Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[zot1]

Thanks, bro!

TOTALLY BOMBED the graded essay (thanks, Themis, for giving me too many exams in one day!) per the model answer. But whatever, just one more task to go before I can go watch the US game. Looooong day.

RE: Barbri

I don't mind not having too much contact. I absorb people's feelings easily, so a stressed crowd makes me stressed.

33%

[Raiden]

So I tried to search for my graded essay Attorney in my state bar search...could not find her. That is comforting.

[Nelson]

Did I just get punk'd by Themis?

I was doing a civ pro practice MBE when

[+] Spoiler

the fact pattern established that the plaintiff moved to a different state solely for purposes of getting diversity jurisdiction, but the answer that I chose, that the court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff moved solely for that purpose, was incorrect. The "correct answer" was instead that DJ was proper because P and D were citizens of different states. WHAT?! Did I not learn the rule correctly?!

Had the same question. It's just wrong. It's not you.

[always_raining]

I have found several questions that list incorrect explanations, including in essay questions. For example, several questions (one so far in property and one in civil procedure) states something like "if all of the defenses asserted are true, which of the following provides the best defense"? and then the explanation says one of the answers is NOT correct (though would be the best defense if it were true). WTH! Am I supposed to assume the answers are true or not?

Also, civil procedure is filled with errors. I hate it. One civil procedure essay question states that both parties must be the same or in privity for issue preclusion to apply, which is just wrong. Another MBE question said that taxpayers don't have standing to challenge specific congressional appropriation under the establishment clause because those claims aren't ripe (which — I dunno, maybe is true — but at this point I'm so suspicious that I have no idea!).

;'(

[collegewriter]

I have found several questions that list incorrect explanations, including in essay questions. For example, several questions (one so far in property and one in civil procedure) states something like "if all of the defenses asserted are true, which of the following provides the best defense"? and then the explanation says one of the answers is NOT correct (though would be the best defense if it were true). WTH! Am I supposed to assume the answers are true or not?

Also, civil procedure is filled with errors. I hate it. One civil procedure essay question states that both parties must be the same or in privity for issue preclusion to apply, which is just wrong. Another MBE question said that taxpayers don't have standing to challenge specific congressional appropriation under the establishment clause because those claims aren't ripe (which — I dunno, maybe is true — but at this point I'm so suspicious that I have no idea!).

;'(

I am really frustrated too. I found an inconsistency yesterday between what a NY and MBE lecturer said for the same general rule of law (not NY-specific). I found a practice question where the answer explanation was missing a NOT in a key sentence. I have emailed them every time I find something like this and hope they get the picture that these kind of mistakes are unacceptable.

[Tripl3Espresso]

I have found several questions that list incorrect explanations, including in essay questions. For example, several questions (one so far in property and one in civil procedure) states something like "if all of the defenses asserted are true, which of the following provides the best defense"? and then the explanation says one of the answers is NOT correct (though would be the best defense if it were true). WTH! Am I supposed to assume the answers are true or not?

Also, civil procedure is filled with errors. I hate it. One civil procedure essay question states that both parties must be the same or in privity for issue preclusion to apply, which is just wrong. Another MBE question said that taxpayers don't have standing to challenge specific congressional appropriation under the establishment clause because those claims aren't ripe (which — I dunno, maybe is true — but at this point I'm so suspicious that I have no idea!).

;'(

Was the MBE question in Civ Pro too? I haven't started Con Law yet, but "standing", "ripeness", and "congress" are definitely Con law terms

[MrMustache]

It's time to start paying for my failure to complete all assigned work. From now on my suggested pace is 1.6% instead of 1.5%.

[always_raining]

I have found several questions that list incorrect explanations, including in essay questions. For example, several questions (one so far in property and one in civil procedure) states something like "if all of the defenses asserted are true, which of the following provides the best defense"? and then the explanation says one of the answers is NOT correct (though would be the best defense if it were true). WTH! Am I supposed to assume the answers are true or not?

Also, civil procedure is filled with errors. I hate it. One civil procedure essay question states that both parties must be the same or in privity for issue preclusion to apply, which is just wrong. Another MBE question said that taxpayers don't have standing to challenge specific congressional appropriation under the establishment clause because those claims aren't ripe (which — I dunno, maybe is true — but at this point I'm so suspicious that I have no idea!).

;'(

Was the MBE question in Civ Pro too? I haven't started Con Law yet, but "standing", "ripeness", and "congress" are definitely Con Law terms

Yes, the one about the taxpayer was in con law, but I'm not actually sure if the explanation is wrong or not. I think it's wrong according to the outline. I might have believed the explanation without second thought but I've seen so many errors that it has me questioning more than I normally might.

[zor]

Like many of you I'm behind and just did my first MBE Milestone today.

I thought Kramer was great, but having done a ton of MBE and essay questions about mortgages, I realize I know NOTHING ABOUT MORTGAGES. He only glanced over the priority of liens and foreclosure material. But the full outline is mind-numbingly dull and convoluted. Does anyone have a link or something to a quick list of the various mortgage and foreclosure rules??

[MrMustache]

Like many of you I'm behind and just did my first MBE Milestone today.

I thought Kramer was great, but having done a ton of MBE and essay questions about mortgages, I realize I know NOTHING ABOUT MORTGAGES. He only glanced over the priority of liens and foreclosure material. But the full outline is mind-numbingly dull and convoluted. Does anyone have a link or something to a quick list of the various mortgage and foreclosure rules??

I was really pissed about that. They specifically tell us that mortgages are heavily tested and yet the video lecture hardly covered anything about that. I ended up having to read the full outline, and my MBE scores jumped from low 50s into mid 70s. Kramer is the reason I skip video lectures and read the long outline instead.

[zot1]

Did I just get punk'd by Themis?

I was doing a civ pro practice MBE when

[+] Spoiler

the fact pattern established that the plaintiff moved to a different state solely for purposes of getting diversity jurisdiction, but the answer that I chose, that the court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff moved solely for that purpose, was incorrect. The "correct answer" was instead that DJ was proper because P and D were citizens of different states. WHAT?! Did I not learn the rule correctly?!

Had the same question. It's just wrong. It's not you.

Here's their answer:

[+] Spoiler

"A party’s motive for changing citizenship is irrelevant, but the change of state citizenship must be genuine to be recognized. In determining whether a party’s change of state citizenship is genuine, a court may consider whether the party changed her domicile specifically to create or destroy diversity." This means that motive can be considered, but cannot alone make a change in domicile ingenuine. The main thing to determine is whether the person who moved intends to stay there indefinitely. If this woman had made plans to move back home, that would be an ingenuine change in domicile. However, if she moved there to create diversity but plans to stay, that is sufficient to establish a new genuine domicile. I hope this helps!

Honestly, I don't buy it. The fact pattern said she moved solely for the purpose of establishing diversity. It didn't say whether she planned to stay there indefinitely or not. In my head, having only the fact of purpose, this should have been improper.

[Tripl3Espresso]

A good number of these Civ Pro questions require either too many inferences on the rules or do not sufficiently provide enough basis to select it as "correct". It is extremely frustrating.

[Nelson]

Did I just get punk'd by Themis?

I was doing a civ pro practice MBE when

[+] Spoiler

the fact pattern established that the plaintiff moved to a different state solely for purposes of getting diversity jurisdiction, but the answer that I chose, that the court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff moved solely for that purpose, was incorrect. The "correct answer" was instead that DJ was proper because P and D were citizens of different states. WHAT?! Did I not learn the rule correctly?!

Had the same question. It's just wrong. It's not you.

Here's their answer:

[+] Spoiler

"A party’s motive for changing citizenship is irrelevant, but the change of state citizenship must be genuine to be recognized. In determining whether a party’s change of state citizenship is genuine, a court may consider whether the party changed her domicile specifically to create or destroy diversity." This means that motive can be considered, but cannot alone make a change in domicile ingenuine. The main thing to determine is whether the person who moved intends to stay there indefinitely. If this woman had made plans to move back home, that would be an ingenuine change in domicile. However, if she moved there to create diversity but plans to stay, that is sufficient to establish a new genuine domicile. I hope this helps!

Honestly, I don't buy it. The fact pattern said she moved solely for the purpose of establishing diversity. It didn't say whether she planned to stay there indefinitely or not. In my head, having only the fact of purpose, this should have been improper.

[+] Spoiler

It's just a poorly written question. It's true that you can move for mixed purpose: you can change your domicile because you like the next town over and it establishes diversity. That's OK and doesn't prevent diversity jurisdiction. But the question says she moved for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction (nothing about any other mixed purpose). So that would fall exactly within the rule and would prevent the court for exercising diversity jurisdiction. Themis's answer to you assumes facts that aren't in the hypo.

[MrMustache]

Disregard. I am an idiot.

[gr8scOtt!]

Does Themis leave out rules and exceptions from their outlines on purpose because they will teach us those rules by getting us to answer MBE questions incorrectly? Is this some sort of a marketing ploy to get us to have low MBE scores in the beginning and then start getting higher scores later in the course after we finally discover the rules that were intentionally left out, and think "Themis is great, I got so much better thanks to them!"

BarBri long outline:
Three requirements to invalidate search warrant
1) false statement
2) affiant intentionally or recklessly included that false statement
3) false statement was material to the finding of probable cause.

Themis long outline
No mention of what invalidates a search warrant [as far as I can remember]

First MBE question Crim set #2 is about invalidating a warrant.

I guess I'll be borrowing BarBri outlines from now on.

Long outline, pg. 10

[King Black Snake]

Just spent the last 2 weeks catching up on this thread... Finally finished today!

[MrMustache]

Does Themis leave out rules and exceptions from their outlines on purpose because they will teach us those rules by getting us to answer MBE questions incorrectly? Is this some sort of a marketing ploy to get us to have low MBE scores in the beginning and then start getting higher scores later in the course after we finally discover the rules that were intentionally left out, and think "Themis is great, I got so much better thanks to them!"

BarBri long outline:
Three requirements to invalidate search warrant
1) false statement
2) affiant intentionally or recklessly included that false statement
3) false statement was material to the finding of probable cause.

Themis long outline
No mention of what invalidates a search warrant [as far as I can remember]

First MBE question Crim set #2 is about invalidating a warrant.

I guess I'll be borrowing BarBri outlines from now on.

Long outline, pg. 10

Never mind. I'll go sit in the corner.

[zot1]

Still sitting at 0% for the day. Thanks, World Cup!

We are so lucky to spend our Saturdays studying for the bar

[gr8scOtt!]

Does Themis leave out rules and exceptions from their outlines on purpose because they will teach us those rules by getting us to answer MBE questions incorrectly? Is this some sort of a marketing ploy to get us to have low MBE scores in the beginning and then start getting higher scores later in the course after we finally discover the rules that were intentionally left out, and think "Themis is great, I got so much better thanks to them!"

BarBri long outline:
Three requirements to invalidate search warrant
1) false statement
2) affiant intentionally or recklessly included that false statement
3) false statement was material to the finding of probable cause.

Themis long outline
No mention of what invalidates a search warrant [as far as I can remember]

First MBE question Crim set #2 is about invalidating a warrant.

I guess I'll be borrowing BarBri outlines from now on.

Long outline, pg. 10

Never mind. I'll go sit in the corner.

haha noooooo.

[smalogna]

Still sitting at 0% for the day. Thanks, World Cup!

We are so lucky to spend our Saturdays studying for the bar

Columbia tho.

[pupshaw]

So it seems like there is a ton of material in the Remedies outline that isn't covered in the lectures. How important is it to learn all of that?

[MarcZero]

I'm getting really tired of the course progress bar. It started as a good piece of inspiration to get things done each day but now it just seems to be mocking me. Today, a practice essay (1 hour in length) was only worth 0.1% Fuck this.

[MrMustache]

I'm getting really tired of the course progress bar. It started as a good piece of inspiration to get things done each day but now it just seems to be mocking me. Today, a practice essay (1 hour in length) was only worth 0.1% Fuck this.

Just 14 more hours and you'll be at 1.5% ! Seriously though, I feel you pain. Just keep in mind that someone here posted that Themis only really expects us to get to 85% to be fully prepared for the bar.

[zot1]

Still sitting at 0% for the day. Thanks, World Cup!

We are so lucky to spend our Saturdays studying for the bar

Columbia tho.

Seriously! What a game. What I love about this World Cup is that history is made in almost every game haha!

[zot1]

Ugh, here we go again:

Con Law essay:

[+] Spoiler

This one had me analyze three statutes for equal protection. The second one was simply aimed to protect family values so same sex couples couldn't adopt. The model answer said this would pass rational basis review. However, the lecture and the outline both discuss that legislation against same sex couple wouldn't pass rational basis review IF they reflected prejudice or animus against the couples. Without more info than to protect "family values" I went for this not passing rational basis, but the model answer was strong on the point that it did pass rational basis AND made no mention whatsoever about the "prejudice animus" part.

What do you guys think?

I might ask Themis later about it because this can totally throw me off in the real exam.