WeedPress: The Paper Trail

Twenty-three days before DEA’s Nov. 29 supply-chain date, DEA’s public list shows 10 South Dakota manufacturer entries against 44 state cultivation and manufacturing registrations.

By Jason Karimi, Publisher · Investigative News & Analysis · Nov. 6, 2026

---

Disclosure and contact policy. WeedPress publisher Jason Karimi, who wrote this article, is the respondent in Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343, a protection-order petition filed by Melissa Mentele, co-founder and chief operations officer of 605 Cannabis LLC. The circuit court denied the petition after a May 12, 2026 hearing. Mentele filed a pro se appeal, and the matter is on appeal. This article quotes the public transcript of that hearing. Under WeedPress’s published litigation exception, WeedPress did not contact Mentele, 605 Cannabis, or New Approach South Dakota before publication. Written responses or corrections may be sent to weedpressnewstips@gmail.com, and WeedPress will publish documented corrections promptly. Readers should weigh the publisher’s interest accordingly.¹ The Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota (CIASD), which co-published the May 13 post quoted below and is not a party to that litigation, was sent three written questions at comms@ciasd.com at 12:16 p.m. CST on Friday, Nov. 6, 2026, with a response window through noon CST Monday, Nov. 9. CIASD had not responded as of publication on Nov. 6. WeedPress will update this article promptly with any response.²

---

On Friday, Nov. 6, a South Dakota cannabis industry source shared with WeedPress an account of a direct discussion with the Drug Enforcement Administration:

“I was told by the DEA that if you are not a timely applicant or have your registration certificate currently you should not be operating. If you are you risk not being approved for said registration by the DEA moving forward as you are non compliant.”³

That is the source’s account of what DEA said. WeedPress sent the quoted statement to DEA Media Affairs at 12:28 p.m. CST Nov. 6, ahead of publication, and asked whether DEA confirms, disputes or wishes to clarify it. DEA had not responded substantively as of publication, and its press office hadn’t answered WeedPress’s earlier questions sent Oct. 31 and Nov. 2. WeedPress will update this article promptly if DEA responds.⁴

But the account doesn’t stand alone. It tracks the federal rule’s register-first prohibition and the Oct. 30 guidance’s warning that dealing outside the federal system “could be potential grounds” for denial or revocation.

What the rule actually says

The controlling sentence in the federal rule is short, and it doesn’t leave much room:

“No person required to be registered shall engage in any activity for which registration is required until the application for registration is granted and a Certificate of Registration is issued by the Administrator to such person.” — 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(a)⁵

When the April 28, 2026 final rule put state-program medical marijuana under the federal Schedule III framework, it opened one transition path that matters here. Under 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(7), a business that applied “within 60 days of the publication of this rule” may keep manufacturing, distributing or dispensing “in conformity with a state-issued license during the pendency of the application.”⁶ DEA’s Oct. 30 guidance spells out who that covers. A “Timely Applicant” is a business that submitted a complete application and paid the fee between April 28 and June 26, 2026, whose application is still pending and which still holds its state credential.⁷˒⁸

Everyone else, DEA wrote, “remain[s] subject to the prohibition under 21 CFR 1301.13(a).”⁹

Put simply, a South Dakota business that handles medical marijuana and is neither a Timely Applicant nor a DEA registrant is, under DEA’s reading, barred by federal rule from doing so until DEA registers it. That is what the source says DEA told them.

And a federal certificate on the wall is not a shield. Even a business that already holds a DEA Certificate of Registration, or Timely Applicant status, can lose it by doing business with the wrong partner. If it buys from or trades with a cultivator, manufacturer or other partner that is neither a DEA registrant nor a Timely Applicant, and that can’t hand over the paperwork proving its federal status, DEA’s written guidance says that conduct “could be potential grounds for denial of a Timely Applicant’s application or revocation of a certificate of registration.”¹⁰

Even the businesses that did everything right are exposed

The pressure doesn’t stop at businesses that missed the window. Paragraph 7 of DEA’s guidance says that Timely Applicants and DEA registrants “may not lawfully engage in any schedule III medical marijuana activities with entities that did not complete an application for DEA registration between April 28, 2026, to June 26, 2026, or that have not applied . . . until those entities become DEA registrants.”⁹

Paragraph 8 states the penalty:

“If a Timely Applicant or DEA registrant engages in schedule III medical marijuana activities with someone other than a Timely Applicant or DEA registrant, such conduct could be potential grounds for denial of a Timely Applicant’s application or revocation of a certificate of registration, respectively.”¹⁰

In plain English: a dispensary that filed on time, passed its inspection and framed its federal certificate can still lose that certificate by buying from the wrong grower. Holding a certificate doesn’t protect a registrant that skips the paperwork.

Paragraph 8 says Timely Applicants and registrants “should take adequate steps to confirm the status of all entities with which they will conduct schedule III medical marijuana activities.” Before any deal, DEA says that “at a minimum” means:¹⁰

• from a registered partner, “a copy of the registrant’s DEA certificate of registration”;
• from a Timely Applicant, a copy of the application confirmation DEA issued when the partner applied, plus verification of the partner’s document control number on DEA’s Diversion Control website;
• “a copy of the entity’s relevant state license,” with its status verified as active; and
• “[m]aintaining records of all due diligence conducted.”

No paperwork, no deal. A partner that can’t produce it is a risk to the buyer’s own federal standing, according to DEA’s guidance.¹⁰

DEA’s guidance says it does “not have the force and effect of law.”¹¹ The regulation it explains does.

