monthly premium payment. The district court found—and the majority appears to agree—that Hardy’s interpretation of the letter to mean that the payments were fixed until he reached age 65 was simply his subjective understanding of the letter and unrelated to the objectively true interpretation of the letter, which was that as of the time of the letter only, payments were set at $41.67 per month. The letter, however, states that “[ujntilage 65, you and your spouse will be covered” by the insurance plan. It then goes on to say that the “monthly contribution is $41.67.” An answer that is technically true but that is misleading and intended to deceive the questioner (and that succeeds in doing so) is a false representation. See United States v. DeZarn, 157 F.3d 1042, 1048 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Lane, 735 F.2d 799
holding that allegations of perjury require a demonstration that the witnesses actually committed perjury holding that defendant could be charged with perjury where his testimony was technically true but was intended to deceive holding that a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and verifying the allegations set forth in the complaint were true and correct was competent summary judgment evidence 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 holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose