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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: f. Was Petitioner's federal constitutional tight to due process of taw 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' 1/4/16 R-T. 151:5-7 (emphasis added), and the subsequent admission as evidence in a jury trial, under the guise of muitipie Superior Court orders and opinions and multiple California Court of Appeat opinions, including the admission into evidence of a Superior Court judgment of dissolution of marriage, anda decision in a domestic violence restraining order case that had been ordered vacated as void by the Superior Court of Humboidt County, Catifornia, the entire 129 page reporter's transcript of the dissolution of marriage triat in F1.070587 ‘Stewart v. Stewart, Exhibit, A148501 C.T. -v. 9, 2432-2561), and by the admission as evidence in a jury trial of a domestic violence request for order form (Exhibit X, AtT48501 C.T. 2661-2665) that ‘was speccifically heidinadmissible as prejudicial hearsay im Peopie v. Pantoja (2004) 122 Cal. App.4th 1, 12-137 2. Was Petitioner's federal consitutional right not to be deprived of property without due process of taw violated by the unexplained refusal of the Superior Court to give any jegal effect to the written assignment (A148501 C.T. 1485-1486) to Petitioner of the inheritance rights of Patricia Stewart's soie intestate heir? ; 7 Because the record is spread between both of the Clerk's Transcripts in A148501 and A148396, citations herein toa Clerk's Transcript (C.T.} are prefaced by the case numbers of the C.T.. Later citations in the same paragraph are to the same C.T.