On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> However, Rule 1688 says >> "except as allowed by an Instrument". I don't think you can point to a >> single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've >> constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules), and >> the rule doesn't say "an Instrument or combination of Instruments", so >> it still stops the scam, just not for the reason I thought. > > > Well, that still means that any such permission that occurs by multiple > rules interacting fails. E.g. something is secured, one rule says that the > holder of an office CAN do something by announcement, various other rules > identify the holder of that office. All of those fail.
FWIW, for this reason, I completely disagree with ais523's argument.
