Whether a defendant's conviction should be voided due to ineffective assistance of counsel, judicial bias, and procedural irregularities during criminal proceedings

AND THEIR RESOLUTION BY THE LOWER COURTS. 1. A defendant who was not defended by attorney in a criminal proceeding in every legal sense projection in his trial T4 but proforma and reluctant defenders who stated anyone who committed such crime should be sent to prison for a long time without investigating the case. Shouldn't this wholly void his conviction and illegal upward departure sentencing? 2. Defendant still has two motions undisposed of in the court from the outset September 2008 to date ex. 7As and T6 and was convicted. Isn't this an intentional denial of inalienable constitutional right to convict and illegal upward departure sentencing, all, wholly void, and incompetent tribunal to cause the state to lose jurisdiction of the defendant and subject matter? 3. Minnesota has Appellate representation for assistance of counsel as a due process right. Petitioner's appointed appellate counsel affirmatively refused to meet with him to deprive defendant customary consultation due process to strategize and loyalty. Petitioner was essentially on his own. Counsel was a mirage and wrote up whatever he or she pleases to direct appeal court to the detriment of defendant but the interest of the state. Petitioner to date does not know whether counsel is a man or woman or even attorney. Isn't this an intentional deprivation of due process, wholly void conviction? 4. On September 29, 2008, defendant was shouted down by the Judge as he tried to inform the Judge that he has a motion and also, handed another motion face to face to the Judge and to inform the Judge that these attorneys are no longer representing him. The Judge told defendant that he has no participation and or no opinion in anything in his criminal proceedings T7, even though he is declared competent to stand trial. The motions were not disposed of. Isn't this an intentional deprivation of constitutional inalienable right, wholly void the conviction, incompetent tribunal, and loss of jurisdiction of defendant and subject matter? 5. Between February to April 9, 2009 was sentencing period. Defendant had no attorney and customary consultation due process loyalty to client to strategize for mitigation and character witnesses vouch. Defendant was essentially on his own. Shouldn't his sentence be wholly void, incompetent tribunal? 6. The Judge, Defenders, Probational Officer all in cahoots to withhold from defendant the documents and contents of PSI both during sentencing period and hearing April 9, 2009, in order to impede proper response from defendant of PSI contents. The Judge never asked whether petitioner was aware of the contents of PSI and he indulged in illegal upward departure sentencing. Doesn't this constitute a fraud, incompetent tribunal, wholly void the case, a fortiori is the Judge, defenders and probational officer to cause loss of jurisdiction of defendant and subject matter? 7. During the trial and after, defendant requested from Maria Mitchell a defender about the faith the Judge belongs. This is because the incident happened in a Jewish establishment. The Iheme 1 iincompetent, reluctant and rejected defender by the defendant T4 refused to provide defendant the deep extraneous interest and activities of the Judge who was very prejudicial and partial probably due to his faith. The victim worked for Jewish establishment. Now, petitioner got the information recently from another source. Isn't this a denial of due process, and wholly void conviction? RESOLUTION OR POSITIONS BY THE LOWER COURTS In all the above legal questions , District Court silent and claimed inane procedural default , Court of Appeals in the negative per decision, and Minnesota Supreme Court occluded on April 16,2024 because of state's coterie influence or threats or other issues as state refused to respond to Supreme Court order dated March 13,2024.