Question on law that may provide the most expedient method to extract the truth from a witness when on oath?

[demarco]

In a case in Chancery Court case (listed) rather than provide transcripts etc. from previous cases in which several fake witnesses gave false evidence to my detriment.(they did the same in two local magistrates court cases both of which were dropped much to their embarrassment,after it was so obvious they were lying) ,this would lead me to believe that their status would now be that of a 'discredited witness' (I think?) I already have all the statements of theirs from the two above mentioned criminal cases plus a previous civil case all signed as 'truth'.It then occurred to me that rather than waste time and money on court transcripts it seemed to me that by asking each 'witness' before they gave evidence in the forthcoming trial if they were aware of the penalties of perjury or perverting the course of justice that they could either tell the truth or lie and put themselves 'in the line of fire' for the obvious offences since they would know that they had previously signed a 'statement of truth' that blatantly contradicts the evidence they intend to give in the forthcoming trail.I'm not legally trained at all but have had a bit of a 'crash course lately ! If anyone could help me with this it would be most appreciated,thanks ! I'm also intending a private prosecution of the police soon,I have detailed digitally recorded evidence to support this in some quantity including a quote from two local police inspectors that 'criminal damage is now a civil matter' although they hung up when I asked ' when the statute was changed on this'.Any 'legal eagles' who may may be up for this and competent please leave details,thanks again !

[burdett]

No one can be forced to self-incriminate in the US. You won't succeed.