On July 10, the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted two women of defaming Brigitte Macron who claimed, in a video that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman born a man, originally called Jean-Michel Trogneux.
But Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron were very fortunate to escape libel and criminal charges, it turns out.
Crucially, the Court of Appeal in Paris failed to use its power to investigate whether Jean Michel Trogneux exists or not by ordering more documents to be produced, calling him to testify also together with Brigitte Macron etc sparking condemnation in the French media.
Two weeks later, on July 23, 2025, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. against Candace Owens, knowing they had not been able to fulfil the minimum reasonable standard of evidence in French courts. knowing the courts had ruled for the two women citing free speech concerns, and knowing had only gotten away with a counter suit because the Appeals Court in Paris failed to use its power to investigate the key facts.
To hide the absense of all proofs, all evidence of false claims, the Macron s lawyers opted for a lawsuit against Candace Owens packed with irrelevancies, unwarranted assumptions, with a mere election cards to support their central claim, considered insufficient in France, and other false and defamatory claims of 200 plus pages in the hope, it seems, of confusing an dwearing down Candace Owens.
Ownes should cut to the chase and focus on the core facts and on discovery of the essential facts in the civil case in the USA.
She can do this with a 10 page reply to the Macrons. She need not bother with all the inessential, irrevelant stuff designed just to distract and confuse, it seems.
Due to the exceptional, high profile, public interest case involving the free media, the US civil courts must allow discovery to clarify if JMT and BM are the same or different people.
The Appeals Court in Paris had, and has, the power to investigate matters and to clarify whether claims are true or false, according to articles 513 and 515 and other articles of the Code de procédure penale (CPP)
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000039623238
En droit français, l’article 515 à 520 du Code de procédure pénale permettent à la Cour d’appel, dans des cas exceptionnels, d’ordonner des mesures d’investigation complémentaires si des éléments essentiels manquent pour trancher l’affaire. Ces articles lui confèrent aussi le pouvoir d’ordonner la comparution personnelle des parties, y compris les parties civiles, si elle le juge nécessaire à l’examen des faits ou à la manifestation de la vérité. Pourquoi, dès lors, la Cour n’exige-t-elle pas la présence de Brigitte Macron et Jean-Michel Trogneux ? Une telle comparution pourrait pourtant lever les doutes persistants, alimentés par certaines thèses relayées dans la vidéo de 2021, selon lesquelles Brigitte Macron serait en réalité Jean-Michel Trogneux. La fragilité de la carte d’électeur comme preuve d’identité en première instance ne fait qu’amplifier ces interrogations.
La Cour a les moyens juridiques de clarifier cette hypothèse, mais ne se les donne pas, laissant planer un mystère que beaucoup jugent troublant.
...
Malgré ses pouvoirs, codifiés aux articles 513 et 515 du CPP, pour ordonner des investigations ou la comparution des parties – ce qui permettrait notamment de dissiper les spéculations sur la confusion entre Brigitte Macron et Jean-Michel Trogneux, jusque-là mise en doute par la simple présentation de la carte d’électeur pour Jean-Michel –, la Cour semble opter pour l’inaction.
Media like Francesoir expressed surprise over the fact that an Appeals court in Paris did not use its power to request the presence of Brigitte Macron and et Jean-Michel Trogneux to silence doubts as to their gender and relationship.
Francesoir said the "fragility of the election card as a propf of identity (of co plaintiff JMT) in the first instance" only amplified the questions.
Francesoir called the failure of the court to investigate when it had the power to do so a "mystery which many consider troubling."
To clarify, the Macrons could only present to the French courts Jean Michel Trogneux s election card, which was considered suspicious by French media.
The Appeals Court never asked for more evidence or their appearance! Likely because the judges guessed the Macrons would be found to be brazen liars and face counter lawsuits and even criminal charges for faking election cards and double voting.
On July 10, the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted two women of defaming Brigitte Macron.
Delphine Jegousse and Nathalie Rey claimed, in a video posted in 2021, that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman born a man, originally called Jean-Michel Trogneux.
That is, the Appeals court ruled there is no evidence that their claims were false.
To recap, a year earlier, in September 2024 the first instance Paris Judicial Court found both women guilty of defamation without examining the evidence to ascertain the true facts.
But in Paris Court of Appeal in July 2025 said the allegations about gender and transition were made “in good faith” and did not constitute defamation given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society.
The court overturned the women’s convictions and acquitted them of all charges.
On July 23, 2025, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. against Candace Owens, knowing they had not been able to fulfil the minimum reasonable standard of evidence in French courts and had only gotten away with a counter suit because the Appeals Court failed to use its power to investigate the key facts.
To hide the absense of all proofs, the Macron s lawyers opted for a lawsuit packed with irrelevancies, unwarranted assumptions, false and defamatory claims of 200 plus pages in the hope of wearing down Candace Owens.
She should cut to the chase and focus on the core.
She has been accused of defamation in relation to specific claims that Brigitte Macron was a transgender woman born a man, originally called Jean-Michel Trogneux.
That is al she has to focus on.
She has the right to ask the court to investigate, collect docs, summons witnesses to detemine the true facts.
Moreover, the fact Macron posed of his free will shirtless on the front cover of a gay mag, Garcon, in 2017, attracting global attention, shows that he does not consider rumours he is gay ( or may have a transgender wife) to cause serious harm to his reputation. He fuelled those rumours himself.
What the Macrons are engaged in is an attack on free speech condemned by the Appeals Court in Paris in their ruling in July 10th and this time in the USA.
Candace Owens should in my view shorten the process by emailing the Macrons lawyer, listing the documents, records, appearances she will request under discovery and asking them to reply in good faith and supply them within ten days.
If they fail to do so, they will show bad faith. They will no longer be able to use the truth and honest opinion defence to claim that they believed the allegation that she committed defamation was true, their opinion was based on facts and supported by facts, and reasonable, and ther lawsuit was justified.
When it does come to discovery, she can claim far more damages from them for their malicious lawsuit.
She should ask for billions in my view and file criminal charges when the true facts are discovered as they must eventually be in the USA under due process even if corrupt judges in the first instances do not allow discovery. By the time it comes to the Appeals or Supreme Court, the issue of discovery must be addressed and it must be allowed. A court cannot decide legally and lawfully on whether a claim is true or not without discovery.
The President of France has misused his office to attack free speech in the USA using lawfare.
Whatever reputation Macron may have had for intelligence is now shredded.
If he did have to pursue the legal avenue, he could have presented a more sophisticated and plausible suit. But this? A screed of defamatory claims, diversion, irrelevance and logical fallacies?
This against a plainly very intelligent journalist like Candace Owen?
Who are Macrons legal advisors? Why did he not have the brains to stop them? Or was it his idea to dig his own grave?
Not only does he appear to be a moron and a thug attacking free speech, he exposes himself and Brigitte to criminal charges including obtaining office under false pretences because he did not tell voters about his transgender wife exposing him to blackmail.
It is incredible that the Macrons are using the same election cards as the main proof of the existence of JM Trogneux in the USA.
Macron s lawsuit is filled with misrepresentations of Candace Owens claims, irrelevant and often apparantly defamatory claims in what appears to be a tactic to confuse and divert from the key issue, which Ekathimerini says a Greek Minister uses.
"A good lawyer’s greatest asset is the ability to confuse an issue to such an extent that reality no longer seems to make any sense. And Makis Voridis, as we’ve often said, is a good lawyer."
...
There are so many questions left unanswered that any judicial authority would be compelled to ask any ordinary citizen. When it comes to ministers, though, “there is no evidence…”
https://www.ekathimerini.com/opinion/1276784/so-many-unanswered-questions/
This may be true of the Greek parliament but not of the rest of the world in 2025.
Anyone who reads the comments on the interview of Dr Drew and Robert Barnes on the lawsuit can see the public has understood that he, like the Macrons, are missing the point.
An irrelevant conclusion,[1] also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for 'ignoring refutation') or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument whose conclusion fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2]
The irrelevant conclusion should not be confused with formal fallacy, an argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises; instead, it is that despite its formal consistency it is not relevant to the subject being talked about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion#Works_cited
The Macrons seem to be using the well known fallacy of unwarranted assumption.
Fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person assumes something unwarranted to draw their conclusion.15 Ιουν 2022
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies.
What is the fallacy of unproven and untrue?
The fallacy is committed when one asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
When Candace Owens requests the facts to be examined and witnesses to be called at discovery, then she can expose the entire scam.
If the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, Brigitte, wants to win legal proceedings over the spread of false claims that she is a transgender woman who was born a man, then she, Emmanual and her lawyers must know that they can and must prove defamation by presenting JM Trogneux in person as a witness to be cross examined and his official employment, social security, pension records, witnesses together with Brigitte.
If they cannot do this, they will be accused of malicious defamation suit and exposed to penalities.
The Macrons, assisted by top lawyers, must realize they must prove the accusations are baseless for a win to hold in court in the USA and they cannot do so or they would have done so in France. The trial must be fair and follow due process for a judgment to hold. Merely to pressure judges is not enough to "win." in the courts of law or public opinion as the Greek Minister are finding out.
What madness possessed Macrons to commit legal and political suicide by embarking on this lawsuit in the USA where Candace Owens will insist on discover, which will lead to their exposure, massive fines, criminal charges also for forging election cards and maybe even prison in 2025 given how unpopular Macron is?
We can see the same madness in the Greek prosecutor probes where the violations, crimes against a reporter are so plain and so plainly conducted by corrupted prosecutors and lawyers and so clearly ongoing, that Trump, Kiushner, Gates and Soros can be arrested today.
Looks like the Macrons need to get ready for orange jumpsuits along with Trump, Gates and Soros. They will have no one to blame but themselves for projecting onto Candace Owen! and the public an IQ of ten or using ChatGPT.
Everyone who expected better of Macron, more btains, is sorely disappointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment