Trial: https://www.reddit.com/r/mtaugustajustice/comments/9vzjuf/trial_citylion_v_jamietechqueenskinny/

Queenskinny put a great deal of effort into demonstrating that the fact of citizenship was factual, but no effort into demonstrating the rest of the statement accused was factual. Citylion entered this entire comment https://www.reddit.com/r/mtaugustajustice/comments/9lxdug/trial_rhodesia_vs_s4nta_two_heart_mtndew98_venus/e9bwxmt/?sh=45468027&st=JO9DABFF and objected to two aspects of it: 1) citizenship itself, 2) the claim that you thought this biased him (he mentioned this second objection from his very first comment, as part of the linked expose, and referred back to it again later in the trial as well)

Queenskinny seems to be correct that citylion was a citizen technically, but made no comment on how she would believe that he is “therefore biased towards my clients” nor that it was “unfair to the plaintiffs and repugnant to my senses of justice and morals.”

In fact, Queenskinny confirmed during the trial that the citizenship was merely technical in nature and conferred only by definition as a blanket logical condition. She did not answer any challenges to show an application by citylion or any involvement or interest or investment by citylion, despite him challenging for this evidence.

I see no way that a reasonable person could consider a by-default, technicality of a citizenship with no engagement by the citizen to confer any sort of bias or unfairness, yet Queenskinny claimed both of these existed (did NOT just ask if they did, claimed that they did). Queenskinny provided no explanation to help me understand how a reasonable person could consider that. So citylion's argument is stronger, meeting the burden of preponderance of the evidence.

The defendant is found guilty, specifically for the comments “citylion … is therefore biased” and “This is unfair to the plaintiffs…” I see the preponderance of the evidence pointing to her not believing these statements to be true when made in a trial.

*Queenskinny is sentenced to 2 days exile pearl time* for this one substantive statement (just worded in two ways). Thank you.