2009: Falsely Accused of Assault
Accuser's Own Witness Says I Never Touched Her, but Court Rules "Guilty" and Officer Warns Me to Leave Iowa

Three years after the license discrepancy arrest and the restroom incident, I returned to Iowa to visit friends and family.

At that time in my life, I regularly street-performed with my guitar and gathered petition signatures for causes I believed in. During this visit, I was promoting a petition modeled after California's Prop 2, which had passed the year before. The goal was to improve conditions for animals kept in confinement by requiring enough space for them to turn around.

I was young, idealistic, and believed this was common sense. After all, who doesn’t care about animals?

But the petition received a much angrier response than I expected. Some people were dismissive, condescending, or openly hostile. That is the background for what happened at the Culver’s restaurant in Ames, where I was falsely accused of assault.

This story also involves (now retired) Judge Steven Van Marel — the same judge who, three years earlier, had ordered Officer Marshall to arrest me during the restroom incident. At the time of the 2009 trial, I did not know Judge Van Marel had been involved in the earlier case. If I had known, I would have asked him to recuse himself.

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 being in my early 20s (not something I would do 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. But I was young, and saw it as nonviolent activism.

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 filled out this voluntary statement explaining what actually happened, and then pleaded not guilty at the arraignment. I was unable to find legal assistance before trial, so I represented myself.

The Trial

The same judge who had directed Officer Marshall to arrest me during the 2006 restroom incident, Judge Steven Van Marel, also presided over this assault case three years later.

At the time, I did not know he had been involved in the earlier case. If I had known, I would have asked him to recuse himself. §52:2:11 of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, and Iowa Code §602.1606 both list several reasons that a judge must disqualify (or recuse) themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Had I known is role in the earlier case, I would have filed a motion to recuse. Regardless, he was required to recuse himself. Unbeknownst to me, the attorney who misrepresented after the restroom incident actually  should not have presided over the 2009 case.

Four witnesses testified at trial. The Culver’s manager brought two witnesses. Officer Morton testified. A character witness testified on my behalf.

Everyone testified separately, and I was allowed to cross-examine them.

The manager and her two witnesses gave conflicting accounts.

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

The manager said I kicked her once, but not very hard.

Another witness — one of the manager’s own witnesses — testified and told the truth: that I never touched her.

Officer Morton testified that I was calm and compliant, and that I did not appear to know I was being arrested for assault.

My character witness had hitchhiked and street-performed with me on several occasions. She testified that people sometimes became upset about what I stood for and lashed out at me, but that I would not resort to violence.

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

An Unjust Ruling

In a criminal case, the burden of proof is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

But despite the conflicting testimony — including testimony from one of the manager’s own witnesses that I never touched her — Judge Van Marel ruled against me.

His ruling did not align with the testimony as I heard it.

One witness claimed I kicked the manager three times. The manager herself said I kicked her once, and not very hard. Another witness said that he saw the whole thing and I did not touch her.

In my view, that should have created reasonable doubt.

Instead, the court accepted the version that harmed me most and left me with a politically and personally damaging assault conviction attached to my record.

I maintain that I was falsely accused and wrongly convicted by a bias Judge who was required, by law, to recuse himself: Steven Van Marel. 

Knowledge of the Judge's Personal Bias in the Matter was Withheld from Me

At the time of the trial, I did not understand the full connection between this case and the earlier restroom arrest.

Years later, in 2022, I obtained copies of the dockets and police reports from the earlier cases. That is when I learned more about Judge Van Marel’s involvement in both matters.

Had I known at the 2009 trial that Judge Van Marel was connected to the earlier restroom case, I would have raised the issue and filed a motion for his recusal.

I believe his decision against me was an abuse of discretion, with animus due to his personal bias, and the ruling severely harmed me for years.

An Officer Warned Me to Leave Ames for My Safety

After the trial, an officer approached me in the hallway downstairs. He spoke to me “off the record” and told me he was concerned for my safety based on what he was hearing "behind the scenes".

He warned me to leave the state for my safety. 

My Appeal was Denied Because I Didn't Have Enough Money

My appeal to overturn the assault charges

Lawrence Jahn denied my appeal: he appears to have not possessed compassion or wisdom

Many Years of Homelessness, and Fear of Returning to Iowa, Ensued

I took that warning seriously.

I left Iowa. What followed was a long period of instability and homelessness. The harm from these cases did not end in the courtroom. The records followed me, affected my reputation, and shaped the course of my life.

Years of homelessness, as a transgender women, resulted in being attacked, sexually harassed regularly while homeless, and robbed many times over. As time moves forward, I will continue sharing my story on this website, so that every Iowan understands why peoples' political opinions and personal religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse to harm others. 

Why This Matters

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

It is part of a larger pattern of what Iowa’s systems puts people through, and how our political culture, wherein discrimination against transgender people is widely accepted, and political opinions are raised above rights, respect, and equal opportunity. For too long this state has quietly swept its abuses under the rug when no one is looking, and good people end up with criminal records for crimes they didn't commit, severe trauma caused by government abuse, and years of suffering and PTSD as a result. 

Back then, I did not know how to obtain dockets. I did not know how to report a judge. I did not know how to challenge what had happened in any meaningful way. I did not even understand many of the legal tools that would have been necessary to protect myself.

Now I do.

I am seeking to correct the record and pursue justice for the charges that arose from these related incidents. These records should not continue to define my life, my credibility, or my future.

 

"Election Interference Kept Me Off the Ballot"
Independent Iowa Governor Candidate Sondra Wilson Speaks Out After Denied Ballot Extension

by Sondra Wilson. Updated July 2, 2026. 

Note: This article will continue to be updated throughout early July until this message is no longer showing. This article is an attempt to convey complex circumstances as simply as possible.

I was not defeated by voters.
I was kept off the ballot before voters had the chance to decide.

My campaign did not end because of lack of support, disappearing momentum, or voter rejection. The platform I spent years developing with fellow Iowans did not vanish. What ended my campaign was something far more serious: nine court‑imposed hearings and filing deadlines that collided directly with Iowa’s narrow signature‑gathering window.

I asked the court for a limited extension so I could submit signatures in July instead of June. The court denied my request — even though extensions have been granted for other candidates in the past.

These deadlines were not imposed by a lawsuit I wanted to file. They came from a lawsuit I was forced to file after false, serious allegations — bolstered by modified documents — were placed into government records, and the civil‑rights agency closed my complaint without investigating any of it.

That lawsuit is the first case discussed in this article.
The ballot-extension ruling is the second.

And it is the second case — the ballot-access case — that I am appealing.

The first case is still ongoing, and it matters far beyond me. If the court accepts the defendants’ theory, it could set a dangerous precedent for civil-rights cases in Iowa. I am asking the public to follow that case closely, attend court when possible, and help ensure that what happens in these proceedings does not remain hidden from public view.

Why I Had to File the First Lawsuit

What led to the first lawsuit was not a misunderstanding or a private dispute. It was the placement of false, extremely damaging allegations into official records — allegations that threatened my safety, reputation, campaign, publications, and future work.

Before ever going to court, I tried to use the civil‑rights process Iowa provides to people who report discrimination. At the time, the agency was called the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC). It has since been renamed the Iowa Office of Civil Rights.

The process is supposed to be simple:

Someone reports discrimination → the agency screens the complaint → investigates → and helps resolve the dispute without court involvement.

Had the agency followed its own standard, that is what would have happened.

Instead, my complaint was dismissed without investigation — part of a broader statewide problem. As the Des Moines Register reported, 60% of Iowa workers’ civil-rights complaints were not investigated. My case shows what that means in real life: allegations placed into government records, no meaningful fact-finding, and no practical way to clear your name except through litigation.

The record contained disputed facts, serious allegations, contemporaneous communications, and legal issues that required development under the agency’s own screening rule. Because the agency closed the case prematurely, I had no choice but to file suit to obtain discovery and clear my name.

That lawsuit — the civil-rights/false-records case — is Wilson v. Reliable Street Inc., et al., Case No. LACV053674.

I understand that some people may be uncomfortable seeing local businesses and individuals named publicly, especially businesses many people love and associate with progressive or LGBT+ friendly values. I did not want this to become public in this way. But the case cannot be honestly explained without naming the parties, the records, and the legal arguments now being made.

