[4CJ]

No, you don't get it. The actions in question took place in 1779 and the confederacy they were suggesting New Hampshire should have withdrawn from was the Continental Congress." ... 4CJ was a dollar short and several years too late.

Wrong. The justices (3 of the 4) hold that a state may UNILATERALLY secede. No justice wrote that this was limited to the state ante ratification (this decision was in 1795, well after ratification of the Constitution). Justice Patterson writes that 'several questions have been agitated; some of which, involving constitutional points.' The issue before the court was a jurisdictional dispute, in which it was claimed that Congress, the Appeals Court etc. lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the laws of the state of New Hampshire should hold.

The jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Appeals has been questioned.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals has been questioned.

These jurisdictions turning on the competency of Congress, it has been questioned, whether that body had authority to institute such tribunals.

And, lastly, the jurisdiction of the District Court of New Hampshire has been questioned. In every step we take, the point of jurisdiction meets us.
Justice Patterson, Penhallow et al v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 79-80 (1795), [emphasis mine]

It's not a difficult case. The state agreed to be a member of the union, and while remaining a member must abide by the laws - the federal courts DID have jurisdiction. If the state refuses to abide by that agreement, she should withdraw herself from the union. The justices acknowledge the states have the right to leave unilaterally, a power retained by the Articles: 'Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States', and by the Constitution: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

[Non-Sequitur]

The justices (3 of the 4) hold that a state may UNILATERALLY secede.

Wrong again. They were specifically talking about the Articles of Confederation, as my quote made clear. The decision was made in 1795, but the acts in question occured before 1780. Long before the Constitution was ratified. Finally, Penhallow was basically a property case. Secession was not an issue before the court, therefore even if 3 of 4 justices held that a state may UNILATERALLY secede such statements were not binding. Or do I need to take you on my knee and explain, yet again, what obiter dictum means?