• Welcome
• Introduction
• A huge political affair
• The research
  and the persons behind it
• The main characters
• The Algeria connection
• Jean-Michel in the army
• The 1977 interview with “Véronique”
• Brigitte the teacher
• The pictures
• The facial recognition
• Brigitte Macron as a woman
• The pedophiles around the Macrons
• Other noteworthy facts
• The court cases
• Update tracker

FOURTH CASE: AUGUST 27, 2024, PARIS

BRIGITTE MACRON
vs
AURÉLIEN POIRSON-ATLAN, BERTRAND SCHOLLER,
AMANDINE ROY, & 7 UNKNOWN FRENCH CITIZENS

Cyber bullying

• At the time of the first instance hearings, this would be the most mediatised trial thus far in the Brigitte/Jean-Michel saga, largely surpassing the coverage given to the Third Case.
• In December 2024, the news came out that Brigitte Macron had filed a case for cyber bullying against Zoé Sagan.
  Zoé Sagan is the pseudonym used by Aurélien Poirson-Atlan for an AI account on X, which sent out loads of reveals of scandalous behaviour of French politicians, and was a huge source of information on the Brigittegate issue. (Xavier Poussard and Aurélien had become friends, and shared information about the Macrons’ unsavoury pasts.)
  The platform ‘suspended’ the Zoé Sagan account on July 8, 2024, 1.5 months before Brigitte filed her case.
• It was later revealed that the case was in fact against several more people, including Bertrand Scholler, a not widely known person who had been a consultant and banker, and has since 2013 a gallery of modern-art-with-a-political-touch in Paris.
• Bertrand had at that point hardly said anything about the Brigittegate affair, giving a strong feeling the Macrons are going after him for other reasons.
• On December 10, 2024, Betrand Scholler was taken into custody for 35 hours, for having tweeted about Brigitte Macron.
• Bertrand claims that he only once had tweeted a photoshopped b/w version (created by someone else) of the light blue swimsuit picture, without any commentary, while he was walking to Compostela. He had, however, made some time earlier a 2-hour analysis dissecting the official portrait of Emmanuel Macron (which hangs in every town hall in France). This video had apparently immensely irritated the Great Dictator Macronescu…
  Bertrand did not tweet any comment himself on the affair, and so it is only the fact that he once retweeted this picture that the judge considered the crime of cyber harassment, deserving of 6 months imprisonment!
• In July 2025, it was revealed that Xavier Poussard was in fact considered the main instigator of the “cyber bullying” conspiracy, and he was indicted separately as he lives in Milan, Italy. This is now the Eighth Case.
• There are very ordinary citizens among these 10 accused. Xavier Poussard explained that they were named through a very extensive effort by the Elysée to identify the origins of two items that went viral online: the picture of Brigitte Macron in the light blue swimsuit, and a parody song called “La bite à Brigitte” (Brigitte’s dick – but the French title rhymes). Both appeared around the same time in August 2024, and it appears that the song was inspired by the blue swimsuit picture. It was posted on tiktok and is still available on YT and on X; there are dozens of French parody songs about “Jean-Brichel” available online.
• It should be noted that the picture of Brigitte Macron in the light blue swimsuit was published by the Slovenian edition of Elle magazine, who had bought it from a press agency.
  Who created the song is unknown, it seems clearly an AI creation with a very catchy tune, based on a real singer’s repertoire.
• The investigation originally named Xavier Poussard, Amandine Roy and Zoé Sagan as the origins of these viral posts.
• It is obvious that none of the 3 people above created the picture or the song, nor that they were the original social media source for them.
• In addition, 12 social media accounts were identified and selected as suspects, for no other reason than having shared the song or the picture on their social media. These people have nothing to do with anything, and the reason for their selection is most probably intimidation, and a pretence of a “big organised bullying campaign”.
• According to Xavier Poussard, all of these people were put under 24/7 surveillance for three months (!), with bank accounts checked and all of their movements and actions added in their dossier.
  The absurdity of this expensive exercise, paid for by the French taxpayers, should be striking to all French citizens: Brigitte Macron (and if he really exists outside of Brigitte, also Jean-Michel Trogneux) is a citizen like everyone else: there is no legal political position in France for the wife of the president: she is an ordinary citizen before the law. Using the state budget and staff for her personal legal investigations can never be justified.
