Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6857
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby lacrossebrother » Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:58 pm

Dropbox public link

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:20 pm

lacrossebrother wrote:Dropbox public link


+1

I can do one for Crim Pro as that's my jam (I'm assuming everyone would be interested in search & seizure, perhaps cars because SCOTUS figured an entirely new set of rules would be cool for that, but just let me know...I find 5th amendment stuff re. custodial interrogation pretty straightforward and that most people get tripped up on search & seizure, but happy to do both). Would probably do early next week given the holiday weekend and the USA game on Sunday.

ETA: if someone would be willing to take on some of the harder topics in K's (which is where I seriously struggle) that would be amazing. I like this idea of crowdsourcing because, well, we all know how helpful the Themis people are at answering questions... :roll:
Last edited by sd5289 on Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MrBriggs360
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby MrBriggs360 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:21 pm

Criminal Law Outline - Excel

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dwlinx8noljimw/Criminal_Law_Outline.xlsx?dl=0

Hope it helps you guys, it definitely helped me big time.

EDIT: Please give me feedback as to what you like/dislike about it, so I can conform further topics to the overall consensus.
Last edited by MrBriggs360 on Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MrBriggs360
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby MrBriggs360 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:23 pm

sd5289 wrote:
lacrossebrother wrote:Dropbox public link


+1

I can do one for Crim Pro as that's my jam (I'm assuming everyone would be interested in search & seizure, perhaps cars because SCOTUS figured an entirely new set of rules would be cool for that, but just let me know...I find 5th amendment stuff re. custodial interrogation pretty straightforward and that most people get tripped up on search & seizure, but happy to do both). Would probably do early next week given the holiday weekend and the USA game on Sunday.

ETA: if someone would be willing to take on some of the harder topics in K's (which is where I seriously struggle) that would be amazing. I like this idea of crowdsourcing because, well, we all know how helpful the Themis people are at answering questions... :roll:


One thought I have is that if we are going to all work together, we should pick a format and stick to it pretty strictly so it's not jarring moving from one topic to another.

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:24 pm

MrBriggs360 wrote:One thought I have is that if we are going to all work together, we should pick a format and stick to it pretty strictly so it's not jarring moving from one topic to another.


Good call. I'll look through the Crim Law one you just did since that's a strength as well.

P.S. Big fat disclaimer should be these are all MBE specific, since every state will have different distinctions.

MrBriggs360
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby MrBriggs360 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:27 pm

sd5289 wrote:
MrBriggs360 wrote:One thought I have is that if we are going to all work together, we should pick a format and stick to it pretty strictly so it's not jarring moving from one topic to another.


Good call. I'll look through the Crim Law one you just did since that's a strength as well.

P.S. Big fat disclaimer should be these are all MBE specific, since every state will have different distinctions.


Yes, I'm compiling secondary sets with my NY distinctions.

teeshtee
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby teeshtee » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:42 pm

Using this as a template, I'd be willing to make an identical set for any of my strong subjects, maybe Civ Pro or Con Law. Any chance someone could put something together for Property?

Also, for any fellow NYers, I'm willing to collaborate on making effective, final stretch, outlines. I'm a big fan of flowcharts and organized spreadsheets.

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:53 pm

MrBriggs360 wrote:Criminal Law Outline - Excel

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dwlinx8noljimw/Criminal_Law_Outline.xlsx?dl=0

Hope it helps you guys, it definitely helped me big time.

EDIT: Please give me feedback as to what you like/dislike about it, so I can conform further topics to the overall consensus.


Looks awesome.

Couple things:

(1) Make it more clear that MPC =/= CL. For example, corporations at CL couldn't form mens rea. MPC has changed that, but on the MBE, we need either the MPC or a statute in the question that allows for that possibility.

(2) Mistakes: could help to make it more clear that a mistake of fact negates a required element that the P is required to prove whereas mistake of law will not. That's what helps me distinguish them anyway. Also what I'd planned on doing this is listing every specific intent crime where mistake of fact is a valid defense regardless of how reasonable it is since these are the ones that kinda defy logic.

(3) Re. "imperfect self-defense" under Voluntary Manslaughter --> this is true UNLESS the D's non-deadly force is met with deadly force by the victim. At that point the second reaction with deadly force is not imperfect self-defense (I actually got a practice MBE question on this).

(4) Explain "merger" a little more --> a/k/a D's going to be charged with felony murder, and not felony murder + burglary. Thus, D is only guilty of felony murder.

(5) Re. robbery: just to make it clear, I'd "all the elements of a larceny" (meaning merge the section where you outline the larceny elements with the required elements under robbery, just to avoid confusion) because I've seen number of robbery PQ's testing the "taking" or "intent to permanently deprive" elements of larceny in the context of a robbery question.

