Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[kay2016]

cant focus for shit. two days in a row. not good.

high temperature burn out.

Take a day, or just plow through lectures if you have any left. I feel like low quality studying isn't worth it. Clear your head and come back to it.

I'm on reviews now.

Yesterday was relatively easy stuff.

Today is Agency, Partnership, and Corps. I'm good with the first two, but iffy on Corps.. Cant stand to look at it. I've done all the scheduled "read & outline" essays and did fairly well on all.

I think I might call it a day. Sooo gonna hate myself.

Weirdly, I found corporations interesting. At least more than agency and partnerships...

Yeaaah, I find Agency and Partnerships intuitive, but the requirements with shareholder suits and like rights of appraisal and other various requirements are weird for me. I can totally bullshit an answer, but eh..

Girlfriend wants me to build a fort so we can watch cartoons later. Guess that's what I'll focus on. :X

Credit to Themis for trying to to keep the weekend days sort of light. I'm gonna try to get through the secured transactions lectures and then go grill and drink beer. Also, how can an MEE only subject not be narrowed down a bit more than 12 lectures and a 42 page handout.

exactly, that shit was way much more than it had to be. I mean, Tanicus explained it in like 5 pages.

secured has killed my faith in myself.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

[BarPreppin'12]

This is probably the worst wording of a question/answer yet. Fuck this annoys me.

[+] Spoiler

A man purchased a large estate with cash after inheriting a substantial amount of money. Unable to properly manage his wealth, he was impoverished a few months later. He therefore procured a mortgage on the estate from a credit union, and the mortgage was properly executed and recorded. In light of a struggling economy, credit union executives were confident the man would default on the loan and wanted to ensure the estate was properly maintained in anticipation of a subsequent sale. The credit union therefore sought to obtain a court order confirming its right to possession of the estate in order to make repairs and prevent further deterioration of the property.

Could the credit union take possession of the estate?

A No, in an intermediate theory state, after default by the mortgagor.
B No, in a title theory state, absent default by the mortgagor.
C Yes, in a title theory state, until the mortgage has been fully satisfied.
D Yes, in a lien theory state, because the mortgagee is considered the owner of the land during the term of the mortgage.

Got 62% on the first mixed set. Passing stuff by 2-3% margins isn't exactly inspiring confidence

Well, if you passed the last one by 2%, that means you got a 67%. That's pretty good! Anyways, I think they word the question that way because if they worded their questions in a way normal human being speak, everyone would get a 80% or above. The purpose of the bar doesn't seem to be whether you know the law, or can analyze the law as a young attorney, it seems only to be concerned with whether it can trick you. It's like a massive hazing ritual. Their ability to be crafty with their wording and trick people into getting a lower score does not demonstrate that this person wouldn't be a great lawyer.

[bobbypin]

For those making outlines and/or flash cards - are you including state distinctions in there for the MBE topics or making separate outlines/flash cards for those? I started adding MD Distinctions in red ink to my Critical Pass flash cards, but not sure I've got room for everything on there (I also add notes from the MBE PQ explanations).

I add state distinctions to my flashcards and notes. If I run out of room, I use a sticky note.

[Easy-E]

secured has killed my faith in myself.

It's pretty disheartening to be learning a new subject, which is basically gibberish to me, in July. This straight up sucks.

[bobbypin]

secured has killed my faith in myself.

It's pretty disheartening to be learning a new subject, which is basically gibberish to me, in July. This straight up sucks.

I'm just hoping that the trend excluding certain subjects in my state continues...

[AlanShore]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

same.. i know the rule but apparently I dont understand what it means for the contents to be at issue..

[ndp1234]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

same.. i know the rule but apparently I dont understand what it means for the contents to be at issue..

You should assume that any document carrying legal significance like a contract, will, deed, etc. counts as contents being at issue. If none of those documents are being used, but a document is nonetheless being offered as proof of an event, this also triggers the best evidence rule.

Apparently the only evidence section I consistently get right in Evidence. The rest is a real shit show.

[ultimolugar]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

same.. i know the rule but apparently I dont understand what it means for the contents to be at issue..

You should assume that any document carrying legal significance like a contract, will, deed, etc. counts as contents being at issue. If none of those documents are being used, but a document is nonetheless being offered as proof of an event, this also triggers the best evidence rule.

Apparently the only evidence section I consistently get right in Evidence. The rest is a real shit show.

Don't forget photographs.

[BigZuck]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

same.. i know the rule but apparently I dont understand what it means for the contents to be at issue..