• Still according to Xavier Poussard, one morning in December 2024, at 6 AM, all of these people were suddenly visited by police officers, taken into custody, and their equipment seized, trying to establish a relation with Xavier Poussard. This in order to try to prove the existence of a ‘network’ of people who share content online, instigated by Xavier. Obviously, the whole effort failed, as these people have no relationship to Xavier and simply shared some content that was unrelated from him, because they liked the content.
  The youtube account Géopolitique Profonde, which features lots of interviews with Xavier and other Brigittologists, was also named as part of the ‘conspiracy’.
• Out of these 12 arrests, 7 persons seem to have been indicted, together with Amandine Roy, Aurélien Poirson-Atlan and Bertrand Scholler, for cyber bullying.
• It was clear from the trial itself that none of these people were the source of either the swimsuit picture or the song.
  In fact, it seems that after Laurence Auzière, Brigitte Macron’s alleged oldest daughter, had herself put the picture with the blue swimsuit on instagram, it was only then discovered by the public at large and shared so much. She quickly deleted it afterwards.
  However, she wasn’t accused and prosecuted for cyber harassment, even though she seems to have been the source of the hype.
• In a tweet of November 1, 2025, Betrand Scholler suggests that these 7 people were not selected randomly out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have tweeted about the Brigittegate scandal. According to him, they were selected by name, as it is statistically not possible to have a random selection of 10 French people that when listed alphabetically ends with a person named Poi- (Aurélien Poirson-Atlan, 9^th accused in the alphabetical list) and a person named Sch- (Betrand Scholler himself, the 10^th accused in the trial): there are too many French last names starting with R, T, U and V for such a list to be the outcome of a random selection. (Note that Amandine Roy is a pseudonym, her real name is Delphine Jégousse.)
  Bertrand also points out that Aurélien and himself were the first to be accused and taken into custody, before the others. Bertrand thinks that the court case was deliberately constructed to end with the two of them, and that the alphabetical list of the other accused was conceived as a build-up towards a climax in which the very present MSM would portray them as criminals, projecting the more vulgar and insulting messages of the unknown people who had come before onto the two more known figures, whose messages have an intellectual style that is less easily attacked, and would, without the added messages of ‘bad taste’, be much harder to prosecute convincingly.
• The accusation of “cyber bullying” is based on a law that was only recently enacted, in 2022, to protect schoolchildren from online bullying. The plaintiff and accused are supposed to be kids or teenagers.
• Obviously, this means that the law wants to protect children who see their social media accounts flooded with nasty messages targeting them. Brigitte Macron does clearly not fit this description, and on top of it, she does not have a single account on social media! To make matters worse, public figures are naturally exposed to public discussion and criticism/ridicule, which is protected by the right to freedom of speech: it’s part of the deal when being famous. She can therefore, structurally, never claim to have been the target of cyber bullying.
• In order to file a case under this law, the victim (again: supposed to be kids or teens) has to present the results of a psychological examination to prove there is an negatively altered emotional state resulting from the online bullying.
  Brigitte Macron – unsurprisingly – refused to undergo this examination that is demanded of plaintiffs, but pretends it is enough that she told the psychologist – who came to the Elysée to examine her ‘at home’ – that she suffers because everywhere she goes with Emmanuel Macron, the wives or consorts of the heads of state they meet are aware of ‘the rumour’ and bring the conversation to the embarrassing topic.
• A first, ‘scheduling’ hearing (where agendas and all procedural things are discussed) took place on July 10, 2025.
• The matter was then heard in two very long hearings on October 27 and 28, 2025, which immediately revealed the judge to be shamelessly partial to Brigitte Macron, which turned the affair in a dystopian ideological censorship case.
• For starters, he couldn’t care less about the very improper fact that the defence lawyers received a long and important document (the conclusions of the prosecution) only the evening before, or even the morning of the hearing itself. And this document also included the needed certification of “medical examination” that is supposed to prove the impact on the psychological state of the victim.
  To make matters worse, the document delivered way too late (which should therefore have been refused from the case, but wasn’t: another valid argument for an annulation of the verdict in an appeal’s court) does not certify or prove anything. According to Maud Marian, the lawyer of Amandine Roy, the document contained only two lines stating Brigitte Macron’s health status was ‘altered’. Without specifying in what way, and whether it had anything to do with her mental health.
  Let’s remember again that legally, Brigitte Macron has no special status whatsoever, that the position of “First Lady” does not exist in France, and that she therefore should be treated like any other French citizen in court. Which she clearly isn’t: she is treated as if special and above the law.
