Sioux Falls, SD — Today, April 29, 2026, I filed a formal Establishment Complaint with South Dakota Department of Health (DOH) Medical Cannabis Program Administrator Whitney Brunner pursuant to SDCL Chapter 34-20G and ARSD Article 44:90.
The complaint addresses a documented pattern of civil Temporary Protective Order (TPO) filings under SDCL Chapter 25-10 by Melissa Mentele, COO and Co-Founder of licensed establishment 605 Cannabis LLC, that appear intended to chill lawful public records journalism, patient advocacy, and statutory/regulatory criticism of South Dakota’s medical cannabis program.
Full Text of the Formal Establishment Complaint (Sent via Email – April 29, 2026)
To: Whitney Brunner, Medical Cannabis Program Administrator
Email: whitney.brunner@state.sd.us
CC: comms@ciasd.com
Subject: Formal Establishment Complaint – Program Integrity Review re: 605 Cannabis LLC Agent (SDCL 34-20G & ARSD 44:90)
Dear Administrator Brunner:
Pursuant to SDCL Chapter 34-20G, ARSD Article 44:90, and the Department’s oversight authority over licensed medical cannabis establishment agents (SDCL 34-20G-1(18)), I file this formal Establishment Complaint requesting a Program Integrity Review.
Because a related TPO matter remains pending for hearing, I expressly do not ask the Department to contact Ms. Mentele, interfere with that proceeding, or make any finding about the merits of that case before the court rules. I request only preservation, intake, and post-hearing program-integrity review.
This concerns repeated use of civil Temporary Protective Order (TPO) filings under SDCL Chapter 25-10 by Melissa Mentele (COO / Co-Founder, 605 Cannabis LLC) in a manner that appears to have the effect of chilling lawful public reporting, patient advocacy, and regulatory/statutory criticism of the medical cannabis program.
Factual Basis (All Public or Verifiable Records)
1. Four Denied TPOs: At least four TPO petitions filed by or tied to Ms. Mentele against the undersigned have been denied after evidentiary hearings, with no judicial findings of stalking, threat, or violence under SDCL 25-10.
2. Chilling of Protected Activity: These filings targeted public records journalism and advocacy on:
• Statutory contradictions in South Dakota’s Schedule I criteria (SDCL § 34-20B-11) following the federal DOJ’s April 23, 2026 Schedule III recognition of accepted medical use for certain marijuana products;
• Program transparency, enforcement costs, and taxpayer burdens (April 28, 2026 WeedPress reporting);
• Records surfaced during the TPO proceedings themselves (April 26, 2026 reporting).
3. Connection to Licensed Establishment: As an “agent” of 605 Cannabis LLC, this pattern raises legitimate questions about whether the program tolerates actions that deter patient advocacy, public accountability, and lawful oversight of licensed establishments.
This complaint is not personal. It goes to the core integrity of a voter-approved, fee-funded program that must withstand lawful scrutiny to maintain public and legislative confidence — especially after the recent federal rescheduling action.
Requested Actions
1. Open a formal Program Integrity / Establishment Complaint investigation.
2. Review whether this pattern undermines program transparency or implicates program integrity.
3. Provide written findings and a timeline for response within 30 days.
4. Any appropriate referrals (e.g., CIASD Code of Conduct).
Attachments
• Copies of relevant denied TPO orders/dockets available from public records:
• 30TPO25-000002, filed December 5, 2025
• 30TPO25-000003, filed in Hanson County December 11, 2025
• 417TP026-000045, filed in Minnehaha County January 2026
• 49TPO26-000343, filed in Minnehaha County April 13, 2026
• April 26, 28, and 29, 2026 WeedPress articles (linked below)
• February 2026 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to DOH
I am available for any interview or to supply additional public-record documentation.
Sincerely,
Jason Karimi
Personal Note
We would rather be preparing lawsuits against the state to enforce statutory and constitutional compliance in the medical cannabis program, but being framed and falsely accused has me spending limited resources defending freedom of the press against a corporation filing duplicative and false claims to intimidate WeedPress reporting instead.
Background and Prior Reporting
This complaint builds directly on prior WeedPress coverage of public records showing transparency and leadership issues involving 605 Cannabis executives.
Relevant prior articles:
• Public Records Show Two Active Civil Cases Involving 605 Cannabis Executive – Questions of Transparency Follow for Reform Leadership (Apr. 26, 2026)
• South Dakota Patients and Taxpayers Deserve More Transparency in Medical Cannabis Enforcement (Apr. 28, 2026)
• South Dakota’s Schedule I Marijuana Prohibition Heads to Court This Summer (Apr. 28, 2026)
• Why South Dakota’s Own Statutes Now Make Schedule I Marijuana Unlawful to Maintain (Apr. 29, 2026)
Next Steps
The Department was asked to preserve the complaint for intake and conduct a post-hearing program-integrity review. A parallel submission via the official DOH Establishment Complaint Form was also completed.
WeedPress will continue to monitor and report on public records related to program oversight, transparency, and statutory compliance in South Dakota’s medical cannabis program.
Footnotes
1. S.D. Dep’t of Health, Medical Cannabis Program Staff Directory, https://doh.sd.gov/contacts/staff-directory/ (last visited Apr. 29, 2026).
2. S.D. Dep’t of Health, Medical Cannabis Program, https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis-program/ (last visited Apr. 29, 2026).
3. See 605 Cannabis LLC, About Us, https://605cannabis.com/about-us (identifying Melissa Mentele as COO/Co-Founder).
4. S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-1(18) (defining “agent”); S.D. Admin. R. 44:90 et seq.
5. S.D. Codified Laws ch. 25-10 (Protection Orders).
6. S.D. Dep’t of Health, File an Establishment Complaint, https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis-program/Establishment-Complaint-Form (last visited Apr. 29, 2026).
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment