Wilson v. State of Iowa and Kim Reynolds for Iowa —
Part One: Intersex in Iowa
Article Two:
The Officer's Warning
I Was Falsely Accused of Assault. The Accuser's Witness Said I Never Touched Her.
The Judge Still Ruled Guilty, Then an Officer Warned Me to Leave Iowa for My Safety.

By Sondra Wilson | Updated August 30, 2026

This article continues from The Records Mismatch, which documents the 2006 arrests and the government-record conflict that preceded this case.

The next article, Collateral Damage, explains what I discovered sixteen years later when I reopened the 2006–2009 court records.

In 2009, I was back in Ames street-performing with my guitar and gathering signatures for causes I cared about. During this visit, I was promoting an animal-welfare petition modeled after California's Prop 2, which sought basic space protections for animals kept in confinement.

I expected disagreement. I did not expect what happened next.

At an Ames Culver's, I was accused of assaulting a manager. I denied it from the beginning and pleaded NOT GUILTY. At trial, the witnesses gave materially conflicting accounts—including one of the prosecution's own witnesses, who testified that I never touched the manager.

Judge Steven Van Marel nevertheless found me guilty.

After the trial, an Ames police officer approached me privately and warned me to leave Iowa for my safety.

What I did not know was that Van Marel was already connected to the 2006 history documented in The Records Mismatch. I would not learn the significance of that connection until I obtained the old records years later.

I. The Culver's Incident

 

While passing by the Culver's parking lot, I spoke with a couple about my petition. The woman seemed interested, so we walked and talked about it on our way into the restaurant.

Shortly afterward, the older gentleman that was with her turned around and began yelling at me, “Plants die all the time!” I told him we were not talking about plants, but he raised his voice louder and proceeded shouting at me.

Feeling disrespected—and still young enough to respond more impulsively than I would today—I sat on a table and began playing a protest song. I understand now that a restaurant was not the best place to do that. At the time, however, I saw it as nonviolent protest.

Soon after, a manager approached me, grabbed the neck of my guitar, pulled on it, and told me to leave.

I pulled away and said, “The animals have no voice in this society. I’m going to give them three minutes, then I’ll leave.”

I strummed the next chord, and she grabbed the neck of the guitar again. I pulled away again, stood up, yelled about how messed up society was, and left.

About a block away, Officer Morton arrested me. I assumed I was being arrested for trespassing. Instead, he told me I was being arrested for assault!

He said the Culver’s manager had reported that I began “pushing and kicking her” after she asked me to leave.

That was false. 

I denied the accusation from the beginning. 

I gave police a written statement describing my version of what had happened.

Then, on April 13, 2009:

I formally pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I could not obtain counsel before trial, so I represented myself.

II. The Trial

 

 

Judge Steven Van Marel presided over the case.

There was something important about Judge Van Marel's prior history with me that I did not know in 2009. I would not discover it until I reopened the old records in 2022.

I am deliberately leaving that discovery where I found it chronologically. It belongs in Article Three, Collateral Damage.

In 2009, all I knew was that I had pleaded NOT GUILTY, could not find an attorney before trial, and would have to defend myself.

The Accusation Changed Depending on Who Was Testifying

I represented myself at trial.

The manager testified and brought witnesses of her own. An Ames police officer also testified, and I presented a character witness who had traveled and street-performed with me.

The central witnesses did not tell the same story about the alleged assault.

One witness said I kicked the manager three times, hard.

The manager herself said I kicked her once, with little force.

Another witness she brought to court said I never touched her at all.

Those contradictions are not something I reconstructed sixteen years later. I wrote them down in my May 18, 2009 handwritten appeal immediately after the conviction:

“One said I definitely never kicked Kasandra. The other said I kicked her hard 3 times. Kasandra said I kicked her once with little force.”

My appeal then explained what I understood Judge Van Marel to have decided:

“The judge took the position that I kicked her 3 times and she forgot about 2 of them.”

And I pleaded:

“Please help. I don't want assault tagged to my name. That simply is not me.”

The arresting officer's testimony also did not fit the more hostile accounts against me. He testified that I had been calm and compliant and that I did not appear to understand that I was being arrested for assault.

My character witness testified that she had traveled and street-performed with me, sometimes hula-hoop dancing while I played guitar and sang. She also testified that she had seen people react with hostility toward me and spoke to my nonviolent character.

That was true. I was a hippie, a street performer, a petitioner, and a nonviolent citizen. I was not someone who would kick a restaurant manager. Here is a photo of me from around that time:

Taken together, the evidence presented three radically different accounts of the alleged physical contact: three hard kicks, one light kick, or no touching at all.

