Krauthammer: Dems Will Regret Allowing Obama’s ‘Lawlessness’

Krauthammer: Dems Will Regret Allowing Obama’s ‘Lawlessness’

Appearing on Friday night’s On the Record, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer strongly criticized President Barack Obama for his “cavalier attitude” towards the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. “Democrats will rue the day that they allowed all this,” Krauthammer declared. “I’m talking about how the administration, particularly the president, seems to think that he has the right to change duly passed statutes on his own or to suspend parts of laws on his own,” Krauthammer said when asked to clarify his critique of the Obama administration’s “lawlessness.”

“The Constitution is pretty clear,” he continued, “the Congress passes the laws and the president executes the laws.”

Krauthammer cited Obama’s unilateral delaying of aspects of the Affordable Care Act and his appointing of administration officials via recess appointment while the Senate was in session. “This is a very cavalier attitude,” he added.

The columnist said that the president’s direction to insurers to reinstate policies that were cancelled as a result of new coverage requirements in the ACA is the most recent and most egregious example of Obama’s “lawlessness.”

“Obama’s own law is something that he ignores,” Krauthammer asserted.

“Do you think this is on the rise inside the beltway?” fill-in anchor Harris Faulkner asked, observing that this style of executive governance has been an increasing over the decades.

“I think it is because I think there is so much hostilities between the parties that the one party in power is willing to overlook all kinds of illegalities, all kinds of violation of constitutional norms, if it satisfies their political interests, if it advances their agenda,” Krauthammer agreed


 Dianna Cotter, PortlandCivil Rights Examiner

October 18, 2011

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at which cite the only case in American history – Minor v. Happersett (1875) – to directly construe Article 2 Section 1’s natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent.  In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a “native or natural-born citizen” as a person born in theUS to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain. 

In June 2008 no one was discussing Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875) with regard to Obama. In fact, those who were discussing the then Senator’s citizenship status had focused instead on his birth in Hawaii in a attempt to prove the future president was not born in the United States despite publication of the Senator’s short form computer generated Birth Certificate. It would not be until October of 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility would be questioned as to his status as a dual citizen at the time of his birth.

NOTE: Although the author is correct that in June 2008, Minor was not being discussed. I did in fact publish the Barack Obama Un-Constitutional in Sept 2008, the exact date Sept 26th, 2008 which does list Minor as a reference.  Again, this blog is vindicated!

Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words “Minor V. Happersett” along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations.  And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Clearly this was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic Nomination at the DNC Convention inDenver,Colorado in August ’08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive.

So far, 25 corrupted SCOTUS have been identified, and this number may continue to rise as the scope of the tampering becomes apparent. These cases all relied upon Minor, some specifically referencing its definition of Natural Born Citizen – a definition which makes Obama ineligible to be President as that definition is part of the holding and continuing precedent, issued from the highest court in our nation making it the law of the land, even now.   

The most extreme sabotage so far discovered appears to have been done to the landmark decision United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was sabotaged to remove “Minor v. Happersett” three times, along with one reference to “Scott v Sandford”, another to the Slaughterhouse Cases  and some accompanying text relevant to the issue. These surgical alterations would alter and shape the national dialogue; leaving a persistent and  incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause. There is no doubt whatsoever that this was the specific intent of those responsible for this illegal editing of American history and law.

As previously mentioned, the specific distinction between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen made in Minor v. Happersett is in the holding of the case, the section which creates the Law, and it is this Law which has been repeatedly cited over the decades since. In order to minimize the importance of Minor, someone at Justia deliberately decided to make these supporting citations as difficult as possible to find.

This has had the desired effect, diluting the importance of Minor v. Happersett in the national dialogue across the blogosphere’s political spectrum ever since. The end result: the one case which defines Natural Born Citizen was reduced to seeming irrelevance, and thus the conversation never got past doorkeepers already in Obama’s camp in the mainstream media.

Of course, a lawyer going into Court would never rely upon anything but an official source for Supreme Court law, but 99.9% of the population have no access to dusty law texts, or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw. Those who committed these crimes were well aware of this, and used it to their advantage.

The manipulation at diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns’s version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia’s version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere’s forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library.

This is nothing short of appalling. Justia swapped their tampered versions of the cases for the actual Supreme Court opinions and then pawned them off as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text” of the Supreme Court’s opinions. Yet Justia CEO Tim Stanley claims that making case law available to the public for free is the mission of Justia. In reality, Justia has been re-inventing our legal history and passing it off as genuine.

Attorney Donofrio’s Full report “ Surgically Removed “Minor v Happersett” from 25 Supreme Court Opinions in run up to ’08 Election”,  published today explains that exposure to criminal punishment is a direct result of not just the tampering, but more specifically, as a result of placing text on every tampered page which states, “Full text of case”:

Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor’s relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the “Full Text of Case”.  This is the very definition of “Orwellian” fascism.  It’s propaganda.  And there is no place for it in the United States.  The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emanating from servers. – Leo Donofrio Esq.

Clearly, the corruption of Supreme Court Cases was systemic and surgically targeted within, one of the largest and best known legal research sites on the internet. Justia is nothing if not efficient in driving traffic to its site; this is after all their business. Today they partner with Google and have Google Analytics within their site which does two things; it increases Justia’s visibility on Google searches, and it pushes their website to the top of those searches done on legal issues. When specific search terms are erased out of a document, naturally that document will not appear on a search. Anyone searching for the case name “Minor v. Happersett” and “citizenship” would never see the dozens of cases manipulated by

Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’.  On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following statements:

“Our goal is to provide academic researchers, government officials, attorneys, and the public with advanced features, including full‐text search, annotations by legal professionals, and comparison tools to visualize the differences in the law between the individual states…”


“In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.”

