On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the interest of preserving the intent of the rule (and I should > know, I wrote it), I interpret that 3) does apply, and does take > precedence over 1) and 2). Accordingly, I judge TRUE.
One final point. This judgement, if accepted, is /not/ sufficient by itself to prevent a minor variation of the scam, due to the R2166 assertion that "an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document." The proposal to fix R2166, however, would be. -root
