Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[NaeDeen]

I came to the realization yesterday that I am not going to pass the bar. I'm not proficient in enough of the MBE subjects to carry myself over my poor writing ability. What cemented it for me was the most recent crim law PQ session. I missed more questions than I got right. I just can't seem to get those questions right. It's particularly frustrating because I have been practicing criminal law professionally for the past 2 years (clinics/externships). My purpose for posting this is to get it out of my head, somewhere fairly anonymous, so I can get back to studying 15 hours a day, and hopefully squeak-by with one point above passing.

Change how you look at the bar exam...change your state of mind...change you. Once you do that, you'll start to see improvement. GOOD LUCK!

[ndp1234]

Just got OBLITERATED on the Property PQs Set 5... By obliterated, I mean I didn't even get 50%.

I don't even know how to study some of the questions I got wrong. A lot of them were weird exceptions to exceptions and laws that I didn't even know existed. Back to the drawing board I guess... I'm worried now about contracts since I haven't visited that subject in weeks.

[alicen]

confused about choice of law (question in a civ pro MBE set)

[+] Spoiler

An answer explanation said, "In diversity actions, a federal district court is generally bound by the conflict-of-law rules of the state in which the district court is located. Questions about the right to a jury trial are considered procedural and are determined by the law of the forum state." I'm very confused...don't you typically use federal procedural law in diversity actions? So why would a question about the right to a jury trial (procedural) be determined by state law?

[bobbypin]

.

[Easy-E]

This is probably gonna sound like a 1L question (because it is), but when you guys outline a subject, do you bother including stuff you feel you've already internalized? For example, I'm doing civpro now, and I know a clear cut rule like "no probate/family in federal". Do you even bother including it? Or do you just know "I know this now, if i see it, I know the issue"?

I'm aware I sound like a panicked 1L but that's how I feel all over again.

[bsktbll28082]

This is probably gonna sound like a 1L question (because it is), but when you guys outline a subject, do you bother including stuff you feel you've already internalized? For example, I'm doing civpro now, and I know a clear cut rule like "no probate/family in federal". Do you even bother including it? Or do you just know "I know this now, if i see it, I know the issue"?

I'm aware I sound like a panicked 1L but that's how I feel all over again.

When I do my first outline, I include as much detail as I can (since typing it up is my way of learning). As I condense and do more outlines, I cut material I know.

[Nebby]

Some of the crim pro rules are so fucking unintuitive

[+] Spoiler

A police officer suspected that an individual purchased child pornography in violation of the law. The officer sought and secured a facially valid warrant to search the home of the individual for items of child pornography. To obtain the warrant, the officer, in her affidavit, asserted as factual, information received from an informant. The officer executed the warrant and seized as evidence the items specified in the warrant. The prosecution seeks to introduce such evidence against the individual. The individual petitioned the court for a hearing to void the warrant and suppress the evidence seized pursuant to it. The court granted a hearing. At the hearing, the individual established by a preponderance of the evidence that information contained in the affidavit was false, that the officer negligently failed to verify the truthfulness of the information, and that the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate who issued the warrant.

Should the court grant the individual's petition?
ANo, because the warrant was facially valid.
BNo, because the inclusion of the false information in the affidavit was due to the police officer's negligence.
CYes, because the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate.
DYes, because the police officer included false information in the affidavit.

Like--what kinda fucking faith can you have in a system when a warrant is still valid even if you can prove the underlying facts were false and were solely due to the police officer's negligence. It just blows my fucking mind that this is an actual rule

[Nebby]

Add another to the list of rules that are obscenely unintuitive

[+] Spoiler

A retailer was found liable for $300,000 in a products liability class action for selling a particular defective brand of coffee maker. The retailer then brought a diversity action against the coffee-maker manufacturer for contribution. The jury found that the retailer was not liable for any of the judgment against him and awarded the retailer the entire $300,000 requested as contribution. However, through a clerical error, the judgment entered reflected an award of only $300. After the manufacturer filed an appeal of the judgment and the appeal was docketed with the appellate court, the district court clerk discovered the mistake. The court immediately corrected the error.
Did the court properly correct the written judgment?
ANo, because the court may not make a clerical correction to a written judgment on its own initiative.
BNo, because the judgment has been docketed in the appellate court.
CYes, because a district court may make a clerical correction with or without notice to the parties.
DYes, because the error was egregious enough to render the judgment ineffective without correction.

[Easy-E]

So are "same transaction or occurrence", "common nucleus of operative fact" and "case or controversy" synonymous?

