BRI-SP: The court cases

Part 8: Cases and convictions are smeared out large in the MSM, but what exactly are the accusations, and who is convicted of what precisely?

One of the big indications that the theory is true, is the fact that the Elysée has immediately gone for court cases.
Please keep in mind that suing persons, especially for such issues as defamation and libel, are not at all common in Europe. The US habit of going to court at the drop of a hat is really not normal practice in Europe.

If this idea that Brigitte Macron is in fact Jean-Michel Trogneux was an absurd idiocy, the reaction of the Elysée would logically be totally different. They would laugh about it, and show some simple, straightforward proof. Like Michelle Obama did: “here are the pictures and testimonies of my childhood”. Since the claim here is that Brigitte is in fact her brother, the simplest way to debunk the rumours and expose the “conspiracy theorists” as utter fools would be for Brigitte and Jean-Michel to appear together in public.

But they don’t. Ever. Not once. Which is utterly incomprehensible.

Instead, the Elysée has now a high-placed military official on the court cases. That is absurd in many ways, and ties in with the ‘what on earth is going on in French Politics?’ main question.

The reaction is completely weird, and the content of the court cases and what goes on in them is even weirder.

• Before any case was filed, and based on nothing but a silly whatsapp message from Natacha Rey to Catherine Audoy, Natacha was arrested, without any warrant, and interrogated for five hours. Her phone was seized and not returned to date.
  The brutality and overreaction is indicative of the way this affair is dealt with: the gross disproportionality with which Brigitte Macron attacks the Brigittologists is striking.
  

• Court verdicts are not generally published in France. This is making it almost impossible to know what the court really decided. Legally, any French person can ask for a copy or go consult the verdict at the court, but that of course is an absurdly restricted way of being ‘publicly available’ compared to the normal procedure of online publishing of court verdicts.
  This restriction makes it super easy for MSM to publish false claims about the verdicts, as nobody who can actually prove them wrong will be given a platform of comparable reach.
  

• The main issue with the cases is that they never touch on the subject of Brigitte Macron being a man. Or being Jean-Michel Trogneux.
  

• Neither Brigitte Macron or Jean-Michel Trogneux ever show up in court.
  

• Two of the cases are filed by BOTH Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux.
  

• To prove their identity, which is indeed the core of the whole scandal, their lawyer provided birth certificates, or a marriage certificate, and even a photocopy of an expired voter registration!
  Obviously, these are not ID proofs: nobody in the West can travel anywhere or open a phone line or anything with such documents, they are not legally accepted proof of identity and contain no identification like a picture or biodata. The court accepting this nonsense is totally absurd.
  

• The unwillingness to show up together plus the absurdity of how the identity of Jean-Michel Trogneux is ‘proven’ only confirms that it seems almost impossible for the Elysée to give the slightest proof that Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux are two separate individuals.
  It should be the most obvious and natural thing in the world, but apparently it isn’t. There is only one logical conclusion here.
  

• The cases all target Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy, who are clearly being slaughtered to scare journalists and anybody else from talking about this affair. They are the easy targets, who had no experience whatsoever with the judicial and political apparatus, and had a very naive understanding of the powers they were dealing with.
  

• They are prosecuted based on a youtube video (taken down after only 5 days) of a long interview that could have remained a very obscure discussion in a far away tiny corner of the internet, but went viral, quite probably due to some of Emmanuel Macron’s political enemies seizing upon the juicy content.
  

• Unsurprisingly, both women are physically affected by the three cases that were filed against them.
  

• A first defamation case that had been filed by Brigitte Macron/Jean-Michel Trogneux and Sébastien, Laurence and Tiphaine Auzière, was altered into a case claiming “invasion of privacy” and “violation of image rights”, a crime unique to France.
  They claimed that she had been spying on Jean-Michel and such nonsense, which clearly is a sign that they have no way to attack even Natacha Rey for making accusations about Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux being one and the same person.
  This case was dismissed without being heard because the court ruled that it should have been filed as defamation, which was then done as the third case (but without the Auzière children).
  

• The second case was filed by Jean-Louis Auzière and his wife Cathérine Audoy, who Natacha claimed to be the mother of the three Auzière children, officially alleged to be Brigitte Macron’s children (Sébastien (born in 1975), Laurence (born in 1977), Tiphaine (born in 1984).
  

• What is remarkable in this second case is that before taking any action, the couple checked in with Brigitte Macron, who encouraged them to file the case, saying Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux would join them in it.
  

• From their answers to Emmanuelle Anizon, it is clear that they would not have filed a case if Brigitte had not promised to join them in it.
  

• Catherine Audoy reveals that the Auzières asked Brigitte Macron to attest that she was effectively the woman in the marriage picture – a very normal, logical, obvious and most simple and straightforward thing to do if the picture is indeed of Brigitte Macron, as is the official claim.
  But Brigitte Macron never attested this! On top of it, she did not join the case and left the Auzières to deal with it all by themselves, which they did not appreciate.
  In the end it was a cousin of Jean-Louis Auzière who had attended the wedding who would attest that André Auzière and Brigitte Trogneux are the bride and groom in the picture. This cousin will refuse to be interviewed by Emmanuelle Anizon.
  

• Natacha and Amandine were convicted in this case, as Catherine Audoy apparently could prove she could not possibly be the mother of the Auzière children. This verdict came first in the series.
  

• Natacha and Amandine appealed this verdict, but it was upheld, although the fines were lowered.
  

• The first and second cases were almost totally ignored in the media.
  

• In contrast, the outcome of the third case was shouted from the rooftops: the mainstream media abused the fact that the verdict is not published to falsely suggest that Natacha and Amandine are convicted for having claimed that Brigitte Macron is in reality Jean-Michel Trogneux, which is absolutely not true: the case did not at all deal with this crucial and central issue.
  

• What was not publicised was the unheard-of fact that the trial had been advanced with 10 months by order of the Elysée, which is an obvious and clear violation of the claimed ‘separation of powers’ in modern democracies: the legislative branch is supposed to have no power whatsoever over the judicial branch, which is supposed to be autonomous and independent.
  

• This speeding up of the trial came immediately after Candace Owens had started talking about the affair and “Brigittegate” became an international topic.
  

• On top of all that, Brigitte Macron/Jean-Michel Trogneux also filed for the wrong clause in the defamation law: they filed for normal defamation, even though there is since 10 years a specific clause for defamation concerning the person’s gender, which they knew, because they claimed the penalty for the latter.
  Such a mix-up would already have been a reason to annul the complaint, but it was allowed anyway. There is no clear explanation provided for this obviously strange wrong filing.
  

• This case for defamation was not based on the real content of the video that is claimed to have been the crime. It is based on a résumé made by someone in the Macron/Trogneux camp, who simply paraphrases what was said, which is obviously absurd: you cannot claim that someone defamed you by citing words the accused never said.
  

• It appears that in its verdict, the court considers several quotes to be slanderous, but they do not contain any names. This is absurd, as nobody can claim to be ‘defamed’ by statements that do not include their name. General statements cannot possibly be personally slanderous.
  

• The main claim apparently accepted by the court is that Natacha defamed Brigitte Macron/Jean-Michel Trogneux by saying that they falsified Jean-Michel’s birth certificate.
  This is a misrepresentation of Natacha’s conviction that the birth certificate was a forgery (without speculating about who would have forged it), based on the fact that she had effectively received twice an official reply from the Amiens administration that they did not have his birth certificate and that she should address her request to the municipality where he was born. Obviously, the official claim is that he was born in Amiens, like all the Trogneux children, so she addressed the correct municipal administration. When the document was produced later, she concluded it must have been a fake created after her requests.
  This complete non-issue is in fact the main reason for their widely published conviction in first instance.
  

• This conviction was overturned in appeal on July 10^th, 2025.
  Where does that leave all the big claims of “Brigitte Macron won a defamation case against the women claiming she is trans”?
  

• A number of social media accounts, including Zoé Sagan (a fictitious online persona of Aurélien Poirson-Atlan) and Bertrand Scholler, are sued for cyber harassment, with hearings starting in a few months. This accusation is based on a law that was only recently enacted, created to protect schoolchildren from online bullying.
  

• At the end of 2024, Christian Cotten files a court case against Brigitte Macron for identity theft and the crimes explained in Part 2. I have not heard of any update, I suppose this complaint is going to be ignored and dragged out and probably not accepted. We will have to wait and see how the public opinion is going to deal with Brigitte Macron. If there is public pressure and publicity given to this case, it might have to be heard.

Note that neither Xavier Poussard or the Pressibus guys or other Brigittologists have been accused of anything, while they have had a much bigger media presence than Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy. In fact, their video going viral is suspicious in itself, as Amandine’s channel was extremely small, it was a really obscure conversation in one of the tiniest corners of the internet.

It is not unlikely that they were chosen exactly to be the patsies in the strategy of the Elysée to attack the unveiling of a very nasty truth, in order to have a claim that “these conspiracy theorists were convicted”, without ever going into the details of the conviction, just to shut everybody up.

The reaction of the Elysée makes no sense whatsoever, unless the theory is true. Then it suddenly makes total sense:

• denying doesn’t make the claims go away

• the few pictures they put out made things only worse: they are only more reasons to question, and the fact that they are so few is very suspect

• there are obviously no real pictures that can be published of Brigitte Macron as a kid or young woman or pregnant or with her young family, as she was Jean-Michel Trogneux

• so there can be no truthful response other than “yes, you are right”, which is out of the question, as it would open up an immense Pandora’s box of illegality that Brigitte and Emmanuel were permitted

• but the whole issue won’t go away, and thus a strategy to ‘debunk’ the theory needs to be created

• the French media is completely controlled by the Elysée so if some court case can be won, it can be spun as having debunked the theory

• attacking the researchers is tricky as it might expose way too much in court and even get the judges to order publication of hitherto hidden documents

• but here are these two very easily discredited women who talk a big game but clearly are quite naive and make wild, hasty claims

• make their video go viral by using the press, then attack it in court for defamation, and then claim the whole claim is debunked