Did this Court's holding in Luis v. United States simply clarify a Federal civil asset forfeiture statute

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did this Court's holding in Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. __, 186 S. Ct. 1083, 194 L. Ed. 2d 256 (2016) simply clarify a Federal civil asset forfeiture statute by determining what the statute had always meant — that neither the government, nor a judge, is authorized to restrain legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) that a defendant requires to fund his/her defense in a criminal matter? 2. Should the precept in Luis v. United States regarding the pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice be declared retroactive for cases on collateral review where it can be demonstrated that: (1) a court ordered restraint upon untainted assets prevented the defendant from exercising his/her Sixth Amendment right to employ counsel for the criminal matter; (2) but for the court ordered restraint, the defendant had adequate financial resources to retain counsel of choice for the criminal matter; and (3) © ; the defendant moved for the release of assets sufficient to retain counsel prior . to the criminal trial? ; . . 8. Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice was violated when a ; state probate court issued an order that froze the defendant’s lawfully acquired | assets, and thereby deprived him of access to the funds he needed to exercise his Sixth Amendment right to employ counsel of his choice to defend a criminal prosecution where he was charged with murdering his wife? 4, This Court has determined the root guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is the right of a criminal defendant, who does not require court-appointed counsel, to ; retain the best attorney he or she can afford to defend against the criminal charges. Is this constitutional protection the same, or fundamentally different, as between an individual with sufficient assets to retain private counsel of their own choosing and a wealthy person who is wrongly reduced to indigent status by the courts and then has to make a "Hobson's choice" decision to rely on court-appointed counsel or self-representation at trial? 5. Ina spousal murder case, is it unconstitutional for a judge to restrain the entirety of a killer's prior legal interest in individually or jointly held property pursuant to a state probate statute, in order to preserve the killer's share of ; the assets for the enlargement of the decedent's estate? i ipa > 6. Does a state probate judge have the jurisdiction or authority to obstruct a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to retain desired counsel for the criminal trial, or any other rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights? ; 7. Does a state probate judge have jurisdiction to decide a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment counsel of choice issue based on the "proper administration of justice" in the criminal case? 8. Does the fact that a forfeiture statute is included under the New Jersey . Probate Code relieve the State of its responsibility for violations of rights protected by the Sixth Amendment; or does a conviction obtained following that violation constitute a "structural error" that mandates the reversal of a conviction? . : ; 9. Did the Ninth Amendment preserve the common law right for a non-indigent individual to use his/her lawful financial resources to employ desired counsel to : defend a criminal matter? Furthermore, does the Ninth Amendment protect that unenumerated right from denial or disparagement pursuant to a state civil forfeiture statute? : 10. Does the wrongful pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's legitimate, untainted assets pursuant to a state probate statute violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution and the defendant's presumption of innocence? 11. Whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“(AEDPA”) -standard of deference to a state court ruling on a federal constitutional claim ; applies when the only state court “