Fighting Tyranny and Restoring Freedom

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

Transcript

Intro: 1:12

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 the air.

Attorney Robert Fojo: 1:25

Hey, welcome back to don't tread on liberty. Thanks for being here with Jason Davis. And we're back again talking about my favorite topic, which is the hoax. That is COVID-19. So today, our special guest is an attorney. He's been an attorney for over 17 years. And He's filed numerous actions against mass mandates and other things in the state of New Hampshire. So let's bring him in. Attorney Robert fo is here, counselor, thanks for being here. How are you? I'm good. Jason, thank you for having me. Of course, have thanks for being head. So you've been an attorney a while right, you have your own practice. I'm really interested. When this whole thing started a couple of years ago, the 15 days to slow the spread and all that. How did you you know, when did it all kind of come together for you? When did you kind of figure that something wasn't quite right. I mean, how did you kind of get involved with the movement? Well, personally, I realized that something was off when we saw the numbers coming in from Italy. And any intelligent person could would have concluded based on those numbers that essentially the elderly, unfortunately, we're dropping like flies. But if you were under that 65 Age threshold, you were generally fine. The government had the same information. And then we started these lockdowns, 15 days of slow the spread of in state started coming in with their various forms of restrictions. And I looked at and said, Well hold on. There's no real basis for doing this. There's no need for doing it. And then, as governors and mayors were invoking these emergency powers, then I knew something was really off, because I felt that those statutes and those emergency powers were being abused. And they were being used for purposes for which they were not intended those statutes. Those types of powers are generally meant for true emergencies think a hurricane hitting Florida, the governor invokes a state of emergency to access federal resources and such. That's what those statutes are for not for the so called pandemic that we had and for shutting down whole swaths of the economy. That's that's not what those statutes were for. So those two, those two issues were prompted me to really conclude that something was off. And then I got involved with Facebook groups, that people were talking about this kind of thing. And I raised these legal issues. Someone contacted me. She was a hairdresser with a business in New Hampshire, and her business was shut down, obviously. And she wanted to challenge the emergency, the state of emergency declaration and the emergency order that closed down all businesses, and that's how everything got started. And we started rolling out the meeting that people didn't want their businesses shut down. I mean, that's kind of odd, right? I mean, God, right. Who would have thought that people wouldn't would not have been okay with just voluntarily shutting their businesses down in the name of public safety? Yeah, there's just generally, it's just a it's a huge constitutional issue. I'm really surprised that the courts and from what I'm understanding, you know, I talked to Attorney Thomas Rennes the other day, I'm sure you probably know who that is. But, you know, Attorney rands was kind of explaining to me there was a huge PR campaign that was perpetrated, not only against the public, but also against the courts and the judiciary in particular, essentially, trying to scare them the same way they've tried to scare the public into compliance. But I'm really surprised that more judges have not come out against this. I mean, you cannot deprive somebody of their life or their liberty or their pursuit of happiness. I mean, you can't take property even with eminent domain, you can't take property from someone without just compensation. Right. So I don't know how they are able to close a business, depriving someone of their livelihood with no compensation. I mean, what are your thoughts on that? I always believe that that action, closing down forcing someone to close down their business and depriving them of the economic value of their business is certainly a violation of one's constitutional rights. There is case law on the books that holds that that is that constitutes a violation of one's rights. I forget the case at the top my head but I know that many business owners that I was talking to at the time were contemplating taking in challenging the business closures on that basis, but then obviously, businesses opened up but that is certainly a valid argument, in my opinion, because there is United States Supreme Court case law on point that that is a deprivation of one's value of the value of one's essentially, property. But it's a business the economic value of one's business. Yeah. And you know what, the last time I checked, there was no pandemic exception in the United States Constitution. That you would get all these rights unless there's a pandemic. Right. Right. And one of the first decisions that came down was the one from North Carolina was a federal court decision that invalidated the gathering limits in the state. And one of the lines from that decision that the judge wrote, and I think it was beautifully crafted was that there is no pandemic exception to the Constitution, those rights exist. There's no exception that eliminates them in the name of an of an emergency under the guise of public safety, those rights exist, and they're there to guide us precisely in these types of times. I agree. And there's even case law that says, if any law rule is made that's in contrary to the Constitution, it doesn't need to be obeyed. There's Supreme Court case law on that, as well. So I'm with you on that. So I mean, a lot of your cases then revolved around the closing of businesses and what from what I understand the mask mandates Correct. I started off with the first group of cases I handled challenge the state of emergency declaration in the governor of New Hampshire is perpetual extensions of that declaration. I also challenged the statewide school closures. And then I began challenging various types of mass mandates ranging from municipal, which are city or town mass mandates. And then I moved on to school district mass mandates, and now I'm dealing with a vaccine mandate lawsuit in Massachusetts. So the majority of the cases that I handled 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 on these cases. But for the first two school districts mass mandate, lawsuits that we filed, those were at the tail end of the school year, immediately upon filing them, the school districts withdrew their mass mandate. But then as we got into the fall 2021, I filed a whole slew of them, because they decided that we implement these mandates. And judges for the most part, as you alluded to earlier, we're very hesitant to chip away at these restrictions. I don't obviously can't speculate as to why but you have to consider these are insulated individuals. This is the CNN MSNBC watching. Facebook loves surfing crowd. So they truly believe that there is this highly deadly virus out there. And if they somehow rescinded one of these mask mandates they were going to be responsible for God knows how many deaths due to COVID. And we all know that that wasn't true. But they operated with that apprehension. So I constantly went up against that. And I heard the same coming from even the Supreme Court justices during the CMS and OSHA hearings that were being argued in front of the SCOTUS. They're asking questions like, you know, how many people are going to die? I mean, look, their job is not to determine what a public safety policy is, or how many people are going to be hurt their job is determined if this is constitutional or not. I mean, that's it. And none of them are asking questions revolving around the Constitution, I find that pretty troubling. Sure, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. No, what I was gonna say is the questions that we heard from those oral arguments for in particular demonstrated the ignorance that some of these judges have, when it came to this virus to the statistics to case counts to who was actually dying from this thing. It really demonstrated how little they knew about this virus, and many of those questions and many of their decisions often derived from an emotional response to what they believe to be an actual pandemic that was killing many, many people when we know that that wasn't true. Sure, no, that's obvious. But my point is, is that, for them, it's irrelevant. Their job is not all of that stuff to them in their role is irrelevant to them. It should be their job is only to determine if that rule or that law is constitutional. That generally is true. You're right, especially, that's one of the reasons. One of the approaches I took with a lot of the cases that I handled was I tried to make not to make it about masks or COVID. I challenge for example, the authority of a school district, do they have the authority in their in their governing statutes to implement a mask mandate? And the answer is no. That decision on Monday that we saw from that Florida federal court and validating the the travel mask mandate was based on that same Same reasoning, there is nothing in the Public Health Services Act. That's a federal law that the CDC used or relied on to issue this mass mandate. There's nothing in that law that gives them the authority to do that. So the approach that I took in a lot of these cases, and this is builds on the point that you're making, is, it's not about maths, it's not about COVID, that stuff is irrelevant. You're just your job is to decide whether or not this statute allows this institution to do X. And the answer's no. Yeah. And that's, you know, what we would call the strict letter of the law. I would also I would also say that the judge, you know, in this ruling on Monday, finally, for the air travel and all that, the judge actually said, this is blatantly unconstitutional. I mean, it was even more than a legal issue. I think she was getting at the heart of it, which is it's just not constitutional period. And, you know, we'll see how long it lasts, I'm sure it'll be appealed, and some other communist judge will overturn it. But, you know, for now, people can actually breathe out an airplane today. Thank goodness. Now, I'm assuming when you filed these these actions against these school districts that you had put in there, the evidence from the CDC itself, that had published 18 studies on its own website prior to the mask mandate, basically saying that masks don't work. Right? Well, in many of these cases, I actually retained experts to opine on the efficacy of masks. And whether or not masks actually did more harm than good. These experts provided affidavits that cited to various studies, I cited to many, many studies and complaints that demonstrated that very point, these masks did very little, if anything at all, to curb the spread of COVID 19. But unfortunately, judges often ignored the evidence. It's unbelievable. I mean, I mean, you have the three different branches of government. And you know, their branch is for one purpose only. And now they're waiting into being a politician or something, I can't figure this out. So when you when you started filing all these actions, I now then I understand that all of a sudden, they came and suspended your license. That's right. There was a complaint that was filed by by a client. And while there was a mistake that I did make with my books early last year, they weaponized that complaint, and essentially admitted to me in closed door meetings that they actions and the work that I was doing, they use that essentially as a mode as a motive to aggressively pursue the suspension of my license. It doesn't surprise me one bit. You know, anybody we have case after case after case, any doctor that's been prescribing ivermectin off label or whatever, you know, they're coming for doctors licenses. I've seen them come for attorneys licenses, in other instances and other places. It doesn't surprise me one bit. But it's kind of funny that you're the only attorney I think, from what I can tell, in my research in the state of New Hampshire that