If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.

When you move the “not” to the inner terms, as you did in this reformulation, it flips the ANDs and ORs. That’s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws

• not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B)
• not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)