• 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

SECOND CASE: FEBRUARY 15, 2022, LISIEUX / CAEN / PARIS

JEAN-LOUIS AUZIÈRE & CATHERINE AUZIÈRE-AUDOY
vs
NATACHA REY & AMANDINE ROY

Defamation

• After Natacha Rey had sent whatsapp messages to Catherine Auzière-Audoy (the wife of Jean-Louis Auzière) for a few days, without any response and ending with a threatening “I know everything” (June 2021), the Auzières contacted Laurence Auzière, who told them to contact Brigitte Macron.
• According to the Auzières, Brigitte encouraged them to file a case for defamation based on the video interview with Amandine Roy of December 10, 2021, reassuring them that she and Jean-Michel Trogneux would join them as plaintiffs.
• They filed the case based on Natacha’s false claims that Catherine Audoy would be the mother of the three Auzière children, and that Jean-Louis Auzière is the man in the wedding picture from 1974.
• Catherine Audoy reveals that the Auzières asked Brigitte Macron to attest that she was effectively the woman in the wedding picture – the most normal, logical, obvious, simple and straightforward thing to do if the picture is indeed of Brigitte Macron, as is the official claim.
  But Brigitte Macron never attested this.
• In the end it was a cousin of Jean-Louis Auzière who had attended the wedding who would attest that Brigitte Auzière (and not Macron or Trogneux!!) and André Auzière are the bride and groom in the picture. This cousin will refuse to be interviewed by Emmanuelle Anizon.
• It turned out that Brigitte Macron and her lawyer, with whom the Auzières had filed the case, did not join the complaint, and neither did Jean-Michel Trogneux (unsurprisingly).
• The summons for the only hearing (which took place on April 5, 2022) was received only in early May 2022 by Natacha and Amandine, a whole month after the hearing had taken place.
  Since they were not aware of anything, nobody of the defence side showed up in court. And the request for another hearing was rejected. The court ignored the fact that the accused had not received their summonses in time to be present, and simply concluded that they had been willingly absent.
• On February 14, 2023, Natacha and Amandine were convicted, as Catherine apparently could prove she could not possibly be the mother of the Auzière children, and Jean-Louis Auzière proved with childhood pictures he is not André Auzière and did not marry Brigitte Trogneux.
• But the court had accepted seven summarised, redacted, and reworded claims supposedly in the video, and not the literal words of Natacha and Amandine, as evidence of defamation, which is unheard of: the crime is exactly that someone said or published something, and obviously you can only be judged on the basis of these exact words, not on someone else’s interpretation of these words. If you steal a cycle, your crime is that you stole a cycle. You cannot instead be accused and convicted for stealing a car, just because someone claims you actually wanted to steal a car instead of a bike.
• The media used this verdict to pretend that the claims of Brigitte Macron being Jean-Michel Trogneux were debunked, even though the case never dealt with this.
• Within a few weeks, Natacha and Amandine appealed this verdict at the appeals court of Caen, explaining all the weirdness that had gone on in the trial of first instance, but it was upheld by the appeals court on June 28, 2023, although the fines were lowered.
• Natacha then submitted a request (including a 30-page report) for cassation to the cassation court.
• The Court of Cassation is the highest court for civil and criminal cases in France and many other European countries.
  It mainly takes decisions based on the transcripts of the lower court cases, and an appeal in cassation is normally a written procedure, with no hearings in person. Reports on why the lower court verdicts are not correct have to be submitted.
  Due to its different way of functioning, it is compulsory to hire a specific ‘cassation lawyer’ to handle the appeal.
• On January 21, 2025, the court rejected the request, claiming first that the report had not been signed by Natacha, and then, when it was clearly shown to be signed, the court claimed that it was not Natacha’s signature.
• This absurdity has led Natacha to request the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to acknowledge that her human right to a fair trial was violated, also because the Caen Appeals Court accepted seven passages which never uttered by Natacha, and can thus never be used against her as legal proof of defamation.
• On September 1, 2025, Natacha’s lawyer François Danglehant explained this on his X account.
• He cites violations of article 6 (right to a fair trial), article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the European Convention of Human Rights, and informs the case had been accepted on August 22, 2025.
• In parallel, Natacha and her lawyer had offered an out-of-court settlement to the Macrons, expiring on September 20, 2025
• If the ECHR accepts the claims of violation of the Convention, Natacha will be able to file a request for cassation of the verdict in appeal of the Second Case, which the Cassation Court will have to accept in compliance with the decision of the ECHR.
• At the same time, Natacha has requested a Presidential Pardon, as she was convicted for acts that she has not committed. Normally, her lawyer needs to then be heard to explain the situation, but François Danglehant has so far not been convocated.
• Natacha has also filed a case against the Auzières and their accomplices, because they have constructed fraudulent statements they claim to be Natacha’s, and have presented these to the court as proof of defamation. In doing so, they misled the court. This is the Seventh Case.