The Oct. 30 / Nov. 29 trap

The date confusion now running through South Dakota’s industry comes from a single paragraph. Paragraph 11, on page 4 of DEA’s guidance, does two different jobs with two different dates.¹²

Nov. 29 is DEA’s supply-chain compliance date. DEA wrote that Timely Applicants “may require additional time to verify the status of their existing trading partners as Timely Applicants or registrants and to make necessary adjustments to their supply chain,” and “are expected to complete these activities and establish compliant supply chains no later than November 29, 2026.”¹²

The Oct. 30 date is an inventory cutoff. In the next paragraph, DEA wrote that “Timely Dispenser Applicants and Timely Distributor Applicants may continue to possess, dispense, and distribute existing inventories of schedule III medical marijuana acquired prior to the issuance of this information, including inventory previously obtained from entities that do not qualify as Timely Applicants or DEA registrants.”¹² DEA posted the guidance on Oct. 30, under a file name dated “10302026,” the same day the Justice Department announced the first dispensary registrations.⁷˒¹³

The trap sits between the two dates. Shelf stock bought before Oct. 30 from a non-qualifying supplier is expressly covered. Nov. 29 is the date by which DEA says Timely Applicants are expected to have compliant supply chains. The guidance doesn’t say what happens to new wholesale deliveries a dispensary accepts between Oct. 30 and Nov. 29 from a grower or manufacturer that turns out to be neither a Timely Applicant nor a registrant. One reading treats the 30 days as a verification grace period. The other reads Paragraph 7’s “may not lawfully engage” and Paragraph 8’s denial-or-revocation warning as applying from the day the guidance posted. DEA hasn’t said which reading is right.

There is a second gap. The inventory sentence names “Timely Dispenser Applicants and Timely Distributor Applicants.” It doesn’t expressly name dispensaries that DEA has already registered. That matters in Wagner, where Ruthie’s Dispensary owner Ruth Bouza told WeedPress on Nov. 2 that she had received a DEA dispensary certificate, showed WeedPress a photo of it with an Oct. 30 issue date, and asked the question this whole industry now faces: “whom are the medical Cannabis suppliers that I can legally buy from?”¹⁴ Ruthie’s is the first South Dakota dispensary to tell WeedPress it holds a DEA registration. Nothing in DEA’s public list can answer her question, because the list publishes no names.

The math on the wall

DEA’s timely-applicant list publishes only a state, an activity and a control number for each entry. It names no businesses. Here is how South Dakota’s entries compare with the Department of Health’s list of active state registrations, which DOH updated Nov. 2:¹⁵˒¹⁶˒¹⁷˒¹⁸

Category	SD DOH active registrations (list updated Nov. 2, 2026)	DEA timely-applicant entries, Oct. 30 file	Nov. 2 file	Nov. 6 file (new URL)
Dispensaries	63	43	1	1
Cultivation	30	no separate DEA category	—	—
Manufacturing	14	—	—	—
Producers (cultivation + manufacturing)	44 registrations, roughly three dozen legal names	10 manufacturer entries	10	10
Distributors	no state category	2	2	2
Testing labs	1	not covered by § 1301.13(k)(7)	—	—
Total	108	55	13	13

Entries are applications, not companies; DEA’s list names no businesses. Removal from the list isn’t proof of registration or denial. Sources: DOH establishments list; DEA timely-applicant files dated Oct. 30, Nov. 2 and Nov. 6, 2026, as downloaded and preserved by WeedPress.

Four things in that table matter.

First, the dispensary drop is consistent with registrations being issued. South Dakota went from 43 dispensary entries in DEA’s Oct. 30 file to 1 in the Nov. 2 file. That fits the Justice Department’s Oct. 30 announcement that DEA had begun registering “more than 900 dispensaries across Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.”¹³ DEA says entries leave the list when applicants are registered, withdraw, “or are no longer considered Timely Applicants for any other reason,” so removal alone proves nothing about any single entry.¹⁹ The Oct. 30 file still sets the high-water mark: 43 South Dakota dispensary entries against 63 state-registered dispensaries.

Second, the producer side is where the bottleneck is. South Dakota has 30 cultivation and 14 manufacturing registrations, 44 in all, held under roughly three dozen legal names.¹⁵ DEA’s list, in every snapshot WeedPress has taken since Oct. 30, shows 10 South Dakota manufacturer entries and 2 distributor entries. DEA’s list has no separate cultivation category, because federal law counts growing marijuana as “manufacture.”²⁰ Entries are applications, not companies. One business might file once to cover a grow and a kitchen, so 10 entries against 44 registrations isn’t proof that 34 producers missed the window. But it is the only public federal count there is, and it hasn’t moved since Oct. 30.

Third, WeedPress has found no public record of any South Dakota producer registration. The Justice Department’s Oct. 30 announcement described registrations issued only to dispensaries. It said manufacturer and distributor applications “require additional review, including facility inspections, production controls, and quota determinations.”¹³ It gave no timeline. On the public record WeedPress can verify, South Dakota’s federally qualified supply side comes down to 10 manufacturer entries and 2 distributor entries on the timely-applicant list, plus any DEA registrants the public list can’t show. The list names none of them.

Fourth, the list itself moved. On Nov. 2, DEA’s long-standing list URL began returning a “404 Not Found” error. At WeedPress’s live check at 11:59 a.m. CST Friday, that old address was still dead. DEA’s Medical Marijuana Information page now links the list at a new address, where a file dated “06-NOV-26” lists 6,074 entries nationally. South Dakota’s count was unchanged at 1 dispensary, 10 manufacturer and 2 distributor entries, with the same control numbers as on Nov. 2.¹⁸ WeedPress tracks every establishment’s public status on its South Dakota Medical Cannabis Establishment Status List.²¹

What WeedPress asked, and who answered

WeedPress asked before writing this.

• DEA Media Affairs got six written questions on Oct. 31 and a supply-chain follow-up on Nov. 2, with a Nov. 4, 5 p.m. deadline. The only response was an automatic acknowledgment. At 12:28 p.m. CST Nov. 6, ahead of publication, WeedPress also sent DEA the quoted statement for comment. DEA had not responded substantively as of publication. WeedPress will update this article promptly if it does.⁴
• The South Dakota Department of Health’s medical cannabis program got four written questions on Oct. 31 about DEA registrations, with the same deadline. It hasn’t replied.²² As of WeedPress’s Nov. 6 check, neither DOH’s medical cannabis home page nor its establishments page mentions DEA, Schedule III or Nov. 29.²³
• The Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota, co-publisher of the May 13 post, got three written questions at 12:16 p.m. CST Nov. 6 about the May 13 post, the May 31 statement that producer applications were “not open yet,” and any guidance CIASD has given members on the Nov. 29 supply-chain date. WeedPress gave CIASD until noon CST Monday, Nov. 9, to respond. It had not responded as of publication on Nov. 6. WeedPress will update this article promptly with any response.²

• South Dakota producers. On Nov. 2 WeedPress sent the same three questions to 11 public business email addresses covering a dozen state-registered cultivation and manufacturing establishments. WeedPress asked whether each had a DEA registration or a pending application and whether it could supply DEA-registered dispensaries, with a Nov. 5, 5 p.m. deadline. None replied by the deadline, and none had replied by midday Nov. 6. WeedPress couldn’t find a public email address for about 20 other producers.²⁴ As WeedPress told each business in writing, a non-reply says nothing about any business’s federal status, and WeedPress draws no conclusion from it.

