South Dakota’s medical cannabis program was created by voters to serve patients. It is also a regulated industry. That means licensed establishments, establishment agents, compliance officers, campaign leaders, committee members, and public-facing executives do not operate in a purely private sphere. When a licensed cannabis business is inspected, suspended, sued, settled with, politically active, represented on oversight bodies, and connected to repeated court filings against cannabis patient-journalism, the public has a legitimate interest in the record.
This article compiles a public-records timeline concerning 605 Cannabis LLC and members of its leadership.
According to 605 Cannabis’s own website, Ned Horsted is Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Liz Tiger is Chief Compliance Officer and Partner, and Melissa Mentele is Co-Founder.¹ Those titles matter because South Dakota’s medical cannabis regulations require licensed establishments to identify who is responsible for management, day-to-day operations, compliance, recordkeeping, security, and regulatory duties.²
This is not a claim that every public record listed below establishes wrongdoing. It does not. Some records show ordinary political activity. Some show civil litigation. Some show agency enforcement. Some show public speech. Some show court filings. The point is narrower and stronger: taken together, these records raise legitimate questions about transparency, compliance culture, patient representation, enforcement costs, and the use of legal process around public-interest reporting in South Dakota’s medical cannabis system.
605 Cannabis leadership is invited to respond on the record.
I. The Regulatory Frame
South Dakota’s medical cannabis program exists under SDCL Chapter 34-20G. Licensed establishments operate under administrative rules in ARSD Article 44:90. Those rules are not decorative. They define how establishments must maintain operating procedures, identify responsible managers, preserve records, comply with inspections, avoid serious violations, and respond to enforcement actions.³
ARSD 44:90:03:05 requires a medical cannabis establishment to maintain a management plan. That plan must identify individuals responsible for day-to-day operations.⁴ ARSD 44:90:12:04 through 44:90:12:09 govern enforcement, including serious violations and emergency suspensions.⁵
That legal framework explains why leadership records, compliance titles, public representations, regulatory history, and repeated court activity are fair subjects for public reporting. In a licensed medical program, leadership credibility is not gossip. It is part of public oversight.
II. Public-Records Timeline
Pre-2020 – Reform Leadership Before Commercial Licensing
Before South Dakota’s medical cannabis program launched, Melissa Mentele served as Executive Director of New Approach South Dakota and was one of the public advocates associated with medical cannabis reform efforts leading to Initiated Measure 26.⁶
That history is relevant because South Dakota’s program did not emerge in a vacuum. Activist leadership, ballot-measure politics, later licensing, and regulatory oversight became intertwined after voters approved medical cannabis.
2016 – Electoral Candidacy
Melissa Mentele ran as the Democratic candidate for South Dakota House of Representatives in District 19. She received 16.06%, or 2,778 votes, and lost to the two Republican incumbents.⁷
This campaign record is relevant only because several figures in South Dakota cannabis reform later occupied overlapping roles as activists, operators, lobbyists, committee participants, or candidates.
2018 – Website Claim Regarding Continuing Education Teaching
The 605 Cannabis long bio page states that Melissa Mentele “was accredited by the State of SD AAMA to teach Cannabis 101 and Cannabis in Healthcare as continuing education credits for mid-level healthcare providers & support staff.”⁸
That wording deserves clarification. Public continuing-education systems usually approve courses, sponsors, educational programs, or credit-bearing offerings. They do not always grant broad state-level personal “teacher accreditation” to individual presenters. The public record presently available does not establish whether the 605 Cannabis bio refers to individual accreditation, course approval, a continuing-education presentation, or another form of approval.
The distinction matters because cannabis operators and reform leaders often rely on claimed expertise when influencing patients, lawmakers, regulators, and the public. If the website language is accurate, 605 Cannabis can document it. If it is imprecise, the public record should be corrected.
2020 – Voter Approval of Medical Cannabis
In 2020, South Dakota voters approved Initiated Measure 26, creating the state’s medical cannabis program. The program was codified under SDCL Chapter 34-20G.⁹ 605 Cannabis LLC later operated as a licensed cultivation and manufacturing establishment.
