"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person,
an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a
government can interface only with other artificial persons.
The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance,
is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the
tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no
government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court,
etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
artificial persons and the contracts between them."
PENHALLOW v. DOANE'S ADMINISTRATORS
(Supreme Court of the United States 1795)
CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70 "Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent”
http://www.suijurisforum.com/artificial-persons-t1208.html
"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction,
and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with
other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor
substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the
tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as
well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with
anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts
between them."
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3
U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States
1795
The "quote" from Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters is a fabrication. Here is a forum link where this is discussed.
http://www.suijurisforum.com/artificial-persons-t1208.html
In fact, it's the same link you provide. Did you read the information about it being fake?
Here is a link to the on-line case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/54/case.html
As to CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70, here is a link to the case:
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/cruden.txt
The case is not about what you think it is. Read it yourself and tell us if it gives you want you want.
What does any of this have to do with the OP's question?
The evidence exists, I just don't feel like going to the Law Library to get the printed hard copy of the United States Reports. I'm answering an internet question with info available to everyone. Were I preparing a legal brief I would take the time to do so. All the information quoted by you is a disclaimer that if you require a conformed copy of the information one must go to the printed copy of the United States Reports.
We are not on a jury, are we? I believe the info I provided is sufficient to suit the OPs needs.
Tell you what Joe. When we ever change from a Monarchy to a Republic again you can opt out of the new Republic if you want. That is what the case of CRUDEN v. NEALE is all about. The answer to the question of the first quote in the OP is still the same; it is a total fabrication.
If it is not, you have the link to the case law, disclaimers and all. Please find the quote from the OP and direct us to it in the case law. If you can do that, I'll take the time to visit the law library and get a conformed copy for your review.
Note that the text you quote "It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow-men without his consent." is from the Councel for the Plaintiff, not the Court. It has absolutely no legal significance.
Some more from CRUDEN v. NEALE as regards your comments about "the law of the land."
"A citizen of this country before he can be subjected to the punishment of treason, or to the disabilities consequent upon it, must be convicted by a jury of his neighborhood, upon the previous accusation of a grand jury of his neighbors; also upon a trial before a Court appointed by law, for the purpose of seeing that he has every legal advantage the law entitles him to. He is not to be deprived of his liberty, or of his rights essential to its enjoyment, but by the law of the land. And what is the law of the land? Such acts of the Legislature only as violate none of the rules laid down in the Constitution—such as allow the citizen the privileges there secured to him—acts inconsistent with the rights of freemen as declared in the Constitution, which take away their constitutional privileges, which, in short, deprive a man of his life, or of the means of protection by an application to the laws of his country for redress of wrongs, without a previous trial by jury and a conviction by them, are not laws of the land—such are acts not authorized by the Constitution—they have no claim to the obedience or support of the citizen as laws—they are void."