Respectfully, I think you're missing the point.
I'm not missing your point, at all. I understand what you are saying (that there is only one way of reading section two, requiring a jurisdictionally approved institution). I'm simply disagreeing with you. I believe there is more than one way in which section two can be construed. In my mind, this is not simply my opinion, but a technical fact. "As written, section two CAN have more than one possible meaning." This is based on the rules of the English language, not my opinion or inability to grasp a point. Even the one attorney whom I showed in person and disagreed that it was intended to read as I hope, also agreed that it COULD be interpreted more than one way, and if the intent was to require an accredited institution, the rule should be re-written so that it can only be interpreted in one way... remove all ambiguity.
For example, written like this below, there is only one possible way of interpreting the meaning (your interpretation) based on the proper use of commas:
"(2) holds the equivalent of a J.D. degree, that was obtained from a law school accredited in the state where it is located, and that requires a course of study that is substantially equivalent in duration and substance to the legal education provided by an approved law school."
Using commas, my re-write clarifies three distinct conditions:
1. Must be equivalent of a JD
2. Must be from jurisdictionally accredited school
3. Must be substantially equivalent to approved school
Without commas, there are only two sections:
1. Must be equivalent of: a JD from a law school accredited by the state
(so could be an LLB, or JD, from any school [acred or not], so long as it is equivalent to one from an accredited school in that state)
2. Must be substantially equivalent to approved school
To be completely unambiguous, the commas MUST be added. Otherwise it is poor technical writing and can interpreted as both/either meaning. Its like the classic example, "the million dollar estate was left in equal shares to Sally, Jon, Bob, and Mark" is not the same as "the million dollar estate was left in equal shares to Sally, Jon, Bob and Mark." The latter comma-less sentence can mean two things (much to Bob's and Mark's dismay).
You're saying something is crystal clear, as written, when as a matter of rhetoric fact, it isn't.
I do get your point - just don't agree with it.
But, of course, the purpose of this thread was to gather opinions/discussions/feedback. So I am genuinely thankful for yours. It's caused me to re-think this and re-say it many times/ways!