(6) Re. burglary: would add that the burglary and underlying felony do NOT merge, so D can be guilty of both burglary and the underlying felony if they successfully commit it.

(7) Re. assault: recklessness is not enough to satisfy mens rea element. Must be knowing or purposeful.

That's it for now. Will look more in-depth when it's not almost 10pm.

MrBriggs360
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby MrBriggs360 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:59 pm

sd5289 wrote:
MrBriggs360 wrote:Criminal Law Outline - Excel

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dwlinx8noljimw/Criminal_Law_Outline.xlsx?dl=0

Hope it helps you guys, it definitely helped me big time.

EDIT: Please give me feedback as to what you like/dislike about it, so I can conform further topics to the overall consensus.


Looks awesome.

Couple things:

(1) Make it more clear that MPC =/= CL. For example, corporations at CL couldn't form mens rea. MPC has changed that, but on the MBE, we need either the MPC or a statute in the question that allows for that possibility.

(2) Mistakes: could help to make it more clear that a mistake of fact negates a required element that the P is required to prove whereas mistake of law will not. That's what helps me distinguish them anyway. Also what I'd planned on doing this is listing every specific intent crime where mistake of fact is a valid defense regardless of how reasonable it is since these are the ones that kinda defy logic.

(3) Re. "imperfect self-defense" under Voluntary Manslaughter --> this is true UNLESS the D's non-deadly force is met with deadly force by the victim. At that point the second reaction with deadly force is not imperfect self-defense (I actually got a practice MBE question on this).

(4) Explain "merger" a little more --> a/k/a D's going to be charged with felony murder, and not felony murder + burglary. Thus, D is only guilty of felony murder.

(5) Re. robbery: just to make it clear, I'd "all the elements of a larceny" (meaning merge the section where you outline the larceny elements with the required elements under robbery, just to avoid confusion) because I've seen number of robbery PQ's testing the "taking" or "intent to permanently deprive" elements of larceny in the context of a robbery question.

(6) Re. burglary: would add that the burglary and underlying felony do NOT merge, so D can be guilty of both burglary and the underlying felony if they successfully commit it.

(7) Re. assault: recklessness is not enough to satisfy mens rea element. Must be knowing or purposeful.

That's it for now. Will look more in-depth when it's not almost 10pm.



Thanks, I'm going to go through it in the AM. I initially was writing it just for my own understanding, so I omitted some stuff that is kinda already arranged in my brain if that makes sense

zot1
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:17 am

Apparently PTs are not a problem for me... highest grade yet lol.

jadasistgoodja
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:06 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby jadasistgoodja » Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:27 am

Hi all,

Foreign NY taker here, (but please don't refrain from commenting if outside of NY!)

Question:

If you have to choose only one, what do you think is more beneficial to focus on in the limited time remaining i) studying the state law textbooks or ii) watching the state law lectures and studying lecture handouts?

Thanks for the help everyone, I really appreciate the feedback because I have literally no-one else to talk to about this.

adevine39
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby adevine39 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:43 am

jadasistgoodja wrote:Hi all,

Foreign NY taker here, (but please don't refrain from commenting if outside of NY!)

Question:

If you have to choose only one, what do you think is more beneficial to focus on in the limited time remaining i) studying the state law textbooks or ii) watching the state law lectures and studying lecture handouts?

Thanks for the help everyone, I really appreciate the feedback because I have literally no-one else to talk to about this.


If I were just starting now, I would try to cram in as many of the lectures as I could at 2x speed and fill in the handouts, as they go over the high points that are covered in the long handouts, and in between I would focus on the MBE practice sets and finally hitting the high frequency areas as found at this link: http://www.smartbarprep.com/SmartBarPre ... alysis.pdf

Some people really like the long outlines. I think that they are great for providing the in depth stuff, but if you did not go to LS in NY (as I didn't) and don't have as much time, the lecture handouts are probably a more efficient way to get exposed to the NY particulars at this point. Good luck!

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:49 am

adevine39 wrote:
jadasistgoodja wrote:Hi all,

Foreign NY taker here, (but please don't refrain from commenting if outside of NY!)

Question:

If you have to choose only one, what do you think is more beneficial to focus on in the limited time remaining i) studying the state law textbooks or ii) watching the state law lectures and studying lecture handouts?

Thanks for the help everyone, I really appreciate the feedback because I have literally no-one else to talk to about this.


If I were just starting now, I would try to cram in as many of the lectures as I could at 2x speed and fill in the handouts, as they go over the high points that are covered in the long handouts, and in between I would focus on the MBE practice sets and finally hitting the high frequency areas as found at this link: http://www.smartbarprep.com/SmartBarPre ... alysis.pdf

Some people really like the long outlines. I think that they are great for providing the in depth stuff, but if you did not go to LS in NY (as I didn't) and don't have as much time, the lecture handouts are probably a more efficient way to get exposed to the NY particulars at this point. Good luck!


Yeah, I'd echo this because I've found the NY lecturers seem to hit more of the details that are in the long outlines than you'll find in the bigger MBE subjects. Keep in mind that all of the NY Crim & Crim Pro stuff is in the overall MBE lectures.

zot1 wrote:Apparently PTs are not a problem for me... highest grade yet lol.


It took me a few practices to "master" the MPT, but agreed. I'm not worried about that part.

zot1
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:12 am

sd5289 wrote:
adevine39 wrote:
jadasistgoodja wrote:Hi all,

Foreign NY taker here, (but please don't refrain from commenting if outside of NY!)
zot1 wrote:Apparently PTs are not a problem for me... highest grade yet lol.


It took me a few practices to "master" the MPT, but agreed. I'm not worried about that part.


Here I'll give credit where credit is due. The first time I tried to do a PT I failed miserably. It took me forever to read the file and library, and with only 20 minutes left to write my answer, I panicked and just stare at the screen for 20 minutes waiting for the time to expire. It was pretty terrible.

Then I started the Themis course and watched the PT workshop. I found that the strategy they recommend helps me keep my time in check and helps me make more sense of the answer.

zot1
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:14 am

I'll admit... the temptation to take the day off is currently overwhelming.

I got up really early today. My plan is to work as much as possible until mid-afternoon and then take the rest of the day off. But really wanting to stop right now haha!

MrBriggs360
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby MrBriggs360 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:23 am

zot1 wrote:I'll admit... the temptation to take the day off is currently overwhelming.

I got up really early today. My plan is to work as much as possible until mid-afternoon and then take the rest of the day off. But really wanting to stop right now haha!


Well, I got 0.0% yesterday because I just spend 8 hours reviewing and outlining, and I'm going to do the same for a half day today. The heck with it.

adevine39
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby adevine39 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:38 am

MrBriggs360 wrote:
zot1 wrote:I'll admit... the temptation to take the day off is currently overwhelming.

I got up really early today. My plan is to work as much as possible until mid-afternoon and then take the rest of the day off. But really wanting to stop right now haha!


Well, I got 0.0% yesterday because I just spend 8 hours reviewing and outlining, and I'm going to do the same for a half day today. The heck with it.


I'm right where I need to be as far as the Themis schedule, and had planned to take the day off, but I think I may end up just reviewing some of the high frequency stuff myself later today. I'm feeling a little weird about not doing anything this morning. The conditioning to be cramming info into my brain as often as possible apparently has taken strong root.

zot1
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:03 pm

MrBriggs360 wrote:
zot1 wrote:I'll admit... the temptation to take the day off is currently overwhelming.

I got up really early today. My plan is to work as much as possible until mid-afternoon and then take the rest of the day off. But really wanting to stop right now haha!


Well, I got 0.0% yesterday because I just spend 8 hours reviewing and outlining, and I'm going to do the same for a half day today. The heck with it.


Oh man, I tried to do that, but after it took me forever to review just one outline, I decided to move along with my schedule. I'm hoping I can review one outline per day instead, because a whole day of review just seemed like too much.

FloRida15
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 2:43 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby FloRida15 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:16 pm

Just completed MBE PQs 7... goal is now 70%. When I look at my breakdown, I got 2 of 8 civil procedure questions. The other categories are ok (still can use improvement), but Civ Pro has been consistently awful. Anyone else experiencing this? I hope the real test has some easier, less specific and less random questions!

zot1
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:50 pm

Alright. Clocking out for the day at 2.4%. GIMME ALL THE HOT DOGS NOW. AND BEER.

Happy 4th, everybody!

User avatar
anon sequitur
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:14 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby anon sequitur » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:43 pm

Really don't understand this Civ Pro question regarding diversity jurisdiction for statutory interpleader, if anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. Basically, who counts as a "claimant"?

[+] Spoiler
A parking garage attendant found a necklace beside a car in the garage. Both the owner of the car and the owner of the garage claim ownership of the necklace, which has been valued at $73,000. The car owner has filed an action to gain possession of the necklace in state court naming the attendant as defendant. The attendant filed a federal statutory interpleader action in federal district court. The garage owner and the car owner are citizens of the same state and the attendant is a citizen of a neighboring state. The attendant has posted a bond with the federal court, but retains possession of the necklace. The car owner has filed a motion to dismiss the interpleader action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The explanation:[spoiler]Under the federal interpleader statute, diversity jurisdiction is met if any two claimants are citizens of different states. Here, the two claimants, the garage owner and the car owner, are both citizens of the same state. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.


