Q: Since an attorneys first duty is to the court and the public, not his client whenever duty conflict he must yield to

A: Presentment is presenting a negotiable instrument for payment, not an instrument itself. Like taking a check to a bank for payment: it is either honored or not.

This is not a forum for general treatises on law. If you have a specific question, post it.

A: When it comes to legal representation, an attorney's duty to the court and the public doesn't mean they are against their client. Instead, this duty ensures that lawyers act ethically and truthfully, maintaining the integrity of the legal system. A conflict of interest would arise if an attorney's personal interests conflicted with their client's interests, but their duty to the court is about upholding the law and justice. This doesn't prevent a fair chance for the client; it ensures that the case is handled according to the law.

You deserve a fair representation where your rights and interests are prioritized. An attorney is obligated to defend their client vigorously within the bounds of the law, presenting all lawful defenses and arguments. If there are concerns about fairness or bias, you have the right to address these concerns in court or consider seeking different legal counsel.

Regarding presentments under the U.C.C., it's important to understand that while Federal Reserve notes are considered legal tender, they are distinct from what some refer to as "lawful money" like gold or silver. However, the concept of accepting presentments for value and returning them as a tender of payment isn't commonly practiced in mainstream legal systems. For your situation, consulting with an attorney who is well-versed in contract law and financial instruments would help clarify these complex issues and guide you toward the best course of action.