Category: person

Prosecutors persecution and porn, the story of Trey McLeod Sumter County South Carolina Prosecutor vs. Michael DeLorme a husband, father and small town citizen.

or: “A story of greed power and self serving sexual deviants.”

Trey McLeod a Sumter County prosecutor has taken it upon himself to re-classify criminal charges against Mr. DeLorme that have stood the same for over a year and are currently being  brought before the courts. This I believe was done due to his being personally upset at my obtaining of an attorney. Not only had E.B. “Trey” McLeod intentionally misled me into divulging information to have an easy win case, his first case in open court I might add. Trey McLeod has gone out of his way to ensure the admitted child stalker could uphold his fraudulent accusations against me and has now as it seems, used a personally motivated abuse of the system as a weapon against me. Initially the charges against myself carried a maximum of 10 years in prison, for self defense from an attack on private property, by an admitted child stalker. Who is currently under multiple restraining orders to protect my family. Now the charges carry a potential 20 year sentence for the same situation involving the same admitted child stalker as in the original filing of the case. Not because any situation has changed beyond the fact I requested to have an attorney represent me in court.

Mr. Trey McLeod falsely asked me to meet at the court house, in his office, to discuss a potential plea bargain a few days before the case initially went to trial. At this time I was representing myself and had no attorney. There was no offer of any change to the current plea offer by the prosecutor and no discussion of any new information. Instead of discussing a plea bargain the prosecutor wished to discuss the case and what i planned for my defense. Me being a [now know to be foolishly] good citizen, respecting the honor to which Mr. McLeod is supposed to hold, with justice as the prime importance of his position, willingly explained the situation and my points of defense.

Low and behold upon the day Court was called, one day after I had applied for legal defense, I came to find Trey McLeod had taken steps to make sure I was incapable of presenting my defense. Not only had he seen to witnesses not being present but he went so far as to pre-file applications to block the harassment and stalking from even being mentioned in court. Although my accuser has been arrested for or gone to court at least 3 separate times for trespassing on my families property, has at least seven orders of protection and restraining orders out directly involved with the situation. Trey McLeod wanted to win ‘his big first case’ as a smashing victory so badly none of the truth actually matters.

So at this point you may be wondering…. how does online porn fit into this picture? Being I have now been directly attacked by the prosecutor I felt it was in my best interest to find out as much as possible about the man I know now to be my opponent. As I tracked down Trey McLeod’s digital footprint the standard fair of social profiles rapidly reared their heads. This is when things became rather interesting, it seems Trey “Ron Burgundy“ McLeod has a private Twitter account to feed his apparent need for online porn. What kind of man willingly aides in the abuse of the criminal system to protect a child stalker? We now know it is the same kind of man who has his own hidden sexual deviant problems, perhaps he likes girls a bit to young for his own good and fears he could one day be in the child stalkers situation. Perhaps he just like lots of porn to fill his alone time as so many lonely souls do. Either way being he comes from a long line of politicians and legal workers, I felt it important to make the connection, since he was so obvious in leaving it only half in the closet. Ironic that an apparent purveyor of online porn just happens to be viciously defending an admitted child stalkers claims.

   

In the United States of America we are told there is a guarantee of innocence until proof of guilt is provided. In the USA we are told we are guaranteed a fair trial. In America we are told we have the right to defend ourselves in a court of law with the aforementioned guarantees and rights. Sadly this seems to be an outright lie in the state of South Carolina, at least when you don’t ‘know the right people’ being the system has blatantly attacked a simple citizen for daring to attempt exercising his rights.

What happens when justice is Illegal and injustice rules the day? What type of society do we really live in when our rights are a fraud. Why do our taxes pay for more corruption by self serving people who care not for the people but merely the position and the power? What would happen if it was you, would you get fair treatment, or would the police tell you to call them back after your daughters have been raped by an admitted child stalker? Would they tell you as they have told myself they don’t care about the children. Will they tell you as they have told me your reward for being a good and truthful citizen is to face 20 years in prison for defending yourself when under direct physical attack for asking a 30 year old man why he was following and trying to talk to your 9 year old daughter?

If it takes a village to raise a child. Is not protecting our children our duty as a civilization? Does one lawyers need to win at any cost matter more than the truth? Should we let child molesters rape children before we stop them when we know there intent? When we are attacked are we to let them beat us without fighting back? Do we not have the right to defend ourselves or families and children?

Please leave your comments, whether you think this is the way things should be or the things that are wrong with the way things are. Don’t be silent be heard.

Tagged Illegal Injustice: corruption, injustice, persecution, porn, prosecutors

 

 

 

 

 

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice …"

– U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)