And that's exactly what I mean. It's NOT close enough.
There are a dozen issues exposed by your 'translation', but the most obvious is your usage of the word "affiliated." Case law provides varying degrees of definition for "affiliated," but the first I could find was:
Quote:
|
"Affiliate" or "affiliated" means a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by or is under common control with another person.
|
By your "translation," you've now added any person who works with or works at any place controlled by the financial institution, any company which is in common control with the institution, and a handful of other "affiliated" companies, which were previously not subject to this protection as the law was written.
I say again that there is a
very important reason that the precise wording of legal documents must not change, as it adds AND removes very important implications that could mean the difference between a judgment against you for hundreds of thousands of dollars and immunity under a given law.
It is typical in common debate to pick an individual sentence into two or three dependent clauses. If one of the clauses is demonstrably false, then it can falsify the entire sentence (and perhaps the entire law).