.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:27 pm

Bikeflip wrote:2X broken for anyone else?


It didn't work for a couple of us yesterday on Karlan's crim pro lectures, if those are the ones you're trying to watch. They didn't work for me in Firefox, Chrome or Safari.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:38 pm

locusdelicti wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:2X broken for anyone else?


It didn't work for a couple of us yesterday on Karlan's crim pro lectures, if those are the ones you're trying to watch. They didn't work for me in Firefox, Chrome or Safari.



I am trying to watch those.... sighhhhh. Thanks for the heads up, duder.

The UMich dude's evidence lectures are also 1X only. :evil:

Since I took those classes over the last yr, I'm tempted to just fill in the blanks and say screw it. I'll give it a few chapters.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:43 pm

The UMich dude's evidence lectures are also 1X only. :evil:


I watched them all on 2X a few days ago so not sure if something broke or what...

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:46 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:2X broken for anyone else?


It didn't work for a couple of us yesterday on Karlan's crim pro lectures, if those are the ones you're trying to watch. They didn't work for me in Firefox, Chrome or Safari.



I am trying to watch those.... sighhhhh. Thanks for the heads up, duder.

The UMich dude's evidence lectures are also 1X only. :evil:


No prob... it sucked because Karlan is so wordy. It takes her twice as long to say something as it takes someone like Jeffries.

Re: Clark, I watched his at 1.5x speed a few weeks ago (and BarbellDreams apparently did a few days ago), so it's probably a site issue for sure. I liked Clark's evidence lectures, but man, am I glad I watched them fast. He's a turtle.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:13 pm

heh. Now the videos have frozen entirely. On both Safari and Chrome. Youtube still works. Speedtest says I'm getting downloads around 6Mbps. There's an air raid siren going off, as Denver's under a tornado warning. The tornado's like out by the Denver airport, 25 miles northeast of me.

Just not my day.
Last edited by Bikeflip on Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:20 pm

I'm getting kind of frustrated with my state law stuff.

I went to law school in a different state, and it was 10 years ago that I was a 1L, and I barely remember anything from that, let alone trying to learn stuff in a new jurisdiction... and I never had the best study habits. I'm really worried I'm not going to remember enough for the Pennsylvania essays.

Plus I was a bankruptcy attorney, so although I know Fed Civ Pro pretty well from that and I understand security interests/mortgages/recording, the rest of it I never really put into practice, so.... It's been 7 - 10 years since I had to care about anything besides those things.

Thank god NJ only tests common law MBE subjects on its essays or I'd be even more up shit's creek.

:(

Anybody here a really good student with pointers on remembering things?

Jaydenla13
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:18 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Jaydenla13 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:36 pm

PROFESSOR SERKIN in NY is going to make me lose my mind! And my Firefox has no sound so I'm stuck using Explorer which won't let me speed up. Please tell me what I did to deserve this? :cry:

antonious13
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:02 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:2X broken for anyone else?


It didn't work for a couple of us yesterday on Karlan's crim pro lectures, if those are the ones you're trying to watch. They didn't work for me in Firefox, Chrome or Safari.



I am trying to watch those.... sighhhhh. Thanks for the heads up, duder.

The UMich dude's evidence lectures are also 1X only. :evil:

Since I took those classes over the last yr, I'm tempted to just fill in the blanks and say screw it. I'll give it a few chapters.


Evidence (Clark) is working for me at 1.5x today.

dsclaw
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:36 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby dsclaw » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:39 pm

Spoiler: Contracts Question
Question
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged a store, occurred in a city. In early 1977, the city council adopted this resolution: "The city will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here." The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, the damaged store, by a written memorandum to a private detective, proposed to pay the detective $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the city council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, an employee of the damaged store voluntarily confessed to the detective to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. The damaged store's president thereupon paid the detective at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that the detective also claim the city's reward, of which the detective had been previously unaware. The detective immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of the detective's investigation, the employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay the detective anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repeal before claiming his reward. In which of the following ways could the city's reward offer be effectively accepted?
Answers
a) Only by an offeree's return promise to make a reasonable effort to bring about the arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

b) Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

c) By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

d) By an offeree's communication of assent through the same medium (television) used by the city in making its offer.

Rationale:
Answer choice C is correct. The city's offer created a unilateral contract where the only action considered for acceptance is proper performance. Here, an offeree merely had to supply information leading to the arrest and conviction to be able to enforce the contract. Answer choices A and B are incorrect because they severely and unfairly restrict acceptance beyond the offer made by the city. Answer choice D is incorrect because the method of acceptance here is to provide the information, and to assert that the same medium must be used for acceptance as was used for offer is clearly inappropriate.


Anyone else have issue with their explanation as to why B is not correct? Too restrictive really?

User avatar
Bustang
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bustang » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:42 pm

The Texas Civ Pro lectures put me to sleep today. The lecturer was fine, but jesus is that crap boring

User avatar
Sogui
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Sogui » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:44 pm

I didn't realize there was a speed multiplier on the videos (nor would it have occurred to me to use them) before reading this thread.

I'm so glad I did though. 1.5x speed makes everything so much more bearable and I'll probably start trying 2x once I get to some of the more drawn out speakers.

Really makes me wish this existed in real life, we can comprehend so much faster than we can communicate.

antonious13
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:45 pm

Sogui wrote:I didn't realize there was a speed multiplier on the videos (nor would it have occurred to me to use them) before reading this thread.

I'm so glad I did though. 1.5x speed makes everything so much more bearable and I'll probably start trying 2x once I get to some of the more drawn out speakers.

Really makes me wish this existed in real life, we can comprehend so much faster than we can communicate.



2x definitely helps, but it's not always easy to get down what they say. Thank God for rewind. I find it very necessary for Clark. He's not a bad professor, and I enjoy his wrap ups. But, he taaaaaalks reeeeeeallly sloooooow.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:19 pm

I change between 1.5x and 2x depending on much is examples/blabbering and how much is actual law that takes a while to write down.

I dont use the handouts, instead opting for taking my own notes throughout all the lectures. I learn better when I type it out, in my own language. I started using handouts in the beginning and dont see how filling in blanks helped me remember anything.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby memaha » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:20 pm

dsclaw wrote:Spoiler: Contracts Question
Question
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged a store, occurred in a city. In early 1977, the city council adopted this resolution: "The city will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here." The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, the damaged store, by a written memorandum to a private detective, proposed to pay the detective $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the city council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, an employee of the damaged store voluntarily confessed to the detective to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. The damaged store's president thereupon paid the detective at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that the detective also claim the city's reward, of which the detective had been previously unaware. The detective immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of the detective's investigation, the employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay the detective anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repeal before claiming his reward. In which of the following ways could the city's reward offer be effectively accepted?
Answers
a) Only by an offeree's return promise to make a reasonable effort to bring about the arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

b) Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

c) By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.

d) By an offeree's communication of assent through the same medium (television) used by the city in making its offer.

Rationale:
Answer choice C is correct. The city's offer created a unilateral contract where the only action considered for acceptance is proper performance. Here, an offeree merely had to supply information leading to the arrest and conviction to be able to enforce the contract. Answer choices A and B are incorrect because they severely and unfairly restrict acceptance beyond the offer made by the city. Answer choice D is incorrect because the method of acceptance here is to provide the information, and to assert that the same medium must be used for acceptance as was used for offer is clearly inappropriate.


Anyone else have issue with their explanation as to why B is not correct? Too restrictive really?


"Successful" is what stopped me from keeping choice B on the table. The offer didn't require a successful conviction, so an acceptance to that extent would exceed the scope.

dsclaw
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:36 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby dsclaw » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:47 am

Anyone else think that advanced sales was pretty much a waste of time? Should have just added the extra 2 pages or so to the contract outline

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:44 am

dsclaw wrote:Anyone else think that advanced sales was pretty much a waste of time? Should have just added the extra 2 pages or so to the contract outline


For real.

User avatar
HETPE3B
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:35 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby HETPE3B » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:29 pm

locusdelicti wrote:
dsclaw wrote:Anyone else think that advanced sales was pretty much a waste of time? Should have just added the extra 2 pages or so to the contract outline


For real.

