1 The relevance of these documents is that it contradicts the false inference
of Appellees LA Superior Court and Judge David P. Yaffe's answering brief that
4 Judge Yaffe was not obligated to recuse himself in the instant c%e.
These doolments constitute facts not reasonably subject to dispute. 'Fhe
7 did not come to Appellant's attention until a few days ago.
1c A court may properly take notice of ''matters of public record'' ptlrsuant to
11Federal Rule of EWdence section 201 to the extent they are not subject to
reasonable dispute. f ee v. C# of L s Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Ck.314 2001). Such records may Zclude adminislative records, reports and procedures.
See, e.g., Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., 209 F.2d
17 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953)., Coinstar. Inc. v. CoinBank Automated Sjx, Inc., 998
Supp. 1109, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
The allegations in the instant appeal and tmderlying Petition for Writ of
24 Habe% Copus are inexrtricably intertwined with the issues raised in the attached
documents. Accordingly, this Court is entitled to take judicial notice of these
27 documents, and Appellant therefore specifically requests that this Court take
28judidal notice of the docllments identified above.
Case: 09-56073 11/20/2009 Page: 2 of 6 DktEntry: 7138870