For the Record — July 2026
Over the past seven months, Melissa Mentele has filed at least four protection order petitions against me across two counties. All four were denied after evidentiary hearings for failure to provide sufficient evidence of stalking or qualifying harassment under South Dakota law. One temporary order was granted in Hanson County, resulting in an arrest that was later dropped for lack of probable cause, with no permanent order ever issued.
She has now appealed the most recent denial from Minnehaha County. This is not a story about safety. It is a story about the use of the civil protection order process to punish protected speech — blogging, public commentary, ethics complaints, and oversight of cannabis policy and industry figures.
The Pattern
The filings share a common core: they arise from public writing and criticism regarding transparency, patient access, federal exemption issues, and the conduct of individuals in positions of influence within South Dakota’s medical cannabis program. The allegations repeatedly framed investigative reporting and blog posts as “stalking” or “harassment,” despite the absence of credible threats of physical injury or qualifying conduct under SDCL chapter 22-19A.
Court records show the consistent outcomes:
• Multiple Hanson County cases denied or dismissed after hearings for insufficient evidence.
• Multiple Minnehaha County filings also denied after evidentiary hearings.
• One temporary order that did not result in a permanent order.
I have preserved the full docket history, hearing outcomes, and judicial findings. The evidence presented did not meet the statutory threshold in any of these cases.
What Changes on July 1, 2026
South Dakota’s new anti-SLAPP law (SB 137, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act) is now in effect. It provides exactly the procedural tool these cases needed from the beginning.
Under the new statute, a defendant facing a claim based on protected speech on a matter of public concern can file a special motion to dismiss within 60 days. This triggers an automatic stay of proceedings. If the moving party cannot establish a prima facie case for every essential element of the claim, the court must dismiss with prejudice. The prevailing defendant is entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees.
These TPO petitions were built almost entirely on blogging and public criticism of matters of public concern. That is core protected speech. The new law would have allowed swift dismissal with fee-shifting, rather than repeated hearings, an arrest that went nowhere, and the ongoing drain of time and resources.
I previously wrote about this dynamic in February 2026 in “When Public Criticism Is Miscast as Harassment.” The pattern has continued since then.
Leadership Accountability
Individuals who hold leadership or public-facing roles in regulated industries carry a responsibility to engage with criticism through open discourse, public records, and policy debate rather than repeated civil filings. When multiple protection order petitions centered on protected speech are filed and subsequently denied for insufficient evidence, it raises legitimate questions about judgment, proportionality, and the ability to operate effectively in an environment that demands transparency and accountability.
Being in a leadership position comes with power, influence, and public scrutiny. Claiming personal vulnerability — whether through health issues, emotional distress, or other circumstances — does not grant immunity from accountability for one’s conduct in that public role. If anything, leadership positions require higher standards of behavior precisely because they affect other people’s lives and institutions.
On Future Filings
Ms. Mentele has shown persistence in pursuing these matters across multiple counties and has indicated at the conclusion of at least one prior hearing that she intended to continue. Whether additional petitions will be filed remains to be seen. What has changed is the legal environment.
Any future filing that substantially relies on the same body of protected public expression now carries significantly higher procedural and financial risk due to South Dakota’s new anti-SLAPP statute. The public record of repeated denials for insufficient evidence is now well established.
Additional Context
I recently sent a cease-and-desist preservation letter through counsel to Ms. Mentele’s attorney regarding repeated false claims that I encouraged self-harm or posed a physical danger. Those claims are false and have no evidentiary support in any court record.
Separately, after outreach from a mutual contact in the cannabis industry, I voluntarily removed specific commentary regarding one individual to de-escalate personal tensions while continuing my broader policy work. That decision was documented at the time.
The Current Appeal
Ms. Mentele has appealed the most recent denial. I have prepared a response brief grounded in the clear error and abuse of discretion standards, the deference owed to trial court credibility findings, and the requirement that protection orders rest on actual statutory violations — not disagreement with public criticism.
I am prepared to defend the circuit court’s rulings fully.
Why This Matters
South Dakota finally has a statute that recognizes what these filings represent: attempts to weaponize civil process against protected expression. The new anti-SLAPP law does not prevent legitimate protection orders. It prevents the misuse of the process to silence oversight, journalism, and public participation on matters of public concern.
The record is now clear. Multiple courts, multiple judges, and multiple hearings found that the evidence did not support the requested orders. The pattern of refiling substantially similar claims after adverse rulings is documented.
Future attempts will face a different legal landscape. The cost and risk have changed.
This is not about any single individual. This is about preserving the ability of patients, advocates, and independent voices to engage in public discourse and accountability work without facing serial lawfare dressed up as protection orders.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment