FWIW-Don't wear the cape to court dude.
Of course not; this is what the suit-and-tie is for.
"we were obeying the signs posted (and therefore, conviction for something not posted is entrapment)"
Driving off a cliff and running in front of a bus are not posted, are those entrapment also?
This is not at all the same thing.
The signs clearly are intended to advise me of the rules about this particular thing. I obeyed the rules as reasonably understood from that. If in doing so, I am violating the law *that those signs are supposed to cover*, then it's entrapment.
A parallel case would be if a parking sign said "except after 6pm, sat & sun", I parked and didn't pay after 6 or on a Saturday, and it turned out that the actual law regulating it had no such exception. This would again be entrapment, 'cause a reasonable person obeys the sign and is nonetheless "guilty" of the thing the sign is supposed to be advising him how to obey.
Your "not posted" bit is pure red herring.
... wanted to argue that he was a reasonable person, thus her citation was invalid.
That's silly. The question is not whether he's a reasonable person, but whether his actions are reasonable. Not all actions of reasonable people are reasonable.
Argue facts, make a plea for mercy. Those are the only 2 things I've seen work at all.
FWIW almost all the points I listed are based on the "in the interest of justice" leeway the judge has. I.e. given that I was behaving reasonably, I ought not be punished.
You'll never convince the judge that the agency lacks the authority to codify law - they wouldn't do it if they couldn't.
You'll have to excuse me for not believing that a priori. Governments do illegal things plenty; that's what the courts are for, after all. If they never did anything illegal, then we wouldn't have judges overturning laws on a regular basis, m?
In any case, I listed that point as questionable, since I don't (yet) know where MROSD gets its authority.
Being cited for something that is not signed is not entrapment. Of anyone, I would expect you to know that.
That's not what I argued. I argued that it *is* signed, I obeyed the sign, and it is not my fault if doing so ("reasonable" standard applies here) makes me still violate the underlying law.
Just because you don't know the exact fine is irrelevant.
I would disagree with that. Knowing the fine is part of knowing the charges you are up against and thus making decisions about how to handle the case.
Sunrise and sunset are still just *a time*. There's no beginning and no end. It is just a moment. Wikipedia and other legit places make that quite clear. Dusk, twilight, and others may be nebulous, but sunset is not. It's a published time, and can be easily looked up.
Their *beginnings* are certainly published and easily looked up, and defined as "sun is at zero degrees to horizon".
But that does not mean that they are punctual *events*.
E.g. the sentence "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes after sunset" doesn't make sense - you can't watch something after it's finished. Vs. "we watched the sunset for 20 minutes until it ended, after which we left" does make sense. Thus it's an event with duration.
Fines and fees may be excessive. That's judges discretion. You could ask for a reduction. If you go the route that the citation is invalid because of this, though, you will probably be unhappy with the result.
Excessiveness can factor into the constitutionality of a law. 8th amendment: “
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
And it's not the only point n which I'm arguing that I should be found not guilty, charges dismissed, or fines reduced. That's why there are multiple arguments; they get at different aspects. This one gets at just the excessiveness of the fines.
Trust me on this one. Good luck. If you approach this right, I believe you will prevail.
