If you like to slow down on the freeway to gawk at accidents, you're going to love this blog.
Stopped by to wish everyone the best & to remember to eat a baked potato & use B-complex..Potatoes have a compound that mimics Prozac, Bs for energy & waking up the brain cells.. Use blue berries & almonds as snacks each day...
Good luck, GP!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone discussing exams so far?
I want to discuss the exam! So was the bus station a public or non-public forum? Anyone write about freedom of association? Standing for AAO? I think that I fucked up this question royally. something told me to discuss EP but I did not see it. Also, in the wills/ trust question did anyone discuss Pretermitted heir for the pour over will? The Clafin Doctrine for termination of trust and the UPAIA and adjustment power for the last call?Evidence: Anyone discuss hearsay but shot down excited utterance, and present sense impression, etc and then for the second part discuss best evidence, double hearsay, past recollection recorded, party-admission, policy against offer medical expenses but the admission of fact comes in?
I'm dying to talk about the PT! What did you all use for headings etc?! Anyone else feel like they were scrambling with time and it all got so convoluted! Please fill me in on what you did!
Yes feel the same for all of the above exactly, I wrote best evidence rule too? wasnt sure?
For the trusts I heard people wrote intestate succession for dave, I didnt...?
Whether or not the forum was public or quasi public, should have been in your analysis. Yes, organizational standing should always be brought up whenever there was an organization involved.As far as will/trust, should have mentioned the pretemitted child statute, which is child born ON or AFTER will adoption will have an interest, however, Dave was 25 years old and contested the will 2 years after Sam's death. I realized after I already submitted I fucked this one up royally cuz I applied the pretermitted statute. Oh well.Termination: consent of all parties unless contrary to testator intent was what I wrote. No consent of all parties cuz Anne didn't consent, and if Dave did have an interest, did not consent. Then I analyzed the intent of the testator. /shrugs!Equal protection? I did not analyze equal protection for con law. The interog only mentioned First Amendment so I did facial attacks first, then conduct vs content. Forgot to mention freedom of association though. BLAH.PT: Headings I used whatever was given in the question. Followed it, seemed pretty straight forward. "Receptionists Duties (list, discuss), "Fee Arrangement" etc. It didn't say to explain anything, only said to write potential ethical violations but I explained anyway cuz I would have been done in an hour just listing which sections applied to what.Oh well! Two more days to go! Keep optimistic. We can do this!
7:14 AM - Nope. You're done. Bombed it.
Haha love comments from douche bags. Cracks me up. Do you just come on here to prey on people? Get a life. Stop being bitter because you can't pass the bar.
Anon 6:00 pm: Not true at all. I'm a douche bag that is amused that somehow the blog of a guy who has failed the bar like 10 times has become the authoratative source for the california bar exam. You folks have to have better places to go, right?If an anon blogger in the comment section to GP's blog gives his or her suggested bar exam answer, then it has to be right, correct?Keep on at it.
years ago when i took (passed) the exam, I freaked out the first night and thought i bombed. i did some googling for discussions and found this site. several people discussed their answers. all different. almost to a humorous level, so it made me realize: 1) there are no "right answers" and 2) there was no need to freak out. and ever since, i followed the discussions on this site. equally humorous. everyone is a know-it-all.
Douchebag, I think people are here to get answers from each other based on the sheer number of people that come on his site (you being one). Basically his comments section is now being effectively used as a forum. That's the way I see it.
Pretermitted heirs = unknown at time will was executed Believe they spelled that out
Post a Comment