Sentenced to more than two years in prison for conspiring to threaten and destroy a journalist’s home

of Boston Herald (Flint McColgan) Report:

One of four men charged with conspiring to harass and intimidate a New Hampshire journalist for negative reporting about the founder of a mental health and addiction treatment center has been sentenced to more than two years in federal prison.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sentenced Tucker Cockerline, 33, of Salem, New Hampshire, to 27 months in prison, followed by three years of probation. Cockerline pleaded guilty in federal court in Boston in December to one count of conspiracy to commit stalking through interstate travel.

Cockerline was indicted alongside co-conspirators Michael Waselchuk, Keenan Saniatan and Eric LaBarge. All except Saniatan He made a plea bargain. Saniatan is expected to plead guilty at a plea modification hearing scheduled for September 5th….

The federal government says the intimidation campaign began in retaliation for the publication of an article in March 2022 about Granite Recovery Center founder Eric Spofford…

from Criminal charges of United States Vs. Labarge case:

In March 2022, NHPR posted an article on its website, written by Victim 1 and edited by Victim 2, detailing various allegations of sexual misconduct by a former New Hampshire resident and businesswoman (“Subject 1”), which garnered significant attention from local media and some national media.

LaBarge was a close friend of Subject 1.

Starting around March 2022 and continuing until at least May 2022, [New Hampshire Public Radio’s] They reported on Subject 1, LaBarge, Saniatan, Cockerline, Waselchuck, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, and agreed to harass and intimidate Victims 1 and 2 (both NHPR employees) and their immediate families.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, and as directed by LaBarge, Saniatan, Cockerline and Waselchuck, large rocks and bricks were thrown at the victims’ homes and obscene and threatening language was spray painted on them. [according to the rest of the charging document, that consisted of the word “cunt”]Defendants’ conduct caused, attempted to cause, and could reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the victim.

Thanks to you Media Law Resource Centre (MLRC) MediaLawDaily For pointers.