The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
ca bar essays 1-3
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 24th, 2012 4:26 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office Subject: how did you guys do? 1 - i said no pj because no contacts to a. timely raised motion preserved.
i said there was smj based on diversity b/c aggregation reaches pams claims and supp jur reaches patricks. said although no motion, was preserved for appeal b/c smj can be raised any time before appeals exhausted.
talked about complete diversity, which existyed bc ps were from a and corp was not. threw in some bs about agency. |
Date: July 24th, 2012 4:34 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office 3 - 1 - said okay for judge to allow pros to call w because spousal priv belongs to testifying spouse and not conf communication because mud on shoes was not communication.
2 - a - improper to require w tio testify after she decided not to b/c spousal privilege
b - okay to allow elle to testify because relevant (tends to prove d committed crime) if foundation that victim stole d's client; not character eviudence because not to prove charracter but that d admitted to crime; no privilege because reasonably anticipated eavesdropper because said so loud neighbor could hear; no hearsay because admission, againt interest, possible excited utterance.
c - admissible because relevant in that tends to show d didnt do it but hit did. not hearsay because admission or against interest.
cap prop 8 - didnt say much. just that truth in eidnce makers all relevant admisible, buty exceptions for hearsay, consitution, discretioin. character evid, etc. and used those exceptoons. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 4:40 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office Subject: 2 is where i think i fucked up 2 - 1
no permanent sep at timer of wreck so can reasch cp after firsty looking to sp of tortious actor.
2 - 2
fucked this up. talked about tenants in entirety and said only joint creditor. should have talked about spouce encubrancing cp.
2 - 3
talked about reqs for fee agreements. reasonable under aba. uncoinscionable under ca. noncontingent must be in writing if forerseeably over 1000. talked about exceptions (emergency, corporation, repeat client) but said didnt apply.
talked about duties owed. noted atty didnt seem diligent/competent |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 4:41 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office im posting from a shit phone, so sorry if this is difficult to read. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21164335) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 4:47 PM Author: gaped out-of-control community account (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21164405) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:13 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office bump (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167079) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:16 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat HOW ABOUT THAT PT huh boys? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167111) |
 |
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:21 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater JFC. i think i got a 0. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167167) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:27 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat me too. I didnt even know what cases applied lol i just argued it all! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167232) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:30 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office it was weird because the client asked the atty to look at vulnerability, but out memo only had to do with 6 things that aleready happened. i thought it was kinda non sequitur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167253) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:32 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater what do you mean "what cases applied"; wasnt there only 1?
dude was there a lot of irrelevant info on the cpt? i only talked about the shit they specifically asked about... but there was so much other shit. fml. fml. fml. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:36 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat im sorry i meant the one case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167305) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:38 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater did you talk about the 6 specific issues or did you talk about what client asked? BJR didnt apply right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167310) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:38 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat i talked about all of the stuff mentioned in the task memo
BJR did not apply |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:41 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater last 2 were insanely short for me though. lots of repetition between 2nd and 3rd actions. agree? (also, we can talk about this shit right? www.barexamguru.com basically reposted all the essays from this morning already). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167341) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:48 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat what a crap PT. I finished it but I just randomly used the library lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167410) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:17 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office what did you do for 6. for 5 there was a quote in thr case that said you cant do it. 1 -4 iirc i said smith says this so maybe a bad ideao bro, ag says.this so if that shits approved your fukt, nonprofit says this so maybe breach of loyalty and care and shit. 6 was fucked up for me. felt like abject retard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167720) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:21 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat there were only 5 parts dude (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167766) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:19 PM Author: yapping garrison BJR could protect the uninterested board members, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167742) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:20 PM Author: 180 stead death wish BJR could apply to the insurance policy. Or at least an argument could be made for it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167760) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:27 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete fuck, I didnt mention the BJR AT ALL. how fucked? I see how it could have been used for the insurance shit...I just said nothing in the law or case would prevent the insurance, and that all directors wanted and demanded insurance for good reason.
fuck BJR would have been good to put in there.
but fuck man, too much shit, too little time.
didnt mention BJR ONCE. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:37 PM Author: 180 stead death wish Not a big deal. That was the only point I mentioned it. Mentioned it in passing in last issue saying that if you don't give the board the correct info they can't make informed decisions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167982) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:39 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater fuck i mentioned it in the beg. of memo but concluded it doesnt apply since smith said it didnt for cases like this and it seemed like client wanted to know if AG could bring suit to dissolve fml brothers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168002) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:52 PM Author: Sooty newt public bath 2nd essay was clearly the hardest one. PT was retarded. I felt like I just typed bullshit for 90 minutes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167447) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:52 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat the CP one? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167454) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:54 PM Author: Sooty newt public bath yeah. i thought the evidence and civpro essays were easy as fuuuuck, but maybe that's cuz i missed a shitload of issues. lololololol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167467) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:55 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater 2nd was easiest for me. missed supplemental jurisdiction on the first cuz i thought you could aggregate. fml brothers.
cpt was shit. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:56 PM Author: Sooty newt public bath for some reason i thought the fucking testimonial privilege was held by both spouses. i thought it was one of the CA distinctions but i was WRONG.
i got supp juris tho. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:57 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater fuck supp. jurisdiction. that probably brought my score for that essay down to sub-50. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167501) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:58 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat you didnt discuss indispensible parties??? lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167510) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:02 PM Author: Sooty newt public bath why would you have to join anyone? both of the plaintiffs actually sued the defendant. they were already joined (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167568) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:04 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat im only kidding (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167592) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:27 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete tyft you FAGGOT lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167842) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 9:56 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat cpt was RANDOM (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167496) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:15 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater failed cpt. failed essay (got most pj/sj except supp. which i think was the major issues). brother, any chance of passing. thinking of giving up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167701) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:14 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard first essay was lulzy easy. glad i argued supplemental jx cuz i blanked on the aggregating rule.
2nd-what in the actual fuck. i think i got the first part right, maybe the 2nd, totally bombed the third
3rd- feel pretty good. mighta confused/missed some CEC distinctions. but dat spousal immunity waiver issue made me feel smart
ALSO
HAHA IF YOU WERE IN FIRST 9 ROWS IN OAKLAND |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:15 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard oh and that PT
good god i have never written so much non-stop in my life. so pissed i spent a bunch of time taking notes on that dumb case that was barely applicable |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:28 PM Author: sick queen of the night lots of gays in the bay. certain i sat by a lady-boy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167856) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:16 PM Author: Sooty newt public bath wat happened (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167710) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:19 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard first 9 rows had no power strips so they had to handwrite the essays (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167741) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:22 PM Author: Sooty newt public bath PWND (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167775) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:28 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I was in that row. dude next to me threatened to burn the building down. fucking SUCKED. wrote by hand it was terrible and illegible and such bullshit. cant believe they fucked that up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167864) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:30 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat did u finish writing everything? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167883) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:32 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete yea it was such faggot though (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167908) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:57 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard you gonna complain about it officially or anything? you should. i have a friend who was fucked too and she is going to unleash fury--this is the kind of girl who cried before every final (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168260) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:59 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete so boneheaded of them. how could they fuck that up? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168287) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:28 PM Author: gaped out-of-control community account what the fuck? how can this be possible? they didn't bring enough power strips? they don't set up the room ahead of time? wow, im angry just hearing about this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168628) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:16 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater what was the spousal immunity waiver? can waive once divorced but they were only separated?
i hope that 3rd part was just fee issues (and also threw in whether promissory note could be considered lending $$). |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:26 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard she took the stand bro. privilege is waived once you do so.
unless i'm wrong, which is very possible. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:29 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete yea but she was compelled by the judge. that shit is improper yo, privilege cant be broken if a judge threatens you can it????????
