Courts have found that parties who cynically use the DMCA to remove non-infringing material (including material that has a strong fair use defense) are liable for damages
The problem is that, so far as I know, no court has actually awarded any damages, nor has any appellate court created actual binding precedent (trial court verdicts aren't actually binding on any other litigation, though they certainly may be persuasive) on this matter. OPG v. Diebold was settled before any damages for Diebold's knowing misrepresentation of infringement were actually ordered, and that's pretty much the best we have. Note that in Lenz v. Universal, which is much more recent, we don't even have as clear a message as in Diebold, as that simply resulted in denial of summary judgment for the DMCA claimant on the issue of whether they needed to check for Fair Use before sending (automated) DMCA complaints.
Under the current facts (where there is, or should be, actual knowledge that the Fair Use infringement defense applies), I would imagine this case will have the same result as Diebold, but since we don't know how much of the Diebold settlement went to legal fees and how much went as actual damages, or how much a court might actually award, the threat of damages for false DMCA claims isn't all that strong.
Your spurious DMCA notices are sworn "under penalty of perjury" and are likely to come to the notice of your Bar Association
I believe the the "penalty of perjury" clause has been interpreted as applying mainly to "the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right," and not "allegedly infringed": you're only swearing that you represent the copyright holder.