• The supplier question, sent up the chain. At 12:40 p.m. CST Nov. 6, after a South Dakota dispensary that holds a DEA certificate asked for help identifying lawful suppliers, WeedPress asked whether federal or state officials will help DEA-registered South Dakota dispensaries identify federally eligible suppliers, or whether operators must canvass one another privately. The question went to DEA Media Affairs (as a follow-up in the same thread); DEA’s Omaha Division Nebraska–South Dakota Diversion registration office, with a copy to the Omaha Division’s public information officer; DEA Diversion Control headquarters policy, registration-help and outreach addresses; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota; and the South Dakota Department of Health’s medical cannabis program, with a copy to DOH media relations. None had responded as of publication. WeedPress will update this article with any response.²⁵

So 23 days before Nov. 29, neither DEA, DOH nor any producer WeedPress asked had given a South Dakota-specific answer to the question now facing the market: which suppliers can legally sell to which dispensaries.

The two-way vise

For a South Dakota establishment that handles medical marijuana with neither Timely Applicant status nor a DEA registration, the law squeezes from two sides.

Side one: keep operating, and risk federal denial

Under 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(a), a business that must register may not handle Schedule III medical marijuana until DEA registers it.⁵ The source’s account is that DEA is telling operators the same thing directly, and warning that continuing to operate risks “not being approved for said registration by the DEA moving forward.”³ Paragraph 7 also means a business outside the federal system can’t lawfully sell to, or buy from, any Timely Applicant or DEA registrant in the state.⁹ Once Nov. 29 passes, those DEA-compliant buyers are expected to have finished verifying their supply chains.¹² Paragraph 8 adds pressure from the buyer’s side: Timely Applicants and registrants that deal with outsiders face “potential grounds” for denial or revocation of their own federal status.¹⁰ So a business that keeps operating outside the federal system, by the source’s account, risks its own future registration, and under DEA’s written guidance it also stands to lose every compliant customer.

Side two: shut down to wait, and the state and local clocks keep running

A business that stops operating while it waits on a late DEA application, possibly for a grower or manufacturer facing facility inspections and quota decisions with no announced timetable,¹³ doesn’t stop South Dakota’s clocks:

• The state fee doesn’t pause. DOH charges a non-refundable $9,000 for every initial or renewal establishment registration application.²⁶
• Neither does renewal. Renewal is “required every twelve months” and “[m]ust include all components of an initial application,” under a rule DOH amended effective Nov. 5, 2026.²⁷
• Renewal depends on any required local credential. Every renewal application must include either a certification that no city or county registration, license or permit is required, or copies of all required ones.²⁸ State law lets municipalities and counties require a local license, permit or registration to operate.²⁹
• Some local licenses lapse with inactivity. De Smet’s cannabis licensing ordinance, as adopted in 2021, says: “If a license holder has not operated an establishment for which it holds a license in the preceding twelve (12) months, the license will not be renewed.”³⁰ Redfield’s licensing ordinance, adopted the same month, uses the same words.³¹ Those are examples. WeedPress hasn’t reviewed every South Dakota city’s code.

Rent, security, cameras, insurance and payroll keep running, while state credentials that the federal rule no longer treats as enough stay on the wall.

What state law does not say

WeedPress is not reporting that South Dakota will revoke a state registration because a business lacks a DEA registration. WeedPress found no provision in SDCL chapter 34-20G or ARSD article 44:90 that conditions a dispensary, cultivation or manufacturing registration on DEA registration. The only DEA-registration requirement in the state rules applies to testing facilities.³² DOH’s suspension and revocation power under SDCL 34-20G-80 reaches violations “of this chapter,” meaning state law, and requires notice and a hearing.³³ The state-side risk for a business that goes dark is the one the text actually states: where a local credential is required, a missed local renewal or, under ordinances like De Smet’s and Redfield’s, a local license that isn’t renewed after a year of non-operation, followed by a state renewal application that can’t include the local credential the rules require.

Pierre’s posture hasn’t helped. At the Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee’s Oct. 13 meeting, Assistant Attorney General Grant Flynn said the federal framework accommodates South Dakota’s program, “assuming those state programs are willing to jump through the hoops that the federal government has set up to make sure that they’re properly registered.” Asked about public outreach, he said he wasn’t sure what a press release would say, “because we don’t think anything has changed, right?”³⁴ For the roughly 19,800 South Dakota patients who depend on those shelves,³⁵ it is the first statement, about the hoops, that is now coming due.

The receipts: in court on May 12, “all the t’s are crossed, and i’s are dotted” on May 13

None of this was hidden. The 60-day window opened April 28 and closed June 26. Through May, WeedPress said in print that it was a cliff.