[Chardee_MacDennis]

So are "same transaction or occurrence", "common nucleus of operative fact" and "case or controversy" synonymous?

It certainly seems like it.

[Easy-E]

So are "same transaction or occurrence", "common nucleus of operative fact" and "case or controversy" synonymous?

It certainly seems like it.

Would be nice of them to just pick one and stick with it then. I'm going with transaction/occurrence, since it looks like that's that the rules use now. I thought it was case/controversy when I took civpro.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

So are "same transaction or occurrence", "common nucleus of operative fact" and "case or controversy" synonymous?

It certainly seems like it.

Would be nice of them to just pick one and stick with it then. I'm going with transaction/occurrence, since it looks like that's that the rules use now. I thought it was case/controversy when I took civpro.

Lol. I used common nucleus during law school.

[Eldon Tyrell]

Some of the crim pro rules are so fucking unintuitive

[+] Spoiler

A police officer suspected that an individual purchased child pornography in violation of the law. The officer sought and secured a facially valid warrant to search the home of the individual for items of child pornography. To obtain the warrant, the officer, in her affidavit, asserted as factual, information received from an informant. The officer executed the warrant and seized as evidence the items specified in the warrant. The prosecution seeks to introduce such evidence against the individual. The individual petitioned the court for a hearing to void the warrant and suppress the evidence seized pursuant to it. The court granted a hearing. At the hearing, the individual established by a preponderance of the evidence that information contained in the affidavit was false, that the officer negligently failed to verify the truthfulness of the information, and that the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate who issued the warrant.

Should the court grant the individual's petition?
ANo, because the warrant was facially valid.
BNo, because the inclusion of the false information in the affidavit was due to the police officer's negligence.
CYes, because the information was necessary to a finding of probable cause by the magistrate.
DYes, because the police officer included false information in the affidavit.

Like--what kinda fucking faith can you have in a system when a warrant is still valid even if you can prove the underlying facts were false and were solely due to the police officer's negligence. It just blows my fucking mind that this is an actual rule

Crim pro is extremely intuitive:

Is there a way to fuck a criminal defendant more than he already is?
If no, then common sense applies.
If yes, the Supreme Court has likely picked that rule.

[Nebby]

So are "same transaction or occurrence", "common nucleus of operative fact" and "case or controversy" synonymous?

It certainly seems like it.

Would be nice of them to just pick one and stick with it then. I'm going with transaction/occurrence, since it looks like that's that the rules use now. I thought it was case/controversy when I took civpro.

Lol. I used common nucleus during law school.

Yeah, they are used synonymously. It would have been nice of Themis to tell us that, rather than to find out by missing them in a PQ. I used transaction/occurence and common nucleus in law school, but have only ever heard "case or controversy" used in reference to the Case or Controversy clause in the constitution.

In unlreated news, fuck this question too

[+] Spoiler

A woman discovered that her boyfriend was cheating on her. She approached the bartender at her local bar, who she had heard was a member of a biker gang, and offered him $500 to beat up her boyfriend. The bartender agreed immediately. The bartender was actually an undercover officer, however, and he did not intend to beat up the boyfriend. The woman was arrested the next day and charged with solicitation, conspiracy, and assault. The jurisdiction recognizes the common law regarding these crimes.

Are the charges against the woman proper?
AYes as to solicitation, but no as to assault and conspiracy.
BYes as to solicitation and assault, but no as to conspiracy.
CYes as to solicitation and conspiracy, but no as to assault.
DNo as to all charges.

Solicitation is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime with the intent that the other person commit the crime. The woman was guilty of solicitation when she encouraged the bartender to beat up her boyfriend. It is irrelevant that the bartender never intended to commit the crime. Assault is an attempt to commit a battery (the unlawful application of force to the person of another, which can be applied through a third person acting under the defendant’s direction). Attempt requires a substantial step toward the commission of a crime, such as solicitation of an innocent agent to engage in criminal conduct, coupled with intent to commit that crime. Both elements are satisfied in this case. Thus, the woman may be charged with both solicitation and assault.

I understand the reasoning provided, but I honestly had no idea that mere solicitation was considered a substantial step for attempt purposes.

[Mayakovsky]

I keep wanting to laugh out loud at Prof. Schott. Not because he's funny, but because he comes off as so douchey that it's embarrassing.

