2013 Validity

This will resolve cfpb/hmda-pilot#49
@doelleri Steven's version looks much like your original version you proposed in hipchat when looking at V463:
 > Co-Applicant ethnicity does not = 5; however, co-applicant race field 1 = 8 and/or co-applicant sex = 5.

```json
"rule": {
            "if": {
                "property": "coapplicantEthnicity",
                "condition": "not_equal",
                "value": "5"
            },
            "then": {
                "and": [
                    {
                        "property": "coapplicantRace1",
                        "condition": "not_equal",
                        "value": "8"
                    },
                    {
                        "property": "coapplicantSex",
                        "condition": "not_equal",
                        "value": "5"
                    }
                ]
            }
        }
```
However, you both have slight issues.  The real "test" here is for the first stated condition, in this case of V317, that is `coapplicantRace1` is equal to 8, but only if ethnicity and/or sex are 5. Donald, where you get your logic incorrect is by using not_equal.
So, more properly, the rule should look like:
```json
"rule": {
            "if": {
                "or": [
                    {
                        "property": "coapplicantEthnicity",
                        "condition": "equal",
                        "value": "5"
                    },
                    {
                        "property": "coapplicantSex",
                        "condition": "equal",
                        "value": "5"
                    }
                ]
            },
            "then": {
                "property": "coapplicantRace1",
                "condition": "equal",
                "value": "8"
            },
        }
```
@stevejameskent I believe if you run this through your truth table you should be satisfied with the result, and it properly satisfies the "spirit" of the rule as written (and yes, it is horribly written).