. Forum

[kalvano]

Dear Themis: I understand you're trying to help me with MBE weaknesses, but making the question sets so impossibly hard that I score 40% lower than my average scores in the past IS NOT FUCKING HELPFUL.

[09042014]

Dear Themis: I understand you're trying to help me with MBE weaknesses, but making the question sets so impossibly hard that I score 40% lower than my average scores in the past IS NOT FUCKING HELPFUL.

At what set do they start doing this?

[kalvano]

Dear Themis: I understand you're trying to help me with MBE weaknesses, but making the question sets so impossibly hard that I score 40% lower than my average scores in the past IS NOT FUCKING HELPFUL.

At what set do they start doing this?

The later ones. I think it was Contracts Set 5 that fucked me over.

[Bikeflip]

Dear Themis: I understand you're trying to help me with MBE weaknesses, but making the question sets so impossibly hard that I score 40% lower than my average scores in the past IS NOT FUCKING HELPFUL.

At what set do they start doing this?

I noticed it got much harder sometime around Mixed MBE 6 or 7, but even any MBE specific set 5 sucked, as Kalvano pointed out.

[as stars burn]

Stars, Bike, would it be awkward if I said I love you? If so we can pretend I didn't and just be friends.

Seriously though, thanks. I'm struggling with civ pro and it WILL be on the test.

Aw, well shucks, I love you too ;)

On another note, I cannot find motivation to study today...I'm so completely fried but I have so much shit to do today. HALP!

[Bikeflip]

Stars, Bike, would it be awkward if I said I love you? If so we can pretend I didn't and just be friends.

Seriously though, thanks. I'm struggling with civ pro and it WILL be on the test.

Aw, well shucks, I love you too

On another note, I cannot find motivation to study today...I'm so completely fried but I have so much shit to do today. HALP!

Sounds like a passive review day. At least put the outline in front of your face and try to memorize.

[releasethehounds]

tempting fate, these people: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/fashi ... wanted=all
i'm jelly

Sounds like something my first year roommate would do. I feel like it'd be wasting money--I'd rather go when I actually have time to look around and do things. I'd be people-watching instead of studying because I have the attention span of a goldfish.

That's what I was thinking! I think it'd be a complete waste of money to go to some crazy place like that only to study for 10 hours a day. I LOLed at the person studying for the exam during the World Series Poker tournament. How the hell did that person retain anything?

Random question for all of you: how much time do you spend outlining essay exam answers? Or do you not outline? All through law school I never, ever outlined an answer. I will never forget trying to outline my very first exam answer during my criminal law exam, and saying, "fuck this" in the first 1 or 2 minutes of trying. The most efficient thing for me to do is jot down important parties/facts/dates/diagrams, underline other important information and jot down the issues that jump out at me in the margins. I then just start typing immediately while organizing the issues as I see fit while I write. The same pretty much goes for the MPT. I've tried outlining, but it just doesn't work for me at all. Am I the only one??

Edit: I really can't spell anymore....

Nooooope. I don't outline, really. I've tried. I usually just write the call of the question down on paper as soon as I start the essay (before actually reading it) and if a test jumps out at me from the call of the question or facts then I jot that down. Otherwise...I dunno. Copy and paste means structure is fluid. Plus a lot of these essays are already outlined for me, almost. When they start to subdivide topics it's pretty much 'state conclusion with specificity. rule for a paragraph. apply for a paragraph. conclude again. move on to next sub-question'

Though AZ gives 30 minutes, which affects my willingness to want to take time out to outline and the essays have to be kept pretty short (5000 characters max), so the essay never gets so unwieldy or long that I can't just eyeball structure and move things around as needed as I don't care, I shilled the extra money to use my computer. My hand can't handle 6 essays and 2 MPTs and be anything resembling capable of writing legibly.

If the bar isn't where you should start trying new ways to study, I reason it's not where I should start trying new ways to write if my methods have been doing okay for me so far.

[Dr. Review]

Sounds like a passive review day. At least put the outline in front of your face and try to memorize.

That's me today. Just condensing outlines. Can't bring myself to practice today.

[forza]

Oh my God. I somehow pulled 40/50 on MBE set 8, getting 8 out of 9 evidence questions correct. This is after getting 58% on the last set and like 1 out of 8 evidence questions right.

I could die of happiness.

[geekrocker37]

Is the passing goal for NJ essays a 4? And PA is a 12?

[releasethehounds]

Cannot....Stay.....Awake....

[locusdelicti]

Is the passing goal for NJ essays a 4? And PA is a 12?

I think NJ is 3 and PA is 12 or 13.

[kalvano]

Fuck you, Themis.


A police officer, seeing an automobile with an expired registration sticker on its license plate, stopped the car. As the officer walked to the car, the officer noticed that a valid temporary registration permit was properly affixed to the car. The officer continued to the driver's door and asked the driver for her license. In doing so, the officer recognized the passenger in the car as an individual who had a prior police record. After running a check for outstanding warrants, the officer arrested the passenger pursuant to a valid outstanding arrest warrant. The officer then searched the passenger. Burglary tools were found on the passenger's person. The passenger was charged with the possession of burglary tools. The passenger's attorney filed a suppression motion with regard to the burglary tools, asserting that their seizure was unconstitutional.

Should the court grant the motion?
A. Yes, because the police may not arrest a passenger for a traffic or car-related offense.
B. Yes, because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to approach the driver and ask for her license.
C. No, because a valid outstanding arrest warrant justified the police officer's arrest of the passenger.
D. No, because the passenger of car was not seized by police until he was arrested.

Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. While the police officer had probable cause to stop the car based on the expired registration tag, once the officer gained the knowledge that the car was properly registered, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to further detain the driver of the car for a car-related violation. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while a passenger may not be arrested for an offense committed by the driver of the car, a passenger may be seized by the police's stop of the car to address the driver's offense. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while the arrest warrant pursuant to which the passenger was arrested was valid, the police officer's continuation of the stop after gaining knowledge that the car was properly registered was unconstitutional. Answer choice D is incorrect because a passenger of a car that is stopped by police for a traffic violation based on the driver's conduct or a violation related to the automobile itself is seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment at the time that the car comes to stop. At such time, a reasonable passenger would conclude that the police's show of authority was directed at least partly at him and that he was not free to go.



In Texas, you cannot have both a temporary tag and a license plate. Therefore, the stop was still valid.

[JD_done]

Cannot....Stay.....Awake....

I just woke up from an hour long nap in the student lounge. My body just couldn't keep going.

[Holly Golightly]

Trying to do everything Themis wants me to to today, just to see if it's possible.

[releasethehounds]

A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. A resident of the state was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of "St. Rockport," an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. The resident solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of St. Rockport and his coming appearance on earth.

Some of these fact patterns are distracting in either their humor or their 'what the fuck'ery--anyone remember the one on the simulated MBE about the two guys at a reunion and one goes to a back alley to rape a woman they met and the other guy just heads into a bar while listening to her scream for help? Or the goldfish possessed with a demonic spirit?

[Person1111]

My favorite was the drunk driver who was so drunk that he thought he was being tailed by robbers when he was actually being tailed by the cops.

[Talar]

Does anyone know, when you do the MBE are you supposed to apply the common law rule or the majority rule? This is assuming the question doesn't specify and the common law rule is the minority. I ask because I notice sometimes Themis will ask MBE PQs which expect you to apply the common law, minority rule and I usually get those wrong because I apply the majority/new rule. Thoughts?

[Catleesi]

A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. A resident of the state was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of "St. Rockport," an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. The resident solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of St. Rockport and his coming appearance on earth.

Some of these fact patterns are distracting in either their humor or their 'what the fuck'ery--anyone remember the one on the simulated MBE about the two guys at a reunion and one goes to a back alley to rape a woman they met and the other guy just heads into a bar while listening to her scream for help? Or the goldfish possessed with a demonic spirit?

I remain convinced the goldfish one is a direct South Park reference.

The worst one I've encountered made me legitimately cuss out loud-- it was about a Satanic cult that dissected live cats, and the fact pattern emphasized how gory and painful the dissections were.

[Bikeflip]

A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. A resident of the state was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of "St. Rockport," an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. The resident solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of St. Rockport and his coming appearance on earth.

Some of these fact patterns are distracting in either their humor or their 'what the fuck'ery--anyone remember the one on the simulated MBE about the two guys at a reunion and one goes to a back alley to rape a woman they met and the other guy just heads into a bar while listening to her scream for help? Or the goldfish possessed with a demonic spirit?

I remain convinced the goldfish one is a direct South Park reference.

Can't be. That goldfish actually was evil. Plus, Spooky Vision.

There's an MEE Con Law question that says House of The True God, clear GoT influence.

