Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[sd5289]

I read somewhere once that there are people who never "pass" during their bar prep but pass on the bar exam.

I read that on some bar blog post, so obviously it is nothing but the truth.

Can't say for the Bar, but I used Themis for the MPRE. Only did it for a couple days but was scoring around 49-55% on everything. Ended up with a 118. Hopefully it works that way on the Bar as well.

Same here. I used Themis for maybe 6-7 hours the day before (I was working last summer right up to the test and we were on trial, so I didn't have much of a choice). I recall being in the 50% range on the practice questions, walked out of the MPRE sincerely believing I'd failed, and passed.

[Confused7]

The NY bar just sent a ludicrously long email with rules the day of. I didn't see "wallet" in the permitted items section. Where are we supposed to put our cash/credit card for cabs to get to the darn site?

[chipperjones]

Fuck Themis. Simply ridiculous:

[+] Spoiler

A businessman was the target of a grand jury investigation into the alleged bribery of American and foreign officials in connection with an international construction project. The businessman had stated at a press conference that no bribes had been offered or taken and that no laws of any kind had been broken. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the businessman to testify before it. The businessman moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that his testimony could tend to incriminate him. The prosecutor responded with a grant of use immunity (under which the businessman's compelled statements before the grand jury could not be used against him in any state or federal prosecution). The businessman responded that the grant of use immunity was not sufficient to protect his Fifth Amendment rights.
Should the businessman be compelled to testify?

A. No, because the businessman remains subject to the risk of foreign prosecution.
B. No, because use immunity does not prevent the government from prosecuting the businessman on the bribery scheme.
C. Yes, because the businessman has denied any criminal liability and therefore his Fifth Amendment rights are not at stake.
D. Yes, because the grant of use immunity is coextensive with the businessman's Fifth Amendment rights.

[+] Spoiler

Answer choice D is correct. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that if a person is guaranteed, through a grant of use immunity, that neither his statements nor the fruits of those statements can be used against him in a domestic prosecution, then he loses his right to refuse to testify because his statements cannot tend to incriminate him. Because the businessman has been protected against the use of his statements in a domestic prosecution, his statements cannot tend to incriminate him in any sense protected by the Fifth Amendment. Answer choice A is incorrect. While the businessman does face the possibility of foreign prosecution, the U.S. Supreme Court has squarely held that the Fifth Amendment does not protect against the risk of foreign prosecution. Because the businessman has been protected against the use of his statements in a domestic prosecution, his statements cannot tend to incriminate him in any sense protected by the Fifth Amendment. Answer choice B is incorrect. It is true that the grant of use immunity does not protect the businessman from being prosecuted. Instead, it protects against the businessman's compelled statements--or any fruits of those statements--being used against him in any domestic prosecution. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Fifth Amendment right is satisfied by a grant of use immunity. The Fifth Amendment does not require a grant of immunity from prosecution ("transactional immunity"). Answer choice C is incorrect. The fact that the businessman has denied liability does not mean that any statement he makes could never tend to incriminate him. Even an innocent person might say something that would tend to incriminate himself, and a tendency to incriminate is all that is required to trigger Fifth Amendment protection. However, because the grant of use immunity is coextensive with the businessman's Fifth Amendment rights, he should be compelled to testify.

[+] Spoiler

You motherfuckers, Kastigar stands for the proposition that "use and derivative-use" immunity is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment. What the fuck is this "use" immunity garbage with no mention of "fruits or derivative use" in the call of the question's definition of "use immunity"? They are botching the law to pieces. Oh, you want to direct me to the Outline? Perfect: it says "use and derivative-use" immunity. I can't even.

[GULCPerson]

Always fun when after 3 years of law school and months of bar prep, an MBE question introduces a term you've never heard before in your life. I don't know what an "attornment" is, and at this point I refuse to learn.

[eloise16]

MD test takers: Have you been able to locate a list of what we can and can't bring in on each of the days? Are there any shoes requirement (I know in VA you have to wear rubber soled shoes)? I've searched around and couldn't find a comprehensive list anywhere.