Uhm, isn't the garage attendant a claimant, and from a different state?

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7959
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Pleasye » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:19 pm

anon sequitur wrote:Really don't understand this Civ Pro question regarding diversity jurisdiction for statutory interpleader, if anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. Basically, who counts as a "claimant"?

[+] Spoiler
A parking garage attendant found a necklace beside a car in the garage. Both the owner of the car and the owner of the garage claim ownership of the necklace, which has been valued at $73,000. The car owner has filed an action to gain possession of the necklace in state court naming the attendant as defendant. The attendant filed a federal statutory interpleader action in federal district court. The garage owner and the car owner are citizens of the same state and the attendant is a citizen of a neighboring state. The attendant has posted a bond with the federal court, but retains possession of the necklace. The car owner has filed a motion to dismiss the interpleader action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The explanation:[spoiler]Under the federal interpleader statute, diversity jurisdiction is met if any two claimants are citizens of different states. Here, the two claimants, the garage owner and the car owner, are both citizens of the same state. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.


Uhm, isn't the garage attendant a claimant, and from a different state?

No the attendant isn't a claimant. He's the one bringing the two claimants in on the statutory interpleader claim. The claimants are the owner of the garage and the owner of the car, so they are the ones that must be diverse. The point of statutory interpleader is to resolve the possession of an item when there is more than one claimant to it.

User avatar
anon sequitur
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:14 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby anon sequitur » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:34 pm

Pleasye wrote:No the attendant isn't a claimant. He's the one bringing the two claimants in on the statutory interpleader claim. The claimants are the owner of the garage and the owner of the car, so they are the ones that must be diverse. The point of statutory interpleader is to resolve the possession of an item when there is more than one claimant to it.


Ah, okay. I didn't see it that way at all, I assumed the attendant was a claimant, since he is in possession, and he brought the interpleader. It still only sorta makes sense to me, but I should be able to figure it out now. Thanks.

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6857
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby lacrossebrother » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:40 pm

Pleasye wrote:
anon sequitur wrote:Really don't understand this Civ Pro question regarding diversity jurisdiction for statutory interpleader, if anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. Basically, who counts as a "claimant"?

[+] Spoiler
A parking garage attendant found a necklace beside a car in the garage. Both the owner of the car and the owner of the garage claim ownership of the necklace, which has been valued at $73,000. The car owner has filed an action to gain possession of the necklace in state court naming the attendant as defendant. The attendant filed a federal statutory interpleader action in federal district court. The garage owner and the car owner are citizens of the same state and the attendant is a citizen of a neighboring state. The attendant has posted a bond with the federal court, but retains possession of the necklace. The car owner has filed a motion to dismiss the interpleader action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The explanation:[spoiler]Under the federal interpleader statute, diversity jurisdiction is met if any two claimants are citizens of different states. Here, the two claimants, the garage owner and the car owner, are both citizens of the same state. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action.


Uhm, isn't the garage attendant a claimant, and from a different state?

No the attendant isn't a claimant. He's the one bringing the two claimants in on the statutory interpleader claim. The claimants are the owner of the garage and the owner of the car, so they are the ones that must be diverse. The point of statutory interpleader is to resolve the possession of an item when there is more than one claimant to it.

Ya. Also a shitty explanation because it leaves out that the AIC for interpleader is $500. That's a key part here because they're trying to trick you with the $73,000 thing which is obviously insufficient for normal diversity action.

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6857
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby lacrossebrother » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:42 pm

anon sequitur wrote:
Pleasye wrote:No the attendant isn't a claimant. He's the one bringing the two claimants in on the statutory interpleader claim. The claimants are the owner of the garage and the owner of the car, so they are the ones that must be diverse. The point of statutory interpleader is to resolve the possession of an item when there is more than one claimant to it.


Ah, okay. I didn't see it that way at all, I assumed the attendant was a claimant, since he is in possession, and he brought the interpleader. It still only sorta makes sense to me, but I should be able to figure it out now. Thanks.

the guy in possession is never gonna be the claimant. interpleader is a device for people in possession of shit to make sure they don't have to go through multiple litigation. the task actually should be actually find the person in possession and immediately say that that person is NOT the claimant.

the attendant sees that there's two people that might have claims against him. he's like fuck this, im not gonna have to go through two law suits. BOOM you've been INTERPLED, you two claimants. Figure out who is the REAL claimant.
Last edited by lacrossebrother on Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Guchster, iliketurtles123, weaselology and 8 guests