Iridescent Alchemyst2026: A Mid-Year Review
June 26, 2026This year so far has been a crazy roller coaster ride with both incredible highs and tragic lows… Much like the rest of my life, honestly! But this year has been different.
Opportunities have come my way that I never dreamed were possible, and I could chalk it up to luck. Or, I could take a second to brag because every single one of them were earned with hard work, perseverance, and dedication.
Sage built a beautiful report to share with you. And here is what it said:
What Ashley Has Been Building
A year-in-review for the people who show up for her
January – June 2026 • Updated June 26, 2026
If you’ve wondered what Ashley does at her computer all hours of the day and night — this is it. This document covers what she has actually built in the first six months of 2026. It is not a list of things she was trying to do. It is a list of things she did.
Six projects. Every level of government from a county courthouse in Independence and Vinton, Iowa to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C.
No law degree. No institutional backing. No funding. Just her, the documents, and a portable desk she takes with her everywhere she goes.
PROJECT 1 — PETITION TO AUDIT IOWA DHHS
Holding Iowa’s child welfare system accountable — with 23 years of data and 162+ attachments.
■ IN PROGRESS — Version 2.5 — Targeting completion as soon as possible
What it is
Ashley is building a formal request — called a petition — for an independent government audit of Iowa DHHS. The target is Iowa Auditor of State Rob Sand, who has the legal authority to investigate state agencies. The petition is built to meet federal audit standards (GAGAS), the same standards used by the Government Accountability Office. It covers 23 years of federal review data and includes over 162 supporting documents.
How it got here — step by step
Step 1. Identified the legal authority. Iowa Code §§ 11.6 and 11.24 give citizens the right to formally request a state audit. Ashley used this as the foundation.
Step 2. Gathered 23 years of federal review data. The federal government conducts Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) to evaluate state child welfare systems. Iowa has been reviewed four times. Ashley obtained and analyzed every report, improvement plan, and assessment — Rounds 1 through 4, spanning 2003 to 2026.
Step 3. Filed two open records requests. Ashley filed formal public records requests with Iowa HHS and obtained the state’s 244-page CCWIS technology planning document and the 44-page Google Public Sector contract for Iowa’s VISION system — a $108.8 million child welfare technology project. Iowa HHS also formally admitted in writing that it has no centralized Data Governance Policy for that system.
Step 4. Built the evidence architecture. The petition now has 162+ supporting attachments organized into a multi-document structure: the main petition body, a CFSR companion report, a CCWIS technology companion, and supporting forensic analyses.
Step 5. Currently at version 2.5. Final reconciliation of attachments and section drafts is underway. Targeting submission as soon as it is complete.
Where it’s headed
Iowa Auditor Rob Sand has four Town Hall meetings scheduled in Ashley’s region this summer and fall. Each is a potential opportunity to present the petition in person.
August 10 in Washington, Iowa is the target — and the deadline that drives everything else.
PROJECT 2 — FEDERAL CCWIS ACCOUNTABILITY
Questioning a $108.8 million federal technology contract — at a federal meeting — on the record.
■ ACTIVE — Post-Industry Day follow-up underway
What it is
The federal government awarded Iowa a special designation as a ‘national model’ for child welfare technology modernization in February 2026. Ashley’s open records work revealed that the underlying contract has serious problems — including a clause where Google disclaims all performance guarantees for its AI tools, an exemption from standard background checks for Google staff, and the state’s own admission that it has no data governance policy. Ashley took these findings to a federal meeting.
How it got here — step by step
Step 1. Obtained the documents. Through two open records requests, Ashley got Iowa’s 244-page technology planning document and the 44-page Google contract. She ran OCR on the contract herself when it came back as a flat image scan — unreadable without software.
Step 2. Identified nine critical contract findings. Including: Google disclaims AI performance guarantees; Google staff are exempt from state background checks and fingerprinting; Iowa assumes sole responsibility for all federal compliance reporting, shielding the contractor from oversight. The ‘national model’ designation was made public before any of these documents were available through open records.