!!! |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:32 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard i'm not sure, i kinda half argued that in the alternative. i'm 90% certain the privilege is waived, much less certain you can be held in contempt. OH WELL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167906) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:32 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete so if a judge threatens you, and you answer, you've waived the privilege? fuck I'm gonna fail (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167913) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:36 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard no dude, if you have a privilege you have to refuse to take the stand. once doing so, you waive that right. see, e.g., sandusky's wife.
but still not sure about the contempt bullshit. anyway, it's over brother. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:37 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete fuck, really? its waived as soon as you take the stand? even if you then refuse to testify? is that true? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167980) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:42 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard i'm almost fairly certain due to a miraculous memory for crim pro class where my prof talked about his wife.
PETER KEANE, THANK YOU. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:57 PM Author: yapping garrison counterpoint: isn't the waiver in the voluntary giving of actual testimony, and not in physical act of taking the stand?
IIRC, the 5A self-incrimination privilege operates differently. The party-defendant will waive it as soon as he takes the stand; and sometimes it may be the case with a witness. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:59 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete tyty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168278) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:14 PM Author: yapping garrison i westlawed this question but didn't find anything on point. but I did find out that in maryland and alabama, a spouse may take the stand but properly invoke spousal immunity privilege.
see: http://acdla.org/memberslogin/knowledgebase/docs/43.pdf and http://www.perettillc.com/2012/01/states-evidence-after-invoking-maryland-marital-privilege/
this seems like the right result to me. the privilege is undoubtedly waived at least when the witness-spouse testifies against the defendant-spouse. but i think it is highly unlikely that waiver occurs by merely taking the stand and not giving any testimony. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:53 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete what if the take the stand and testify, but only because the judge threatens to hold them in contempt? privilege destroyed? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168883) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:59 PM Author: yapping garrison i doubt it. the privilege is described as a privilege against "compelled testimony". Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) ("the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying") (syllabus) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168932) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:03 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen This is true for a defendant, but not a witness. D can refuse to take stand, witness must take stand but may refuse to testify. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168964) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:38 PM Author: 180 stead death wish I said privilege was waived once she took the stand too, but honestly had no clue. So I said even if it wasn't waived she has to answer the question about mud on the shoe because it doesn't pertain to marital communications. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167993) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:47 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard testimonial and communication privilege are distinct, brother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168110) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:58 PM Author: 180 stead death wish Right, I talked about both (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168268) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:20 PM Author: 180 stead death wish Essay 1
No PJ because there were no contacts but there was diversity SMJ for the chicks claim and supplemental SMJ for the dudes. That's really all I put for that answer (didn't even think about preserving motions). Nonetheless, seemed pretty easy and I nailed the law/facts.
Essay 2
Said the house was CP and couldn't be touched until tortfeasing spouse's SP was exhausted. Unless judge assigned the judgment to her, because she was in a better position to pay. In either case, she is entitled to reimbursement.
Said the house was subject to the lien (I thought CA had an exception that prohibited encumbrances but allowed for attorney liens. Have no idea if this is true...but I just bs'd it and applied the law as if it were)
For the PR part, talked about fees and inducing gifts from a client. Not really sure if this was right but I couldn't think of anything else to talk about.
Essay 3 (Was pretty unsure about. I didn't have the CA evidence distinctions down so I pretty much just winged it.)
Said wife could be called to stand because she held privilege and could testify if she wanted.
Said wife could be compelled to answer a question because she waived privilege but, even if she didn't, whether someone has mud on their shoe or not is not considered a communicate made in confidence of the marriage.
Said E's testimony was hearsay but fell under party admission and possible present sense impression
Said the same thing for Fred's statement.
***Finished essays about 30 minutes earlier...mostly due to essay #1 being so limited and me having the law down on that one***
PT was a joke. Very easy. Split up each of the 6 (?) questions into an analysis portion and a recommendation portion. Seemed Conway wanted to get recommendations from a credible outside source. Only thing that clearly violated the law was the company guaranteeing the mortgage. Thought it was pretty easy because there was only 1 case + AG's proposed legislation. That, and the 'minutes' and internal document provided each went to one of the 6 points we were asked to discuss.
|
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:23 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater howd u discuss the issues? seemed like the conflicted transactions had a lot to discuss (statute, analogizing to smith, effect of AG's proposition). was there much to discuss re guaranty/failure of ceo to disclose the memo other than it was bad? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167791) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:36 PM Author: 180 stead death wish I found that certain issues pertained more to the case than the AG memo. I can't remember exactly what was what, but the failure to release the internal report was only related to the AG's measure of adopting stricter oversight policies. Then i put in recommendations that not disclosing shit like that to the board is bad business and increases exposure to risk etc.