[elysiansmiles]

Can't believe that I only got 1% for the whole simulated essay exam. I couldn't even keep my eyes open at the end.

[releasethehounds]

Does anyone know, when you do the MBE are you supposed to apply the common law rule or the majority rule? This is assuming the question doesn't specify and the common law rule is the minority. I ask because I notice sometimes Themis will ask MBE PQs which expect you to apply the common law, minority rule and I usually get those wrong because I apply the majority/new rule. Thoughts?

Always apply common law on MBE questions unless the question tells you otherwise. Even if it's the minority rule. Particularly for criminal law where certain elements of crimes have generally been done away with--still supposed to assume that burglary is only burglary if done at night (though most questions I've seen either set the fact pattern specifically at night or tell you that the jurisdiction has done away with the night requirement of the definition). Unless they tell you majority rule for conspiracy, you need TWO parties to agree to a conspiracy and you do NOT need an overt act--crime is complete at the moment of agreement.

For torts questions, always assume pure comparative negligence is in effect unless told otherwise.

Arson....coin flip. For whatever reason the bar examiners can't just pick a friggin' arson definition and stick with it. Particularly maddening was in one MBE set I got a question in which purposefully setting fire to a bed wasn't arson because the structure wasn't damaged and it didn't matter that it was reasonably foreseeable that there would be structural damage from the fire; then ten questions later getting a question in which purposefully setting fire to a couch was arson even though the structure wasn't damaged because it was 'reasonably foreseeable' that there would be structural damage.

[releasethehounds]

Can't be. That goldfish actually was evil. Plus, Spooky Vision.

There's an MEE Con Law question that says House of The True God, clear GoT influence.

Oh R'hllor.

[09042014]

Does anyone know, when you do the MBE are you supposed to apply the common law rule or the majority rule? This is assuming the question doesn't specify and the common law rule is the minority. I ask because I notice sometimes Themis will ask MBE PQs which expect you to apply the common law, minority rule and I usually get those wrong because I apply the majority/new rule. Thoughts?

Always apply common law on MBE questions unless the question tells you otherwise. Even if it's the minority rule. Particularly for criminal law where certain elements of crimes have generally been done away with--still supposed to assume that burglary is only burglary if done at night (though most questions I've seen either set the fact pattern specifically at night or tell you that the jurisdiction has done away with the night requirement of the definition). Unless they tell you majority rule for conspiracy, you need TWO parties to agree to a conspiracy and you do NOT need an overt act--crime is complete at the moment of agreement.

For torts questions, always assume pure comparative negligence is in effect unless told otherwise.

Arson....coin flip. For whatever reason the bar examiners can't just pick a friggin' arson definition and stick with it. Particularly maddening was in one MBE set I got a question in which purposefully setting fire to a bed wasn't arson because the structure wasn't damaged and it didn't matter that it was reasonably foreseeable that there would be structural damage from the fire; then ten questions later getting a question in which purposefully setting fire to a couch was arson even though the structure wasn't damaged because it was 'reasonably foreseeable' that there would be structural damage.

Did the bed one actually catch the house on fire?

[releasethehounds]

Does anyone know, when you do the MBE are you supposed to apply the common law rule or the majority rule? This is assuming the question doesn't specify and the common law rule is the minority. I ask because I notice sometimes Themis will ask MBE PQs which expect you to apply the common law, minority rule and I usually get those wrong because I apply the majority/new rule. Thoughts?

Always apply common law on MBE questions unless the question tells you otherwise. Even if it's the minority rule. Particularly for criminal law where certain elements of crimes have generally been done away with--still supposed to assume that burglary is only burglary if done at night (though most questions I've seen either set the fact pattern specifically at night or tell you that the jurisdiction has done away with the night requirement of the definition). Unless they tell you majority rule for conspiracy, you need TWO parties to agree to a conspiracy and you do NOT need an overt act--crime is complete at the moment of agreement.

For torts questions, always assume pure comparative negligence is in effect unless told otherwise.

Arson....coin flip. For whatever reason the bar examiners can't just pick a friggin' arson definition and stick with it. Particularly maddening was in one MBE set I got a question in which purposefully setting fire to a bed wasn't arson because the structure wasn't damaged and it didn't matter that it was reasonably foreseeable that there would be structural damage from the fire; then ten questions later getting a question in which purposefully setting fire to a couch was arson even though the structure wasn't damaged because it was 'reasonably foreseeable' that there would be structural damage.

Did the bed one actually catch the house on fire?

No, but neither did the couch one.