ABA some years ago suggested that a committee be formed to simplify legal language to avoid stuff like that. It was rejected because, over the centuries, complex language like that had taken on solid, legal lingua franca meaning, and to change it would be to ironically introduce new levels of ambiguity.

One of my pet peeves is how the Feds can convict practically anyone on a "conspiracy" rap. In a conspiracy case, the government doesn't have to prove that you actually did anything bad--only that you were conspiring to do so with others. And, the judge will allow "uncorroborated testimony from unindicted co-conspirators." What that means is that if the Feds think I was conspiring with you, they can haul me in, accuse me of being a co-conspirator, then withold indicting me pending my "cooperation" at your trial. In other words, they can coerce me into testifying against you.

Morton Sobell, a co-defendant at the Rosenberg trial in 1951, was convicted of "conspiracy" to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by having five conversations with Julius Rosenberg about spying. Gov't never specified what they conspired to steal, nor did they ever say Sobell actually stole anything--only that he was "conspiring" with Rosenberg. The only witness against Sobell was Max Elitcher, a former pal who was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the case. Elitcher testified that Rosenberg tried to recruit him several times, and that Sobell tried on behalf of Rosenberg. But, he never said that he saw the two together. He also said Sobell asked him to drive him to Rosenberg's apartment to deliver a 35-mm film can. Never said Sobell told him what was in it, or that he looked inside. His testimony alone got Sobell a 30-year sentence, some of it served at Alcatraz.