Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Returns! T3BE Week 1
Added 2024-02-14 08:21:01 +0000 UTCAt laaaaaaaast it is the return of #T3BE! And we've got, not 1, not 2, NOT 3(!), but 4 questions for patrons! First, a question + answer to get warmed up, since we don't have any answers from previous weeks. THEN, the question everyone can play along with. AND THEN, it's the question only Patrons are elligible to win (THAT'S YOU! SUBMIT YOUR ANSWERS BELOW!) And finally, as a bonus just for patrons, I've included the first question Matt and I ever did. We did some T3BE to practice, and this first one is maybe my favorite.
I used Dall-e for fun to create a T3BE graphic and it gave me "Thas BAR EXAM!" 10/10
Comments
I don't like it either but I assumed it was just a contractual thing that they couldn't get out of - IIRC the show was running ads for Zbiotics before Thomas took it back?
Calvin Wallace
2024-02-21 21:09:29 +0000 UTCThank you. I wish things had turned out better.
Fame and fortune guaranteed in the state of Tintucky
2024-02-17 05:31:25 +0000 UTCAndrew Torrez is no longer affiliated with this pod cast, MSW pod casts, or PIAT pod casts.
Kristen Leist
2024-02-16 21:14:58 +0000 UTCA friend who listens to a non-Patreon feed reports that Thomas is reading ad copy for a pseudoscience product, Probiotic pre alcohol supplements. Really!?
Torsten 'what the fluff' Pihl
2024-02-16 03:39:57 +0000 UTCI agree with Thomas’ first guess on the medical board question, that the trial type hearing was the trial for illegally writing prescriptions. Otherwise anybody who gets put in prison would also have dozens of trial like hearings for anything they lose after being imprisoned.
Richard Stifle
2024-02-16 01:58:39 +0000 UTCI prefer B over C because it applies the Mathews test correctly. C suggests that a trial-type hearing could be required in some circumstances, and Mathews rejected that kind of hardline approach.
Dr. Clerk
2024-02-16 01:14:15 +0000 UTCCan't think law, too tired, just glad Thomas is back, and I reallllly enjoy the revamped format and the new co-host.
The Beautiful Thumb
2024-02-16 00:05:29 +0000 UTCFirst of all, damn is it good to be back and hear Thomas's voice again! And I really like the more humble cohost just as I found the more humble cohost of cleanup to be great as well. I'm putting answer a in a trash bag and taping it twice. And answer C is losing its medical license. Trash is a because you don't have privacy rights once it's in your trash And out in the alley. I think about this question every so often when I'm putting my trash out in the alley, just something I remember from taking the bar. And C for the second one because it's right. Just like the board doesn't have to go through and provide any more evidence of why they are allowed to revoke the doctor's license as a result of the trial, neither do I. # lawyered
Harrier the Amazing Bean
2024-02-15 19:29:37 +0000 UTCNow wait until you've been practicing for a few years and they hit a third way which is holy shit I studied so hard, I missed out on life for 3 months, I cried myself to sleep, and now I don't know a single answer to these
Harrier the Amazing Bean
2024-02-15 19:24:15 +0000 UTCSo will there still be Andrew episodes or is Andrew no longer on this podcast?
Fame and fortune guaranteed in the state of Tintucky
2024-02-15 19:03:11 +0000 UTCHey, I'm currently doing the show Wiki and if you wanted to I could create a page for tracking "official Patreon results." If that's even possible.
Additional Patreon Name Here
2024-02-15 04:09:45 +0000 UTCCongrats Wafflepriest! Thanks for sharing your victory! I too quit listening in February of 2023 and I’m surprised how much I missed it and am looking forward to learning all that Matt and Casey are able to teach us!
Mountain Granny
2024-02-15 02:34:17 +0000 UTCI’m in the exact same boat! I spent my entire time studying wishing I could be playing along to T3BE. And hearing the questions now is both cool actually knowing (most of) the answers and *a little* retraumatizing.
Jordan
2024-02-15 01:59:26 +0000 UTCCongrats on passing!
LittlestLass
2024-02-14 23:02:37 +0000 UTCTwo comments, first shorter and probably more relatable. (1) These questions hit way different after studying for the bar - interesting to be on the other side of that now! (2) I really missed this segment, in particular when I was studying for last July's bar. I stopped listening to the show last February and it was such a bummer because I didn't want to listen to past episodes for *reasons*. One of the studying tools I was looking forward to most was no longer something I felt comfortable using. And when I passed, I couldn't share it with the podcast either - parasocial AF, but something I previously looked forward to. Overall nothing compared to what others went through in the past year, just wanted to share my experience. I'm so glad this segment is back, both for personal entertainment and as a fun bar study aid for future takers!
Wafflepriest
2024-02-14 21:34:00 +0000 UTCYup still such a thrill to hear Thomas saying “hello and welcome to opening arguments” again. This is really gonna put the skip in my step at the start of my OA days for a good long while :) kudos on a great return of T3BE!
M. D. Nova
2024-02-14 21:27:54 +0000 UTCFor the second question, A is right, D is just "not A", B doesn't make sense for Fourth Amendment for the reason Thomas says and is trying to get you confused with the "probative versus prejudicial" test for whether evidence is admissible (not whether it was properly obtained), and C is just whether you remember what "curtilage" is and that a public alley isn't. For the third question, A seems wrong and D seems like nonsense. I feel like there has to be some sort of rule of when an administrative penalty requires some sort of trial-like hearing. So I guess the question is whether "the decision is based on a previous criminal trial" always meets the standard. I'd guess that it does.
Sam
2024-02-14 21:13:32 +0000 UTCTrash question: A. I think I've heard in New York City once you put trash out on the curb it's property of the city, so it doesn't matter how well you've packed up your meth lab, it's the city's now. Doctor question: I hope the answer is C so that my state taxes aren't funding BOTH a criminal trial AND a state medical board hearing when the state law already says revocation is required!
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-02-14 21:08:40 +0000 UTCAlso, congrats on getting the pod back and on the great new co-hosts.
Gmork
2024-02-14 20:38:58 +0000 UTCDamn, he just got the show back last week. Give him a sec to work out the details.
Kait from Seattle
2024-02-14 20:19:13 +0000 UTCAgree, even better and thanks. I (wrongly?) presumed this was a step into reintegrating it into the main show and wanted to add that I'd always appreciated the ability to skip it. Just not my cup of tea.
Gmork
2024-02-14 20:16:50 +0000 UTCIt's just temporary. I don't intend to use a graphic that says "“THAS TA’ES S BAR EXAM!" as the permanent solution. All my podcast art has been made by an incredibly talented guy that I hope to work with again, but I'm not able to make any decisions like that unilaterally.
Opening Arguments
2024-02-14 20:13:03 +0000 UTCWhat? I've done even better. T3BE is now it's own episode that you could skip entirely if you want to.
Opening Arguments
2024-02-14 20:11:23 +0000 UTCI think the answer is C. You're not allowed to pull a Trump and delay consequences.
Jenney Dowd
2024-02-14 19:49:27 +0000 UTCFirst of all, state licensure is mostly ladder-kicking circle-jerkery. However, for those allowed to repair my innards, or they that speak in the name of justice, I can recognize those benefits of licensing. The answer is C: A is a bad answer. Licensure removal is often considered as property under the 14th amendment. B is true, but has that echo of a hollow answer. D doesn’t appear relevant, because the federal government really doesn’t have much to say concerning the state’s process of due process under the state’s own licensure banner (I didn’t say they never do). C works, a lot of self-executing language helps, especially considering it was decided in state court.
Austin Flake
2024-02-14 19:47:24 +0000 UTCI’m going with C for the patron answer. The law states that the license should be revoked upon criminal conviction. He was criminally convicted after the trial, therefore was afforded due process and no need for the extra hearing.
Corey Helwig
2024-02-14 19:15:21 +0000 UTCI think the answer is C. Much like section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the revocation of the doctor's license is self-executing. The doctor was convicted, so the license goes buh-bye, much like we wish would be the case with Donald Trump.
SpunRightRound
2024-02-14 17:14:29 +0000 UTCIf you reintroduce them to the show, I hope you keep them at the end where people can skip. I'm glad other people enjoy it, but it was never something I got into.
Gmork
2024-02-14 15:02:11 +0000 UTCNot answering, just saying I disapprove of your use of AI art as the cover here. I’m sure you can find a nice patron with some illustration skills to help you out instead.
Odin The Law Dog
2024-02-14 13:26:07 +0000 UTCPatreon question: I think C. The law *requires* revocation of license for the facts established in the trial, and the state board had been notified of the conviction, there were no open matters of law or fact for a trial-type hearing to determine (because of the facts determined in the trial, but as a bonus the doctor does not contest this anyway) and no discretion involved in decision-making. There's literally no more process to be due.
Kevin Duff
2024-02-14 11:57:58 +0000 UTC
