Court Records Detail 605 Cannabis Funding Dispute, ‘Shell’ Allegation and Named Investors

Court filings in Minnesota and Lincoln County show the Worthing medical cannabis company was a party to two money disputes in two years. In one, 605 Cannabis and its investors alleged that promised outside money never arrived. In the other, an Oklahoma company that contracted with 605 sued, and 605 answered that the company was a “shell company.” In between, the state issued an emergency suspension. Here is what the records show, and who appears in them.

By Jason Karimi, WeedPress

Disclosure: The author is a party to separate litigation with 605 Cannabis co-founder and chief operations officer Melissa Mentele (Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343, a protection-order case now on appeal). Because the author is a party to pending litigation with 605 Cannabis’s chief operations officer, WeedPress did not seek comment from 605 Cannabis or its officers for this article.¹

In a lawsuit filed in Minnesota in December 2022, South Dakota investors and two cannabis companies, including 605 Cannabis, LLC, alleged that in March 2022 a former Minnesota political operative told them he and his firm had “secured $6M of investment outside of South Dakota” for a fund that would put millions into the companies.² According to the suit, the outside money never arrived. The Minnesota Reformer later reported that the investors got all of their own money back in 2024, after litigation in Minnesota and Nebraska.³

In March 2022, 605 also signed a contract with an Oklahoma company to run the commercial kitchen and extraction lab at its Worthing facility. Less than a year later, the state Department of Health suspended 605’s cultivation and manufacturing certificates. In 2024, the Oklahoma company sued 605. 605 responded by alleging that the Oklahoma company was “created as a shell company with no capitalization and no assets.”⁴

Among the investors named as plaintiffs in the Minnesota case is Sioux Falls businessman Dustin Sejnoha. He appears in the case as an investor and co-plaintiff, not as a defendant. CBM, a company associated with his family, provided food service at the South Dakota State Penitentiary under a state contract, and he now runs a correctional food-service company of his own.⁵

This article puts those records side by side. Statements drawn from court filings are attributed to the party that made them. The court records WeedPress reviewed do not show a ruling on the merits of any party’s claims in those two disputes. 605 Cannabis remains listed by the state as holding cultivation and manufacturing certificates.

The fund: about $3.5 million from investors, $6 million allegedly promised

According to the Minnesota complaint, the founders of 605 Cannabis and its co-plaintiff, Dakota Natural Growers, Inc., “sought investment capital from their relatives and close acquaintances” after South Dakota legalized medical cannabis. The complaint says those investors “sought to invest $3,543,500.00 in the two companies, with half of that amount invested in each of the two companies.”⁶

In early 2022, the complaint alleges, Will Hailer, a former Democratic political operative, approached 605 managing member Ned Horsted and Dakota Natural Growers’ founders and proposed that he “would be able to raise millions of dollars in additional investment funding if they would only allow Hailer to control the capital raise” through his venture firm, eST Ventures LLC. In March 2022, the complaint says, Hailer told the investors that he and eST Ventures “have secured $6M of investment outside of South Dakota” and that the fund would be “an $11M fund.” The plaintiffs alleged “on information and belief” that this and other representations “were false when made.”⁷

A settlement form attached to the complaint says that between April and August 2022, the investors put a total of $3,464,500 into Badlands Ventures, LLC, a fund Hailer’s firms controlled. (The complaint itself uses $3,543,500.) Between May and October 2022, the same document says, Badlands lent $1,110,000 to 605 and $750,000 to Dakota Natural Growers through convertible notes, which could later be turned into ownership stakes.⁸ The complaint alleges that the investors’ money “represents 100% of the total capital invested in Badlands Ventures,” and that the defendants “never secured any other investor, for any amount.”⁹

Badlands Ventures, the 2022 investment fund, is distinct from “Badlands,” the product brand that later appeared on 605’s recalled products. No record WeedPress reviewed connects the fund to the product brand.

Who the complaint says was behind the fund

The complaint describes Hailer and “his associate Tim Mynett” as “career political operatives” and says they founded eST Ventures and a private equity firm, Rose Lake Capital, in 2020. It alleges that Hailer, Mynett and eST Ventures formed Badlands Fund GP LLC to control Badlands Ventures, and that “Hailer and Mynett are the managers” of that general partner. The complaint gives Delaware as the state of organization of eST Ventures, Badlands Fund GP and Badlands Ventures, and Washington, D.C., as their principal place of business. It says Hailer lives in Nebraska.¹⁰

Mynett was not named as a defendant. He is the husband of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.¹¹ When the Star Tribune reported the suit in February 2023, a spokesman for Omar told the paper that “Rep. Omar or her family have no involvement in this lawsuit whatsoever,” and Hailer told the paper that Mynett “had no involvement in the deal.”¹² Mynett told the Minnesota Reformer in 2024 that he withdrew from eST Ventures in early 2022 “because I wasn’t active in any of the work (securing investment, placing investment or even structure).” The Reformer reported that Omar’s congressional disclosures listed spousal income from “EstVenture LLC” of $5,001 to $15,000 in 2021 and $15,001 to $50,000 in 2022, and that the company did not appear on her 2023 disclosure.¹³

No record WeedPress reviewed shows that Omar invested in, raised money for or had any role in Badlands Ventures or 605 Cannabis. The “$6M” that the complaint says was promised is attributed in the complaint to Hailer and eST Ventures; no filing or report WeedPress found identifies Mynett or Omar as the source of any promised money.

The promised wires, according to the complaint

The complaint quotes messages it says Hailer sent about promised transfers. On Aug. 26, 2022, it says, Hailer promised to wire “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to the two companies but said the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control had placed a hold on the funds, an explanation the plaintiffs said “makes no sense.” On Oct. 24, the complaint says, Hailer wrote that he “just did $1M to each company.” The next day he wrote, “Rest assured –$500k min will be to you tomorrow.” Each company received $50,000. Hailer then said the bank must have “forgot[ten] a zero,” according to the complaint.¹⁴ The plaintiffs alleged that Hailer’s side refused their request to inspect Badlands Ventures’ books.¹⁵

Hailer signed a settlement on behalf of the Badlands entities on Nov. 30, 2022, and the complaint says the remaining signatures were delivered Dec. 2. Under the settlement, Badlands was to wire $584,193.70 to 605 and $944,193.70 to Dakota Natural Growers. Badlands’ interests in the two companies were to pass to ASDC3 LLC, which the complaint calls “a new fund controlled by the Investor Plaintiffs,” and the investors were to trade their Badlands units for ASDC3 units.¹⁶ The complaint says no money was sent.¹⁷

The companies and investors sued on Dec. 12, 2022, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, the forum the settlement named. They sued Hailer, eST Ventures, Badlands Fund GP and Badlands Ventures for breach of contract, specific performance, fraudulent inducement, fraud and conversion. They alleged “on information and belief” that the defendants formed Badlands Ventures “in order to defraud Plaintiffs by soliciting them for purported investments in Dakota and 605 with the present intention of stealing and/or misappropriating most of the money.”¹⁸ Those claims remain allegations; WeedPress has not seen a court ruling on them.