For conflicted transactions just analogized to smith, which usually invoked the statute. I found most of the conflicted transactions didn't need to incorporate the AG's memo except for the guy who got them the better loan. Said could have been protected by BJ, but as a recommendation said they should adopt independent committee (what AG said) to shield them from legal liability + prepare them in case AG's proposal was passed. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:23 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat was it 5 or 6 points? i cant remember now (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167792) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:24 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater 5... 3 conflicted transactions, guaranty, and then memo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167802) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:25 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat ok i thought it was 5 points. i headnoted all 5 and included suggestions (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167812) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:27 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater what suggestions were there? wasnt it just to analyze legality of those actions? fuck this cpt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167836) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:28 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat i just made up my own suggestions -- the memo said to add suggestions if any. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167855) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:30 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater what about all that shit about directors voting w/ chair... relevant? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167892) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:32 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete how did guaranteeing the mortgage violate the law? shit was voted on and approved by the board yo. and it wasnt nearly as egregious as the shit pulled in the smith case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167904) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:33 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater sentence in smith said guarantys illegal. ran out of time so thats all i said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167923) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:38 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete wait, really???????? is my reading comp that bad? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167989) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:38 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard yeah. quoted a statute that said it was "specifically prohibited." that's all you had to say about that one (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167990) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:39 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete god. fucking. damnit. I wrote how it was OK. fuck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168010) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:40 PM Author: 180 stead death wish Smith mentioned a statute that wasn't in our materials that specifically prohibited guaranteeing a mortgage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168015) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:42 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete :( :( :( :( :( :(
wow missed easy points that even the dumbs will get right. fuck my ass. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:43 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168065) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:27 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard Subject: THURSDAY ESSAYS brothers, is it true it's always 3 mbe, 3 non-mbe essays?
i.e., we only have to study mbes from here on out? |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:32 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat i wouldnt risk it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167912) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:33 PM Author: Sooty newt public bath evidence is an mbe topic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167920) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:37 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard we had cp, civ pro, pr today. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167972) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:39 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete gonna be PR, torts, and crim. prob product liability/defamation/abuse of process and murder. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168000) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:40 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard if we get an abuse of process issue i will shit. it's per se not permitted to recover for abuse of process in CA. fucking bar get with the 40 year old case law.
agree on your predictions though |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:14 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office what the fuck is abuse of process? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168478) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:47 AM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard using the judicial process for an improper purpose with the ulterior motive of attacking or harassing the defendant. it's basically filing bullshit things just to piss someone off, it also just so happens it's absolutely privileged. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169353) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:48 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office really? where is it privileged? not in my CMR. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169363) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:50 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen Yeah, it's not. I don't even know what a privilege would mean in this context. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169386) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:55 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office why would be get pr again? i'm thinking torts and property or contracts and crimes. maybe corporations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169431) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:52 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen If you don't think we had evidence today, then lol at you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169408) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:36 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21167968) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:37 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete first essay: cake, so easy. but I think that was true for everyone. hit all major points with flying colors.
second essay: a bit harder. fucked up and said that the lien was invalid because the wife did not approve. made random footnote at the end how it might be ok for divorce purposes (which it is, but I argued against that for most of the essay). otherwise I think I got most of it, mainly by writing a ton.
third essay: kind of puzzling. no idea how I did. I think simple, but I also prob missed a bunch. said privilege was not waived...was it? did not talk about present sense impressions at all...should I have? I said whitney's testimony was invalid because it was protected by priv, the second bitches was admissible as admission of other party, and the third was straight up hearsay and not allowed.
PT: fuck my ass, ran out of time, did not mention BJR at all, organized well but there was just so much and I was kind of all over the place.
I think I failed fuck my ass. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:40 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat i followed the barbri essay approach for CIV PRO (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168016) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:45 PM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater brothers, do you think missing one major issue (like supp. juris on essay, or BJR on CPT) will autoding you to sub 60? fml (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168093) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:49 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard nah, esp. when curving is taken into account. i think very, very few people hit supp jx. i only put it in briefly...but i guess it was pretty straightforward (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168135) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:52 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete what about missing the guaranty thing on the CPT? automatic 5 point ding? or saying that the lien was invali in essay 2 because the wife did not consent? auto sub 60? or saying that privilege was maintained even though that slut took the stand and testified after the judge made her? sub 60? I should not have read this forum, feel like an idiot now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168170) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:52 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat lien was VALID because a spouse can encumber real prop w/o the other spouse's consent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168181) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:58 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I know you idiot thats why I'm asking how much that would ding me for. the general rule is that they cant, but they can for divorce purposes. I made some random remark at the end about how maybe thats a good reason but throughout the essay I said it was invalid. how fucked? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168272) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:00 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat dont call me an idiot :( i am really sensitive right now. i, too, am upset about my essays--not finishing evidence and referencing CEC 352 as 532 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168296) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:01 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete brother your mistakes are nothing compared to mine. I said that guarantees were OK in the PT. how dumb a mistake was that? thats a straight up reading comprehension fail. I want to cry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168309) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:05 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat i did not see the guaranty thing as well -- i just said it was not permissible since it was a conflict of interest tranx and smith said no on this shit. i didnt mention their statute (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168352) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:06 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete dont you feel like an idiot then? i sure do. how the fuck did we miss that shit? and I even got the wrong answer and said it was ok because it was approved and reasonable and the bitch in smith was way crazier. fuck man I want to cry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168368) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:07 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat i wouldnt stress about it. the graders dont read these essays word for word... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168378) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:08 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete yea but that seems like SUCH an easy point dont you think. it was expressly there, you know?
you have biglaw lined up bro? what will you do if you fail? |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:10 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat 1) i dont 2) i have passed NY already 3) i dont think i will fail because i dont like being negative. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:58 PM Author: yapping garrison true, but nonconsenting spouse has the right to void the lien in its entirety. (looking at page 39-40 of the California CommProp long outline) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168273) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:00 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I thought the general rule is that a spouse can not put a lien on CP without the consent of the other, and if they do, it is voidable. BUT they can put a lien on CP for hiring a divorce attorney. pretty sure this is the correct law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168298) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:01 PM Author: 180 stead death wish CR. That's what I put...just not as succinctly/organized as you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168321) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:04 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat i mentioned that too in a roundabout way.. just said that the spouse can ask for reimbursement lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168344) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:08 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I said the spouse has to approve and that it was voidable.....
and then at the very end I was like "oh, and a divorcing spouse can use CP to pay for necessities and a divorce, so on this theory the lien might be valid." hopefully they give me some points. |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:00 PM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard well shit i knew i shit the bed on that essay but i thought i got that part right. think i got the tort damage recovery thing wrong too.
fuck my asshole i studied almost nothing but CP yesterday too.
oh well, everyone thinks they bombed that one |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:01 PM Author: 180 stead death wish I think this is wrong...but I'm too lazy to look it up. Thought you had to have spousal consent to encumber real property, but a specific exception of this is an attorney's lien. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168306) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:01 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete ...an attorney's lien for divorce. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168318) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:02 PM Author: 180 stead death wish eh, left off the divorce part. whatevs. got the gist of it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168323) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:17 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168502) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:51 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat Reminder: you dont need to hit EVERYthing to pass -- u think the dumbs who pass do this?! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168164) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 10:52 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete see above:
what about missing the guaranty thing on the CPT? automatic 5 point ding? or saying that the lien was invali in essay 2 because the wife did not consent? auto sub 60? or saying that privilege was maintained even though that slut took the stand and testified after the judge made her? sub 60? I should not have read this forum, feel like an idiot now. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:26 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath i'm not so sure about the lien thing. i'm pretty sure you could argue that was valid against CP as a debt incurred during marriage. it wasn't a transfer or property which would have been invalid without the other spouse's consent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169158) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:29 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete 100% sure that under normal circumstances, one party edit: CANT encumber CP without the consent of another. there is an exception for paying for a divorce lawyer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169186) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:31 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath but the lawyer wasn't for divorce. the lawyer was to defend the damn tort suit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169206) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:36 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete wow I dont know when I got into my head that it was for a divorce...I think I must have misread the question.....
