“We Are In A Courtroom. This Isn’t Facebook.” Judge Rejects Mentele’s Claims

During a Temporary Protection Order hearing, South Dakota Judge Andrew Robertson told the petitioner, “We are in a courtroom. This isn’t Facebook.”

The comment came as Melissa Mentele attempted to frame policy criticism and public records as threats to her safety. The court record shows this was not an isolated moment. It reflects a broader pattern of using legal filings to respond to public criticism.

Why Business Lawyers and Lawmakers Must Master the U.S. Reinterpretation of the Single Convention: Treaty Flexibility as the Foundation for Durable Cannabis Reform

Mentele has repeatedly claimed in court that I endangered her by publishing information from the South Dakota Secretary of State’s office. Those records are public by law. Her home address appears in search results because she filed it herself in public business documents. She has also posted on Facebook about living in Emery and previously shared her cell phone number during a 2025 podcast.

In multiple hearings, she accused me of publishing her children’s names and putting her family at risk. I published a public court record involving her husband to provide context for her repeated claims that she feared for her safety because of me. Her husband did not appear with her at any of the TPO hearings across two counties. The court repeatedly asked for evidence of direct threats or stalking. None was presented that met the legal standard for a protection order.

Instead, the transcripts show that when I responded to her public statements about cannabis policy — including her claim that “nobody knew what federal changes meant” — she filed additional legal actions alleging that I was attempting to incite harm against her. These allegations appear across three separate hearings. I have never been charged with assault, never owned a firearm, and have never advocated or encouraged violence.

Despite these facts, she sent law enforcement to my home at approximately 10:00 p.m. six months ago. My fiancé, who was recovering from cancer surgery and managing multiple serious medical conditions, was home alone. This occurred while Mentele was simultaneously claiming in court that my writing made her fear for her safety.

The court record also shows that she has expressed frustration that my policy writing damaged her “dignity” and that she believed I should not have the ability to publish criticism. She has characterized policy disagreement as an attempt to “stir up” readers against her. The judge has now heard these claims across multiple filings and has pushed back on the notion that blog posts and policy criticism meet the legal threshold for a protection order.

After multiple hearings and continued public statements accusing me of seeking to cause her harm, I have decided to pursue legal action to clear my name. The court record exists. The public statements exist. The pattern of filings exists. I will no longer allow false allegations about my intentions to stand unchallenged.

This is not about policy disagreement. It is about the use of court filings to silence criticism and the willingness to make serious allegations without supporting evidence. The judge’s reminder that we were in a courtroom, and not on social media, was a necessary correction.

Lies.

To everyone who listened, she lied to them. And she sounded like an insane person or meth user. In court. Really bad vibes.

And the judge recorded her lying, on the record.

Nobody in eight months and three hour long freaking court hearings came with her. Not her husband, anyone. And she claimed outrageous lies to everyone.

And she lied about a persons character to stop their free speech policy analysis of state law, for her benefit as an influencer, at the expense of everyone else…https://open.substack.com/pub/mitchellosak/p/beware-cannabis-influencers-and-creators?r=ytqpz&utm_medium=ios

Court revealed her husband has also been arrested for domestic assault against her with an alcohol issue involvement requiring court ordered alcohol abuse evaluating in 2023…a year before losing the recreational vote due to avoiding criticism and attacking allies and making enemies in spring 2024. She wanted a laundry list of failures kept secret from the public to protect her political image and influence. And was willing to lie to judges in court to achieve influence. Lying to a judge terminates public trust. And now everyone knows: 40,000 readers in two weeks don’t lie.