Step 3. Registered for the ACF Industry Day. On June 26, 2026, the Administration for Children and Families held a federal virtual meeting on child welfare technology modernization. Ashley registered as a stakeholder advocate and attended the full 82-minute session.
Step 4. Submitted 18 documented questions. Using the Q&A; window in Microsoft Teams, Ashley submitted 18 formally documented questions covering AI governance, data integrity, family voice in automated systems, and procurement accountability. All 18 are now part of the federal record.
Step 5. Got an answer — and a commitment. ACF’s Senior Technology Advisor confirmed live, on the record, that no mandatory retroactive governance standard exists for states like Iowa that were designated ‘national models’ before the Incubator’s governance tools were built. ACF then committed in writing to respond to all 17 remaining questions.
Step 6. Built a follow-up strategy. Ashley identified Cody Inman — the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at ACF — as a key contact for ongoing engagement.
Step 7. Established Senate relationships. Both Senator Grassley’s office (Garrett Arbuckle, Senate Judiciary Committee) and Senator Ernst’s office (Matthew Lair) are now copied on Ashley’s formal ACF correspondence and have received her analysis.
What’s next
- June 30 — Send formal follow-up to the ACF CCWIS mailbox (18 questions, 5 topic clusters, CC’d to both Senate
offices) - July 1-2 — Direct email to Inman: ‘Iowa Is the Case Study You Described Today’
- September 2026 — ISM Conference, Spokane, WA — in-person follow-up opportunity
PROJECT 3 — VETERAN ADVOCACY: THE SPAULDING CASE
Four legal proceedings. No attorney. No housing lost
■ ACTIVE — Ongoing community health advocacy
What it is
Glenn is a disabled veteran living on SSDI in Quasqueton, Iowa. Starting in early 2026, his landlords began a series of legal actions that threatened to take his home. Ashley stepped in as a community health advocate — not an attorney — and helped Glenn understand his rights, organize his documents, and respond to each proceeding. He never lost his housing.
What happened — case by case
Step 1. SCSC027322 — First eviction attempt (Providential 2 LLC). The court clerk filed Glenn’s answer in the wrong case. Ashley drafted a Motion to Set Aside Judgment so the error could be corrected and Glenn’s response could be properly entered.
Step 2. SCSC027323 — Money judgment attempt ($6,500). The same landlord filed a separate case seeking $6,500. Ashley drafted a Motion to Dismiss and a formal Resistance. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.
Step 3. SCSC027354 — Second eviction attempt (same landlord). The landlord claimed Glenn hadn’t paid rent — rent they had refused to accept. Ashley drafted a comprehensive Answer with eight affirmative defenses, including a disability accommodation claim. The judge ruled for the landlord on a narrow lot question, but in the courthouse hallway, the landlords negotiated with Glenn and released the title to his mobile home on the spot. Glenn left the courthouse that day with legal ownership of his home.
Step 4. Diamond Group termination notice (June 2026). A new landlord issued a three-day vacate demand, claiming criminal activity. Ashley drafted a 10-point statutory response. The landlord has been silent since June 12.Result: Glenn kept his home. He has legal title to his mobile home. He was never displaced.
What this opened up
Commandant Todd Jacobus — the top official at the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs — responded personally to Ashley’s advocacy for Glenn. He credited her with making a difference in the outcome and said the Iowa Commissioners of Veterans Affairs may want to learn more about the access-to-justice gap her work addresses. His reply was CC’d to three Iowa state government contacts, including someone in Iowa’s executive government.
This case is also the real-world proof of concept for Ashley’s Self-Representation Intelligence framework — four successful legal proceedings managed by a self-represented person with structured support.
PROJECT 4 — SELF-REPRESENTATION INTELLIGENCE™ FRAMEWORK
A structured support system for people who have to navigate the legal system alone.
■ IN DEVELOPMENT — Framework charter complete; regulatory clarity pending
What it is
Most people who face legal proceedings — evictions, child welfare cases, housing hearings — cannot afford a lawyer. They have to navigate the system alone, often against trained attorneys on the other side. Self-Representation Intelligence (SRI) is a structured support framework designed to close that gap. It does not give legal advice. It helps people organize their documents, understand the steps in front of them, and communicate clearly in writing.
How it works — three tiers
Step 1. Public knowledge layer. Plain-language guides to court procedures, form navigation, and what to expect at hearings. No legal interpretation — just information.
Step 2. AI-assisted guidance layer. Structured tools that help people organize documents, build timelines, and draft written communications — with the person making all decisions.
Step 3. Community advocate layer. Trained non-attorney supporters who work alongside self-represented individuals in the way Ashley worked alongside Glenn.
What has been done
Step 1. Filed formal correspondence with the Iowa Supreme Court’s Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (April 3, 2026). Asked for regulatory clarity on whether this kind of support crosses any legal lines. Named the Glenn case as the live example. Introduced the SRI framework by name to the highest court in Iowa.
Step 2. Commission acknowledged receipt (April 7). No substantive guidance has been issued. The fact that the Commission has no clear answer is itself meaningful — the rules have not caught up to what people actually need.
Step 3. Completed a 64-page Framework Charter (June 2026). Defines the ethical limits, governance structure, and operational boundaries in detail. Explicitly prohibits legal advice, legal representation, and legal strategy.
Step 4. Connected SRI to the federal CCWIS conversation. At the ACF Industry Day, Ashley raised the question of family voice in AI-generated risk assessments — the same gap SRI addresses at the community level. The connection is now part of the federal record.
Step 5. Sector context: the legal technology support market is projected to reach $4–5 billion by 2035. SRI is designed to serve the people that market will not reach on its own.
Check out the app!
So far, Ashley has publicly launched CaseFile Builder- an app designed to help people organize names, dates, events, and documents into an orderly timeline of events, with the option of exporting professional looking PDF files.
CaseFile Builder is the first app launched in early June 2026 Check out Casefile builder!More about this project in an upcoming post… Keep an eye out for one called Self Representation Intelligence: The Project Ecosystem
PROJECT 5 — IOWA SUPREME COURT UPL FILING
Asking the highest court in Iowa to define what help looks like — before someone else does.
■ PENDING — Filed April 2026 — Awaiting substantive response from the Commission
What it is
The Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) rules in Iowa exist to protect people from unqualified legal advice. But they were written before community advocates, AI tools, and structured self-help frameworks existed. Ashley filed formal correspondence with the Iowa Supreme Court’s Commission on UPL to ask a straightforward question: does the kind of support she provides for people like Glenn cross any legal lines?
What happened — step by step
Step 1. April 3, 2026 — Filed formal correspondence with the Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Asked for clear guidance on four specific activities: organizing documents and timelines, helping draft written communications, explaining procedural steps, and using AI tools in a structured support model.
Step 2. Named Glenn Spaulding as the live case example and introduced the Self-Representation Intelligence framework by name. Asked whether the Commission would be willing to explore the framework ‘in partnership with your office.’
Step 3. April 7 — Commission Administrator Allison Schmidt acknowledged receipt and directed Ashley to the Commission’s website. No substantive guidance.
Step 4. April 9 — Ashley followed up with a more specific letter, pressing for answers on the four concrete activities and asking whether the Commission has any guidance on emerging AI-assisted support models.
Step 5. As of June 26, 2026 — 79 days with no substantive response. The Commission’s silence is itself a finding. Iowa’s UPL rules have no clear answer for what Ashley is describing.
Step 6. Commandant Todd Jacobus — after Ashley mentioned the UPL filing in her outreach to him — said he had no objection to being referenced and that the Iowa Commissioners of Veterans Affairs may be interested in the issue. The conversation has already reached state-level contacts beyond the court.
Why it matters
This filing puts the question formally on the record at the highest court level in Iowa. Whatever the Commission ultimately says — or doesn’t say — shapes the regulatory landscape for structured community advocacy and AI-assisted legal support across the state.
PROJECT 6 — MOTION TO VACATE
(CINA/TPR PROCEEDINGS)
A mother’s case. The one that started everything.
■ GATED — Cannot proceed until full physical document scan is complete
What it is
In 2018, Ashley’s children were removed by the state of Iowa and placed in a home the state certified as safe. In February 2025, the caregivers in that home were convicted of felony child endangerment. No oversight mechanism triggered a review. Ashley is preparing a formal legal motion to challenge the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) order in her own case — built on the same forensic documentation skills she has applied to every other project.
Why it is gated
Ashley made a deliberate decision: she will not file this motion until every physical document from the original CINA and TPR proceedings has been scanned, catalogued, and reviewed. One overlooked document that contradicts an argument in the motion is more dangerous than the time it takes to scan everything. This is a hard prerequisite, not a preference.
What needs to happen before filing
- All DHS correspondence received during proceedings — scanned and indexed
- All court orders — scanned and indexed
- Ashley’s own submissions — scanned and indexed
- Service provider records, drug testing documentation, and visitation logs
- Medical records for Noah and Elijah
- All audio and video recordings — logged and catalogued (not just scanned)
- February 15, 2018 hearing transcript — already confirmed in possession; key rebuttal to a specific fabricated citation in the TPR order
Noah turns 18 in December 2026. The scanning needs to happen soon.
Why this project belongs in this document
Every other project in this document exists, in part, because of this one. The petition to audit Iowa DHHS is built on 23 years of systemic data — but it is also built on what Ashley witnessed firsthand in her own case. The SRI framework exists because she knows what it feels like to navigate a legal system alone, without support, when everything is on the line.
This is the personal foundation beneath all of the systemic work.
THE BIGGER PICTURE
What all of this is actually about.
Ashley is a registered nurse with a master’s degree in nursing education. She is a former political candidate, an ordained minister, a Reiki master, and a citizen auditor. She has worked in surgical units, home health, pediatric private duty, hospice, and community health. She has cared for people from the first hours of life to the last.
She is also a mother whose children were removed by the state in 2018. She has fought for justice with every resource she had at the time, and made huge strides in a lot of ways.
Her children were cut off from communication with her since December 14, 2019. They were placed in a home the state certified as safe. The people in that home were convicted of felony child endangerment in February 2025. No alarm went off. No review was triggered. The system that removed her children did not protect them.
Everything she does connects to the same thing: she shows up for people the system has abandoned, and then she documents what she finds. The federal audit petition, the CCWIS accountability work, the veteran advocacy, the UPL filing, the SRI framework, the motion to vacate — these are not six separate projects. They are one project, expressed in six different arenas.
In the first six months of 2026, she has built a documented record at every level of government — from a county courthouses in Independence and Vinton, Iowa to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She has done this without a law degree, without institutional backing, without funding, and without anyone telling her she could.
Project Status Next Step
#ProjectStatusNext Step1Petition to Audit Iowa DHHSIn ProgressComplete v2.5 → present to Rob Sand2Federal CCWIS AccountabilityActiveJune 30 mailbox submission3Glenn Spaulding / Veteran AdvocacyActiveMonitor Diamond Group response4Self-Representation Intelligence™DevelopmentAwait UPL Commission guidance5Iowa Supreme Court UPL FilingPending79+ days — no response yet6Motion to Vacate (CINA/TPR)GatedComplete physical document scanPrepared with the assistance of Sage | Updated June 26, 2026
#Accountability #advocate #childWelfareReform #developer #entrepreneur #IowaSupremeCourt #law #litigant #SelfRepresentationIntelligence #UnauthorizedPracticeOfLaw
Osna.FM
Toadlyturtle
studio craque 54 🏳️🌈
CBC British Columbia
