You are hung up on semantics; on your misunderstanding of a word, as though that word is crucial to how a court case works. A "narrative" is a term in popular culture that applies to anything offered as an account or explanation of events. It is what Trump and his followers indulged in to try to explain his election loss. It was of course false. Any half-baked theory can be a "narrative". A "narrative" is not a case; the law requires much more than that. Even if it were plausible, on its own a narrative doesn't cut it. A court case requires evidence in accordance with the relevant law that meets a standard of proof. A narrative need not do that and mostly doesn't - as we see with many examples in the media and public life, and as you show with your false "narrative" here. In particular, in relation to the subject of the thread, there is no "narrative" that Salazar can rely upon to sue; he would need to build a case to do that. He doesn't have it.