First, the license grant is clearly ambiguous. Most license grants are written in terms of exclusive rights of copyright (ie reproduction, derivative work creation, public performance). This one isn't. "Do whatever the fuck you want' is unclear as to exactly what rights you can exercise and can't, because "whatever you want" can be found to not literally be "whatever" (and in fact, when most people say "you can do whatever you want", they often mean "whatever you want within reason")
Maybe a judge will agree with "it means all of them", maybe they won't. It depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. Damages would likely be minimal in such a case, except in places with high statutory damages awards. You might get enjoined from using it.
Second, As for reassigning copyright, probably not. In most jurisdictions, this requires a specific signed instrument.
Third, you can't put it under a new license and sue the creator, they also have rights to it.
Fourth, "You have a good point that this is something many people would want. Do you know in which jurisdictions this is actually needed? I wasn't able to find any sources for this."
At the very least, in the US it's a very bad idea not to disclaim warranties. Particularly since people are making warranties on mailing lists as to fitness, etc, all the time.
I can't stress enough how dangerous it is to not disclaim warranties in the US.
> Has it been challenged before in a legal sense? Has a lawyer reviewed it? Excellent points."
OSI declined to name it an open source license, considering it mostly duplicative of others.
I specifically try to push people to avoid it, and the company i work for won't distribute software that uses it.