Is it clear and indisputable that respondent Judges have a duty to enter a judgement of acquittal pursuant to 'Ball' and Crim. Rule 29?

No question identified. : QUESTION(S} PRESENTED Smith’s case presents an extremely extraordinary criminal rule & appellate rule posture of first impression, and it is nothing more than a direct reflection of respondent(s) Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Timothy J. Mc Ginty’s actions in the : October 6, 1995 order, sentencing Mr. Smith for kidnapping and aggravated murder pursuant to ORC. 2929.04({A)(7) & O.R.C. §2903.01. Also a reflection of respondent(s) Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Steven E. Gall Denial of Smith’s Common Law Motion which was entered on October 16, 2017, amounting to a judicial “usurpation of power”, or “clear abuse of discretion”. (1) Is it clear and indisputable that, respondent Judges have a duty _ to enter a judgement of acquittal pursuant to “Ball” and Crim. Rule 29? (2) Is it clear and indisputable that, at this point “appeal is clearly inadequate remedy” to address Smith’s constitutional injury, because there is not a right to an appeal to rectify Smith’s constitutional injury. Please see Smith’s procedural history in the index to the