The subject of the Bollman case, as defined by its occassion, the parts of the constitution it considered, and by the ruling of the case itself, is habeas corpus. To suggest otherwise is to committ fraud.
(2) All part of the Dred Scott record.
...but not part of the case itself, which you fraudulently claimed.
(3) I retracted my comments concerning Lemmon the next day.
...but only after being ripped over the fraud contained in them. In normal circumstances one could probably excuse it as a one-time error, but given your unusually strong tendency toward making similar "errors" elsewhere, one can only conclude that your intent was to defraud.
(4) Amy Warwick and Brilliante were all part of the Prize Cases.
But you still fraudulently passed them off as something that they were not.
(5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.
...but not a footnote of the Hamdi ruling itself, which you fraudulently implied.
Strong concurring bump, with emphasis added.
I don't even know why this guy is still around here. That kind of conduct ought to get a person TOS'd.