The 2020 vote established the patient-focused mandate that still frames every later dispute: the program exists for patients, and licensed businesses operate by permission of a regulated system.
January 2023 – DOH Inspection and Violations
In January 2023, the South Dakota Department of Health inspected 605 Cannabis facilities in Worthing. Public reporting described 19 alleged violations, including nine classified as serious.¹⁰
The seriousness classification matters because ARSD 44:90:12:09 identifies factors relevant to serious violations, including risks to patient health and safety, regulatory compliance failures, and other program-integrity concerns.¹¹
February 2023 – Emergency Suspension
In February 2023, DOH issued an emergency suspension affecting 605 Cannabis’s manufacturing and cultivation licenses. The suspension followed the inspection findings and was tied to alleged serious violations.¹²
An emergency suspension is one of the strongest tools available to a regulator. Even if later resolved or settled, the fact that such a suspension issued is a major public-record event in the life of a licensed medical cannabis establishment.
March 2023 – 605 Cannabis Sues the State
605 Cannabis sued the state following the inspection and suspension. Public reporting described the company’s lawsuit as challenging the inspection process, the timing of the inspection, and the state’s regulatory position.¹³
The lawsuit is part of the public record and matters for two reasons. First, it shows the company contested DOH’s enforcement position. Second, it placed internal compliance, inspection practices, and state regulatory authority into litigation.
July 2023 – Settlement and Suspension Lifted
DOH and 605 Cannabis later reached a settlement, and the suspension was lifted.¹⁴
A settlement does not erase the inspection, the suspension, or the violations alleged by the state. Nor does it prove all allegations against the company. It shows that the dispute was resolved without the public receiving a full litigated ruling on every underlying issue.
That gap is precisely why public transparency remains important.
2024 – Establishment Fees Increased by Nearly 70%
Roughly one year after the 605 Cannabis enforcement dispute, South Dakota moved to increase annual medical cannabis establishment registration fees from $5,310 to $9,000 — a nearly 70% increase. Public reporting described the increase as a way to cover the program’s administrative costs, and DOH materials reflect program expenses for software, inspections, administration, safety compliance, and application processing.¹⁵
That fee increase affected small operators across the regulated market. It also matters to the public-integrity analysis because enforcement does not happen in a vacuum. When one major operator dispute requires inspections, agency attention, litigation posture, compliance review, settlement work, and rulemaking pressure, the broader program bears administrative costs. Patients, small businesses, and compliant operators have a legitimate interest in whether preventable compliance failures increase the cost of participation for everyone.
December 2023 – Domestic-Assault-Related Public Record
Public records and prior reporting identify a 605 Cannabis LLC Executive as the victim in a domestic-assault-related case that resulted in the jailing of the perpetrator.¹⁶
This entry is included only to the extent it has already appeared in public records and prior reporting. It should not be read as criticism of a victim. Its relevance, if any, lies in the broader public-records context surrounding individuals who occupy public-facing leadership roles in a regulated and politically active industry.
Spring 2024 – New Approach South Dakota Sabotage Allegations
In Spring 2024, New Approach South Dakota made unproven public allegations of sabotage within the South Dakota cannabis industry. When politely questioned by Jason Karimi of WeedPress, the organization responded in a separate post alleging that Jason Karimi was not to be trusted and was a liar.¹⁷
That exchange matters because it shows how public questioning of cannabis reform leadership was handled: not through transparent answers, but through public character attacks.
December 2025 – January 2026 – CIASD Ethics Complaints
Jason Karimi filed an initial ethics complaint with the Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota (CIAS D) in December 2025 regarding Melissa Mentele. Mentele testified under oath in Hanson County court on January 5, 2026 (during TPO #2 proceedings) that CIASD held a vote after investigating the ethics complaint and voted to retain her as a non-voting member on the CIASD board. A second ethics complaint was filed in April 2026.¹⁸
2025 – Active Civil Cases and Foreclosure Proceedings
By late 2025, public records reportedly showed two active civil cases, including a pending foreclosure matter, involving individuals connected to 605 Cannabis leadership.¹⁹
The point is not that civil litigation equals wrongdoing. The point is that regulated-industry leadership, financial pressures, political activity, and public oversight cannot be artificially separated when the same figures seek public trust.
November 2025 – Patient Representation and MMOC Access
On November 9, 2025, Melissa Mentele stated on Rep. Josephine Garcia’s Facebook page that patients like the author were not invited to MMOC board meetings.²⁰
That statement raises a patient-representation concern. South Dakota’s medical cannabis program was approved by voters for patients. If certain patients are excluded from reform spaces, oversight discussions, or committee-facing advocacy because they ask hard questions, that is a legitimate subject of public criticism.
2023 – Liz Tiger and the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee
Elizabeth “Liz” Tiger, identified by 605 Cannabis as Chief Compliance Officer and Partner, was appointed to and later removed from the Medical Cannabis Oversight Committee patient seat amid legislative restructuring of the committee.²¹
This overlap matters. A licensed establishment’s compliance officer serving in a patient-related oversight role creates obvious public-interest questions about representation, conflicts, industry influence, and whether patient seats are functioning as patient seats.
2025–2026 – Four Temporary Protective Order Filings
From 2025 into 2026, Melissa Mentele acting on behalf of 605 Cannabis interests filed four temporary protective order applications against this author in connection with public records reporting, blogging, questioning, and criticism involving 605 Cannabis and related matters. All four have been denied by courts.²²
This is one of the most important entries in the timeline. Court process is serious. Protective orders exist to prevent abuse and violence. They should not be converted into tools for restraining public records journalism, criticism of a licensed cannabis business, or patient advocacy.
If a licensed-establishment leader repeatedly seeks court orders that would restrict blogging, questioning, or public criticism — and courts repeatedly deny those requests — that pattern raises program-integrity questions beyond any private dispute.
April 26, 2026 – WeedPress Publishes Civil Case Analysis
On April 26, 2026, WeedPress published an article analyzing two active civil cases and related financial records involving 605 Cannabis executive leadership.²³
That article was based on public records. Public records reporting about licensed cannabis leadership is protected, relevant, and necessary in a program that depends on patient trust and regulatory accountability.
April 29, 2026 – Formal Establishment Complaint Filed with DOH
On April 29, 2026, a formal complaint was submitted to South Dakota Medical Cannabis Program Administrator Whitney Brunner requesting program-integrity review of licensed establishment agent conduct. The complaint cited ARSD 44:90:03:05, ARSD 44:90:12:04–12:09, and related provisions of SDCL Chapter 34-20G.²⁴
The complaint asks DOH to examine whether repeated use of court filings against public records reporting, public attacks on patient-journalists, and leadership conduct connected to a licensed establishment raise concerns under South Dakota’s medical cannabis regulatory framework.
2026 – Ned Horsted Campaign for Office
Ned Horsted, identified by 605 Cannabis as Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, is running for South Dakota House of Representatives in District 6 during the 2026 election cycle.²⁵
This makes transparency more urgent, not less. When a licensed cannabis executive seeks public office, voters are entitled to evaluate the public record of the company, its enforcement history, its leadership, its compliance posture, and its relationship to patient oversight.
III. Why the Pattern Matters
Each event in this timeline could be minimized in isolation. A campaign loss is ordinary politics. A civil case is not proof of wrongdoing. A settlement is not a conviction. A denied protective order is not a criminal finding. A disputed website credential might be imprecise rather than intentionally false.
But public oversight does not require blindness to patterns.
The pattern here includes:
605 Cannabis leadership occupying public, political, regulatory, and commercial roles.
A major DOH enforcement action followed by litigation and settlement.
A subsequent nearly 70% increase in establishment fees to support the program’s administrative costs.
Public-facing claims of expertise and accreditation that deserve clarification.
Civil and financial records involving leadership in 2025.
Medical Cannabis Oversight Committee overlap involving an industry compliance officer.
Four denied court filings against a patient-journalist engaged in public-records reporting.
A current campaign for public office by the company’s CEO.
That pattern does not answer every question. It raises them.
IV. The Questions That Should Be Answered
605 Cannabis and its leadership should answer the following:
What exactly did the 2018 “State of SD AAMA” accreditation language mean?
Was Melissa Mentele personally accredited as an instructor, or was a course or presentation approved for continuing education credit?
Who within 605 Cannabis is identified in the company’s required management plan as responsible for day-to-day compliance?
Did the company update its compliance policies after the 2023 DOH inspection and emergency suspension?
How much agency time, inspection work, legal review, and settlement administration did the 605 Cannabis enforcement dispute require?
How does DOH ensure that enforcement costs caused by major operator disputes are not unfairly shifted onto patients and smaller compliant businesses?
How does 605 Cannabis distinguish private disputes from conduct connected to licensed establishment leadership?
Does 605 Cannabis believe four denied protective order filings against public records journalism are consistent with program integrity?
Should a licensed establishment’s compliance officer occupy or have occupied a patient-related oversight role?
Will Ned Horsted disclose and answer questions about 605 Cannabis’s regulatory history during his 2026 campaign?
These are not personal attacks. They are oversight questions.
V. Conclusion
South Dakota’s medical cannabis program was built in the name of patients. It should not become a closed network of insiders, operators, political actors, and gatekeepers who resist scrutiny while benefiting from a regulated market created by public vote.
605 Cannabis has every right to defend itself, sue the state, participate in politics, employ reform leaders, and respond to criticism. But patients, journalists, taxpayers, regulators, lawmakers, voters, and small businesses also have the right to examine the record.
The public record shows enough to justify scrutiny.
The next step is transparency.
Footnotes
¹ 605 Cannabis, About Us, https://605cannabis.com/about-us; 605 Cannabis, Home, https://605cannabis.com/.
² ARSD 44:90:03:05.
³ S.D. Codified Laws ch. 34-20G; ARSD art. 44:90.
⁴ ARSD 44:90:03:05.
⁵ ARSD 44:90:12:04–12:09.
⁶ New Approach South Dakota public campaign materials and campaign finance records, South Dakota Secretary of State Campaign Finance Portal, https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/campaign-finance/default.aspx; New Approach South Dakota, Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/newapproachSD/.
⁷ Ballotpedia, Melissa Mentele, https://ballotpedia.org/Melissa_Mentele.
⁸ 605 Cannabis, About Long Bios, https://605cannabis.com/about-long-bios; Internet Archive archived copy, https://web.archive.org/web/20260429234500/https://605cannabis.com/about-long-bios.
⁹ S.D. Codified Laws ch. 34-20G; South Dakota Medical Cannabis Program, South Dakota Department of Health, https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis-program/; South Dakota Medical Cannabis Program Data & Statistics, https://medcannabis.sd.gov/Updates/Data.aspx.
¹⁰ Dakota Free Press, State Shuts Down 605 Cannabis After Blizzard Inspection; Company Sues (Mar. 30, 2023), https://dakotafreepress.com/2023/03/30/state-shuts-down-605-cannabis-after-blizzard-inspection-company-sues/; Ganjapreneur, South Dakota Medical Cannabis Company Sues Health Department Over Alleged Overreach (Mar. 31, 2023), https://ganjapreneur.com/south-dakota-medical-cannabis-company-sues-health-department-over-alleged-overreach/.
¹¹ ARSD 44:90:12:09.
¹² ARSD 44:90:12:04; Dakota Free Press supra note 10; Ganjapreneur supra note 10.
¹³ Dakota News Now, 605 Cannabis Sues State Over Inspection Report (Mar. 29, 2023), https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2023/03/29/605-cannabis-sues-state-over-inspection-report/; The Dakota Scout, Cannabis Company Fighting Back Against State Recall, Sues Department of Health (Mar. 29, 2023), https://www.thedakotascout.com/p/cannabis-company-fighting-back-against; NE CANN, Health Agency Sued by SD Medical Cannabis Company, https://necann.com/cannabis-news/health-agency-sued-by-sd-cannabis-company/.
¹⁴ KELOLAND News, 605 Cannabis and South Dakota Department of Health Reach Settlement, https://www.keloland.com/news/local-news/605-cannabis-and-south-dakota-department-of-health-reach-settlement/; KORN News Radio, Settlement Reached Between SD Department of Health and 605 Cannabis (July 22, 2023), https://kornradio.com/latestnews/settlement-reached-between-sd-department-of-health-and-605-cannabis/; The Highest Critic, 605 Cannabis and South Dakota Reach Settlement Over Alleged Delta-8 Doping, https://thehighestcritic.com/news/605-cannabis-and-south-dakota-reach-settlement-over-alleged-delta-8-doping/.
¹⁵ South Dakota Searchlight, South Dakota Medical Marijuana Businesses Are Facing a $3,690 Fee Increase (July 29, 2024), https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2024/07/29/south-dakota-medical-marijuana-businesses-are-facing-a-3690-fee-increase/; South Dakota Searchlight, Annual Fees for Medical Marijuana Businesses Will Jump 70 Percent (Aug. 20, 2024), https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2024/08/20/annual-fees-for-medical-marijuana-businesses-will-jump-70-percent/; South Dakota Department of Health, SFY 2024 Medical Cannabis Annual Report, https://doh.sd.gov/media/4ndgp2h3/fy2024_med-cannabis-annual-report.pdf; South Dakota Medical Cannabis Program Data & Statistics, https://medcannabis.sd.gov/Updates/Data.aspx.
¹⁶ WeedPress, Public Records Show Two Active Civil Cases Involving 605 Cannabis Executive — Questions of Transparency Follow for Reform Leadership (Apr. 26, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/04/26/public-records-show-two-active-civil-cases-involving-605-cannabis-executive-questions-of-transparency-follow-for-reform-leadership/.
¹⁷ New Approach South Dakota public statements, Spring 2024, New Approach South Dakota Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/newapproachSD/.
¹⁸ WeedPress, “Campaign to Discredit WeedPress Policy Work: Observed Tactics in Public Discourse” (Jan. 7, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/01/07/campaign-to-discredit-weedpress-policy-work-observed-tactics-in-public-discourse-posted-by-jas/; WeedPress, “A Fourth 605 Cannabis-Linked TPO Petition Was Also Denied – At What Point Does the Pattern Itself Become News?” (Apr. 24, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/04/24/a-fourth-605-cannabis-linked-tpo-petition-was-also-denied-at-what-point-does-the-pattern-itself-become-news/.
¹⁹ WeedPress, Public Records Show Two Active Civil Cases Involving 605 Cannabis Executive — Questions of Transparency Follow for Reform Leadership (Apr. 26, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/04/26/public-records-show-two-active-civil-cases-involving-605-cannabis-executive-questions-of-transparency-follow-for-reform-leadership/.
²⁰ Melissa Mentele statement on Rep. Josephine Garcia Facebook page (Nov. 9, 2025), Rep. Josephine Garcia Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/RepJosephineGarcia.
²¹ Public reporting and legislative materials regarding Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee appointments and restructuring, South Dakota Legislature Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee page, https://sdlegislature.gov/Interim/Committee/484/Detail; South Dakota Legislature, Legislative Research Council, https://sdlegislature.gov/.
²² Hanson County and Minnehaha County court records: 30TPO25-000002 (filed Dec. 5, 2025), 30TPO25-000003 (filed Dec. 11, 2025 in Hanson County), 417TP026-000045 (filed Jan. 2026 in Minnehaha County), 49TPO26-000343 (filed Apr. 13, 2026 in Minnehaha County). All four denied.
²³ WeedPress, Public Records Show Two Active Civil Cases Involving 605 Cannabis Executive — Questions of Transparency Follow for Reform Leadership (Apr. 26, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/04/26/public-records-show-two-active-civil-cases-involving-605-cannabis-executive-questions-of-transparency-follow-for-reform-leadership/.
²⁴ Formal Establishment Complaint Filed with SD DOH Medical Cannabis Program (Apr. 29, 2026), WeedPress, https://weedpress.org/; South Dakota Medical Cannabis Program, South Dakota Department of Health, https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis-program/; ARSD 44:90:03:05; ARSD 44:90:12:04–12:09.
²⁵ South Dakota Secretary of State, Candidate Information / Elections, https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/default.aspx; South Dakota Legislature candidate and election resources, https://sdlegislature.gov/.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment