« on: February 18, 2017, 11:23:28 AM »
Further, I will call the board and ask for additional clarification, and second, even if that clarification is not favorable, and I decide to go with a CA non-Acred, I would of course, still attempt this argument, as there is (as a matter of technical rhetoric) two ways to read the sentence, as written, with no comma.
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point.
Both sections 1 and 2 explicitly state that the law school must be accredited in it's home jurisdiction. The "equivalent to a JD" argument is irrelevant if the school is unaccredited.
If you genuinely don't intend to practice law in TX, then this may be a fine way to learn about the law. But don't mistake the mistake of thinking that you will be able to successfully petition the bar vis a vis interpretation of the rule. These cases are almost always unsuccessful, as you don't have a right to join the bar. It is at their discretion, and they have not shown (as far as I can tell) any interest in unaccredited law schools.