At least one word in each example is shifting both in meaning and in part of speech. An author may employ this shift for stylistic effect, but the more complex the shifts, the more difficult it is to parse, and the less effective the play on words becomes.
I would be hard pressed to find someone who used such phrasing in conversational English. You will see simple examples in writing when authors are striving for parallelism or perhaps humor. For example, Alexander Pope writes in The Rape of the Lock:
There stands a structure of majestic frame,
Which from the neighb'ring Hampton takes its name. ...
Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey,
Dost sometimes counsel take— and sometimes tea.
To take counsel and to take tea are very different activities despite sharing the word take, but the meaning of take (to accept or consume) and the part of speech (verb) do not change. There is little chance of confusion, and the turn of phrase is deemed clever.
None of your examples, however, will be mistaken for the writings of Alexander Pope.
The first example may pass muster because it is short, with no modifiers, and while cooking is the main verb in the first part and the gerund object of hates in the second, it still refers to the same activity.
There is too much going on in the other examples to make any sense.
John had once ineptly, and Sally hates, cooked meat.
In the first part, had cooked is the verb with meat as its object, whereas in the second, hates is the verb and cooked meat the object. Perhaps some would read had as the first verb with cooked meat likewise its object, except that ineptly would not make sense. The third example has the identical ambiguity with regards to boiled vegetables, but simply adding Michael has adds enough complexity to make it difficult to parse. The fourth example, in which cakes is alternatively a verb and a noun and an already unnatural word order is interrupted with multiple commas, is quite unreadable.