August 23, 2022 • 21 mins
Attorney Robert Fojo has been practicing law for over 17 years and through his own practice was trying to help as many people as possible fight for freedom and stand against covid tyranny. As people's businesses were shut down, and schools tried to muzzle children, Robert stepped up. In doing so, they came after his law license on a small infraction. Now, Attorney Fojo is still fighting for freedom and helping those through his practice but also on his podcast, The Law of Fojo.
Fojo Law
Save your kids from the government run indoctrination camps called public schools and get your kids into a good private Christian school or homeschool. To help out with making sure your kids know the truth about issues and ideas, check out the Tuttle Twins children's books and magazines!
*We may receive a small commission if you use our affiliate link below.
Tuttle Twins
Help your kids learn about liberty and
Subscribe and Follow today:
www.DontTreadOnLiberty.com
All Podcast Platforms
Rumble @LibertyNews
gab tv @ DontTreadOnLiberty
Telegram @DontTreadOnLiberty1
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Intro (00:02):
fighting back against the left's non stop attacks on
liberty, freedom. And America,America. This is don't tread on
liberty. Jason Davis is on theair.
Attorney Robert Fojo (00:16):
Hey, welcome back to don't tread on
liberty. Thanks for being herewith Jason Davis. And we're back
again talking about my favoritetopic, which is the hoax. That
is COVID-19. So today, ourspecial guest is an attorney.
He's been an attorney for over17 years. And He's filed
(00:37):
numerous actions against massmandates and other things in the
state of New Hampshire. So let'sbring him in. Attorney Robert fo
is here, counselor, thanks forbeing here. How are you?
I'm good. Jason, thank you forhaving me. Of course,
have thanks for being head. Soyou've been an attorney a while
right, you have your ownpractice. I'm really interested.
(01:01):
When this whole thing started acouple of years ago, the 15 days
to slow the spread and all that.
How did you you know, when didit all kind of come together for
you? When did you kind of figurethat something wasn't quite
right. I mean, how did you kindof get involved with the
movement?
Well, personally, I realizedthat something was off when we
saw the numbers coming in fromItaly. And any intelligent
(01:25):
person could would haveconcluded based on those numbers
that essentially the elderly,unfortunately, we're dropping
like flies. But if you wereunder that 65 Age threshold, you
were generally fine. Thegovernment had the same
information. And then we startedthese lockdowns, 15 days of slow
the spread of in state startedcoming in with their various
(01:46):
forms of restrictions. And Ilooked at and said, Well hold
on. There's no real basis fordoing this. There's no need for
doing it. And then, as governorsand mayors were invoking these
emergency powers, then I knewsomething was really off,
because I felt that thosestatutes and those emergency
powers were being abused. Andthey were being used for
purposes for which they were notintended those statutes. Those
(02:10):
types of powers are generallymeant for true emergencies think
a hurricane hitting Florida, thegovernor invokes a state of
emergency to access federalresources and such. That's what
those statutes are for not forthe so called pandemic that we
had and for shutting down wholeswaths of the economy. That's
that's not what those statuteswere for. So those two, those
(02:33):
two issues were prompted me toreally conclude that something
was off. And then I got involvedwith Facebook groups, that
people were talking about thiskind of thing. And I raised
these legal issues. Someonecontacted me. She was a
hairdresser with a business inNew Hampshire, and her business
was shut down, obviously. Andshe wanted to challenge the
emergency, the state ofemergency declaration and the
(02:54):
emergency order that closed downall businesses, and that's how
everything got started. And westarted rolling
out the meeting that peopledidn't want their businesses
shut down. I mean, that's kindof odd, right? I mean, God,
right.
Who would have thought thatpeople wouldn't would not have
been okay with just voluntarilyshutting their businesses down
in the name of public safety?
Yeah, there's just generally,it's just a it's a huge
(03:17):
constitutional issue. I'm reallysurprised that the courts and
from what I'm understanding, youknow, I talked to Attorney
Thomas Rennes the other day, I'msure you probably know who that
is. But, you know, Attorneyrands was kind of explaining to
me there was a huge PR campaignthat was perpetrated, not only
(03:37):
against the public, but alsoagainst the courts and the
judiciary in particular,essentially, trying to scare
them the same way they've triedto scare the public into
compliance. But I'm reallysurprised that more judges have
not come out against this. Imean, you cannot deprive
somebody of their life or theirliberty or their pursuit of
(04:00):
happiness. I mean, you can'ttake property even with eminent
domain, you can't take propertyfrom someone without just
compensation. Right. So I don'tknow how they are able to close
a business, depriving someone oftheir livelihood with no
compensation. I mean, what areyour thoughts on that?
(04:20):
I always believe that thataction, closing down forcing
someone to close down theirbusiness and depriving them of
the economic value of theirbusiness is certainly a
violation of one'sconstitutional rights. There is
case law on the books that holdsthat that is that constitutes a
violation of one's rights. Iforget the case at the top my
(04:43):
head but I know that manybusiness owners that I was
talking to at the time werecontemplating taking in
challenging the businessclosures on that basis, but then
obviously, businesses opened upbut that is certainly a valid
argument, in my opinion, becausethere is United States Supreme
Court case law on point thatthat is a deprivation of one's
value of the value of one'sessentially, property. But it's
(05:04):
a business the economic value ofone's business.
Yeah. And you know what, thelast time I checked, there was
no pandemic exception in theUnited States Constitution. That
you would get all these rightsunless there's a pandemic.
Right.
Right. And one of the firstdecisions that came down was the
(05:25):
one from North Carolina was afederal court decision that
invalidated the gathering limitsin the state. And one of the
lines from that decision thatthe judge wrote, and I think it
was beautifully crafted was thatthere is no pandemic exception
to the Constitution, thoserights exist. There's no
exception that eliminates themin the name of an of an
(05:46):
emergency under the guise ofpublic safety, those rights
exist, and they're there toguide us precisely in these
types of times.
I agree. And there's even caselaw that says, if any law rule
is made that's in contrary tothe Constitution, it doesn't
need to be obeyed. There'sSupreme Court case law on that,
(06:08):
as well. So I'm with you onthat. So I mean, a lot of your
cases then revolved around theclosing of businesses and what
from what I understand the maskmandates Correct.
I started off with the firstgroup of cases I handled
challenge the state of emergencydeclaration in the governor of
(06:28):
New Hampshire is perpetualextensions of that declaration.
I also challenged the statewideschool closures. And then I
began challenging various typesof mass mandates ranging from
municipal, which are city ortown mass mandates. And then I
moved on to school district massmandates, and now I'm dealing
with a vaccine mandate lawsuitin Massachusetts. So the
(06:51):
majority of the cases that Ihandled Yes, challenged mass
mandates by school districts.
So tell me about that. I mean,what kind of success have you
had or what's the status onthese cases.
But for the first two schooldistricts mass mandate, lawsuits
that we filed, those were at thetail end of the school year,
(07:11):
immediately upon filing them,the school districts withdrew
their mass mandate. But then aswe got into the fall 2021, I
filed a whole slew of them,because they decided that we
implement these mandates. Andjudges for the most part, as you
alluded to earlier, we're veryhesitant to chip away at these
restrictions. I don't obviouslycan't speculate as to why but
(07:32):
you have to consider these areinsulated individuals. This is
the CNN MSNBC watching. Facebookloves surfing crowd. So they
truly believe that there is thishighly deadly virus out there.
And if they somehow rescindedone of these mask mandates they
were going to be responsible forGod knows how many deaths due to
(07:54):
COVID. And we all know that thatwasn't true. But they operated
with that apprehension. So Iconstantly went up against that.
And I heard the same coming fromeven the Supreme Court justices
during the CMS and OSHA hearingsthat were being argued in front
of the SCOTUS. They're askingquestions like, you know, how
(08:18):
many people are going to die? Imean, look, their job is not to
determine what a public safetypolicy is, or how many people
are going to be hurt their jobis determined if this is
constitutional or not. I mean,that's it. And none of them are
asking questions revolvingaround the Constitution, I find
that pretty troubling. Sure, goahead. Yeah, go ahead.
(08:40):
No, what I was gonna say is thequestions that we heard from
those oral arguments for inparticular demonstrated the
ignorance that some of thesejudges have, when it came to
this virus to the statistics tocase counts to who was actually
dying from this thing. It reallydemonstrated how little they
knew about this virus, and manyof those questions and many of
their decisions often derivedfrom an emotional response to
(09:05):
what they believe to be anactual pandemic that was killing
many, many people when we knowthat that wasn't true.
