Okay, I don't have anyone to blame but myself. I should have taken the MPRE in the fall, but I was lazy and saved it until the spring. On the plus side, had I taken it in the fall I would have had to go to downtown Hartford to find an open testing center. On the minus side, if I fail it now, I don't get to take the bar exam. On the plus side, who wants to take the bar exam anyway? On the minus side, who wants to take the bar exam a year from now? On the plus side, maybe the world will end by then. On the minus side, uh, if the world ends, I'm in trouble.
Here's what I don't understand. In one breath, everyone says that the MPRE is nothing to worry about. But in the next breath, everyone has a study strategy. And in the third breath, everyone knows fourteen people who failed. And in the fourth breath, we stop talking about the MPRE because it's a hella boring test and no one wants to spend more than eight seconds talking about it.
The friend whose book I'm using said that all I need to do is read his outline from the class, and that's all I need to ace the test. The first person I told that to said no, that's all wrong, I just need to read the mini review in the book and I'll ace the test. The next person said no, ignore the outline and the mini review, just take the practice tests and I'll ace the test. The next person said no, just use common sense and I'll ace the test. The next person said I'm going to fail because I didn't pay for Bar/Bri. Shut up, Bar/Bri representative. I don't believe you anyway.
One of my professors last semester said we should be able to pass the MPRE with our eyes closed. I don't even think I can find my #2 pencil with my eyes closed, so I don't think I'm going to try that. But this whole thing seems a little ridiculous. If the test is so easy, why do we have to take it? And, even worse, why does everyone know eight people who failed? And, even worse, why is the book so hard to read? Oh, wait, I'm holding it upside down. There, that's better.
I found a web site with some practice questions. I'm now going to make fun of them. Here's one. "Attorney recently graduated from Bluff Law School and successfully passed the Bar Exam. Prior to going to Law School, Attorney practiced as a dentist for the past 15 years. As a result, most of Attorney's contacts are in the dental field. At the last Dental Conference, Attorney approached his old cronies and said, 'If you refer your patients to me who are in need of legal services, I will retain you as an expert witness in all of my dental malpractice cases.' Is Attorney subject to discipline for making such an agreement with his old dental cronies?"
First of all, Bluff Law School? Could they do no better? I don't know how high my expectations are for a lawyer's ethical state if he went to a school called Bluff. And a dentist-turned-lawyer? This sounds like an idea for a sitcom, not a legal ethics practice question. In any case, there's no need to even think about this one, because the mere use of the word "cronies" gives it away. Of course he should be subject to discipline. Otherwise his fellow dentists would have been called his "colleagues" instead. I mean, this is Beating the Standardized Test 101 here, folks.
Okay, next question. "Judge and her husband are interested in selling their home. They contacted Agent and Agent put Judge's house up for sale. Last Sunday, Buyer's agent took her client, Attorney, to several houses. The last house on the tour was Judge's house. Attorney desired Judge's house and made an offer the moment the tour ended. The offer was held open for one week. Meanwhile, on Monday, Attorney was assigned to Judge's courtroom for trial. Is it proper for Judge to preside at this trial?"
They're so freaking gender-neutral over in MPRE-land. "Judge and her husband." Like there are really any female judges. I think Larry Summers would have something to say about this. In any case, I share this question only because of Answer Choice A, quite possibly the dumbest answer choice I've seen since "17" on the Math SAT II. 17? Right. Everyone knew it was 3 and a half. Everyone. Anyway, choice A: "A. No, because Attorney may have discovered Judge's secrets while touring his house."
What? Judge's secrets? What kind of secrets do they even want us to imagine here? The pile of bribes she left on the kitchen counter? The tortured child locked in the bathroom? The denture paste? This is an obvious wrong choice. The real answer is "E. Client needs to find a new Attorney, because if all Attorney can afford is Judge's house, then Attorney's not doing so well, and must not be a very good lawyer." I mean, what can Judge possibly be making here? A hundred, a hundred fifty... Attorney's gotta be making more than that or Client needs to shop elsewhere. I mean, really, find a better lawyer One more. "Attorney fails the MPRE. Judge finds out. Judge tells Client. Client fires Attorney. Attorney goes to dental school. Judge goes to get his teeth cleaned. Chaos ensues." Okay, clearly I'm not taking this seriously enough. My fault. I should've taken the MPRE in the fall. Oh well. But on the plus side, at least I don't go to Bluff Law School.
Jeremy Blachman is a 3L who hates writing about the MPRE three weeks after writing about the bar exam, but what's he gonna do?
My wife's father is hessaby as in www.hessaby.com (they stole his cash and put it there) and my mother-in-law family is related by marriage tot the Pakravans., who headed the SAVAKPan Am was nicknamed PanIran as the Shah's family was the largest shareholder. I have extreme amount of details of exactly was going on
from the Iranians wanting him to return their assets to other coup attempts to 6 months before the Shah son pretended he was bankrupt in a public trial, to my wifes relative coming to our house talking about the coup and we did not know they were in Washington DC, to the Iran Contra hearings trial that was going to start Feb 20 th, 1989 to the tipping of the coup to the Iranian govt, ,to something in writing I can prove the coup to the Salamon Rushtie Feb 14th insult to islam to get the people on the street to avoid the coup to the Iranian govt announcement of a coup by 'dissent mullahs' announced at the time to the negiotations between the Bush people involved pretending they were going to make a deal to the 'nice' stories plant in US newspapers at the time (including the Post) as part of the negotation to the fact the bomb had to placed out of London based on the flight path as I worked at USAir at the time creating the flight plans for the 'planes to fly themselves' to overt CIA agents around me at the time to the fact that Bollier, the guy who made the timer for the bomb's wide was IRANIAN and the Libyans told me and said they were not allowed to say... there were 3 witness only.. the main one was trashed.. Bollier and a guy whom said he soldm the Libyan a suitcase in Malta.. hence, one the suitcase guy would be left.. the Libyans did not put up a defence in exchange for evidence to trash the main witness on the stand to what an overt CIA agent told me in the US 4 years later.. etc. etc and the details of several coups to the new World bank (my wie's cousin involved who used to work at the work bank)and US loans starting May 1990 to Iran to the fact that PANAm was shut down 18 months later as they thought it would be targeted again because of the Shah connection (the US airlines go in and out of bankruptcy all the time - this was the one of the first US airlines - an ICON) etc
I also know where the Iranian govt officials have money in the US, Canada and UK; the back door dealing etccall me for details.. Barry Lanza 00 44 1786831554.. My father-in-law was a convicted spy given amnesty