News

Devout Christian lawyer accused of sexually exploiting children and possessing porn

Lisa Biron

 

A NEW Hampshire lawyer who listed the Bible on Facebook as her favourite book, and was associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-gay pressure group, is facing ten years to life in prison for allegedly possessing child pornography, and transporting a teenage girl to Canada for sexual purposes.

Lisa Biron, according to this report, was arrestedby FBI agents last Friday. She faces the following charges: transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, possession of child pornography and five counts of sexual exploitation of children.

According to federal indictments, the lawyer took a teenage girl to Canada, had her engage in sexual activity which she then filmed.

The Concord Monitor reports that Biron is associated with the ADF, a group of Christian lawyers who, according to their website, are committed to keeping

The door open for the spread of the Gospel.

They also advocate

Religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.

Biron is scheduled for trial in January. If convicted, she faces 10 years to life in prison on the transportation charge and 15 years to life in prison on each of the exploitation of children charges.

Judge Landya McCafferty decided to detain Biron, largely, she said, because she is believed to have broken most of the bail conditions imposed earlier on the district-level pornography charges.

Last month Biron was ordered by a judge to use her computer only for work, not possess weapons and have no contact with the teenage girl in the five videos and two pictures found on her computer.

The no-contact order was the only condition Biron appears to have honoured, prosecutor Helen Fitzgibbon told McCafferty.

In making her case that Biron should be held in custody, Fitzgibbon also made the following allegations:

•?Two witnesses testified to seeing Biron in possession of ecstasy, marijuana and cocaine.

•?Biron sent a threatening text message to the person who turned her in to the police, advising him he would have to watch his back “FOR EVER”.

• Biron sent a text to a friend saying she might flee to Cuba because she had “nothing left”.

• Biron had asked people to lie to law enforcement about her case.

• ?Other juveniles have been subjected to Biron’s sexual activity and drug use.

The police began investigating Biron when a man came into the Manchester Police Department and reported that he had seen pornography on her computer.

Officers received a search warrant and executed it at Biron’s  in Manchester on October 9. A forensic search was completed on her computer, and she was arrested after investigators found the pornographic materials.

The federal charges against Biron are scheduled to be heard in January. If convicted, she faces ten years to life in prison on the transportation charge and 15 years to life in prison on each of the exploitation of children charges.

Biron recently served on the board of directors at Mount Zion Christian Schools in Manchester.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports that a former canon of Carlisle Cathedral, convicted of a series of child sex offences dating back almost 30 years, has been jailed for four years.

Ronald Johns, who was also a vicar in Borrowdale and Caldbeck in Cumbria, was found guilty of sex offences against three boys between 1983 and 1991. He admitted 10 counts of indecent assault and gross indecency.

 Hat tip: Graham Martin-Royle, BarrieJohn & Remigius

54 Responses to “Devout Christian lawyer accused of sexually exploiting children and possessing porn”

  1. Pete H says:

    Billy Connolly again, this time on TfTD:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S7egZ1WIvc

  2. 5i5i says:

    I’m disappointed to see the site administrators avoiding my point about the importance of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle. I’m disappointed not to hear an answer to my suggestion that you hold back on publicising accusations before they’ve been proved true in a court of law.

    Publishing these stories is harmful to innocent people. The libel laws in this country may not be perfect but they are there for a good reason. A person’s reputation can make, or ruin, their life.

    The tabloids may do this but that doesn’t make it acceptable. You complain that the religious should be held up to ridicule for transgressing rules when they claim moral superiority and I heartily agree, but *only* if those accusations have been proved.

    Can I hear an amen?

    Thanks.

  3. remigius says:

    5i5i. No you don’t get an amen, but you do get a slow handclap for being a fucking idiot.

    Why is the reporting of charges against the accused a threat to the doctrine of innocent til proven guilty?

    This case has already been through the preliminary court procedures. The accused has been remanded because the lastest offences are alleged to have occurred whilst on bail for previous offences. The court were obviously satisfied of the breach of bail.

    Secondly, the matter of reporting restrictions is dealt with at a preliminary stage. This is especially true in cases, such as this one, that involve a minor. If the court has ruled that such reporting would not prejudice a fair hearing, then I don’t see the problem. This matter is taken very seriously, no court wants its verdict overturned on appeal because of such an issue.

    The prosecution obviously believe the charges against the accused can be proven. And it is a high burden of proof; beyond reasonable doubt.

    The reporting of accusations against an accused is vital to ensure that injustice and human rights abuses do not go unnoticed. The Freethinker is very good at bringing to our attention to such abuses precisely because it reports such accusations. The little girl arrested for allegedly burning a Koran; those arrested for being gay in Nigeria, Uganda, Iran etc. The Saudi blogger arrested for dissing Mad Mo on Twitter.

    We know about these cases because of the reporting you are complaining about.

    Are you really suggesting we shouldn’t learn about such matters until after they are convicted/executed?

    ‘But wait’, I hear you cry, ‘That’s different. I should hear about the ones I want to hear about, and not have to hear about the ones I don’t!’ There’s a word for that. Prejudice. You don’t get to decide.

    So please don’t come on here with your misguided morals and expect to be taken seriously. At least by the more sensible contributors to this blog.

  4. 5i5i says:

    What a grown up response. Rude ad hominen comments don’t help your case.

    Blurring the distinction between talking about the victims and talking about the accused doesn’t help either. By all means highlight the victim (or at least what happened to them if annonymity will protect them), but until something has been proved, particulary in sexual crimes, don’t publicise the name of the accused. Otherwise you will be punishing them by damaging their reputation.

    And punishing someone before they have been proved in a court of law as guilty is going against the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

    The villification of Jo Yeates’ landlord is a prime example here. It’s fine to describe the terrible crime, but his life was ruined by his treatment.