The Reformer later reported that in April 2023, the three defendant companies, eST Ventures, Badlands Fund GP and Badlands Ventures, agreed to pay $1.7 million to settle the suit but paid only $500,000, and that Hailer then signed a confession of judgment admitting the companies still owed $1.2 million. The companies and investors sued in Nebraska, where Hailer lives, for the rest.¹⁹ In August 2024, the Reformer reported that Hailer paid $1.2 million and that “the cannabis entrepreneurs and investors have received all of their own money back.” The companies’ lawyer said only that the parties had “amicably resolved their dispute.”²⁰ Hailer told the Reformer in 2024, “Running a business is hard and I’ve learned that the hard way. In all my business struggles, though, I’ve always tried to put my employees, contractors, and investors first.”²¹

Horsted described the pitch to the Reformer this way: “He tells a great story. It made sense in my mind.”²²

The investors in the filings

The complaint describes the individual and company investors as “relatives, friends and acquaintances of the principal owners and operators of Dakota and 605 who desired to invest” in the two companies.²³ It lists about two dozen of them as plaintiffs alongside 605 and Dakota Natural Growers. They include Dustin Sejnoha, Marvin and Lynn Amdahl, and three companies whose managing member is Amy DeBerg: All SD Can LLC, ASDC2 LLC and ASDC3 LLC.²⁴

Two names associated with those investor plaintiffs later appear in 605’s county licensing file. 605’s 2025–2027 Lincoln County license renewal, approved Nov. 25, 2025, lists six principal officers: Horsted, Kyle Peska, Melissa Mentele, Elizabeth Tiger, Marvin Amdahl and Amy DeBerg. Amdahl and DeBerg do not appear on 605’s 2021 or 2023 county applications, and the 2025 renewal does not describe their roles.²⁵

The filings WeedPress reviewed do not say how much any individual investor put in, how each investor’s money was split between 605 and Dakota Natural Growers, or whether the planned exchange into ASDC3 was completed.

The state suspension and recall

In January 2023, while the Hailer suit was pending, South Dakota Department of Health inspectors conducted what the department called a “complaint investigation” at 605’s Worthing facility. On Feb. 8, 2023, the department issued an emergency order and notice of intent to revoke 605’s cultivation and manufacturing certificates, with a summary suspension that barred 605 from dispensing, transferring or selling cannabis pending a hearing. The notice cited 19 alleged violations. Among the alleged violations the department called serious were failure to test cannabis before transfer for retail sale, “[t]he addition of Delta-8 and terpenes to cannabis sold,” “improper additives,” “material noncompliance with inventory recordkeeping” and security-camera failures.²⁶ Two days later, the state’s medical cannabis program notified dispensaries of a voluntary recall of products “from 605 Cannabis doing business as Badlands,” listing more than 100 package numbers. The notice described the department’s concerns as allegations.²⁷

605 sued the state in March 2023, alleging what Dakota News Now described as “misapplication of the rules and heavy-handedness.” The station reported that the suit sought $1.3 million and that 605 said the inspection took place while it was closed for a blizzard. Mentele said in a statement that the company had “chosen to protect the patients, the businesses, and the medical cannabis industry in our state by filing suit.”²⁸ In later court filings, 605 said many of the department’s “findings” “were disputed and no such factual or legal findings made by the Department were ever adjudicated.” In the Big Country case, both 605 and its Oklahoma contractor say 605 settled with the department on May 31, 2023.²⁹ The settlement agreement is not in the court file WeedPress reviewed.

The Oklahoma contractor

605’s Oklahoma contractor was Big Country Investment Group Corp., an Oklahoma company. Ralph Clinton Pyatt III, who signed his affidavit in the case as Clinton Pyatt, swore that he is its chief executive officer. Under a March 16, 2022 management services agreement, Big Country was to operate 605’s commercial kitchen and extraction lab in exchange for its cost of goods plus 50 percent of net wholesale revenue, and it agreed to sublease space in the facility.³⁰ The contractual relationship ended in January 2024. In the Lincoln County case, each side blames the other for the state’s 2023 action.³¹

Big Country sued 605 in Lincoln County circuit court on July 2, 2024. It alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and a claim to recover its equipment. Big Country alleged that 605 failed to make payments it claimed were due, kept equipment Big Country valued at about $300,000 and kept selling products “using BCI’s proprietary methods, materials, equipment, and packaging, under different but similar labels.”³²

605 denied those claims and filed seven counterclaims, including fraud in the inducement. In its answer, 605 “denies that BCI is a valid company and alleges upon information and belief that BCI is merely a shell for a company called PPK Investment Group, Inc.,” another Pyatt company.³³ Its counterclaim alleges that “BCI was not a legitimate, capitalized business” and that Big Country told 605 after the contract was signed that it was not “able to cash the check.” It alleges “[u]pon information and belief” that Big Country’s “true intent was to cash in on high prices in the earliest days of the South Dakota medical cannabis market,” and that it was “created as a shell company with no capitalization and no assets” for “the express purpose of funneling money into PPK Investment Group, Inc.” and “for the express purpose of defaulting on the MSA and leaving no assets from which 605 could recover contract damages.”³⁴

Big Country denied the fraud allegations, including 605’s allegation that it was a shell. In answering the counterclaim, Big Country admitted that it “instructed 605 to make payment to a related entity for business purposes,” and admitted the allegation that it “requested that all payments be sent to PPK Investment Group, Inc.”³⁵

The only order in the file is an agreed order, signed Oct. 1, 2024, under which 605 was to make listed equipment available for Big Country to pick up. It is not a ruling on the merits.³⁶ The docket records a “Statistical Closure” on March 5, 2026, with the status “Terminated,” but shows no judgment, dismissal or settlement. After a notice of withdrawal of counsel in May 2026, the docket lists 605 as “Pro Se.”³⁷ The file WeedPress reviewed does not show a court decision on whether either side’s allegations are true.

In 605’s own words

605’s filings in the Lincoln County case also describe the company, its leaders and what 605 says the dispute cost it. These are 605’s statements, made through its lawyers in litigation; the court did not rule on them.

In a counterclaim titled “Damage to Goodwill,” 605 said: “The leadership of 605 constituted the architects and leaders of the Initiated Measure 26 to legalize medical marijuana. Due to its leadership, 605 had an enviable reputation and valuable goodwill that positioned itself to be the leader in the medical marijuana industry as the industry started in South Dakota.” It continued: “As a result of BCI’s actions, 605 has suffered permanent damages to its reputation and goodwill in an amount to be determined at trial.”³⁸ In a separate counterclaim seeking an injunction, 605 said Big Country has access to 605’s “financial, operational and customer information and could distribute that information to 605’s competitors, causing permanent and irreparable hard [sic] to 605.”³⁹ Big Country said it lacked enough knowledge to admit or deny the goodwill paragraph and so denied it, and it denied the damage and injunction allegations.⁴⁰

605 made similar statements in a Sept. 12, 2024 brief opposing Big Country’s request for a preliminary injunction. Under the heading “Factual Background,” 605 said: “Prior to starting 605, Ned, Melissa, and Elizabeth were the primary architects and advocates for Initiated Measure 26 in the 2020 general election (‘IM26’), which authorized the creation of a medical cannabis program in South Dakota. After IM26’s passage, they took on leadership roles in the state to lobby for the program on behalf of the medical cannabis industry.” The brief said that “Ned was hired as the first Executive Director of CIASD,” the Cannabis Industry Association – South Dakota, and that “Melissa and Elizabeth each served two year tenures on the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee.” It went on: “As leading advocates for medical cannabis and with the trust of industry members, Ned, Melissa, and Elizabeth, and their newly formed company, 605 Cannabis, had developed incredible goodwill for the business of selling medical cannabis and cannabis products.”⁴¹ The brief names Ned Horsted, Melissa Mentele and Elizabeth Tiger, along with Kyle Peska, as 605’s four primary principals.⁴²

