policy concerns require us to resist appellants’ attempt to make a mockery out of the trial proceedings by conducting a series of mini-trials. Appellants’ proffered defense is more analogous to one that attempts to negate the mental element of a crime through reliance on advice of private counsel. In both instances defendant resorts to a studied interpretation of the law as the basis for action. The Code cautions against permitting this type of defense. See Model Penal Code § 2.04 comment 3, at 280; see also W. LaFave & A. Scott, supra, at 595 (noting that case law uniformly rejects such a defense and that the Code is in accord). 7 .It is important to emphasize that appellant in Merkt I was not raising a mistake of law defense based on a factual misperception. Merkt I, 764 F.2d at 273 (<HOLDING>). She did not, for instance, "assert[ ]
recognizing that a mistake of fact may constitute a valid defense holding that a valid guilty plea waives a statute of limitations defense holding that applicability of the voluntary payment doctrine and the mistake of fact exception raises questions of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss recognizing lack of consideration as an affirmative defense to a release that is valid on its face holding that money paid under mistake of fact may be recovered regardless of the negligence of the payor