• 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

THIRD CASE: DECEMBER 2022, PARIS

BRIGITTE MACRON & JEAN-MICHEL TROGNEUX
vs
NATACHA REY & AMANDINE ROY

Defamation

• This was the only case that got real media coverage before the Macrons filed their case against Candace Owens, and the hearings of the Fourth Case were loudly reported on.
• It is the case that Pierce Morgan kept harping on about in his discussions of Brigittegate, and that allegedly proved that Brigitte Macron was born a woman.
• This case is a sort of relaunch of the First Case, which was rejected for violation of privacy, but accepted if refiled for defamation, permitting that the original filing date had fallen well with the French statute of limitations for defamation, while obviously it had now long expired.
• The Auzière children did no longer join this relaunch.
• Here again, Brigitte Macron/Jean-Michel Trogneux now filed for the wrong clause in the defamation law: they filed for normal defamation, even though there was since 10 years a specific clause for defamation concerning the person’s gender, which they knew, because they claimed the penalty for the latter instead of for the former. The penalty for gender defamation is higher, but apparently they wanted to avoid the case being about Brigitte Macron’s gender, so they tried to get the best of both worlds: file for normal defamation but claim the penalty for gender defamation.
  Such an obviously deliberate mix-up would normally already have been enough reason to reject the case off-hand, but it was allowed anyway. The court did not question or blame the plaintiffs for this extraordinary brazenness, and the lawyer never gave any explanation for it.
• To prove the identity of Jean-Michel Trogneux and Brigitte Macron (which is indeed the core of the whole scandal, but not the core of the case), their lawyer provided birth certificates, or a marriage certificate, and even a photocopy of an expired voter registration!
  Obviously, these are not ID proofs: nobody in the West can travel anywhere or open a phone line or anything with such documents, they are not legally accepted proof of identity and contain no identification like a picture or biodata. It is quite absurd that the court accepted these things as identity proofs, certainly since both never showed up in court in person!
  Remember that before the law, Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux are ordinary citizens with no legal position that would warrant a preferential treatment.
• The case was based on 18 passages of the summary made by someone in the Macron camp, and not on the full transcript of the 4-hour video of December 10, 2021, even though this transcript had already been produced on December 16, 2021, and attested by a bailiff on the request of Brigitte Macron.
• On September 12, 2024, the court condemns Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy for defamation of Brigitte Macron and Jean-Michel Trogneux.
  However, (apparently on request of Brigitte Macron) the court decided to not make the verdict accessible to the public, only providing both parties with a printed copy of it!
• This conviction was shouted from the rooftops: the mainstream media abused the fact that the verdict is not public to falsely suggest that Natacha and Amandine were convicted for having claimed that Brigitte Macron is in reality Jean-Michel Trogneux, and thus that this ruling proved that Brigitte Macron was born female.
• What was not publicised was the unheard-of fact that the trial had been advanced with 10 months by order of the Elysée, which is an obvious and clear violation of the claimed ‘separation of powers’ in modern democracies: the executive branch is supposed to have no power whatsoever over the judicial branch, which is supposed to be autonomous and independent.
• This speeding up of the trial came immediately after Candace Owens had started talking about the affair and “Brigittegate” became an international topic.
• It appears that in its verdict, the court considers several quotes to be slanderous, but they do not contain any names. This is absurd, as nobody can claim to be ‘defamed’ by statements that do not include their name. General statements cannot possibly be personally slanderous.
• The main claim apparently accepted by the court is that Natacha defamed Brigitte Macron/Jean-Michel Trogneux by saying that they falsified the official documents provided: birth, marriage and death certificates.
  This is a misrepresentation of Natacha’s conviction that Jean-Michel Trogneux’s birth certificate was a forgery (without speculating about who would have forged it), based on the fact that she had effectively received twice an official reply from the Amiens administration that they did not have his birth certificate and that she should address her request to the municipality where he was born. Obviously, the official claim is that he was born in Amiens, like all the Trogneux children, so, according to the publicly available information, she addressed the correct municipal administration. When the document was produced later, she concluded it must have been a fake created after her requests.
  Anybody who actually listens to the recording will understand that Natacha never implied that Brigitte Macron had personally spent an evening creating fake documents.
  This complete non-issue is in fact the main reason for their widely published conviction in first instance.
• Natacha and Amandine immediately appealed this ruling.
• According to François Danglehant, lawyer for Natacha Rey, one of the quotes deals with Brigitte Macron having seduced a minor with impunity: Emmanuel was 14 years old and her student when they started their relationship, which is legally a crime in France.
  Absurdly, Jean-Michel Trogneux claims also to be defamed by that quote, even though obviously, he has nothing to do with it. Unless of course Jean-Michel Trogneux IS Brigitte Macron…
  The appeals court asked for clarification as to why exactly Jean-Michel felt defamed by that quote, but Jean Ennochi, lawyer for Jean-Michel Trogneux /Brigitte Macron, refused to explain.
• On July 10, 2025, the Paris Appeals Court completely overturned the conviction in first instance: both Natacha and Amandine were cleared of all charges.
• Suddenly, the MSM (who had gone to the verdict hearing in order to do live-reporting of the expected re-conviction of the accused!) were eager to say that this new verdict did not prove that Brigitte Macron is trans. Nobody had made the claim that the court case proved this, but of course, in a reaction to the MSM’s own claims that the conviction in first instance actually had proven that she was CIS, it was now satirically claimed that, according to MSM reasoning, it now was proven she was trans.
• In July 2025, Brigitte Macron and “Jean-Michel Trogneux” filed a request for cassation to the Cassation Court.
• Very remarkably and extraordinarily, this request was doubled by Marie-Suzanne le Quéau, attorney general of the Paris Appeals Court, flatly throwing her own judges under the bus, with a paper submitted by Isabelle Rayaud-Gentil, first advocate general of the same court.
  It is quite unheard of that the attorney general files a request for cassation in an ordinary court case, this normally only happens in rare cases where a certain verdict touches upon legal matters and jurisprudence, and in order to obtain a clear interpretation and guideline from the Cassation Court for similar cases.
  In this case, it is a purely personal and civil matter, and this act raises very serious questions about the impartiality of France’s judges.
• Because of this extraordinary behaviour and the content of the paper submitted by Isabelle Rayaud-Gentil and endorsed by Marie-Suzanne Le Quéau, Natacha has filed a complaint against them and Brigitte Macron, Jean-Michel Trogneux and their lawyer for fraud in the face of justice as an organised group, as they all claim that the paraphrased and fabricated passages that supposedly summarise the video content are actually acceptable as evidence to condemn Natacha and Amandine for defamation.
  This is the Twelfth Case.
• Natacha has requested the recusal of the four Cassation Court judges who rejected her request for cassation of the Second Case appeals court ruling on illegal grounds: it would not be acceptable that these same judges were appointed also as the judges in this new cassation request.
• Xavier Poussard claims, very plausibly, that the cases against him and Candace Owens (Case Eight and Nine) were launched in all haste after this verdict, as the judges had asked Jean Ennochi (Brigitte Macron’s lawyer) if they were being prosecuted, to which Ennochi had no reply.
  In order to make a funded request for cassation to the Cassation Court, the Macron camp therefore needed to immediately have a “yes yes yes they are” answer to this same question, in order to remove that strange contradiction of not legally pursuing the people who are blatantly way more important and bigger in propagating the “rumour”.
• In an interview with Radio Courtoisie of October 23, 2025, François Danglehant, who has become Natacha’s main lawyer since the appeal of the Second Case, voices the opinion that a filing for defamation would normally not succeed for Brigitte Macron, as being transgender is not an action but a civil status.