but luckily I argued throughout my essay that the lien was improper, and also that the lawyer had multiple PR violations for accepting the lien when he should have known it was improper. LOL but then I also said it might be proper because the lien was for divorce.
fucking incoherent, I hope they ignore my off topic bullshit and concentrate on the stuff I got right. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:32 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office i think you meant can't (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169215) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:33 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath fuck you're right, i messed that up (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169230) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:06 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat I BET U ON RESULTS DAY WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS THREAD AND LAUGH !! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168366) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:09 PM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I hope so. or......we will cry. like I am right now. bookmarking for a nov 16th 6:01pm bump. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168398) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:22 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office this is my 3d 100+ poast thread in 5 years of xoxohthing. Thanks for making this day possible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168566) |
|
Date: July 24th, 2012 11:24 PM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office also, lots of trannys in oakland. i'm just a simple midwesterner myself. i saw a 6' "chick" with an adams apple. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168585) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:03 AM Author: thriller quadroon parlour Re: #2. Does the fact that lien arose after the wife said she wanted a divorce change things? I argued that the marital economic community had ended (intent, physical separation), so the debt wasn't community debt. As a result, the lien doesn't affect her interest. In the alternative, I argued that her consent was needed and so the lien was voidable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168962) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:21 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete just because they are separated does not meant that all CP becomes SP magically. its still CP, have to wait until the divorce proceedings divide everything. I made a similar claim though, said that maybe through the magic of equity the court could only incumber the husband's half.
also, her consent is normally needed....but in the case of getting a lawyers lien for a divorce, consent is NOT needed. that was a big fuck up for me too. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:27 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath it wasn't a lawyer's lien for divorce tho. the lawyer was defending H in the tort suit. also, it wasn't getting rid of property that was part of the marriage, it was just a debt incurred during the marriage, so you didn't need spousal consent. amirite? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169169) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:31 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete fuck my ass, my brain is so fried, and I'm a bit drunk....but wasnt it for a divorce? I'm pretty sure he put the lien on his property for a divorce lawyer, not for a defense lawyer.
you DO need spousal consent to encumber property. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:32 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath nvm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169216) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:34 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete wow. it wasnt for a divorce, it WAS for the tort case. I guess what I wrote makes sense then (said that the lien was improper because one spouse cannot encumber CP without the others consent).
I guess my after thought about being able to use the lien to secure divorce payment is a total red hearing....hope the bar grader just ignores it. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:31 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office i still dont think you can encumber community property. the weird thing is that the tort occurred before the community ended, and then the community ended but the assets weren't split, and then H gave L the lien. the timing fucked me up. After the divorce, it's half H's SP. Before permanent separation, it's CP and one spouse can't encumber by themselves. What about when it's after the community and it will be split, but isn't yet? FML. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169205) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:34 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath you're right about not being able to encumber property. FUCK. i messed that up. i know the lawyer was for the tort action tho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169235) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:36 AM Author: thriller quadroon parlour Yeah, I also thought the lawyer was for the tort action. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169258) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:38 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I like an idiot thought it was for a divorce. still got the substance of the answer correct though (ie, the lien is improper and voidable) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169276) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:47 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath well at least you got the main point right. i don't know how, but i managed to have a somewhat coherent argument about how H should be able to encumber W's SP or the CP if he breached a fiduciary duty or something and then did the fiduciary analysis and somehow ended up saying he COULD encumber the property. FML. i hope they don't ding me hardcore for that. i got every other part of that question right, i think (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169350) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:37 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I think its CP until the divorce proceedings divide everything. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169265) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:46 AM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater was fact that debts for necessarys may be paid by community prop during separation a valid argument? (i.e., attorney for defense of tort = necessity) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169733) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:38 AM Author: thriller quadroon parlour That makes sense. But then what's the significance of her wanting divorce? I thought the Cal Bar didn't have red herrings.
