On the 4th of Nov. 2019 jury selection started for the Havens trial. The attorney for Havens objected to an investigator from the Plaintiff’s list of witnesses claiming that the prosecution did not have him listed as a witness. It was learned that the prosecution had failed to disclose his name on the witness list. The judge dismissed the claims by the prosecution as a result.
Technically Havens got off on a technicality. Was it necessary to do so. This was a case that should never have been brought in the first place. It involved a case where Havens went to a county auction and bought some items he had declared surplus.
on the surface it appeared that Havens had committed a conflict of interest. This was true. However the complaint did not list other employees who were equally as guilty including the auctioneer himself. They were never charged.
The items themselves were outdated and old. They had reached the end of their life.
Justin Coleman, the local prosecutor had taken the steps to insure that the situation did not reoccur. He warned the employees not to do that again. He was under an obligation to notify the state attorney general’s office which he did.
The attorney general’s office decided to prosecute Havens instead of allowing the written warning to suffice. It became a case that should never have been filed. David Estes – Editor
American Freedom Defense Initiative
Idaho Freedom Foundation
Media Research Center
Middle East Research: MEMRI
National Taxpayers Union
US News and World Report
Vote Smart Info on Politicians
The Weekly Standard
World Net Daily