You should assume that any document carrying legal significance like a contract, will, deed, etc. counts as contents being at issue. If none of those documents are being used, but a document is nonetheless being offered as proof of an event, this also triggers the best evidence rule.

Apparently the only evidence section I consistently get right in Evidence. The rest is a real shit show.

Don't forget photographs.

Also I think if it's a collateral matter then BER doesn't apply either

OP- Themis gotta Them, that's why it's haunting you right now. You got this.

[hirkaismyname]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

same.. i know the rule but apparently I dont understand what it means for the contents to be at issue..

You should assume that any document carrying legal significance like a contract, will, deed, etc. counts as contents being at issue. If none of those documents are being used, but a document is nonetheless being offered as proof of an event, this also triggers the best evidence rule.

Apparently the only evidence section I consistently get right in Evidence. The rest is a real shit show.

Don't forget photographs.

Yeah...to add on...DON'T FORGET

(example - a photo of D at the scene of the crime moments before the crime took) If the actual photographer is being put in as a witness, and he says "yes this is the photograph I took, and there he is, the murderer right there"...authentication of the that photograph is NOT valid PLUS nor does he have "actual" knowledge to ID (one of the MIMIC exceptions) the Defendant. The photograph is not "self-authorizing" doc.

ALSO...if a Doctor is put on the stand to "authenticate" a X-Ray, it'll be invalid because the test for that (peering documents not visible to human eye) is: machine was properly functioning, operator was certified, and (third element I forgot).

[AlanShore]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

same.. i know the rule but apparently I dont understand what it means for the contents to be at issue..

You should assume that any document carrying legal significance like a contract, will, deed, etc. counts as contents being at issue. If none of those documents are being used, but a document is nonetheless being offered as proof of an event, this also triggers the best evidence rule.

Apparently the only evidence section I consistently get right in Evidence. The rest is a real shit show.

Don't forget photographs.

Yeah...to add on...DON'T FORGET

(example - a photo of D at the scene of the crime moments before the crime took) If the actual photographer is being put in as a witness, and he says "yes this is the photograph I took, and there he is, the murderer right there"...authentication of the that photograph is NOT valid PLUS nor does he have "actual" knowledge to ID (one of the MIMIC exceptions) the Defendant. The photograph is not "self-authorizing" doc.

ALSO...if a Doctor is put on the stand to "authenticate" a X-Ray, it'll be invalid because the test for that (peering documents not visible to human eye) is: machine was properly functioning, operator was certified, and (third element I forgot).

Wait really? (re: photograph)

From themis outline:
When reproductions (e.g., photographs, diagrams, maps, movies) are introduced into evidence, they may be authenticated by the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge that the object accurately depicts what its proponent claims it does. It is generally not necessary to call the person who created the reproduction to authenticate it. However, the creator may be called to authenticate the reproduction and may do so by testifying that the reproduction method produces an accurate result. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(9).

[hirkaismyname]

Best evidence rule . . . don't get it.

same.. i know the rule but apparently I dont understand what it means for the contents to be at issue..

You should assume that any document carrying legal significance like a contract, will, deed, etc. counts as contents being at issue. If none of those documents are being used, but a document is nonetheless being offered as proof of an event, this also triggers the best evidence rule.

Apparently the only evidence section I consistently get right in Evidence. The rest is a real shit show.

Don't forget photographs.

Yeah...to add on...DON'T FORGET

(example - a photo of D at the scene of the crime moments before the crime took) If the actual photographer is being put in as a witness, and he says "yes this is the photograph I took, and there he is, the murderer right there"...authentication of the that photograph is NOT valid PLUS nor does he have "actual" knowledge to ID (one of the MIMIC exceptions) the Defendant. The photograph is not "self-authorizing" doc.

ALSO...if a Doctor is put on the stand to "authenticate" a X-Ray, it'll be invalid because the test for that (peering documents not visible to human eye) is: machine was properly functioning, operator was certified, and (third element I forgot).

Wait really? (re: photograph)

From themis outline:
When reproductions (e.g., photographs, diagrams, maps, movies) are introduced into evidence, they may be authenticated by the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge that the object accurately depicts what its proponent claims it does. It is generally not necessary to call the person who created the reproduction to authenticate it. However, the creator may be called to authenticate the reproduction and may do so by testifying that the reproduction method produces an accurate result. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(9).

I know, the question was tricky. The context was that the photographer was brought into for testimony and there wasn't an answer choice reflecting the rule statement above - say for example "It is not necessary for the witness to testify because the photograph can still be introduced without actual authentication".