What is inappropriate is not exposing the record after years of unresolved harm. What is inappropriate is allowing false allegations to be placed into government records, using those records to avoid accountability, and then arguing that the truth should never be examined because the statements were made during a civil-rights process.

A business cannot publicly benefit from the trust of marginalized communities while also asking the court to adopt a rule that would let respondents submit false or distorted materials to the civil-rights agency and then hide behind absolute privilege before discovery or trial.

That is exactly what the defendants are arguing for, and it also why the outcome of this case should matter to every Iowan interested in the integrity of our state's administrative agencies and judiciary.

The case is still ongoing. It is also the case where the defense is attempting to block discovery and seek dismissal under “absolute privilege.”

How the First Case Collided With the Election

The civil-rights/false-records case produced nine court deadlines during the exact weeks Iowa law required me to gather signatures as an independent candidate.

A ballot‑access deadline is not neutral when the state’s own administrative failures create the conditions that make compliance impossible.
That is exactly what happened in my case.

Following guidance from the Secretary of State’s Office, I requested a court extension because of those nine deadlines. The court denied my request.

That denial created the second case: the ballot-extension case, which is separate from the civil-rights/false-records case.

And the ballot-extension case is the one I am appealing.

I am appealing because when unresolved government-record harm and extraordinary litigation burdens derail a campaign, courts should be able to grant limited relief so voters are not denied a choice before they ever have a chance to decide.

If the ruling stands, it risks rewarding the very conduct described in this article — showing that false allegations in government records, administrative failure, and litigation burdens can remove candidates from the ballot.

Why This Story Matters Beyond the Ballot

This is not just about my campaign. It is about what happens when an ordinary Iowan experiences injustice, cannot afford an attorney, and is forced to navigate Iowa’s administrative agencies and courts alone.

Most people are told that if they are discriminated against, they can file a civil-rights complaint. They are told there is a process. They are told agencies exist to help investigate what happened. But many people do not understand how quickly that process can fail — or how dangerous it becomes when serious allegations are placed into government records, the agency closes the case without investigation, and the person who complained is left to defend their name alone.

When that happens, the person may be forced into court without money for an attorney. That is what happened to me. I have had to navigate Iowa’s administrative and judicial systems on my own, while facing experienced attorneys from a well-resourced law firm.

Bradley & Riley’s name appears prominently on The Chauncey building in Iowa City, where the firm lists its Iowa City office. The image illustrates one of the central tensions in this case: an ordinary self-represented Iowan seeking justice while facing experienced counsel from a well-established law firm. Photo by Annie Smith Barkalow, Corridor Business Journal.

That power imbalance matters. A person without counsel can be overwhelmed by motions, deadlines, discovery disputes, fee requests, dismissal arguments, and procedural pressure long before the truth is ever reached.

This case is poised to set a dangerous precedent: whether Iowa’s civil-rights process can be turned against the very people it was created to protect.

False or distorted allegations in official records do not just sit quietly in a file. During an election, court records and agency records can be searched, quoted, shared, leaked, misunderstood, or used to shape public opinion. If the public only sees the accusations and not the evidence disproving them, a false narrative can spread before voters ever hear the truth.

That is what made this so dangerous. False, serious allegations placed into official records alongside misleading or altered materials become like a ticking time bomb. They can be pulled out later to damage a person’s reputation, livelihood, safety, or campaign.

Justice reform was central part of my campaign because this problem is bigger than me. Courts must be more accessible, procedures must be simplified, and the justice system must return to its proper purpose: resolving unjust situations fairly.

And here is the bitter irony: the only campaign in this race built around serious justice reform was derailed by the very administrative and judicial failures it sought to expose and improve.

The very issue I was trying to bring before voters became the issue that prevented voters from deciding whether they wanted that reform.

I am likely one of many Iowans who have experienced injustice inside systems meant to provide relief. The difference is that I have a platform and the ability to explain what happened. I am using that platform because no Iowan should have to go through this alone — and because Iowa’s systems cannot be improved unless the public understands how they are failing.

This article exposes those failures and proposes reforms so the same machinery cannot be used to harm another Iowan. It is both a warning and a call to action.

How This Article Is Organized

This article is organized as a timeline because the full story is difficult to understand if the pieces are separated from each other.

It moves through four connected stages:

1. What led to the Reliable/Lockwood case

I first explain the work I performed, the allegations that were made against me, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission process, and why I had no realistic choice but to sue in order to clear my name.

This section includes:

• the garden, prairie, and open-mic work I performed;
• the sudden exclusion from the property;
• the allegations later placed into the ICRC record;
• the ICRC’s administrative closure;
• my attempt to appeal and reopen the complaint;
• and why the failure of that process forced me into court.

It also provides a firsthand account of what the ICRC process can look like for people who turn to Iowa’s civil-rights system for help — and how dangerous that process becomes when the agency closes a complaint without investigation, while leaving damaging allegations sitting in official records.

2. What happened after the lawsuit was filed

Next, I explain how I was forced to represent myself and how quickly I learned how overly complex Iowa’s court procedures are.

This section covers:

• pro se litigation;
• motions and resistance deadlines;
• discovery disputes;
• summary-judgment pressure;
• procedural traps;
• court-imposed hearing and filing deadlines;
• and the way litigation began consuming my life.

This is not just about my case. It is about what happens to ordinary Iowans who enter court without money for an attorney and discover that the system is nearly impossible to navigate without one.

3. How those burdens affected the 2026 election

Then, I explain how the Reliable/Lockwood case overlapped with Iowa’s ballot-access period.

This section covers:

• Iowa’s narrow signature-gathering window;
• the nine court-imposed deadlines that collided with that window;
• why I asked the court for a limited extension;
• and why strict enforcement of the June 2 deadline kept voters from deciding for themselves.

4. Where things stand now

Finally, I explain where things stand now and what comes next.

This section covers:

• how the court responded to my ballot-access filings;
• why I disagree with the conclusion that the burden was self-created;
• why I am preparing to appeal;
• and what reforms are needed so this does not happen to another Iowan.

The central point is simple: I was not asking to be placed on the ballot without signatures. I was asking for more time because extraordinary litigation burdens, public-record harm, unresolved allegations, and administrative failure collided with the narrow window Iowa gives independent candidates to qualify for the ballot. In short, the state's administrative failure through the ICRC process led to the need to file suit. Deadlines from the suit derailed my campaign, and the court failed to provide relief. Iowans were denied the opportunity to even hear from a candidate from outside the two-party system as a result. 

 

Part I: What Led Up to the Reliable/Lockwood Lawsuit

To explain how the Reliable/Lockwood case derailed my campaign, we must first unpack what led up to the lawsuit, and how the documents and allegations I spoke of earlier became lodged in government records.

The case involves a nonprofit called Reliable Street Inc., and a closely associated business that shares the same building in Ames: Lockwood Café. It also involves the registered owner of the property, Love Club LLC, and a handful of individuals from that space who are also defendants. 

Between 2021 and 2022, I performed collaborative work connected to open mic events, community garden work, and a native tallgrass prairie restoration project. I did that work openly, with authorization, encouragement, and participation from people involved. I planned, promoted, organized, coordinated volunteers, performed labor, and spent my own time and resources helping build projects I believed in — at the request of, and with the knowledge and blessing of, the businesses and individuals involved.

For months, the communications I received from these individuals and others in the space were friendly, collaborative, and encouraging. The defendants sent me heart and smiley face emojis, words of gratitude, and messages that made me reasonably believe I was welcome there and that my work was genuinely appreciated. Those continuing warm interactions and praise for my work induced me to continue spending time, energy, and labor in accordance with the garden and prairie restoration agreements we had entered into.

Then, after approximately six months performing labor on the property — without notice or any reason known to or understood by me — I was suddenly barred from the property based on very serious allegations that were vaguely communicated to me, and which I did not commit.

I was never directly told what I was accused of. Instead, I was told that I had “violated a woman’s space,” thus implying some sort of sexual harassment or misconduct. However, no interaction I had on or off the property aligned with that accusation.

The businesses publicly portrayed themselves as LGBT+ friendly spaces, yet when a transgender woman was accused of violating a non-transgender woman’s space, the presumption of guilt appeared to fall immediately against me: punitive action, no meaningful conversation, and no fair process. I was barred from the premises, with serious allegations now hanging over my head.

