[elliekelly]

I envy your gift of statutory clarity. It isn't clear to me. And I can't imagine I'm the only lawyer who can spot the squishy bits of this legislation ripe for manipulation.

The three paragraphs you've quoted are "or" elements. A person need only violate one of the three to be criminally liable. Paragraph 2 is broad enough to include just about anything.

[SommaRaikkonen]

Since you're a lawyer, please clarify for me one part so that I can understand. The paragraphs are presented as:

1 - condition 1;

2 - condition 2; or

3 - condition 3.

Does this mean that condition 1 should be applied all the time (1 and 2 _or_ 1 and 3) or (1 or 2 or 3) in order to be liable?

[elliekelly]

As the other person commented, I read it as 1 or 2 or 3 though I'll admit this bill has exceptionally poor drafting. Typically to avoid that sort of confusion the "chapeau" would say something like "it shall be unlawful for a person to do one or more of the following" or "it shall be unlawful for a person to do (all of) the following".

You can see an example of drafting for (1 and 2) or 3 in paragraph 4 of the definitions section to give you a better idea of how the language and structure would differ in this section if it were intended to be read as (1 and 2) or (1 and 3).

[mlyle]

1 or 2 or 3.