[zor]

The NY bar just sent a ludicrously long email with rules the day of. I didn't see "wallet" in the permitted items section. Where are we supposed to put our cash/credit card for cabs to get to the darn site?

It's not listed in prohibited items either... maybe you can just keep it in your pocket? I guess that's what I'll do since I'll be taking the subway down to Javits. I'm definitely not a fan of this whole "personal belongings room" thing where you leave your stuff unsecured with 7,000 other people's. I feel like that's a negligence action waiting to happen. Also apparently if you bring your own lunch and don't want to pay $20 for a goddamn sandwich (THE HELL, BOLE) you have to leave it in the other room, then wait in the insane line to get in and out of it.

[Confused7]

The NY bar just sent a ludicrously long email with rules the day of. I didn't see "wallet" in the permitted items section. Where are we supposed to put our cash/credit card for cabs to get to the darn site?

It's not listed in prohibited items either... maybe you can just keep it in your pocket? I guess that's what I'll do since I'll be taking the subway down to Javits. I'm definitely not a fan of this whole "personal belongings room" thing where you leave your stuff unsecured with 7,000 other people's. I feel like that's a negligence action waiting to happen. Also apparently if you bring your own lunch and don't want to pay $20 for a goddamn sandwich (THE HELL, BOLE) you have to leave it in the other room, then wait in the insane line to get in and out of it.

I didn't know about that rule re bringing your own lunch. Can't you just put a sandwich in your gallon zip-lock bag along with the other stuff? Also feminine products must also be there...I guess we're supposed to announce to the world that we're on our period.

[annapach]

Fuck Themis. Simply ridiculous:

[+] Spoiler

A businessman was the target of a grand jury investigation into the alleged bribery of American and foreign officials in connection with an international construction project. The businessman had stated at a press conference that no bribes had been offered or taken and that no laws of any kind had been broken. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the businessman to testify before it. The businessman moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that his testimony could tend to incriminate him. The prosecutor responded with a grant of use immunity (under which the businessman's compelled statements before the grand jury could not be used against him in any state or federal prosecution). The businessman responded that the grant of use immunity was not sufficient to protect his Fifth Amendment rights.
Should the businessman be compelled to testify?

A. No, because the businessman remains subject to the risk of foreign prosecution.
B. No, because use immunity does not prevent the government from prosecuting the businessman on the bribery scheme.
C. Yes, because the businessman has denied any criminal liability and therefore his Fifth Amendment rights are not at stake.
D. Yes, because the grant of use immunity is coextensive with the businessman's Fifth Amendment rights.

[+] Spoiler

Answer choice D is correct. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that if a person is guaranteed, through a grant of use immunity, that neither his statements nor the fruits of those statements can be used against him in a domestic prosecution, then he loses his right to refuse to testify because his statements cannot tend to incriminate him. Because the businessman has been protected against the use of his statements in a domestic prosecution, his statements cannot tend to incriminate him in any sense protected by the Fifth Amendment. Answer choice A is incorrect. While the businessman does face the possibility of foreign prosecution, the U.S. Supreme Court has squarely held that the Fifth Amendment does not protect against the risk of foreign prosecution. Because the businessman has been protected against the use of his statements in a domestic prosecution, his statements cannot tend to incriminate him in any sense protected by the Fifth Amendment. Answer choice B is incorrect. It is true that the grant of use immunity does not protect the businessman from being prosecuted. Instead, it protects against the businessman's compelled statements--or any fruits of those statements--being used against him in any domestic prosecution. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the Fifth Amendment right is satisfied by a grant of use immunity. The Fifth Amendment does not require a grant of immunity from prosecution ("transactional immunity"). Answer choice C is incorrect. The fact that the businessman has denied liability does not mean that any statement he makes could never tend to incriminate him. Even an innocent person might say something that would tend to incriminate himself, and a tendency to incriminate is all that is required to trigger Fifth Amendment protection. However, because the grant of use immunity is coextensive with the businessman's Fifth Amendment rights, he should be compelled to testify.

[+] Spoiler

You motherfuckers, Kastigar stands for the proposition that "use and derivative-use" immunity is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment. What the fuck is this "use" immunity garbage with no mention of "fruits or derivative use" in the call of the question's definition of "use immunity"? They are botching the law to pieces. Oh, you want to direct me to the Outline? Perfect: it says "use and derivative-use" immunity. I can't even.

whenever i see "immunity" paired with "grand jury" I just choose the answer that the person must testify bc of the immunity. and it's always right. that is where i have stopped on that topic.

[chipperjones]

^ Probably smart strategy. I just can't believe how wrong they are on this, as the answer explanations suggest that "use immunity," protecting witness from use of compelled statements, = "use and derivative-use immunity," which in addition protects witness from subsequent criminal use of evidence, testimonial or real, derived from the compelled statements. Totally different things, and neither the fact pattern nor the call of the question even attempted to mention "fruits" or "derivative use."

[zot1]

Colorado checking in here. What are people's completion rates so far? Does anyone know what percent completion we should be at by now? Thank you !

79.9%. I'm behind though so when I start taking the MBE 100s, I'll also be having like 6 more assignments to complete for the day and that seems like a nightmare.

However, I chose to take yesterday off even though I was already behind because I was feeling super burned out. Totally worth it. I was super productive today (2.5%), hit most points on the essay questions and got a 72 on an MBE 50. I don't mind being behind if I'm not burned out.

Wow 79.9% in Colorado, I'm nowhere near that. Well looks like you'll be passing the bar and I'll be failing it for the 6th time.

Not in CO, but UBE state. I'm not sure that completion rate determines whether you'll pass. I'm a strong believer of quality over quantity.

Anyhow, here are my inconsistent MBE scores:

71, 79, 62, 58 , 70, 72, 68, 66, 72, 64, 71, [Edit:] 68.

I noticed that a lot of the questions I got wrong on the last set where the modified ones based on NCBE stylistic whatever it's called. That gave me some hope that questions I'm getting wrong now I wouldn't get wrong on the exam, but I'm not sure if this belief is misplaced.

[Pickled]

CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE DEFEND THIS ABSURDITY TO ME??????????????????????????????????????????????????


A customer who was seriously injured in an accident on a retailer’s premises filed a complaint in a federal district court in State A. The complaint alleged in good faith that the customer was entitled to damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy requirement. At the time of the accident, which took place in State C, the customer and the retailer were citizens of State C. Prior to filing suit, the customer changed her domicile to State A for the sole purpose of being able to bring this action in federal court. After filing an answer, the retailer filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Should the court grant this motion?

D) No, because the customer and retailer were citizens of different states when the customer commenced the action.

Answer choice D is correct. Subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship exists with respect to this action. At the time of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff was a citizen of a different state (i.e., State A) than the defendant (i.e., State C) and the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the plaintiff’s sole purpose in becoming a citizen of State A was to be able to meet the diversity requirement for bringing this action in federal court, the plaintiff, as a domiciliary of State A, is a citizen of a different state than the defendant-retailer. A party may voluntarily change state citizenship after the accrual of a cause of action but before the commencement of a lawsuit, and therefore establish or defeat diversity jurisdiction, so long as the change is not a sham. That is, if the change of domicile is intended to be permanent--even if the sole motivation is to create diversity--the change is permissible.

[EyeTwitchAllSummer]

Love all you all but the high score humble brags are icky.

Seriously, stop!

[Nelson]

CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE DEFEND THIS ABSURDITY TO ME??????????????????????????????????????????????????


A customer who was seriously injured in an accident on a retailer’s premises filed a complaint in a federal district court in State A. The complaint alleged in good faith that the customer was entitled to damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy requirement. At the time of the accident, which took place in State C, the customer and the retailer were citizens of State C. Prior to filing suit, the customer changed her domicile to State A for the sole purpose of being able to bring this action in federal court. After filing an answer, the retailer filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Should the court grant this motion?

D) No, because the customer and retailer were citizens of different states when the customer commenced the action.

Answer choice D is correct. Subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship exists with respect to this action. At the time of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff was a citizen of a different state (i.e., State A) than the defendant (i.e., State C) and the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the plaintiff’s sole purpose in becoming a citizen of State A was to be able to meet the diversity requirement for bringing this action in federal court, the plaintiff, as a domiciliary of State A, is a citizen of a different state than the defendant-retailer. A party may voluntarily change state citizenship after the accrual of a cause of action but before the commencement of a lawsuit, and therefore establish or defeat diversity jurisdiction, so long as the change is not a sham. That is, if the change of domicile is intended to be permanent--even if the sole motivation is to create diversity--the change is permissible.

Yeah, we went through this exact question earlier in this thread. It's just a bad question.

[zot1]

CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE DEFEND THIS ABSURDITY TO ME??????????????????????????????????????????????????


A customer who was seriously injured in an accident on a retailer’s premises filed a complaint in a federal district court in State A. The complaint alleged in good faith that the customer was entitled to damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy requirement. At the time of the accident, which took place in State C, the customer and the retailer were citizens of State C. Prior to filing suit, the customer changed her domicile to State A for the sole purpose of being able to bring this action in federal court. After filing an answer, the retailer filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Should the court grant this motion?

D) No, because the customer and retailer were citizens of different states when the customer commenced the action.

Answer choice D is correct. Subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship exists with respect to this action. At the time of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff was a citizen of a different state (i.e., State A) than the defendant (i.e., State C) and the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although the plaintiff’s sole purpose in becoming a citizen of State A was to be able to meet the diversity requirement for bringing this action in federal court, the plaintiff, as a domiciliary of State A, is a citizen of a different state than the defendant-retailer. A party may voluntarily change state citizenship after the accrual of a cause of action but before the commencement of a lawsuit, and therefore establish or defeat diversity jurisdiction, so long as the change is not a sham. That is, if the change of domicile is intended to be permanent--even if the sole motivation is to create diversity--the change is permissible.

Yeah, we went through this exact question earlier in this thread. It's just a bad question.

So the thing in the outline is that you can't say you've moved but you haven't (you have a po box instead of physical address). As long as you have physically moved by the time of filing, it's okay.

[zor]

The NY bar just sent a ludicrously long email with rules the day of. I didn't see "wallet" in the permitted items section. Where are we supposed to put our cash/credit card for cabs to get to the darn site?

It's not listed in prohibited items either... maybe you can just keep it in your pocket? I guess that's what I'll do since I'll be taking the subway down to Javits. I'm definitely not a fan of this whole "personal belongings room" thing where you leave your stuff unsecured with 7,000 other people's. I feel like that's a negligence action waiting to happen. Also apparently if you bring your own lunch and don't want to pay $20 for a goddamn sandwich (THE HELL, BOLE) you have to leave it in the other room, then wait in the insane line to get in and out of it.

I didn't know about that rule re bringing your own lunch. Can't you just put a sandwich in your gallon zip-lock bag along with the other stuff? Also feminine products must also be there...I guess we're supposed to announce to the world that we're on our period.

Technically yes but I heard there was confusion about this last year with the proctors not letting people bring in their sandwiches because they weren't "snacks." No idea what that means this time around.

Oh yeah, that one's great. Don't forget your medications, also plainly visible to the world. What a noble profession.

[zot1]

Love all you all but the high score humble brags are icky.

Seriously, stop!

I was the last to post scores so I guess I'm the one being called icky. I'll stop. Wasn't trying to humble brag.

[anon sequitur]

I was the last to post scores so I guess I'm the one being called icky. I'll stop. Wasn't trying to humble brag.

