July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout Forum

[dhersz]

Ok feeling a little screwed coming into the last week.

My Barbri MBE and quiz grades have been ok, generally a few points/percentage above what the recommended marks are.

My concern is with the essays. I've followed Barbri religiously and just don't feel like I have a strong enough grasp to put everything onto paper, I haven't memorized enough of the definitions (mainly because Barbri kept insisting that memorization isn't key). I don't know if I should scrap Barbri for the last week and just memorize like hell, or put all my faith in them?

How did this happen!

[crumb cake]

In other words, you can sue a state as a private citizen (or corporation) if all the standing/ripeness/mootness requirements are met, and if you're suing because the state is infringing some constitutional right.

Thanks, that seems to fit Barbri's explanation which says "the court should grant a hearing because a federal question is involved." It says the 11th Amendment answer is wrong because the "purpose" of that amendment is to protect state sovereignty. So I guess if a lawsuit threatens state sovereignty, the 11th Amendment would be triggered.

[RDA2930]

Ok feeling a little screwed coming into the last week.

My Barbri MBE and quiz grades have been ok, generally a few points/percentage above what the recommended marks are.

My concern is with the essays. I've followed Barbri religiously and just don't feel like I have a strong enough grasp to put everything onto paper, I haven't memorized enough of the definitions (mainly because Barbri kept insisting that memorization isn't key). I don't know if I should scrap Barbri for the last week and just memorize like hell, or put all my faith in them?

How did this happen!

Just had a semi-meltdown feeling the same way. FWIW my plan of attack is to generally do the Barbri plan for the next week, but reserve a few hours each night for straight memorization in the areas where I feel weak. My theory is that doing practice essays (which is the bulk of what's assigned next week) will help with memorization and generally conceptualizing how to attack essay problems, and making mini-outlines of the factor-based tests and major tested issues will get me where I need to be re: essays.

[cyrilfiggis]

Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?

If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.

Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.

[mcmenary]

In other words, you can sue a state as a private citizen (or corporation) if all the standing/ripeness/mootness requirements are met, and if you're suing because the state is infringing some constitutional right.

Thanks, that seems to fit Barbri's explanation which says "the court should grant a hearing because a federal question is involved." It says the 11th Amendment answer is wrong because the "purpose" of that amendment is to protect state sovereignty. So I guess if a lawsuit threatens state sovereignty, the 11th Amendment would be triggered.

Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?

If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.

On Question 27: 11a applies when citizen sues the state in federal court for individual U.S. constitutional violations. It bars the citizen from suing the state for past constitutional violations unless abrogated by congress (14asec5) or waived by the state. It allows citizens to sue individual officials for prospective injunctive relief (stop violating my rights). It *does not* apply when a citizen sues in federal court arguing that the state statute itself is unconstitutional nullity. Hope this made sense.

[FormerChild]

For anyone who may be skeptical about Barbri's essays, their grading of the essays, etc. … I have been doing essays both on barbri and via http://www.ncbex.org/exams/mee/preparing/, and I've noticed at least 4 Barbri essay questions being the exact same as essay questions found on NCBE website, so I think its safe to assume Barbri gets them from here and isn't just making them up (at least for the most part). For example: Wills – Barbri's essay question 1 comes from February 2012 MEE; essay question 3 comes from February 2011. I've noticed it w/ other subjects too, but don't feel like looking to see which corresponds to what, just thought I'd share.

[TXforeignlawyer]

Took the refresher today and only got 44.... Went through all of the answers I got wrong but yeah, I agree some of them I was surprised by the answer. The prayer one for example.

[cricketlove00]

Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?

If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.

Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.

I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

[cricketlove00]

Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?

If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.

Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.

I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

This doesn't fix the supplemental jurisdiction issue, but here's a direct quote from the CMR:

"If a case filed in state court contains a claim that would arise under federal law, and it is joined with a state law claim that does not invoke supplemental or diversity jurisdiction, the entire case can be removed to federal court."

[runthetrap1990]

Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?

If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.

Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.

I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

That is only case where the jurisdiction is based on diversity for the plaintiff. The limitation does not apply to a plaintiff with jurisdiction is based on Federal Question. Super minute difference but that's the reason why there is supplemental jurisdiction.

[DR3]

SecTran question - if you have perfected re collateral and then add new value to it, do you need to reperfect re that collateral? With the exception of 20 day perfection grace period for certificated securities/instruments/negotiable documents.

[RDA2930]

Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?

[cricketlove00]

Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?

If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.

Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.

I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

That is only case where the jurisdiction is based on diversity for the plaintiff. The limitation does not apply to a plaintiff with jurisdiction is based on Federal Question. Super minute difference but that's the reason why there is supplemental jurisdiction.

Gotcha. I understand now. I think that was REALLY gleaned over in the lectures, which is probably my biggest critique with Barbri. Good to know. Thanks though!

[cricketlove00]

Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?

This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.

[TheWalrus]

Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?

This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.

Why is the corporation subject to PJ in A?

[ConfusedL1]

Q93. I thought a donee beneficiary could NEVER sue the promisor. Q93 lays it out that the recipient of a gift CAN as soon as they rely on the promise.

[Brian_Wildcat]

Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?

This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.

Why is the corporation subject to PJ in A?

Minimum contacts. They had 20 stores in state A.

[bballbb02]

Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?

This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.

Why is the corporation subject to PJ in A?

Minimum contacts. They had 20 stores in state A.

I spent about 20 minutes trying to understand this issue when reviewing this problem..I guess for venue purposes a corporation resides whereever they are subject to PJ...when doing the problem I did not think 20 stores could mean you reside there for venue purposes,---stupid question by Barbri

[JurorEight]

Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).

[cricketlove00]

Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).

Yup

[cricketlove00]

Also, have you guys ever heard of the sixth amendment referred to as the "Messiah"? What on earth is she talking about?

[WestWingWatcher]

Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).

Yup

YUP. My worst by far on the refresher.

Also, have you guys ever heard of the sixth amendment referred to as the "Messiah"? What on earth is she talking about?

So I didn't watch her video, but I do remember the Massiah rule vaguely from crimpro. I think its something to do with not tricking someone into saying something incriminating after they invoke their 6A right to counsel (don't quote me on that though), but I don't remember it ever being referred to as the Massiah rule in any of the barbri material, so idk why she'd pull that out now.

[cricketlove00]

Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).

Yup

YUP. My worst by far on the refresher.

Also, have you guys ever heard of the sixth amendment referred to as the "Messiah"? What on earth is she talking about?

So I didn't watch her video, but I do remember the Massiah rule vaguely from crimpro. I think its something to do with not tricking someone into saying something incriminating after they invoke their 6A right to counsel (don't quote me on that though), but I don't remember it ever being referred to as the Massiah rule in any of the barbri material, so idk why she'd pull that out now.

Crim is my wheelhouse. I took like every crim class I could in law school and I've never heard of it. LOL

[TheWalrus]

https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/massiah-rule/

[WestWingWatcher]

https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/massiah-rule/

Ah, so its basically the "don't send an informant into the jail cell w/ the defendant who has invoked his 6A right to counsel in order to get him to talk about his crime" rule.