Though you may dwell in a Farberville full of metaphysical California Miss Cleo's, I do not. Rather, I simply observed the development of your argument along the path you followed. That you ended up where you did was easily anticipated and easily recognized once it happened because your type always ends up there.
The Levy article I quoted earlier contain addition information regarding Marshall's dicta in Bollman.
You mean the same one you tried to pass off as "proof" that Bollman, a case about a habeas corpus petition, was not about habeas corpus? Here's a newsflash for you capitan. Virtually every case ever written has items of dicta somewhere within its text. But they also have holdings and premises on which those holdings are decided. The simple fact that you saw the words "Bollman" and "dicta" appear in the same article does not even remotely begin to approach substantiating your claim that a specific passage you personally do not like is a piece of obiter dictum. Your "dicta" sources so far have all commented on unrelated passages - a fact that you cannot seem to recognize because you're still on a sugar high from seeing the two words together in the same passage.
As a matter of fact, just about every article I have read about Bollman makes mention of Marshall's dicta.
Gee, ya think? And I bet it has something to do with the fact that EVERY supreme court case of any substantial length has dicta somewhere in it. It is once again obvious that you have yet to grasp that amazingly simple concept.
Of course, in the capitan_refugio/non-sequitur school of law, all it takes to find obiter dictum is to do a google search for a case name and the word "dicta." If it pulls up a hit then you get free license to go through the case and slap the obiter dictum label on any passage of it that you don't like.