The same brief said: “Over the course of several months, BCI would severely tarnish 605’s goodwill.”⁴³ It also said: “605 has suffered great financial strain, reputational damage, and its principals have suffered great emotional strain due to the repercussions of the SD Department of Health administrative action against 605, an action that was caused almost exclusively by BCI’s failures and specifically related to their Badlands products. Despite the hardship, 605 is on the precipice of getting through the turmoil, but it cannot afford to withstand any court ruling that in any way alters 605’s ability to continue operating its cultivation and manufacturing factilities [sic] in the manner it is currently doing so.”⁴⁴

Arguing that an injunction would not serve the public interest, 605 wrote: “The South Dakota Medical Cannabis Program is designed to provide treatment to South Dakota patients who have some of the most devasting [sic] and painful medical conditions possible. 605 needs to be able to continue to operate freely from unreasonable governmental intrusion and the disruption that comes from unnecessary injunctions.” It said any ruling disrupting its business “could be devasting [sic] to the business, its owners, its employees, and the patients it serves because it could result in 605 having to close operations or downsize its workforce,” and that its products “are products many patients prefer or even rely on.” Granting Big Country’s request, 605 said, “would only serve to hinder 605’s efforts to provide for its patients and employees.”⁴⁵

In an Aug. 8, 2024 brief supporting its motion to dismiss, 605 said the state’s recall allegations “related nearly exclusively to BCI’s services.”⁴⁶

Melissa Mentele’s court record of unpaid debts

Melissa Mentele is a co-founder and the chief operations officer of 605 Cannabis. In court, 605 named her as one of its four “primary principals,” and she is one of the six principal officers listed on the license renewal Lincoln County approved in November 2025.⁴⁷ During the years this article covers, 605 borrowed $1.11 million on convertible notes from an outside fund, according to a settlement form, signed a revenue-sharing contract for its kitchen and lab, and told a court it had suffered “great financial strain.” Because Mentele is one of the executives running a company engaged in deals of that size, WeedPress reviewed public records about her personal finances. They show a pending foreclosure, a 2025 default judgment, a series of liens and small judgments dating to 2013, and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed in 2006.

How the records match. None of the court or lien records described below mention 605 Cannabis or say that the person named in them is its chief operations officer. The Hanson County filings name “Melissa Mentele” or “Melissa R. Mentele,” and the foreclosure suit names Brent Mentele as a co-defendant. The bankruptcy was filed jointly by “Brent Jon Mentele and Melissa Rae Mentele”; federal law allows a joint petition only by a debtor and the debtor’s spouse.⁴⁸ WeedPress matched the records to the 605 executive by her name, her husband’s name, Brent, and location: the transcript of a May 2026 hearing in her protection-order case against the author lists her address in Emery, the Hanson County town where the property in the foreclosure case is located.⁴⁹

A pending foreclosure. On Dec. 12, 2014, Mentele signed a contract for deed to buy property in Emery from John and Deborah Hornidge for $55,000 plus interest: $11,000 at signing, then yearly payments of $4,400 plus 5 percent interest, with the final installment due Jan. 1, 2025.⁵⁰ On Feb. 25 and 26, 2025, the sellers’ lawyer sent her notices of default stating, “You have failed to make the full payments and interest thereon,” listing “Amount owed: $23,952.93 principal and interest” and setting a March 27, 2025 deadline.⁵¹ On July 28, 2025, the Hornidges sued Brent and Melissa Mentele in Hanson County, asking the court to declare the contract in default and terminated, return the property to them and award a money judgment.⁵² The Hornidges’ July 2025 complaint describes them as Virginia residents; in a June 30, 2026 affidavit, their lawyer, J.R. Davies, said they “live in North Carolina” and that John Hornidge “is working in Kentucky.”⁵³ A register of actions WeedPress obtained earlier, a clerk’s copy scanned April 27, 2026, listed the case as “Pending”; its last entries were sheriff’s returns of personal service dated Aug. 7, 2025, and it showed no answer or ruling at that time.⁵⁴ An updated case summary the Hanson County clerk provided on Oct. 27, 2026, shows that the case has since become active, with an answer and counterclaim, competing motions and two rulings on procedural questions.⁵⁵

The Menteles’ counterclaim. On May 27, 2026, Brent and Melissa Mentele, who are listed on the court’s case summary as representing themselves, filed an answer and counterclaim. They admitted there was a written contract but “affirmatively state[d] the contract referenced herein has been paid in full,” and alleged that the Hornidges’ “refusal to transfer title as required by the contract has caused and continues to cause significant damage.” The counterclaim seeks specific performance, an order requiring the Hornidges to transfer the property to the Menteles, along with breach-of-contract damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” It alleges that the refusal has prevented the Menteles from “being able to pledge the real property as collateral to make repairs and updates.”⁵⁶

A missed deadline and a denied default. On June 25, 2026, the Menteles moved for a default judgment on their counterclaim, arguing that the Hornidges had not replied within the 20 days allowed.⁵⁷ On June 30, the Hornidges filed a reply denying the counterclaim’s allegations that the Menteles had fully performed and that the Hornidges were required to convey the property. The reply contends that the Menteles “have tendered no considerations sufficient to complete the contract” and alleges that “payments were not made on the schedule called for in the contract” and that the Hornidges “were denied interest on those late payments.”⁵⁸ The same day, the Hornidges asked the court to extend their time to reply. In a sworn affidavit, Davies said the missed deadline was “purely inadvertent and accidental” and that he had calendared “a deadline date of 30 days after the date of service.”⁵⁹ The Menteles opposed the extension on July 1.⁶⁰

Circuit Judge Patrick T. Smith marked the Menteles’ proposed default order, which would have required the Hornidges to deed the property to them, “Denied” on July 16, 2026.⁶¹ In an order filed July 21 after a July 6 hearing, he denied the Menteles’ motion for default judgment on the counterclaim and granted the Hornidges’ request to extend their reply deadline “up to the point in time when such reply was actually filed.” The order found that “there has been insufficient discovery done to enable the entry of any judgment on the counterclaim,” and that the Hornidges’ response showed “a reasonable cause for delay,” “the allegation of a meritorious defense,” and “the likelihood of success on that defense.”⁶² The order’s title also refers to a motion for summary judgment; on Aug. 24, Melissa Mentele asked the court to correct that title, saying “[n]o Motion for Summary Judgment has ever been filed by any party in this action.” She said she was not challenging the order’s rulings.⁶³ Neither order decides whether the contract has been paid in full.

A disputed $10,000 payment. In filings signed by Melissa Mentele, the Menteles allege that on March 27, 2025, the cure deadline set in the sellers’ default notices, a $10,000 cash payment was deposited to the Hornidges’ bank account “with the condition that it be accepted as full and final payment or the funds returned,” and that it “has never been credited.” They also allege that, after crediting all payments, they “have overpaid the contract obligation.”⁶⁴ A bank receipt attached to the Menteles’ opposition shows a $10,000 cash deposit that day but does not show whose account received it.⁶⁵ In an Aug. 18, 2025 letter to Mentele, also attached to that filing, Davies wrote, “I have reviewed the payment schedule and disagree with your calculations.”⁶⁶ Davies’s affidavit says the “[c]alculation of interest due and the timing of payments is a legitimate factual basis, and no decision has yet been made on that issue.”⁶⁷ The court has made no finding on the payment or on what, if anything, remains owed.

An allegation against a Virginia lawyer. The Menteles’ July 1 opposition, signed by Melissa Mentele, also alleges that the Hornidges’ court papers were written by a lawyer who is not licensed in South Dakota. Under the heading “The Reply Was Drafted by J. Michael Sharman in Violation of SDCL 16-18-1,” it asserts that “both the original Complaint and the Reply to Counterclaim were drafted by J. Michael Sharman, VSB #29651, a Virginia-licensed attorney who has never been admitted to practice law in South Dakota and has never sought pro hac vice admission in this Court.” It says the default notices attached to the complaint “bear Sharman’s Virginia bar number (VSB #29651) and his Virginia office address,” and points to a jury demand and a verification block it says was “pre-typed ‘STATE OF VIRGINIA’” and altered by hand. It argues that “the unauthorized practice of law in South Dakota is a criminal act” and that “Davies’ filing of documents prepared by Sharman under his South Dakota bar number constitutes such assistance.” A chart attached to the filing identifies the firm as “Commonwealth Law Offices” in Culpeper, Virginia.⁶⁸ Davies’s Aug. 18, 2025 letter to Mentele, attached to the same filing, lists “J. Michael Sharman” among those copied.⁶⁹ These are Mentele’s allegations. Sharman is not a party to the case and is not listed as counsel on the court’s case summary, which lists Davies as the Hornidges’ lawyer.⁷⁰ The court has made no finding on the allegation. Its July 21 order does not mention Sharman or the unauthorized practice of law; it granted the extension the opposition asked the court to deny and found that the Hornidges had shown “a reasonable cause for delay.”⁷¹

Where the case stands. On Aug. 24, 2026, the docket lists certificates of service for a “Notice of Service of Discovery” and for “Responses.” The case summary printed Oct. 27, 2026, shows no later entries, no ruling on the request to correct the order’s title, and no trial date, damages hearing or final judgment.⁷²

Liens and judgments listed in the foreclosure complaint. The complaint lists liens and judgments “showing at the Hanson County courthouse which may affect the title to this property.” As listed in the foreclosure complaint, they include:⁷³

Hanson County “Poor Lien[s]” against “Melissa R. Mentele” dated Feb. 6, 2013 ($325) and March 11, 2016 ($325), and an “Out of county Poor Lien (Lincoln County)” dated Nov. 16, 2016 ($167.60). South Dakota counties record such liens when they pay for a person’s care, support or other assistance.⁷⁴
A State of South Dakota sales tax lien against “Melissa R. Mentele dba ‘The Farmer Jayne’” for $245, filed Sept. 13, 2021.
A South Dakota Department of Labor “Reemployment Assistance Compensation Lien” against “Melissa R. Mentele” for $5,352.13, filed June 6, 2024. The complaint does not describe the lien beyond that.
Judgments for AAA Collections Inc. ($504, docketed May 16, 2018, No. 30CIV18-000013), Credit Collections Bureau ($687.54, Oct. 23, 2019, No. 30SMC19-000049) and Rushmore Service Center, LLC ($427.20, July 10, 2019, No. 30SMC19-000033), each described as “against Melissa R. Mentele and others.”
A judgment for attorney Roger Gerlach for $532.50, docketed Dec. 7, 2023 (No. 30SMC23-000035). Unlike the other entries, this one does not name the judgment debtor.

The figures are original amounts; the complaint adds interest and, for some, fees and penalties. The complaint does not say whether any of these liens or judgments have been paid or satisfied, and WeedPress has not reviewed the underlying lien or case files.

A 2025 default judgment. In a separate Hanson County case, Midland Credit Management, Inc., which said it is the successor in interest to Synchrony Bank (CareCredit), alleged that “Melissa Mentele” made purchases or cash advances on a charge account, defaulted and owed $7,332.31.⁷⁵ The court found that she had been served and had “failed to appear and answer,” and on Nov. 18, 2025, it entered a default judgment for $7,332.31 plus $124.52 in costs, a total of $7,456.83, plus interest.⁷⁶ The debt was a charge-account balance; an earlier WeedPress post described it as a loan. The judgment was entered one week before Lincoln County approved 605’s license renewal listing Mentele as a principal officer.

A 2006 Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On Nov. 20, 2006, “Brent Jon Mentele and Melissa Rae Mentele” filed a joint Chapter 7 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Dakota, No. 06-40429, assigned to Judge Charles L. Nail Jr. The court index, as shown on CourtListener, lists the case as terminated on Dec. 29, 2008, with a last known filing on March 19, 2010. That index contains no docket entries and does not show whether a discharge was entered.⁷⁷ Bankruptcy is a lawful process. In Chapter 7, a trustee collects and sells a debtor’s nonexempt property to pay creditors, and an individual debtor may receive a discharge of many remaining debts.⁷⁸

In her own words: salary, ownership and testimony

In a phone call she placed to WeedPress in spring 2024, which lasted about 90 minutes, Mentele said that Ned Horsted’s salary was only about $30,000 a year because the company could not afford to pay more. She said she had been paid a salary of $150,000 a year but stopped taking it in 2024 to help the company, which she said was struggling with revenue after its court cases, suspensions and lost sales.⁷⁹ Those are her statements to WeedPress; WeedPress has not independently verified either salary figure.

Mentele also described her role at 605 at a May 12, 2026 hearing on her protection-order petition against the author, which the court denied. Early in the hearing she said, “I own a vertical cannabis business which has three licenses.”⁸⁰ Later she testified, “I left my job at 605 in March of last year.”⁸¹ After she told the court, “I am not at the facility,” this exchange followed:⁸²

THE COURT: “– so you don’t even work there anymore?”
THE PETITIONER: “Um, I am on as a consultant. I go in and I do audits. We did online management.”
THE COURT: “I thought you said earlier you don’t even have — you don’t even work there anymore.”
THE PETITIONER: “No, I do downline audits.”
THE COURT: “So, you do work there?”
THE PETITIONER: “One day a week maybe, and that’s if I feel good.”

Describing WeedPress’s coverage of 605, she said, “Our business does millions per year.”⁸³ When the magistrate judge began explaining his ruling, he referred to “a company that you don’t work for anymore,” and the transcript continues:⁸⁴

THE PETITIONER: “– I own.”
THE COURT: “– maybe you do work there now, but you initially testified that you didn’t work there.”
THE PETITIONER: “Your Honor, I own the company.”
THE COURT: “And then so you testified that you didn’t work there.”
THE PETITIONER: “I don’t –“
THE COURT: “– then you testified that you’re a consultant, and now you’re testifying that you own it.”
THE PETITIONER: “I do.”
THE COURT: “So, I have a little bit of an issue with your credibility.”

After the judge said he was “done taking testimony,” the certified transcript records Mentele’s next words as: “I’m no Social Security Disability.”⁸⁵ The transcript renders the line that way, and WeedPress has not reviewed the court’s audio recording. Social Security disability rules allow beneficiaries to do some work and to earn limited income, and WeedPress makes no claim about whether Mentele receives benefits or whether any benefits were properly received.⁸⁶

WeedPress did not seek comment from Mentele about these records because of pending litigation between her and the publisher (Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343, now on appeal).⁸⁷

Publisher’s view: Mentele’s court filings and WeedPress’s coverage

Disclosure: This subsection includes the views of WeedPress publisher Jason Karimi, who wrote this article and is the respondent in the protection-order case Melissa Mentele filed against him, Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343. The court denied her petition, and her appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court is pending. Facts drawn from court records are stated as facts. Karimi’s conclusions about why Mentele has gone to court are his opinion, not findings of any court.

The certified transcript of the May 12, 2026 hearing shows that Mentele’s petition was filed April 13, 2026. Magistrate Judge Andrew Robertson said at the outset that there had been, “over two counties, multiple protection orders filed,” the last one in February, and that “the last protection order was denied.” Later he called the May hearing “the fourth protection hearing that we’ve had on this over two counties,” involving “a lot of the same information about the, the blogging, and the disagreements.”⁸⁸ Mentele asked the court to close the courtroom “so, that he cannot publish any more content regarding these proceedings,” and near the end of her testimony said, “I would like him to stop publishing.” The judge denied the request to close the courtroom, ruling that Marsy’s Law applies to the criminal and juvenile justice systems and not to civil court.⁸⁹

During the hearing, Mentele accused Karimi of misconduct, including that he “broke into the UJS system by using my personal information to look up stuff regarding me.” The judge answered: “we’re in a courtroom. This isn’t Facebook. This isn’t a blog. … You can’t just claim something and, and just have me believe it.”⁹⁰ He told her, “I think you’ve been told multiple occasions for multiple hearings that the blogs that he’s writing isn’t something that’s going to get you a protection order.” He denied the petition, saying that “most of this has been discussed in the, in the multiple protection orders that you previously filed that were dismissed,” and that the only new conduct, one phone call, did not “constitute repeated” conduct.⁹¹ Mentele appealed.⁹²

WeedPress covers South Dakota’s medical cannabis program and the businesses, regulators and advocates in it, including 605 Cannabis. On Oct. 26, for example, WeedPress reported that state records now list one licensed medical cannabis testing establishment, Cannabis Chem Lab of Flandreau, down from two a year earlier, and that the Department of Health has not publicly explained what replaced the cross-check that a second lab provided.⁹³ That article does not concern Mentele, and it was published after the May hearing.

Karimi’s view is that Mentele’s repeated petitions, and her requests in court that he stop publishing, are an attempt to chill WeedPress’s reporting and commentary on cannabis policy and on the people and companies who shape it, coverage the First Amendment protects, such as the testing-lab story. Mentele has described the dispute differently. She told the court, “I don’t have any disagreement with him on cannabis policy,” and said she was trying “to seek protection to have him leave me alone.”⁹⁴ No court has found that she filed for an improper purpose.

Karimi also sees a pattern in the court records WeedPress has reviewed, in which Mentele or her company has accused an opponent of improper conduct. In the Lincoln County suit that Big Country, an Oklahoma company, brought against 605 Cannabis, 605, through its lawyers, alleged that Big Country was a “shell”; the court did not rule on that allegation, and the case was statistically closed with no judgment shown. In the protection-order proceedings, the magistrate judge denied Mentele’s most recent petition and said earlier petitions had been dismissed or denied. In the Hanson County foreclosure case, the court has not ruled on her allegation about Sharman, but it denied her default motion and granted the extension she opposed.⁹⁵ In none of those cases has a court found that the improper conduct Mentele or 605 alleged occurred.

Dustin Sejnoha in the filings

Dustin Sejnoha is a Sioux Falls restaurant and food-service executive. He owns Marlin’s Family Restaurant, which his family opened on North Cliff Avenue in 1986 and which also operates at the Interstate 29 Tea exit.⁹⁶ Sky Dine, a company whose website lists him as owner and managing partner, runs Marlin’s restaurants, travel centers, casinos and airport concessions, including at airports in Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Fargo and Billings.⁹⁷ He is president and CEO of Correct Choice, Inc., a correctional food-service company that, according to its website, he “founded … to return to the industry.” Brookings County approved a jail food-service contract with Correct Choice on Nov. 4, 2025.⁹⁸ FAA records list a Cessna 510 jet registered to Sejnoha Air LLC at the same Sioux Falls office suite that Sky Dine and Correct Choice list.⁹⁹

Correctional food-service background. The family’s earlier company, CBM, also known as Catering By Marlins, contracted with the state in August 2002 to provide food service at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, according to the South Dakota Supreme Court.¹⁰⁰ By 2017, CBM had nearly 1,000 employees serving about 200 locations in 29 states. That November, Summit Food Service, part of the French-based Elior Group, agreed to buy it.¹⁰¹ Sky Dine’s website lists Marlin Sejnoha as having been CBM’s president and CEO for 20 years.¹⁰²

Political giving. In March 2018, the Argus Leader reported that Catering By Marlins had been paid more than $5 million by the Department of Corrections for inmate food service in the prior fiscal year, according to open.sd.gov, and that three members of the Sejnoha family had each given $1,000 to Kristi Noem’s campaign for governor. The paper reported that “Noem’s first cousin is married to a member of the Sejnoha family.” Noem said personal relationships were behind the donations. Marlin Sejnoha Jr. told the paper that CBM bids competitively for contracts and that he gives to candidates regardless of party: “I don’t pick a horse.”¹⁰³ The portion of the article WeedPress could read does not say which three family members gave, and WeedPress does not know whether Dustin Sejnoha was one of them. Campaign contributions are lawful.

What the records reviewed show about 605. The Minnesota case is the only record WeedPress found connecting Dustin Sejnoha to 605 Cannabis. In it, he appears as an investor and as a co-plaintiff alongside 605, not as a defendant or wrongdoer. No 605 Secretary of State, Lincoln County or Department of Health filing WeedPress reviewed names him. 605’s registered agent is Horsted; the Sejnoha companies WeedPress checked use a Sioux Falls law firm as registered agent and list different addresses.¹⁰⁴ The records do not show how much he invested, whether he received ASDC3 units, or whether he holds any interest in 605 today.

The record, in order

Nov. 20, 2006: Brent Jon and Melissa Rae Mentele file a joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy case (terminated Dec. 29, 2008).
May 7, 2020: 605 Cannabis, LLC is organized in South Dakota.¹⁰⁵
Early 2022: According to the Minnesota complaint, Hailer offers to run the capital raise for 605 and Dakota Natural Growers.
March 2022: Hailer tells investors his firm has “secured $6M” from outside South Dakota, the complaint alleges.
March 16, 2022: 605 signs its management services agreement with Big Country (Oklahoma).
April–August 2022: A settlement form says investors put about $3.46 million into Badlands Ventures (Delaware LLC, principal place of business Washington, D.C.); the complaint lists Dustin Sejnoha among the investor plaintiffs.
May–October 2022: Badlands lends 605 $1.11 million on convertible notes, according to a settlement form.
Oct. 25–26, 2022: 605 receives $50,000 instead of a promised $500,000 wire, the complaint alleges.
Nov. 30, 2022: Settlement calls for $584,193.70 to 605 and the transfer of Badlands’ stake to ASDC3 LLC.
Dec. 12, 2022: 605, Dakota Natural Growers and investors sue Hailer and his firms in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Feb. 8–10, 2023: Department of Health emergency order and recall involving 605.
March 2023: 605 sues the state, news reports say.
April 2023: The three defendant companies agree to pay $1.7 million and pay $500,000, the Reformer reports.
May 31, 2023: 605 settles with the Department of Health, according to filings in the Big Country case.
January 2024: 605’s relationship with Big Country ends.
July 2, 2024: Big Country sues 605 in Lincoln County.
Aug. 2024: The Reformer reports that Hailer paid $1.2 million and that the cannabis entrepreneurs and investors received all of their own money back.
Aug. 23, 2024: 605 alleges in a counterclaim that Big Country is a “shell.”
July 28, 2025: The sellers of Mentele’s Emery property sue to foreclose her contract for deed in Hanson County; the case is listed as pending.
Nov. 18, 2025: Hanson County court enters a $7,456.83 default judgment against Melissa Mentele on a charge-account debt.
Nov. 25, 2025: Lincoln County renews 605’s license, with Amdahl and DeBerg among its listed officers.
March 5, 2026: Big Country case marked “Terminated” with no judgment shown.
May 27, 2026: Brent and Melissa Mentele answer the Hanson County foreclosure suit and counterclaim, saying the contract for deed “has been paid in full” and seeking transfer of title.
July 16 and 21, 2026: The Hanson County judge marks the Menteles’ proposed default order “Denied,” then denies their default motion and grants the Hornidges’ late-reply extension.
Aug. 24, 2026: The foreclosure docket lists certificates of service for a notice of service of discovery and for responses.

Where 605 stands

605 Cannabis, LLC is in good standing with the Secretary of State.¹⁰⁶ The Department of Health’s establishment list shows it holding cultivation and manufacturing certificates in Worthing, and the department has posted inspection reports for the facility through July 2026.¹⁰⁷ Lincoln County renewed its local license for cultivation and manufacturing in November 2025.¹⁰⁸

What we don’t know

How much Dustin Sejnoha invested, how his money was divided between 605 and Dakota Natural Growers, and whether he has any interest in 605 today.
Whether the planned transfer of Badlands’ 605 stake to ASDC3 LLC was completed, and who holds any resulting interest.
Whether any of the $1.11 million in convertible notes was converted into ownership of 605.
The terms of the 2023 and 2024 Hailer settlements and the Nebraska case number. WeedPress has not reviewed the Minnesota docket beyond the complaint or the Nebraska file.
What roles Marvin Amdahl and Amy DeBerg hold at 605.
What 605’s May 31, 2023 settlement with the Department of Health requires.
How the Big Country case ended, and whether the remaining claims and counterclaims were resolved.
Whether any of the liens and judgments listed in the Hornidge foreclosure complaint, or the Midland judgment, have been paid or satisfied, and how the foreclosure case will be resolved.
Whether the Hornidges received the $10,000 payment the Menteles say was deposited on March 27, 2025, whether it was credited, and what balance, if any, the Hornidges say remains owed.
Whether a discharge was entered in the 2006 Mentele bankruptcy.

Request for comment

On Oct. 26, 2026, WeedPress emailed questions to Will Hailer and sent questions for Tim Mynett to attorneys the Minnesota Reformer reported in 2024 had represented him. On Oct. 27, after an email to Dustin Sejnoha bounced, WeedPress sent questions to him through the contact form on the website of his company, Sky Dine. On Oct. 27, WeedPress also emailed questions for J. Michael Sharman to the Hornidges’ lawyer, J.R. Davies, asking that they be forwarded, because WeedPress could not find a public email address for Sharman; Davies was also invited to respond. Responses were requested by 5 p.m. Central on Oct. 30, 2026. This article will be updated with any responses.

Because the author is a party to pending litigation with 605 Cannabis’s chief operations officer, WeedPress did not seek comment from 605 Cannabis or its officers for this article.

Court documents (download)

Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty.)

(Personal addresses, contact details and similar personal information redacted by WeedPress.)

Sources

Dakota Natural Growers, Inc. v. Hailer, No. 27-CV-22-18279 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Hennepin Cnty.): summons, complaint and Exhibit 1 (settlement agreement form), filed Dec. 12, 2022.
Big Country Investment Group Corp. v. 605 Cannabis LLC, No. 41CIV24-000629 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Lincoln Cnty.): complaint and management services agreement, Clinton Pyatt affidavit, 605’s answer and counterclaims, 605’s Aug. 8, 2024 brief supporting its motion to dismiss, 605’s Sept. 12, 2024 brief opposing a preliminary injunction, Big Country’s answer to counterclaims, Cwach affidavit exhibits (Department of Health emergency order and recall notice), Oct. 1, 2024 order, docket printout dated Oct. 26, 2026, obtained from the Lincoln County Clerk of Courts.
South Dakota Secretary of State business filings for 605 Cannabis, LLC and Sejnoha-related entities.
Lincoln County Commission packets (Jan. 25, 2022; Dec. 12, 2023; Nov. 25, 2025).
South Dakota Department of Health establishment list and inspection reports.
Sisney v. State, 2008 S.D. 71.
Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032, and Midland Credit Management, Inc. v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000034 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty.): complaints, exhibits, register of actions and default judgment, obtained from the Hanson County Clerk of Courts; and, in Hornidge, the May 27, 2026 answer and counterclaim, the parties’ June and July 2026 motions, affidavit, reply and opposition, the July 16 and July 21, 2026 orders, the Aug. 24, 2026 motion to correct clerical error, and the case summary printed Oct. 27, 2026, provided by the Hanson County Clerk of Courts on Oct. 27, 2026.
In re Mentele, No. 06-40429 (Bankr. D.S.D.): CourtListener docket index.
Transcript of May 12, 2026 protection-order hearing, Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Minnehaha Cnty.).
Minnesota Reformer (June 5, 2024; Aug. 1, 2024); Star Tribune (Feb. 23, 2023); Argus Leader (Mar. 16, 2018); Dakota News Now (Mar. 29, 2023; Nov. 25, 2024); KELOLAND News (2026); SiouxFalls.Business (2017); Elior Group press release (Nov. 30, 2017).
Company websites: Marlin’s Family Restaurant, Sky Dine, Correct Choice; Brookings County Commission minutes (Nov. 4, 2025); FAA aircraft registry.

Related coverage

Notes

1. See WeedPress, WeedPress Appellee Brief: Melissa Mentele v. Jason Karimi, South Dakota Supreme Court (July 15, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/07/15/weedpress-appellee-brief-melissa-mentele-v-jason-karimi-south-dakota-supreme-court-july-15-2026/.

2. Compl. ¶¶ 27–30, Dakota Nat. Growers, Inc. v. Hailer, No. 27-CV-22-18279 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Hennepin Cnty. filed Dec. 12, 2022), https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/MCRO_27-CV-22-18279_Summons-and-Complaint_2022-12-12_20230223205340.pdf.

3. Max Nesterak, Former Democratic Operative Settles $1.2 Million Debt with South Dakota Cannabis Growers, Minn. Reformer (Aug. 1, 2024), https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/08/01/former-democratic-operative-settles-1-2-million-debt-with-south-dakota-cannabis-growers/.

