Top Law Schools

10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.

Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky

robinhoodOO wrote:

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.

Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky

yeah. im going to spend my time studying for securities instead.. id be more afraid of that.... like a 10b5 and then 16b racehorse essay with multiple characters doing shady shit. the fact it came up subtly in july 2014, I think, is a hint that they are putting us on notice that it is going to come back, and come back hard. securities has come up within 1 year of itself before. but then again, businessy kind of issues have appeared on the last 2 exams... but securities is so much different than the other bs. anyway, heres been the trusts:

2000 jul
2001 jul*
2002 feb*
2004 jul*
2005 feb*
2006 jul
2008 feb
2010 feb
2012 feb
2014 july*
2015 feb*

* it seems to have appeared back to back in 01-02, and than again in 04-05. If it comes up a third time in a row that would be pretty novel.

BuenAbogado wrote:However, what you need to do on an essay is try to find a way to admit the embezzlement charge using the MIMIC exceptions. Won't go into that, you gotta do that on your own.

Hmm, interesting point. I don't think it would come in under MIMIC, unless the embezzlement charge was somehow related to mail fraud in that D had committed embezzlement previously using the mail or something like that (for common plan/identity). A bit of a stretch, I think?

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: I believe that the character wouldn't be at issue in mail fraud, which is why D is the wrong answer. The requirements to prove mail fraud don't include any sort of character, whereas, for example, a tort of negligent entrustment requires the plaintiff to prove a character for negligence.

Elements of mail fraud (ty, wiki):

1. Intent;
2. A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
3. A mail or wire communication.[4]

Couldn't you argue element 2 is a character type factor (fraudulent actions)?

How and when do you use the privileges and immunities (both 14th and 5th) clauses in an essay? My outline materials say it's not applicable to corps, and that's primarily used to ensure that a state does not discriminate against an out of stater attempting to travel across its borders.

redblueyellow wrote:How and when do you use the privileges and immunities (both 14th and 5th) clauses in an essay? My outline materials say it's not applicable to corps, and that's primarily used to ensure that a state does not discriminate against an out of stater attempting to travel across its borders.

14th amendment P&I is only for right to travel.

Article IV P&I is used if a state discriminates against out of staters. If they do, it can't be with regard to fundamental rights or important economic interests like earning a living. If those types of discrimination do happen, they must be necessary to achieve an important government purpose.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:How and when do you use the privileges and immunities (both 14th and 5th) clauses in an essay? My outline materials say it's not applicable to corps, and that's primarily used to ensure that a state does not discriminate against an out of stater attempting to travel across its borders.

14th amendment P&I is only for right to travel.

Article IV P&I is used if a state discriminates against out of staters. If they do, it can't be with regard to fundamental rights or important economic interests like earning a living. If those types of discrimination do happen, they must be necessary to achieve an important government purpose.

Thanks!

If Art IV is used, does that necessarily ride along with substantive due process/procedural due process? In other words, if you have to discuss one, discuss all?

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.

Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky

yeah. im going to spend my time studying for securities instead.. id be more afraid of that.... like a 10b5 and then 16b racehorse essay with multiple characters doing shady shit. the fact it came up subtly in july 2014, I think, is a hint that they are putting us on notice that it is going to come back, and come back hard. securities has come up within 1 year of itself before. but then again, businessy kind of issues have appeared on the last 2 exams... but securities is so much different than the other bs. anyway, heres been the trusts:

2000 jul
2001 jul*
2002 feb*
2004 jul*
2005 feb*
2006 jul
2008 feb
2010 feb
2012 feb
2014 july*
2015 feb*

* it seems to have appeared back to back in 01-02, and than again in 04-05. If it comes up a third time in a row that would be pretty novel.

I've boiled securities down into pretty straightforward stuff. Guess I should make sure I do another pass just in case. Are you thinking like tippee-tipper by one, then misappropriations by another? What was the last test on it, like 2004?

Does the equal protection clause protect religion?

This site implies no: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

This site implies yes: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... rutiny.htm

WHICH IS IT????

AHhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhh

afaik religion is governed by strict scrutiny... generally

establishment clause: regulation on its face, SS
- not SS (i.e., valid) if facially neutral law preferring one religion over another

free speech clause: can't prohibit free exercise of any religion (as long as based on genuine belief), SS if the intent to interfere with religious exercise is there
- not SS if generally applicable regulation (neutral with respect to religion) even if it incidentally burdens religious conduct

equal protection also uses SS in certain cases, but i don't think of religion as an equal protection (5th/14th) issue but rather a 1st amendment one

redblueyellow wrote:

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: I believe that the character wouldn't be at issue in mail fraud, which is why D is the wrong answer. The requirements to prove mail fraud don't include any sort of character, whereas, for example, a tort of negligent entrustment requires the plaintiff to prove a character for negligence.

Elements of mail fraud (ty, wiki):

1. Intent;
2. A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
3. A mail or wire communication.[4]

Couldn't you argue element 2 is a character type factor (fraudulent actions)?

Ok, I think I may have figured it out:
The whole "no character evidence unless character is directly in issue" thing is for civil cases. Mail fraud would be prosecuted in a criminal case, and evidence of the defendant's relevant character trait could be introduced by the prosecution (e.g. defendant has reputation for fraudulent behavior) if the defendant opened the door for it by introducing his own character evidence (e.g. defendant has reputation for honesty).

Does this sound right? I'm only like 80% sure.

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote: I believe that the character wouldn't be at issue in mail fraud, which is why D is the wrong answer. The requirements to prove mail fraud don't include any sort of character, whereas, for example, a tort of negligent entrustment requires the plaintiff to prove a character for negligence.

Elements of mail fraud (ty, wiki):

1. Intent;
2. A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
3. A mail or wire communication.[4]

Couldn't you argue element 2 is a character type factor (fraudulent actions)?

Ok, I think I may have figured it out:
The whole "no character evidence unless character is directly in issue" thing is for civil cases. Mail fraud would be prosecuted in a criminal case, and evidence of the defendant's relevant character trait could be introduced by the prosecution (e.g. defendant has reputation for fraudulent behavior) if the defendant opened the door for it by introducing his own character evidence (e.g. defendant has reputation for honesty).

Does this sound right? I'm only like 80% sure.

Kind of. You can introduce prior convictions of sexual assault in a criminal sexual assault case. Not sure why, but those defendants have less rights than those for murder, or chopping someone's limbs off.

Also, in CA, specific instances of violence are allowed by prosecution if offered first by defendant.

robinhoodOO wrote:

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.

Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky

yeah. im going to spend my time studying for securities instead.. id be more afraid of that.... like a 10b5 and then 16b racehorse essay with multiple characters doing shady shit. the fact it came up subtly in july 2014, I think, is a hint that they are putting us on notice that it is going to come back, and come back hard. securities has come up within 1 year of itself before. but then again, businessy kind of issues have appeared on the last 2 exams... but securities is so much different than the other bs. anyway, heres been the trusts:

2000 jul
2001 jul*
2002 feb*
2004 jul*
2005 feb*
2006 jul
2008 feb
2010 feb
2012 feb
2014 july*
2015 feb*

* it seems to have appeared back to back in 01-02, and than again in 04-05. If it comes up a third time in a row that would be pretty novel.

I've boiled securities down into pretty straightforward stuff. Guess I should make sure I do another pass just in case. Are you thinking like tippee-tipper by one, then misappropriations by another? What was the last test on it, like 2004?

feb 2002, july 2003, and then...(after not appearing for 11 years,) july 2014!!!! im sayin if it comes up I predict itll be more like the jul 03 one as opposed to jul 2014 where it was like a subtle issue, I think they did tippee-tipper for one, missappriation by another, 16b for another, then insider trading for another, and multiple plaintiff action(s). maybe crossed over with pr since it has seemingly always been crossed over with pr.

Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

I have a bunch of mechanical pencils from last time. What am I going to do with them now!?

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.

redblueyellow wrote:

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

I have a bunch of mechanical pencils from last time. What am I going to do with them now!?

I would probably melt them, or give them to someone's dog that you don't like.

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.

I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted

robinhoodOO wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.

I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted

good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary.

RaiRai wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.

I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted

good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary.

Sounds like her SP is entitled to a CP reimbursement, with interest, and at the time of dissolution.

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.

I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted

good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary.

Sounds like her SP is entitled to a CP reimbursement, with interest, and at the time of dissolution.

I beg to differ. Under Anti-Lucas, SP improvements made to CP are reimbursed at divorce WITHOUT interest.

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

BuenAbogado wrote:

robinhoodOO wrote:

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.

I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted

good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary.

Sounds like her SP is entitled to a CP reimbursement, with interest, and at the time of dissolution.

I beg to differ. Under Anti-Lucas, SP improvements made to CP are reimbursed at divorce WITHOUT interest.

Oops; yup. Thanks for the clarification, buddy . NO INTEREST!

http://whatthebarexam.tumblr.com

Best Tumblr account re: bar studies. If you need humor only someone whose been through it understands.

Loved the reference to the bar studies wardrobe hahaha