Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #49

[NCWatcher]

I have no idea what this really pertains to, but if as you say it's to do with divorcing a military spouse, SC divorce laws, etc., what is Sgt. Kurt Smith of the EPCSO being called as a witness for AS in this action? A witness to what, exactly?

Even if it has something to do with custody or support, or some other thing, it doesn't really make sense that the subpoena to testify classifies this as "In re the marriage of" and lists AS and LH. Wouldn't say something like "In re to the minor child custody agreement between" or "In re to the support agreement between", since, they're not actually married?

This is just plain weird.

jmo

It does seem odd that particular witness has been called if the issue is one of the financial things mentioned so far. (Of course, the only reason we know about ELCSO's KS is because of questions about the gag order. Maybe if we knew who the other witnesses were, everything would be clear.)

I do see Landen's married name of Hiott is used though. So in that way, her remarriage has been recognized.
JMO

 

[crhedBngr]

Another twist in this case.

Hmmm.

Anyway, tonight's food . . .

 

[Seattle1]

It states clearly this is a hearing regarding a dissolution of marriage action between AS and his first wife LH. This was a divorce hearing.

If that's a mistake and it's supposed to have LS name there, then that's a MASSIVE mistake.

If it's not a mistake, is it saying that AS and LH are still married??
Which, would generate a TON of pre-trial publicity, IMHO.

ETA: we need a legal mind in here telling us what this dissolution of marriage action actually means, between two supposedly divorced and remarried people.

I can't believe you're serious! Bigamy is illegal across the United States. Surely you don't believe AS committed bigamy?

All we know from the docs is that Sgt. Kurt Smith of EPCSO has been called as a witness for AS in a matter between AS and LH.

 

[elliefant]

DBM

 

[Seattle1]

It’s definitely LH. So not a typo. This doc lists her as the respondent and states Sgt KS is a witness for the petitioner. Which makes me wonder what went down between AS and LH in the past months, and what KS witnessed.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/Exhibit 1 - Subpoena to Attend and Testify.pdf

According to google link, KS was promoted to the rank of Sargeant assigned to the Law Enforcement Bureau, Patrol Division in July 2018.

However, in 2017, KS was reportedly working as a detective in another matter where a search warrant was submitted for cell phone records. Detective Kurt Smith was cited in an affidavit as the person that analyzed the phone records using a web-based program that maps GPS location based on the call detail records.

While we have no idea what the civil matter between the parents of GS is about, the cell phone analysis may shed some light on special skills possessed by KS and where he might be served a subpoena to testify by AS.

EPSO SOAR

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/10 codefendants/Velarde, Endo 17CR1787 redacted.pdf

 

[Ontario Mom]

I can't believe you're serious! Bigamy is illegal across the United States. Surely you don't believe AS committed bigamy?

All we know from the docs is that Sgt. Kurt Smith of EPCSO has been called as a witness for AS in a matter between AS and LH.

No one accused AS of committing bigamy.
The wording of the legal document leaves many questions as it specifically states this action is in regards to their marriage.
Except, they are not married.

 

[Niner]

There is a divorce hearing on 3/29/21 for AS & LS...

 

[crhedBngr]

No one accused AS of committing bigamy.
The wording of the legal document leaves many questions as it specifically states this action is in regards to their marriage.
Except, they are not married.

Spot on!

JMVHO.

 

[crhedBngr]

And, today's goodies.

 

[Seattle1]

No one accused AS of committing bigamy.
The wording of the legal document leaves many questions as it specifically states this action is in regards to their marriage.
Except, they are not married.

If it's not a mistake, is it saying that AS and LH are still married??
Which, would generate a TON of pre-trial publicity, IMHO.

ETA: we need a legal mind in here telling us what this dissolution of marriage action actually means, between two supposedly divorced and remarried people.

^^bbm

Sorry if my post was not clear. I don't follow OP questioning if AS and LH are still married when they are both reportedly remarried. If so, it means bigamy and it's illegal. That's a fact. I'm also not reading dissolution of marriage action in the petition. Where is that coming from? Silence from media on the hearing or did I miss it?

 

[GRT]

No one accused AS of committing bigamy.
The wording of the legal document leaves many questions as it specifically states this action is in regards to their marriage.
Except, they are not married.

Yes. This.

I found this on a legal site but I guess laws could vary by state?

This is about dissolution and how it is different from divorce. The site it came from is here.

It is also the quickest and least emotionally painful way to terminate a marriage. The final hearing for a dissolution must take place within 90 days from the day of filing the petition. Because the terms of the dissolution are agreed to ahead of time, the heightened emotions associated with most divorces are avoided.

It sounds to me as though there's no possible way they can have a dissolution hearing now--years later.

I have to think it's a typo. This just doesn't seem possible.

 

[Seattle1]

dbm

 

[Ontario Mom]

^^bbm

Sorry if my post was not clear. I don't follow OP questioning if AS and LH are still married when they are both reportedly remarried. If so, it means bigamy and it's illegal. That's a fact. I'm also not reading dissolution of marriage action in the petition. Where is that coming from? Silence from media on the hearing or did I miss it?

