Interesting. We never used this charge unless it is under oath. I studied it in my academies but did not remember that it applied regardless of under oath due to the realities of my district. The standard of proof for the court system in my district is too high. Regardless, it is policy in my area that they won't take a case unless it is under oath. Like in many areas the standard changes and they can merely decline prosecution if they wish. The article says that the SCOTUS stuck down this requirement but I know full well that it is still alive and well. All they have to do is fail to prosecute at the prosecutorial level, and there is nothing SCOTUS can do about that.

Well, now I have a real charge to go along with my bluff. Thanks.