On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would > occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer > that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be > impossible for the Accountor to perform destruction at the same > instant a non-person entity or non-entity initiates an audit, the rule > text suggests that the audit creates an obligation for future card > destruction (one without a time limit).
The fact that the Accountor will necessarily violate the rule just means e's NOT GUILTY under the old EXCUSED criteria, not that the rule doesn't mean what it says.
