(1) Whether defense counsel withheld evidence for the jury that shown that the petitioner was actually innocent, but for a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.

(2) Where any person may be restrained of his Liberty in Violation of the Const.

(3) Whether this claim rests on a New Rule

Whether a petitioner seeks to apply a rule of law that was clearly established at the time his state court conviction became Final.

Whether state court or the federal court applied the federal law established by those case unreasonably.

Whether the state court relied on adequate and independent state ground of decision to trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.

Whether the result was dictated by past case or Whether it is susceptible to debate among reasonable Minds.

(8) Whether petitioner denied an opportunity for A Full and Fair adjudication his ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or denied his Due Process to develop a record outside the trial records for his 2254 federal habeas writ.

Whether the state habeas court was bias and objective unreasonable impartial in it's failure to review and execute a Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law.

Whether the AEDPA is Notorious for its poor drafting or The Act is replete with vague and ambiguous language apparent inconsistently and plain Bag Grammar that denied the petitioner his right to Due PROCESS

Whether the Judgment, was erroneous?

Whether the petitioner denied a Fair Trial in the state court.

Whether State court's finding were unreasonable in light of the evidence the state court considered.

Whether 2254 (d). is difficult to identify that it denied the petitioner Due Process or Statute alters the standard of review that federal habeas court's bring to Bear when they examine state court judgment on Federal Claims.

Whether defense counsel withheld evidence that could have shown the petitioner was actually innocent