As to your first point (in post no. 4), thir, I believe I indicated my agreement with you when I mentioned L'Académie française. That "august" body, whose Académicians describe themselves as "immortals"(!), tries to regulate the way the French language is used, but its greatest success can be said to be the destruction of all the regional languages used in France: Breton, Occidental, etc. However, as to regulating French itself, why, even the government that supports it will ignore its rulings from time to time.

As for the impenetrability of scientific and legal texts, I would suggest that any experiment or theory can be written down in an intelligible manner if it is first thought out clearly. Likewise a statute of law or a court ruling. It is vague description that makes many scientific papers hard to understand, and it is imprecise terminology that enables lawyers to argue over meaning.

The only way to settle the argument (in law) would be to look at the natural meaning of the words and expressions used, and that would entail considering how words and expressions have been used. If, after that, there is still doubt, then the lawyers will argue and a judge will have to decide. His decision may well be not what was originally intended by the lawmakers/contracting parties.