To describe these comments, made at roughly the same time Supreme Court Cases were being scrubbed and deliberately altered at his site as ironic, is an understatement of gross proportions.

Only a person thoroughly educated in the law would know precisely which cases to look for in order to direct the changes to be made to those cases. Furthermore, only someone with access to’s database could physically make these changes from inside the website. This artificially created a near empty result set and the cases which did turn up led those inexperienced in the law, nowhere.

This appears to violate every principle Tim Stanley and have built their business upon.

The manipulations at were initially discovered by Attorney Leo Donofrio on July 1, 2011, when he published his initial report, “ Caught Red Handed Hiding References to Minor v. Happersett In Published US Supreme Court Decisions,”. Upon publication of his original discovery documenting the sabotage of Boyd v. Nebraska, and Pope v. Williams, two Supreme Court cases which cite to Minor v. Happersett as precedent on citizenship, two things happened almost immediately: First, the altered pages were returned to their original versions at Justia within an hour or so of Donofrio’s publication. Second, despite Justia CEO Tim Stanley’s cries for freedom of legal information (and law suits compelling the same), robots have now been placed on the Justia URL’s for the Boyd and Pope cases at, also known as the Waybackmachine.  These robots make it impossible to see the tampering as it unfolded in mid-2008… with those cases. 

So much for freedom of information. 

One can, however, still see the tampering from screenshots taken by Donofrio and are attached to that original report on July 1, 2011 at his blog, Natural Born Citizen, which has been singularly focused on the issue of Presidential eligibility since late 2008.

As Donofrio documents in his article today, when he discovered a third tampered case, instead of rushing to publish it, he contacted a number of other bloggers and reporters to help document the evidence before Justia dispersed their robots to block it.  While Donofrio originally only discovered two cases of tampering, somebody at Justia knew where the bones were buried and went about reinstating “Minor v. Happersett” in the at least 25 cases which it had earlier sabotaged.  It appears that whoever knew about these additional despoiled cases, must have believed by fixing them before the corruption was exposed no one would ever suspect they too had been altered.

What tipped Donofrio off last week to the extent of Justia’s tampering was the case “Luria v. United States”. This case also firmly supports Minor on citizenship, and he double checked the text to see if it included references to Minor. It did… something he had not noticed upon previous readings of the case at

With his new insight into SCOTUS case tampering, he plugged the URL into the Waybackmachine to see if it had been altered in the past. Bingo. It had. Furthermore there was nothing blocking his ability to see those snapshotted pages, and how they had been altered compared to the original text. The gun wasn’t just smoking, the bullet was still flying.

A brief explanation of the how the Waybackmachine works. It takes snapshots of internet pages. It may not record the day a given webpage changed, but it documents the changes when it does hit that page. Thus a date on the Waybackmachine of April 13, 2004 means this was the date the snapshot was taken, not when the changes were necessarily made. There is no way of knowing precisely when the change occurred as the waybackmachine does not record the precise instant the change is made, it is only sometime later when the Internet archive records it.

The evidence he discovered there, at the time of publication of this article, is still available and shows the same exact same pattern of behavior – deception – that Justia exhibited with the Boyd and Pope cases Donofrio published back in July.

If Justia hasn’t blocked access to the WaybackMachine for their publication of Luria v. US, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) by the time you read this, then it continues to be evident and accessible that on Nov. 4, 2006 the Waybackmachine recorded  Justia published the true original opinion issued by the Supreme Court with no tampering evident. Minor v. Happersett is cited on page 22 directly referencing Presidential eligibility as follows:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165, 22 L. ed. 627; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 28 S. L. ed. 643, 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L. ed. 204, 225.”

The July 6, 2008 Waybackmachine snapshot of Luria v. US is the first snapshot that shows the tampering:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.  These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.  Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.   88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”

Notice that “Minor v. Happersett” has been removed along with the reference to “Osborn v. United States”, another case which causes trouble for Obama (and McCain).  All of the WaybackMachine snapshots between July 6, 2008, and April 13, 2010 for this case, show the same tampering.  The current, live Justia page for Luria v. US has been un-scrubbed and shows the original Supreme Court text. It is only with an archival resource such as the Waybackmachine that the alterations can be seen.

At publication, insertion of the URL into the Waybackmachine for this page at Justia still reveals the changes made to this page over time. Repeat this entire process with 25 Supreme Court cases and the extent of the tampering becomes evident.

This is disturbing enough, yet there was another subtle and insidious layer of deception. In every single instance of tampering, the numerical citation attached to Minor V. Happersett, has also been altered.  (See Donofrio’s blog for a complete break down of this.)  Changing these numbers is yet another layer of deception practiced at Justia.

While Donofrio documents in detail what the finer points of law in both versions mean in his article, this publication documents what this reporter has personally witnessed – the tampering of Supreme Court Cases online in the guise of “Full Text of Case”. This article is not the legal opinion of an attorney; it is witness to an event.

It’s important to note that the only way Justia could block all access to previous versions of their publication of cases would require .txt robots to be placed on their entire domain records at the Waybackmachine.  If Tim Stanley were to secure from the honest and forthright archiving of the WaybackMachine, he would be an instant pariah in the freedom of information scene of which he is a leader. 

Furthermore, ifStanleywere to place robots on only the 25 (or more) cases which cite Minor v. Happersett, it would be a de-facto admission of guilt. 

It appears that whoever tampered with these cases went back and “fixed” all of them, including 23 Donofrio wasn’t aware of until this week when he conclusively established the sabotage by Justia.  For all 25, the pattern is precisely the same. In 2006, the cases at Justia are pristine in the Waybackmachine; word for word from official Supreme Court cases. Then at various points in 2008, the cases are corrupted by removal of the case name “Minor v, Happersett” ( as well as some other case names and text.)

The cases remained corrupted, according to the snapshots of the Waybackmachine in most cases, until late 2010.

Today however, all 25 cases have been painstakingly returned to their official Supreme Court versions; all references to Minor are back, the case and page numbers have been restored, as well as all missing text and references to other cases.  Still, the pattern is clearly visible to anyone who takes the time to look at the evidence made available by the Waybackmachine.  The sophistication and surgical elegance used to sabotage these cases is astounding, and has been personally witnessed by this reporter.

Every case which has been found to date by Mr. Donofrio has been documented with great attention to all these details. This has been accomplished by downloading the full code of the original un-tainted pages and the corrupted revisions from the Waybackmachine’s date stamped archive, along with screenshots of the pages as they appeared in browsers such as Mozilla Firefox before and after the tampering occurred, and the restored pages.

The volume of data is significant and Mr. Donofrio is in the process of making the entire archive available to the public. The article he has published today contains what he refers to as a “document dump“. It is in reality evidence. The reader is strongly encouraged to view the images which document Justia’s actions. Upon doing so, every member of congress should be notified of the existence of this information. Such usurpation of American history and law cannot be allowed.

Screenshots and links have been sent to several specific media contacts which include the Washington Times, Accuracy In Media, and Free Republic. In the interest of putting this information in front of as many eyes as possible before publication, it has been made freely available since Friday October 18, 2011 in the form of screenshots and saved page code. Should the information presented here be altered on the internet following publication, there will be a significant number of media outlets with knowledge and proof of any further alterations to internet archives.

The penalty associated with violating the “False Writings Statute”, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is jail and a fine for each count. With at least 25 counts if not more, this could mean upwards of 25 years in prison. The manipulation of Supreme Court cases is an offense against all Americans, and the Court itself. If like Fast and Furious this scandal reaches directly to the White House, the ramifications are both dire and catastrophic.

Minor v. Happersett defined the one specific term which Barack Obama could not overcome with “Hope and Change” though he could ‘hope’ someone would ‘change’ the cases which help define the term “Natural Born Citizen,”.  This case, if it had been sufficiently known to the public and media, and sufficiently documented by supporting citations, might have eliminated the possibility of Obama’s nomination and/or election. Either Obama got lucky in this regard, or the “constitutional law professor” and former editor of the Harvard Law Review had some hand in directing the efforts to erase the very citations in law which define him as a citizen, and at the same time rule him out as a constitutional candidate for President of the United States.

Just as certainly as the corruption at has been documented and archived, more will be revealed. Stay tuned, it is expected that this information will generate some significant updates. They will be reported here as they happen.

Continue reading on JustiaGate – Portland Civil Rights |

Read from Leo’s site


Citizenship Jeopardy By Cindy Simpson at American Thinker

Tyranny in Tenn

Notice the injuries in his mug shot? I’m surprised his left ear is stll there.
Consistantly despicable reporting (if you can call that reporting)
New number to try:
TN Veterans Affairs Office
Director John Keyes
Asst. Director Don Samuels

Oct. 27 report:
Can anyone in TN visit Lt. Cmdr. Fitzpatrick with a camera and document his injuries?

Here’s something everyone can do right now. Call this number plus the ones below and demand a resolution to this criminal activity before LC Fitzpatrick suffers the same fate as the Monroe County elections official, Jim Miller (found shot to death, in the trunk of his car, by a MC Deputy). Start with the Knoxville FBI–
TN FBI Phone: (865) 544-0751. Fax: (865) 544-3590.

The powers that be are completely out of control and it will only get worse unless and until you say “NO MORE”.
The time is now to take your stand. Take it in Monroe County, TN. Yes you can wait till after Nov. 2nd but after that it is time for all of us, from all over the country, to
Bogus arrest, Bogus justice with evil intent

I need a thousand people a day to be there until Lt. Cmdr. Fitzpatrick is released and his original complaint of treason against the usurper addressed. Who among you will put fear and your own self interest aside to fight in this noble cause?
This will be your legacy to your children and your childrens children.

We the People

Distinction in United States Constitution between citizen and natural born citizen


Written in 1881

XI; A citizen in the largest sense is any native or naturalized person who is entitled to full protection in the exercise and enjoyment of the so called private rights The natural born or native is one who is born in the country of citizen parents. {Again, note the plural- parents}

89 The Act of Congress usually referred to as the Civil Rights Bill confers citizenship The Constitution uses the words citizen and natural born citizen Citizens czVes of London are either freemen or such as reside and keep a family in the city etc and some are citizens and freemen and some are not who have not so great privileges as others The citizens of London may prescribe against a statute because their liberties are re enforced by statute. The word civis taken in the strictest sense extends only to him that is entitled to the privileges of a city of which he is a member and in that sense there is a distinction between a citizen and an inhabitant within the same city for every inhabitant there is not a citizen. A citizen is a freeman who has kept a family in a city. The usual definitions of citizen in English and American law will be found in Bouvier Law Dictionary Webster and Worcester.

The expression citizens in American law is often used to conve r the idea of membership in a nation. It is important to bear in mind that citizen is one of those expressions of frequent employment with the sound of which every one is familiar but it is an expression the full or accurate significance of which very few understand The word is sometimes loosely and inaccurately used eveu by writers and critics It has its origin of course in the word city Originally city did not signify a town but a portion of mankind who lived under the same government what the Romans called civitas and the Greeks 7roXi9 whence the word Tj oXm ca civitatis seu reipublicae status et admin istratio  The word national on the other hand came from the root natio the origin of which is obvious Vattel calls citizens citoyens those individuals that French writers of to day call nationals nationaux z The national nationaT says Cogordau 4 who is invested with full rights la plenitude des droits is in general called citizen It will not do however to confound these two terms as is too often done Every national in fact is not a citizen although every citizen is a national 5 In France for example minors married women the interdicted les interdits are not citizens but are nevertheless of French nationality they are deprived of political rights and enjoy civil rights In Algeria until within a brief period the Jews lived in French colonies and among subjects of France without being by French laws and to day the Arabs subject to France are not French citizens and their status is determined by Mussulman law  Cogordan points out that the word nationality national it now so frequently employed has been in use in France but a comparatively short time. A natural born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise but born And this class is the large majority in fact the mass of our citizens all others are exceptions specially provided for by law As they become citizens by birth so they remain citizens during their natural lives unless by their own voluntary act they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation for we have no law as the French have to dedtizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption The Constitution does not make the citizens it is in fact made by them it only recognizes such of them as are natural home born and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien foreign born making the latter as far as nature will allow like the former We have in the United States no middle class or denizens  but Attorney General Legare thought there might be. The example of a Roman citizen and St Paul’s case and claim thereto cited Paul’s is a leading case of the Jus Romanum it is analogous to our own it establishes the great protective rights of the citizen but like our own national Constitution it is silent about his powers The expression natural born citizen recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations and as old as political society that the people born in a country do constitute the nation and as individuals are natural members of the body politic. Every person born in the country is at the moment of birth prima facie a citizen Nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the government. In the legislation of the United States as has been pointed out elsewhere the distinction is constantly recognized between citizens and domiciled aliens In the Constitution itself provision is made for the adjudication of controversies to which aliens are parties by the federal as distinguished from the state courts with a view undoubtedly to international obligations resting upon the federal government.

John Adams on Natural Born Citizens and Subjects

Here are some letters from John Adams concerning Natural Born Citizens and Subjects, including Natural Born Subjects.

John Adams

Dear Sir. Grosvenor Square July 24th. 1785—

I have a Letter from the Baron De Thulemeier of the 19th, and a Copy of his Letter to you of the same date. I hope now in a few Day’s to take Mr. Short by the hand in Grosvenor Square, and to put my hand to the [Tr]eaty. I think no time should be lost. We will join Mr. Dumas with Mr. Short in the Exchange if you please.

I applyed as you desire, and obtained the interposition of the Lords Commissioners of the treasury, and the Commissioners of the Customs for the transhipping of Dr. Franklin’s Baggage. We have heared of the Doctors arrival at Rouen, but no further.

— 994./ 130./ 301.1071. 160. 7 /1353./ 1333./ 925./ 1542./ 1178. 787. 793./ 1105./ 1537./ 340./ 195./ 583./ 330./ 542. 1307./ 162./ 1437./ 1145./ 565. 611. 244.1021./ 1297. 8./ 56. 712. 1024./ 1537./ 34./ 726./ 1105. 7./ 162./ 340./ 991./ 411./ 1145./ 425./ — — 565./ 519. 543. 277. 320./ 1213./ 436./ 527. 1291./ 240./ 1281. 1471. 518. 346. 598./ 994./ 525.7./ 297. 301./ 1162. 821./ 266. 7./ 240./ 994./ 69./ 1537./ 297. 301./ 1162. 821./ 1281. 186. 7./ 240./ 57./ 556. 998./ 240./ 994./ 1453./ 847. 1205./ 985./ 1154./ 780. 207. 1082./ 406./ 458./ 41. 747./ 565./ 413./ 1213./ 565./ 301. [152./] 985. 7./ 215./ 1145./ 677./ 213. 1122./ 1409./ 994./ 362./ 1103./ 179./ 676./ 636.7./ 506./ 292./ 206. 8. 1205. 1189./ 292./ 1290./ 1133./ 565./ 925. 694./ 247. 476. 1267. 7./ 240./ 330./ 65./ 1575. 1122./ 565./ 330./ 704./ 676./ 1072./ 406./ 301. 238. 1205./ 330./ 565./ 994./ 776. 1122./ 240./ 110. 821. 346. 7/ 114. 158. 7. 957. 8./ 215./ 7042.1042/ 994./ 362./ 1059./ 411./ 1575./ 565./ 330./ 406./ 562. 250./ 1319. 1190./ 559. 476. 1267. 7./ 365./ 951./ 1381. 436. 1449./ 1353. 7./ 1537./ 1199./ 1558. 250./ 2./ 616./ 446. 1492/ 330./ 1333./ 815./ 994./ 506./ 1290./ 1097./ 1537./ 933. 692. 1466. 925./ 1053./ 240./ 700./ 995./ 994./ 513. 1129. 633./ 215. /162./ 340./ 943. 1548./ 556./ 459. 895. 821./ 301. 1551./ 692. / 994 / 737./ 513. 1129. 633. /209./ 784./ 994./ 1351./ — 818./ 261./ 1579./ 1042./ 716./ 21./ 1086.7./ 565./ 1154. / —

There is a Bill before Parliament to prevent smuggling Tobacco, in which restrictions are very rigorous, but cannot be effected. two thirds of the Tobacco consumed in this Kingdom I am told is smuggled—how can it be otherwise when the impost is five times the original Value of the Commodity. If a pound in five escapes nothing is lost. if two in five, a great profit is made.

The Duty is 16d. pr. pound and tobacco sells for three pence. —Yet all applications for lowering the Duty are rejected— —

Yours most affectionately

John Adams

Thomas Jefferson’s Deciphered Version

the British alliense duty is a very burthensome thing and they may carry it hereafter as far upon tobacco rice indies & twenty other things as they do now upon oil. to obviate this I think of substituting the words natural born citizens of the U.S.and natural born subjects of G.B. in stead of the most favored nation you remember we first proposed to offer this to all nations, but upon my objecting that the English would make their ships French or sweadote or Dutch Etc. to avail themselves of it without agreeing to it on their part we alltered it to the foot ing of gentis amicissimi. but if the English will now agree to it we shall secure ourselves against many odious duties and no ill consequence can arise. it is time the French Dutch Sweden and Prussia will of course claim the advantage but as they must inreturn allow us the same advantage so much the better. let me know if any objection occurs to you





John Adams to John Jay

25 Aug. 1785

Dear Sir Grosvenor Square Westminster August 25. 1785

Yesterday, I had a long Conference with Mr Pitt for the first time. He never had proposed any Interview with me, and I had delayed to request him to appoint any Time, after the first ceremonial Visit, for two Reasons; because that while Parliament was Sitting his Time and Mind were so engaged that it was impossible he Should attend in earnest to the Affairs of the United States, and because I expected that a little Time would bring, both from America and Ireland, Intelligence which would Somewhat lessen that Confidence with which the Ministry and the Nation were elated. Such Intelligence has now arrived: The twenty Resolutions have been, in Effect, given up that they might not be rejected by the Irish Parliament: and the Massachusetts Act of Navigation has appeared, together with Advices from Virginia, Philadelphia New York and various other Parts of the United States, which have excited a Serious Apprehension that all have the same Principles and Views.

I Shall not attempt to give you the Conversation in detail, Yet it is necessary to give Some Particulars, from which you may judge, how much or how little may result from the whole[.]

He asked me what were the Principal Points to be discussed between Us? I answered that I presumed the Marquis of Carmarthen had laid before the Kings Servants Some Papers which I had done myself the Honour to write to him. He said he had. I replied that those Letters related to the Evacuation of the Posts upon the Frontier: to the Construction of the Armistice: and to a Treaty of Commerce: and that besides these, there were the Negroes carried off contrary to the Treaty, and Some other Points which I had particularly explained to Lord Carmarthen. He Said that the carrying off the Negroes was So clearly against the Treaty, that they must take Measures to Satisfy that demand if We could prove how many were carryed off. I told him that Sir Guy Carleton could easily ascertain the Number, and that Coll Smith, who negotiated with Sir Guy, could do the Same, And that I had the Evidence of their Proceedings ready to produce whenever it was wanted. He entered then into the Subject of the Armistice, and We were longer upon this Point than We need to have been. I observed to him that Mr Blowers’s Construction was demonstrably absurd, because it would place the whole Coast of America in the Period of five Months: the Coast of the United States certainly was not between the Canary Islands and the Equator, and therefore could not be included in the Period of two Months: it is neither in the Channell nor North Seas; and therefore cannot be within the Period of twelve Days: consequently if it is not in the Period of one Month, it must be in that of five Months.—an Idea that never could have been entertained a Moment by either of the contracting Parties. Mr Pitt Said he thought that was clear, and that this Point might be easily Settled: but as to the Posts, Says he, that is a Point connected with Some others that I think must be Settled at the same Time. I asked what those Points were? He said the Debts. Several of the States had interfered, against the Treaty, and by Acts of their Legislatures had interposed Impediments to the Recovery of Debts, against which there were great Complaints in this Country. I replied to this, that I had explained this at great length to the Marquis of Carmarthen; but that I might now Add, that Congress had, very early after the Peace, proposed an Explanation of the Article, as far as it respected the Interest of Debts contracted before the War. They had instructed their Ministers at Paris to propose Such an Explanation to this Court. That We had proposed it, through Mr Hartley first and the Duke of Dorsett afterwards; and that I had renewed the Proposition to my Lord Carmarthen, upon my first Conference with him: but that We had never received any Answer. I thought it was best there Should be an Explanation; for I was perswaded th[at] an American Jury would never give any Interest for the Time which run during the War. Mr Pitt Said that would Surprize People here; for that Wars never interrupted the Interest nor Principal of Debts, and that he did not See a Difference between this War and any other and the Lawyers here made none. I begged his Pardon here, and Said that the American Lawyers made a Wide Diff[er]ence. They contended that the late War was a total Dissolution of all Laws and Government, and consequently of all Contracts made under those Laws. And that it was a Maxim of Laws that a Personal Right or Obligation, on[ce] dissolved or Suspended, was lost forever: that the Interven[tion] of the Treaty, and the new Laws was necessary for the Revival of those ancient Rights and Obligations. That these Rights we[re] in a State of Non Existence during the War, and no Interest during that Period could grow out of them. These being the opinions in America, it was not probable that any Jury would be found from Georgia to New Hampshi[re] who would give, by their Verdict, Interest to a Creditor, and therefore it was most fair and equitable, that an Explanation Should be made, that the Same Rule of Law might be observed on both Sides. This Observation appeared to Strike him. He Said if there was any danger of this, it would be best that an Explanation Should be made; but th[at] [t]he Ballance of Debts was much in favour of this Country; which I did not deny. But he said the Government would not dare to make it, without previously feeling out the Dispositions of the Persons chiefly interested, and knowing how it would be taken by them. We had a much longer Conversation concerning these Debts and the Difficulty of paying them arising from the Restrictions on our Trade; in which I repeated to him what I had before Said to Lord Carmarthen, and to the Deputies of the Scotch Creditors; but as I have transmitted all that to you before it is unnecessary to repeat it here.

