Candace Sued! Just Another Legal Puppet Show?

Latest "defamation" case promises to be highly educational.

Update: 07/29/2025 Judge Sheldon Rennie assigned; 08/13/1015 Candace has until 09/11/2025 to respond, presumably date to remove case to federal also extended.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you know podcaster Candace Owens claims the first lady of France – Brigitte Macron – is actually a man born Jean-Michel Tragneux. This is based on the work of French author Xavier Poussard who makes the same claim after years of research. Now, however, French President Emmanuel Macron and first lady Brigitte Macron are suing Candace in the State of Delaware (where Owens' LLC was founded).

As a legal expert, many questions immediately pop into my mind: First, what is defamation? As Defendant, will Candace remove the case to federal court? Will the case ever meaningfully go to trial? How will this case differ from Dominion v. Fox News? How will this case differ from Sandy Hook v. Alex Jones or Sandy Hook v. Jim Fetzer? How will this case differ from George Zimmerman v. NBC?

I'll answer each of these below to explain how each recent defamation case was important to free speech and how free speech lost every time. At the end, I'll predict that freedom will lose again. I support Candace's right to say whatever she wants about the Macrons. I have watched her series "Becoming Brigitte" and I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Brigitte is a man, and that significant parts of society are indeed run by pedophiles who consistently go free.

I like Candace, but I don't love her. At the end of the day, she's just another statist, married to a member of the ruling class, who is not about to spill the beans.

What is defamation?

In law school, we learn that defamation is a (1) false statement of fact (2) of and concerning the plaintiff (3) published by the defendant to a third party (4) that harms the reputation of the defendant. We learn that "truth" is an absolute defense to any defamation claim.

Candace says she will seek a DNA test in discovery, and that much is obvious. DNA, plus a decent chain of custody, would prove the biological sex of the person now claiming to be Brigitte Macron. Unfortunately, judges control the discovery process. The Judge in Macron v. Owens could easily find that a DNA test is "unduly burdensome" and fashion a "protective order" against Candace. We might be left with all the photographic evidence which, while curious, is hardly definitive.

Brigitte (L) vs. her 18 y.o. brother Jean Michel (R).

Will the judge screw Candace in discovery? Removing the case to federal would help for various reasons, but she must remove the case right at the beginning, otherwise she is stuck in state court.

As Defendant, will Candace remove the case to federal court?

The Macrons set the case in the state court of Delaware. Normally the plaintiff (Macron) picks the venue (i.e. which court), but it must be convenient to the defendant (Owens). And, defamation is a state-law claim, meaning there is no U.S. federal statute on point. For this reason, for starters, the case is properly in state court.

However, there is an important federal jurisdictional rule called "diversity." "Diversity" means that if all the plaintiffs live in a different state (including the foreign state of France) from all the defendants, and the "amount in controversy" is over $75,000, then then case may be "removed" to federal court. While the Macrons do not specify a damage amount, it is fair to say the case worth over $75K. Should Candace remove the matter to federal court?

There are at least a couple of reasons why the answer is "yes," Candace should without doubt remove the case to federal. First, federal court employs the "PACER" system to document the case for all to see. While State Courts often (not always) have an online docket, PACER is superior. While not perfect, I have seen far fewer shenanigans in federal court than in state. State court is infamous for all sorts of corruption, including things just disappearing outright. If you want an example of corrupt defamation cases, see below.

Another reason is that the Macrons may well own this judge. Not that they couldn't own a federal judge too.

Will Candace counter claim and/or demand a jury?

The Complaint in Macron demands a jury. So far, so good. But remember, the plaintiffs can withdraw that. Candace has 30 days to file a response to the suit. The response can be either a Motion to Dismiss (not likely here) or an Answer to the Complaint. Candace's Answer can and should include a jury demand of her own.

It will be very interesting to see the approach her lawyers take. An answer can be simply a denial of everything the plaintiffs assert. Or, Candace can go on the offensive, stating whatever facts she chooses.

Will Candace counter sue? This 30-day deadline is also the time for that, called a "counter claim," and must be brought at the same time as her response to the complaint. She says she has grounds for a counter claim. After all, the Macrons are clearly calling her journalistic integrity into question. And, they have published their complaint in the media, not merely filed it.

Will the case ever meaningfully go to trial, and is it different than Sandy Hook v. Alex Jones or Sandy Hook v. Jim Fetzer?

Whether Candace moves the case to federal (she should) or not, will it ever go to trial? I doubt it. Not meaningfully, anyway. There's too much at stake. It might go down like the Alex Jones matter and the Jim Fetzer matter. If you don't know, both of those cases involved the alleged shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Both Jones and Fetzer published books claiming Sandy Hook never happened.

In both instances, the Plaintiff alleged they were defamed by virtue of having a dead relative. Jim Fetzer came forward with a birth certificate that he says was forged, pointing to various anomalies. Under the "law," such anomalies would be considered a factual dispute, and thus to be decided only by the jury. Similarly, Jones claimed the whole thing was a hoax, portrayed by crises actors.

