The French First Couple to Submit Expert Evidence in American Court Concerning Brigitte Macron's Birth Sex
The French head of state Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte are set to present scientific proof in a US court to establish that Brigitte was not born male, per their attorney managing their slander lawsuit.
The Case
The couple initiated a defamation suit in the summer against political influencer a US-based personality, stating that she engaged in baseless statements to increase her audience reach and generate financial gain.
Owens declared that she would “bet” her professional reputation on the claim that Mrs. Macron is actually biologically male and previously used the name another name. She has since doubled down on these assertions across multiple podcasts.
Evidence Submission
Their lawyer confirmed that medical documentation would be introduced in court to disprove the claims. While the nature of the proof were not revealed, their representative emphasized that the Macrons is ready to show conclusively that the claims are untrue.
“Expert testimony will be introduced that will be fact-based in nature,” the attorney commented. “She is undertaking a procedure that she will have to participate in in a open way.”
He also added that pictures showing Mrs. Macron expecting and caring for her three kids would be included in the support.
Biographical Details
As stated in the court documents, the person in question is Mrs. Macron’s older brother who is based in Amiens. The brother allegedly attended President Macron’s inaugurations in the last two terms.
Mrs. Macron, seventy-two, is 24 years older than her President Macron. The couple became acquainted when Emmanuel was a pupil at a school where the first lady taught a theater program. She has three children from a prior relationship and several grandchildren.
Past Cases
Related allegations circulated in France in the past, resulting in prior legal action against bloggers. While the first lady and her family member at first prevailed in a slander claim, an higher court eventually reversed the verdict.
The current legal action against Owens claims that she dismissed reliable proof and rather promoted baseless claims.
Her attorneys have submitted a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that the jurisdiction is improper. Regardless of the response, the commentator has reiterated her position.
