Colorado PERJURY and Subornation of Perjury

The CURRENT Colorado CRIMINAL code – PERJURY:,%20art.%208,%20p.%205%27%5D

18-8-502. Perjury in the first degree.

(1) A person commits perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he knowingly makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law.

(2) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and the defendant’s mistaken belief that his statement was not material is not a defense, although it may be considered by the court in imposing sentence.

(3) Perjury in the first degree is a class 4 felony.

Doctor Hollander certainly qualifies for conviction. 

What about attorney Johnson who apparently prepared the complaint and affidavit for doctor Hollander’s signature KNOWING that the allegations against ME where entirely fabricated?

Apparently that’s called SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

SUBORNATION OF PERJURY – The procuring another to commit legal perjury, who in consequence of the persuasion takes the oath to which be has been incited.

To complete the offence, the false oath must be actually taken, and no abortive attempt to solicit will complete the crime.

But the criminal solicitation to commit perjury, though unsuccessful, is a misdemeanor at common law.

The act of congress of March 3, 1825, provides, that if any person shall knowingly or wilfully procure any such perjury, mentioned in the act, to be committed, every such person so offending, shall be guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine, not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement to hard labor, not exceeding five years, according to the aggravation of the offence.

5 years of hard labor for attorney Johnson would be just about right for his stunt. 

But, we don’t have hard labor in prisons anymore and are LAWYERS now exempt? 

What does the Colorado Bar have to say on the subject?

Rule 3.1. Meritorius Claims and Contentions

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

 [3] The lawyer’s obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim or contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.


[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients’ positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. [emphasis added]

I’m looking forward to see attorney Johnson’s argument.

 Rule 3.4. Fairness To Opposing Party and Counsel

 A lawyer shall not:

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; [emphasis added]

 Attorney Johnson MUST have known that he directed doctor Hollander to verify entirely FALSE allegations in her complaint and affidavit.

Searching at the CO Bar site for perjury, I didn’t find much:

A web search got this interesting letter.  The Colorado Weld County district attorney Kenneth R. Buck recommended in his 7/8/08 letter to chief justice James H. Hiatt NOT to prosecute a police officer for perjury (false testimony in a murder trial). 

A person commits perjury in the first degree if in any official proceeding he knowingly makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law.” C.R.S. § 18-8-502(1). Lack of knowledge that the false statement is material is not a defense. C.R.S. § 18-8-502(2).

Certain elements would not be at issue in a Perjury trial under the facts of this investigation. Specifically, under C.R.S. § 18-5-501(2), “a trial is an official proceeding,”

People v.  Chaussee, 880 P.2d 749, 762 (Colo. 1994). Similarly, the oath or affirmation that all witnesses take at trial meets the requirements in C.R.S. §§ 18-8-501(2) (a) and (b).

Obviously, doctor Tameira Hollander’s FALSE accusations are not only material, but the ONLY reason the court ordered shut down.

She verified the FALSE statements under oath, she knew the statements were false and her false statements were filed with the court by attorney Johnson who KNEW that the allegations against me were totally fabricated.

My website has now been shut down for almost 2 months based on nothing but doctor Tameira Hollander’s sworn false statements.

There’s a TON of info at and I’ll have to spend some serious time at this site after I’m done with my filings later this week.


18-8-510 – Subornation of perjury


While the subornation of perjury is defined as grounds for disbarment, and for barring a person from holding a state office in the state constitution, it is not in and of itself a crime at present. That absence, or loophole, encourages attorneys, victim’s advocates, shelter workers, etc., to “suggest” to their clients that obtaining a restraining order might be to their advantage. Many shelters provide boilerplate language for use by women in filing DV charges or restraining orders claiming abuse. Victim’s advocates will frequently help women write out requests for restraining orders when asked.

A lawyer who presents a witness knowing that the witness intends to commit perjury thereby engages in the subornation of perjury {People v. Schultheis, 638 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1981)} and under Article XXII, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution such an attorney is to be disbarred. However, statutory enforcement of that provision of the Constitution is currently lacking.

A major problem today is that despite C.R.S. § 18-8-703 individuals are often coached to file charges such as domestic violence or obtain restraining orders without factual basis. Prosecutors frequently suborn witnesses in plea bargains in order to obtain convictions. And despite the language in the comments for C.R.S. § 18-8-707 suggesting

“The drafters of the model penal code from which former § 18-8-605 derived considered subornation of perjury to be a superfluous restatement of accomplice liability and proposed that persons accused of conduct amounting to subornation of perjury be prosecuted under the accomplice and solicitation statutes.”

no penalty, definition, or crime is presently associated with subornation of perjury in the C.R.S.

As no legal system can persist where the practitioners are free to encourage and suggest perjury, and false allegations, the following statute regarding subornation of perjury is proposed:

(1) Any person who presents a witness in any official proceeding knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the witness intends to commit perjury thereby engages in the subornation of perjury.

(2) Any person who helps or suggests that a witness commit perjury or false swearing

I couldn’t agree more with those proposed revisions and hope THIS case will bring some attention.   And I’ll post in a separate post about this site ASAP.

Looks like I’ll be filing another Bar complaint.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.