I think somehow we're posting past each other. In any case, at this link https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...trial Publicity Order Issued March 5 2020.pdf in the very first paragraph (I posted a screen shot previously) it clearly states:

"This matter comes before the Court pursuant to a Notice of Order Re: Pretrial Publicity[O-1] in El Paso County Case Number 20CR1358 file by the El Paso County Attorney's Office. In that Notice, the County Attorney advised this Court that Sgt. Kurt Smith of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office had been subpoenaed to testify in hearing to be held on October 7, 2020 regarding what appears to be a dissolution of marriage action between Euguene Albert Stauch and Landen Marie Bullard Hiott case number [REDACTED] The Notice advises that Sgt. Smith is a material witness in this case."

I hope that helps, and sorry if I wasn't more clear the first post.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Yes. This.

I found this on a legal site but I guess laws could vary by state?

This is about dissolution and how it is different from divorce. The site it came from is here.



It sounds to me as though there's no possible way they can have a dissolution hearing now--years later.

I have to think it's a typo. This just doesn't seem possible.

Agreed.
It doesn't seem possible but the document says what it says.
It can't actually mean they're still married, that's just cuckoo pants.

jmo

 

[Fireflize]

I don't think it would be likely that AS did not legally divorce LH and legally marry LS, considering the military requirements of submitting legal notice of both.

 

[CemeteryHunter12]

I don't think it would be likely that AS did not legally divorce LH and legally marry LS, considering the military requirements of submitting legal notice of both.

ITA

 

[BitchieBlackmore]

I think somehow we're posting past each other. In any case, at this link https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/[O-10] Order Clarifying O-1 Pretrial Publicity Order Issued March 5 2020.pdf in the very first paragraph (I posted a screen shot previously) it clearly states:

"This matter comes before the Court pursuant to a Notice of Order Re: Pretrial Publicity[O-1] in El Paso County Case Number 20CR1358 file by the El Paso County Attorney's Office. In that Notice, the County Attorney advised this Court that Sgt. Kurt Smith of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office had been subpoenaed to testify in hearing to be held on October 7, 2020 regarding what appears to be a dissolution of marriage action between Euguene Albert Stauch and Landen Marie Bullard Hiott case number [REDACTED] The Notice advises that Sgt. Smith is a material witness in this case."

I hope that helps, and sorry if I wasn't more clear the first post.

could this possibly be related to the disclosure of certain documents/ facts in the divorce case between AS and LH? I’m sure certain facts will be brought up in court about their marriage and divorce.
Maybe LS made comments regarding AS and LH’s divorce that LE had to investigate -like when LS brought up that maybe LH might have taken him

Just a theory. I hope I’m conveying my thoughts properly!!!

 

[NCWatcher]

could this possibly be related to the disclosure of certain documents/ facts in the divorce case between AS and LH? I’m sure certain facts will be brought up in court about their marriage and divorce.
Maybe LS made comments regarding AS and LH’s divorce that LE had to investigate -like when LS brought up that maybe LH might have taken him

Just a theory. I hope I’m conveying my thoughts properly!!!

Maybe.

I'm sure TS has had plenty to say to various people about various people :-( But I can't really see why a civil court would intervene on those grounds. AS and LH are divorced. The law isn't going to intervene if someone says mean things about one (or both) of them or about their marriage, much less if she plans to say mean things in court later on. And in this civil action AS is the petitioner with LH the respondent. So it certainly sounds like it was initiated by AS against LH (although I suppose those terms could be left over from when he initiated their divorce )

Whatever it is, I think it is between the two of them. It could be something pro forma related to their divorce now that AS is getting another divorce (like benefits) and isn't adversarial although I don't really see why a LE witness would have been called by AS's side. But there is alot we don't know about these folks and their private lives.
JMO

 

[MoeInVA]

I googled this issue and found that modifications to things like parent time and child support are still labeled as “Re: the marriage of” x and y for many years after a divorce decree in Colorado. (As it was labeled in the subpoena of the sgt in this case).

see examples here: https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR...mily Law Update.pdf?ver=2019-01-25-105836-130

JMO it was thoughtless of the DA’s office and then the Judge to read that and then refer to it as regarding dissolution of marriage. With no other info to go on other than “Re: the marriage of” in the subpoena, the alternatives I can think of would be to refer to it as apparently a civil matter or a family court case.

 

[Seattle1]

I googled this issue and found that modifications to things like parent time and child support are still labeled as “Re: the marriage of” x and y for many years after a divorce decree in Colorado. (As it was labeled in the subpoena of the sgt in this case).

see examples here: https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/Sections/Family Law/January 2019/Family Law Update.pdf?ver=2019-01-25-105836-130

JMO it was thoughtless of the DA’s office and then the Judge to read that and then refer to it as regarding dissolution of marriage. With no other info to go on other than “Re: the marriage of” in the subpoena, the alternatives I can think of would be to refer to it as apparently a civil matter or a family court case.

Thanks for the link @MoeInVA. I knew that heading info to be true so I was really confused here because I wasn't aware of the reference to "dissolution of marriage" cited in the pre-trial publicity court filing until somebody graciously shared the pdf link.