Sure, no, that's obvious. But mypoint is, is that, for them,
it's irrelevant. Their job isnot all of that stuff to them in
their role is irrelevant tothem. It should be their job is
only to determine if that ruleor that law is constitutional.
(09:30):
That generally is true. You'reright, especially, that's one of
the reasons. One of theapproaches I took with a lot of
the cases that I handled was Itried to make not to make it
about masks or COVID. Ichallenge for example, the
authority of a school district,do they have the authority in
their in their governingstatutes to implement a mask
(09:50):
mandate? And the answer is no.
That decision on Monday that wesaw from that Florida federal
court and validating the thetravel mask mandate was based on
that same Same reasoning, thereis nothing in the Public Health
Services Act. That's a federallaw that the CDC used or relied
on to issue this mass mandate.
There's nothing in that law thatgives them the authority to do
(10:10):
that. So the approach that Itook in a lot of these cases,
and this is builds on the pointthat you're making, is, it's not
about maths, it's not aboutCOVID, that stuff is irrelevant.
You're just your job is todecide whether or not this
statute allows this institutionto do X. And the answer's no.
Yeah. And that's, you know, whatwe would call the strict letter
(10:32):
of the law. I would also I wouldalso say that the judge, you
know, in this ruling on Monday,finally, for the air travel and
all that, the judge actuallysaid, this is blatantly
unconstitutional. I mean, it waseven more than a legal issue. I
think she was getting at theheart of it, which is it's just
(10:54):
not constitutional period. And,you know, we'll see how long it
lasts, I'm sure it'll beappealed, and some other
communist judge will overturnit. But, you know, for now,
people can actually breathe outan airplane today. Thank
goodness. Now, I'm assuming whenyou filed these these actions
(11:15):
against these school districtsthat you had put in there, the
evidence from the CDC itself,that had published 18 studies on
its own website prior to themask mandate, basically saying
that masks don't work. Right?
Well, in many of these cases, Iactually retained experts to
(11:38):
opine on the efficacy of masks.
And whether or not masksactually did more harm than
good. These experts providedaffidavits that cited to various
studies, I cited to many, manystudies and complaints that
demonstrated that very point,these masks did very little, if
anything at all, to curb thespread of COVID 19. But
unfortunately, judges oftenignored the evidence.
(12:03):
It's unbelievable. I mean, Imean, you have the three
different branches ofgovernment. And you know, their
branch is for one purpose only.
And now they're waiting intobeing a politician or something,
I can't figure this out. So whenyou when you started filing all
these actions, I now then Iunderstand that all of a sudden,
(12:28):
they came and suspended yourlicense.
That's right. There was acomplaint that was filed by by a
client. And while there was amistake that I did make with my
books early last year, theyweaponized that complaint, and
essentially admitted to me inclosed door meetings that they
(12:50):
actions and the work that I wasdoing, they use that essentially
as a mode as a motive toaggressively pursue the
suspension of my license.
It doesn't surprise me one bit.
You know, anybody we have caseafter case after case, any
doctor that's been prescribingivermectin off label or
whatever, you know, they'recoming for doctors licenses.
(13:11):
I've seen them come forattorneys licenses, in other
instances and other places. Itdoesn't surprise me one bit. But
it's kind of funny that you'rethe only attorney I think, from
what I can tell, in my researchin the state of New Hampshire
that tried to stand up againstany of this stuff, and you're
the only attorney that losttheir license. So I think it's
(13:34):
kind of funny.
I tried New Hampshire,Massachusetts, Vermont, Florida,
I've had I've cases in all ofthose states, I'm the only
attorney in this region, who waspursuing these challenges and
representing clients in thesecases. And yes, I mean, you've
heard, they're usually otherattorneys who get their licenses
(13:54):
suspended for this or that, butthe conduct that they're using
as a basis to suspend my licenseis usually something that merits
a reprimand or something less,not the outright suspension of
one's license, and more so on asummary basis without due
process.
Totally ridiculous. Now, do youhave any idea of how long that
will last? Or is it justindefinitely? Or what is that
(14:18):
it's, it's in place for theduration of the disciplinary
proceeding, I'm still licensedin in Massachusetts and Florida.
Massachusetts is now attemptingto invoke the or impose the same
reciprocal discipline. So I'mchallenging that I'm laying
other legal options to see howto proceed but the the story
(14:39):
isn't over.
Yeah. Well, I wish you the bestof luck with that. So let's talk
about your podcast, which is thelaw info. So you started to show
you're talking about all kindsof not just COVID stuff, but all
kinds of different politicalissues of the day. Tell me about
that. How Jake, how'd you getstarted?
(15:02):
Well, I started the podcast inNovember of 2020, during the
election cycle, and I kind ofput it to rest when all of the
the COVID cases picked up in2021, I got very busy. But then
I revived that last fall.
Generally I focus on legal andpolitical issues. From a
conservative perspective, one ofthe things that jumped out at me
when I was doing all of theseCOVID cases is that parents and
(15:22):
other citizens would come to meand they would express the fact
that they knew something waswrong with what these government
institutions were doing,particularly with the mass
mandates, with the schoolclosures, and so on so forth.
They knew something was wrong,but they didn't know how to
explain they didn't know how toarticulate what was wrong.
(15:44):
I think that there's anopportunity to help people
understand many of these issues,a lot of this stuff is rooted in
the law, a lot of the ways thatyou can explain what the
government was doing that waswrong, can be explained and
should be explained from a legalperspective. People, a lot of
people just don't understandwhat they taught us and civics
what they should have taught usin civics, one on one in eighth
grade, and that is the variousseparation of powers how these
(16:07):
government institutions aresupposed to govern the fact that
our rights come from nature, notfrom government, and the fact
that government exists for thepurpose of protecting those
rights. So I try to touch on allof these concepts in my podcast,
depending on the issue or topicof the day that comes in. Yeah,
and you're doing you do like ashow once a week, or what's your
(16:28):
frequency? It's about twice aweek at this point. So we just
go with the flow, whateverorganically comes up, I usually
try and cover that and andpublish it. Now, last question,
you you went to Harvard Law,right? Yes. Okay. So I because
you know, Harvard isthe best school, arguably, on
(16:50):
the planet, and all the topattorneys go there, and all of
that sort of thing, Ivy Leagueand everything else. But you
just touched on something. Andso I'm really curious. So at
Harvard Law, how much time didthey spend teaching you about
constitutional principles? Orwas it all just about case law
(17:10):
and things like that?
Well, you are required to takeconstitutional law, that's
usually in your second year,there was another course
offered, I believe it's anelective in your third year that
you can take that it wasn't forevery year that focused on the
history of the Constitution andthe founding of the country. But
everyone's required to takecommon law. Now common law, the
(17:32):
one that I took was taught byLawrence tribe, Larry tribe, he
is one of the preeminent legal,constitutional legal minds in
the world, really. And he wasactually rumored to be nominated
to the Supreme Court had Al Goreone all the way back then in
2000. So obviously, Bush won,and he was not but tribe is a
(17:53):
liberal, many of the professorsat Harvard are liberal, much of
the student body is liberal. Sowhile you do learn the
Constitution, you do learn thethe fundamental legal principles
embedded in the Constitution.
And you do read case law thatinterprets and analyzes many of
those provisions in theConstitution. A lot of it is
done from a league a liberalperspective, and it is done. And
(18:16):
it is taught from that, fromthat viewpoint, so it's very
difficult to focus on thoseissues the way I would like to
focus on them the way otherconservatives would like to
focus on them. But it is taughtit's just taught from a
different, different angle thanyou and I would
agree with, yeah, the livingdocument, right.
(18:38):
It's not yet exactly it'sthought to be living. We do
focus on any of the key that thefamous cases that that had been
decided by the Supreme Court,but it's Yeah, many of these
professors believe it's a livingdocument. It's an evolving
document. And many of thestudents believe the same thing.
Yeah.
And from what I can tell, in alot of these universities, they
(18:58):
would just assume knock out theConstitution completely. They
don't really like the fact thatthere's something that hinders
the government's power, or atleast should, at one point in
time did I don't know if we'reat there anymore. I think
they've kind of marginalized theConstitution largely. But
hopefully, we can restore that.
So the live photo twice a week,photo lab.com is the website
(19:23):
counselor of filho.com. Love.
Oh, sorry about that. Okay,counselor, we really appreciate
your time. And best of luck toyou. Thank you.
My pleasure. Thanks for havingme.
Intro (19:38):
Thanks for listening to don't tread on liberty with
Jason Davis. Subscribe on GooglePlay iTunes, or your favorite
platform. For more liberty news,check out www dot don't tread on
liberty.com And subscribe to theblog or join the conversation
fighting back against the left's non stop attacks on
liberty, freedom. And America,America. This is don't tread on
liberty. Jason Davis is on theair.
Attorney Robert Fojo (00:16):
Hey, welcome back to don't tread on
liberty. Thanks for being herewith Jason Davis. And we're back
again talking about my favoritetopic, which is the hoax. That
is COVID-19. So today, ourspecial guest is an attorney.
He's been an attorney for over17 years. And He's filed
(00:37):
numerous actions against massmandates and other things in the
state of New Hampshire. So let'sbring him in. Attorney Robert fo
is here, counselor, thanks forbeing here. How are you?
I'm good. Jason, thank you forhaving me. Of course,
have thanks for being head. Soyou've been an attorney a while
right, you have your ownpractice. I'm really interested.
(01:01):
When this whole thing started acouple of years ago, the 15 days
to slow the spread and all that.
How did you you know, when didit all kind of come together for
you? When did you kind of figurethat something wasn't quite
right. I mean, how did you kindof get involved with the
movement?
Well, personally, I realizedthat something was off when we
saw the numbers coming in fromItaly. And any intelligent
(01:25):
person could would haveconcluded based on those numbers
that essentially the elderly,unfortunately, we're dropping
like flies. But if you wereunder that 65 Age threshold, you
were generally fine. Thegovernment had the same
information. And then we startedthese lockdowns, 15 days of slow
the spread of in state startedcoming in with their various
(01:46):
forms of restrictions. And Ilooked at and said, Well hold
on. There's no real basis fordoing this. There's no need for
doing it. And then, as governorsand mayors were invoking these
emergency powers, then I knewsomething was really off,
because I felt that thosestatutes and those emergency
powers were being abused. Andthey were being used for
purposes for which they were notintended those statutes. Those
(02:10):
types of powers are generallymeant for true emergencies think
a hurricane hitting Florida, thegovernor invokes a state of
emergency to access federalresources and such. That's what
those statutes are for not forthe so called pandemic that we
had and for shutting down wholeswaths of the economy. That's
that's not what those statuteswere for. So those two, those
(02:33):
two issues were prompted me toreally conclude that something
was off. And then I got involvedwith Facebook groups, that
people were talking about thiskind of thing. And I raised
these legal issues. Someonecontacted me. She was a
hairdresser with a business inNew Hampshire, and her business
was shut down, obviously. Andshe wanted to challenge the
emergency, the state ofemergency declaration and the
(02:54):
emergency order that closed downall businesses, and that's how
everything got started. And westarted rolling
out the meeting that peopledidn't want their businesses
shut down. I mean, that's kindof odd, right? I mean, God,
right.
Who would have thought thatpeople wouldn't would not have
been okay with just voluntarilyshutting their businesses down
in the name of public safety?
Yeah, there's just generally,it's just a it's a huge
(03:17):
constitutional issue. I'm reallysurprised that the courts and
from what I'm understanding, youknow, I talked to Attorney
Thomas Rennes the other day, I'msure you probably know who that
is. But, you know, Attorneyrands was kind of explaining to
me there was a huge PR campaignthat was perpetrated, not only
(03:37):
against the public, but alsoagainst the courts and the
judiciary in particular,essentially, trying to scare
them the same way they've triedto scare the public into
compliance. But I'm reallysurprised that more judges have
not come out against this. Imean, you cannot deprive
somebody of their life or theirliberty or their pursuit of
(04:00):
happiness. I mean, you can'ttake property even with eminent
domain, you can't take propertyfrom someone without just
compensation. Right. So I don'tknow how they are able to close
a business, depriving someone oftheir livelihood with no
compensation. I mean, what areyour thoughts on that?
(04:20):
I always believe that thataction, closing down forcing
someone to close down theirbusiness and depriving them of
the economic value of theirbusiness is certainly a
violation of one'sconstitutional rights. There is
case law on the books that holdsthat that is that constitutes a
violation of one's rights. Iforget the case at the top my
(04:43):
head but I know that manybusiness owners that I was
talking to at the time werecontemplating taking in
challenging the businessclosures on that basis, but then
obviously, businesses opened upbut that is certainly a valid
argument, in my opinion, becausethere is United States Supreme
Court case law on point thatthat is a deprivation of one's
value of the value of one'sessentially, property. But it's
(05:04):
a business the economic value ofone's business.
Yeah. And you know what, thelast time I checked, there was
no pandemic exception in theUnited States Constitution. That
you would get all these rightsunless there's a pandemic.
Right.
Right. And one of the firstdecisions that came down was the
(05:25):
one from North Carolina was afederal court decision that
invalidated the gathering limitsin the state. And one of the
lines from that decision thatthe judge wrote, and I think it
was beautifully crafted was thatthere is no pandemic exception
to the Constitution, thoserights exist. There's no
exception that eliminates themin the name of an of an
(05:46):
emergency under the guise ofpublic safety, those rights
exist, and they're there toguide us precisely in these
types of times.
I agree. And there's even caselaw that says, if any law rule
is made that's in contrary tothe Constitution, it doesn't
need to be obeyed. There'sSupreme Court case law on that,
(06:08):
as well. So I'm with you onthat. So I mean, a lot of your
cases then revolved around theclosing of businesses and what
from what I understand the maskmandates Correct.
I started off with the firstgroup of cases I handled
challenge the state of emergencydeclaration in the governor of
(06:28):
New Hampshire is perpetualextensions of that declaration.
I also challenged the statewideschool closures. And then I
began challenging various typesof mass mandates ranging from
municipal, which are city ortown mass mandates. And then I
moved on to school district massmandates, and now I'm dealing
with a vaccine mandate lawsuitin Massachusetts. So the
(06:51):
majority of the cases that Ihandled Yes, challenged mass
mandates by school districts.
So tell me about that. I mean,what kind of success have you
had or what's the status onthese cases.
But for the first two schooldistricts mass mandate, lawsuits
that we filed, those were at thetail end of the school year,
(07:11):
immediately upon filing them,the school districts withdrew
their mass mandate. But then aswe got into the fall 2021, I
filed a whole slew of them,because they decided that we
implement these mandates. Andjudges for the most part, as you
alluded to earlier, we're veryhesitant to chip away at these
restrictions. I don't obviouslycan't speculate as to why but
(07:32):
you have to consider these areinsulated individuals. This is
the CNN MSNBC watching. Facebookloves surfing crowd. So they
truly believe that there is thishighly deadly virus out there.
And if they somehow rescindedone of these mask mandates they
were going to be responsible forGod knows how many deaths due to
(07:54):
COVID. And we all know that thatwasn't true. But they operated
with that apprehension. So Iconstantly went up against that.
And I heard the same coming fromeven the Supreme Court justices
during the CMS and OSHA hearingsthat were being argued in front
of the SCOTUS. They're askingquestions like, you know, how
(08:18):
many people are going to die? Imean, look, their job is not to
determine what a public safetypolicy is, or how many people
are going to be hurt their jobis determined if this is
constitutional or not. I mean,that's it. And none of them are
asking questions revolvingaround the Constitution, I find
that pretty troubling. Sure, goahead. Yeah, go ahead.
(08:40):
No, what I was gonna say is thequestions that we heard from
those oral arguments for inparticular demonstrated the
ignorance that some of thesejudges have, when it came to
this virus to the statistics tocase counts to who was actually
dying from this thing. It reallydemonstrated how little they
knew about this virus, and manyof those questions and many of
their decisions often derivedfrom an emotional response to
(09:05):
what they believe to be anactual pandemic that was killing
many, many people when we knowthat that wasn't true.
Sure, no, that's obvious. But mypoint is, is that, for them,
it's irrelevant. Their job isnot all of that stuff to them in
their role is irrelevant tothem. It should be their job is
only to determine if that ruleor that law is constitutional.
(09:30):
That generally is true. You'reright, especially, that's one of
the reasons. One of theapproaches I took with a lot of
the cases that I handled was Itried to make not to make it
about masks or COVID. Ichallenge for example, the
authority of a school district,do they have the authority in
their in their governingstatutes to implement a mask
(09:50):
mandate? And the answer is no.
That decision on Monday that wesaw from that Florida federal
court and validating the thetravel mask mandate was based on
that same Same reasoning, thereis nothing in the Public Health
Services Act. That's a federallaw that the CDC used or relied
on to issue this mass mandate.
There's nothing in that law thatgives them the authority to do
(10:10):
that. So the approach that Itook in a lot of these cases,
and this is builds on the pointthat you're making, is, it's not
about maths, it's not aboutCOVID, that stuff is irrelevant.
You're just your job is todecide whether or not this
statute allows this institutionto do X. And the answer's no.
Yeah. And that's, you know, whatwe would call the strict letter
(10:32):
of the law. I would also I wouldalso say that the judge, you
know, in this ruling on Monday,finally, for the air travel and
all that, the judge actuallysaid, this is blatantly
unconstitutional. I mean, it waseven more than a legal issue. I
think she was getting at theheart of it, which is it's just
(10:54):
not constitutional period. And,you know, we'll see how long it
lasts, I'm sure it'll beappealed, and some other
communist judge will overturnit. But, you know, for now,
people can actually breathe outan airplane today. Thank
goodness. Now, I'm assuming whenyou filed these these actions
(11:15):
against these school districtsthat you had put in there, the
evidence from the CDC itself,that had published 18 studies on
its own website prior to themask mandate, basically saying
that masks don't work. Right?
Well, in many of these cases, Iactually retained experts to
(11:38):
opine on the efficacy of masks.
And whether or not masksactually did more harm than
good. These experts providedaffidavits that cited to various
studies, I cited to many, manystudies and complaints that
demonstrated that very point,these masks did very little, if
anything at all, to curb thespread of COVID 19. But
unfortunately, judges oftenignored the evidence.
(12:03):
It's unbelievable. I mean, Imean, you have the three
different branches ofgovernment. And you know, their
branch is for one purpose only.
And now they're waiting intobeing a politician or something,
I can't figure this out. So whenyou when you started filing all
these actions, I now then Iunderstand that all of a sudden,
(12:28):
they came and suspended yourlicense.
That's right. There was acomplaint that was filed by by a
client. And while there was amistake that I did make with my
books early last year, theyweaponized that complaint, and
essentially admitted to me inclosed door meetings that they
(12:50):
actions and the work that I wasdoing, they use that essentially
as a mode as a motive toaggressively pursue the
suspension of my license.
It doesn't surprise me one bit.
You know, anybody we have caseafter case after case, any
doctor that's been prescribingivermectin off label or
whatever, you know, they'recoming for doctors licenses.
(13:11):
I've seen them come forattorneys licenses, in other
instances and other places. Itdoesn't surprise me one bit. But
it's kind of funny that you'rethe only attorney I think, from
what I can tell, in my researchin the state of New Hampshire
that tried to stand up againstany of this stuff, and you're
the only attorney that losttheir license. So I think it's
(13:34):
kind of funny.
I tried New Hampshire,Massachusetts, Vermont, Florida,
I've had I've cases in all ofthose states, I'm the only
attorney in this region, who waspursuing these challenges and
representing clients in thesecases. And yes, I mean, you've
heard, they're usually otherattorneys who get their licenses
(13:54):
suspended for this or that, butthe conduct that they're using
as a basis to suspend my licenseis usually something that merits
a reprimand or something less,not the outright suspension of
one's license, and more so on asummary basis without due
process.
Totally ridiculous. Now, do youhave any idea of how long that
will last? Or is it justindefinitely? Or what is that
(14:18):
it's, it's in place for theduration of the disciplinary
proceeding, I'm still licensedin in Massachusetts and Florida.
Massachusetts is now attemptingto invoke the or impose the same
reciprocal discipline. So I'mchallenging that I'm laying
other legal options to see howto proceed but the the story
(14:39):
isn't over.
Yeah. Well, I wish you the bestof luck with that. So let's talk
about your podcast, which is thelaw info. So you started to show
you're talking about all kindsof not just COVID stuff, but all
kinds of different politicalissues of the day. Tell me about
that. How Jake, how'd you getstarted?
(15:02):
Well, I started the podcast inNovember of 2020, during the
election cycle, and I kind ofput it to rest when all of the
the COVID cases picked up in2021, I got very busy. But then
I revived that last fall.
Generally I focus on legal andpolitical issues. From a
conservative perspective, one ofthe things that jumped out at me
when I was doing all of theseCOVID cases is that parents and
(15:22):
other citizens would come to meand they would express the fact
that they knew something waswrong with what these government
institutions were doing,particularly with the mass
mandates, with the schoolclosures, and so on so forth.
They knew something was wrong,but they didn't know how to
explain they didn't know how toarticulate what was wrong.
(15:44):
I think that there's anopportunity to help people
understand many of these issues,a lot of this stuff is rooted in
the law, a lot of the ways thatyou can explain what the
government was doing that waswrong, can be explained and
should be explained from a legalperspective. People, a lot of
people just don't understandwhat they taught us and civics
what they should have taught usin civics, one on one in eighth
grade, and that is the variousseparation of powers how these
(16:07):
government institutions aresupposed to govern the fact that
our rights come from nature, notfrom government, and the fact
that government exists for thepurpose of protecting those
rights. So I try to touch on allof these concepts in my podcast,
depending on the issue or topicof the day that comes in. Yeah,
and you're doing you do like ashow once a week, or what's your
(16:28):
frequency? It's about twice aweek at this point. So we just
go with the flow, whateverorganically comes up, I usually
try and cover that and andpublish it. Now, last question,
you you went to Harvard Law,right? Yes. Okay. So I because
you know, Harvard isthe best school, arguably, on
(16:50):
the planet, and all the topattorneys go there, and all of
that sort of thing, Ivy Leagueand everything else. But you
just touched on something. Andso I'm really curious. So at
Harvard Law, how much time didthey spend teaching you about
constitutional principles? Orwas it all just about case law
(17:10):
and things like that?
Well, you are required to takeconstitutional law, that's
usually in your second year,there was another course
offered, I believe it's anelective in your third year that
you can take that it wasn't forevery year that focused on the
history of the Constitution andthe founding of the country. But
everyone's required to takecommon law. Now common law, the
(17:32):
one that I took was taught byLawrence tribe, Larry tribe, he
is one of the preeminent legal,constitutional legal minds in
the world, really. And he wasactually rumored to be nominated
to the Supreme Court had Al Goreone all the way back then in
2000. So obviously, Bush won,and he was not but tribe is a
(17:53):
liberal, many of the professorsat Harvard are liberal, much of
the student body is liberal. Sowhile you do learn the
Constitution, you do learn thethe fundamental legal principles
embedded in the Constitution.
And you do read case law thatinterprets and analyzes many of
those provisions in theConstitution. A lot of it is
done from a league a liberalperspective, and it is done. And
(18:16):
it is taught from that, fromthat viewpoint, so it's very
difficult to focus on thoseissues the way I would like to
focus on them the way otherconservatives would like to
focus on them. But it is taughtit's just taught from a
different, different angle thanyou and I would
agree with, yeah, the livingdocument, right.
(18:38):
It's not yet exactly it'sthought to be living. We do
focus on any of the key that thefamous cases that that had been
decided by the Supreme Court,but it's Yeah, many of these
professors believe it's a livingdocument. It's an evolving
document. And many of thestudents believe the same thing.
Yeah.
And from what I can tell, in alot of these universities, they
(18:58):
would just assume knock out theConstitution completely. They
don't really like the fact thatthere's something that hinders
the government's power, or atleast should, at one point in
time did I don't know if we'reat there anymore. I think
they've kind of marginalized theConstitution largely. But
hopefully, we can restore that.
So the live photo twice a week,photo lab.com is the website
(19:23):
counselor of filho.com. Love.
Oh, sorry about that. Okay,counselor, we really appreciate
your time. And best of luck toyou. Thank you.
My pleasure. Thanks for havingme.
Intro (19:38):
Thanks for listening to don't tread on liberty with
Jason Davis. Subscribe on GooglePlay iTunes, or your favorite
platform. For more liberty news,check out www dot don't tread on
liberty.com And subscribe to theblog or join the conversation
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!