Now I look like a schmuck. Same thing, right after loljmhendri wrote:I have to disagree with you guys on this kidnapping thing. Kidnapping = concealment in a "secret place" (as per barbri). Criminal false imprisonment only requires confinement against someone's will. What was the clerk being concealed from? Nothing, he was just being kept out the way.
California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum
- usuaggie
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
- TaipeiMort
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
That's just what the Themis outline says, but I got it wrong because I chose false imprisonment instead of kidnapping. That question should really be thrown out because you could argue for either false imprisonment or kidnapping (against their will and concealed) and you could argue Robbery (was in their presence) or Larceny (was not/ no threat of force).Emma. wrote:Disagree. The taking itself wasn't accomplished by force or threat of force. I could be wrong, but no UChicago consensus on this one.TaipeiMort wrote:
You don't need actual force if you did it in their presence.
Last edited by TaipeiMort on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Tangerine Gleam
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:28 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Everything I'm seeing on google search is that common law kidnapping requires movement. So I think the concealment is some small exception where the concealment is a functional asportation.
Also I don't think it can be robbery. Clerk would never have been in fear.
Also I don't think it can be robbery. Clerk would never have been in fear.
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Didn't have cloning embryo, so another experimental I guess.Had ALL of these, including the cloning embryo one.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:41 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
essay topics for tmrw?
-
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Encroachment on an easement previously granted?
- TaipeiMort
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Got to the end of Section 1, had about 15 that I wasn't positive on.
Got to the end of Section 2, had exactly 50 that I wasn't positive on.
Got to the end of Section 2, had exactly 50 that I wasn't positive on.
-
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:36 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I thought no kidnapping because I remembered reading something about concealing someone to complete a crime is not kidnapping unless there was some other requirement. But I can be totally off and was not that confident.
- TaipeiMort
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Force or intimidation. Is locking them in a room force? Is taking from the till while they are in the locked room in their presence?somethingdemure wrote:Everything I'm seeing on google search is that common law kidnapping requires movement. So I think the concealment is some small exception where the concealment is a functional asportation.
Also I don't think it can be robbery. Clerk would never have been in fear.
- Reinhardt
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I have a feeling NCBE takes a look at the BarBri and Themis outlines and says, hmm, how can we think up a bunch of questions that expose the differences between their grossly oversimplified version of the law and ours?
- usuaggie
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Definitely unquestionably presence. Don't know about forceTaipeiMort wrote:Force or intimidation. Is locking them in a room force? Is taking from the till while they are in the locked room in their presence?somethingdemure wrote:Everything I'm seeing on google search is that common law kidnapping requires movement. So I think the concealment is some small exception where the concealment is a functional asportation.
Also I don't think it can be robbery. Clerk would never have been in fear.
- Emma.
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I think I'd be similar. Section 1 seemed solidly hard but mostly fair, I'd say most questions were medium-hard.. Section 2 was like half medium, half WTF.TaipeiMort wrote:Got to the end of Section 1, had about 15 that I wasn't positive on.
Got to the end of Section 2, had exactly 50 that I wasn't positive on.
Now I gotta shut this shit down and try to learn CivPro, Wills, Evidence, etc etc.

Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I thought thought the clerk just walked into the back room to get the expensive bottle of wine -- no force, suggestion of forced movement or involunariness of any sort I thought. He then locked the clerk inside, after following him there.
Chose larceny and false imprisonment.
Chose larceny and false imprisonment.
- TaipeiMort
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
This. We can't do anything about today, but we can do something about tomorrow.bahamallamamama wrote:essay topics for tmrw?
MBE: Property and Contracts?
CA: Remedies + Trusts?
We aren't getting Civ Pro, and don't think we are getting CA Evidence, Crims, and Business Associations/Partnerships.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:41 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
i am with you, brother. i can get behind those topics.TaipeiMort wrote:This. We can't do anything about today, but we can do something about tomorrow.bahamallamamama wrote:essay topics for tmrw?
MBE: Property and Contracts?
CA: Remedies + Trusts?
We aren't getting Civ Pro, and don't think we are getting CA Evidence, Crims, and Business Associations/Partnerships.
- usuaggie
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Why isn't locking the door force?AMCD wrote:I thought thought the clerk just walked into the back room to get the expensive bottle of wine -- no force, suggestion of forced movement or involunariness of any sort I thought. He then locked the clerk inside, after following him there.
Chose larceny and false imprisonment.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- jmhendri
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I feel much better about this choice now than I did at the time.AMCD wrote:I thought thought the clerk just walked into the back room to get the expensive bottle of wine -- no force, suggestion of forced movement or involunariness of any sort I thought. He then locked the clerk inside, after following him there.
Chose larceny and false imprisonment.
- Tangerine Gleam
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Why so sure re: no Civ Pro or CA Evidence?
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?
is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too
- jmhendri
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
I think there will be Ev. Civ pro would be a dick move, just because it's been tested twice in a row and it's never been tested three time in a row.Tangerine Gleam wrote:Why so sure re: no Civ Pro or CA Evidence?
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Reinhardt
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
PT - B will probably have us as legislative aides. A state senator will give us a copy of the Magna Carta, an article from Guns & Ammo, and flyer for a local mattress sale and tell us to draft a new Columbia state constitution
- Reinhardt
- Posts: 458
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
So we're thinking the bar examiners aren't capable of dick moves, eh.jmhendri wrote:I think there will be Ev. Civ pro would be a dick move, just because it's been tested twice in a row and it's never been tested three time in a row.Tangerine Gleam wrote:Why so sure re: no Civ Pro or CA Evidence?
- existenz
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:06 am
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Last edited by existenz on Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Reinhardt wrote:PT - B will probably have us as legislative aides. A state senator will give us a copy of the Magna Carta, an article from Guns & Ammo, and flyer for a local mattress sale and tell us to draft a new Columbia state constitution
This is the best thing ever.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login