in Pulga v. Floh (Sup. Ct. Lud. Fls. 8th Dist. 08/01/02) it was determined that simple addition of clarifying adjectives without altering the intended meaning was insufficient to support a defense against a charge of aggravated liver chopping.

Exception, Your Honour! This is not the "simple addition of a clarifying adjective". Something Pondial relates to the Pond alone. Pondial differences are differences within the Pond, not differences between cultures on either side of the Pond, the latter meaning being so eloquently captured by the defendant's coinage: Cross-Pondial.

And how, I ask the jury, are we expected to derive an "intended" meaning? Has the prosecution outdone the world's leading scientists by producing a mind-reading device, trustworthy beyond all reasonable doubt?
I think not!