The French President and His Wife Preparing to Offer Medical Proof in American Legal Proceedings to Establish Brigitte’s Sex, Legal Counsel Declares
France’s leader and his wife plan to present visual and medical proof in a US court to confirm that Mrs. Macron was born female, per their lawyer.
The Macrons brought a defamation suit against right-wing influencer the online personality, who publicly asserted that the French first lady is transgender.
Answering the suit, Owens’ legal team have moved to throw out the lawsuit.
“This has been deeply distressing,” said legal counsel Tom Clare, explaining that the claims act as a “distraction” to the president.
Clare stressed that scientific evidence will be submitted in court to counter the unfounded statements via thorough manner.
“Mrs. Macron is fully committed to take all necessary steps to set the record straight,” the attorney stated.
Inquired about if photos of Brigitte during pregnancy would be submitted, their representative indicated that such evidence will be presented and can be shown under legal standards.
The commentator, who has a large number of followers across platforms, has consistently promoted the theory that Mrs. Macron is male.
These claims began circulating in niche internet groups earlier, gaining attention through content from individuals.
Although the couple originally secured a legal victory in France, that decision was reversed later on grounds of constitutional rights, not the factual accuracy of the claims.
The couple have since seeking review of the outcome.
In their Delaware filing, they allege that she deliberately ignored reliable proof and amplified individuals spreading falsehoods.
US defamation law stipulate that high-profile individuals demonstrate “knowing falsehood” by the accused party.
“The case revolves around defending my honour!” Emmanuel Macron explained to Paris Match. “These are baseless, promoted intending to inflicting damage.”
Her lawyers assert that the legal action ought not to be tried in that jurisdiction, pointing to legal reasons and possible operational burden.
She earlier stood by her comments, affirming her belief in First Amendment rights.