I think here's why I got it wrong: when the photographer is taking photos, he isn't actually paying attention to the actual people in the photo, he's taking photos of the scenery, and within the "crowd" the D was identified. Thus, no "personal knowledge that the object (photo) accurately depicts what its proponent claims (that he was at the scene and thus guilty) it does".

I might have misunderstood the explanation, but let's be honest, themis answers aren't really "explanatory" all the time. Haha.

Do you disagree with my analysis?

[hirkaismyname]

repost. whoops.

[TLSModBot]

Just starting on Commercial Paper. Fuck. This. Shit.

[NaeDeen]

I don't believe I was adequately prepared for the smack down that con law PQ #3 just handed me. Not. Ready.

[TLSModBot]

Evidence PQ pet peeve: "Person wants to introduce some random bullshit character evidence. We won't say for what purpose! Answer A: It's inadmissible because they want to introduce it for Reason X. Answer B: It's admissible because they want to introduce it for Reason Y. Have fun mid-reading, assholes!"

[BigZuck]

Just starting on Commercial Paper. Fuck. This. Shit.

It's not something you actually have to learn, it's just a hilarious joke thrown in by those jokesters at Themis

Proof:

I don't know what "Commercial Paper" is but I assume that Themis telling me that I have to watch 17 chapters of it is just a funny joke they threw in.

You really think the law of check cashing is something the bar would expect you to know? Come on dude.

[BigZuck]

I don't believe I was adequately prepared for the smack down that con law PQ #3 just handed me. Not. Ready.

Con Law PQ#6 will restore all faith you had in yourself to answer Con Law questions

Keep grinding

[Fivedham]

Mixed MBE PQ 7 question relating to Evidence:

[+] Spoiler

A defendant, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had robbed two other stores in the past year. This evidence is

(a) admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of the defendant's character and the defendant's action in conformity therewith.
(b) admissible, to prove the defendant's intent and identity.
(c) inadmissible, because character must be proved by reputation or opinion and may not be proved by specific acts.
(d) inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

This is like the third question I got wrong based on a clear application of MIMIC but where 403 balancing makes it inadmissible. Has anyone spotted the patterns where the bar examiners would say MIMIC is a good usage in a case like this?

[1down1togo]

I don't believe I was adequately prepared for the smack down that con law PQ #3 just handed me. Not. Ready.

Con Law PQ#6 will restore all faith you had in yourself to answer Con Law questions

Keep grinding

Agreed. After that set I was like "So I do know con law."

[bobbypin]

Mixed MBE PQ 7 question relating to Evidence:

[+] Spoiler

A defendant, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had robbed two other stores in the past year. This evidence is

(a) admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of the defendant's character and the defendant's action in conformity therewith.
(b) admissible, to prove the defendant's intent and identity.
(c) inadmissible, because character must be proved by reputation or opinion and may not be proved by specific acts.
(d) inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

This is like the third question I got wrong based on a clear application of MIMIC but where 403 balancing makes it inadmissible. Has anyone spotted the patterns where the bar examiners would say MIMIC is a good usage in a case like this?

What's worse is that shit is admissible in my state. No 403 balancing.

[1down1togo]

Mixed MBE PQ 7 question relating to Evidence:

[+] Spoiler

A defendant, charged with armed robbery of a store, denied that he was the person who had robbed the store. In presenting the state's case, the prosecutor seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had robbed two other stores in the past year. This evidence is

(a) admissible, to prove a pertinent trait of the defendant's character and the defendant's action in conformity therewith.
(b) admissible, to prove the defendant's intent and identity.
(c) inadmissible, because character must be proved by reputation or opinion and may not be proved by specific acts.
(d) inadmissible, because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

This is like the third question I got wrong based on a clear application of MIMIC but where 403 balancing makes it inadmissible. Has anyone spotted the patterns where the bar examiners would say MIMIC is a good usage in a case like this?

Personally, I think it comes down to MiMic being a bad fit, less so than losing out on the probative/prejudicial prong. I mean, how does it prove identity? it doesn't really.

[NaeDeen]

I don't believe I was adequately prepared for the smack down that con law PQ #3 just handed me. Not. Ready.

Con Law PQ#6 will restore all faith you had in yourself to answer Con Law questions

Keep grinding

I certainly hope so. Thank you for the encouragement

[NaeDeen]

I don't believe I was adequately prepared for the smack down that con law PQ #3 just handed me. Not. Ready.

Con Law PQ#6 will restore all faith you had in yourself to answer Con Law questions

Keep grinding

Agreed. After that set I was like "So I do know con law."

Haha, I go through the same thing with certain topics. It's either you're thinking I know nothing OR I know something!