Can the government retain indefinitely petitioner's seized business and personal electronic files, digital data and other physical property?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED CAN THE GOVERNMENT RETAIN INDEFINITELY PETITIONER'S SEIZED : BUSINESS AND PERSONAL ELECTRONIC FILES, DIGITAL DATA AND OTHER : PHYSICAL PROPERTY WHEN SATD PROPERTY WAS NOT ABANDONED, FORFEITED, NOR CONSIDERED CONTRABAND AND WHEN THE SAID PROPERTY, AS EVIDENCE SHOWS, STILL EXISTS, IS IN ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF . THE GOVERNMENT, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED? The above is addressed as the‘ below subsidiary questions in Arguments 1 through 7 herein. I. DID THE LOWER COURT FRR IN DENYING THE PETITIONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO HIS MOTION FOR : RETURN OF PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS? . If. DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN PETITIONER'S “APPELLANT'S REPLY" AND “REPLY SUPPLEMENT" BEFORE RULING ON THE MOTION WHEN THESE FILINGS INTRODUCE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES AND EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS THAT DEBUNK THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE? III. DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF THE AVAILABILITY, FROM THE GOVERNMENT, OF PETTIIONER'S BUSINESS AND PERSONAL ELECTRONIC FILES AND OTHER DIGITAL DATA STORED ON THE MIRROR IMAGE / GHOST COPIES OF THE DEVICES SEIZED, ANALYZED, MAINTAINED AND STILL STORED BY THESE AGENCIES? Iv. WAS THE PETTTIONER HARMED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ALLOWING, AS IT CLAIMS, THE DESTRUCTION OF PETITIONER'S DIGITAL PROPERTY AND OTHER ELECTRONIC FILES THAT WERE IN PHYSICAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT, (WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ADOPTED PETITIONER'S CASE FOR PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL COURT), WITHOUT NOTIFICATION AND IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS? v. WAS THE PETITIONER HARMED BY THE GOVERNMENT ALLOWING STATE AND COUNTY AGENCIES TO DESTROY PETITIONER'S PHYSICAL / TANGIBLE PROPERTY, WHILE SAID PROPERTY WAS STILL IN CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND PETITIONER'S CASE WAS ACTIVELY ON APPEAL? VI. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR AND FURTHER HARM THE PETITIONER BY ‘THE CONTINUED RETENTION OF HIS PROPERTY AND THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO HIS BUSINESS AND PERSONAL FILES, PHOTOS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DIGITAL DATA STORED ON THE MIRROR IMAGES OF THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES STILL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE F.B.1. AND NOW, AS THE ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SHOW, ALSO IN THE CUSTODY OF THE N.C. S.B.I.? ; VII. IS THE PETITIONER ENITTLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE DEPRIVATION AND DESTRUCTION OF HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DIGITAL DATA WHEN RECORDS SHOW HE HAS MADE CONTINUOUS EFFORTS TO HAVE HIS PROPERTY RETURNED AND WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF ANY ORDERS OF FORFEITURE OR ORDERS TO DESTROY SAID ; PROPERTY?