On May 5, WeedPress published a DEA registration “decision tree” for South Dakota operators. It said the deadline “is not a suggestion” and warned: “Miss it and you fall into the slower, higher-risk pool with no special protections.”³⁶

On May 12, in a separate matter, the publisher writing those warnings was in a Minnehaha County courtroom as a respondent. Melissa Mentele, co-founder and chief operations officer of 605 Cannabis LLC, had petitioned for a protection order against him. WeedPress doesn’t suggest the petition concerned its DEA coverage. It was the fourth such petition she had filed against this publisher across two counties: Nos. 30TPO25-000002 and 30TPO25-000003 in Hanson County, and Nos. 49TPO26-000045 and 49TPO26-343 in Minnehaha County.³⁷ None of the four left a protection order in place. Courts dismissed or denied the petitions for failure to meet the statutory standard, and the one temporary order issued along the way was later vacated.³⁷ At the May 12 hearing, Magistrate Judge Andrew Robertson told Mentele, “we’re in a courtroom. This isn’t Facebook. This isn’t a blog.”³⁸ He observed, “This is the fourth protection hearing that we’ve had on this over two counties.”³⁹ Then he ruled: “I am going to deny the request for the protection order.”⁴⁰ That denial is on appeal.¹

Download the full certified May 12, 2026 hearing transcript in Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343 (PDF, redacted)

On May 13, the next day, about six weeks before the federal window closed, New Approach South Dakota and the Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota published a joint, unsigned “Federal Rescheduling Update” on Facebook:⁴¹

“All South Dakota Licensed Dispensary Businesses are aware of the deadlines and the procedure for obtaining the correct licensing to continue to operate under the new laws.”

“All Dispensary businesses are preparing for these changes and have retained experts and attorneys to ensure all the t’s are crossed, and i’s are dotted.”

“This post is to ensure all patients are aware that the needed applications are in process and the industry does not anticipate any delays or disruptions in Dispensary operations during the approval process.”

The same day, WeedPress published “The Policy Vacuum.” It said South Dakota “lacks clear, consistent public guidance on DEA registration deadlines,” and that “the practical mechanics — how dispensaries, cultivators, and patients should prepare — remain underdeveloped on the public record.”⁴² On May 29, WeedPress published two more pieces, warning that “the dominant public response from many legacy advocacy groups and industry voices has been vague assurances” and that South Dakota operators faced “a Compliance Cliff as the Safe Harbor Window Closes.”⁴³

On May 31, New Approach South Dakota responded to what it called “a couple of articles sent to me asking questions about rescheduling” with a Page post signed “NASD STAFF.” The post didn’t identify the articles. It said the people asking had “no inside information on how the SD program is set up to absorb these changes pretty seamlessly.”⁴⁴ Item 5 said “[t]he only license available to be DEA Certified right now is the Dispensary application.” Item 7 said manufacturing, extraction and cultivation applications were “not open yet” because of DEA’s summer hearing, and that “each of these licenses will open at different times.”⁴⁴ The portal distinction matters: NASD may have been right on May 31 that DEA had not yet switched on its dedicated online producer application portal. That is not the same as applications being unavailable. On May 11, Cannabis Business Times quoted DEA’s notice that the updated manufacturer/distributor applications were coming “in the coming weeks,” but that applicants “may do so utilizing DEA’s current Form 225 application.” The notice specified the applicable medical-marijuana drug codes. The same publication reported that the dedicated portal finally launched Oct. 5. WeedPress has not located a primary DEA announcement establishing the exact launch date, so Oct. 5 is attributed to that contemporaneous reporting, not presented as an independently verified DEA launch record.⁴⁵ DEA’s April 28 rule nevertheless set one 60-day clock ending June 26 for manufacturers and dispensaries alike, and its timely-applicant list contains 10 South Dakota manufacturer entries.⁶˒⁷˒¹⁶ A delayed dedicated portal did not, under DEA’s published rule, stop or extend that clock. The post closed its list this way:

“Everyone in SD Cannabis has been preparing for these changes for a long time before their doors ever opened. . . . The transition should be smooth for everyone in the state.”⁴⁴

The same day, Mentele commented in the We, The People, of South Dakota Facebook group:

“With all Dispensaries in the middle of doing their DEA licensing we will be federally regulated by legislative session which means state Rep need to stop litigating a bill we the people passed by 70%”⁴⁶

On July 24, four weeks after the window had closed, a New Approach South Dakota Page post signed “Mel” reported on DEA dispensary inspections:

“Many who have been inspected reflect that our earlier statement on this being a pretty seamless process was accurate.”

“[A]s of now, all of it is preliminary and positive.”⁴⁷

What the record shows now

WeedPress re-read the full text of all three Page posts. None said how many South Dakota businesses had applied to DEA. None gave the June 26 closing date. None cited 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(a). None warned cultivators or manufacturers that, as DEA’s Oct. 30 guidance reads the rule, missing the window would leave them subject to § 1301.13(a)’s register-first prohibition, and none warned that DEA-registered dispensaries could be barred from buying from suppliers outside the federal system.⁴¹˒⁴⁴˒⁴⁷ The May 13 post was addressed to dispensaries. The May 31 post told the public that producer applications weren’t open yet, a statement that may accurately describe the dedicated portal but omits the existing Form 225 route. In the public posts WeedPress reviewed, it found no follow-up before June 26 telling producers how to use that route or warning that the shared window was closing. This review does not establish that no other public or private guidance existed.

Sources in South Dakota’s cannabis industry tell WeedPress they personally know a number of state-registered operators that don’t have DEA Timely Applicant status because they waited to apply.⁴⁸ WeedPress isn’t identifying those operators or the sources, and the sources’ accounts don’t show which businesses, if any, are behind the 10 manufacturer entries on DEA’s list. WeedPress hasn’t verified any individual operator’s federal status. Nothing in this article suggests that 605 Cannabis, or any other named business, missed DEA’s window or is operating outside federal rules; DEA’s list names no one.

Here is where things stand on Nov. 6, 2026:

• 10 South Dakota manufacturer entries and 2 distributor entries on DEA’s timely-applicant list, against 44 state cultivation and manufacturing registrations, unchanged in every snapshot since Oct. 30.¹⁶˒¹⁸˒¹⁵
• 0 producer registrations announced by DOJ, which said manufacturer and distributor applications require additional review, including facility inspections, production controls and quota determinations.¹³
• 43 South Dakota dispensary entries on DEA’s Oct. 30 file, against 63 state-registered dispensaries.¹⁶˒¹⁵
• 1 South Dakota dispensary, Ruthie’s in Wagner, that has told WeedPress it holds a DEA certificate, and that wrote to WeedPress to ask who can legally supply it.¹⁴
• 0 answers from DEA, DOH or the dozen producers WeedPress asked.⁴˒²²˒²⁴
• 23 days until Nov. 29.¹²
• And a South Dakota industry source’s account that DEA’s message is now blunt: no timely application and no certificate means “you should not be operating,” and operating anyway risks the registration itself.³

In May, public posts from South Dakota’s cannabis advocates told the program’s roughly 19,800 patients that dispensaries had “retained experts and attorneys to ensure all the t’s are crossed, and i’s are dotted,” that “the needed applications are in process,” and that the transition “should be smooth for everyone in the state.”³⁵ November’s federal record is far thinner, and far less certain, than the assurances patients heard in May.

Publisher’s commentary: the reward for the warning

The following is the opinion of Jason Karimi, publisher of WeedPress, based on the public records cited in this article.

For years, WeedPress has offered South Dakota a different read of its cannabis program than the one coming from the state’s legacy advocates. In May, that meant citing the federal deadline and calling the window a cliff. The reward for that kind of reporting has been a courtroom. WeedPress doesn’t claim the May 12 petition was about its DEA coverage. The transcript shows that what Mentele complained about included WeedPress’s policy articles.

On May 12, I stood as the respondent at the fourth protection-order hearing Melissa Mentele had brought against me across two counties.³⁹˒³⁷ Mentele is a co-founder and the chief operations officer of 605 Cannabis, and she told the court she had written and sponsored the 2020 medical marijuana measure.⁴⁹ She appeared pro se, without a lawyer; so did I.⁵⁰ “And next time I come back with a lawyer,” she told the judge, “because maybe I can’t explain the statute to you.”⁵¹

What she complained about, in part, was my reporting. “He’ll start an article, and it’ll be a policy,” she testified. “It’ll be a policy debate. It has nothing to do with me. And then smack in the middle of it is look at the controversy around Melissa Mentele and 605 cannabis.”⁵² She told the court: “Mr. Karimi does not work in the industry. He has nothing to do with our businesses. How it runs.” And then, about her business: “Our business does millions per year.”⁵³ In civil litigation, 605 Cannabis has described itself as having been “positioned . . . to be the leader in the medical marijuana industry as the industry started in South Dakota.”⁵⁴

The judge reminded her that “the blogs that he’s writing isn’t something that’s going to get you a protection order.”⁵⁵ He told her, “we’re in a courtroom. This isn’t Facebook. This isn’t a blog.”³⁸ He said, “I have a little bit of an issue with your credibility.”⁵⁶ And he denied the petition.⁴⁰ That denial is on appeal.¹

So that is what the effort produced: a denial, a sworn transcript on the public record, a judge’s stated concern about the petitioner’s credibility, and her own courtroom description of her business, now available as a redacted PDF download right here to anyone who wants to read it. In my view, that scrutiny is the direct and foreseeable result of choosing a courtroom over a correction.

Let the record be plain. As this article documents with dates and links, WeedPress warned South Dakota’s industry clearly, precisely and concisely while the 60-day federal window was still open: on May 5, that the deadline “is not a suggestion”; on May 13, that the state “lacks clear, consistent public guidance on DEA registration deadlines”; on May 29, that operators faced “a Compliance Cliff as the Safe Harbor Window Closes.”³⁶˒⁴²˒⁴³

Someone disagreed with my reporting and commentary. In court, that disagreement became something else. Mentele testified that I “continuously hammer[]” her “about not being present and not being an advocate.”⁵⁷ She told the judge, “He gains nothing by hurting me. All he does is alarm me, make me jumpy in my own home, make my husband terrified to let me leave my house.”⁵⁸ She called it “stalking.”⁵⁹ She invoked her “constitutional right to be treated with fairness and respect for my dignity and privacy.”⁶⁰ The court heard her out and denied the petition.⁴⁰

Whether or not anyone felt bruised by public scrutiny, one thing is certain: people’s money is on the line in these discussions. Their capital, their leases, their payroll, their $9,000 non-refundable state renewal fees.²⁶ A disagreement, or an alternate, statute-backed perspective like mine, adds to the conversation during a fast-moving federal transition. It takes nothing away from the solutions. Operators and patients with real money and real livelihoods at stake deserve the same dignity and respect Mentele asked the court for, and that starts with straight facts. Independent voices have to be allowed to speak up and warn people before a federal window shuts, so they don’t find out when it’s too late.

WeedPress saw this coming long before November. It tried to warn the state’s industry in print while there was still time. And its publisher was hauled into court over his reporting while, from where I stood, the rest of South Dakota’s organized industry leadership stood by and did nothing to stop it.

Here is my accusation, and I make it plainly. If DEA’s written Oct. 30 guidance means what it says, and if the accounts South Dakota industry sources are sharing with WeedPress are accurate, a wide swath of South Dakota’s medical cannabis market is boxed in. In my opinion, the legacy voices who told this state the transition “should be smooth,” who never cited 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(a), who failed in the reviewed public posts to distinguish the delayed producer portal from the available Form 225 application route or warn of the shared June 26 deadline, and one of whose best-known figures, by her own sworn account the author and sole sponsor of the 2020 medical marijuana measure, spent May in court seeking a protection order against the publisher printing the deadline, helped walk operators straight into it. In my view, the operators who waited didn’t wait in a vacuum. They waited, in no small part, on assurances from people who never put the rule in front of them.⁴¹˒⁴⁴˒⁴⁷

Bottom line

Here it is in plain terms.

