President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 07, 2007 04:40 PM UTC
46 Comments
have to foot his legal bill I hope that there’s a cap on how much the hourly rate can be. We don’t need to pay for a $500/hr lawyer.
…in the event that the state doesn’t use the AG’s office. But, I don’t know about JeffCo.
the reason that the state does not always use the AG is that if they hire a private lawyer like David Brougham from Hall and Evans they can distance themselves from unrecorded ex parte conferences and pleadings that contain statements of law that contradict the U.S. Supreme Court. It lets them fight dirty and then claim they didn’t know about it. hall and evans also hired Danielle Moore, a former CO AG lawyer, to appear against me in their behalf only a month after she appeared against me, making false statements that a request for injunctive relief against a state can not be pressed in federal court. Her former boss, Beth McMann, admitted that Moore didn’t get permissiion from the state as is required by the rules of professional conduct. Litigation in CO, according to my experience, is so corrupt that Ii think you should just read the rules of professional conduct and assume that if it is prohibited, they will do it anyway.
Lloyds of London is not registered to sell insurance in CO but Dave Brougham sent me a copy of a bill to Lloyds of London, with a claim number, for defense of CO state lawyers Elizabeth Wittemyer, Kerry St. James, Lance, and Paul McLimans. Their names were itemized on the bill.
How do you guys manage to tie in McCasky every time? It just shows that you like to kiss the ass of whomever left wing nut job financially supports you.
and to not bring him in when speaking about Congrove is like speaking about Abbott without recognizing Costello.
It’s about as relevant as our corrupt judiciary.
This story is about Paschall. Paschall did the investing and Paschall is who the story should be about.
When a nutjob like Garcia in Denver presents stupid policy concerning protesters in Denver (which Pols forgot to cover) and then retracts it (which Pols forgot to cover), we don’t gather all the other nut jobs on City Council or the Mayor’s people. Keep to the story Pols. By you’re low response rate lately it seems you are becoming less relevent everyday. The balance of reporting a story is gone the agenda of left leaning is hurting you.
Rove said to Tancredo?
JK…
How true!
Critics have been saying for months and years that “Colorado Pols is on the decline.” Whatever. The fact is, our readership is bigger now than ever. We’re so irrelevant, in fact, that the Rocky Mountain News had a story today about Mike Coffman on a story that was originated at Colorado Pols.
Sure, this site is leaning back to the left, but so is the entire country. The Reps have arrogantly squandered their political capital, and the checks have caught up with the balances. I’ve been a Rep for decades, and I don’t agree with the far left on anything. But I am gratful that my hijacked party is being rescued by the lefties who now have uncle mo going their way. And I don;t see any significant drop off in traffic on this site. At least not from a quality standpoint. People are catching their breath in preparation for a political season for the ages.
I heard from an attorney friend of mine who works at the Jeffco Attorneys office that Congrove refuses to swear-in and sit for a deposition while Zinna and his girlfriend the Banker have already voluntarily testified under oath. I’ve been associated with the legal system for almost 30 years, and that’s all the evidence I need to hear about who is telling the truth.
And, did you see that ColoadoWackoExposed.com site (now gone) regarding Zinna. He sued over, too. I didn’t cache the site but, I can tell you from what I’ve read that Zinna is not stainless (then again, are any of us?)
At least Mark Paschall should be able to afford his own lawyer now. I am sure the incentive on $64m is plenty. I doubt McCaskey is involved and certainly pray he isn’t. Since the republican party is now corrupt enough to implicate inocents, it is time to get rid of the rotten apples. Perhaps Renee Nelson should help.
Zinna is no saint, but he’s not a politician either and seems to really not care what people think about him, and maybe that is why he can be trusted. My buddy tells me that Congrove’s lawyer has billed the County $60,000 already. The other two board members are putting up with this because they have to give him the benfit of the doubt in case they get sued too. If Congrove is charged, which everyone believes is around the corner, the other two will cut him off and demand he reimburses the taxpayers. I can’t believe anyone hasn’t made the connection yet, Paschall is paying for what he learned about Congrove over years of being friends. Paschall had it coming by acting like a greedy fool, but made it easy for Congrove and his Tajmahal galpal Kathy Redmond. Old Denver cops know that Congrove is an ex-cop who got thrown off the force for setting people up and monkeying with evidence. In the old days, crooked cops were almost never charged, they retired. He attacks those who can do him in. He’s been doing it since he was a legislator. PAschall is stupid, but really just a casualty of Congrove’s war for power.
Ahh, I don’t mean to be argumentative, here (honest), but the practice of retiring crooked cops may no longer be observed in the Police dept., perhaps, but the practice is in use when it comes to judges. For example, you remember the recent fiasco with Judge Biddle and Ass’t D.A. Laurie Steinman? Right up until that story finally broke, everything possible was done to keep it low profile, so as to save the Hon. Grafton Biddle (we don’t have call him honorable, anymore) from embarrassment — In a February 12, 2007 article, the article reads: “Gov. Bill Ritter made his first judicial appointment, naming Monica Jo Gomez . . . to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Grafton F. Biddle.” Retirement?
The story actually “broke” almost 2 months before the article you link, in December 2006:
http://www.denverpos…
And in the article you link, the apparent problem is the use of the term “retirement,” rather than resignation. I don’t know of an ironclad distinction between the two words. It seems that people can retire for both good and bad reasons, and people can resign for both good and bad reasons. Other than the 2-month delay in the “breaking” of the story (which is not true), and the use of the term retirement, why do you say that “everything possible was done to keep it low profile”? Was the Attorney Regulation Counsel supposed to leak the story before it had finished its investigation?
I certainly agree with you that Biddle’s actions were improper and deserve rebuke, but what evidence do you have that this story was covered up?
Cuervo, you made a statement a couple of months ago (in reply to Condor, I think) that, if his situation had merit, he ought to be able to file a tort case and would have no problem finding an attorney to take it (and that, if he couldn’t, enough said about the merits of his case). Drop a line to tipLine@knowYourCourts.com with some names & referrals, if you don’t mind. Subject matter is tort (IIED/outrageous conduct) & contract.
Nor do I hang with tort lawyers. Sorry.
I think it was CAR31 who said that. Sorry.
tried to keep it low profile, but I saw no evidence that the courts or the press did.
Of course he retired/resigned. So what? What else was he going to do? Not show up for court?
Certainly, you could be right (i.e., that it wasn’t a cover-up conspiracy). As passionate as, perhaps, I may appear to be with this legal ethics subject, I just don’t have the time to research every article that’s ever been posted about Biddle. (Not to suggest that you do, either, but, if I did, I could also give you an update on the Manzanares missing-laptop-case, which I cannot). I just remembered that there was a week where this story was hot and, yet, a few weeks or months earlier, I found this other article, where he had “retired” and it sure looked like someone had given him an easy out. Let me ask you, Cuervo, in case you might know: Did Biddle get to keep his taxpayer funded pension? Is he now on some kind of paid administrative leave?
What we do know is that, during the previous year, “Dr.” Richard Wehmhoefer’s Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline disciplined only three (3) judges out of 171+ reported incidents and/or investigations. All of them were private, which means that the public will never know what the infraction was, who the judge was or what the admonishment was. Once again, I ask, What the Hell?
Here’s another question: One of the judges in JeffCo (I forget who -was it Leland Anderson?) quite recently suddenly quit –at least according the First Judicial Distr. Bar Assoc. Newsletter. Should we wonder why, or is it unimportant (none of our business)?
Really, here’s the point: Yes, judges are human. Yes, there are “some” bad apples (I happen to think there are a lot but, that’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it). However, this is a high office, accompanied by tremendous unaccountable power as well as immunity even from malicious acts, because the public policy purpose of absolute immunity, which recognizes that judicial officers, in exercising their authority, must be free to act upon their own convictions without apprehension of personal consequences, weighs against the few individuals (like me and like you), who would be prejudiced by the tortious or malicious conduct of a “bad” judge. That’s one reason why it’s called “independence of the judiciary” (not just because of the separation of powers doctrine. When one of these people abuses that very special, unique position, they should be publicly censured (not coddled) to send a message of how esteemed and sacred this position is and that abuse of it will not be tolerated. Instead, the message is that the system will not tolerate anyone, who mouths off at or threatens a judge. See News & Comment page (look for the March 4,th post). In other words, it’s just the opposite. Another example, whatever happened to the judges, who falsified those affidavits in the now-forgotten Tony Kovalesky story?
Just the other day, I was watching some show, Lockup. One of the guys being interviewed was being arraigned or sentenced for stealing a car. Not a good guy, for sure. But, he threatened the judge during the hearing and lunged at him. As a direct and proximate result, he is now serving a LIFE SENTENCE (at your expense, I might add). Do I feel “sorry” for criminals? No, but, What the Hell? Why is this double-standard acceptable?
And let me make a final point. For those of us, who are trial attorneys (I am not) and have to appear in front of these people –if you’re on the judge’s good side, great. But, as you must probably know, you’re in a highly vulnerable position, should that judge take his ire out on you and humiliate you or, worse, find you in direct contempt and either fine your or imprison you. Take for example, one local petty tyrant, who’s
earnedestablished a reputation for making lawyers appear “before” him at 6:30 a.m. for a motions hearing on a motion that he believed was frivolous (you know who I’m talking about). Certainly, you might think that’s a poignant way to make a point but, what motion you file on behalf of your client that someone else calls frivolous may not, in fact, be frivolous in your mind (or legally, for that matter). All too often, I hear and see judges call this and call that frivolous, when the definition of “frivolous,” codified in Rule 11, seems to have been forgotten.You hit the gavel right on the dais. I’m having trouble believing you are not a trial attorney. Those of us that spend decades aimlessly meandering around the halls of justice know that judicial indiscretion is more than just a rumor floating around the community. I will tell you though, that these times they are a changin’. Not unlike corrupt politicians, a rotten judge’s worst nightmare has been realized. It’s called “the internet.” Blogs like this, PDA’s and other means of rapid, grass roots, mass communication will return a sense of dignity to an all too often undignified group of gavelsmackers.
For the most part, trial attorneys have a vested interest in keeping the lid on such scandals, as they are usually direct beneficiaries of courthouse corruption. Dan Caplis has said on the air that he would never publicly criticize a judge that he might appear before, which speaks volumes. The only trial attorneys who will speak out now are those in the twilight of their careers, and have had enough of the toxic corruption to last them a lifetime.
Lawyers used to have character, instead of being characters. A poignant example was that of noble barrister John Cooke, called upon by fate and duty to prosecute no less a man than Charles Stuart, King of England. Cooke was called to prosecute an absolute monarch who presided over star chambers — at enormous risk to himself. And his first instinct was to run for cover. But he was also a man of sterling character, who understood and internalized the lawyer’s higher calling:
While Cooke was but a commoner, his nobility spans the ages. He was the father of our Fifth Amendment right to freedom from self-incrimination. His Poor Man’s Case was a primogenitor of the modern-day oath of office and the duty of pro bono representation. But his one indefatigable act of courage is the very basis for our modern law: that no man is above the law, and none are beyond its protection. Cooke argued Rex v. Rex when Rex was lex; without that innovation, tyrants like Hermann Goering, Augustus Pinochet, Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein would have been beyond the reach of law, for “the King can do no wrong.”
Many men are too small to muster that level of character within themselves, and many more never have the occasion to search for it. Few would lift a finger for what we swear in the abstract we would die many times over for: the blessings of liberty. But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and “the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” John Cooke died the noblest death possible, defending the principles that defined his life and livelihood. As he wrote from prison while awaiting execution, “We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom.”
However, I believe you misunderstand one’s cynical slant in favor of technical accuracy. In my short time here, it appears to me that tilty and many others tend to illustrate a point by exaggerating the outcome if consistently applied and extended – a completely legitimate and somewhat Socratic method of debate, especially when discussing politics. Both approaches possess value.
I concede, the written word can at times be devoid of the inflection necessary to discern its true meaning.
Solution – someone needs to invent an emoticon for “eye-rolling.”
Nonetheless, your post was exceptionally well done.
He was also a Nuremburg prosecutor, BTW.
Because they sometimes follow emotions and not objective processes does not make them corrupt. Only human.
That Biddle diddled his girl friend, I cannot care less. It is the fact that he let her appear before him – um, no, not that way – without recusing himself. Ditto the equivalent for her. (The last company I worked at had a similar scenario, #1 was diddling #2. Their crime was breaking the policy of having a supervisor involved where they can set salaries and preferences, not the affair.)
Biddle will probably be the subject of lawsuits where both he and his hunny were involved. Unless there is a statute saying he loses his pension, he gets to keep it. Frankly, so what? Way down on the scale of things to worry about in this whole scenario.
Also, remember that this was not hidden in the media shadows. The whole thing was out there, almost from the very beginning. The media (for once) did its job, but of course sex was involved, so that’s not unexpected. (See “Downing Street Papers” for life span of an important event that doesn’t involve sex.)
It was a retired judge, Doucette, who dismissed Marvin Heermyer’s case for defamation and damages caused by the changing of the zoning on land adjoining his from commerical, light industrial to heavy industrial even though according to the CO Supreme Court adjoining land owners have the right to rely on the stabiity of the zoning. Heermyer had paid over $50,000 to the Boulder law firm of Dietze. If they took his money, how “frivilous” could his case have been. I think Judge Doucette just dismissed his case in order to cost him money he didn’t have for the explicit purpose of denying him access to court. I don’t understand why noone reported on what happened except the chain of newspapers that he sued.
Argue away! That’s what makes this so interesting. I’ve known Biddle for 20 years and the thought of him bending over his bench some 29 yr old she-devil in a mini skirt doesn’t surprise me a bit. And speaking of spankings, the Attorney Regulation Counsel simply cannot bring itself to disciplining its own, unless you rape your client (with a fountain pen or a penis). Lawyer misbehavior in Colorado is shamefully unreported, and does nothing but embolden the Biddles of the bar. As far as Biddle’s convenient retirement goes, I heard the other Judges were going to throw him a going away party, but he’d already seen naked the girl they hired to jump out of the cake. Moot point I guess.
The Green Arrow: And, speaking of spankings, the Attorney Regulation Counsel simply cannot bring itself to disciplining its own, unless you rape your client (with a fountain pen or a penis).”
Ah, that’s what tiltawhirl has been trying to say on here since he came on a few months ago!
…is that green font?! You are a marvel at this techno/widget/R2-D2 stuff.
Well, he is the Green Arrow, after all. Doesn’t he deserve at least that much recognition? (No, he’s not my cock puppet -er- I mean sock puppet, `though I did enjoy learning about that, today).
The “evidence” is indisputable! You created this puppet (whether cock or sock) simply to show off your font-color skills. Admit it, or surrender your credibility now!!
. . . who he is. He created an ID, today, and I hope to hear more from him and Castleman, too (remember his post from a week or so ago?)
Funny thing is, I rec’d an email from someone back when the Biddle fiasco happened, who wrote, “I know this judge personally. He was [redacted] and overheard me talking on the phone to [redacted]. He wanted to know if I was a lawyer. I denied and told him [redacted]. . . .Just FYI – In the big scheme of things, I don’t think he’s one of the bad guys. However. . .I think ALL prosecutors are bad guys. lol.”
Sorry about all the redactions but, this person asked me to keep it off the record, so I removed some identifying details from the email but, you get the point. Whether Biddle’s truly a “bad guy,” or not, who knows. At the very least, we can call it poor judgment (no pun intended).
When the program was set up, complained about lawyers were required to file an answer under penalty of perjury that responded to the numbered points of the complaint. Then they allowed Matt Samuelson and other employees to answer for them “diverting” complaints that they say are not serious. I complained to them in great detail about felonies-witness intimidation (U.S.C. title 18 section 1512), conspiracy to deny rights (U.S.C. title 18 section 241), and corrupt persuasion (sending bills for ex parte conferences with judicial personnell, fraudulent notices of appearances, misrepresentations of facts and laws) (U.S.C. title 18 section 1503) and Matt Samuelson wrote back that such conduct was all right.
The Attorney Regulation Counsel cannot offer procedural due process to citizens because it is solely funded by those it regulates. The foxes guard the hen house. Maybe the director of the Attorney Regulation Counsel should be an elective office.
Whatever happened to that guy? His radio show was just about the best political radio in town. It was funny and honest. Does anyone know if he is on somehwere else?
Even though I have never been convicted of a crime and was not indicted, I was in JEFFCO jail last week on a blank warrant not signed by a U.S. attorney or district attorney. While I was there I tried to use the law libary. I found out that they discontinued the paper law library in favor of a computerized law library. There was a computer law library right there in the “pod” in a room that was available all the time. However, you couldn’t use the law library computer without permission. There was a waiting list that was days long and showed that no one had been allowed to use the computer law library.
I think this is a gross invasion of rights. In medicine, it is found that outcomes are best when the patient and his family are informed. That certainly applies in law also, whether or not one is represented. Criminal defense is very expensive and the public defenders have many cases. I think the public defenders get more cases and generate more the more people they convince to plea bargain. Even guards have told me that there are innocent people in jail and they blame plea bargains. People plea to time served and get probabion and then are jailed for probation violations.
I personally was in jail 3 times without even being accused of a crime or of contempt in the presence of a court and without an evidentiary hearing or government prosecutor and without a sentence or bail hearing
Kay, I certainly have my opinion about the importance of access to law libraries by prisoners and, frankly, I’ve read enough appellate court opinions over the last several years regarding prisoner lawsuits against corrections facilities for either (a) failing to mail their pleadings timely in the prison mail system; or (b) denying them reasonable and meaningful access to the law library. In almost all (perhaps all) of those cases, the case was dismissed because the prisoner was unable to show the specific prejudice caused by the restraint on his access. In other words, the prisoner would have to prove in his complaint that he certainly would have prevailed on his claims, had been able to cite this case or cite that statute arising from the unavailed research. Said differently, if memory serves me, it would amount to a mini-case within a case and, perhaps, the imposition of a heightened pleading standard on the complaint, itself, to allege these specifics.
That said, I don’t know enough about your situation, last week, to comment on any specifics. However, I’ve posted some news & comment about JeffCo jails here (see the April 20th post).
There are a lot of people in jail. I heard that in Wisconsin one-fifth of all people are either in jail now or have been in jail. What I heard over and over again is people saying that they never expected to go to jail. I wasn’t even accused of committing a crime but other people I met were jailed for things that are common and I don’t believe are generally considered crimes. For instance, one 100 pound woman slapped her 250 pound boyfriend in the face. Not nice, but something you see people do on television without thinking they will be sent to jail. She got 6 months for violating two years of forced bimonthly with a noisy and controlling parole officer. I saw her every day for 3 weeks. She was a white middle class college graduate.
jail is super expensive and not just in current terms. It severely impacts a person’s family and earning ability. I don’t think that I will ever be the same. You hear women talk about the trauma of being raped and how that affects them. Well being in jail is like being repeatedly raped–including the assaults on your body. It really really bothered me to have strangers feeling my crotch and being forced to submit my genitals for inspection. I have nightmares about this.
All the case law and all the statutes are on CaseClerk.com and similar databases. It would be cheap to buy these databases and put them on computers and would save a lot of money for society in general as well as the particular people and their families. I think it is a sin not to help them. It is not just those on death row for wrongful conviction, it is those initially involved with the county court system who get their lives screwed up and can’t fix them. Just think, it could be you or your daughter or your mother or your sister next. Our rights are going down the toilet and the longer this goes on the harder it will be to restore our rights.
Kay, are you sure it didn’t bother them more than it bothered you?
Seriously, `though, Lauren, I think, has posted some diaries on the prison situation here in Colorado. Check them out.
I don’t even know the names of the people that felt my crotch but I know that they were either under contract to the U.S. Marshals or employed by the U.S. Marshals. One of them told me specifically that she thought it was against the law to do so if there is no probable cause that I committed a crime but that she would lose her job if she didn’t follow the standard procedure. I don’t think that the guards in general were comfortable with what they were doing to me when I pointed out to them that the forms skipped the place for a law.
It really really did bother me being forced to display my genitals for inspection and I had a nightmare about it last night. I’ve been married for 25 years. I think it would bother you if someone felt your crotch without your permission while they were carrying a gun. When I was in Georgetown jail, a man who was on work release supposedly brought a joint back into the jail and the rumor went around that we were all going to be strip searched because of it. That didn’t happen, but all the women prisoners in the cell talked about it and seemed extremely upset that we might be strip searched. Being strip searched and the apprehension of such is defined in the federal code as “assault”. Those definitions are determined after extensive public discussion and court challenges. If men came to your home with guns and forced you into a car and then felt your crotch and made you take off your clothes and show them your vagina, you would run to the police as soon as you were freed. If it was a policeman that did so and he didn’t have an arrest warrant it would still be a crime. How can an arrest warrant be an arrest warrant if there is a requirement that a crime and probable cause be specified and they weren’t specified? Otherwise, it is just a blank document with a judge’s signature not a valid warrant. If government officials violate your rights without the required procedure and conditions then it is deprivation of rights under color of law and that is a felony.
“Acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority, provided that in order for unlawful acts to be done under “color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcment officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council Persons, Judges…etc…persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs. Punishment varies from a fine…threatened use of a dangerous weapon…kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years ” (FBI Civil Rights Section Web site U.S.C. Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
I think that this law:
“No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Title 18 part 3 chapter 301 В§ 4001.
gave me a right not to have the U.S. Marshals chain me, point guns at me, and feel my croch without citing an Act of Congress, which they did not even after I repeatedly requested them to cite the Act.
“Solicitation to commit a crime of violence: “Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force …against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned….” Title 18 Part 1 Ch 19 § 373.
So would it be OK with you if strangers showed up with guns and insisted that they could feel your crotch and you had to show your vagina to them? Is it not a crime just because they have a uniform or are paid by the government? What if they put chains around your waist, shackles on your ankles and while carrying a gun make you go on a plane, would that be O.K. with you? I was specifically told by the marshals that if I alerted any of the passengers to the fact that i was being transported against my will with papers that were blank where the law was supposed to be that I would be criminally charged for requesting their assistance.
assault is defined in the Colorado laws