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 STATUS AS LITIGANT

PGM, INC., ) PROCEEDING IN PROPRIA PERSONA:

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

ROBERT H. HALE, and ) 28 U.S.C. 1654 in pari materia;

DOES 1 through 10. ) Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,

---------------------------------) U.S. Constitution; 4 U.S.C. 72.

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 STATUS AS LITIGANT PROCEEDING IN PROPRIA PERSONA supra, and to provide formal Notice to all interested parties of same.

When a litigant appears In Propria Persona, this Court itself should undertake to insure to the litigant that no meritorious case may be lost because of any lack of legal skill. See the comparable federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1654 in pari materia. Moreover, technical compliance with the Rules of this Court is not stringently enforced against litigants proceeding In Propria Persona (“Pro Per”). See U.S. v. Hough, 157 F.Supp. 771, 774 (USDC/S.D. Calif. 1957).

Implicit in the right of self-representation is an obligation on the part of any court to make reasonable allowances to protect Pro Per litigants from any inadvertent forfeitures of important Rights, particularly fundamental Rights like equal protection of the law, because of any lack of formal legal training. See Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2^nd Cir. 1983); Hoffman v. U.S., 244 F.2d 378, 379 (9^th Cir. 1957); Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 (1950). Confer at “Fundamental right” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

Dr. Hale is protesting Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh and Eighth Editions, because both omit definitions of the term “United States”. The term “United States” has singular importance throughout all State and federal constitutions, laws, rules, regulations, forms, practices, policies, procedures and customs. Specifically, there is no way this Court can possibly hope to define or enforce “public policy” without an explicit reference to the “United States” (federal government), domiciled in the District of Columbia under authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter “U.S. Constitution”):

All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law. 4 U.S.C. 72.

Dated: March 16, 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 STATUS AS LITIGANT

PROCEEDING IN PROPRIA PERSONA:

Evidence Code, section 453;

28 U.S.C. 1654 in pari materia.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,

U.S. Constitution; 4 U.S.C. 72

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

[DEFENDANT PGM, INC.] mailing address not yet available

[DEFENDANT PETER G. MOZSARY] mailing address not yet available

[CLERK OF COURT (2x)]

600 Union Avenue

Fairfield 94533

CALIFORNIA, USA

Dated: March 16, 2005

Signed: /s/ Robert H. Hale

___________________________________________

Printed: Robert H. Hale, Sui Juris