Judiciary panel denies Rolling Trees' license appeal after hearing on forgery-related complaint

The Judiciary Administration Committee voted unanimously on March 31 to deny an appeal by Rolling Trees Limited LLC asking the city to overturn a police department denial of a cigarette, tobacco and electronic vaping-device retail license.

The applicant, who identified himself as Alan, told the committee he is contesting criminal charges in circuit court and plans to plead not guilty. He said a pending denial of the license has hurt his business, which has operated for about eight to nine years and previously sold CBD and Delta-9 products. "I am fighting these alleged crimes in court and I plan to keep pleading not guilty," he told the committee during his presentation.

Police department representatives told the committee they relied on the factual basis in a criminal complaint that alleges forgery connected to a check tied to the case. The police said the complaint notes the check was made out to On Point Foraging LLC and that Tree Huggers Cannabis Minnesota LLC produced the check; they also said bank records and the complaint were uploaded to the city's record. A police representative told the committee District Attorney Tim Greinke indicated a plea hearing was scheduled for April 14.

Greg Ellison, who contributed to the police presentation, said the recovered check from Merchants Bank was whited out and showed a name very similar to the applicant's. The police also read notes from the bank's fraud-investigation call logs, which the department said suggested evasive or delayed responses when the applicant was contacted.

After the presentations and questioning, the committee deliberated in closed session under Wisconsin statute 19.851(a). Returning to open session, Council member Stein moved to deny the appeal, stating two grounds: "1, lack of good moral character due to statements contained within [the] criminal complaint and lack of veracity in [the] application by knowingly providing false information. 2, pending criminal charges that substantially relate to the licensing activity." Council member Padeschi seconded the motion; the committee voted unanimously to deny. The chair told the applicant he may reapply in one year and that the committee will issue a written decision within 20 days.

The committee's action was procedural and quasi-judicial: it did not impose criminal penalties but recommended denial of the licensing appeal to the city council, whose decision is final. No public testimony occurred; only the applicant and the police department presented evidence. The committee followed rules cited at the hearing, including witness-sworn procedures under Wisconsin statute 906.03.

The committee adjourned the special meeting and said it would reconvene at 6:00 p.m. for the regular council meeting.