.

How's everyone's Saturday going? ...It is Saturday right? I can't tell anymore.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:59 pm

Kretzy wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:Image

Ha ha. Get it?


This was WAY too funny to me this evening. My partner is appalled at how lame I've become. I need a drink.


They've made a substantial step toward becoming a murder, but they didn't complete the flock.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:48 pm

Image

Budge, damn you!

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:52 pm

How irresponsible of Elkin to suggest bringing along grilled chicken as a brown bag lunch on exam day. Grilled chicken can't sit out for more than 2 hours

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:52 pm

locusdelicti wrote:
Kretzy wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:Image

Ha ha. Get it?


This was WAY too funny to me this evening. My partner is appalled at how lame I've become. I need a drink.


They've made a substantial step toward becoming a murder, but they didn't complete the flock.


Looks like they flew the coop

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:27 pm

for essay questions, do you all write out the full essay for 30 minutes or do you just outline the answers with key points and not put it into essay form at all? I'm wondering if there's more utility just using the essays to issue spot: i'm pretty comfortable with the 30 minute constraints and the TRAC analysis.

edited for clarity

balzie94
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:41 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby balzie94 » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:58 pm

I'm 99% sure that the MBE Mixed sets at this point are too hard to be helpful, as they often test extreme nuances and fail to proportionately test the 6 different areas of law in each. The Milestones were WAAAAY easier than the questions being tested in these. It is annoying that Themis nevertheless states that our goal on these should be 70%.

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:14 pm

I CAN'T DO the Commercial Paper essays. I just can't do them. There's only one where I could even manage an outline. The lecture made no sense. The outline made no sense. I have a distilled outline from a friend and that makes no sense either. Help!!!

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:23 pm

Makers make notes; drawers draw drafts.

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:57 pm

I actually found some decent mnemonics on a CPA forum. I'm just going to leave it at this and hope, if it is asked, I at least get points for remembering rules, and possibly take a stab at applying them. There's too much else to do and it's a cost-benefit thing at this point.

Here they are alone with the Themis questions, if it helps anyone else.

(1) Is this a negotiable instrument?
(2) Was this instrument properly negotiated?
(3) Is the instrument’s holder a holder in due course (HDC?)
(4) Does the individual obligated to pay have any defenses?
(5) Are the defenses real, or personal?

(1) Negotiable Instrument
• SUMBOD

(a) (S) Signed by Maker/Drawer
(b) (U) Unconditionalno express conditions modifying the promise (NOT ok to say “I’ll pay if I win the lotto” or “I’m paying subject to this K” but OK to say “I’m paying per this K”
(c) (M) Money Fixed amount
(d) (B) Payable to Bearer)
(e) (O) Payable to Order
(f) (D) Definite Time (when someone dies is not definite time)

NOTEif non-negotiable, apply regular K law (i.e., regular K defenses apply)



(2) Properly Negotiated
• Transfer of possession to a person who becomes the holder
o Bearer Instrument – possession only
o Order Instrument – possession PLUS indorsement


(3) Holder in Due Course (HDC)
• VFW

(a) (V) Pay Valuefor the instrument
(b) (F) Good Faithwhether person receiving instrument actually knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN
(c) (W) Without Notice of Defectsforgery, overdue, altered


(4) Does Person Obligated to Pay Have Any Defenses?
• Mere Holder – Personal Defenses OR Real Defenses
o Personal “FISK”
 (FI) Fraud in the Inducement
 (S) Stolen – someone stole the check, instrument never issued
 (L) K Defenses

• HDC – ONLY Real Defenses


(5) If a HDC, Are There Real Defenses?
• I’M BIFF

(a) (I) Infancy/Incapacity
(b) (M) Material Alterations – to instrument itself
(c) (B) Bankruptcy
(d) (I) Illegality –contracts for illegal subject matter void
(e) (F) Fraud in the Factum – signer NOT AWARE he was signing negotiable instrument
(f) (F) Forgery

balzie94
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:41 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby balzie94 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:12 am

**CON LAW SPOILER**

46. (Question ID#1174)
A state has enacted a new election code designed to increase voter responsibility in the exercise of the franchise and to enlarge citizen participation in the electoral process. None of its provisions conflicts with federal statutes.

Which of the following is the strongest reason for finding unconstitutional a requirement in the state election code that each voter must be literate in English?
A. The requirement violates Article I Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that representatives to Congress be chosen "by the People of the several States."
B. The requirement violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "make or alter" state regulations providing for the "Times" and "Manner" of holding elections for senators and representatives.
C. The requirement violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The requirement violates the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Fundamental rights (including the right to vote) protected by substantive due process are also often protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Under strict scrutiny, a law interfering with a fundamental right will be upheld only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, which is not indicated here. Note that impingement of the right to vote may trigger an inquiry under the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses. The Equal Protection Clause is applied if the law deals with the denial of rights to a particular group, as opposed to everyone. Here, answer choice A is incorrect because it is not relevant and misses the fundamental right issue. Answer choice B is incorrect because it seems to attempt to implicate a free speech issue, which does not apply here. Answer choice C is incorrect because it is the Equal Protection Clause which applies to discrimination against some people, rather than due process protections that affect all people.
=================

Okay, I think I have found the most ridiculous MBE question yet. The analysis says that either the due process or the equal protection clause could be the answer to this question, but because voting is a particular right and not a general right that applies to everyone, equal protection applies. No mention of protected classes such as race, alienage, gender, etc. Most. Unrealistic. Question. Ever.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:40 am

I am getting absolutely annihilated on Mixed MBE set 5. Jesus Christ, these questions are hard, opaquely written, and nit-picky as fuck.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:49 am

Fuck. Anyone have the Tiersma Wills Handout? Mine's corrupted.

EDIT: Nvm, somehow got it to open.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:21 am

Man wtf... when did we learn about "larceny by the use of an innocent agent"?

31. (Question ID#131)

A babysitter noticed that the neighbor had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. The babysitter said to the 11-year-old boy she was babysitting, "Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to the neighbor, and bring it over here." The babysitter knew that the neighbor had a portable television set and the babysitter planned to keep the set for herself. The boy thought the set belonged to the babysitter, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, the neighbor returned home and discovered the boy in his front yard with the television set. The boy explained the "game" he and the babysitter were playing. The neighbor took back his television set and called the police.

The babysitter is:
A. not guilty of larceny or attempted larceny, because the boy did not commit any crime.
B. not guilty of larceny but guilty of attempted larceny, because she never acquired possession of the television set.
C. guilty of larceny as an accessory to the boy.
D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal. The taking requirement is satisfied by severing the property from the owner's possession, and an innocent agent can accomplish the taking. Answer choice A is incorrect because the boy's action of taking and carrying away the neighbor's television, coupled with the babysitter's intent, constituted larceny. Answer choice B is incorrect because the babysitter cannot be guilty of attempted larceny because actual larceny was complete when the boy carried away the television. Answer choice C is incorrect because the babysitter could not be an accessory to the boy because the boy had no intent to steal, and was thus not guilty of a crime.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:25 am

forza wrote:Man wtf... when did we learn about "larceny by the use of an innocent agent"?

31. (Question ID#131)

A babysitter noticed that the neighbor had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. The babysitter said to the 11-year-old boy she was babysitting, "Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to the neighbor, and bring it over here." The babysitter knew that the neighbor had a portable television set and the babysitter planned to keep the set for herself. The boy thought the set belonged to the babysitter, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, the neighbor returned home and discovered the boy in his front yard with the television set. The boy explained the "game" he and the babysitter were playing. The neighbor took back his television set and called the police.

The babysitter is:
A. not guilty of larceny or attempted larceny, because the boy did not commit any crime.
B. not guilty of larceny but guilty of attempted larceny, because she never acquired possession of the television set.
C. guilty of larceny as an accessory to the boy.
D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal. The taking requirement is satisfied by severing the property from the owner's possession, and an innocent agent can accomplish the taking. Answer choice A is incorrect because the boy's action of taking and carrying away the neighbor's television, coupled with the babysitter's intent, constituted larceny. Answer choice B is incorrect because the babysitter cannot be guilty of attempted larceny because actual larceny was complete when the boy carried away the television. Answer choice C is incorrect because the babysitter could not be an accessory to the boy because the boy had no intent to steal, and was thus not guilty of a crime.



gotta love it. The mixed MBE's are hellishy nuanced.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:30 am

forza wrote:Man wtf... when did we learn about "larceny by the use of an innocent agent"?

31. (Question ID#131)

A babysitter noticed that the neighbor had left his house but that the door did not close completely behind him. The babysitter said to the 11-year-old boy she was babysitting, "Let's play a game. You go next door and see if you can find my portable television set, which I lent to the neighbor, and bring it over here." The babysitter knew that the neighbor had a portable television set and the babysitter planned to keep the set for herself. The boy thought the set belonged to the babysitter, went next door, found the television set, and carried it out the front door. At that moment, the neighbor returned home and discovered the boy in his front yard with the television set. The boy explained the "game" he and the babysitter were playing. The neighbor took back his television set and called the police.

The babysitter is:
A. not guilty of larceny or attempted larceny, because the boy did not commit any crime.
B. not guilty of larceny but guilty of attempted larceny, because she never acquired possession of the television set.
C. guilty of larceny as an accessory to the boy.
D. guilty of larceny by the use of an innocent agent.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal. The taking requirement is satisfied by severing the property from the owner's possession, and an innocent agent can accomplish the taking. Answer choice A is incorrect because the boy's action of taking and carrying away the neighbor's television, coupled with the babysitter's intent, constituted larceny. Answer choice B is incorrect because the babysitter cannot be guilty of attempted larceny because actual larceny was complete when the boy carried away the television. Answer choice C is incorrect because the babysitter could not be an accessory to the boy because the boy had no intent to steal, and was thus not guilty of a crime.


Oddly I think the only thing that helps me with half of crim law is thinking "should this jerk get away with it just because he ____?" My crim law professor 1L year literally canceled 1/2 of our semester then fed us some line that we'd made up 20 classes in one 90 minute makeup session. I don't think I ever legitimately learned the subject.

calibred
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:34 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby calibred » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:57 am

Hate to sound like a broken record here, but are these graded essay scores likely deflated? Pretty frustrating if they are, and pretty concerning if not.

memaha
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:23 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby memaha » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:15 am

balzie94 wrote:**CON LAW SPOILER**

46. (Question ID#1174)
A state has enacted a new election code designed to increase voter responsibility in the exercise of the franchise and to enlarge citizen participation in the electoral process. None of its provisions conflicts with federal statutes.

Which of the following is the strongest reason for finding unconstitutional a requirement in the state election code that each voter must be literate in English?
A. The requirement violates Article I Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that representatives to Congress be chosen "by the People of the several States."
B. The requirement violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "make or alter" state regulations providing for the "Times" and "Manner" of holding elections for senators and representatives.
C. The requirement violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The requirement violates the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. Fundamental rights (including the right to vote) protected by substantive due process are also often protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Under strict scrutiny, a law interfering with a fundamental right will be upheld only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest, which is not indicated here. Note that impingement of the right to vote may trigger an inquiry under the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses. The Equal Protection Clause is applied if the law deals with the denial of rights to a particular group, as opposed to everyone. Here, answer choice A is incorrect because it is not relevant and misses the fundamental right issue. Answer choice B is incorrect because it seems to attempt to implicate a free speech issue, which does not apply here. Answer choice C is incorrect because it is the Equal Protection Clause which applies to discrimination against some people, rather than due process protections that affect all people.
=================

Okay, I think I have found the most ridiculous MBE question yet. The analysis says that either the due process or the equal protection clause could be the answer to this question, but because voting is a particular right and not a general right that applies to everyone, equal protection applies. No mention of protected classes such as race, alienage, gender, etc. Most. Unrealistic. Question. Ever.


No, they are saying due process would apply if the right was being denied to everyone, but in this situation, the right is only being denied to those illiterate in English, so it is a particular group. Just ask yourself: is the statute/law/whatever denying everyone? Due process. Denying a specific group? EPC

User avatar
elysiansmiles
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby elysiansmiles » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:39 am

Today I did an essay question that was so eerily familiar, I couldn't believe I hadn't done it before. I was searching through my notes and my past questions, trying to find where I had previously answered it. It was a Civ Pro problem, and this was only my second sample Civ Pro problem, so it didn't make any sense to me why it was so familiar. Then I realized that it was the example problem that the lecturer worked through in the Essay Workshop at the beginning of the course. I was so relieved that I wasn't losing my mind.

User avatar
Chichaca
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:19 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Chichaca » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:01 am

calibred wrote:Hate to sound like a broken record here, but are these graded essay scores likely deflated? Pretty frustrating if they are, and pretty concerning if not.

I don't know, but I find the grading really suspect. My grader gives me a failing score for organization anytime I don't analyze issues in the same order as in the model answer. Like if I analyze duty of care first and duty of loyalty second, but the model answer does it the other way around, I get a 60 or lower for organization. I just can't imagine the real thing is scored like that.

TheBeard
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:03 am

I woke up this morning and I realized we have 2(!!) weeks to go. I'm okay with the MBE stuff, but I still don't know enough of the state specific stuff. Is 2 weeks enough to memorize all this shit?




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests