whether it's a proper word or not, it seems to be having an effect the remainder of the document doesn't....it's getting the attention of the MSM and thus the normies. perhaps this is intentional for this exact purpose
So to me it would seem the Fictious persons ( prone to fiction) is an eloquent way to call the unknown people out as fabricating untruths, And the entities as non existent or fabricated for their relevant purpose in the scheme.
Knowing this, think of the twit feeds posted yesterday of all the brainiacs on the left calling out his lawyers for miss-spellings.
That seems to me a valid interpretation, a very elegant way of calling them liars and linking that word linguistically to the products of their lies. Added bonus of drawing people into an argument.
I noticed from your example of the filing that 'fictious' was used to represent unknown people and
'fictitious' was used to represent unknown entities--as in a 'fictitious business license.
I don't know legal jargon, but perhaps it is intentional and refers back to people in the case of fictious, and businesses in the case of fictitious.
MSM is using the “misspelled word” to point out how “orange man stupid”. Except it’s a real word. So I wonder why his lawyers chose to go this route.
Not mispelled, just correct. Fiction. What is something with the character of fiction? fictious meaning: full of fict-us.
Fictitious is something else etirely. according to etymonline:
fictitious (adj.)
1610s, "artificial, counterfeit;" 1620s, "existing only in imagination," from Medieval Latin fictitius, a misspelling of Latin ficticius "artificial, counterfeit," from fictus "feigned, fictitious, false," past participle of fingere "to shape, form, devise, feign" (from PIE root *dheigh- "to form, build"). Related: Fictitiously; fictitiousness.
With the question lingering .... as this is one of the most remarkable words in the whole lawsuit: Why use it in connections to the names, indicating both humans as well as corporations?
Think about it ..... What could the meaning be of those names: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, JIM COMEY, be in terms of fictious?
Are they really...... Clowns in America -agents with a alias-name?
Are names like that, in capitals alias-names?
other options I have not yet thought of.
Actually, This is fascinating to ponder. I am very much intrigued. As Q wrote in 3040: "Has POTUS made a statement/assertion that didn't end up being proven correct?"
Maybe it’s to distinguish between the real and the fake. Biden and Bidan. And all the rest of the stand ins.
I often wondered about this. If they (the DS) knowing put up an actor to play the part, (because the real Bidan died years ago,) how would you prosecute that case?
As “charming” as the deception is portrayed in movies, it’s quite the fraud. The co-conspirators list would be massive.
Just to have the most obvious explanation on record here, many lawyers will fuck around with their spellcheck over time, as legal language will throw off regular checkers. It’s possible this wasn’t the word that was intended, but also one that either got auto-corrected by a lawyerly spell-checker or was not recognized as a misspelled word when being checked.
Besides annoying the judge a bit, I doubt using “fictious” instead of “fictitious” is going to be a death-blow to Trump’s case. Misspellings tend to be bad when they allow ambiguity, but I don't think anyone is confused about what the intended word was supposed to be here.
Do you know how the Khazarian Mafia rose to power? It was by not making mistakes on the world stage.
Just because the Khazarian Mafia rose to power "by not making mistakes," it doesn't mean that someone else can't. Boris Yeltsin was known for being drunk on the world stage; was he "not making mistakes"? Considering how unpopular he was, it didn't seem like it.
The point I'm making is that the world is run by human beings. And human beings are not infallible. We grow by learning from our errors, and that includes world leaders.
Can I ask how absolutely you believe that? I am certain it’s not “perfectly incapable of making mistakes”, because that’s a trait reserved for religious figures.
So is it that Trump wouldn’t make a mistake, ever, in any capacity?
Is it that Trump would personally review every piece of writing sent on his behalf and would never have permitted this to go forward if it was a mistake?
We have reason to believe that Donald Trump proofreading a legal document would identify “fictious” as incorrect in a large, complex legal document? The man is a perfect proofreader?
Is it that Trump has never been shown to make a mistake in hiring anyone, so every single person involved in the creation of this document is also infallible?
It just seems like a cop-out to say, “Trump doesn’t make mistakes and therefore you’re wrong.” Surely he has to make SOME mistake in SOME capacity, somewhere.
If he isn’t a perfect speller, or if he doesn’t personally review every word sent on his behalf, or if the people who work for him are capable of making mistakes, then all those possibilities would lead to the potential that this was a mistake, right?
How can you differentiate “fake mistakes” from the real ones that literally every non-divine human makes?
Well said. It's completely trivial.
Fictitious means that the person isn’t real. Fictious means someone who is prone to telling fiction.
Trump doesn’t make mistakes. It’s like how they misspelled District in the Kraken suit. It’s comms.
Indeed
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictious
whether it's a proper word or not, it seems to be having an effect the remainder of the document doesn't....it's getting the attention of the MSM and thus the normies. perhaps this is intentional for this exact purpose
So to me it would seem the Fictious persons ( prone to fiction) is an eloquent way to call the unknown people out as fabricating untruths, And the entities as non existent or fabricated for their relevant purpose in the scheme.
Knowing this, think of the twit feeds posted yesterday of all the brainiacs on the left calling out his lawyers for miss-spellings.
That seems to me a valid interpretation, a very elegant way of calling them liars and linking that word linguistically to the products of their lies. Added bonus of drawing people into an argument.
According to Merrian-Webster, Fictious is an adjective and means, "given to fiction". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictious
I noticed from your example of the filing that 'fictious' was used to represent unknown people and 'fictitious' was used to represent unknown entities--as in a 'fictitious business license.
I don't know legal jargon, but perhaps it is intentional and refers back to people in the case of fictious, and businesses in the case of fictitious.
Just my thoughts,
sounds to me like it’s covering characters playing a part. like Biden vs Bidan.
20+9=29
u/#q29
this BRAVO!!!!!
reinstate yankee wally & suesmith etal
Fictious is not a misspelling.
MSM is using the “misspelled word” to point out how “orange man stupid”. Except it’s a real word. So I wonder why his lawyers chose to go this route.
He's drawing media attention to the suit.
Ding ding ding...
The definition of woman is being attacked and these slugs are attacking a legitimate use,
Post 4 seems pretty relevant
Just crumbs
POTUS remain neutral during indictments
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictious
Not mispelled, just correct. Fiction. What is something with the character of fiction? fictious meaning: full of fict-us.
Fictitious is something else etirely. according to etymonline:
What? Fictitious is a misspelling?
With the question lingering .... as this is one of the most remarkable words in the whole lawsuit: Why use it in connections to the names, indicating both humans as well as corporations?
Think about it ..... What could the meaning be of those names: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, JIM COMEY, be in terms of fictious?
Actually, This is fascinating to ponder. I am very much intrigued. As Q wrote in 3040: "Has POTUS made a statement/assertion that didn't end up being proven correct?"
Except 'Fictious' is an actual word with definition being 'fictitious'. Not a misspelling, why the use of both, I haven't a clue. https://www.definitions.net/definition/fictious
Maybe it’s to distinguish between the real and the fake. Biden and Bidan. And all the rest of the stand ins.
I often wondered about this. If they (the DS) knowing put up an actor to play the part, (because the real Bidan died years ago,) how would you prosecute that case?
As “charming” as the deception is portrayed in movies, it’s quite the fraud. The co-conspirators list would be massive.
I imagine the MSM will report on this bigly!
I don't know what it means either, but that's a great catch!
What message would this misspelling be sending?
Fictious is a word, I don't think there was misspelling, interesting why the word was brought to our attention.
Just to have the most obvious explanation on record here, many lawyers will fuck around with their spellcheck over time, as legal language will throw off regular checkers. It’s possible this wasn’t the word that was intended, but also one that either got auto-corrected by a lawyerly spell-checker or was not recognized as a misspelled word when being checked.
Besides annoying the judge a bit, I doubt using “fictious” instead of “fictitious” is going to be a death-blow to Trump’s case. Misspellings tend to be bad when they allow ambiguity, but I don't think anyone is confused about what the intended word was supposed to be here.
Trump doesn’t make mistakes, period. There is no way he would allow his lawyers to either. This was intentional.
Show me a human being incapable of making mistakes and I'll show you a liar. Everyone makes mistakes, it's human nature.
Just because the Khazarian Mafia rose to power "by not making mistakes," it doesn't mean that someone else can't. Boris Yeltsin was known for being drunk on the world stage; was he "not making mistakes"? Considering how unpopular he was, it didn't seem like it.
The point I'm making is that the world is run by human beings. And human beings are not infallible. We grow by learning from our errors, and that includes world leaders.
Again, my point is that human beings are not infallible, regardless of if they're on the world stage or not.
Powerful people are still prone to vices, emotions, ineptitudes, and all other manners of mistakes that the average person experiences.
Can I ask how absolutely you believe that? I am certain it’s not “perfectly incapable of making mistakes”, because that’s a trait reserved for religious figures.
So is it that Trump wouldn’t make a mistake, ever, in any capacity?
Is it that Trump would personally review every piece of writing sent on his behalf and would never have permitted this to go forward if it was a mistake?
We have reason to believe that Donald Trump proofreading a legal document would identify “fictious” as incorrect in a large, complex legal document? The man is a perfect proofreader?
Is it that Trump has never been shown to make a mistake in hiring anyone, so every single person involved in the creation of this document is also infallible?
It just seems like a cop-out to say, “Trump doesn’t make mistakes and therefore you’re wrong.” Surely he has to make SOME mistake in SOME capacity, somewhere.
If he isn’t a perfect speller, or if he doesn’t personally review every word sent on his behalf, or if the people who work for him are capable of making mistakes, then all those possibilities would lead to the potential that this was a mistake, right?
How can you differentiate “fake mistakes” from the real ones that literally every non-divine human makes?