2015 February California Bar Exam Forum

[esq]

Think I was a little unfocused on the last part of PT2, but overall...nice to be done.

Edit: Still think Andy was one coy mothafucka

[calbarexamftw]

Forgot to use the word because in headings. Headings were more like, "The Admission of Mr and Mrs X's Statements Would Violate the Sixth Amendment." Otherwise dominated PT-B. How much does the headings cost me? Is that persuasive enough?

[a male human]

Nice job everyone

[Judge Philip Banks]

Forgot to use the word because in headings. Headings were more like, "The Admission of Mr and Mrs X's Statements Would Violate the Sixth Amendment." Otherwise dominated PT-B. How much does the headings cost me? Is that persuasive enough?

Could maybe be a little more persuasive, but yours isn't objective, so I would say it's fine. They can't be looking for writing of the caliber you would actually file with the court. Keep in mind I base this on absolutely nothing other than my gut feeling.

[Judge Philip Banks]

Still think Andy was one coy mothafucka

Fucking Andy and his close corporation.

[TheLegalOne]

I don't know what the hell happened to me on both PTs and Q4 (missed a remedy) and Q6 (I tried to force the answer I wanted bcz I couldn't figure it out)...FUCK!!!! I'll be repeating it in July. Arrgh!!! For now, hello Glenlivet, I knew I should have skipped the last three days!

[Astronaut Teemo]

I don't know what the hell happened to me on both PTs and Q4 (missed a remedy) and Q6 (I tried to force the answer I wanted bcz I couldn't figure it out)...FUCK!!!! I'll be repeating it in July. Arrgh!!! For now, hello Glenlivet, I knew I should have skipped the last three days!

What happened to you on the PTs? And hey man I missed a few remedies on Q4 and I'm pretty ruined on Q6. I didn't exactly remember the rules but I made some shit up and continued the best I could. Q5 apparently was a huge thing that there was a corporation in there. I kind of mentioned it but I didn't think it was too important. That's where I messed up obviously.

[esq]

I put a total amount of two weeks into studying for this crapshoot. After learning that our profession is really about learning uninteresting rules that set some boundaries for the bullshit that we spew, I'm hoping they give me a reason to walk away from my job and pursue a different career. (Is it sad that trucking starts to seem appealing whenever I sit down to write a motion?)

[Joie]

Still think Andy was one coy mothafucka

Fucking Andy and his close corporation.

What makes you think he was so sly? He committed an intentional tort and breached fiduciary duties to his partners, and tried to use an alter-ego to shield him from personal liability. That's not going to work out very well for him.

[Elms]

My essays today were loltastic.

[esq]

On the other hand, the partnership tried to shield themselves from liability for their central business purpose by passing him off as an independent contractor...Andy's got some chutzpah for creating that twist.

LOLTASTIC, classic. Think I had a couple intentional lulztastic moments myself.

[Biotech]

The partnership was in the business of publishing the newsletter. The only way he's shielded personally is if the corp was the partner instead and it wasn't. Personally I don't think Andy knew much about partnership or defamation law but he's about to find out.

[pineapple99]

I thought this exam, overall, was much harder than July. Just curve balls. I was banking on ethics and con law today. They have a weird obsession with remedies.

[arizzle]

Can someone explain to me the relevance of the Melendez-Diaz case in PT-B? That was the cocaine affidavits one.

It seemed the only relevant affidavit was the one from the doctor.


I basically just said it reiterated the holding in Crawford about the confrontation clause, etc, but otherwise I struggled in finding a way to use it.

[Joie]

[quote="esq"]On the other hand, the partnership tried to shield themselves from liability for their central business purpose by passing him off as an independent contractor...Andy's got some chutzpah for creating that twist

Do general partnerships have to comply with a central business purpose? A GP does file with the Secretary of State, naming a central business purpose that's going to get them in trouble for some "ultra vires" act. Also, buying a computer and writing a sports article were both within the realm of transactions of a sports magazine.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Every other day, I get the same spam email about some CLE program entitled "Piercing the Corporate Veil," including today. If I had just checked my email before leaving this morning, it might've been fresh in my head. UGH

[Joie]

The partnership was in the business of publishing the newsletter. The only way he's shielded personally is if the corp was the partner instead and it wasn't. Personally I don't think Andy knew much about partnership or defamation law but he's about to find out.

Even if the corporation WAS the partner the court would pierce that veil in a heartbeat since it was an alter-ego AND Andy committed an intentional tort as well as breached his duty of care to his other partners trying to use the corporation to shield him.

Andy, just no.. And stahp.

[Joie]

Can someone explain to me the relevance of the Melendez-Diaz case in PT-B? That was the cocaine affidavits one.

It seemed the only relevant affidavit was the one from the doctor.


I basically just said it reiterated the holding in Crawford about the confrontation clause, etc, but otherwise I struggled in finding a way to use it.

The business records and official records hearsay exception

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Also, I suggested that the zoo bolster its argument for modification under the Cy Pres doctrine by "buying another elephant, or at least some large grey animals like a rhino or a hippo."

[TheLegalOne]

I don't know what the hell happened to me on both PTs and Q4 (missed a remedy) and Q6 (I tried to force the answer I wanted bcz I couldn't figure it out)...FUCK!!!! I'll be repeating it in July. Arrgh!!! For now, hello Glenlivet, I knew I should have skipped the last three days!

What happened to you on the PTs? And hey man I missed a few remedies on Q4 and I'm pretty ruined on Q6. I didn't exactly remember the rules but I made some shit up and continued the best I could. Q5 apparently was a huge thing that there was a corporation in there. I kind of mentioned it but I didn't think it was too important. That's where I messed up obviously.

I can't really say without violating board rules BUT it took me forever to figure out the 1st part of PTA and by the time I did, I abbreviated what I wanted to say on the second part to ensure I finished. On PTB, I got my outline switched around and started talking about the wrong cases for the wrong parts (I hope this makes sense), then I said screw it, and just kept going because I type slow and was running out of time, so I starting mixing everything under the second part of the call. Just a total F-cluster!

[arizzle]

Can someone explain to me the relevance of the Melendez-Diaz case in PT-B? That was the cocaine affidavits one.

It seemed the only relevant affidavit was the one from the doctor.


I basically just said it reiterated the holding in Crawford about the confrontation clause, etc, but otherwise I struggled in finding a way to use it.

The business records and official records hearsay exception

Hmm, ok, I missed that connection. I relied more on the Davis case to rebut the public records hearsay exception (911 operators act as agents of law enforcement, etc.).



On a side note, if anyone wants to start a band called The Cocaine Affidavits .... I'm in.

[Astronaut Teemo]

Can someone explain to me the relevance of the Melendez-Diaz case in PT-B? That was the cocaine affidavits one.

It seemed the only relevant affidavit was the one from the doctor.


I basically just said it reiterated the holding in Crawford about the confrontation clause, etc, but otherwise I struggled in finding a way to use it.

This one, if you ask me was a little tricky and I think they set it up as a trap. The affidavit from the doctor itself wasn't in issue. The motion itself concerned 1. The nonverbal statements of the mom and 2. The verbal statements of the dad.

When considering the verbal statements of the dad, they were made to a 911 operator which may become admissible as either a public record or a business record. Public Record is pretty easy to beat because the rule 803(8) stated that it doesn't apply to criminal cases where the public record is made by law enforcement. CRAWFORD considered 911 operators LEs but "only for the purposes of this case". So it might not apply here and it might get in.. Well shit..

The prosecution will then try to claim it's hearsay subject to the business record exception. MELENDEZ now comes in and claims that you can't do that because it's testimonial. even if it's a business record, "If you're whole business to gathering evidence for later use at a criminal proceeding, its all testimonial regardless of if it's a business record and its still subject to 6ACC.

[dueprocess14]

My essays today were loltastic.

Me too. They were three works of creative non-fiction.

[arizzle]

Can someone explain to me the relevance of the Melendez-Diaz case in PT-B? That was the cocaine affidavits one.

It seemed the only relevant affidavit was the one from the doctor.


I basically just said it reiterated the holding in Crawford about the confrontation clause, etc, but otherwise I struggled in finding a way to use it.

This one, if you ask me was a little tricky and I think they set it up as a trap. The affidavit from the doctor itself wasn't in issue. The motion itself concerned 1. The nonverbal statements of the mom and 2. The verbal statements of the dad.

When considering the verbal statements of the dad, they were made to a 911 operator which may become admissible as either a public record or a business record. Public Record is pretty easy to beat because the rule 803(8) stated that it doesn't apply to criminal cases where the public record is made by law enforcement. CRAWFORD considered 911 operators LEs but "only for the purposes of this case". So it might not apply here and it might get in.. Well shit..

The prosecution will then try to claim it's hearsay subject to the business record exception. MELENDEZ now comes in and claims that you can't do that because it's testimonial. even if it's a business record, "If you're whole business to gathering evidence for later use at a criminal proceeding, its all testimonial regardless of if it's a business record and its still subject to 6ACC.

Interesting. I do remember thinking about that, but then decided the Melendez affidavits were in fact prepared specifically for the criminal proceeding, whereas the 911 recording/transcript was kept/created as a matter of regular routine.

So basically I concluded Melendez wasn't relevant to the 911 tape because Melendez dealt with documents prepared specifically for trial and the 911 record didn't (even though it would be used at trial). Then I just moved on. FML.

[esq]

I used the Melendez-Diaz holding to punctuate the testimonial nature of a post-crime interrogation that was later documented in a un-excluded hearsay business record that was, primarily, a document prepared as prima facie evidence for a central trial issue.

I don't think they have to comply with a central business purpose. They aren't restricted in the same way that the nature of an LLP or an LLCs articles restrain partnerships. But since Andy was the only mentioned writer for the partnerships only mentioned business purpose, the control that Dipshit had over the partnerships business purpose definitely factored into sham status of his "freelancer" employment.

Edit: I suggested that, unless her ZOO and Elephant were as valid as the "ZOO" and "Elephant" from Madagascar (bitch is crazy), that her will would trump. (definitely dropped a couple other not so subtle ridiculous things like that in there to see if these graders actually pay attention...boredom got to me).