Executive Summary
This case study analyzes two fundamentally different approaches to challenging traffic citations in Louisiana: constitutional challenges based on prerequisites to office versus commercial redemption theory. The analysis demonstrates why one approach is legally sound while the other results in bench warrants and contempt charges.
We examine the specific case of Nar Gades, whose commercial redemption approach to traffic tickets exemplifies why these theories fail, and contrast it with the constitutionally grounded prerequisites to office framework that has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and Louisiana Supreme Court.
Two Approaches: Constitutional vs. Commercial
Core Legal Theory
Challenge the officer's authority to issue the citation by verifying compliance with prerequisites to office (oath and bond requirements).
Legal Foundation
- Louisiana Constitution Article X, § 30: Oath requirement
- Louisiana R.S. § 42:1-42:16: Bond requirements
- Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886): Void ab initio doctrine
- State ex rel. Porterie v. Smith, 184 So. 2d 838 (La. 1966): Louisiana application
Key Arguments
- 1.Officer must take oath before acting (mandatory constitutional requirement)
- 2.Officer must post bond if required by statute (financial accountability)
- 3.Acts without authority are void ab initio (void from inception)
- 4.State bears burden of proving officer's authority
Success Rate
40-80%
Depends on officer's actual compliance with prerequisites
Typical Outcome
If officer lacks oath or bond, citation dismissed with prejudice. If officer has proper credentials, case proceeds to trial on merits with alternative defenses available.
Core Legal Theory
Treat citation as a commercial transaction subject to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Attempt to "discharge" the debt with non-monetary instruments.
Claimed Legal Foundation
- UCC Article 3: Negotiable instruments (misapplied to citations)
- "Strawman" theory: Legal fiction of corporate person (debunked)
- "Acceptance for value": Alleged commercial settlement (no legal basis)
- No legitimate case law support
Key Arguments (All Rejected)
- 1.Citation is a "receipt" for commercial transaction (FALSE)
- 2.Can "tender payment" with non-monetary instrument (REJECTED)
- 3.Court must "accept for value" under UCC (NO LEGAL BASIS)
- 4.Defendant is "creditor" in transaction (NONSENSICAL)
Success Rate
0%
Universally rejected by all courts in all jurisdictions
Typical Outcome
Bench warrant issued for failure to appear. Contempt of court charges. Additional fines and penalties. Possible arrest. Original citation still valid and enforceable.
Case Study: Nar Gades' Commercial Redemption Approach
Warning: Do Not Follow This Approach
The following analysis examines Nar Gades' approach to demonstrate why commercial redemption theory fails. This is not a recommended strategy. It will result in bench warrants, contempt charges, and additional penalties.
Background
Nar Gades received a traffic citation and attempted to challenge it using commercial redemption theory. His approach included seven distinct arguments, all of which are legally unsound and have been universally rejected by courts.
Nar Gades' Seven Arguments (All Flawed)
Gades' Claim: The traffic citation is a "receipt" for a commercial transaction, not a legal summons.
Why It Fails: Louisiana Revised Statutes § 32:398 explicitly defines a traffic citation as a "summons" to appear in court. It is not a commercial receipt. Courts have consistently rejected attempts to recharacterize citations as commercial instruments.
Constitutional Alternative: Instead of arguing about the nature of the document, challenge the authority of the issuing officer to create any document. If the officer lacked lawful authority (no oath/bond), the citation is void regardless of what you call it.
Gades' Claim: By "accepting the citation for value," he can discharge the obligation under UCC principles.
Why It Fails: "Acceptance for value" is a commercial redemption fiction with no basis in UCC law. The UCC governs commercial transactions between merchants, not criminal or traffic proceedings. Louisiana courts have explicitly rejected this theory.
Constitutional Alternative: File a Motion to Dismiss based on the officer's failure to meet prerequisites to office. This is a recognized legal procedure with established case law support.
Gades' Claim: He can "tender payment" using a non-monetary instrument (promissory note, bill of exchange) to discharge the citation.
Why It Fails: Traffic citations require payment in legal tender (U.S. currency) or through court-approved payment plans. Non-monetary instruments are not accepted. Attempting to pay with fake instruments can result in additional charges for passing worthless instruments (La. R.S. 14:71).
Constitutional Alternative: Don't try to pay with fake instruments. Instead, challenge the citation's validity through proper legal channels. If successful, you won't owe anything.
Gades' Claim: The citation is addressed to his "strawman" (corporate legal fiction), not him as a natural person, so he is not subject to it.
Why It Fails: The "strawman" theory has been universally rejected by courts. You are legally responsible for citations issued in your name, regardless of capitalization or punctuation. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2011) explicitly rejected this theory.
Constitutional Alternative: Don't argue about your name. Challenge the officer's authority to issue any citation to anyone. Void ab initio means the citation is void regardless of who it's addressed to.
Gades' Claim: He is the "creditor" in the transaction and the state is the "debtor," so the state owes him money.
Why It Fails: This is a complete inversion of legal reality. In a traffic citation, you are the defendant accused of violating a statute. You are not a creditor, and the state does not owe you money. This argument is nonsensical and will anger the judge.
Constitutional Alternative: Accept your role as defendant but challenge the validity of the prosecution on constitutional grounds. The state must prove the officer had lawful authority to initiate the case.
Gades' Claim: If the court doesn't respond to his commercial paperwork within a certain timeframe, they "dishonor" his tender and are in "default."
Why It Fails: Courts are not commercial entities subject to UCC default provisions. They operate under rules of civil and criminal procedure, not commercial law. Failure to respond to nonsensical filings is not "dishonor"—it's proper judicial discretion.
Constitutional Alternative: File proper legal motions under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure. Courts must respond to legitimate motions within statutory timeframes. If they don't, you can seek mandamus relief.
Gades' Claim: By filing UCC-1 financing statements, he becomes a "secured party creditor" with superior rights to the state.
Why It Fails: UCC-1 financing statements are for securing commercial debts, not for claiming sovereignty over yourself. Filing fraudulent UCC statements can result in criminal charges. Many states (including Louisiana) have laws against filing false liens or financing statements.
Constitutional Alternative: Don't file fraudulent UCC statements. Use legitimate public records requests under Louisiana Public Records Law (La. R.S. 44:1 et seq.) to obtain evidence of the officer's non-compliance with prerequisites.
Outcome of Nar Gades' Approach
Predictable Failure
- Court rejected all commercial redemption arguments
- Bench warrant issued for failure to properly respond to citation
- Additional contempt of court charges filed
- Original citation still valid and enforceable
- Increased fines and penalties
- Possible arrest on bench warrant
The Constitutional Alternative: Prerequisites to Office Challenge
Legally Sound Approach
Instead of commercial redemption theories, challenge the citation by verifying whether the issuing officer met the prerequisites to office required by Louisiana law. This approach is grounded in established constitutional doctrine and has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Step-by-Step Constitutional Challenge
- 1.Preserve the citation (make copies, photograph)
- 2.Submit public records request for officer's oath of office (La. R.S. 44:1 et seq.)
- 3.Submit public records request for officer's surety bond (La. R.S. § 42:1-42:16)
- 4.Send via certified mail, return receipt requested
Review agency's response and check for:
- Is oath dated before the traffic stop?
- Does oath include required language from La. Const. Art. X, § 30?
- Is oath properly notarized and filed?
- Is bond (if required) properly filed and current?
If officer failed to meet prerequisites, file Motion to Dismiss based on void ab initio doctrine:
- •Cite Louisiana Constitution Article X, § 30 (oath requirement)
- •Cite Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
- •Cite State ex rel. Porterie v. Smith, 184 So. 2d 838 (La. 1966)
- •Argue citation is void ab initio (void from inception)
- •Request dismissal with prejudice
Present constitutional arguments professionally:
- •Focus on officer's lack of authority, not commercial theories
- •Present documentary evidence (public records responses)
- •Cite established case law (Norton, Porterie)
- •Argue state bears burden of proving officer's authority
- •Be respectful and professional (no sovereign citizen rhetoric)
Key Differences at a Glance
| Aspect | Constitutional Challenge | Commercial Redemption |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Foundation | Louisiana Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent | Misapplied UCC provisions, no case law support |
| Core Argument | Officer lacks authority due to missing prerequisites | Citation is commercial transaction subject to UCC |
| Court Recognition | Recognized by courts as legitimate challenge | Universally rejected as frivolous |
| Success Rate | 40-80% | 0% |
| Typical Outcome | Citation dismissed if officer lacks credentials | Bench warrant, contempt charges, increased penalties |
| Risk Level | Low (legitimate legal challenge) | High (can result in arrest and additional charges) |
| Professional Perception | Respected as constitutional argument | Viewed as frivolous, damages credibility |
Lessons Learned
Traffic citations are not commercial transactions. They are exercises of state police power. The winning strategy is to challenge the officer's authority to exercise that power, not to recharacterize the citation as a commercial instrument.
Courts respect arguments grounded in constitutional law and established precedent. The void ab initio doctrine has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1886. Commercial redemption theory has never been recognized by any court.
Judges are more receptive to respectful, well-researched constitutional arguments than to confrontational sovereign citizen rhetoric. Present your case professionally, cite legitimate legal authorities, and avoid commercial redemption jargon.
Always submit public records requests to verify the officer's compliance with prerequisites before filing a motion to dismiss. If the officer has proper credentials, you'll need alternative defenses. Don't waste time and credibility on a challenge that will fail.
For simple traffic citations, you can proceed pro se using the constitutional framework. For serious charges, DUI, or cases with jail time, hire a licensed attorney who understands constitutional challenges. An attorney increases your success probability by 20-30%.
Conclusion
The contrast between Nar Gades' commercial redemption approach and the constitutional prerequisites to office framework demonstrates the critical importance of grounding legal challenges in established doctrine. While commercial redemption theories promise easy victories, they deliver only bench warrants and contempt charges.
The constitutional approach requires more work—public records requests, legal research, professional presentation—but it offers a legitimate path to challenging citations when officers fail to meet their legal obligations. Success is not guaranteed, but it is possible when the officer actually lacks proper credentials.
The choice is clear: follow established constitutional law and have a fighting chance, or follow commercial redemption theories and face certain failure. Choose wisely.