He then began upon the Treaty of Commerce; and asked what was the lowest Terms which would be Satisfactory to America. I answered, that I might not think myself competent to determine that Question. Articles might be proposed to me that I Should not think myself qualified to decide upon, without Writing to Congress. But I would venture so far as to Say, that I thought the Project I had communicated to Lord Carmarthen would give Satisfaction to America, and Secure the Friendship of the United States and the Essence of their Trade to this Country. But that in Proportion as a Plan less liberal was adopted that Friendship would be precarious and that Trade would be Scattered. I added, that the most Judicious Men in America had been long ballancing in their Minds the Advantages and Dissadvantages of a Commerce perfectly free, on one Side, and.of a Navigation Act on the other: that the present time was a critical one: the late Intelligence from all Parts of America concurred, with the Navigation Act of the Massachusetts, in proving which Way the Ballance began to incline; and in my Opinion it would be decided by the conduct of this Country: it was now in his Mr Pitts, Power to decide it. But the more Americans reflected upon the great Advantages which they might derive from a Navigation Act, the more they would become attached to that System. I had heard there were five hundred foreign Ships employed the last Year in the Commerce of the United States: how easy would it be to have all these Ships the Property of American Citizens? and the Navigators of them American Seamen? There was once a Statute in England (that of 5. Ric.2.c.3.) “that none of the Kings liege People Should Ship any Merchandize out of or into the Realm but only in Ships of the Kings ligeance, on pain of Forfeiture.” I asked him what Physical or political Impediment there was to prevent the United States from adopting that very Act, in all its rigour. The Right of every Nation to govern its own Commerce, its own Exports and Imports, would not be denied, nor questioned by any Nation. This he agreed. our Ability to build the Ships and our Abundance of Materials could not be doubted. This he assented to. No Body would pretend that our Produce would not find a Markett in Europe, in our own Ships, or that Europeans would not Sell Us their Manufactures to carry home in them. Even England, if She Should make ever so strict Laws to prevent Exports and Imports in our Bottoms, would still be glad to receive and consume Considerable Quantities of our Produce, tho’ she imported them through France or Holland; and to send Us as many of her Manufactures as We could pay for, through the same channells. He more than Smiled assent to this; for he added that there were American Articles of much Importance to them. But he said that Englishmen were much attached to their Navigation. and Americans too, says I, to theirs. But, Says he, the United States, having now become a foreign Nation, our Navigation Act would not answer its End, if We Should dispense with it towards Y[ou.] Here I begged his Pardon again; for I thought their Navigation Act would compleatly defeat its own End, as far as it respected Us; for the End of the Navigation Act, as expressed in its own Preamble, was to confine the Commerce of the Colonies to the Mother Country: but now We were become independent States, if carried into Execution against Us, instead of confining our Trade to Great Britain, it would drive it to other Countries. This he did not deny[.] But Says he you allow We have a Right. Certainly I do; and You […] will allow We have a Right too. Yes I do; But you cannot blame Englishmen for being attached to their Ships and Seamen, which are So essential to them. Indeed I do not, Sir, nor can you blame Americans for being attached to theirs, which are so much fewer and so much more essential to them.—No, I dont blame them. As this w[as] a very Sprightly Dialogue and in very good Humour, I thought I might push it a little. I will be very frank with you sir Says I, and and I think it will be best for Us to go to the Bottom of these subjects. The Americans think that their Exclusion from Your West India Islands, the Refusal of their Ships and Oyl and other Things, a[nd] their Exclusion from your Colonies on the Continent & Newfound[land,] discovers a Jealousy of their little naval Power and a fixed Sy[mbol] of Policy to prevent the Grouth of it; and this is an Idea that they cannot bear. No, Says he. If We endeavoured to lessen your Shipping and Seamen, without benefiting or increasing our own, it would be hard and unreasonable, and would be a just ground of Uneasiness. But, When We only aim at making the most of our own means and Nurseries, you cannot justly complain. I am happy Sir to hear you avow this Principle, and agree with you perfectly in it.—let Us apply it.—both Parties having the Right and the Power to confine their Exports and Imports to their own Ships and Seamen, if both exercise the Right and Exert the Power in its full Extent, what is the Effect? The commerce must cease between them. Is this eligible for either? To be sure, Says he, We should well consider the Advantages and the Disadvantages in Such a Case. if it is not found to be eligible for either, Says I, after having well considered, what remains but that We Should agree upon a liberal Plan and allow equal freedom to each others Ships and Seamen; especially if it Should be found that this alone can preserve Friendship and good Humour, for I fully believe that this Plan alone can ever put this Nation in good Humour with America, or America with this Country. He then mentioned Ships and Oil. He said We could not think hard of them for encouraging their own Shipwrights, their Manufactures of Ships, and their own Whale Fishery. I answered, by no means; but it appeared unaccountable to the People of America, that this Country Should Sacrifice the general Interest of the Nation to the private Interest of a few Individuals, interested in the Manufacture of Ships and in the whale Fishery; so far as to refuse these Remittances from America, in Payment of Debts, and in Payment for Manufactures; which would employ so many more People, augment the Revenue so considerably, as well as the national Wealth, which would even, in others Ways, So much augment the Shipping and Seamen of the Nation. it was looked upon in America as Reconciling themselves to a diminution of their own Shipping and Seamen, in a great degree, for the Sake of diminishing ours in a Small one; besides keeping many of their Manufacturers out of Employ, who would other wise have enough to do, and besides, greatly diminishing the Revenue, and consequently contrary to the Maxims which he had just acknowledged, that one Nation should not hurt itself, for the sake of hurting another, nor take Measures to deprive another of any Advantage, without benefiting itself.

