Is "Demanding Lawful Money" FRIVOLOUS?

Will you end up in court for demanding lawful money per 12 USC 411?

Well, is 12 USC 411 effectively-connected with 12 USC 95a(2)AND, are you doing it in "good faith" per 12 USC 95a(2)?

Isn't the above "good faith" clause in 12 USC 95a(2) still in force since it associated with the amended Trading with the Enemy Act as the "liability" clause in 50 USC App 7(e)?

But is 12 USC 411 effectively-connected with 12 USC 95a(2) and 50 USC App 7(e)?

Well, isn't it true that ONLY LAWFUL MONEY (an asset - not an IOU FRN liability) has the capacity to effect a true asset-based PAYMENT that is needed for a "full acquittance and discharge"?

Therefore, isn't demanding lawful money for a transaction the only way to truly fulfill the "full acquittance and discharge" clause of 12 USC 95a(2)?

Then isn't 12 USC 411 effectively-connected with 12 USC 95a(2) and 50 USC App 7(e)?

And, isn't this way of truly PAYing for obligations by exchanging true value, asset for asset, decreasing the national debt, also in accordance with the "dollar for dollar" provision/option intended in HJR 192 of June 5, 1933, and the only way to avoid the other "not required to pay" provision/option that undermines our national security by exponentially adding to the national debt via fractional lending?


Option #1 above leads to exponential increases in the national debt and undermines our national security, as shown in diagrams below.  It is in our national interest and OUR DUTY to demand lawful money and full discharge for all transactions per 12 USC 411 and 12 USC 95a(2) - as intended in Option #2 above!

as of June 7, 2014

Click search terms link below 
"national debt threatens national security"
to see the urgency of our DUTY!