tried to stand up against any of this stuff, and you're the only attorney that lost their license. So I think it's kind of funny. I tried New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Florida, I've had I've cases in all of those states, I'm the only attorney in this region, who was pursuing these challenges and representing clients in these cases. And yes, I mean, you've heard, they're usually other attorneys who get their licenses suspended for this or that, but the conduct that they're using as a basis to suspend my license is usually something that merits a reprimand or something less, not the outright suspension of one's license, and more so on a summary basis without due process. Totally ridiculous. Now, do you have any idea of how long that will last? Or is it just indefinitely? Or what is that it's, it's in place for the duration of the disciplinary proceeding, I'm still licensed in in Massachusetts and Florida. Massachusetts is now attempting to invoke the or impose the same reciprocal discipline. So I'm challenging that I'm laying other legal options to see how to proceed but the the story isn't over. Yeah. Well, I wish you the best of luck with that. So let's talk about your podcast, which is the law info. So you started to show you're talking about all kinds of not just COVID stuff, but all kinds of different political issues of the day. Tell me about that. How Jake, how'd you get started? Well, I started the podcast in November of 2020, during the election cycle, and I kind of put it to rest when all of the the COVID cases picked up in 2021, I got very busy. But then I revived that last fall. Generally I focus on legal and political issues. From a conservative perspective, one of the things that jumped out at me when I was doing all of these COVID cases is that parents and other citizens would come to me and they would express the fact that they knew something was wrong with what these government institutions were doing, particularly with the mass mandates, with the school closures, and so on so forth. They knew something was wrong, but they didn't know how to explain they didn't know how to articulate what was wrong. I think that there's an opportunity to help people understand many of these issues, a lot of this stuff is rooted in the law, a lot of the ways that you can explain what the government was doing that was wrong, can be explained and should be explained from a legal perspective. People, a lot of people just don't understand what they taught us and civics what they should have taught us in civics, one on one in eighth grade, and that is the various separation of powers how these government institutions are supposed to govern the fact that our rights come from nature, not from government, and the fact that government exists for the purpose of protecting those rights. So I try to touch on all of these concepts in my podcast, depending on the issue or topic of the day that comes in. Yeah, and you're doing you do like a show once a week, or what's your frequency? It's about twice a week at this point. So we just go with the flow, whatever organically comes up, I usually try and cover that and and publish it. Now, last question, you you went to Harvard Law, right? Yes. Okay. So I because you know, Harvard is the best school, arguably, on the planet, and all the top attorneys go there, and all of that sort of thing, Ivy League and everything else. But you just touched on something. And so I'm really curious. So at Harvard Law, how much time did they spend teaching you about constitutional principles? Or was it all just about case law and things like that? Well, you are required to take constitutional law, that's usually in your second year, there was another course offered, I believe it's an elective in your third year that you can take that it wasn't for every year that focused on the history of the Constitution and the founding of the country. But everyone's required to take common law. Now common law, the one that I took was taught by Lawrence tribe, Larry tribe, he is one of the preeminent legal, constitutional legal minds in the world, really. And he was actually rumored to be nominated to the Supreme Court had Al Gore one all the way back then in 2000. So obviously, Bush won, and he was not but tribe is a liberal, many of the professors at Harvard are liberal, much of the student body is liberal. So while you do learn the Constitution, you do learn the the fundamental legal principles embedded in the Constitution. And you do read case law that interprets and analyzes many of those provisions in the Constitution. A lot of it is done from a league a liberal perspective, and it is done. And it is taught from that, from that viewpoint, so it's very difficult to focus on those issues the way I would like to focus on them the way other conservatives would like to focus on them. But it is taught it's just taught from a different, different angle than you and I would agree with, yeah, the living document, right. It's not yet exactly it's thought to be living. We do focus on any of the key that the famous cases that that had been decided by the Supreme Court, but it's Yeah, many of these professors believe it's a living document. It's an evolving document. And many of the students believe the same thing. Yeah. And from what I can tell, in a lot of these universities, they would just assume knock out the Constitution completely. They don't really like the fact that there's something that hinders the government's power, or at least should, at one point in time did I don't know if we're at there anymore. I think they've kind of marginalized the Constitution largely. But hopefully, we can restore that. So the live photo twice a week, photo lab.com is the website counselor of filho.com. Love. Oh, sorry about that. Okay, counselor, we really appreciate your time. And best of luck to you. Thank you. My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Intro: 20:48

Thanks for listening to don't tread on liberty with Jason Davis. Subscribe on Google Play iTunes, or your favorite platform. For more liberty news, check out www dot don't tread on liberty.com And subscribe to the blog or join the conversation