I think it’s a hair more nuanced than that, but not much.
As I understand it, these clowns believe that there are various legal loopholes that you can invoke/access by going through some kind of formula, usually involving copious amounts of hair-splitting and legalese. And they’re often predicated on the exact wording and/or super-narrow interpretation of various statutes, and these interpretations build on each other, leading to a totally absurd chain of logic that they try and wield in effect as a “Get out of jail free” card.
Problem is, the law rarely works that way- most of the time, the exact wording isn’t really what’s important- for example, the government can’t look at the Third Amendment and claim that because it says “quartered in any house without the consent of the owner” and interpret that to mean that it’s hunky-dory for them to quarter soldiers in people’s rented apartments because they’re not “homes”, and because the owner (i.e. landlord) gave consent, not the renters.
But that’s what these guys are doing in effect- finding some quirk of wording from sometime long ago, and building a chain of questionable logic on that kind of thing that they think exempts them from the laws of the land. The “magic words” are just what they’ve come up with as the way to invoke this chain of logic- if they say them, and then are hauled into court, they can then point at this rickety argument and (in their mind) convince the judge that they’re right, and that they did everything just-so, and should be off the hook.
I can hardly believe that they think that actual cops are so versed in the law that they’ll recognize and understand their “magic words” and let them go. Rather, it’s more along the lines of a trigger or a switch- something you have to do for all of it to work, or so they think.