Friends and acquaintances I made over the course of six months working there, performing at open mics, and attending events suddenly stopped associating with me. My standing in the community was gone, and I was deeply concerned that I would not be placed in a position of leadership or land restoration in Ames again. My reputation in that community was severely damaged.

And this was not a situation where tense, uncomfortable, or hostile interactions had been building up.

The record I will present below shows the opposite. I was shown kindness, appreciation, and friendship the entire time I was there. Then suddenly there was an allegation, no real explanation, and I was barred from the property for something I did not do.

The court exhibits presented below show why these allegations do not hold water — and why the situation became even more serious once those allegations were later repeated, drastically expanded, and placed into administrative filings.

In a political climate where transgender women are routinely slandered and misrepresented as “men invading women’s spaces,” the allegations against me were life-ruining. I was, and remain, emotionally distraught and concerned for my safety.

This situation placed a stigma against me in my hometown, while only the people who did this and I knew the real story.

Things Were About to Get Much, Much Worse

On March 31, 2022, the president of Reliable Street and the owner of Lockwood Café confronted me and barred me from the property. I do not know what was told to them. Whatever it was, however, it was severe enough that their minds already appeared to be made up.

My role in the projects was over. I was effectively excommunicated from a community where I had worked, volunteered, organized, performed, made friends, and was kept under the impression that I belonged.

After I was barred, people from the space suddenly stopped communicating with me. My reputation in that community was clearly in question, and I did not even know what people had been told.

So I tried to pick up the pieces. I reached out to people I considered friends to explain that I did not know what this was about, and that if they heard anything, I hoped they would not simply believe it without talking to me.

One of the people I contacted — an employee of Lockwood Cafe who had always acted like a friend to me — then told me that she was, in fact, who had complained.

This alarmed me — not because I had violated her, but because the accusation appeared suddenly after months of friendly communication, collaboration, and encouragement. At first I was very concerned about what I may have done to have made her feel this way, but after thinking about our interactions for several days, the more I realized that this was just really unfair, and that there was no merit in the accusation. It was extremely damaging to my reputation, and nothing I had done explained why this kind of complaint would be made.

Less than a week before, her messages to me had shown the opposite of what I was now being accused. We had been discussing the garden and prairie project. We had been coordinating prairie seeds. She had sent messages like “I appreciate you so much,” “I appreciate you a lot,” and “Love you <3.” She had asked me to film my open mic performance and send it to her because she could not make it.

Those were not the messages of someone who had clearly communicated that I was violating her boundaries, much less someone who had felt “violated for months,” as she later claimed. They were the last messages I received from someone who had acted as a friend to me throughout our relationship. To this day, the contradiction between those messages and the later allegations has never made sense to me.

If someone had told me directly that I was making them uncomfortable, I would have backed off immediately. But that is not what happened. What happened was that I was treated warmly, relied upon for labor and organizing, encouraged to keep helping, and then suddenly removed based on serious allegations that, to this day, I have never been directly told in any meaningful detail.

For several days, I tried to make sense of it. I worried that maybe I had said something that rubbed her the wrong way, or that I had somehow missed a signal. But the more I reviewed the contemporaneous communications, the clearer the contradiction became: the record did not align with the narrative later presented about me.

So I wrote to Lockwood Café and Reliable Street to explain what happened from my perspective, and asked for mediation with a third party so we could talk through this. 

No response.

But the larger matter was still ahead: the modified documents and false allegations the defendants would soon send to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and the Commission’s failure to meaningfully investigate what actually happened.

 

I Contacted the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

The more I reflected on the accusation made by the Lockwood Café employee who had acted like a friend for approximately six months, the more I realized this was not a harmless misunderstanding. It had severely impacted my life, harmed my reputation, damaged my standing in the community, cost me relationships, and caused severe mental anguish.

I kept thinking: I am a transgender woman, in a society where transgender women are constantly subjected to political attacks and negative media framing, and now I had been accused of violating a woman.

That allegation carries a particular kind of stigma.

I contacted defamation attorneys around the state, and more than one urged me to contact the Iowa Civil Rights Commission ("ICRC") because they believed what happened sounded like discrimination.

At first, I did not think of it as discrimination. I just knew I was not treated fairly. But the more I considered it, the more it made sense. A non-transgender woman accused a transgender woman of violating her space — one of the most common political narratives used against transgender women — and without meaningful inquiry, the transgender woman was treated as guilty and barred from the property.

When I contacted the ICRC, I was told these situations often end up in mediation, where both sides talk through what happened and sometimes reach a settlement or resolution.

That was exactly what I wanted — to figure out what was going on and whether I had done something that made someone uncomfortable. If I was doing something that made others feel uncomfortable, I wanted to know so I could stop. But up to that point, none of it made sense.

I wanted a conversation, consideration, and frankly, an apology. I also wanted reimbursement for months of labor I would never have performed had I known the agreements and trust would both be violated. I did not file to punish the business owners. I filed because I deserved a fair process, a corrected record, and an opportunity for them to understand how unfair and harmful their actions had been.

Then, at the beginning of August, I received notice from the ICRC that my case would not be investigated.

But what devastated me was not only that the ICRC declined to investigate.

It was what the respondents had written about me in their filings.

For the first time, I saw allegations that I had stalked and harassed this woman, made racist comments, made anti-LGBT+ comments, and engaged in conduct described as obsessive, invasive, unauthorized, and similar forms of misconduct. The collaborative work I had performed for months under express agreements with the president of Reliable Street and owner of Lockwood Cafe had been reframed as unwanted, invasive, and unauthorized.

That was the moment I understood the situation was much bigger than being unfairly removed from a community space.

Administrative Failure

When I filed with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, I believed I was entering a process designed to help determine whether discrimination may have occurred. I did not expect the Commission to automatically agree with me. I did not expect special treatment.

But I did expect the process described to the public.

At the time, the agency’s own public materials said a complaint could be screened in for investigation if the information showed a “reasonable possibility” of probable cause or if the legal issues needed development. The page also said the Commission would draw rational, reasonable, and permissible inferences in the complainant’s favor, and that credibility would not be evaluated at the screening stage.

ICRC screening standard shown on the Commission’s public website at the time. The page stated that cases may be screened in when the information indicates a “reasonable possibility” of probable cause or when the legal issues need development, and that the Commission does not evaluate credibility at the screening stage.

Note: The agency was called the Iowa Civil Rights Commission at the time of these events. It has since been renamed the Iowa Office of Civil Rights. The screenshot reflects the public screening language available at the time I filed. After my 2024 lawsuit against the State, the agency was renamed and the public description of the process changed.

That matters because my case did not require the Commission to decide everything immediately. It did not require the Commission to decide who was telling the truth at screening. It required only enough conflict, enough documentation, or enough unanswered questions to justify further investigation.

That is not what happened.

My case should have been screened in under that standard. At minimum, the contradictions between the respondents’ allegations and the contemporaneous communications required development. Instead, the Commission closed the case before I had access to the materials I needed to rebut the allegations.

Instead, my complaint was administratively closed. I then had a short deadline to appeal — thirty days — while still not having access to the underlying statements, screenshots, documents, and evidence the respondents had submitted against me. I could see the Commission’s summary of what had been said about me, but much of it was written in a way that made it difficult to know who was actually saying what. It often read like layers of hearsay: one person said another person said something, or a respondent reported that an employee or patron had claimed something. But I did not have the underlying materials needed to compare those claims against the actual record.

Article being reworked. Please check back soon.  July 2, 2026.

 

Wilson v. Reliable Street Inc., et al. (Case No. LACV053674) was filed in December 2023 in order to clear my name from false allegations that were lodged into the administrative record alongside materially altered documents designed to make it look like I did what I was accused of.

I am writing from my direct experience and from the records I have reviewed, filed, and compared. This article explains my perspective on a system that has allowed a distorted record to remain unresolved. As it stands, the court has not yet adjudicated the truth or falsity of the allegations against me. That lack of adjudication leaves the narrative intact in official records, where I believe it continues to threaten my safety, reputation, campaign, publications, and future political viability. That is exactly why I filed suit.

Currently, the defense is attempting to obtain summary judgment dismissing my lawsuit based on “absolute litigation privilege.” Their argument is that because the challenged statements were submitted during an Iowa Civil Rights Commission investigation, they are "absolutely privileged" as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. In practical terms, they are asking the court to dismiss the defamation claim without ever reaching whether the statements were true, false, altered, selectively compiled, or malicious.

The defense is attempting to freeze the case and block the discovery phase entirely, while trying to stop me from obtaining the internal communications, document drafts, and electronic metadata that would conclusively prove to a jury that what I am saying is true.

It is normal, during election cycles, for records to be investigated, quoted, circulated, and used in a way that impacts public perception of candidates.  This is not paranoia. It has already happened this election cycle. For example, in a Bleeding Heartland video, a reporter publicly discussed court documents involving gubernatorial candidate Zach Lahn’s lieutenant governor pick, Derek Wulf. If someone were to look up the files in my case — whether leaked or obtained by lawful means — and did not have access to the underlying documents showing the falsity of the defendants’ submissions, it is very likely that the media or political opponents could run with and amplify the false narrative I filed suit to disprove.

I refer to what happened to me as political sabotage because of its effect, the surrounding context, and the leverage it created — regardless of whether anyone ever admits that was the purpose. The defendants knew I founded Wild Willpower PAC and that much of my work was political in nature. They also knew they were a well-known local establishment that publicly presented itself as LGBT+ friendly, and that many community members who did not know me well would likely trust them over me if forced to choose between the two.

When false, serious allegations are lodged into official records alongside modified documents, those records become like a ticking time bomb that can be detonated at any time in order to take down a campaign.

That is what I was up against. I had to clear my name.

I announced my candidacy in March 2023, filed the Reliable/Lockwood lawsuit in December 2023, and did not expect the case to drag on for years. But it did. It interfered with my college classes to the point that in spring 2025 I had to choose between dropping classes and losing the case. I dropped the classes.

Then the case carried into 2026, where court hearings, filing deadlines, discovery disputes, and summary-judgment pressure collided with the narrow window Iowa gives independent candidates to gather signatures. I needed 3,500 signatures by June 2. I was gathering signatures. I was building the campaign. I was not defeated by voters.

The case I filed to clear my name from false allegations collided with the ballot-access window and ultimately derailed my campaign, keeping me off the November ballot. I asked the court for relief by extending the ballot-access deadline, and the court denied my request in a ruling that did not appear to engage with the factual record at all, causing serious harm.

Although I intend to soon file an appeal, it is likely that I will not be allowed the opportunity to even get on the ballot. At best, perhaps I can set a precedent that protects future candidates: when a court sees a reasonable possibility that political sabotage, public-record harm, or extraordinary outside burdens derailed a campaign and caused a candidate to miss Iowa’s June 2 ballot-access deadline, courts should be able to extend the deadline in the name of fair elections — and to avoid rewarding political sabotage or similar activities that interefere with free and fair elections.

The allegation didn’t just disrupt my life; it triggered a cascade of administrative actions that consumed the very weeks the law requires for ballot access.

The ballot-access deadline is not neutral when the state’s own administrative failures create the conditions that make compliance impossible.

Modified, misdated, selectively excerpted, and out-of-context documents had been lodged into the Iowa Civil Rights Commission record alongside allegations I did not commit. I allege those materials were not innocent mistakes or misunderstandings, but knowingly altered and strategically arranged to create a defamatory narrative: that I was dangerous, harassing, discriminatory, unauthorized, and unstable.

At the time, I did not yet understand the full extent of the chronology problems or document rearrangements. What I knew was that a false story about me had entered an official administrative record, and that story could follow me into court records, public life, campaign scrutiny, employment, advocacy, publishing, and every future project I tried to build.

Then, after the relationship broke down for reasons that still have not been clearly communicated to me, that same collaborative conduct was reframed against me.

Modified, misdated, selectively excerpted, and out-of-context documents were lodged into the Iowa Civil Rights Commission record alongside allegations I did not commit. I allege those materials were not innocent mistakes or misunderstandings, but knowingly altered and strategically arranged to create a defamatory narrative: that I was dangerous, harassing, discriminatory, unauthorized, and unstable.

I did not stalk or harass anyone.

I did not stalk or harass a female employee.

I did not engage in racist or anti-LGBT+ conduct.

I did not do what those records made it sound like I did.

I filed suit to clear my name and prove how that false narrative was created.⁷

It is one of the central reasons I am not on the ballot.

Representing Yourself in Iowa's Overly-Complex Courts

Like other Iowans, since I was a child, I learned to hold my hand over my heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and recite, "With Liberty and Justice for All." This is something I have come to believe in. Growing up, I believed in Iowa courts. I believed that we lived in a just system.

Then, as I got older, I began to realize the hard reality that this is not quite how things are. As a transgender adult woman, I can honestly say that I've been through the wringer. 

According to the Legal Services Corporation’s 2022 Justice Gap Study, 92% of low-income Americans receive no or insufficient legal help for their substantial civil legal problems.⁷

According to Clio’s 2025 legal billing data, the average hourly rate for an attorney in Iowa is $252.⁸ Meanwhile, Iowa’s median full-time worker earns $58,344 per year, or about $28 an hour based on a 40-hour workweek.⁹ That means one hour of an average Iowa attorney’s time can cost about nine hours of a typical full-time worker’s pay.

I could not afford an attorney, and the legal-aid organizations I contacted could not take the case because fee-generating cases are off-limits to them. So I used the knowledge I had from years of transcribing legal term definitions onto ReUniteTheStates.org, and untangled the ridiculously complex Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure into step-by-step instructions. And even then, as a pre-law college student with years under my belt studying law, I had no idea what I would soon be in for. I didn't anticipate this case dragging out for years in 2026, but that's exactly what happened.

 

Public records become campaign weapons

Some people may ask why I could not simply ignore the lawsuit and move on.

The answer is simple: public records become weapons. That is not paranoia. That is how institutional harm works.

This was not only about one campaign. Long before I ran for Governor, I had already founded Wild Willpower PAC. I had already been performing political work, writing, organizing, building public platforms, and trying to create a legacy rooted in civil rights, public accountability, democratic participation, Indigenous knowledge, environmental restoration, and social repair.

Those allegations did not merely threaten a ballot-access campaign.

They threatened my life’s work.

They threatened my reputation as an author, advocate, organizer, role model, and public figure. They threatened the credibility of Wild Willpower PAC and the broader work I have done to challenge corruption, institutional abuse, civil-rights violations, and systemic failures in Iowa.

They also threatened work that does not belong only to me.

As an author and organizer, I have worked alongside people whose lives and contributions matter: Richard Lonewolf, Professor Frank Schiavo, Ashawna Hailey, Bill Hill, and others whose work, teachings, stories, advocacy, and reputations became connected to the projects I helped carry forward. Some of those people are still alive. Some are no longer here to defend the meaning of their work.

That matters deeply to me.

When false allegations are lodged into administrative records, they do not only damage the person named in them. They can contaminate the public understanding of everything that person has built. They can cast suspicion over organizations, books, political work, educational projects, cultural work, public advocacy, and the people associated with them.

If Wild Willpower PAC is compromised by a false official record, then years — even decades — of work can be undermined by allegations that were never properly adjudicated. The harm becomes larger than reputation. It becomes historical. It affects how work is remembered, how collaborators are perceived, and whether future readers, researchers, voters, supporters, and institutions treat that work as credible.

Everything I had worked to build was compromised by allegations lodged into administrative records — and therefore into historical records.

That is why I could not simply “move on.”

Reporters, bloggers, campaigns, opposition researchers, attorneys, government actors, employers, institutions, researchers, and members of the public review court records, administrative records, regulatory filings, and public documents. 

The problem is what happens when false statements and distorted documents are placed into those records in the first place.

If a court record or administrative file says a transgender woman, author, organizer, PAC founder, and candidate for Governor stalked or harassed a female employee, many people will not wait for context. They will not read the exhibits. They will not ask whether the documents were modified, rearranged, or taken out of context. They will see the accusation and judge.

That is exactly why I could not just let the record sit there.

Moving on would have meant allowing false public-record allegations to remain available for anyone to find, quote, circulate, and use against my campaign, my advocacy, my writing, my safety, my credibility, Wild Willpower PAC, and the legacy I am working to protect.

I was not willing to let that happen.

 

What was at stake in the Reliable/Lockwood case

The Reliable/Lockwood case is not about hurt feelings or a private disagreement.

It is about whether false allegations and manufactured narratives can be placed into civil-rights and court records, relied upon by institutions, and then treated as if the person harmed by those records simply has to live with the consequences.

My Revised Second Amended Petition alleges that the defendants’ submissions to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission created a false overall portrayal of me: that I engaged in harassment, stalking, discrimination, racism, boundary violations, obsessive behavior, unauthorized conduct, and other misconduct.

I deny that portrayal because it is false. The court has not yet adjudicated the truth or falsity of those allegations. That lack of adjudication leaves the false narrative intact in public records, where it continues to harm my safety, reputation, and political viability. That is exactly why I filed suit.

The record I am fighting over includes selective excerpts, missing context, chronology reversals, modified document presentations, misleading characterizations, and the rebranding of previously authorized conduct as evidence of wrongdoing.

That matters.

If someone takes friendly, collaborative, authorized work and later recasts it as obsessive, invasive, or unauthorized, that can destroy a person’s reputation. If that false portrayal then enters a government record, it can follow that person for years. It can affect employment, education, housing, advocacy, publishing, relationships, political participation, mental health, and basic safety.

For a transgender woman in Iowa, the danger is even more severe.

Iowa has removed gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, stripping state civil-rights protections from transgender Iowans. It has already cut off Medicaid coverage.

Republican politicians and media commentators have spent years spreading defamatory claims about transgender people, portraying us as threats, and inciting public suspicion and harassment against us. Iowans have become used to it. The public is repeatedly told to view us as threats instead of citizens, and that rhetoric follows us into real life. I experience it through online harassment, street harassment, and people repeating the same slurs and accusations they hear from elected officials and political media.

In that climate, allegations like these are not merely embarrassing. They are dangerous — especially when they remain in official records without adjudication, context, or correction.

The false record did not just harm my reputation. It created danger, forced litigation, and consumed the time Iowa law required for ballot access.

 

Running for Governor of Iowa outside the two-party system is already difficult. Iowa requires an independent candidate for Governor to gather thousands of signatures within a fixed statutory window. That is hard enough for anyone without party machinery, institutional backing, major donor networks, or the routine media visibility major-party candidates receive.

I understood and was prepared to meet that challenge.

What I could not ignore was that my name was sitting in official records next to false allegations I did not commit — allegations that threatened my safety, my reputation, my campaign, my publications, and the way my life's work will be understood for years to come. In other words, they threatened my legacy.

This case is bigger than me

This case raises a basic civil-rights question Iowa needs to confront: when a complainant alleges that a business intentionally deceived the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to get a discrimination complaint dismissed, what remedy should exist?

If the answer is no, then what is the remedy? What happens when false statements, altered documents, selective excerpts, or misleading records are submitted to the agency responsible for protecting civil rights? What happens when the person who filed the complaint never receives a meaningful chance to review and rebut those materials before the case is closed?

I was an honors student. I have spent roughly fifteen years studying law, legal systems, civil rights, and public accountability. I still have struggled to navigate this case without representation because the facts, procedures, documents, privileges, deadlines, and institutional barriers are complex.

So what happens to people with fewer resources, less education, less time, less documentation, or less ability to fight back?

How many discrimination complainants go to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for help, only to have their cases shaped by records they never get a fair chance to challenge? How many stories are never heard because the person harmed does not have the money, training, stability, or support needed to spend years fighting through court?

That is why this case matters. It could help create a stronger precedent for civil rights in Iowa — one that says administrative records cannot be manipulated without consequence and that people who seek civil-rights protection must have a meaningful opportunity to confront the evidence used against them.

Or it could create a dangerous precedent.

If courts treat allegedly false or misleading ICRC submissions as untouchable simply because they were submitted during an administrative process, then the civil-rights system becomes vulnerable to abuse. Businesses could learn that the easiest way to defeat a discrimination complaint is to control the record before the complainant ever sees it — even when the complainant later alleges that the record was false, distorted, or incomplete.

That should concern every Iowan.

 

I sued because I had no other realistic choice

I filed suit because I needed a court to look at the actual record: the communications, exhibits, timelines, contradictions, and altered presentations. I needed a judicial determination about allegations that had already entered administrative and judicial records. I needed to clear my name before those records could be weaponized against me during a statewide campaign.

It was not optional — it was survival — and it consumed the time Iowa law required me to spend gathering signatures for ballot access.

 

The lawsuit became ballot-access harm

Since January 2026, the Reliable/Lockwood case required repeated filings, briefing, discovery work, hearing preparation, exhibit organization, legal research, and responses to motions. These obligations directly overlapped with the signature-gathering period.

I was not represented by a law firm.

I was pro se.

That meant every filing, every exhibit, every timeline, every legal argument, every discovery dispute, every hearing preparation, and every response fell on me.

In the final weeks before the June 2 ballot-access deadline, I had to prepare for a May 26 hearing in the Reliable/Lockwood case. I then had to prepare emergency ballot-access filings seeking relief from the deadline. Instead of spending those days in front of voters collecting signatures, I was forced to spend them defending my legal position and trying to explain to the court why the litigation had made compliance impossible under the circumstances.

By then, I had gathered approximately 1,000 signatures. During active petitioning periods, I had often been able to gather around 60 signatures per day. I had also invested substantial personal resources into campaign infrastructure, campaign materials, media preparation, and voter outreach.

This was not a campaign that never started.

This was a campaign interrupted by litigation pressure, public-record damage, and the burden of trying to clear my name from allegations I did not commit.

 

What I asked the court to do

I asked for a narrow remedy: more time.

I first requested a limited equitable extension of the June 2, 2026 ballot-access deadline to July 15, 2026. After the first denial, I renewed and clarified the request, asking for an extension to July 23, 2026, to account for ongoing court-imposed obligations in the Reliable/Lockwood case and related briefing.

I did not ask the court to erase Iowa’s ballot-access laws.

I did not ask the court to place me on the ballot without signatures.

I asked for a temporary extension so voters could still have the opportunity to consider an independent candidate whose signature-gathering period had been consumed by extraordinary litigation obligations and public-record harm.

The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office had already indicated there was no administrative mechanism for an extension and that any relief would require a court order.

So I went to court.

The court denied relief.

 

The first denial stopped at authority

The first order denied my emergency petition on the ground that I had not identified a statute, rule, or decision authorizing a court to extend the statutory deadline. Because the court found no legal basis for relief, it did not reach the remaining considerations.

That is important.

The first order did not decide whether the litigation burden was real. It did not decide whether the public-record allegations created a political threat. It did not decide whether the burden on voters and ballot access outweighed the state’s interest in enforcing the deadline. It did not meaningfully engage with the factual record.

It stopped at the threshold question of authority.

So I filed again.

I cited authority recognizing that courts have equitable power to address extraordinary roadblocks to the exercise of legal rights. I cited ballot-access doctrine requiring courts to weigh the character and magnitude of the burden against the state interests served by strict enforcement.

The court then acknowledged that Iowa courts possess equitable and supervisory authority to address extraordinary roadblocks to the exercise of legal rights.

But it still denied relief.

 

The second denial blamed the burden on me

The June 5 order acknowledged that equitable power exists, but held that my situation was different because the litigation burden arose from a lawsuit I initiated.

That is the part of the ruling I reject.

The ruling treated the underlying lawsuit as if it were simply another personal obligation I chose to take on during campaign season.

But I did not create the false allegations against me. I did not create the modified and out-of-context documents lodged into the administrative record. I did not create the public-record threat those documents posed to my campaign.

I filed suit because I had to clear my name.

A person does not “self-create” the burden of defending herself against false public-record allegations.

A candidate does not “choose” political vulnerability when she tries to correct a record that others manufactured against her.

And a transgender woman running for statewide office in Iowa cannot simply ignore allegations of stalking, harassment, racism, discrimination, boundary violations, and other misconduct embedded in government records and court filings.

If I ignored the case, the allegations were likely to surface during the campaign.
If I fought the case, the litigation consumed the time I needed to gather signatures.
That was the trap.

 

The completed record was not before the court when it blamed the burden on me

After the June 5 denial, I filed another motion to reconsider because the court still had not had the completed Reliable/Lockwood filings showing the nature, scope, and necessity of the burden.

Those filings included my Revised Second Amended Petition and Exhibits A through G. They were extensive. They addressed the ICRC process, contemporaneous communications, open mic and flier work, garden and prairie work, allegations involving multiple people, the alleged alteration or rearrangement of records, the procedural history of the case, and the continuing harms caused by the administrative and judicial record.

In that motion, I explained that these filings were not discretionary or recreational. They were required to address allegations submitted to the ICRC that I know to be false and that I contend were supported by modified, misleading, selectively excerpted, and out-of-context documents.

I also explained that those allegations remained capable of future citation, reliance, repetition, and republication during my active gubernatorial campaign.

That was the point.

Official records are routinely reviewed in statewide campaigns. Opposition research is real. Media review is real. Public-record vetting is real.

The court denied reconsideration again.

The final order stated that the court had reviewed the motion, affidavit, and attached materials, reconsidered its prior ruling, and declined to alter it.

That was essentially it.

In my view, that was not meaningful engagement with the factual record.

 

Discovery was still unresolved

The unfairness did not stop there.

In the Reliable/Lockwood case, defendants sought summary judgment while discovery remained unresolved. I served written discovery on March 2, 2026. Defendants objected and, according to my motion, produced no responsive documents. I filed a motion to compel on April 14. A hearing was held on May 26, but no ruling had issued when I moved to continue trial and extend discovery.

The discovery I sought was not random.

It went to the heart of the case: authorship, preparation, transmission, chronology, reliance, republication, truth or falsity, damages, and the scope of any asserted privilege.

In other words, I was being forced to defend against summary judgment while still seeking the very discovery needed to test who prepared the submissions, how they were edited or transmitted, what chronology was presented, who relied on what, and whether the allegations were true or false.

The Reliable/Lockwood case remains active. Trial is currently scheduled for August 4, 2026, but the case is not in a stable trial posture. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. I have moved to compel discovery. My renewed request to file the Revised Second Amended Petition remains part of the procedural dispute. I have also asked the court to continue trial, extend discovery, defer summary judgment until discovery is completed, and hold a status conference or enter a revised scheduling order.

That matters because this is not merely old litigation I chose to keep alive. It is an active case involving unresolved discovery, disputed pleadings, summary-judgment pressure, and a pending trial date — all of which overlapped with the same period when Iowa required me to gather signatures for ballot access.

That is the legal environment I was navigating while also trying to qualify for the ballot.

 

Why I call this election interference

I use the phrase election interference because that is what the effect was.

When interference with a campaign keeps a candidate off the ballot, it becomes interference with the election.

Voters lost a choice.

I am not saying every person involved privately intended the same political result. I am saying the practical effect was that false public-record allegations, modified and out-of-context documents, overlapping court deadlines, discovery disputes, summary-judgment pressure, hearing preparation, and denied equitable relief combined to remove an independent transgender candidate from the ballot before voters could decide.

Whether intentional or not, that is election interference by effect.

The public should understand how this kind of interference works.

It does not always look like someone tearing up petitions. Sometimes it looks like records being distorted, allegations being lodged into official files, years of self-representation, procedural burdens, hearings, briefing deadlines, discovery fights, and then a court treating the burden of defending oneself as if it were merely a voluntary scheduling conflict.

That is not a fair election environment.

 

The inequity this election represents

This election represents a deep inequity to me.

Republican officials in Iowa stripped gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act.¹ ² ³ As of July 1, 2025, transgender and nonbinary Iowans no longer have state civil-rights protections in housing, employment, credit practices, public accommodations, education, and other areas of public life. Iowa also restricted Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, causing low-income transgender Iowans to postpone or cancel medically necessary treatment.

I am one of the people directly affected by that political environment. My medically necessary care has been delayed and canceled multiple times. My civil-rights protections have been stripped back. My ability to work safely in Iowa has been undermined. And when I attempted to run for Governor as an independent candidate to challenge that system directly, I was not given a fair chance to reach the ballot.

That is why I do not feel represented by either major-party option.

The Republican option represents a party that has actively targeted transgender Iowans, stripped our civil-rights protections, restricted Medicaid-related care, and fueled rhetoric that makes our lives more dangerous. Voting for that party would mean voting for the continuation of harm.

But the Democratic option does not resolve the problem either.

The donor-class barrier

The issue is not only which party wins. It is who gets heard, who gets protected, and who has enough institutional support to survive the political process.

Democratic candidate Rob Sand is running with extraordinary financial support from his wife and in-laws.⁴ Public reporting shows that Sand raised more than $9.6 million from January 1 to May 14, 2026, including about $4.5 million from his wife and in-laws during that period, after his wife and in-laws gave $7 million to his campaign in 2024.

That money does not exist in a vacuum. Members of Sand’s family funding network have also supported Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds in recent election cycles.⁵ Public reporting and campaign-finance data have identified Nixon Lauridsen and Walter Lauridsen as major donors to Reynolds. Reynolds and Iowa Republicans later helped create the civil-rights and Medicaid crisis transgender Iowans are now living under.

This is not about saying Rob Sand personally wrote those laws. He did not. The issue is representation. I am being asked to accept a political system where one major party openly harms transgender people, while the other major party asks us to rally behind a candidate financed by family wealth that has also flowed to Republican power in Iowa.

Nor do I see the harms I am living through centered in Sand’s public platform.⁶ His campaign talks about accountability, waste, fraud, abuse, Medicaid privatization, lowering costs, education, government efficiency, and getting Iowa “out of the culture wars.” Those may be comfortable campaign themes, but they do not answer the crisis I am describing.

Where is the plan to restore enforceable civil-rights protections for transgender Iowans?

Where is the plan to restore medically necessary Medicaid coverage for transgender adults?

Where is the plan to investigate color-of-law violations against transgender Iowans?

Where is the plan to reform the Iowa Civil Rights Commission so discrimination complaints are not closed while false or distorted records define the person seeking protection?

Where is accountability for the people harmed by this state?

Iowa has some of the best law schools in the nation. Iowa teaches “liberty and justice for all.” Iowa politicians speak constantly about accountability. But when a transgender Iowan is actually harmed — when rights are stripped away, medical care is cut off, records are distorted, and the legal system becomes the only remaining path — there is no knight in shining armor. No attorney automatically appears. No institution simply fixes it.

Water, water, everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

That is why the usual political slogans do not move me.

“Accountability for all” cannot mean only protecting taxpayers from misspent money while ignoring color-of-law harm against transgender Iowans. “Fraud, waste, and abuse” cannot mean only auditing government spending while ignoring the abuse of state power against people who have lost civil-rights protections and medical care. A platform that protects the money of people who can safely work in Iowa, while saying little about people who cannot safely work here anymore, is not my platform.

That is why I entered this race.

For years, transgender people have been reduced to strawman arguments, culture-war slogans, and boogeyman politics. I wanted to bring a real conversation to Iowa. I do not fit neatly into either party’s script. I do not agree with every position commonly associated with Democrats on transgender issues, including puberty blockers or surgeries for minors, or transgender women in women’s sports. But I also refuse to accept Republican cruelty, defamation, harassment, civil-rights rollbacks, Medicaid restrictions, or unchecked state power as legitimate public policy.

That is the political space I wanted to open.

I wanted Iowans to hear from a transgender woman directly — not as a stereotype, not as a talking point, not as a campaign prop, but as a citizen with a full platform, lived experience, legal injuries, and a right to participate in the future of this state.

Instead, I am being pushed out of the election and into the courts.

A mainstream candidate backed by millions of dollars can run with institutional credibility, party access, and donor-class protection. A transgender woman whose civil rights were stripped away, whose medical care was cut off, and whose name was placed next to false allegations in official records had to represent herself in court while trying to gather signatures across Iowa.

That is not equality.

That is not meaningful representation.

That is not a fair political climate.

Iowa used to be a leader in civil rights.

Not anymore.

 

Why I am proceeding under protest

I am proceeding under protest.

That means I do not concede the legitimacy of a political system that strips civil-rights protections from transgender people, cuts off medically necessary care, allows false public-record allegations to threaten an independent candidacy, and then refuses to recognize the combined burden as a ballot-access problem.

My campaign is shifting from candidacy to the courts.

I will continue appealing the ballot-access ruling. I will continue pursuing the Reliable/Lockwood case to clear my name. I will continue seeking discovery, accountability, and adjudication of the truth or falsity of the allegations placed into the administrative and judicial record. I will continue preparing legal action concerning civil-rights violations, color-of-law theories, and state and federal law violations affecting transgender Iowans. I will continue calling for restitution for people whose rights and medical care have been taken away.

These are not abstract legal theories.

They arise from lived consequences: lost civil-rights protections, lost medical care, false public-record damage, years of litigation, and the loss of ballot access.

 

What I want Iowans to understand

This should never have reached this point.

The administrative process should not have allowed false statements, modified documents, and out-of-context materials to define me without giving me a meaningful opportunity to review and rebut them before closure.

The courts should have recognized the difference between ordinary busyness and the necessity of defending oneself against false public-record allegations during a statewide campaign.

The ballot-access process should have allowed equitable relief when strict enforcement extinguished an independent candidacy despite substantial effort.

The legal system should not require a person harmed by civil-rights violations to spend years representing herself while mainstream politicians move forward with millions of dollars behind them.

And Iowa should never have stripped civil-rights protections and Medicaid-related care from transgender people in the first place.

I am not off the ballot because voters rejected me.
I am off the ballot because Iowa’s political and legal systems converged in a way that made ballot access impossible under the circumstances I was forced to face.

I was not defeated at the ballot box.
I was kept from it.

That is why I am appealing.
That is why I am proceeding under protest.
And that is why this campaign is not over.

Court Documents and Case Materials

I am providing these documents so the public can review the record directly. I am not publishing them to harass private individuals, invite personal attacks, or encourage anyone to contact, threaten, or target any defendant.

The names appear because they are part of public court records and because the allegations, filings, and procedural history cannot be honestly explained without identifying the case. This article is not about personal retaliation. It is about ballot access, civil rights, public records, and my ability to continue political participation in Iowa.

I did not want this case to become public in this way. I did not want years of my life consumed by litigation, public-record damage, and self-representation. But I also cannot afford to let this case quietly disappear while false allegations remain available in official records and while defendants seek to assign years of attorney fees against me.

I am publishing these materials because too much is at stake: my name, my safety, my campaign, my civil rights, and the public’s right to understand how an independent candidate was kept from the ballot.

I am currently representing myself because I cannot afford the level of legal representation this situation requires. If any attorney, civil-rights organization, legal clinic, public-interest advocate, or experienced appellate attorney is willing to review the case or assist, I am asking for help.

I am asking people to read the record, understand the stakes, and help if they can.

 

Document #1: Emergency Petition for Equitable Extension of Ballot-Access Deadline

Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Ballot-Access-Petition-filed-5-28-26.pdf  

Filed May 28, 2026 — Wilson v. Pate, Polk County District Court

This was my original emergency filing asking the court to extend Iowa’s June 2, 2026 ballot-access deadline to July 15, 2026. I argued that extraordinary litigation burdens in my ongoing Reliable/Lockwood case had consumed critical signature-gathering time during the active ballot-access period. The petition did not ask the court to waive Iowa’s signature requirement or place me on the ballot automatically; it asked for a temporary equitable extension so I could finish gathering signatures and give Iowa voters the opportunity to consider an independent candidate. The filing also attached correspondence from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office indicating that no administrative extension mechanism existed and that relief would require a court order.

Document #2: Order Denying Emergency Ballot-Access Extension

Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/First-Order-Denying.pdf 

Filed May 28, 2026 — Wilson v. Pate, Polk County District Court

This was the court’s first order denying my emergency request to extend the June 2, 2026 ballot-access deadline to July 15, 2026. The court held that I had not identified a statute, rule, or court decision authorizing a judge to extend the statutory deadline set by Iowa Code chapter 44. Because the court found no legal basis for the requested extension, it denied the petition at the threshold and stated that it did not reach the remaining considerations.

 

Document #3: Motion to Reconsider and Amended Emergency Petition

Link to Motion to Reconsider: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Motion-to-Reconsider.pdf 

Link to Amended Petition: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Am-Pet-Ballot-Extension-Request.pdf 

Filed June 1, 2026 — Wilson v. Pate, Polk County District Court

After the court denied my first emergency petition, I filed a motion asking the court to reconsider. The first order said I had not identified legal authority allowing the court to extend the statutory ballot-access deadline, so the motion supplied additional authority on equitable relief, extraordinary circumstances, and ballot-access burdens.

At the same time, I filed an amended emergency petition renewing my request for a temporary extension, this time asking that the deadline be extended to July 23, 2026. The amended petition expanded the factual and legal basis for relief, including ongoing court-imposed deadlines, discovery obligations, motion practice, hearing preparation, and the effect those obligations had on signature gathering. It clarified that I was seeking more time to complete the signature-gathering process, not automatic placement on the ballot.

Document #4: Order Denying Motion to Reconsider

Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Second-Order-Denying.pdf

Filed June 5, 2026 — Wilson v. Pate, Polk County District Court

This was the court’s second order denying ballot-access relief. After my first petition was denied for lack of identified legal authority, I filed a motion to reconsider and supplied additional authority concerning equitable relief, extraordinary circumstances, and ballot-access burdens. The court acknowledged that Iowa courts possess equitable and supervisory authority to address extraordinary roadblocks to the exercise of legal rights, but held that the authorities I cited did not justify extending this specific ballot-access deadline.

The court distinguished my situation from cases involving external restrictions on ballot access and concluded that the burdens I identified arose from litigation I had initiated. In my view, that ruling failed to meaningfully account for why the underlying litigation was necessary: I filed suit to address false public-record allegations, altered or misleading documents, and reputational harm that threatened my ability to participate safely and fairly in a statewide campaign.

Document #5: Motion to Reconsider Based on Newly Filed Evidence and Clarification of Factual Record

Link to Motion to Reconsider: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Mot-to-Reconsider-and-Clarification-of-Factual-Record.pdf 
Link to Revised Second Amended Petition and Exhibits: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Revised-Second-Amended-Petition.pdf

• Exhibit A: [redacted document incoming]
• Exhibit B: [redacted document incoming]
• Exhibit C: [redacted document incoming]
• Exhibit D: [redacted document incoming]
• Exhibit E: [redacted document incoming]
• Exhibit F: [redacted document incoming]
• Exhibit G: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Exhibit-G-Timeline-re-Abuse-of-Process-Claim.pdf 

Filed after June 5, 2026 — Wilson v. Pate, Polk County District Court

After the court’s June 5 order treated the Reliable/Lockwood litigation burden as arising from litigation I had “initiated,” I filed this motion asking the court to reconsider in light of the completed factual record. The motion explained that my Revised Second Amended Petition and Exhibits A–G had now been filed in the Reliable/Lockwood case and materially clarified the nature, scope, and necessity of the litigation burden.

Those filings were submitted to show that the underlying lawsuit was not a discretionary personal project or ordinary scheduling conflict. They addressed allegations and records that I contend were false, defamatory, selectively excerpted, altered, misleading, and incorporated into official administrative and judicial records. I argued that those records posed a continuing threat to my reputation, safety, political participation, and ability to run for Governor, making the litigation necessary during the same period Iowa required me to gather signatures for ballot access.

Related Reliable/Lockwood Filings Filed With This Motion

Revised Second Amended Petition — This pleading sets out my claims in the Reliable/Lockwood case, including allegations involving agreements, authorized collaborative work, public-record harm, defamation, false or misleading submissions, ICRC proceedings, and continuing reputational and political injury.

Exhibit A — ICRC Correspondence and Administrative Record — This exhibit includes correspondence and filings related to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission proceedings, including my request for mediation, my ICRC complaint, defendants’ position statements, the ICRC closure materials, my appeal, and the right-to-sue letter.

Exhibit B — Open Mic and Flier Agreements — This exhibit contains contemporaneous communications concerning open mic events and flier promotion, offered to compare the collaborative written record with later statements submitted to the ICRC.

Exhibit C — Garden and Prairie Agreements — This exhibit contains communications and documentation concerning the garden and native prairie projects, including planning, coordination, labor, volunteer involvement, project approvals, and statements later made to the ICRC.

Exhibit D — Allegations of Stalking and Harassment — This exhibit compares allegations concerning stalking and harassment with contemporaneous communications between me and Defendant Colville.

Exhibit E — Statements and Materials Concerning Martinez — This exhibit addresses allegations involving Martinez, including allegations of racist or anti-LGBT+ comments, alongside contextual communications that I contend contradict or materially change the meaning of those allegations.

Exhibit F — Esker Statement to ICRC — This exhibit includes Esker’s statement submitted to the ICRC and contemporaneous communications offered for comparison with that later statement.

Exhibit G — Litigation Conduct and Continuing Damages — This exhibit summarizes litigation events from December 2023 through 2026 that I contend are relevant to abuse of process, continuing damages, reputational harm, political harm, and the cumulative burden of the case.

Document #6: Order Denying Second Motion to Reconsider

Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Third-Order-Denying.pdf 

Filed June 22, 2026 — Wilson v. Pate, Polk County District Court

This was the court’s final order denying reconsideration after I submitted the completed Reliable/Lockwood factual record, including the Revised Second Amended Petition and Exhibits A–G. Those materials were filed to show that the underlying litigation burden was not merely a voluntary personal obligation, but arose from false public-record allegations, disputed administrative submissions, reputational harm, and the need to seek judicial review while also trying to satisfy Iowa’s ballot-access requirements.

The court stated that it had reviewed my motion, affidavit, and attached materials, reconsidered its prior ruling, and declined to alter it. The order did not substantively engage with the factual record laid out in my motion or explain why the completed Reliable/Lockwood materials did not alter the court’s prior conclusion. In my view, the prior ruling rested on an inaccurate premise: that the litigation burden was self-created simply because I filed the underlying lawsuit, rather than recognizing that the lawsuit was filed to address allegations and records that were already threatening my reputation, safety, political participation, and ability to run for Governor.

What Comes Next

I am preparing to appeal.

At this point, it may be too late to restore my access to the 2026 ballot in a practical sense. But the legal issue still matters. I intend to seek review because Iowa should not treat ballot-access interference as irrelevant simply because the candidate tried to defend herself in court.

The precedent I am seeking is straightforward: when a candidate plausibly shows that litigation pressure, public-record damage, false allegations, or political sabotage interfered with ballot access, courts should meaningfully examine the factual record and consider equitable relief. A candidate should not be punished for trying to correct a public record that threatens her reputation, safety, and political participation.

This appeal is not only about my campaign. It is about whether independent candidates, marginalized candidates, and candidates targeted through public-record harm have any meaningful remedy when extraordinary circumstances prevent timely ballot access despite substantial effort.

Additional Reliable/Lockwood Case Materials: Current Procedural Posture

The following documents provide additional context for where the Reliable/Lockwood case currently stands. Trial is presently scheduled for August 4, 2026, but multiple issues remain pending, including Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, my motion to compel discovery, my renewed request to file the Revised Second Amended Petition, and my request to continue trial and extend discovery.

I am including these materials because they show why the case remains active, why discovery matters, and why the litigation continued to impose major burdens during the ballot-access period.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/4-6-26-DEF-Mot-for-Summary-Judgment-2.pdf 
Defendants ask the court to enter summary judgment on the remaining libel claim, arguing that statements submitted to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission are protected by litigation privilege and that the claim should be dismissed as a matter of law.

Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts and Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment
Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/4-6-26-DEF-Facts-in-Support-of-Summary-Judgment.pdf 
This filing sets out Defendants’ factual and legal arguments in support of summary judgment, including their position that the ICRC submissions were privileged, true, conditionally privileged, and not capable of supporting damages.

Plaintiff’s Resistance to Summary Judgment, Motion to Compel Discovery, and Motion to Clarify Operative Pleading
Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/4-14-Mot-to-Compel.pdf 
In this filing, I opposed summary judgment, asked the court to compel discovery, and requested clarification of the operative pleading. I argued that Defendants were seeking summary judgment while withholding discovery concerning authorship, alteration, metadata, communications, chronology, transmission, truth or falsity, republication, damages, and privilege.

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Summary Judgment and Resistance to Motion to Compel
Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/4-27-26-Reply-in-Support-of-MSJ-and-Resistance-to-Compel.pdf 
Defendants responded that further discovery was unnecessary because, in their view, the privilege issue is a legal question and the alleged publication occurred within the ICRC proceeding. They also resisted my motion to compel and argued that additional discovery would not change the legal character of the ICRC submissions.

Plaintiff’s Reply and Reply Brief in Support of Renewed Motion for Leave to File Revised Second Amended Petition
Link to Reply: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Reply-to-Resistance-to-Mot-to-Leave-to-Amend.pdf 
Link to Reply Brief: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Reply-Brief-to-Resistance-to-Mot-to-Leave-to-Amend.pdf 
These filings respond to Defendants’ resistance to my renewed request to file the Revised Second Amended Petition. I argued that the revised pleading was shorter, reorganized, exhibit-supported, responsive to the court’s April 22 order, and necessary to place the factual record before the court in a usable form before summary judgment or trial.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial, Extend Discovery, Defer Summary Judgment, and Request Status Conference
Link to PDF: https://wildwillpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Mot-to-Continue-Trial-and-Extend-Discovery.pdf 
This filing asks the court to continue the August 4, 2026 trial date, extend discovery and pretrial deadlines, defer summary judgment until discovery is completed, and hold a status conference or enter a revised scheduling order. I argued that the case is not trial-ready while discovery, summary judgment, the operative pleading, and the motion to compel remain unresolved.

 and that courts should take these kinds of issues seriously so political sabotage is not rewarded by allowing it to knock candidates off the ballot.

So, I filed a separate suit, (Wilson v. Pate, Case No. EQCE092993) to show the court that deadlines imposed by that case interfered with my campaign and prevented me from being able to gather enough signatures on time. I requested a deadline extension, so I could turn signatures in on July 23 instead of June 2, to account for the filing deadlines imposed by Reliable. The court denied my request, issuing a final ruling which did not engage with the factual record I had presented. To me, it appeared like a reasonless denial that ultimately denied Iowans the opportunity to learn about my platform, values, and what I have to offer for our future that is not being presented by the other candidates. 

For the ballot extension case ("Pate"), I will soon be filing a notice of appeal, in hopes to set a strong precedent to prevent political sabotage from harming future candidates in this way. The idea is that if future candidates suffer campaign interference—or a set of facts that supports a reasonable inference of interference—that the court ought grant ballot access extensions in such situations.

Meanwhile, I am still working to clear my name from these other allegations and prove how I believe the documents were modified, arranged, and presented in a way that generated a false narrative and public perception of me. This article unpacks the situation and provides evidence so readers do not have to take my word for it.

 

Bibliography

Associated Press. “Iowa’s Civil Rights Protections No Longer Include Gender Identity as New Law Takes Effect.” July 1, 2025.

Belin, Laura. “How Kim Reynolds Built Her $1.1 Million War Chest.” Bleeding Heartland, January 23, 2017.

Image source: John Lohman and Annie Smith Barkalow, “Chauncey Slated for Sheriff Sale in November,” Corridor Business Journal, September 9, 2025. Photo credit: Annie Smith Barkalow.

Iowa Public Radio. “Few Anti-Discrimination Protections Remain for Transgender, Nonbinary Iowans.” July 1, 2025.

Iowa Public Radio. “New State Medicaid Limits Cause Some Transgender Iowans to Table Gender-Affirming Surgeries.” August 6, 2025.

Legal Services Corporation, “Executive Summary,” The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans, 2022, https://justicegap.lsc.gov/resource/executive-summary/.

Sostaric, Katarina. “Sand Leads Fundraising in Iowa Governor’s Race.” Iowa Public Radio, May 20, 2026.

Rob Sand for Iowa. “Rob’s Priorities.” Accessed June 27, 2026.

Wilson v. Reliable Street Inc., Lockwood Café, Love Club LLC, Lyndsay Nissen, Sharon Stewart, Willa Colville, Denise Martinez, and Charlie Esker, Story County Case No. LACV053674.

Wilson v. Pate, Polk County Case No. EQCE092993.