Does Petitioner's convictions violate the U.S. Constitution and prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court?

QUESTION PRESENTED Does Petitioner's convictions violate the U.S. Constitution and prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court? (See page 2) Petitioner says: Yes. Respondent says: No. i PREFACE TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner was convicted in the Saginaw 10th Circuit Court on three separate charges, all occurring at different dates and times, and counties. Two of the charges, Intimidating a Witness and Solicitation to Murder, allegedly occurred in other counties; and were investigated by those counties and the evidence was found insufficient and no charges were brought by these county prosecutors. The Michigan Attorney General's office also found the evidence insufficient to charge Petitioner. Some years later, the Solicitation and Intimidation cases were forum-shopped by police officers into Saginaw County and this prosecutor's office charged Petitioner with these two crimes, which were included in a retrial of false pretenses after the first trial ended in a hung jury 6-6 split. In Michigan, the venue of the crime must be proven by the prosecution before the trial court attains jurisdiction and failure by the prosecutor to prove venue leaves the trial court want of jurisdiction. Petitioner was denied due process of law as established by Michigan Constitution, Court Rule, and Statute(s), and this has violated the United States Constitution 4th, 5th, 6th,.13th,.and 14th Amendments. The Michigan Court of Appeals in Case No. 269505 on February 3, 2009, vacated the conviction for solicitation at p. 6 stating: "Under the United States Constitution, criminal trials must take place in the state and district where the crime was committed. U.S. Const. Art, 3, § 2, cl. 8; U.S. Const. Amend. 6." This court did not make a decision on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. The Michigan Supreme Court then ruled in People v Houthoofd, 487 Mich 568 (2010) at p. 571, found venue was not proper in Saginaw County, but the error was harmless because it was not a constitutional error. i This panel found that their own case law requiring the prosecution to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, has been abrogated by statute at p. 592, which is simply not true. A new panel of Supreme Court judges in the case decision of People v McBurrows, 504 Mich 308 (2019), at p. 324, ruled that the defendant had a constitutional right to trial by a jury in the county where the crime was committed. This Petitioner has included a list of the number of times he has challenged the trial courts jurisdiction here at p. iv. The other issue is the inadequacy of the three Complaints located in the