+1

missinglink
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:49 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby missinglink » Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:52 pm

Spoiler alert -- Crim pro
A police officer sought from an independent magistrate a warrant to search a liquor store owned by the defendant for evidence of a murder. The affidavit submitted by the officer specified the premises to be searched and the items to be seized, and established probable cause on the basis of a reliable informant's tip that such evidence would be found on those premises. The warrant issued by the magistrate set forth the premises to be searched, but neither identified the items to be seized nor made reference to the affidavit. Evidence seized by the officer during the search conformed to the evidence specified in the affidavit. The defendant was charged with murder. The defendant moved to suppress the items seized by the police officer on the grounds that the warrant was constitutionally defective.

How should the court rule?
A. Grant the motion, because the warrant lacked the particularity required by the Constitution.
B. Grant the motion, because probable cause cannot be based on an informant's tip.
C. Deny the motion, because the search was reasonable.
D. Deny the motion, because as a highly regulated business, a liquor store may be searched without a warrant.
Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. The Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant state with particularity the items to be seized. The warrant in this case failed to do so. Answer choice B is incorrect. Probable cause may be based on an informant's tip where the officer's affidavit also establishes the informant's reliability or other justification for relying on the tip. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the magistrate was aware of the items to be seized at the time that the magistrate issued the warrant and the police officer only seized an item specified in the affidavit, the dictates of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement were not satisfied. Consequently, the search was by definition unreasonable. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although a liquor store is a highly regulated business that may be subject to an administrative search without a warrant, a search of the store for criminal activity, such as a murder, is subject to the warrant requirement.


I said it was reasonable, thinking that the good faith exception would apply here. My sense in thinking about the problem is that Mass. v. Sheppard controls here.

Am I missing something? The same officer who submitted the affidavit (which had all the information required) executed the warrant (which admittedly was facially invalid). I mean, I guess it's debatable whether the officer's reliance on the warrant was reasonable. But given what he knew as to the affidavit, I'm not buying answer choice A.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:26 pm

I don't check all the various Lounge threads, and I assume others here do not either. So this may have been posted there and I missed it, but it's 5 minutes of break time from bar study that will greatly increase the humor level of your day. Plus it's all legal and even mentions the bar exam.

http://gawker.com/this-is-how-you-respo ... gn=morning


I hope I can be this kind of lawyer one day.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2780
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:06 pm

I am fucking LOLing at Prof. Serkin (NY Wills) in his Chapter 2/Intestacy lecture.

Skip to 25:09 in the video. "The last thing with respect to issue is non-marital children--bastards, colloquially."

:lol:

GertrudePerkins
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby GertrudePerkins » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:58 pm

HETPE3B wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:
dsclaw wrote:Anyone else think that advanced sales was pretty much a waste of time? Should have just added the extra 2 pages or so to the contract outline


For real.

+1
+1, though despite having now been taught the UCC twice, I'm doing quite terribly on the Contracts MBE sets.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:46 pm

SPOILER FOR MILESTONE #!

Ok I'm sorry but driving your car and leaving it on someone's property cause you're worried the rain will cause paint damage is NOT enough for a necessity defense. Thats flat out BS.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2780
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:01 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:SPOILER FOR MILESTONE #!

Ok I'm sorry but driving your car and leaving it on someone's property cause you're worried the rain will cause paint damage is NOT enough for a necessity defense. Thats flat out BS.


Re-read the question. Heavy rain/flooding, trying to avoid water damage. Pulling your car up a "steep" driveway would seem to accomplish that goal.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Catleesi » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:50 pm

Using Themis for CO-- can anybody explain to me how the average ranking works for the milestone exams? What does it mean? And how are there already rankings for exams that haven't happened yet? Gracias

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby BarbellDreams » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:05 pm

forza wrote:
BarbellDreams wrote:SPOILER FOR MILESTONE #!

Ok I'm sorry but driving your car and leaving it on someone's property cause you're worried the rain will cause paint damage is NOT enough for a necessity defense. Thats flat out BS.


Re-read the question. Heavy rain/flooding, trying to avoid water damage. Pulling your car up a "steep" driveway would seem to accomplish that goal.


Reasonable minds may differ on this, but for a necessity defense it has to be a severe need, and your car being damaged isn;t one of those in my mind.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BrainsyK, james11, ndp1234 and 6 guests