Right to represent yourself

1. Upon this petitioner, the following five felonies were committed through judicial misconduct and ineffective counsel in case 191904490 - 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 Antitrust, 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy against rights, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 False statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1621 Perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) False declarations before a court. The Utah Court of Appeals denied the appeal citing law deemed unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court. Is it the Utah Supreme Courts responsibility to provide relief when all lower courts approved the use of felony crimes by the judicial body as part of extreme prejudice in pursuit of a conviction? 2. Is it the Utah Supreme Courts responsibility to provide relief when the Petitioner provides evidence that U.S. Constitutional amendments VI and XIV were unlawfully and forcefully denied through orchestrated efforts within the District Court? 3. The District Court refused defendant "pro se" opportunity. Defendant was declared competent to proceed to trial. With abundant exculpatory evidence available, forced public defense used false information and perjured testimony to declare defendant incompetent. Is it the Utah Supreme Courts responsibility to act when a district court strips a citizen of all their constitutional rights forever through a verifiably false incompetency determination orchestrated by ineffective counsel followed by a denial of pro se appeal using law deemed unconstitutional?