In both cases, juries awarded huge sums of money to the defamation plaintiffs. How? Simple. The judge took the liability decision out of their hands. Jones was correct when he called his a "show trial." The judges used a trick called "judicial notice." "Judicial Notice" of any fact may be taken by a judge when that fact "is beyond any reasonable dispute." Get it? The judge finds liability first, then hands it to the jury to simply award a dollar amount.

I will certainly keep an eye on Macron v. Owens, but I smell the same rat.

How will this case differ from Dominion v. Fox News?

Recently Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News for defamation over Fox's contention that Dominion's voting software took votes meant for Trump and gave them to Biden. The fix was in on this one from the get-go.

Question: If you were Fox News, and your anchor went on the air and accused Dominion of rigging their software to mess with the vote, what discovery would you want?

Answer: Obviously you would want the damn voting machine. Specifically, you would want your computer expert to have access to the software so that at trial, he could point to lines of code and say, "There. Right there is where the code take votes meant for Trump and gave them to Biden."

Dominion's expert would also be at trial. It would be a battle of the experts at trial, and the jury would decide. But nonr of that happened. Fox NEVER sought the computer code in discovery. They did discovery for a year and a half. They sought emails from Hugo Chavez, thinking Dominion also supplied the voting machines in whatever country he ruled. But they never sought the actual software. That wasn't a mistake or an oversight.

In the end, it never went to trial. Fox "settled" with Dominion for like $800 million, after "admitting" they never had any evidence the voting machines were rigged. Sound like all was on the up-and-up? No? Me neither.

How will this case differ from George Zimmerman v. NBC?

We all remember Travon Martin and George Zimmerman. The jury found Zimmerman "not guilty" of murdering Martin. But this was after 2 years of hearing what a racist Zimmerman was. Did you know Zimmerman sued NBC for defamation?

George Zimmerman sued NBC and tow producers for maliciously editing the 911 call, and rightly so. In the 911 call, the operator point-blank asked Zimmerman "Is [the suspect] black, white or hispanic?" Zimmerman answered, "he looks black."

The NBC producers maliciously edited the tape to make Zimmerman say "he looks suspicious. He looks black." Obviously the intent was to portray George Zimmerman as a racist, offering that Martin was suspicious because he was black. Nothing could be further from the truth. Travon Martin looked suspicious because he was lurking in a gated community, doing with nothing in particular, and it was raining.

There is no question in my mind that The NBC producers and the NBC corporation were liable for defamation to George Zimmerman. What happened? Zimmerman's "own" lawyers screwed him. They "missed" a deadline for filing his opposition, and that was that. The judge then found that NBC the corporation was not liable because they supposedly had nothing to do with the editing.

I client is not supposed to lose because the lawyer screwed up. The lawyer is supposed to file a "Notice of Attorney Fault," and be sanctioned money themselves. The case absolutely should have gone forward.

What about the "Public Figure Plaintiff"?

Another curious point of Defamation law came up in Zimmerman, and comes up in Macron v. Owens as well - the "public figure plaintiff." In Supreme Court case N.Y. Times v. Sullivan and subsequent cases it was decided that a public official or a public figure must show the defendant acted with "actual malice" in defaming the plaintiff.

I don't think George Zimmerman was any kind of public figure. Who made Zimmerman famous? Why, NBC and the rest of the media did, of course! Think about it. In what other kind of case can the defendant change the legal status of the plaintiff?

The Macrons are public figures, I don't believe anyone will dispute this. But frankly, "actual malice" means – you guessed it – whatever the judge says it means. If he blocks DNA testing and says the "birth announcement" should have been enough for our girl Candace, then Candace is up Alex Jones Creek without a paddle.

Will "Judicial Notice" do Candace in?

It could eventuate that the judge - federal or state – in the Candace case will simply "take judicial notice" that Brigitte Macron is a woman, and send the matter to the jury for damages.

Only the beginning

Candace and lawyers - ball's in your court. I will follow this story. I sincerely hope I am wrong about all this. I hope you remove the case. I hope the judge allows real discovery. I hope it goes to trial on the merits, unlike every other defamation case in the last ten years. I hope Candace wins and collects a nice paycheck from the Macrons. But I'm not holding my breath.

I will give anyone 100:1 odds that Macron v. Owens NEVER reaches a jury trial on the merits. Either Macron will chicken out and withdraw, or the Court will deny meaningful discovery and grant a bogus summary judgment against Candace based on "Judicial Notice" (like they did with Jones, Fetzer and others) who got screwed on a "defamation" show trial.

The point of this puppet show is the same as the rest of them – you do not question what we tell you. Not about the voting machines, not about Sandy Hook, not about George Zimmerman's racism, not about the stuff we say is important. If we say Brigitte Macron is a woman and shut up about all the boys being sex trafficked around her, then she's a woman and shut up. Got it?

-Alex

alex@pmjmp.org.