The Boston Herald (Flint McColgan) reports:
One of the four men charged in a conspiracy to harass and intimidate a New Hampshire journalist for negative coverage of the founder of a mental health and addiction treatment center was sentenced to more than two years in federal prison.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani sentenced Tucker Cockerline, 33, of Salem, N.H., to 27 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. Cockerline pleaded guilty in federal court in Boston last December to one count of conspiracy to commit stalking through interstate travel.
Cockerline was indicted along with co-conspirators Michael Waselchuck, Keenan Saniatan, and Eric Labarge. All but Saniatan have entered plea agreements and Saniatan is expected to plead guilty in a change of plea hearing scheduled for Sept. 5….
The feds say that the intimidation campaign began in retaliation for the publication of an article on Eric Spofford, founder of the Granite Recovery Centers, in March 2022….
From the criminal charges in the U.S. v. Labarge case:
In March 2022, NHPR published an article on its website authored by Victim 1 and edited by Victim 2 detailing various allegations of sexual misconduct by a former New Hampshire resident and businessman (hereinafter, “Subject 1”). The article garnered significant local and some national media attention.
LABARGE was a close personal associate of Subject 1.
Beginning in or about March 2022 and continuing through at least May 2022, in response to [New Hampshire Public Radio’s] reporting about Subject 1, LABARGE, SANIATAN, COCKERLINE, WASELCHUCK, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, agreed to harass and intimidate Victims 1 and 2—both NHPR employees—and their immediate family members.
In furtherance of the conspiracies, and as they had been instructed to do by LABARGE, SANIATAN, COCKERLINE, and WASELCHUCK threw large rocks and bricks at the Victims’ homes and spray-painted the homes with lewd and threatening language [according to the rest of the charging document, that consisted of the word “cunt”]. The defendants’ conduct caused, attempted to cause, and would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the Victims.
Thanks to the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) MediaLawDaily for the pointer.
