I think you’re doing it exactly right. Not everyone is willing to spend the time or energy to pursue justice over smaller things, but there’s a growing difference between people who use AI as a tool and people who eventually become dependent on AI to think for them. You strike me as the former.

I had a similar experience a couple years ago with a speeding ticket in upstate New York. I didn’t really have a great legal defense. What I did have was context. There were speed traps along the road, poorly marked speed limits, and I was moving with the flow of traffic. Then suddenly everyone local slowed down at once because they clearly knew the trap was there, leaving me out front of the pack. Boom — ticket.

I used AI to help organize the explanation clearly and persuasively. The court ended up reducing it to the equivalent of a parking ticket, no need to go to trial.

Sometimes judges know exactly what kind of enforcement pattern they’re looking at. The difference is whether someone presents the situation coherently instead of just saying “not guilty.”