2017 February California Bar Exam

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4328
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:46 pm

Yep, Congratulations to everyone!

Win, lose or draw, you all actually completed one of the most difficult bar exams in the country and I think that says a lot given that the test is three days.

Please try to move on with life and not stress out for the next three months. If you pass, thats amazing, if you don't, the exam will be there.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2055
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:50 pm

sittin_pretty wrote:We did it!!!!!!!
We just took the California bar exam!!!!!

The Pasadena testing room burst out into a big cheer at the end. Did that happen everywhere?

HAPPY THING #1: WE DON'T HAVE TO STUDY TONIGHT!
HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!
HAPPY THING #3: IT'S OVER!

Month 1: Excited and guilty over being treated to meals even though you didn’t even pass yet
Month 2: Cycle through ennui, boredom, and general listlessness
Month 3: Paranoia and feeling of impending doom as the countdown goes down on the results page
Last week: HELP

Just kidding, congrats all on finishing the exam :) As an added bonus, you get legacy bragging rights for taking what could possibly the last time they give a three-day exam.

MMCheung

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:16 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby MMCheung » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:53 pm

a male human wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:We did it!!!!!!!
We just took the California bar exam!!!!!

The Pasadena testing room burst out into a big cheer at the end. Did that happen everywhere?

HAPPY THING #1: WE DON'T HAVE TO STUDY TONIGHT!
HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!
HAPPY THING #3: IT'S OVER!

Month 1: Excited and guilty over being treated to meals even though you didn’t even pass yet
Month 2: Cycle through ennui, boredom, and general listlessness
Month 3: Paranoia and feeling of impending doom as the countdown goes down on the results page
Last week: HELP

Just kidding, congrats all on finishing the exam :) As an added bonus, you get legacy bragging rights for taking what could possibly the last time they give a three-day exam.



Historical cohort!

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4328
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:22 pm

a male human wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:We did it!!!!!!!
We just took the California bar exam!!!!!

The Pasadena testing room burst out into a big cheer at the end. Did that happen everywhere?

HAPPY THING #1: WE DON'T HAVE TO STUDY TONIGHT!
HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!
HAPPY THING #3: IT'S OVER!

Month 1: Excited and guilty over being treated to meals even though you didn’t even pass yet
Month 2: Cycle through ennui, boredom, and general listlessness
Month 3: Paranoia and feeling of impending doom as the countdown goes down on the results page
Last week: HELP

Just kidding, congrats all on finishing the exam :) As an added bonus, you get legacy bragging rights for taking what could possibly the last time they give a three-day exam.


LOL, i passed a year ago and have been practicing my 3 day exam bragging.

I missed at least 4 free dinners, but when you pass people will offer you another dinner. Your leftovers game will be on point!

SUPERFEVER

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:56 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby SUPERFEVER » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:14 am

First call on the Corps question stumped me so hard I almost wrote in a I.O.U.

How did you guys approach it?

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:42 am

SUPERFEVER wrote:First call on the Corps question stumped me so hard I almost wrote in a I.O.U.

How did you guys approach it?


Intro supplier either argue improper form or Pcv. Then de jur. Maybe, nothing said about articles. Then said de facto if no de jur....

Then pcv. Went through each theory. Said could likely pierce via undercapitalization, or alter ego.

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:03 am

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel :( :( :( :( Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:05 am

How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense

armenianBEAUTY

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:26 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby armenianBEAUTY » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:10 am

SUPERFEVER wrote:First call on the Corps question stumped me so hard I almost wrote in a I.O.U.

How did you guys approach it?


Was that the one regarding Supplier's avenue to recover against Art?

If so:

Pierce the corporate veil bc privilege of conducting business as a corp has been abused:
1) formalities of corporation were ignored and injustice resulted (Art was taking home corp assets as he wished and took from the gross revenues and now company is left with a mere $5000)
2) Alter ego // corporate form was being used to perpetuate fraud (Art was pretty much running a one-man show-- taking in an amount from gross revenue [which suggests that it likely isn't based on what he's putting in as a manager] while enjoying limited liability of the corporate entity)
3) Corp was not adequately capitalized at its inception (I said it could be argued that $50k is not adequate capitalization for a store planning to be in business for at least 10 years... and the result of having a mere $5000 left, but 50,000 and 10,000 in obligations is support for the claim of inadequacy)

Why do I remember these facts so well? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

armenianBEAUTY

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:26 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby armenianBEAUTY » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:13 am

osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:25 am

armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply

rosh1005

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:16 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rosh1005 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:26 am

osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?

ur_hero

Bronze
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:27 am

osuna911 wrote:I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel :( :( :( :( Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.