Also, did anyone else talk about how it's unclear if the house is cp? I assumed it was, but noted it would be different if bought with the wife's sp or if she acquired it in her name only before 1975.
I need to stop thinking about this question. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:51 AM Author: Arousing Kitty Cat I thought about this too, but the facts said H had an interest in it. Also, if they bought with wife's SP but in joint title -> Lucas/anti-Lucas presumes it was a gift from W to community, and therefore presumptively CP.
Agree with you on the significance of economic separation though (see below). |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:55 AM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard isn't there some rule about when a tort COA arises determines if CP can be used? as in, here they were married when he hit the pedestrian, so they could use CP?
and for the house: have we agreed that you can't encumber CP without other spouse's consent?
i sat there with nothing on the screen for 30 minutes and almost panicked so even if i get a 57 i will be stoked. |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:35 AM Author: Arousing Kitty Cat I think it does matter. Remember the presumptions: property acquired during the marriage = CP. Property acquired before marriage or after economic separation = SP. To the extent this rule applies to DEBTS as well as property (and IIRC debts are distributed according to CP rules as well), the lien is SP debt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169250) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:41 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office hopefully your other answers were better than the western state retards. lol just lol.
(i'm just joking bro, you could be right.) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:47 AM Author: Arousing Kitty Cat I was flailing on Q2 man. :(
There just wasn't much to be said. I had extra time so I just threw all kinds of shit on the screen, hoping some of it sounds right.
The other thing is: why would they twice refer to the intent to separate (first time not permanently, second time permanently) if it didn't matter? I guess they could throw in red herrings, but I think the general rule is assume the facts are in there for a reason, right? |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:53 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office ya -- i don't know. i posted about that above. it's shitty because what the fuck does it prove that i didn't think that part of the bar lecture was important enough to put in my notes and memorize. i know the fuck out of the core CP stuff, and I know a lot of the details too. That very specific issue was tough for me. I am op, and as you can see from my op poast, I fucked #2 up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169419) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:04 AM Author: Arousing Kitty Cat #1 - No contacts = No PJ. But was the right to challenge PJ waived? http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2004093&mc=5&forum_id=2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21168969) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:11 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office I dont think so bro. I say that based on very little. I just looked through my CMR and I didn't see anything like that. Also, wishful thinking because I like to think I'm smart and wrote a good answer but, in fact, I have no fucking clue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169017) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:22 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete no contacts? what the fuck are you talking about? there were plenty of contacts, prob enough for general SMJ, and certainly enough minimum contacts for specific SMJ. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169119) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:33 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen Not a chance of that being true for State A.....the entire cause of action took place in State B.....I also really hope you mean specific and general PJ not SMJ or that you are a troll (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169224) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:25 AM Author: Sooty newt public bath did anyone mention VENUE and that it a motion to change venue had been WAIVED in the first essay and that venue would have been good in State B? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169138) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:26 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I just said venue was proper in state B (which is where the suit was), as that was where the PJX could be exercised over D and where the accident occurred. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169149) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:35 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen Suit was in state A, breh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169245) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:42 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete oh. my. god.
did I autofail for analyzing it as a suit in state b? |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:43 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office wtf, really? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169327) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:46 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete yes. oh my god. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169338) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:46 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen Dude I will bet you that as long as you were consistent and still applied the rules, you probably still did okay on the essay, and certain not in autofail mode.
