I am in the absolute best mood over this Macron dismissal. Feels like a year and a half of my family having to deal with psychotic lies regarding pending bankruptcies, secret accounts and plans to flee the country, has finally come to end. For those of you wondering what happens now with the case, here is a synopsis: You will note the Macrons additionally named two other business entities in their lawsuit: Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc. They admitted in our hearing that they were unsure if one or both of these entities housed the podcast and that they would need limited discovery to determine how those businesses run and who runs them. As it turns out, one of the above mentioned entities has absolutely nothing to do with the podcast in any way, shape, or form, so it will be a legal exercise in futility for the couple. In effect, that leaves just one entity. In addition to my personal dismissal, the court also decided in favor of our argument that France’s defamation law should apply. Let me explain to you why that decision deeply impacts matters and was a major point of legal contention; France’s defamation law has a statute of limitation of just 3 months. This means defamation claims time out very quickly. We argued the Macron couple was intentionally forum shopping because being held to France’s 3 months would have naturally expired their claims. We included a briefing from a French legal expert explaining French defamation law. The Macrons did not submit a briefing to counter our arguments, but during oral arguments they suggested that France has a unique statutory law that could, in theory, extend claims up to one year IF the defamation claim pertains to an individual’s sexual orientation or gender. Before ruling on the dismissal pertaining to the remaining entities, the judge is allowing for the Macron couple to submit a supplemental brief, arguing why they believe this case could meet that threshold In his response (see below), the Judge has duly noted our legal expert’s notation that in parallel cases filed by the Presidential couple against other journalists in France, the couple sued under France’s 3 month defamation rule—not the one year statutory. I believe it is worth again noting that the couple is NOT and has never sued anyone for matters pertaining to sex, sexual orientation, or gender (despite intentional media misrepresentations), but rather for defamation related to claims regarding MK Ultra and theft. You are free to read their initial filing against me yourself. So what happens now is the remaining entities and the Macrons submit additional briefings regarding French law and statutes. The judge will then rule on the lingering dismissals.

🙌🙌 Also what exactly does Macron’s lawyer mean when he says they would consider “other ways” to hold me personally accountable despite the ruling. Your client is the sitting President of a foreign country that is currently on fire. He should maybe reflect and consider ways to be personally responsible to his countrymen. nytimes.com/2026/10/27/busin…