• The “crimes” turned out to be idiotic, for example “posting 4 tweets”. None of the accused, apart from Aurélien Poirson-Atlan and Bertrand Scholler, have any following worth mentioning: one of them has only 90 followers, some even less. None of these people had any of their “criminal” tweets go viral or have a number of views worth mentioning.
• Two of the accused did not attend in person, one of which would have been a huge physical challenge, as he is 80% disabled. He was, like all others, scheduled to be taken into custody that one morning in December, 2024, but due to his condition, that was simply not possible. The policemen requested to drop this person from the list, but Brigitte’s team insisted he should be prosecuted.
• It was crystal-clear that these people were chosen as scapegoats to set an example of what the Macronian regime will do to you if you dare mock them.
  Still, the judge was clearly inclined to believe that Brigitte Macron suffered tremendously from these actions, that they were “orchestrated”, and, worst of all in this setting of course, that they could very well constitute a crime.
• The MSM had been instructed to be present in full force, to show the French populace what happens if one dares insult their king and queen.
  In the days leading up to the hearings, many articles and TV shows dealt with the subject. Shockingly, the October 24 broadcast L’heure philo (“The philosophy hour”) of the national TV channel France Inter, even though not even dealing with the Brigitte case itself, started spreading one of the central dystopian notions from Orwell’s 1984 , namely that history needs to be forgotten. The participants in the debate lamented that the internet keeps a historical record of everything, and claimed that society has “the right to forget” – obviously to make sure the elite and their lackeys cannot be confronted with their former utterances that turned out to be lies or contradict what they claim today.
• It is noteworthy that many of the people who leave comments on the MSM reporting are clearly not buying it anymore, and that most of the French public is now questioning what on earth is going on with Brigitte Macron, and why the press is just parroting narratives that make no sense, and don’t provide or request any proof themselves.
  Some of the articles themselves are beginning to voice some mild criticism of the way Brigitte is dealing with this “rumour”.
• Natacha Rey, through her lawyer François Danglehant who was present at the hearings, impleaded herself into the case, and requested complete acquittal of all accused and for each a symbolic euro compensation for legal harassment.
• Juan Branco, the famous and young Spanish/French lawyer of politically controversial cases, who was supposed to represent Aurélien Poirson-Atlan, had to be replaced in extremis as he had had been suspended for 9 months less than a week earlier in what seems a blatant case of political interference in the judiciary: one of the main “crimes” in his function as a lawyer was to have delivered a request letter to a judge in a envelope that was black in colour, a felony that strangely enough does not appear anywhere in the penal code…
• Remarkably, Emmanuel Macron, whose approval rating had over the last months and weeks plummeted to an absolute and abysmal low of only 11%, announced on the first day of the hearing that the internet is a great threat to democracy, and that he would have a meeting the next day on how social media and algorithms have to be brought under the control of the state.
• The second day of the hearing saw Tiphaine Auzière being given all the time she wanted to steal the show and testify-by-proxy for her “mother”, to tell the world how much Brigitte suffers from these “hateful actions”, a suffering for which she, however, refused the legally required psychological examination that has to prove its existence.
  Tiphaine is a lawyer herself, and thereby very well placed to deflect difficult questions and avoid being cornered in a cross-examination. She did not testify about the mental health of her alleged mother with personal descriptions of real suffering, but repeated the exact words of the cyber-bullying law to describe Brigitte’s alleged ‘altered’ state.
  Apparently, this mere claim of her alleged daughter is now accepted as legal proof of psychological trauma.
• Needless to say, the state press was all over the tribunal as long as the prosecution and Tiphaine Auzière were in the dock, and didn’t stay to hear the pleads and final statements of the accused.
• The loyal servants of power thus reported in great detail on Tiphaine’s performance which turned truth and reality inside out: Brigitte Macron seems to claim she is an unelected person who suffers unjustly from all this media attention!
  While in reality, let us not forget, it was none other than Brigitte herself who decided to force her pictures and story down the throats of the French public. She deemed this necessary to get her husband elected as president, claiming that he needed to run in 2017 already (he was largely unknown to the general public at that moment), exactly because of HER looks and age, and that she would be “unsellable” by 2022 (when she (at least in public) complained about having to run again)!
• The press also showed sympathy for Tiphaine’s idiotic claim that Brigitte’s children and grandchildren are the ones who suffer the most from all of this! While in fact, it is exactly Brigitte’s endless and stubborn refusal to show any proof whatsoever of her life as a young mother that keeps the affair on the radar and keeps the interest in it growing all the time. Brigitte could have nipped this whole thing in the bud years ago by simply providing proof of her past, instead of making contradictory statements and insulting and suing anybody who doubts them.
  The absurdity that none of these “suffering” relatives are allowed to speak to the press or provide any proof themselves of who Brigitte was before she met Emmanuel Macron, is obviously completely ignored by these same “journalists”.
• The original court room the trial was held in was so tiny there was no option but to move into a bigger space as soon as it could be arranged. The press had been summoned and left hardly any space for the public, which had come to support the ten accused in large numbers.
  The proceedings in the small room were, for as long as they lasted, live-streamed into the hall where the people who hadn’t been able to get inside were seated, apparently to the dismay of the judge.
• With ten accused, each having individual lawyers, they needed lots of time to lay out their cases and defences, and the hearings lasted much longer than expected (while it could evidently have been foreseen). This put the accused in a disadvantage, as they had to wait for the prosecution to finish first with their plea. Brigitte Macron’s two lawyers were given all the time they wanted to plead, and they gratefully abused that right to talk for two hours straight, which seriously reduced the time left for the defence.
• On January 5, 2026, with many loyal MSM serfs present, the unsurprising but still very shocking verdict was pronounced: all accused were found guilty of having harassed Brigitte Macron.
• It is noteworthy that the court, against all judicial practice, all rationality and all common sense, accepts Tiphaine Auzière’s “testimony” – without any corroboration or additional confirmation whatsoever, solely by itself – as proof of Brigitte Macron’s suffering.
  The same goes for the flimsy medical certificate that was not at all certifying the required altered psychological state.
• It looks like the verdict won’t be made public (again the Macrons refusing to play ball and demanding the courts to keep their scheming hidden?) but it seems that all were given the same penalties, with only three minor deviations:
  • 6 months conditional prison sentence (meaning it will only have to be served if the person repeat offends within five years)
    • but Aurélien Poirson-Atlan would have been given 8 months
    • and one person who works as an educational assistant to disabled children received 4 months
    • and the one person who had not attended the hearings on October 27 and 28, 2025, (other than the disabled person who was physically incapable of attending) was given an actual sentence instead of a conditional one, and has to go to jail, which is almost scandalous and a huge middle finger to the citizens given the fact that Brigitte Macron never deigns to show up in any of her court cases
  • 6 months banned from using the social media account in question
  • 2 years banned from running for office
  • forced to take and pay for an online course of 1 or 2 days in “respect for people in the digital space” with a specific focus on cyber bullying
  • a fine of 600 euros
  • 10,000 euros in damages to Brigitte Macron, to be paid “jointly and severally” (meaning that it is a fine to be paid by the group as a whole, but for which each person individually can be held responsible to make sure that the full amount is paid, any which way)
• The one accused (a teacher) who had voiced his regret for having posted or retweeted whatever it was, got some brownie points and would, as he had requested, not have this conviction mentioned on his criminal record.
• The verdict was supposed to be delivered in writing the next day, January 6, 2026, but so far nobody has received anything yet.
  In an interview with GPTV of January 26, 2026, lawyer Maud Marian explains that the 108 pages long verdict can be consulted at the registry of the Parisian court, but that it can only be read, and that taking pictures or photocopies is not allowed.
  She was made to understand also that the written copy would only be sent to the lawyers after the expiry of the deadline to file for appeal.
• Almost all 10 convicts have decided to appeal the verdict.
• A very remarkable point is that the judge said in the reading that both the bans from social media and from running for office would take immediate effect.
  Not only is it not clear how such bans are to be implemented, but it would completely annul the right to appeal. If this verdict-in-first-instance would be overturned in appeal and the accused found not guilty, they would still already have been punished for crimes they did not commit. In such a case, how will the accused be indemnified materially and morally? Isn’t this an unlawful way to put pressure on the appeals judge?
  Until the verdict has been given in writing, there is confusion about what this all exactly means.
• On January 14, 2026, Pressibus reports the find of an article in Paris Match from almost 10 months earlier (March 27, 2025), which details the relationship between the judge of this case, Thierry Donard, and Eric Dupond-Moretti , the former Minister of Justice, for whom Donard worked at that time, and whose legal advisor he now is. Dupond-Moretti is of course a close friend of the Macrons.
  This is an obvious conflict of interest and taints Donard as a partial judge, hailing from the circle around Brigitte Macron, the plaintiff in this case.