Some of these people believe that both such events have already happened, figuratively if not literally.
If it serves their purposes at the moment, yes.
We are talking about the same people who think that placing a yellow-fringed flag in a room suspends the Constitution in that room.
A friend of mine is a lawyer who once had a tax protestor client, who happened to be black, who insisted that none of the amendments to the Constitution were valid. My friend said, “You might want to read the 13th Amendment and then reconsider that point of view…”
But was it really ratified? I think not.
In past threads, I compared their use of pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo to magical incantations, but I like your analogy better.
If they thought it might help them get out of paying taxes, yes.
You are making the mistake in believing that people are stating their sincere beliefs instead of making bullshit arguments out of self interest. The world is full of people who will say the most outlandish things for personal gain. Add in the fact that thinking through all the consequences of arguments is hard work it is easier and to a large extent more productive to keep repeating yourself until the other party gives up and goes home than being right. With those two idea you have covered 75% of conflicts between people.
I’ll apologize if you can provide a cite, but otherwise I say that’s baloney.
The ribboned copy of a patent is a ceremonial representation, and one can get a duplicate or replacement copy of that document. You can’t assign ownership of the patent simply by handing over that piece of paper.
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir. 1986), 791 F.2d 68, 69.