demonstrates the officers’ actions in maliciously procuring the disorderly conduct complaint. Upon review of the record, the court finds no support for plaintiffs contentions. Plaintiff had adequate due process in the form of both a municipal and district court trial. In each of these venues, plaintiff had the ability, through her counsel, to cross-examine witnesses and test their veracity. At most, plaintiff has demonstrated that some of the witnesses had varying points of view concerning the incident. This does not, however, demonstrate perjury. State v. Barker, 18 Kan.App.2d 292, 294, 851 P.2d 394, 396 (1993) (perjury cannot be established by one person’s testimony countering another person’s testimony); see also Dukes v. State of New York, 743 F.Supp. 1037, 1042 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, plaintiff advances no facts to
holding that allegations of perjury require a demonstration that the witnesses actually committed perjury holding that hospitalization of witnesss wife and his desire to be by her side was not a substantial basis for admitting witnesss testimony from first trial holding that uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that fact that one witnesss testimony is at odds with testimony of another witness does not supply a sufficient basis for allegations of perjury