4. Countercl. ¶ 35, in 605 Cannabis, LLC’s Answer & Countercls., Big Country Inv. Grp. Corp. v. 605 Cannabis LLC, No. 41CIV24-000629 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Lincoln Cnty. filed Aug. 23, 2024).

5. Compl. ¶ 11, Dakota Nat. Growers, No. 27-CV-22-18279; Sisney v. State, 2008 S.D. 71, ¶¶ 2–3, 754 N.W.2d 639, 641–42.

6. Id. ¶¶ 25–26.

7. Id. ¶¶ 27–31.

8. Settlement Agreement & Release, recitals (Nov. 30, 2022) (unsigned form), Compl. Ex. 1, Dakota Nat. Growers, No. 27-CV-22-18279.

9. Compl. ¶ 34, Dakota Nat. Growers, No. 27-CV-22-18279.

10. Id. ¶¶ 17–22.

11. Max Nesterak, Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Husband Accused of Swindling Investor in Their California Winery, Minn. Reformer (June 5, 2024), https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/06/05/rep-ilhan-omars-husband-accused-of-swindling-investor-in-their-california-winery/.

12. Ryan Faircloth, Hunter Woodall & Brooks Johnson, Lawsuit: Former DNC and Minn. Political Operative Defrauded South Dakota Cannabis Companies, Star Tribune (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.startribune.com/lawsuit-former-dnc-and-minn-political-operative-defrauded-south-dakota-cannabis-companies/600253815.

13. Nesterak, Omar’s Husband, supra note 11.

14. Compl. ¶¶ 43–45, Dakota Nat. Growers, No. 27-CV-22-18279.

15. Id. ¶¶ 46–50.

16. Id. ¶¶ 51–54; Settlement Agreement § 2, supra note 8.

17. Compl. ¶¶ 67–68, Dakota Nat. Growers, No. 27-CV-22-18279.

18. Id. ¶¶ 23–24, 70–102.

19. Nesterak, Omar’s Husband, supra note 11.

20. Nesterak, Settles $1.2 Million Debt, supra note 3.

21. Nesterak, Omar’s Husband, supra note 11.

22. Id.

23. Compl. ¶ 3, Dakota Nat. Growers, No. 27-CV-22-18279.

24. Id. ¶¶ 4–7, 11.

25. Lincoln Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, Nov. 25, 2025 Agenda Packet, Consent Agenda Item 3, at 319–22, https://lincolncosd.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=2679,plainText=false); see Lincoln Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, Jan. 25, 2022 Public Info Packet, Agenda Item 5, at 157–64, https://lincolncosd.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=1176,plainText=false); Lincoln Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, Dec. 12, 2023 Agenda Packet, Consent Agenda Item 2, at 48–50, https://lincolncosd.api.civicclerk.com/v1/Meetings/GetMeetingFileStream(fileId=1869,plainText=false).

26. S.D. Dep’t of Health, Emergency Order and Notice of Intent to Revoke Registration Certificates, Notice of Summary Suspension and Notice of Hearing at 1–2, 4–6 (Feb. 8, 2023), in Aff. of Ryan Cwach Ex. 3, Big Country Inv. Grp. Corp. v. 605 Cannabis LLC, No. 41CIV24-000629 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Lincoln Cnty. filed Aug. 8, 2024).

27. S.D. Med. Cannabis Program, Recall of Medical Cannabis Product from 605 Cannabis d/b/a Badlands at 1–5 (Feb. 10, 2023), in Cwach Aff. Ex. 4, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629.

28. Beth Warden, 605 Cannabis Sues State over Inspection Report, Dakota News Now (Mar. 29, 2023), https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2023/03/29/605-cannabis-sues-state-over-inspection-report/.

29. Answer ¶¶ 20–23, in 605 Cannabis, LLC’s Answer & Countercls., supra note 4; Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629 (filed July 2, 2024).

30. Compl. ¶¶ 5–6, 10–11, 15, 17, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629; Aff. of Clinton Pyatt ¶ 1, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629; Mgmt. Servs. Agreement §§ 1–3, 5 (Mar. 16, 2022) (Compl. Ex. A). For a fuller account of the case, see Jason Karimi, 605 Cannabis and the Pyatts: What Public Records Show About an Oklahoma Cannabis Company That Listed a Worthing Grow as Its South Dakota Office, WeedPress (Oct. 28, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/10/28/605-cannabis-and-the-pyatts-what-public-records-show-about-an-oklahoma-cannabis-company-that-listed-a-worthing-grow-as-its-south-dakota-office/.

31. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 33–36, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629; Answer ¶¶ 12, 28–31; Countercl. ¶ 4.

32. Compl. ¶¶ 32, 38–41, 45–71, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629.

33. Answer ¶ 3, supra note 4.

34. Countercl. ¶¶ 26–30, 34–36, supra note 4.

35. Pl.’s Answer to Countercl. ¶¶ 3, 23–25, 27, 35, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629 (filed Sept. 12, 2024).

36. Order Following Sept. 17, 2024 Hr’g at 1–2 & ¶¶ 1–5, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629 (filed Oct. 1, 2024).

37. S.D. Unified Judicial Sys., Case Summary, No. 41CIV24-000629, at 1–2 (printed Oct. 26, 2026).

38. Countercl. ¶¶ 59–60, supra note 4.

39. Id. ¶ 62.

40. Pl.’s Answer to Countercl. ¶¶ 43–44, 46, supra note 35.

41. 605 Cannabis, LLC’s Br. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Appl. for Prelim. Inj. at 2, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629 (filed Sept. 12, 2024).

42. Id.

43. Id. at 3.

44. Id. at 6.

45. Id. at 9–10.

46. 605 Cannabis, LLC’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 3, Big Country, No. 41CIV24-000629 (filed Aug. 8, 2024).

47. 605 Cannabis, LLC’s Br. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Appl. for Prelim. Inj., supra note 41, at 2; Lincoln Cnty. Nov. 25, 2025 Agenda Packet, supra note 25, at 319–22.

48. 11 U.S.C. § 302(a).

49. Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g at 1, Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Minnehaha Cnty. May 12, 2026) (personal addresses and certain medical, family and crime-victim details redacted by WeedPress), https://weedpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/mentele-v-karimi-2026-05-12-transcript-redacted-v2.pdf.

50. Compl. ¶¶ 3–5 & Ex. A, Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. filed July 28, 2025), https://weedpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/hornidge-v-mentele-2025-07-28_complaint-redacted.pdf.

51. Id. ¶¶ 10–11 & Exs. B–C.

52. Id. ¶¶ 16–28 & Prayer for Relief.

53. Compl. ¶ 1, Hornidge, supra note 50; Pls.’ Extension Mot.–Aff. of J.R. Davies ¶ 4, Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. filed June 30, 2026).

54. S.D. Unified Judicial Sys., Register of Action, No. 30CIV25-000032 (scanned Apr. 27, 2026), https://weedpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/30civ25-32-register-of-actions.pdf.

55. S.D. Unified Judicial Sys., Case Summary, No. 30CIV25-000032, at 1–3 (printed Oct. 27, 2026).

56. Answer & Countercl. ¶¶ 3, 5, Countercl. ¶¶ 1–6 & Prayer for Relief, Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. filed May 27, 2026); Case Summary, supra note 55, at 1.

57. Defs.’ Mot. for Default J. on Countercl. at 1–3, Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. filed June 25, 2026).