I know the feeling of being so damned stress and anxious because you're not seeing improvement that you expect based on your effort and then you get a question set and you see that high number and the anxiety melts away for a few minutes and you just feel so relieved, and you want to share. I've done it myself a few pages back.

That said, I can understand being annoyed by it, and how it might be discouraging to someone else, and I won't do it again.

[zot1]

Is there a place where we can see what previous exam subjects have been given per jurisdiction? I'm just curious to know how often certain subjects come up because corporations, partnerships, and conflicts of law have been a pain to deal with.

[zot1]

I was the last to post scores so I guess I'm the one being called icky. I'll stop. Wasn't trying to humble brag.

I don't think it was a humblebrag, I know the feeling of being so damned stress and anxious because you're not seeing improvement that you expect based on your effort and then you get a question set and you see that high number and the anxiety melts away for a few minutes and you just feel so relieved, and you want to share. I've done it myself.

That said, I can understand being annoyed by it, and I won't do it again.

So it's a personal thing because I'm not meeting the goal where I'm supposed to be at so I usually feel down the entire day for not meeting that goal. In addition to that, I don't feel as strongly about my essays so I keep hoping/dreaming that my MBE scores could provide me with a cushion but given my scores, that seems more and more unlikely.

[zot1]

And does anyone have a good way to remember the jurisdictional stuff for family law issues?

[Tripl3Espresso]

Is there a place where we can see what previous exam subjects have been given per jurisdiction? I'm just curious to know how often certain subjects come up because corporations, partnerships, and conflicts of law have been a pain to deal with.

Themis sent one out yesterday for those of us taking it in CA, i'm sure you can ask your advisor or director if they have one for your state. If you're in CA pm me with your email and I'll send it to you.

[annapach]

Is there a place where we can see what previous exam subjects have been given per jurisdiction? I'm just curious to know how often certain subjects come up because corporations, partnerships, and conflicts of law have been a pain to deal with.

Themis sent us frequency charts (PA/NJ). Do they not do that with everyone?

[anon sequitur]

So it's a personal thing because I'm not meeting the goal where I'm supposed to be at so I usually feel down the entire day for not meeting that goal. In addition to that, I don't feel as strongly about my essays so I keep hoping/dreaming that my MBE scores could provide me with a cushion but given my scores, that seems more and more unlikely.

I'm there with you man. I've got everything riding on the MBE because I just freak out about memorizing rules for essays and so feel like I'm going to maybe be significantly below average there. When I click that button to submit a MBE question set, I know the result is going to seriously effect my mood for the rest of the day. I stopped doing question sets at night for awhile because I did badly on a few and it made me so anxious I couldn't sleep half the night.

[Confused7]

Is there a place where we can see what previous exam subjects have been given per jurisdiction? I'm just curious to know how often certain subjects come up because corporations, partnerships, and conflicts of law have been a pain to deal with.

Themis sent us frequency charts (PA/NJ). Do they not do that with everyone?

If you're in NY, it's in a PDF from the lecture "Intro to NY Bar."

[dunneab]

I was the last to post scores so I guess I'm the one being called icky. I'll stop. Wasn't trying to humble brag.

I don't think it was a humblebrag, I know the feeling of being so damned stress and anxious because you're not seeing improvement that you expect based on your effort and then you get a question set and you see that high number and the anxiety melts away for a few minutes and you just feel so relieved, and you want to share. I've done it myself.

That said, I can understand being annoyed by it, and I won't do it again.

So it's a personal thing because I'm not meeting the goal where I'm supposed to be at so I usually feel down the entire day for not meeting that goal. In addition to that, I don't feel as strongly about my essays so I keep hoping/dreaming that my MBE scores could provide me with a cushion but given my scores, that seems more and more unlikely.

I was the same - I posted a while back to ask in what range people were hitting because I was stuck under 60 (and sometimes well under) - I just kept doing practising until it happened and then the exam technique and the rules just sunk in - so don't worry, you will have a breakthrough for sure!