Catherine:
1. IMHO, your best defense is to argue "entrapment" and that by ticketing you, the State has violated Federal Due Process. "Entrapment" is basically when the State creates a situation in which a normally law abiding person is baited into committing a crime he or she would not ordinarily commit. For example, having a "No Left Turn" sign at an intersection and then blocking off both streight and right turns and then ticketing those who turn left is entrapment. And, IMHO, having a parking stall that is not marked is also entrapment.
2. If you think you've got it bad, I get to spend tomorrow afternoon doing traffic arraignments in Santa Monica.
3. Last time I did traffic arraignment, the last case on calendar was for a woman who got a ticket for not wearing her seat belt. I asked how she wanted to plead. She said "Guilty with an explanation." I asked for her explanation. She explained that at the time the officer saw her and ticketed her, she was at a stop sign and thus was not actually driving and therefore wasn't actually driving without a seat belt. I told her that it sounded like she wanted to assert that as a defense and that iif so, then she should plead "not guilty" and have a trial. She said she did not want to plead "not guilty" and have a trial but that she thought she should not be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt because she was not in motion. This went on for 17 minutes.
4. Earlier in the day, a felllow wanted to challlenge a speeding ticket (70 in a 35). His "defense" was that his car couldn't go that fast given the distance from the last light where he had been stopped.
5. Court is not easy for anyone.
6. BTW: It was a Ferarri.