Whether the Illinois state accountability law at the time of petitioner's conviction, which omitted 'mere presence' as insufficient to convict, was unconstitutional and violated due process rights

I. WHETHER THE IL STATE ACCOUNTABILITY LAW AT THE TIME OF PET ITIONER'S CONVICTION WHICH OMITTED "MERE PRESENCE" NOT BEI NG SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND WHERE 12 YEARS LATER THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED TO ADD "MERE PRESEN CE" IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT. II. WHETHER PETITIONER'S CONVICTION UNDER IL STATE ACCOUNTABI LITY LAW IS AT ODDS WITH THIS COURT'S DECISIONS, WHERE TH E TRIAL COURT EXPLAINED HOW THE STATE'S EVIDENCE PROVED N OTHING BUT MERE PRESENCE, DID NOT PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF M URDER, AND UTILIZED CASELAW TO EXPLABN ITS ANALYSIS, BUT STILL DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT. III. WHETHER THE IL APPELLATE COURTS' DECISIONS WERE CONTRARY TO OR AN UNREASONABLE APPLIICATION OF THIS COURT'S LAW ON THE ISSUES RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL, AND WHERE THE IL APPELLATE COURT TWISTED THE FACTS AND SIDE'STEPPED THE ISSUED PRESENTED TO IT IT DENIED PETITIONER HIS RIGHT TO DIRECT APPEAL. IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT AND U.S£ ,COURT OF APPEALS MADE DECIS IONS CONTRARY TO THIS COURT'S DECISIONS. V. WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO A STATE SUPREME COURT SUFFICE AS OPERATIVE FACT S IN A 28 U.S.C. § 2254 PETITION WHERE THE CIRCUITS OF TH E U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS ARE SPLIT ON THIS ISSUE. VI. WHETHER IL STATE MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASE (MSR) LAW A S APPLIED TO DEFENDANTS SERVING 100% OF THEIR SENTENCE VI COLATES DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY RIGHTS GUARANTEED PETITIONER UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. VII. WHETHER PETITIONER IS FEDERALLY ACTUALLY INNOCENT. VIII. WHETHER PETITIONER SUFFERED A SERIOUS AND FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. I f, V