1. Was Petitioner's federal constitutional right to due process of law violated by an unfair trial in which the trial Judge ruled "that any documents which the Court takes judicial notice of, of course, are admissible." A148501 41/4/16 TCT. 151:5-7 (emphasis added), and the subsequent admission as evidence in a jury trial, under the guise of judicial notice, of numerous irrelevant and prejudicial hearsay statements, including multiple Superior Court orders and opinions and multiple California Court of Appeal opinions, including the admission into evidence of a Superior Court judgment of dissolution of marriage, and a decision in a domestic violence restraining order case that had been ordered vacated as void by the Superior Court of Humboldt County, California, the entire 129 page reporter's transcript of the dissolution of marriage trial in FL070587 (Stewart v. Stewart, Exhibit-Q, A148501 C.T. v. % 2432-2561), and by the admission as evidence in a jury trial of a domestic violence request for order form (Exhibit X, A148501 C.T. 2661-2665) that was specifically held inadmissible as prejudicial hearsay in People v. Pantoja (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1, 12-13?

2. Was Petitioner's federal constitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process of law violated by the unexplained refusal of the Superior Court to give any legal effect to the written assignment (A148501 C.T. 1485-1486) to Petitioner of the inheritance rights of Patricia Stewart's sole intestate heir?

Was Petitioner's federal constitutional right to due process of law violated by an unfair trial?