58. Reply of Pls. to Countercl. ¶¶ 2, 6, 8, Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. dated June 25, 2026, filed June 30, 2026).

59. Pls.’ Mot. to Extend Time to Reply Countercl., Hornidge, No. 30CIV25-000032 (filed June 30, 2026); Davies Aff. ¶¶ 1–2, supra note 53.

60. Defs.’ Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Extend Time to Reply to Countercl., Hornidge v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000032 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. filed July 1, 2026).

61. Proposed Order Entering Default & Default J. on Countercl. at 4–5, Hornidge, No. 30CIV25-000032 (denied July 16, 2026).

62. Order Extending Time & Order Denying Mot. for Summ. J. at 1–3, Hornidge, No. 30CIV25-000032 (filed July 21, 2026).

63. Def. Melissa Mentele’s Mot. to Correct Clerical Error in Order ¶¶ 2, 5, Hornidge, No. 30CIV25-000032 (filed Aug. 24, 2026).

64. Defs.’ Opp’n, supra note 60, at 6–7; Defs.’ Mot. for Hr’g on Damages at 4, Hornidge, No. 30CIV25-000032 (filed June 25, 2026); Defs.’ Mot. for Default J., supra note 57, at 6–7.

65. Defs.’ Opp’n, supra note 60, Ex. B, at 19.

66. Letter from J.R. Davies to Melissa Mentele (Aug. 18, 2025), in Defs.’ Opp’n, supra note 60, at 20–21.

67. Davies Aff. ¶ 6, supra note 53.

68. Defs.’ Opp’n, supra note 60, at 12–13 & Ex. A at 2 (chart) (PDF p. 18).

69. Letter from J.R. Davies to Melissa Mentele, supra note 66, at 21.

70. Case Summary, supra note 55, at 1.

71. Order Extending Time & Order Denying Mot. for Summ. J., supra note 62, at 2–3; see Defs.’ Opp’n, supra note 60, at 15–16 (prayer for relief).

72. Case Summary, supra note 55, at 3.

73. Compl. ¶ 15, Hornidge, supra note 50.

74. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 28-14-3, -5, -7 (2026).

75. Compl. ¶¶ 1–4, Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc. v. Mentele, No. 30CIV25-000034 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. filed Sept. 27, 2025), https://weedpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/midland-v-mentele-30civ25-34-complaint-copy-redacted.pdf.

76. Default J. & Order Approving Costs & Disbursements, Midland, No. 30CIV25-000034 (Nov. 18, 2025), https://weedpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/30civ25-34-default-judgment-and-order-approving-cots-and-disbursements.pdf.

77. Docket, In re Mentele, No. 06-40429 (Bankr. D.S.D. filed Nov. 20, 2006), https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/23311431/brent-jon-mentele-and-melissa-rae-mentele/ (viewed Oct. 27, 2026).

78. 11 U.S.C. §§ 704(a)(1), 726, 727.

79. Telephone Interview with Melissa Mentele, Chief Operations Officer, 605 Cannabis, LLC (spring 2024).

80. Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra note 49, at 11:4–5.

81. Id. at 15:23–24.

82. Id. at 17:23–18:8.

83. Id. at 19:19–20.

84. Id. at 24:3–15.

85. Id. at 24:17–25.

86. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1574, 404.1592 (2026).

87. See WeedPress, supra note 1.

88. Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra note 49, at 7:18–23, 8:21–25, 9:17–19, 23:19–25.

89. Id. at 7:3–15, 22:12–14.

90. Id. at 21:14–20.

91. Id. at 20:3–6, 25:1–8.

92. WeedPress, supra note 1 (appellee’s brief, stating that the notice of appeal was filed May 26, 2026).

93. Jason Karimi, South Dakota Had Two Medical Cannabis Testing Labs. Now It Has One. Nobody Has Explained Why., WeedPress (Oct. 26, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/10/26/south-dakota-had-two-medical-cannabis-testing-labs-now-it-has-one-nobody-has-explained-why/.

94. Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra note 49, at 10:8–9, 10:19–20.

95. See supra notes 4, 33–34, 36–37 (Big Country); Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra note 49, at 9:17–19, 25:1–8; Order Extending Time & Order Denying Mot. for Summ. J., supra note 62, at 2–3.

96. Marlin’s Restaurant: 40 Years of Food & Family, KELOLAND News (2026), https://www.keloland.com/news/eye-on-keloland/marlins-restaurant-40-years-of-food-family/; Marlin’s Family Restaurant, About Us, https://www.marlinsfamilyrestaurant.com/about-us (viewed Oct. 26, 2026).

97. Sky Dine, Food Service Experience, https://www.skydine.com/about/food-service (viewed Oct. 26, 2026); John Gaskins, How Sky Dine in Sioux Falls Earned Its Top 10 Airport Bars Ranking, Dakota News Now (Nov. 25, 2024), https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2024/11/26/how-sky-dine-sioux-falls-earned-its-top-10-airport-bars-ranking/.

98. Correct Choice, Food & Commissary Experience, https://correctchoiceinc.com/about/food-service (viewed Oct. 26, 2026); Brookings Cnty. Comm’n, Minutes (Nov. 4, 2025) (Agreement #25-81), https://www.brookingscountysd.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11042025-1203.

99. Fed. Aviation Admin., Aircraft Registry Inquiry, N-Number 510WG, https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=510WG (viewed Oct. 26, 2026).

100. Sisney, 2008 S.D. 71, ¶¶ 2–3.

101. Minnesota Company Buys Sioux Falls-Based CBM Managed Services, SiouxFalls.Business (2017), https://siouxfalls.business/minnesota-company-buys-sioux-falls-based-cbm-managed-services/; Press Release, Elior Grp., Elior Group Acquires CBM Managed Services in the US (Nov. 30, 2017), https://www.eliorgroup.com/media/press-releases/elior-group-acquires-cbm-managed-services-us.

102. Sky Dine, supra note 97.

103. John Hult, ‘Pay to Play’ Questions Emerge in South Dakota Governor’s Race, Argus Leader (Mar. 16, 2018), https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2018/03/16/pay-play-questions-emerge-south-dakota-governors-race/429292002/.

104. S.D. Sec’y of State, Business Filing Detail for 605 Cannabis, LLC (DL181185); Sky Dine, Inc. (DB048077); Correct Choice, Inc. (DB275432); Sejnoha Brother’s Lodge, LLC (DL046049); and Sejnoha Legacy, LLC (DL212255), https://sosenterprise.sd.gov/BusinessServices/Business/FilingSearch.aspx (viewed Oct. 26, 2026).

105. S.D. Sec’y of State, Business Filing Detail: 605 Cannabis, LLC, Business ID DL181185 (Articles of Organization, filed May 7, 2020).

106. S.D. Sec’y of State, supra note 104 (605 Cannabis, LLC, DL181185; status “Good Standing”).

107. S.D. Dep’t of Health, Medical Cannabis Establishments List, https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis/medical-cannabis-establishments/establishments-list/ (viewed Oct. 25, 2026); S.D. Dep’t of Health, Inspection Reports, https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis/med-cannabis-establishments/inspection-reports/.

108. Lincoln Cnty. Nov. 25, 2025 Agenda Packet, supra note 25, at 319–22.

WeedPress: The Paper Trail

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Texas Republicans Pushed a THC Crackdown—a Gift to Cartels. Voters Handed the GOP a Historic Humiliation.