(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 appendixes, he has tried to get review in every appropriate court.

(3) Is it clear and indisputable that, the issuance of the writ is appropriate in this case because exceptional circumstances have amounted to a judicial "usurpation of power," or a "clear abuse of discretion," justifying the invocation of this extraordinary remedy?

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