Since apparently I can't reply at that depth:

10th: there is no Federal interest here. Any assertion of justification by nexus would be laughable: these crimes are by users and end-sellers. If the US attorney had evidence of an ongoing interstate operation then they ought to bust that, not the hotel.

5th: I find it hard to describe "heads I win, tails you lose" as due process. If they had not gained outside support, fighting this suit would bankrupt them. I realize that there is no ideal solution to that quandary, but as a result we must prosecutorial discretion to a very high standard.

What is a civil suit heard in front of an impartial judge if not "due process of law"? Read _Democracy and Distrust_ for a careful accounting of what the Constitution means by "due process".

The problem lies not in who's hearing the case, but in the fact that the burden of negating evidence is on the prosecuted rather than the burden of positive evidence on the prosecutor.