I disagree with the notion that anyone would honour a personal
sacrifice in this case.

Quietly pleading guilty to a non-criminal misdemeanor with a max
fine of $500 isn't much of a sacrifice. More than a few battles have
been won with a strategic retreat to a more advantageous position.

Throw aside your feelings and consider the reality. Brian is going
to pay the fine anyway. "Not guilty" is unlikely in the first court
appearance because he is facing a custom-written ordinance designed to
leave little wiggle room for the judge. In general you don't get to
argue constitutionality or other issues until you get into the appeals
process. That can take years and lots of money, which is why he is
asking for a legal defense fund. In the meantime the ordinance remains
hanging over everyone's head, and will become permanent if he loses an
appeal anywhere along the line.

Consider the alternative. Brian pleads guilty and promises to be a
model citizen. The city attorney gets his petty victory, and the EAA
attorney has a clear field to communicate and persuade. If the EAA is
successful, the ordinance is rescinded or modified via legislative
means. Game over, total cost $500, public relations for homebuilders
is positive. If unsuccessful, all Brian needs to do is park another
airplane in the driveway. He gets to pick the time (just prior to an
election is good) and the circumstances (a pretty airplane in the midst
of flawless housekeeping, with lots of photos), which means even if the
other side pulls out older evidence it is clear that Brian has tried to
mitigate. He also buys time to do legal research and raise money. If
the EAA has tried and failed, successful national fundraising among
homebuilders becomes a given. Hell, I'll contribute.

"Sue the *******s", "Go down fighting", and opinions about
personal freedom are expressions of emotion, not rational planning.
Please, let's talk about objectives, rational plans, and chances of
success.

Dan