The manager's trial account also differed from the accusation preserved in the police complaint.

The contemporaneous Complaint and Affidavit states that after the manager asked me to stop:

“the defendant pushed and kicked Kasandra Somers.”

Yet according to the testimony I recorded in my appeal, at trial she said I had kicked her once, with little force.

So the surviving record does not present one consistent accusation. It presents materially different versions of what supposedly happened.

The truth is that I never touched her. That is not the type of person I am. I was falsely accused by her, and the witness who said I kicked her three times hard gave false testimony against me.

I affirm, in accordance with the Code of Ethics of Wild Willpower, that there is no perjury herein. This is the truth. 

An Unjust Ruling

 

In a criminal prosecution, the State was required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet the testimony before the court materially conflicted.

One witness claimed three hard kicks. The manager said one kick that was not very hard. Another witness testified that I never touched her.

I maintain that evidence did not establish assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, Judge Van Marel found me guilty.

I entered the courtroom denying that I had assaulted anyone. I left with an assault conviction attached to my name.

An Officer Warned Me to Leave the State for My Safety

 

After the trial, an Ames police officer approached me downstairs in the courthouse.

He spoke to me privately and told me what he was about to say was “off the record.”

He told me he was concerned for my safety because of things he was hearing “behind the scenes,” and warned me to leave Iowa for my own safety.

I had just represented myself in a criminal trial and been convicted of an assault I maintained had never happened.

Now a police officer was privately telling me that he believed I was not safe in my own home state.

I took him at his word.

I left.

I Told the Court I Was Homeless and Could Not Afford the Appeal —
Then It Was Dismissed for Nonpayment of the Fee

 

Three days after the conviction, on May 18, 2009, I filed a handwritten appeal asking the court to review what had happened.

I began by telling the court exactly what my situation was:

“I am homeless and do not have money to pay for this appeal but in the name of justice please hear me out.”

I then described the contradictory testimony: one witness said I never kicked the manager, another said I kicked her three times hard, and the manager herself said I kicked her once with little force.

I ended by asking:

“Please help. I don't want assault tagged to my name. That simply is not me.”

At the time, I did not know that a person without money could potentially seek permission to proceed in forma pauperis—without prepaying ordinary court costs because of indigence. I did not know the terminology, the procedure, or that such a legal mechanism existed.

What I did know was how to tell the court, in plain English, that I was homeless and could not afford the appeal.

The court's response did not address that statement.

On June 10, 2009, District Associate Judge Lawrence E. Jahn entered an Order Dismissing Appeal.

The order acknowledged that my May 18 letter:

“appears to be a notice of appeal.”

It then stated:

“The defendant has not perfected the appeal by paying the requisite docketing fee. The appeal in this case is therefore dismissed.”

I had opened my appeal by telling the court that I was homeless and did not have the money to pay for it.

The surviving order dismissed my appeal because the docketing fee had not been paid.

No one had taught me what in forma pauperis meant. I did not know to invoke those Latin words. I had simply told the court the truth: I was homeless, I could not afford the fee, and I was asking to be heard.

I Remained Homeless and Afraid to Return to Iowa for Years

 

I took the officer's warning seriously.

I left Iowa and remained afraid to return home for years.

The warning did not create every hardship that followed—I was already living with serious instability—but it became part of the conditions under which I made decisions about where I could safely live.

During the years that followed, I remained homeless for long periods and experienced repeated violence, exploitation, and instability.

I did not feel safe returning to Iowa until 2018.

By then, I had spent years trying to learn enough law to protect myself because experiences like these had taught me how vulnerable a person can be when she does not understand the legal system confronting her.

The deeper consequences of those years—and what I eventually found when I reopened these records—belong in Collateral Damage.

There Was Something Else I Still Did Not Know

 

In 2009, I thought this story was about a false assault accusation, contradictory testimony, a conviction, a failed appeal, and an officer warning me to leave Iowa.

I did not yet know that the 2009 case was connected to something that had already happened three years earlier.

I would not discover that connection until 2022, when I finally obtained the old records.

That is where Article Three, Collateral Damage, begins.

Why This Matters

 

This case is not simply about one restaurant incident from 2009.

I denied assaulting the manager. The testimony materially conflicted. One of the manager's own witnesses said I never touched her. Yet I was convicted, my attempt to appeal was dismissed after I told the court I was homeless and could not afford the fee, and an Ames police officer privately warned me to leave Iowa for my safety.

I took that warning seriously and remained afraid to return home for years.

The harm did not end when the courtroom emptied.

The deeper history behind what happened in 2009 is where Article Three, Collateral Damage, begins.