If you filed with DEA late, outside the April 28–June 26 window, or never filed at all, and you’re operating right now: the federal rule says you may not handle medical marijuana until DEA issues you a certificate.⁵˒⁹ And according to the DEA warning a South Dakota industry source shared with WeedPress on Nov. 6, if you keep operating anyway, you risk not being approved for the registration you’re waiting on, because you’re out of compliance.³

If you already hold a DEA certificate or Timely Applicant status: buy from or do business with a partner that is neither registered nor a Timely Applicant, without getting and keeping the paperwork that proves its federal status, and DEA’s written Oct. 30 guidance says that’s potential grounds to revoke your certificate or deny your application.¹⁰

That is the rule, DEA’s written guidance, and a source’s account of what DEA is saying directly. WeedPress is tracking it on a live chart, the South Dakota Medical Cannabis Establishment Status List, which logs confirmed federally eligible South Dakota businesses, starting with Ruthie’s Dispensary in Wagner, alongside the outreach and reply status for every state-registered establishment.²¹˒¹⁴

Anyone in South Dakota’s legacy cannabis establishment who wants to answer the text of 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(a), DEA’s written Oct. 30 guidance and a source’s account of direct DEA warnings with another unsigned Facebook assurance, or who wants to pretend I’m sounding this alarm just to make someone look bad, is out of their mind. — Jason Karimi, Publisher, WeedPress

---

WeedPress will update this article if DEA, the Department of Health, any South Dakota producer, or anyone quoted or described here responds. Corrections and documentation: weedpressnewstips@gmail.com. WeedPress does not publish DEA registration numbers or document control numbers. For WeedPress’s earlier reporting, see the Ruthie’s Dispensary report and the South Dakota Medical Cannabis Establishment Status List.

---

Notes

¹ Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Minnehaha Cnty.) (petition denied after May 12, 2026 hearing; pro se appeal pending); see WeedPress, Corrections & Disclosures, https://weedpress.org/corrections/.

² Email from WeedPress to Cannabis Indus. Ass’n of S.D. (comms@ciasd.com), Media inquiry for comment: May 13 Federal Rescheduling Update & DEA Nov. 29 supply-chain guidance (sent 12:16 p.m. CST Nov. 6, 2026; three on-the-record questions; response window through noon CST Nov. 9, 2026). No response had been received as of publication on Nov. 6, 2026; WeedPress will update this article with any response.

³ Account of a DEA discussion shared with WeedPress by a South Dakota cannabis industry source (Nov. 6, 2026). WeedPress has not independently confirmed the statement with DEA; see note on DEA inquiries, infra.

⁴ Emails from WeedPress to DEA Media Affairs (DEAPress@dea.gov) (Oct. 31, 2026 & Nov. 2, 2026) (deadline Nov. 4, 2026, 5 p.m. CT); automatic acknowledgment from DEAPress@dea.gov (Nov. 2, 2026); Email from WeedPress to DEA Media Affairs (DEAPress@dea.gov), Press inquiry for immediate publication: Reported DEA guidance to non-timely South Dakota cannabis operators (sent 12:28 p.m. CST Nov. 6, 2026) (requesting confirmation, dispute or clarification of the quoted statement before publication). No substantive response had been received as of publication on Nov. 6, 2026; WeedPress will update this article if DEA responds.

⁵ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(a) (2026), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1301/subject-group-ECFR3cf1ba6a9ba8b23/section-1301.13 (text retrieved by WeedPress from the eCFR versioner API, point-in-time Nov. 1, 2026; copy on file).

⁶ 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13(k)(7) (2026) (“Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, any applicant that submits an application within 60 days of the publication of this rule in the Federal Register may engage in the manufacture, distribution, and/or dispensing of marijuana or products containing marijuana for medical purposes in conformity with a state-issued license during the pendency of the application.”).

⁷ Drug Enf’t Admin., Diversion Control Div., DEA Medical Marijuana Timely Applicant Information (Oct. 30, 2026) [hereinafter DEA Timely Applicant Information], https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/Timely-Applicant-Information-for-Medical-Marijuana-Applicants.pdf (originally posted at the dated URL …-10302026.pdf; archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20261030211405/https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/Timely-Applicant-Information-for-Medical-Marijuana-Applicants-10302026.pdf; undated URL re-checked by WeedPress 11:59 a.m. CST Nov. 6, 2026, HTTP 200, byte-identical to WeedPress’s Nov. 2 copy).

⁸ DEA Timely Applicant Information, supra, ¶¶ 1–4 & “To Whom it Applies.”

⁹ DEA Timely Applicant Information, supra, ¶ 7.

¹⁰ DEA Timely Applicant Information, supra, ¶ 8.

¹¹ DEA Timely Applicant Information, supra, at 4 (“The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way.”).

¹² DEA Timely Applicant Information, supra, ¶ 11 (p. 4).

¹³ Press Release No. 26-1276, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. of Pub. Affs., Justice Department Announces Issuance of Federal Registrations for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Oct. 30, 2026; updated Nov. 3, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-issuance-federal-registrations-medical-marijuana-dispensaries (last visited Nov. 6, 2026).

¹⁴ Email from Ruth Bouza, Owner, Ruthie’s Dispensary, to WeedPress (Nov. 2, 2026) (on file); WeedPress, A Wagner Dispensary Says It Has Its DEA Registration. Now It Wants to Know Who It Can Legally Buy From (Nov. 2, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/11/02/ruthies-dispensary-wagner-dea-registration-asked-weedpress-who-can-legally-buy-from/ (certificate photo reviewed by WeedPress shows an Oct. 30, 2026 issue date; registration number withheld; not independently confirmed with DEA).

¹⁵ S.D. Dep’t of Health, South Dakota Medical Cannabis Establishments List (content last updated Nov. 2, 2026), https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis/medical-cannabis-establishments/establishments-list/ (last visited Nov. 6, 2026) (WeedPress count: 63 dispensary, 14 manufacturing, 30 cultivation and 1 testing establishment; copy on file).

¹⁶ Drug Enf’t Admin., Medical Marijuana Timely Applicants (file date Oct. 30, 2026) (6,983 entries; downloaded by WeedPress Oct. 31, 2026, SHA-256 593833b1…148de), archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20261031212924/https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/medical_marijuana_timely_applicants.txt.

¹⁷ Drug Enf’t Admin., Medical Marijuana Timely Applicants (file date Nov. 2, 2026) (6,083 entries; downloaded by WeedPress 9:00 a.m. CST Nov. 2, 2026, SHA-256 6dac867f…a0cad) (copy on file).

¹⁸ Drug Enf’t Admin., Medical Marijuana Timely Applicants (file date Nov. 6, 2026), https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/med_marijuana/medical_marijuana_timely_applicants.txt (6,074 entries; downloaded by WeedPress 11:59 a.m. CST Nov. 6, 2026, SHA-256 cb1f2ed8…a0bf08b) (copy on file). The former URL, https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/medical_marijuana_timely_applicants.txt, returned HTTP 404 at the same check, as it has since Nov. 2; DEA’s Medical Marijuana Information page, https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/medicalmarijuana.html, now links the list at the new path (server responses and headers on file).

¹⁹ Drug Enf’t Admin., Diversion Control Div., Medical Marijuana Information, https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/medicalmarijuana.html (last visited Nov. 6, 2026) (“This list may change as Timely Applicants are granted DEA registrations, withdraw their applications for DEA registration, or are no longer considered Timely Applicants for any other reason.”).

²⁰ 21 U.S.C. § 802(15), (22) (“manufacture” includes “production”; “production” includes “the manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, or harvesting of a controlled substance”).

²¹ WeedPress, South Dakota Medical Cannabis Establishment Status List, https://weedpress.org/establishment-status/.

²² Email from WeedPress to S.D. Dep’t of Health, Medical Cannabis Program (MCQuestions@state.sd.us) (Oct. 31, 2026) (four questions on DEA registrations; deadline Nov. 4, 2026, 5 p.m. CT) (on file). No reply had been received as of WeedPress’s Nov. 6, 2026 inbox check.

²³ S.D. Dep’t of Health, Medical Cannabis (content last updated July 8, 2026), https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis/; S.D. Dep’t of Health, Medical Cannabis Establishments (content last updated Sept. 24, 2026), https://doh.sd.gov/programs/medical-cannabis/medical-cannabis-establishments/ (both last visited Nov. 6, 2026; neither page mentions DEA, Schedule III or Nov. 29).

²⁴ Emails from WeedPress to 11 public business email addresses for South Dakota cultivation and manufacturing registrants (Nov. 2, 2026) (identical three-question inquiry; deadline Nov. 5, 2026, 5 p.m. CT; each email stated that WeedPress would draw no conclusion from a non-reply) (on file). No replies and no delivery-failure notices had been received as of WeedPress’s Nov. 6, 2026 inbox check.

²⁵ Emails from WeedPress (weedpressnewstips@gmail.com) sent 12:40 p.m. CST Nov. 6, 2026, to: DEA Media Affairs (DEAPress@dea.gov) (follow-up in thread Press inquiry for immediate publication: Reported DEA guidance to non-timely South Dakota cannabis operators); DEA Omaha Div., Neb.–S.D. Diversion Registration (NE-SD.Diversion.registration@dea.gov; cc Emily.A.Murray@dea.gov), South Dakota inquiry: How DEA-registered dispensaries can identify eligible suppliers without a public list; DEA Diversion Control Div. (DPY@dea.gov; cc DEA.Registration.Help@dea.gov, DiversionHQ.Outreach@dea.gov), Diversion Control inquiry: Supplier identification for DEA-registered South Dakota dispensary ahead of Nov. 29; U.S. Att’y’s Off. for the Dist. of S.D. (usasd.press@usdoj.gov; cc usasd.information@usdoj.gov), Media inquiry (District of SD): Supplier verification for DEA-registered South Dakota medical cannabis dispensaries; S.D. Dep’t of Health (MCQuestions@state.sd.us; cc DOHmedia@state.sd.us), Media inquiry: Helping DEA-registered South Dakota dispensaries identify federally eligible suppliers. No responses had been received as of publication on Nov. 6, 2026.

²⁶ S.D. Admin. R. 44:90:03:17 (2026) (“The department shall collect a non-refundable fee for an initial or renewal application for an establishment registration certificate of nine thousand dollars.”), https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44:90:03:17.

²⁷ S.D. Admin. R. 44:90:03:02 (as amended by 53 S.D. Reg. 56, eff. Nov. 5, 2026) (renewal “required every twelve months” and “[m]ust include all components of an initial application”), https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/Administrative/44:90:03:02.

²⁸ S.D. Admin. R. 44:90:03:11 (2026) (each initial or renewal application must include a no-local-requirement certification or “[c]opies of all required registrations, licenses, or permits”); S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-55(1)(e) (2026).

²⁹ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-58 (2026) (municipality may require a medical cannabis establishment “to obtain a local license, permit, or registration to operate”).

³⁰ City of De Smet, S.D., Ordinance No. V-II, § 9.08(d) (second reading approved Sept. 22, 2021, all voting aye), as set out in De Smet Common Council special-meeting minutes (Sept. 22, 2021), https://cityofdesmet.com/image3/council-minutes/e62e52aa77a714c0a742fb8ac26855fda5b1f276.pdf (copy on file).

³¹ City of Redfield, S.D., Ordinance No. 2021-04, § 5.71.08(d) (adopted Sept. 13, 2021, on a roll-call vote with all members voting yes; published Sept. 22, 2021), as set out in Redfield City Council special-meeting minutes (Sept. 13, 2021), https://www.city.redfield-sd.com/media/userfiles/subsite_45/files/Council_Minutes/2021-Sept-13_SpecialMtg_Minutes.pdf (copy on file).

³² S.D. Admin. R. 44:90:06:01 (2026) (“A cannabis testing facility shall register with the Drug Enforcement Agency pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1301.13 ( June 28, 2021 ).”). WeedPress’s text search of S.D. Codified Laws ch. 34-20G and S.D. Admin. R. art. 44:90 found no comparable DEA-registration requirement for dispensaries, cultivation facilities or manufacturing facilities.

³³ S.D. Codified Laws § 34-20G-80 (2026) (department “may, after notice and hearing in accordance with chapter 1-26, impose probation, impose a fine, suspend, or revoke a registration certificate for multiple negligent or knowing violations of this chapter, or for a serious and knowing violation of this chapter”).

³⁴ Statement of Assistant Att’y Gen. Grant Flynn, S.D. Att’y Gen.’s Office, to S.D. Legis. Med. Marijuana Oversight Comm. (Oct. 13, 2026), SDPB recording at 00:14:11 & 00:32:45, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxM8IMWsWk0; full transcript at WeedPress, “We Don’t Think Anything Has Changed”: Full Transcript of the South Dakota AG’s Office on Federal Rescheduling (Oct. 25, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/10/25/we-dont-think-anything-has-changed-full-transcript-of-the-south-dakota-ags-office-on-federal-rescheduling/.

³⁵ WeedPress, 38 Rules, 19,821 Patients, 108 Licensed Establishments: South Dakota Rewrites Its Medical Cannabis Program (Sept. 9, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/09/09/38-rules-19821-patients-108-licensed-establishments-south-dakota-rewrites-its-medical-cannabis-program/ (citing S.D. Dep’t of Health program data).

³⁶ WeedPress, DEA Registration Decision Tree: 5 Questions Every Medical Operator Should Answer Before June 27 (May 5, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/05/05/dea-registration-decision-tree-5-questions-every-medical-operator-should-answer-before-june-26/. (WeedPress’s May articles projected a June 27 or June 29 cutoff; DEA’s Oct. 30 guidance states the window as April 28 to June 26, 2026.)

³⁷ S.D. Unified Judicial System records for Mentele v. Karimi, Nos. 30TPO25-000002 & 30TPO25-000003 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty.) and Nos. 49TPO26-000045 & 49TPO26-343 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Minnehaha Cnty.); Order Dismissing Protection Order, Mentele v. Karimi, No. 30TPO25-000003 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Hanson Cnty. Jan. 5, 2026); Order Dismissing Protection Order, Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-000045 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Minnehaha Cnty. Feb. 10, 2026).

³⁸ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g at 21:17–20, Mentele v. Karimi, No. 49TPO26-343 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Minnehaha Cnty. May 12, 2026) (Robertson, Magis. J.) (certified July 8, 2026), redacted copy at https://weedpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/mentele-v-karimi-2026-05-12-transcript-redacted-v2.pdf.

³⁹ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 23:20–22.

⁴⁰ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 25:1–8.

⁴¹ New Approach South Dakota & Cannabis Indus. Ass’n of S.D. (CIASD), Facebook (May 13, 2026) (joint post, “Federal Rescheduling Update,” unsigned), https://www.facebook.com/newapproachSD/posts/pfbid07TaaS2rEE72vRmAek2HoUTiYpXtCMsMnfo8q6EhxNzbo2cD1yCpAaQ26vMXV9chWl (screenshot captured Oct. 31, 2026, on file).

⁴² WeedPress, The Policy Vacuum: What Happens When Leadership Steps Back During Federal Cannabis Rescheduling (May 13, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/05/13/the-policy-vacuum-what-happens-when-leadership-steps-back-during-federal-cannabis-rescheduling/.

⁴³ WeedPress, The Federal Compliance Cliff: How Schedule III May Threaten Small Cannabis Operators Before 280E Relief Arrives (May 29, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/05/29/the-federal-compliance-cliff-how-schedule-iii-may-threaten-small-cannabis-operators-before-280e-relief-arrives/; WeedPress, The June 27 DEA Registration Deadline Is Coming Fast: South Dakota Operators Face a Compliance Cliff as the Safe Harbor Window Closes (May 29, 2026), https://weedpress.org/2026/05/29/the-june-27-dea-registration-deadline-is-coming-fast-south-dakota-operators-face-a-compliance-cliff-as-the-safe-harbor-window-closes/.

⁴⁴ New Approach South Dakota, Facebook (May 31, 2026) (“Good Afternoon & Happy Sunday!!,” signed “NASD STAFF”), https://www.facebook.com/newapproachSD/posts/pfbid0cTCNriFwG4LMnv96bHkvZBWCkTrdVKWxuRKcF1LSm62wf3HRkqQLdNKyKwKoAyeyl (screenshots on file).

⁴⁵ Tony Lange, Cannabis Business Times, DEA’s Schedule III Cannabis Registration ‘Coming Soon’ For Cultivators, Manufacturers, Distributors, Labs (May 11, 2026), https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15824820/deas-schedule-iii-cannabis-registration-coming-soon-for-cultivators-manufacturers-distributors-labs (quoting DEA’s existing Form 225 instructions); Tony Lange, DEA Opens New Schedule III Registration Portal for Medical Cannabis Manufacturers, Distributors, Labs (Oct. 5, 2026), https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15836687/dea-opens-new-schedule-iii-registration-portal-for-medical-cannabis-manufacturers-distributors-labs. Both opened Nov. 6, 2026; dedicated portal launch date attributed to the publication.

⁴⁶ Comment of Melissa Mentele (May 31, 2026), We, The People, of South Dakota Facebook group, https://www.facebook.com/groups/1263613037470637/posts/2432815280550401/ (screenshot captured July 12, 2026, archived at https://weedpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/img_7338-1.png).

⁴⁷ New Approach South Dakota, Facebook (July 24, 2026) (signed “Mel”), https://www.facebook.com/newapproachSD/posts/pfbid0zZm4WqsA2xvYdf4wC9N8xdaUd58N5SUTdhAzSVARz97xaZD9ZwtQD86QdiPh7XHel (screenshot captured Oct. 31, 2026, on file).

⁴⁸ Accounts shared with WeedPress by sources in South Dakota’s cannabis industry (Nov. 2026). WeedPress is withholding details that could identify the sources or the operators they described.

⁴⁹ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 16:3–7.

⁵⁰ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 1 (appearances: “Ms. Melissa Mentele . . . Pro se”; “Mr. Jason Karimi . . . Pro Se”).

⁵¹ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 23:8–10.

⁵² Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 18:11–15.

⁵³ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 19:16–20.

⁵⁴ 605 Cannabis LLC’s Answer & Countercls. (“Damage to Goodwill”), Big Country Inv. Grp. Corp. v. 605 Cannabis LLC, No. 41CIV24-000629 (S.D. Cir. Ct. Lincoln Cnty. filed Aug. 23, 2024) (“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.”).

⁵⁵ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 20:3–6.

⁵⁶ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 24:14–15; see also id. at 24:20–21 (“your credibility is a little bit dampened”).

⁵⁷ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 16:9–12.

⁵⁸ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 18:16–19.

⁵⁹ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 23:9–10; see also id. at 13:23 (“it’s not just him harassing and stalking me online”).

⁶⁰ Tr. of Prot. Order Hr’g, supra, at 6:8–11.