The filer doesn’t just lose again — she risks paying the costs, watching the public record of failed claims grow longer, and handing WeedPress even stronger structural protection under the new law.
Over the past seven months, Melissa Mentele filed at least four protection order petitions against me across Hanson and Minnehaha counties, full of false allegations meant to destroy my reputation which a lawsuit is now being filed over. Every single one of these false domestic abuse filings (weaponized unsuccessfully against online policy speech) was denied after evidentiary hearings because the evidence did not meet South Dakota’s statutory requirements for stalking or qualifying harassment. One temporary order was granted in Hanson County due to material misrepresentations to the court; it led to an arrest that was later dropped for lack of probable cause. No permanent order was ever issued. The pattern is documented in court records. The latest Minnehaha County denial is currently on appeal.
Effective July 1, 2026, South Dakota’s new Anti-SLAPP law (SB 137, South Dakota’s version of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act adopted by 40 states) changed the equation for anyone who tries to use civil protection orders or similar claims to punish protected speech on matters of public concern. During one of the three court hearings Mentele specifically lambasted WeedPress for not having anti-SLAPP protections. One month later, an anti- SLAPP law passed – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation are now punishable by financial costs to bloggers when attacked and intimidated by lawfare by unhinged and thoroughly unstable far left Mentele types.
What the New Law Actually Does in This Exact Situation
If another TPO petition based on the same pattern of blogging, policy criticism, ethics complaints, or oversight of the medical cannabis program is filed:
• I can file a special motion to dismiss within 60 days.
• Filing that motion triggers an automatic stay of the proceedings, including discovery. No more fishing expeditions or procedural punishment while the motion is pending.
• Once I show the claim arises from protected expression on a public concern (criticism of a regulated industry, transparency demands, patient access issues — all classic public-interest speech), the burden shifts.
• The filer must then establish a prima facie case on every essential element of the claim. “Prima facie” means enough evidence on its face to support each required part of the legal claim — not speculation, not feelings, not disagreement with my writing. If she cannot clear that bar (as she has failed to do repeatedly already), the court must dismiss the case with prejudice.
• If the motion succeeds, the court must award me court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other litigation expenses related to the motion. The financial risk flips.
This is not theoretical. The prior denials already show the claims consistently fail the evidentiary threshold. The new law simply gives a faster, more decisive procedural weapon and attaches real financial consequences to continuing the pattern.
Why Repeated Meritless Filings Now Look Even Worse on the Public Record
Courts have already found insufficient evidence multiple times across two counties. Continuing to file the same style of petition after those rulings, after the temporary order collapsed, and after the new law took effect, does not look like legitimate fear. It looks like an attempt to use the legal system as a tool to silence criticism of South Dakota’s medical cannabis program — transparency, patient protections, federal exemption questions, and conduct within the regulated industry.
That is the definition of the kind of abusive litigation the Anti-SLAPP law was written to deter. South Dakota finally joined the 40 states with these protections because process itself can be punishment. When someone with a track record of failed petitions keeps filing anyway, the public record becomes the evidence. Every new denial or dismissal adds another entry.
High-Conflict Patterns Don’t Change Just Because the Law Did — But the Costs Do
This fits the classic high-conflict profile: goalposts move, arguments explode into unrelated accusations, third parties get pulled in, the record contradicts itself, and escalation is the default response to any pushback or de-escalation attempt.
In this case, this female specifically asked domestic abuse court judges – four times she asked, with three hearings in two counties – for relief that would have stopped WeedPress from blogging entirely and barred me from entering the South Dakota State Capitol. When she was denied, she attacked all three judges, claiming she is a Harvard law student and knows the law better than the judges, leading to admonishments of being thin skinned, being discredited by the courts moving forward, and even being warned continuing to yell at judges could lead to contempt charges.
These domestic abuse filings to stop my blogging about South Dakota marijuana policy disagreements are a malicious, disingenuous, and direct attempt at prior restraint on speech and restriction of access to a public building for the purpose of engaging in policy advocacy and criticism of a regulated industry. This is precisely the kind of conduct the new Anti-SLAPP law (and free speech protections generally) is designed to deter. And this is her attack that started this, made on a state Representative post attacking Emmett Reistroffer, accusing me of not being allowed to attend marijuana hearings…because I sold hemp at a retail outlet to grandmothers in Sioux Falls:
Normal difficult people can sometimes be reasoned with.
High-conflict actors feed on the conflict itself, usually to distract from professional and business leadership flaws and shortcomings and move the discussion from merit based leadership issues to emotional back and forth instead.
The new anti-SLAPP law does not stop legitimate domestic abuse protection orders. It raises the cost and risk for using the domestic abuse process as Mentele has done this year – ostensibly to stop me from promoting federal legalization at cannabis hearings – as a weapon against speech. When the filer has already lost multiple times on the merits, each new attempt becomes more expensive and more publicly visible as part of a pattern. Inability to debate policy issues to help patients and industry leaders meant emotional court attacks. Those have failed. Can we resume policy talks without being dragged into domestic assault court for public blog posts?
Colleagues and critics tell WeedPress they feel uncomfortable engaging an honest conversation with Mentele, as her reputation of emotional instability makes them avoidant, allowing the weed movement to suffer as a result.
What Actually Happens Next Time
• Early special motion.
• Automatic stay.
• Burden on the filer to show a real prima facie case on every element.
• High likelihood of dismissal with prejudice if the same insufficient-evidence pattern continues.
• Mandatory fee-shifting in my favor.
• Another public court record entry documenting the outcome.
The drama-queen tactic of repeated, weak protection order filings no longer carries the same low-risk, high-harassment value it once did in South Dakota. The law now makes the filer pay when the claims lack merit and target protected speech.
I have preserved the full docket history, hearing outcomes, and judicial findings. The appeal on the latest denial is already being briefed on clear error and abuse of discretion standards, with deference to the trial court’s credibility and evidence assessments. The record speaks for itself.
This is not about one individual. It is about whether independent policy criticism and patient advocacy in South Dakota can be chilled through serial civil filings that courts keep rejecting. The new Anti-SLAPP law says they cannot — not without real consequences for the person who keeps trying.
The risk calculus just flipped.
And the public record of what actually happened in those courtrooms is now permanent.
If another “domestic abuse” petition arrives – requesting for the historic fifth time this year that I “not be allowed” to blog about institutional marijuana issues on my 17 year old marijuana blog unless I first consider business profits of a company whose cannabis is low quality (in my experience) – the process dismissing such a thin-skinned filing will be faster, the stay will be automatic, and the financial exposure for continuing this pattern will be real.
That is what changed on July 1, 2026.
The receipts are already in the docket. The new law protecting public free speech – and the right to public participation on public issues like marijuana – is now in effect. Pretending to be some powerful gatekeeper in the marijuana movement was a real egotistical self serving losers game. The next move is hers — and the consequences for future court filings to stop blog articles are now hers to carry as well.
If you’re going to be a lobbyist, playing emotionally unstable female in domestic case courtrooms really discredits your judgment and leadership capabilities. Nobody that disingenuous – after starting fights then crying to three separate domestic abuse judges to silence a blogs response to the picked fight – gets to tell other people what to say, or think. And nobody believes a 50 year old woman loses her mind for being called out for character and leadership flaws deserves leadership kudos. Have all South Dakota cannabis patients been treated with such emotional attacks by business interests in this state? If this is what the political leadership of cannabis is doing to South Dakota patients, I’m definitely going to continue to blog about that.
Patients aren’t meant to be pawns for someone’s business profits, threatened and attacked into following someone else’s ideas. That’s not how America works. We have independent thought here.
I guess that needs stated after all these pathetically unfit for basic political policy disagreements, my-feelings-are-hurt-and-I-want-everyone-to-feel-sorry-for-me performances, pushed into absurd court filings…as well as years of publicly attacking cannabis patients and sick/vulnerable people through appointed MMOC board positions (regulatory business capture was a bad look, for the record) and lobbyist organization Facebook pages. Abuse of power…abuse of domestic assault courts…that’s definitely worth opining publicly. More coming soon.
In the meantime, seeing as this is a policy issue in politics, I’m reaching out to Republicans to advise this lady is a former Democrat, bringing other former Democrats, to run for Republican power positions, while hiding their allegiance to the LGBT and transgender movements, which Republicans in South Dakota hate. Republicans don’t like former Democrats silencing free speech. I’m one of them. And nobody intimidates me into not telling the truth about bad actors hurting other people and blowing the opportunities to make real differences by using power to hurt people…the lesson here is obvious to anyone who hears it. Trump just said to purge these leftists people from the party on July 4th, and, I fully intend to do so…peacefully and lawfully, as always, using my free speech with other well connected Republicans. Toodles.
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment