.

User avatar
Catleesi
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Catleesi » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:48 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
No, but neither did the couch one.


I ranted about this for a solid half hour a couple weeks back. Boyfriend pointed out the distinction is that the couch fire *touched the ceiling.* It just singed, but technically it did burn the structure.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:48 pm

kalvano wrote:Fuck you, Themis.


A police officer, seeing an automobile with an expired registration sticker on its license plate, stopped the car. As the officer walked to the car, the officer noticed that a valid temporary registration permit was properly affixed to the car. The officer continued to the driver's door and asked the driver for her license. In doing so, the officer recognized the passenger in the car as an individual who had a prior police record. After running a check for outstanding warrants, the officer arrested the passenger pursuant to a valid outstanding arrest warrant. The officer then searched the passenger. Burglary tools were found on the passenger's person. The passenger was charged with the possession of burglary tools. The passenger's attorney filed a suppression motion with regard to the burglary tools, asserting that their seizure was unconstitutional.

Should the court grant the motion?
A. Yes, because the police may not arrest a passenger for a traffic or car-related offense.
B. Yes, because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to approach the driver and ask for her license.
C. No, because a valid outstanding arrest warrant justified the police officer's arrest of the passenger.
D. No, because the passenger of car was not seized by police until he was arrested.

Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. While the police officer had probable cause to stop the car based on the expired registration tag, once the officer gained the knowledge that the car was properly registered, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to further detain the driver of the car for a car-related violation. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a passenger may not be arrested for an offense committed by the driver of the car, a passenger may be seized by the police's stop of the car to address the driver's offense. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the arrest warrant pursuant to which the passenger was arrested was valid, the police officer's continuation of the stop after gaining knowledge that the car was properly registered was unconstitutional. Answer choice D is incorrect because a passenger of a car that is stopped by police for a traffic violation based on the driver's conduct or a violation related to the automobile itself is seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment at the time that the car comes to stop. At such time, a reasonable passenger would conclude that the police's show of authority was directed at least partly at him and that he was not free to go.




In Texas, you cannot have both a temporary tag and a license plate. Therefore, the stop was still valid.



I picked C for this. I have reasonable suspicion to pull you over. Once I do and I approach you and notice you may be a felon, am I really supposed to let you go? Thats ridiculous. Reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause leads to valid arrest leads to valid search incident to arrest.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:54 pm

Just wrapped up the simulated essay exam for PA from yesterday and there's no way I'm going to get anything else done today. My brain is completely fried. Did anyone try to grade their work where the grading guidelines are available?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:55 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:
kalvano wrote:Fuck you, Themis.


A police officer, seeing an automobile with an expired registration sticker on its license plate, stopped the car. As the officer walked to the car, the officer noticed that a valid temporary registration permit was properly affixed to the car. The officer continued to the driver's door and asked the driver for her license. In doing so, the officer recognized the passenger in the car as an individual who had a prior police record. After running a check for outstanding warrants, the officer arrested the passenger pursuant to a valid outstanding arrest warrant. The officer then searched the passenger. Burglary tools were found on the passenger's person. The passenger was charged with the possession of burglary tools. The passenger's attorney filed a suppression motion with regard to the burglary tools, asserting that their seizure was unconstitutional.

Should the court grant the motion?
A. Yes, because the police may not arrest a passenger for a traffic or car-related offense.
B. Yes, because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to approach the driver and ask for her license.
C. No, because a valid outstanding arrest warrant justified the police officer's arrest of the passenger.
D. No, because the passenger of car was not seized by police until he was arrested.

Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. While the police officer had probable cause to stop the car based on the expired registration tag, once the officer gained the knowledge that the car was properly registered, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to further detain the driver of the car for a car-related violation. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a passenger may not be arrested for an offense committed by the driver of the car, a passenger may be seized by the police's stop of the car to address the driver's offense. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the arrest warrant pursuant to which the passenger was arrested was valid, the police officer's continuation of the stop after gaining knowledge that the car was properly registered was unconstitutional. Answer choice D is incorrect because a passenger of a car that is stopped by police for a traffic violation based on the driver's conduct or a violation related to the automobile itself is seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment at the time that the car comes to stop. At such time, a reasonable passenger would conclude that the police's show of authority was directed at least partly at him and that he was not free to go.




In Texas, you cannot have both a temporary tag and a license plate. Therefore, the stop was still valid.



I picked C for this. I have reasonable suspicion to pull you over. Once I do and I approach you and notice you may be a felon, am I really supposed to let you go? Thats ridiculous. Reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause leads to valid arrest leads to valid search incident to arrest.


But reasonable suspicion was taken away before the cop actually approaches the suspect and realizes he may be a felon--and the stop can't be in place for any longer than necessary. Cop knows before approaching the driver that there's no more reasonable suspicion, stop has to end.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:12 pm

I hate when I answer a question and get it wrong and the explanation is 'Answer choice C, while technically correct, is not as strong as answer choice D'. I completely understand that with all standardized tests, you're supposed to pick the "best" answer, so the explanation is legit. But that's infuriating.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:13 pm

releasethehounds wrote:I hate when I answer a question and get it wrong and the explanation is 'Answer choice C, while technically correct, is not as strong as answer choice D'. I completely understand that with all standardized tests, you're supposed to pick the "best" answer, so the explanation is legit. But that's infuriating.


+1

Talar
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Talar » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:21 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
Talar wrote:Does anyone know, when you do the MBE are you supposed to apply the common law rule or the majority rule? This is assuming the question doesn't specify and the common law rule is the minority. I ask because I notice sometimes Themis will ask MBE PQs which expect you to apply the common law, minority rule and I usually get those wrong because I apply the majority/new rule. Thoughts?



Always apply common law on MBE questions unless the question tells you otherwise. Even if it's the minority rule. Particularly for criminal law where certain elements of crimes have generally been done away with--still supposed to assume that burglary is only burglary if done at night (though most questions I've seen either set the fact pattern specifically at night or tell you that the jurisdiction has done away with the night requirement of the definition). Unless they tell you majority rule for conspiracy, you need TWO parties to agree to a conspiracy and you do NOT need an overt act--crime is complete at the moment of agreement.

For torts questions, always assume pure comparative negligence is in effect unless told otherwise.

Arson....coin flip. For whatever reason the bar examiners can't just pick a friggin' arson definition and stick with it. Particularly maddening was in one MBE set I got a question in which purposefully setting fire to a bed wasn't arson because the structure wasn't damaged and it didn't matter that it was reasonably foreseeable that there would be structural damage from the fire; then ten questions later getting a question in which purposefully setting fire to a couch was arson even though the structure wasn't damaged because it was 'reasonably foreseeable' that there would be structural damage.


Thank you. Extremely helpful.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:47 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:
kalvano wrote:Fuck you, Themis.


A police officer, seeing an automobile with an expired registration sticker on its license plate, stopped the car. As the officer walked to the car, the officer noticed that a valid temporary registration permit was properly affixed to the car. The officer continued to the driver's door and asked the driver for her license. In doing so, the officer recognized the passenger in the car as an individual who had a prior police record. After running a check for outstanding warrants, the officer arrested the passenger pursuant to a valid outstanding arrest warrant. The officer then searched the passenger. Burglary tools were found on the passenger's person. The passenger was charged with the possession of burglary tools. The passenger's attorney filed a suppression motion with regard to the burglary tools, asserting that their seizure was unconstitutional.

Should the court grant the motion?
A. Yes, because the police may not arrest a passenger for a traffic or car-related offense.
B. Yes, because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to approach the driver and ask for her license.
C. No, because a valid outstanding arrest warrant justified the police officer's arrest of the passenger.
D. No, because the passenger of car was not seized by police until he was arrested.

Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. While the police officer had probable cause to stop the car based on the expired registration tag, once the officer gained the knowledge that the car was properly registered, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to further detain the driver of the car for a car-related violation. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a passenger may not be arrested for an offense committed by the driver of the car, a passenger may be seized by the police's stop of the car to address the driver's offense. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the arrest warrant pursuant to which the passenger was arrested was valid, the police officer's continuation of the stop after gaining knowledge that the car was properly registered was unconstitutional. Answer choice D is incorrect because a passenger of a car that is stopped by police for a traffic violation based on the driver's conduct or a violation related to the automobile itself is seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment at the time that the car comes to stop. At such time, a reasonable passenger would conclude that the police's show of authority was directed at least partly at him and that he was not free to go.




In Texas, you cannot have both a temporary tag and a license plate. Therefore, the stop was still valid.



I picked C for this. I have reasonable suspicion to pull you over. Once I do and I approach you and notice you may be a felon, am I really supposed to let you go? Thats ridiculous. Reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause leads to valid arrest leads to valid search incident to arrest.


But reasonable suspicion was taken away before the cop actually approaches the suspect and realizes he may be a felon--and the stop can't be in place for any longer than necessary. Cop knows before approaching the driver that there's no more reasonable suspicion, stop has to end.


He can't not approach the car. Think about this practically: A cop pulls you over, gets out of his car, and then turns around and walks back to the car. You're just sitting there. What are you supposed to do? When a cop pulls you over he is at the very least gonna approach to tell you that you're clear to go. How else is he gonna resolve the situation? Any notion of "don't approach him, get on the blow horn and tell him to drive off" is just arguing semantics. Once you approach you get your probable cause and thats that.

I am training myself to pick the safe answers instead of the stretches. If I got a similar hypo I would still pick C and hope the bar examiners weren't trying to argue some weird semantics. I've noticed my % go up when I just pick safe choices instead of the "Well, I COULD argue this technically" answers.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:09 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:

He can't not approach the car. Think about this practically: A cop pulls you over, gets out of his car, and then turns around and walks back to the car. You're just sitting there. What are you supposed to do? When a cop pulls you over he is at the very least gonna approach to tell you that you're clear to go. How else is he gonna resolve the situation? Any notion of "don't approach him, get on the blow horn and tell him to drive off" is just arguing semantics. Once you approach you get your probable cause and thats that.

I am training myself to pick the safe answers instead of the stretches. If I got a similar hypo I would still pick C and hope the bar examiners weren't trying to argue some weird semantics. I've noticed my % go up when I just pick safe choices instead of the "Well, I COULD argue this technically" answers.


He can approach the car to tell the driver he's free to go, which leads to the cop recognizing the passenger. But he has no reason to run a warrant check until after the purpose for the stop as been effectuated and so the stop should be terminated. The time taken to run the warrant check--presuming he keeps the person stopped while he runs the check, which it appears he did--extends the stop which has amounted to an arrest BEFORE he has probable cause. He doesn't get his probable cause until he actually runs the warrant check. Just having a prior record doesn't give probable cause to a cop to detain him for the time needed to run the check because there's no indication that the cop, when recognizing him, knew that he had an existing warrant out for his arrest. If he immediately recognized this guy as someone who had a warrant out? Probable cause all over and I completely agree with you. If he let the car go and ran the warrant check an pursued them in order to arrest the guy after it came back that there was a warrant? Probable cause all over and I completely agree with you again. He has no reason to keep the stop going because all reasonable suspicion he had for pulling the driver over is gone once he sees that he's actually not in violation of the registration code. The only reason he has to extend the stop now to run the passenger's record is a 'mere hunch', and that's not good enough.

I agree with you that it's stupid as hell, but I don't think its arguing semantics. I think it's arguing that on this time line the cop didn't have the ability to do what he did when he did it and it's testing it through a crappy question. Particularly since I can't even figure out why someone would have a temporary registration permit affixed to the car, which people usually only get when they're awaiting their issued license plate (at least in California and Arizona, the two states I've spent any lengthy amount of time) and also an expired registration sticker on their already-issued license plate but I guess that's neither here nor there.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:39 pm

That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:30 pm

kalvano wrote:That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.



I think it's weird, but I think violations under the vehicle code, being outside what we're actually tested on, would have to be directly referenced as violations. Unless it's something like 'running a red light is bad'. I'm not sure the registration thing is illegal everywhere.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

kalvano wrote:That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.


You are reading too much into it. Basically the question was trying to test a situation where the cop had RS, then realized there was no violation.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:37 pm

Oh Themis

CA Community Property condensed outline:
SP used to improve other spouse’s SP—presumed to be a gift

CA Community Property handout:
2005 Amendment: There is a statutory right to reimbursement; it is no
longer presumed a gift.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:56 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
kalvano wrote:That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.


You are reading too much into it. Basically the question was trying to test a situation where the cop had RS, then realized there was no violation.


Si.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:06 pm

Anybody know anything about this "30-Minute Review" business? They're in the list of outlines at the very end. For PA, at least. It's just the PA differences to etc. outlines, but it says "30-Minute Review". Are we supposed to do something special with these?

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:22 pm

locusdelicti wrote:Anybody know anything about this "30-Minute Review" business? They're in the list of outlines at the very end. For PA, at least. It's just the PA differences to etc. outlines, but it says "30-Minute Review". Are we supposed to do something special with these?


Yes. Spend 30 minutes reviewing.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:25 pm

Bedsole wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:Anybody know anything about this "30-Minute Review" business? They're in the list of outlines at the very end. For PA, at least. It's just the PA differences to etc. outlines, but it says "30-Minute Review". Are we supposed to do something special with these?


Yes. Spend 30 minutes reviewing.


That's... underwhelming.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:30 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
kalvano wrote:That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.


You are reading too much into it. Basically the question was trying to test a situation where the cop had RS, then realized there was no violation.



I understand what it was testing, but poorly worded shit like that pisses me off. It shouldn't take more than 5 additional seconds to come up with a better fact pattern.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:34 pm

kalvano wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kalvano wrote:That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.


You are reading too much into it. Basically the question was trying to test a situation where the cop had RS, then realized there was no violation.



I understand what it was testing, but poorly worded shit like that pisses me off. It shouldn't take more than 5 additional seconds to come up with a better fact pattern.


I'm glad we aren't expected to get more than 140 on this thing because at least 15% of the questions are really stupid or nitpicky. I don't think I'd ever get above 185.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:47 pm

kalvano wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kalvano wrote:That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.


You are reading too much into it. Basically the question was trying to test a situation where the cop had RS, then realized there was no violation.



I understand what it was testing, but poorly worded shit like that pisses me off. It shouldn't take more than 5 additional seconds to come up with a better fact pattern.


+800

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:27 pm

kalvano wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
kalvano wrote:That's exactly my point: everything I've expericenced says that the cop still had reasonable suspicion because the car was still in violation because of the dual registrations.

Also, because this type of thing wouldn't trigger the exclusionary rule.


You are reading too much into it. Basically the question was trying to test a situation where the cop had RS, then realized there was no violation.


I understand what it was testing, but poorly worded shit like that pisses me off. It shouldn't take more than 5 additional seconds to come up with a better fact pattern.


Also wouldn't the cop at least have to walk up to the car to tell the driver that he could leave? If I was pulled over and I saw the cop just look at my plate and go back into his squad car, I sure wouldn't drive away until I was told to. They are just going to be sitting there at the side of the road forever and ever.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:34 pm

I'm not sure if this is a total brain fart on my part, but aren't the issue of one's grandparents one's aunts and uncles? So here's the deal, according to Themis' outline for PA Wills, the intestacy distributes as follows when decedent leaves no surviving issue or spouse: decedent's parents --> if none, her parent's issue (presumably her siblings) --> if none, surviving grandparent(s) --> if none, to their issue (aunts and uncles??) --> if none, then to her surviving aunts and uncles --> if none, their issue --> if none, escheats to Commonwealth. Now, if I'm following this correctly, the issue of one's grandparents are one's aunts and uncles (i.e. your parents' brothers and sisters), so why are there two layers of aunts and uncles under the above order? I know some people call their parents' first cousins aunts and uncles, could that be the group that follows the grandparents' issue? Real fucking confusing.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:43 pm

TheBeard wrote:I'm not sure if this is a total brain fart on my part, but aren't the issue of one's grandparents one's aunts and uncles? So here's the deal, according to Themis' outline for PA Wills, the intestacy distributes as follows when decedent leaves no surviving issue or spouse: decedent's parents --> if none, her parent's issue (presumably her siblings) --> if none, surviving grandparent(s) --> if none, to their issue (aunts and uncles??) --> if none, then to her surviving aunts and uncles --> if none, their issue --> if none, escheats to Commonwealth. Now, if I'm following this correctly, the issue of one's grandparents are one's aunts and uncles (i.e. your parents' brothers and sisters), so why are there two layers of aunts and uncles under the above order? I know some people call their parents' first cousins aunts and uncles, could that be the group that follows the grandparents' issue? Real fucking confusing.


Uh...

This is my favorite:

Under Pennsylvania’s anti-lapse statute, if the gift was made to the issue of the testator, or to a brother, sister, or issue of a brother or sister of the testator, and that relative predeceased the testator but left issue, then the issue succeeds to the gift. Pennsylvania, however, also has an exception to its anti-lapse statute. If the original beneficiary was the testator’s brother, sister, or issue of a brother or sister and the lapsed bequest would go to the testator’s surviving spouse or issue, the anti-lapse statute does not apply.

So, regular anti-lapse... but PA exception is if ORIGINAL beneficiary was testator's sibling, niece, nephew, etc, and the lapsed bequest would go to testator's surviving spouse or issue under the anti-lapse statute, then anti-lapse doesn't apply. That would be like if T makes a gift in the will to his brother, but his brother dies first with issue, and that issue.... happens to be T's wife....?????

The hell? I asked Themis about this and they never answered. I feel like this would only apply in cases of incest. What am I missing?

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:47 pm

locusdelicti wrote:The hell? I asked Themis about this and they never answered. I feel like this would only apply in cases of incest. What am I missing?


I interpreted it the same way. When did you submit the substantive question? They can take a while to get back on those.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:52 pm

Bedsole wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:The hell? I asked Themis about this and they never answered. I feel like this would only apply in cases of incest. What am I missing?


I interpreted it the same way. When did you submit the substantive question? They can take a while to get back on those.


7/15, so not 4 days yet, which I think is how long they said it could take.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: symphony07 and 6 guests