Former Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission worker pleads guilty to producing child pornography
A former Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission worker from Fayette County pleaded guilty in federal court on Wednesday to a charge of producing child pornography, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
Lisa A. Renze, 48, of Uniontown entered the plea before U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer. Renze is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 1.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Carolyn J. Bloch said that between 2009 and 2011, Renze persuaded a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct while she took photos.
Court documents indicate the photos were given to “her friend and Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission co-worker” John S. Longo, 57, of Hempfield.
Longo's indictment by a federal grand jury on eight counts of producing, distributing, receiving and conspiring to produce images of child pornography between June 5, 2009, and Nov. 12, 2010, was announced last month by federal officials.
Longo, who retired from the turnpike's maintenance department prior to his indictment, could be sentenced to a maximum of 140 years in prison, a fine of $2 million or both, officials said.
Renze, who remains free on bond, faces a sentence of not less than 15 and up to 30 years in prison, a fine of $250,000 or both, according to sentencing guidelines.
The cases are being prosecuted as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative started in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse.
Paul Peirce is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-850-2860 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.