Shown below is a sample Request for Judicial Notice This Request for Judicial Notice is provided for informational purposes, and is not intended as a substitute for legal advice or for representation by a qualified Lawyer.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff and Appellant

vs.

Defendants and Respondents

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

[California Rules of Court, Rule 8.252 & California Evidence Code 452, 453 & 459]

Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Supporting Declaration; Exhibits;

Proposed Order ]

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the

Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District:

Appellant moves this court for an order making factual determinations in its decision on appeal in this case.

Appellant hereby submits the COURT ORDER DOCUMENT NUMBER 36 that was executed by the Honorable Robert Drain on February 11, 2013 and was both located and printed directly from Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER).

IN THE MATTER OF:

JUANITA STRASSFIELD vs. WELLS FARGO BANK CASE NO: 11-24269(RDD)

The Appellant has in good faith presented this Court with “Official Acts of the Judicial Departments of the United States” so that the integrity of the judicial process will be protected by those in a position to do so. Exhibit A attached to this Request for Judicial Notice is a true and correct copy of the originally filed February 11, 2013 Court Order.

RELEVANCE OF THE DOCUMENT & PRESENTATION TO THE LOWER COURT

& RELATION TO PROCEEDINGS AFTER JUDGMENT

This Court Order occurred after Judgment was entered in Appellant’s case but is relevant because it corroborates Appellant’s arguments in the Trial Court that Wells Fargo manufactured documents to support a fabricated story of standing and beneficial interest in its demurrer and reply brief hoping -or perhaps assuming - that the Trial Court, this Court, the Appellant and all interested parties would be none the wiser.

The Appellant avers that the overt act of filing false documents with any Court is deserving of sanctions. Appellant avers that pursuant to the provisions of California Evidence Code §§ 452, 453 and 459, it is a matter of judicial notice that Wells Fargo has an established pattern and practice (modus operandi) of falsifying real property documents including recorded instruments, and of submitting such falsified documents to courts in an effort to commit intentional fraud upon said courts. Appellant’s RJN Vol. 1 Exhibit A establishes that same pattern and practice (modus operandi) in the case at bar.

Judge Drain’s Order was “without prejudice to the right of any party in interest, including, without limitation, the United States Trustee, to seek further relief based on the alleged improper filing of false documents with the court.

Moreover, the Honorable Elizabeth W. Magner in her effort to review the practices of Wells Fargo concluded that, a punitive damage award of $3,171,154.00 million is warranted to deter Wells Fargo from similar conduct in the future. (Appellant’s RJN Vol. 2 Exhibit I in re: Michael L. Jones v Wells Fargo)

The Appellant in the instant case respectfully requests this court so direct the parties in the same manner as did Judge Robert Drain and Judge Elizabeth Magner.

[Evidence Code section 459 provides, in pertinent part, that a “reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452.” Under §452(c) includes all official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States or any state of the United States. Evidence Code section 453 converts permissive judicial notice into mandatory judicial notice whenever a party seeking judicial notice has advised each adverse party of the items sought to be judicially noticed and provided them with sufficient information concerning the items sought to be judicially noticed.]

CONCLUSION

The matter to be noticed are relevant to the appeal because the February 11, 2013 Court Order shows that Defendant/Respondent Wells Fargo Bank is a criminal enterprise that has an established pattern and practice (modus operandi) of falsifying real property documents including recorded instruments, and of submitting such falsified documents to Courts in an effort to commit intentional fraud upon said Courts. Respondent Wells Fargo Bank has heretofore submitted altered, and hence false and fraudulent, documents and recorded instruments to the Court in the course of this action, with the intention that the Court be deceived and misled thereby. The Request for Judicial Notice of the February 11, 2013 Court Order is for purposes of showing this Court that despite the fact that Wells Fargo entered into a settlement agreement with 49 State Attorneys General to end the practice of false notarizations, bogus documents and robo-signing, Wells Fargo and its attorneys continue with business as usual.