Is it repugnant to convict a US citizen for innocent acts not criminalized by statute?

Questions Presented for Review 1. Is it repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States to convict and incarcerate a United States citizen, and deprive him of property, for innocent acts not criminalized and/or ' proscribed by any statute in that State at the time the citizen is indicted? 2. Is it repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States to convict and incarcerate a United States citizen, and deprive him of property, for acts that no statute within the state where he was tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned, criminalized or proscribed the acts for which he was tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned, until after he committed the otherwise innocent acts? : 3. Where the Petitioner was indicted for and convicted of acts that were not prohibited or proscribed by any Ohio statute defining offenses at the time the Petitioner was indicted, does the ; failure of any statute to criminalize or proscribe the acts deprive the Ohio trial court of criminal subject matter jurisdiction over the acts? ; 4, Where Article IV, §4, of the Constitution of Ohio states that “the courts of common pleas ... shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters ... as may be provided by law”, ; and Ohio Revised Code § 2901.03 states that “No conduct constitutes a criminal offense against the state unless it is defined as an offense in the Revised Code”, is it repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States for an Ohio trial court to take subject matter jurisdiction that is not provided by law, of “offenses” not defined by one or more State statute as a criminal offense? 5. Where the Petitioner was indicted for and convicted of acts that were not prohibited or proscribed by any Ohio statute defining offenses at the time the Petitioner was indicted, is it repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, for the Ohio Supreme Court to retrospectively “create” subject matter jurisdiction by holding that because the non-offense was charged under the label of “felonies”, the trial court had jurisdiction merely because the trial court : had statutory jurisdiction over felonies in general? | 6. Where the Ohio trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, is the conviction, sentence, and deprivation of property resulting from the judgment repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and void ab initio? 7. Where substances possessed and sold by the petitioner were neither named in any Ohio statute, nor defined as offenses at the time alleged in the petitioner’s indictment, and were not added to ; such statutes or otherwise defined as offenses in Ohio until! after the indictment was issued, does the Ohio supreme court’s retrospective inclusion of previously unnamed, and thus noncriminalized substances, into the statutes as they existed at the time the petitioner was indicted have the effect of retrospective criminal legislation, and is such a decision void as being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States? ; 8. Where substances possessed and sold by the petitioner were neither named in any Ohio statute, nor defined as offenses at the time alleged in the petitioner’s indictment, and were not added to such statutes or otherwise defined as offenses in Ohio until after the Petitioner was indicted, is the Ohio Supreme Court’s retrospective inclusion, by interpretation, of previously unnamed, and thus non-criminalized substances, into the statutes as they existed at the time the petitioner was indicted repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and void, as impermissibly expanding the subject matter jurisdiction of Ohio’s courts of common pleas? . if]