[NoLongerALurker]

Themis keeps throwing up a question about corporate law

[+] Spoiler

Namely, the question and answer make clear that Themis thinks it's 'true' that mergers absolutely always require the approval of both boards of directors

This is at odds with what I learned in my corps class, what I learned in my M&A class, and what I learned as an SA doing M&A at a firm. It frustrates me every time I see it. I keep getting the question right but I still think Themis is misstating the law on this? Either that or my prof and supervising partner were just flatly wrong (which I really doubt).

[grizz91]

Is anyone else feeling like the later Themis's MBE PQs focus too much on abstract exceptions? I feel like I'm not getting a good sense of where I actually stand because my % on the first set of PQs goes from 60-70% downward to 40-50% on these later PQs sets that test on things I don't even remember from the lectures...

[NoLongerALurker]

lol, Family Law lecture 1 appears to have the Closed Captions be the script the guy was supposed to read. But it doesn't match up with what he's saying.

Also if he makes me spend another 2 years of my life on a contrived Abe Lincoln hypothetical then I'm going to start recommending Barbri to everyone.

Did anyone here have an essay uploader only upload part of their graded essay? I did the other week and I asked Themis about it and they said they'd fix it but they never did. I don't care enough to hassle them about it, but kinda a letdown.

[unidentifiable]

Is anyone else feeling like the later Themis's MBE PQs focus too much on abstract exceptions? I feel like I'm not getting a good sense of where I actually stand because my % on the first set of PQs goes from 60-70% downward to 40-50% on these later PQs sets that test on things I don't even remember from the lectures...

yup. yup. yup. exactly this.

[psm11]

Do you guys know if Themis ranks your PQ performance against others taking the course? I am not talking about the Milestone exams, I am talking about either 17 or 34 PQ question sets. I have a friend taking Barbri who said that after every PQ set they get to see their percentile rank in relation to other Barbri students. Wasn't sure if Themis offered something like that as well. Thanks.

[Easy-E]

I really appreciate Jeffries telling me what stuff in civpro I can just ignore. I mean, he said "don't stress it", my notes on the handout say "fuck this noise". Seems proportional to me.

[xdeuceswild81xx]

While it's definitely frustrating to have odd exceptions on PQ set's 4 &5 for most MBE subjects, I think it's good. The bar will only be about 30 questions or so per subject, so it's unlikely to come across like 15 abstract exceptions, but by having these questions now, if it comes up on the bar, you won't be ambushed. As hard as it is to deal with, it really doesn't matter if you miss these Q's right now, since you are getting exposed to them imo. I think if you're missing like basic concepts of crim pro, for example not knowing the automobile exception exists, that might be an issue....but not knowing some abstract exception to the exception to the rule on something relating to pc of an arrest warrant seems very unlikely to have a huge effect in the long term on your score.

At least for me, when I get a ridiculous question, I'm initially upset with it, but then it sticks with me. I can still verbatim recite some of the answers for some ridiculous crim pro/crim law stuff I've come across so far lol. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but intuitively, it seems like these aren't going to be the concepts that make/break you.

[Easy-E]

While it's definitely frustrating to have odd exceptions on PQ set's 4 &5 for most MBE subjects, I think it's good. The bar will only be about 30 questions or so per subject, so it's unlikely to come across like 15 abstract exceptions, but by having these questions now, if it comes up on the bar, you won't be ambushed. As hard as it is to deal with, it really doesn't matter if you miss these Q's right now, since you are getting exposed to them imo. I think if you're missing like basic concepts of crim pro, for example not knowing the automobile exception exists, that might be an issue....but not knowing some abstract exception to the exception to the rule on something relating to pc of an arrest warrant seems very unlikely to have a huge effect in the long term on your score.

At least for me, when I get a ridiculous question, I'm initially upset with it, but then it sticks with me. I can still verbatim recite some of the answers for some ridiculous crim pro/crim law stuff I've come across so far lol. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but intuitively, it seems like these aren't going to be the concepts that make/break you.

I will certainly never forget that penned-up alligator exception. So I agree that it helps you remember the little exceptions that might never come up. On the other hand, you have to balance that with the bar-prepper's mental state. Doing shitty on PQ sets because you don't know minor exceptions that Themis apparently concedes aren't that important isn't great for your confidence.

I guess the idea is to look at the PQs as a learning tool more than a measure of your ability to pass.

[Nebby]

I fucking loathe the exception to the exception questions

HATE HATE HATE

[Easy-E]

So is the rule statement for pleading basically "All that is required for pleading is a short and plain statement of a claim, which is sufficiently plausible"? The bar examiners never expect you to cite cases though, correct?