He then asked if We could grant to England by a Treaty any Advantages which would not immediately become the Right of France? I answered We could not. if the Advantage was Stipulated to England without a Compensation, France would be entituled to it without Compensation: But if it was Stipulated: for an Equivalent or reciprocal Priviledge, France must allow Us the Same Equivalent or reciprocal Priviledge. But, I added, France would not be a very Successfull Rival to Britain in the American Commerce, upon So free a Footing as that of the mutual Liberty of natural born Subjects and Citizens: upon the footing of the most favoured Nation, France would Stand a good Chance in many Things. in Case of mutual Navigation Acts, between Britain and America, France would have more of our Commerce than Britain. in Short Britain would loose and France gain; not only in our Commerce, but our Affections, in proportion as Britain departed from the most liberal System. Upon this He asked a Question which I did not expect.—What do you really think, Sir, that Britain ought to do.? That Question, Sir, may be beyond my Capacity to answer, and my Answer may be Suspected, but, if it is, I will answer it to the best of my Judgment and with perfect Sincerity. I think this Country ought to prescribe to herself no other Rule, but to take from America every Thing She can Send as a Remittance; nay, to take off every Duty, and give every Bounty, that Should be necessary to enable them to Send any Thing as a Remittance.—in this Case, America would prescribe to herself no other Rule than to take of British Productions as much as She could pay for. He might think this no Proof of our Republican Frugality; but Such was the Disposition of our People, and, how much soever I might lament it, I would not disguise it.—He then led me into a long rambling Conversation about our Whale Fishery, and the English Whale Fishery; and the French Whale Fishery that Mr De Calonne is essaying to introduce, too little interresting to be repeated. Yet I should mention, that he asked me a Sudden Question, whether We had taken any Measures to find a Markett for our Oil any wher[e] but in France.—This Question must have been Suggested to him I think, either by Information that our Oil is wanted in some Countries upon the Continent, or by a Suspicion that We have been trying to introduce our Oil into Ireland. I answere[d] that I believed We had, and I had been told that some of our Oil had found a good Markett at Bremen; but there could not be a doubt that Spermaceti Oyl might find a Marke[t] in most of the great Cities of Europe, which were illuminated in the Night, as it is so much better and cheaper than the Vegitab[le] Oil that is commonly used. The Fat of the Spermaceti Whale gives the clearest and most beautifull Flame, of any Substa[nce] that is known in Nature, and We are all Surprized, that you prefer Darkness, and consequent Robberies, Burglaries and Murders in your Streets to the Receiving as a Remittance our Sperma Caeti Oyl. The Lamps around Grosvenor Square I know and in Downing Street I suppose are dim by Midnight, and extinguished by two o clock; whereas our Oyl would burn bright till Nine O Clock in the Morning, and chase away before the Watchmen all the Villains, and save you the Trouble and Danger of introducing a new Police into the City.—

He said He owned he was for taking Advantage of the present Short time of Leisure to mature Some Plan about these Things. I told him I rejoiced to find that was his opinion and that I would be at all times ready to attend him or any other Minister, whenever any Explanation should be wanted from me: that I was anxious for an Answer concerning the Posts, as I was in duty bound to insist on their Evacuation. He Said He thought that connected with Several other Points, and Should be for Settling all these together, So that he must reserve himself at entire Liberty concerning them.

I am Sorry that, in representing all these Conversations, I am obliged to make myself the principal Speaker. But I cannot get them to talk. The Reason is they dare not. all must be determined in the Cabinet, and no Single Minister chooses to commit himself, by giving any opinion, which may be ever quoted to his Disadvantage by any Party. This is not only the State of Mind of every Minister, but of every Ministry. They have an unconquerable Reluctance to deciding upon any Thing, or giving any Answer: and although Mr Pitt and Lord Carmarthen have hazarded opinions upon some Points to me, I dont believe I Shall get any Answer, officially, from the Cabinet or the Minister of foreign Affairs. I wish for an Answer, be it ever so rough or unwise. Mr Pitt I confess was much more open than I expected. He was explicit in my favour, relative to the Negroes, the Armistice, and for digesting the whole in the present Leisure, and giving me an Answer. I should rejoice in a Cabinet Answer to all my Letters, and especially in a Counter Project of a Treaty. But I will be so free to Say I dont expect any Answer at all before next Spring; nor then unless Intelligence Should arrive of all the States adopting a Navigation Act or authorizing Congress to do it; and even in that Case I am inclined to think they will try the Experiment and let our Navigation Acts operate, to Satisfy themselves which People will first roar out with Pain. They deceive themselves Yet in Many Points, which I may enumerate in a future Letter.

From what Mr Pitt Said I am convinced We shall have no Answer concerning the Posts.

With great Respect and Sincere Esteem / I have the Honour to be, sir, your most / obedient and most humble servant

John Adams.

 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

7 Feb. 1786

Dear Sir Paris Feb. 7. 1786

I am honored with yours of Jan. 19. mine of Jan. 12. had not I suppose at that time got to your hands as the receipt of it is unacknoleged. I shall be anxious till I receive your answer to it.

I was perfectly satisfied, before I received your letter, that your opinion had been  misunderstood or misrepresented in the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres. your letter however will enable me to say so with authority. it is proper it should be known that you had not given the opinion imputed to you, tho’ as to the main question it is become useless, Monsieur de Reyneval having assured me that what I had written on that subject had perfectly satisfied the Ct. de Vergennes & himself that this case could never come under the treaty. to evince still further the impropriety of taking up subjects gravely on such imperfect information as this court had, I have this moment received a copy of an act of the Georgia assembly placing the subjects of France as to real estates on the footing of natural citizens & expressly recognizing the treaty. would you think any thing could be added after this to put this question still further out of doors? a gentleman of Georgia assures me General Oglethorpe did not own a foot of land in the state—I do not know whether there has been any American determination on the question whether American citizens & British subjects born before the revolution can be aliens to one another? I know there is an opinion of Ld Coke’s in Calvin’s case that if England & Scotland should in a course of descent pass to separate kings, those born under the same sovereign during the union would remain natural subjects & not aliens. common sense urges strong considerations against this. e. g. natural subjects owe allegiance. but we owe none.—aliens are the subjects of a foreign power we are subjects of a foreign power.—the king by the treaty acknoleges our independance; how then can we remain natural subjects.—the king’s power is by the constitution competent to the making peace, war & treaties. he had therefore authority to relinquish our allegiance by treaty.—but if an act of parliament had been necessary, the parliament passed an act to confirm the treaty. &c &c. so that it appears to me that in this question fictions of law alone are opposed to sound sense.

I am in hopes Congress will send a minister to Lisbon. I know no country with which we are likely to cultivate a more useful commerce. I have pressed this in my private letters.

