Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Not looking for a job? Tell us about your ideal job,
and we'll only contact you when it opens up.
https://www.dwsimpson.com/register


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:38 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RG View Post
Well, the electronic docket I'm looking at:
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/...schobel&CDate=

seems to say that the judgement was made in 12/08, but the exhibits weren't released until 3/19/09 officially. I suspect that it took time for the SOA Board to get ahold of it. And more time for someone to take the proverbial bull by the horns to spread a petition, get opinions, decide that it's worth taking it up with the AAA Board. As Hartman's letter says, he gave Bruce some time to come to that decision by himself.

I don't know what's in the arbitration documentation, but the SOA Board and I suspect the AAA Board do. I understand some people are comparing this arbitration to whatever happened in their divorce. But divorce is meant to be no-fault nowadays. This is not a civil case, it's a criminal case. (The choices are civil, law, chancery, and domestic relations). The fact that Bruce's defamation case was thrown out but Sanford's was awarded $2 million, suggests more than "it's a simple he-said-she-said". IANAL.
In the interim Bruce's lawyers were petitioning the court to remove material submitted by them that might be embarrassing to Bruce. The judge refused saying Sarah was entitled to her vindication (see NYTimes article)

IAAlsoNAL but I think this is not a criminal case.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:41 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Activity Date: 3/19/2009 Participant: SCHOBEL BRUCE
WITHDRAW OR RELEASE DEPOSITS, EXHIBITS OR DOCUMENTS - DENIED -
Judge: BARTKOWICZ, RONALD F.
Microfilm: LD000262610


Activity Date: 3/19/2009 Participant: SOCIETY ACTUARIES
WITHDRAW OR RELEASE DEPOSITS, EXHIBITS OR DOCUMENTS - DENIED -
Judge: BARTKOWICZ, RONALD F.
Microfilm: LD000262610
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:42 PM
Brad Gile's Avatar
Brad Gile Brad Gile is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Studying for whatever I feel like
College: Alumnus of Brown and UW-Madison
Posts: 11,341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
Did anyone check out the latest issue of The Actuarial Update? No P-E is shown in the September issue, but in August, Bruce was listed as P-E.
I could not find any article about Bruce's defrocking. Gee, I wonder why? This is totally unacceptable behavior from AAA. Surely, they know they have their collective balls in a huge vise? Oh, wait! They are immune, aren't they?
__________________
Brad Gile, FSA, MAAA
Affiliate Member of the CAS
Dedicated Retired Actuary

Spoiler:
Obama sucks and we all know it-TDA


Spoiler:

That's been the funniest subplot of this whole thing, the people on the left attacking this bill for not being even more of a steaming pile. - erosewater
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:51 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmljr66 View Post
I admittedly know very little about the background and specifics of this current scenario. However, were Mr. Schoebel never convicted of a felony, none of the current events would be unfolding as they are. And a simple, fairly common - and currently almost standard - question on many applications for employment in most industries, even those not involving the 'public trust', is "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" Were the AAA to have asked this simple, short question of every applicant, this entire issue would have arisen and been handled decades ago, long before it involved a (former) SOA president. Maybe they did? And it would be helpful knowing if, in the State of NJ, a conviction being 'expunged' means that it never existed in the first place, i.e., allows a person to legally (and honestly) answer the question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" with an unqualified "No." This is obviously a legal issue beyond my limited understanding. This issue then resolves into the following three reconcilable scenarios. A - If the 'expunged' conviction allows an individual to answer the conviction question with an unqualified "No", then it should not and cannot be used against him in any way. If the 'expunged' conviction does not allow an individual to answer the conviction question with an unqualified "No", then B1 - he/she was/is required to disclose that on the application. Upon doing so, the AAA should have a written policy dealing with such matters, including any/all types of convictions with their associated disqualifications. B2 - If the applicant does not disclose this on the application, then the individual suffers the consequences of the AAA language applicable to lying on its application (which I assume is already it its by-laws). On a lighter note: I noticed the conviction involved a "dangerous" rather than a "deadly" weapon. Possibly, do you think he threatened the fool who stole his $500 state of the 'ark' TI calculator with his 'dangerous' slide rule?
Bruce joined the AAA in 1986. The question is on the form. He probably answered "No." I think that was technically ok because NJ statutes at that time called what he did "high misdemeanors." The only NJ felonies then were Murder and Treason. The expungement occurred sometime after January 1989.

The real actuarial significance of these crimes is that Bruce's efforts to keep them under wraps have cost the profession dearly.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:53 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmljr66 View Post
And it would be helpful knowing if, in the State of NJ, a conviction being 'expunged' means that it never existed in the first place, i.e., allows a person to legally (and honestly) answer the question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" with an unqualified "No."
Legally? Yes (although maybe not if applying for a job at Homeland Security). Honestly? You tell me.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:55 PM
Shaft's Avatar
Shaft Shaft is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactuary View Post
The real actuarial significance of these crimes is that Bruce's efforts to keep them under wraps have cost the profession dearly.
But greatly helped your post count! Keep up the spam, it's nearly tea time.
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:56 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmljr66 View Post
I admittedly know very little about the background and specifics of this current scenario. However, were Mr. Schoebel never convicted of a felony, none of the current events would be unfolding as they are. And a simple, fairly common - and currently almost standard - question on many applications for employment in most industries, even those not involving the 'public trust', is "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" Were the AAA to have asked this simple, short question of every applicant, this entire issue would have arisen and been handled decades ago, long before it involved a (former) SOA president. Maybe they did? And it would be helpful knowing if, in the State of NJ, a conviction being 'expunged' means that it never existed in the first place, i.e., allows a person to legally (and honestly) answer the question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" with an unqualified "No." This is obviously a legal issue beyond my limited understanding. This issue then resolves into the following three reconcilable scenarios. A - If the 'expunged' conviction allows an individual to answer the conviction question with an unqualified "No", then it should not and cannot be used against him in any way. If the 'expunged' conviction does not allow an individual to answer the conviction question with an unqualified "No", then B1 - he/she was/is required to disclose that on the application. Upon doing so, the AAA should have a written policy dealing with such matters, including any/all types of convictions with their associated disqualifications. B2 - If the applicant does not disclose this on the application, then the individual suffers the consequences of the AAA language applicable to lying on its application (which I assume is already it its by-laws). On a lighter note: I noticed the conviction involved a "dangerous" rather than a "deadly" weapon. Possibly, do you think he threatened the fool who stole his $500 state of the 'ark' TI calculator with his 'dangerous' slide rule?
The AAA should amend its application to specifically refer to the federal standard for felonies -- any crime for which the maximum sentence exceeds one year -- applied to all crimes in all states.
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:57 PM
asdfasdf's Avatar
asdfasdf asdfasdf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: My perception of reality
Studying for nication
Posts: 20,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactuary View Post
The AAA should amend its application to specifically refer to the federal standard for felonies -- any crime for which the maximum sentence exceeds one year -- applied to all crimes in all states.
Why?
__________________
Your own conciousness blinds you to the true existence of all things external to it.
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:57 PM
cubs1908 cubs1908 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by exactuary View Post
The real actuarial significance of these crimes is that Bruce's efforts to keep them under wraps have cost the profession dearly.
I see no actuarial significance to your point.
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 09-09-2009, 03:57 PM
exactuary exactuary is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Castle View Post
Anyone else notice that exactuary joined in Jan 2002 but only has a pi pin?
Yes, damnit. Tom! Tom!
__________________
An exact actuary
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aaa, bruce schobel

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.27972 seconds with 10 queries