Whether one who has the requisite standing to move to suppress based on contentions, which if validated show his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, must first prove his possession was lawful?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. WHETHER ONE WHO HAS THE REQUISITE STANDING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS BASED ON CONTENTIONS, WHICH IF VALIDATED SHOW HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, MUST FIRST PROVE HIS POSSESSION WAS LAWFUL? II. WHEN THE APPEALS COURT RULES, IN A FORFEITURE CASE THEN ON APPEAL THAT THE APPELLANT, HAS TITLE III STANDING: DOES THAT RULING BECOME “THE LAW OF THE CASE” AND AS SUCH CAN IT BE IGNORED BY THE DISTRICT COURT (FOLLOWING A REMAND) WITH IMPUNITY? Ill. WHETHER, GIVEN THE ONUS IS ON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE FORFEITABILITY, AND THE LAWFULNESS OF ANY AND ALL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, CAN THE DISTRICT COURT, AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO PROVIDING THE CLAIMANT A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS, REQUIRE HIM TO SURRENDER HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.