It is difficult to learn any thing certain here about the French & English treaty. yet, in general, little is expected to be done between them. I am glad to hear that the Delegates of Virginia had made the vote relative to English commerce, tho they afterwards repealed it. I hope they will come to again. when my last letters came away they were engaged in passing the revisal of their laws, with some small alterations. the bearer of this, mr[expansion sign] Lyons, is a sensible worthy young physician, son of one of our Judges, and on his return to Virginia, remember me with affection to mrs[expansion sign] & miss Adams, Colos. Smith & Humphreys and be assured of the esteem with which I am Dr. Sir / Your friend & servant


 Michael DeGray to James Madison

17 Jul. 1825

Sir City of New York: Division Street, No. 198. July 17th. 1825.

We hope you will excuse the freedom of strangers addressing a citizen of the first reputation and whose political merit stands high Excepting with the british party in the united States.

The intention of writing to you was suggested to us by pure love of country or our attachment to a representative government. Therefore it is our belief that you was chosen chief Magistrate of a Federal nation at a time the most critical since the declaration of Independence no man could have had a more difficult task to perform but we conceive that measures must have been conducted Judiciously, or the opposition would have been calculated to frustrate its happy termination at last, but which was effected during your official duties notwithstanding.

But your Successor in office has performed his part in a more singular manner than any President of which you must be very Sensible Here we think he has cultivated a misterious friendship with the british government the great extent of which we are at a loss exactly to comprehend, because with a view to insure its operation a coalition of the parties in one body was deemed necessary however mischievous in its effects confounding the whole under the indefinite term of peoples Men, or party whose design was to abanden the old mode of nominating candidats for offices producing a compleat indecision in the Electoral colleges. Consequently carrying the choice of the chief Magistrate to the hause of Representatives this being the only alternative or provision. It may be considered the death of representation, or its final termination or the pivot where Aristocracy begins. His theory being that parties are unnecessary in our government. See his letter to General Jackson.

Under this administration all true influential characters who defended the Elective representative institutions of the social order are distroyed in their reputation and popularity however honest, or costly it proved to obtain they obtained them you alone sir, have Escaped the general wreck or ruin attendent on adherence to truth or Justice. We have at present no other to address consult or look to. We have lost our solomons and Sampsins. Their hair are all cut and become weak like other men. Yet besides all this there is one trait in James Monroes official performances, that requires special notice nearly at the close of the last term of his office he sends a Presidential invitation to Lay Fayette, to visit the United States on which account he is denominated the Nations guest, of which the british party has made a most tremendous use clothing him with the most Extravagant Panegyricks in every part of the Union which no modest true democratic Republican could condesend to receive

All this parade and flattery, is predicated upon his revolutionary Services upon which we observe that the revolution presented a suitable Theatre, that suited the ardour and ambition of Youth more especially upon condition of receiving a <Major> Generals commission for Military experience.

Notwithstanding it appears that he has heretofore receved Such remunerations as other officers received, which is all that Justice required to be done. Yet he was made the most important article in the Presidents Message and although he made no legal claim yet, by a process of Legislation he recieves a very large and liberal gift from the nations purse. Let us ask you the reason why it is that our national purse is so easily approached by one of the princes of the blood, and all the whole Scene attended with general Ecclat and noise, when a natural born citizen shall exhaust all his resources at a more more recent period as a liberal Benefactor in his countries cause from pure principal and love of country shall be refused even what is Justly due him. Were is that Magnanimity of his country that he was referred to while she was in danger. Alass it flew as quick as that danger disappeared, and instead of any national gift, or satisfaction for legal claims he was calumniated in the most vilest manner in all parts of the Union. by or with means devoid of all foundation Such is the picture of the Still born administration of James Monroe, He himself ceartainly knew the Merits of the Man. Had he taken half the pains to do Justice to Daniel D. Tompkins as he has done to rewards Lay Fayette unnecessarily he might have been our Republican champion still, and instead of his present repose in the grave enjoying the sweets of domestic life with the rest of his cotemporary citizens and in fine it would have prevented that painfull arrangement of suffering his name to be recorded on the list of public Defaulters and read before his face in the Senate.

This example Shews plainly that this rewarding donation to Lay Fayette is a political contrivance and doth not flow from principal It possibly may be as the british party in the united states covered corruption and intrigue under the Name of Washington so likewise under the Name of Lay Fayette, they may try to perform this Same But we rather consider him in his private Sentiment in favour of a limitted Monarchy which constitutes the ultimate object of the british party in the united States.

Uppon the whole, we conclude, that the present Lay Fayette Eulogy, presents the vilest insult to all the true patriots of the late war. That very party that was most vehement in his praise acted in opposition to the late war and styled themselves the peace party This party did all in their power to bring your administration into total ruin and disgrace How absurd then is it to think that they shall have it in their power to brag among themselves how easely they can decieve and flatter the poor silly democrats. Shall it ever be said that Lay Fayette deserved as Much or more praise and rewards than the champions that stood firm during the late war. What an insult to the feelings of those that took a patriotic part, in repulsing the inveterate foe from our dear bought rights. Shall it ever be that the british party shall reign triumphant, and Yoke us again under the power of Aristocracy,

To conclude, we ask you Sir, Can you receive the visit of this European Sycophant, which will come clothed with all hypocracy of the british party whose main designs is to distroy republican Governments in general and that of the United States in particular. How consious how mistrustfull how Jealous should the partisins for a Republic to be when they have the General cuning of Royalty cooperating among them taking every shape for deception.

This letter sir you can answer or not, as you may think proper: but this Much we will assure you that if you should, it shall never find its way at this day, in any public print, we shall not all sign our Names, at present we wish to act still and quiet, not in public Jornals at present but by private letters

Michael DeGray

RC (DLC). Docketed by JM.