Fuck some shit up on dat MBE tomorrow bro |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:48 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office cr. go to bed now. wake up early and look over your MBE outlines. be confident. kill it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169358) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:51 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I did everything wrong. I analyzed venue, SMJ, PJ, everything as if the suit was in state B. I thought I killed the answer too. I thought I did really well. But it was in the wrong state. I am literally crying right now. I have not cried in 10 years. I can not believe this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169401) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:54 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen Okay so you showed the examiners that you know all the fucking rules about it and probably covered the territory like a boss. That shit isn't all flushed because you thought the suit was in a state that is one letter away from the actual state... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169422) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:57 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete I hope not. and ty for not being a dick. but all my analysis was wrong. my PJ and SMJ discussion is all totally different from the model answer. my venue discussion is wrong. can they really give that a good score? I thought I got like a 70. now I'm looking at a 55 at best? fuck. I feel so physically ill right now. its like all my stress is now coming out. I just cant believe I did that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169446) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:59 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office bro, go to bed. tomorrow is another day. and get the fuck off xo. assume you're down 10 points coming out of half time and you have to fucking crush for the rest of the test. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169483) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:06 AM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard brother, it's okay.
yes, it's a critical fact, but what's important is your analysis shows them you know wtf the personal jx is. it will show them you would know what result would occur if in the right state.
most importantly, it's time you go to bed and wake up early and get dat mbe autopass score.
|
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:52 AM Author: drunken stirring sanctuary keepsake machete is this credited? is telling them and analyzing the issue in a WRONG way really well enough? 55? could I get a 60? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169751) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 2:02 AM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard yes.
my friend past last year and on one essay made up one rule and argued the whole essay on this one made up rule.
CA graders want to see analysis and whether you can use all the facts because they are all there for some reason. fucking up the law is ok because they recognize no one does this shit blindly. but having the law in front of you does not mean you can apply it to a set of facts.
i don't know what kind of grade you'd get, but it certainly won't be as badly as people who didn't analyze it, like the girl sitting next to me who wrote half a page and laughed afterward and said to her friend "i completely forgot pj lol." |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:58 AM Author: Twinkling Demanding Sound Barrier Haunted Graveyard i just threw it in at the end cuz i wasn't sure if it was some bullshit bar not asking for an issue but then expecting it for grading. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169465) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:45 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office dude, bros, I think this thread shows we understand PJ, evidence, and CP on a general level and could most def. look the shit up for a client. while this thread shows my answers were wrong in places, it also shows that pretty much everyone of us had some wrong shit AND at least half of us will pass (probably more because i think the same striver shit that led us to xo led us to study on our bar exam and to listen a little more in class than the retards that ended up at thomas jefferson) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169335) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:47 AM Author: dashing liquid oxygen ^This. Fucking this all day. tyft (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169354) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:54 AM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat tortious act while performing an acitvity that did not benefit the comm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169424) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 12:56 AM Author: Insecure Tan Principal's Office http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XwLxNT8svk (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169439) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:00 AM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat ANYONE'S HANDS/WRISTS ACHE FROM ALL THE TYPING TODAY? SHIT MINE DO!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169494) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 1:59 AM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater did anyone talk about lien on house for attorney's fee as payment of a necessity after separation (but pre-divorce)?? or was this completely wrong... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169770) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 2:32 AM Author: Sadistic greedy volcanic crater (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2003632&forum_id=2#21169968) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2012 2:34 AM Author: yapping garrison go to sleep dude. it's 11:33pm.
and to answer your Q... probably not, man. I've never heard of attorney's fees for a tort defense to be a necessity, much less for a tort not committed in furtherance of the marital economic community.. |
|
Date: November 15th, 2012 8:42 PM Author: autistic lascivious ratface toilet seat Ex: Same facts as before, except W was the negligent driver. She suffered a judgment of $200k, of which $100k was covered by liability insurance. In recovering the remaining $100k, what assets can the judgment creditor reach, and in what order? • Rule: CP is subject to tort liability of either spouse. • But we also need to look at what money CORs are able to recover first. o Community: If W was performing an act for the benefit of the comm (driving to work, drive the kids in a car pool), the liability is first satisfied from CP and then from SP. o Not Community: If W was not performing an act on behalf of the community (driving to SP vineyard to talk to foreman, etc) then liability is first satisfied from SP to CP. Can a judgment COR reach H’s SP? → No, H is not personally liable.
|