Hmmm...Estoppel? I'm forgetting whether I saw that in the library/file and used it.

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:29 am

MMCheung wrote:I know I'm being a little obsessive here since I am free but still thinking about the bar. But can't get the last PT out of mind bc.... did we need to craft, prove, and apply the rule using the cases we were given??? I haven't encountered that type of exercise before on any practice PTs I've done. Anyway... that's what I did!



That PT was brutal, my arguments were jibberish at the end.... yeah pretty much had overturn the Hiram case, but I got hung up on the "Impropriety Function" and the "Ultra Vires" analysis... I effed it up big time

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:31 am

rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?

rosh1005

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:16 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rosh1005 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:32 am

osuna911 wrote:
rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?



........ missed that hahaha damn

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:38 am

rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?



........ missed that hahaha damn



What about the Cocaine? I said SILA didn't apply because D was handcuffed and the officer isn't able to search the FRONT pocket since it's not "grabable" .... but could come under independent source to FPT even with the Miranda violation because she said "its cocaine"

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:38 am

rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?



........ missed that hahaha damn


I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...

armenianBEAUTY

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:26 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby armenianBEAUTY » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:39 am

osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply


Defense of entrapment requires two elements:
1) that the criminal design originate w/ law enforcement
2) that the ∆ not be predisposed to the crime being charged

Here, even though the informant was an unreliable one, the info got to law enforcement causing them to organize the sting operation. When Bob called Debbie, she did not act surprised or confused as to why someone would call, claim they are Ivan's friend, and want to do the "job" for her. From that, I said that it did not sound like the criminal design was by law enforcement. Rather, it sounded like law enforcement continued to set into motion what Debbie likely started. It could be argued that Debbie was merely playing along... that she initially did not have a goal to kill her husband but agreed to go along with the idea when Bob called. OKay, unlikely, but the second element is likely still not satisfied (and thus, the defense is not available). She genuinely considered the idea-- whether or not the idea was her's initially. Would someone who has absolutely no intention to kill her husband be convinced that soon-- in an exchange of a mere 3-4 sentences? Would that be enough for most people to turn over $200 to have time to think about whether you want a complete stranger to run a hit on your husband? Likely not. She prob was predisposed to the idea of killing her husband.

Hence, no entrapment defense available. :mrgreen:

osuna911

New
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:56 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby osuna911 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:41 am

cal_pushed wrote:
rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
osuna911 wrote:How detailed did you guys go into the Conspiracy analysis for call 2 on essay 6? for the entrapment defense


I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?



........ missed that hahaha damn


I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...



Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....

Rocky64

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:40 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Rocky64 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:44 am

Guys, it's as simple as this.. the call of the question was whether or not she can use the defense of entrapment. And the answer is no. She had the criminal intent before the officer tried to induce her. Nothing is related to conspiracy or solicitation.

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:45 am

ope. Not when the Affiant lies or misleads the kiddie in the oral test or affidavit. Limitation to he good faith exception. Auto invalid irrespective of the good faith

armenianBEAUTY

New
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:26 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby armenianBEAUTY » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:47 am

For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply[/quote]



there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?[/quote]


Solicitation merges into conspiracy?[/quote]


........ missed that hahaha damn[/quote]

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...[/quote]


Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....[/quote]


Nope! You forgot about the exception to the exception. :) The good faith reliance exception is NOT available whenever the warrant is so lacking in prob cause that a reasonable officer would not rely on it (it was based solely on one informant). Also, not available whenever law enforcement has misrepresented/lied in the affidavit seeking the warrant. First exception to the exception likely applies. Second one definitely does.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:48 am

The question specifically called for entrapment. The crime just happened to be solicitation of murder.

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:51 am

RickSanchez wrote:The question specifically called for entrapment. The crime just happened to be solicitation of murder.


Entrapment defense to that which she had been arrested and charged... solicitation for murder.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: justanotheruser and 24 guests