While the facts of the underlying opinion in U.S. v. Freeman aren’t especially comical — it was an appeal from a conviction and sentence on drug-conspiracy charges — it does have some educational value. The question was whether the district court had properly allowed the government’s expert witness to testify "regarding the meaning of encoded drug language." In part, this involved the witness’s translation of certain terms that are "part of the jargon commonly used by drug traffickers."
But, possibly since much of this jargon is not commonly used by Ninth Circuit judges and clerks (presumably), the opinion had to be amended in August to make the following change:
Please make a note of it to avoid confusing "iggidy" with "wiggity" in your future briefing.
Link: Legal Pad (Cal Law)