What you are doing here is called "moving the goal posts", and alternatively is the "straw man" tactic.
Nobody is objecting to private property. So far as the law is concerned, the Father has a right to be a nasty person.
He should not have been, and I daresay it may cause him troubles in the future.
The Judge should have done the right thing and talked to the young man and then dismissed the charges.
What he put there isn't "litter", and it is a ridiculous misapplication of the law to claim it is "litter."
This is what the judge said”
““You’ve got a deed that says ‘no boxes.’ You’ve got a gentleman who’s been told ‘no boxes’ by a city lawyer in uncontroverted testimony. You’ve got a gentleman who says – and this is frankly where I lose my patience – ‘I don’t care what the rules are and what the law says, I’m going to do what I want.’ Well, he’s not. It’s a clear case of a violation of this deed,”
“The Judge should have done the right thing and talked to the young man”
The guy WAS “talked to” 10 times. When judges get people before them who thumb their nose at the law again and gain and again, they typically throw the book thrown at them, and rightly so. This judge let the guy off easy.