Robert Hurford Hale, Sui Juris

3243 Congressional Circle

Fairfield 94534

CALIFORNIA, USA

tel: 707-426-1841

In Propria Persona

Superior Court of California

Solano County

REDWOOD PLAZA INVESTMENTS, L.P., ) Case No. FCS025327

)

v. ) DEFENDANT HALE’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

) IN SUPPORT OF REQUESTS

PGM, INC., ) FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

PETER G. MOZSARY, ) Evidence Code, section 453;

ROBERT H. HALE, and ) California Business and

DOES 1 through 10. ) Professions Code, secs. 6067-6128;

---------------------------------) 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1964 (Civil RICO).

COMES NOW Robert H. Hale, Sui Juris, a named Defendant in the above entitled case (hereinafter “Dr. Hale”), without waiving or conferring any jurisdiction, to file His MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF REQUESTS FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE, and to provide formal Notice to all interested parties of same.

Dr. Hale has already made an earnest and timely attempt to obtain proof of the license to practice law required of Mr. Giberson, by mailing to him a lawful demand for exhibition of the certificate of oath and license required by section 6067 of the California Business and Professions Code, also known as the State Bar Act.

See Statutes of California, 1939, c. 34, p. 354, sec. 1, 53^rd Session, approved by the Governor on February 3, 1939 (“A certificate of oath shall be indorsed upon his license.” [bold emphasis added])

Notwithstanding any allegation(s) he may already have made, whether on or off the record, that he is presently a member of The State Bar of California in good standing, Mr. Giberson has to date failed to provide Dr. Hale with any certified copies of said license.

Mr. Giberson has also failed to provide Dr. Hale with any certified copies of said certificate of oath.

Dr. Hale has studied section 6067 supra and researched the legislative history of this statute, and associated case law.

Dr. Hale thereby discovered that a California court has declared that section 6067 is constitutional. See the decision in Cohen v. Wright, 22 C. 293 (1863).

Dr. Hale also discovered that a California court has also declared that the California Legislature does have a right to impose on attorneys the oath required by section 6067. See Ex parte Yale, 24 C. 241 (1864), 85 Am. Dec. 62 (1864).

Also, a California court has ruled that courts have the power to inquire into the existence of an attorney’s license, and to dispose the question summarily, upon motion of the attorney of an opposing party to dismiss, founded upon the affidavit of the person or party concerning whom the motion is made. See Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534, 539.

Dr. Hale believes He is correct to infer from the holding in Clark v. Willett that He also may file such a motion and affidavit, as a Proper Party proceeding In Propria Persona.

Dr. Hale constructs section 6067 to require that a valid oath of office be indorsed upon a license to practice law in California.

Dr. Hale also believes that the term “indorsed”, as used in section 6067, has the same meaning as the act of indorsing a standard bank check, e.g. original blue-ink signature, and not a typed or forged mark of any kind. “In dorso” in Latin means “on the back”.

Dr. Hale believes He is correct to conclude, therefore, that section 6067 requires each and every license to practice law to be a physical document, like a California driver’s license, and not merely the verbal or implied “permission” of some governmental authority, e.g. verbal power of attorney.

Likewise, Dr. Hale believes He is correct to conclude that section 6067 also requires each and every certificate of oath to be a physical document, like a California driver’s license, and not merely the verbal or implied “certification” of some governmental authority, e.g. verbal power of attorney.

Dr. Hale also believes He is correct to conclude that the term “certificate” as used in section 6067 requires the oath to be certified in proper form.

Plaintiff sincerely believes that uncertified evidence is normally not admissible, and may be ruled inadmissible in the instant case. For this reason, Dr. Hale sincerely believes that the meaning of “certificate” goes to substance and the legislative intent of section 6067, and is not merely a question of form, as such.

Dr. Hale also respectfully requests this honorable Court to take notice of the holding in U.S. v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244 (9^th Cir. 1993) (entry of default judgment was appropriate when a corporate officer attempted to represent his corporation in court, but without a valid license to practice law).

Lastly, Dr. Hale believes He is legally correct to expect that attorneys can be called upon to testify, even though their testimony might establish violations of their oaths of office (if any) and of their duties as attorneys. See Johnson v. State Bar of California, 52 P.2d 928, 4 C.2d 744 (1936).

Those duties, in particular, are itemized at section 6068 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Dr. Hale constructs section 6068 to require Mr. Giberson to support all California State laws, and section 6067 is one such law.

Another duty expressly imposed upon Mr. Giberson by section 6068 is to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, those means only as are consistent with truth.

And, in this context, section 6128 of the California Business and Professions Code is quite clear when it imposes a criminal penalty upon any attorney who either is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party:

Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who either:

(a) Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party.

Dated: February 22, 2005

Signed: /s/ Robert H. Hale

___________________________________________

Printed: Robert H. Hale, Sui Juris

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Robert H. Hale, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document(s):

DEFENDANT HALE’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF REQUESTS

FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:

Evidence Code, section 453;

California Business and Professions Code,

secs. 6067-6128;

18 U.S.C. 1341, 1964 (Civil RICO)

by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following:

[PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY]

Mr. Kirk E. Giberson

Hefner Stark & Marios

2150 River Plaza Dr. #450

Sacramento 95833

CALIFORNIA, USA

[CLERK OF COURT (2x)]

600 Union Avenue

Fairfield 94533

CALIFORNIA, USA

Dated: February 22, 2005

Signed: /s/ Robert H. Hale

___________________________________________

Printed: Robert H. Hale, Sui Juris