Steve Markevich/ Serpent's Den

Originally Posted by rattler

What I'm doing is pointing out flaws in your defending him..

No, you're not pointing out flaws...You're flapping your gums (fingers?).

It's entirely possible that Steve (and/or his girlfriend) were illegally locked out of the store before eviction proceedings were completed and/or fulfilled (again, I'm not sure about commercial, I can only speak of residential)...

The case is still open, and until it is closed, I don't think anyone can say without a doubt what did and did not happen...Because the only people that know are the people that are not posting on this thread. I e-mail Chris Foley with a link to this thread and he too does not wish to get involved in the thread at this time.

Originally Posted by rattler

You're wrong because it does matter. Who is going to lay out the money and time to care for these animals? The law can't make anyone do it. Is such cases they would usually ask a zoo or some other institution to care for the animals but they can't make them do it.

I'm going to read more into this then I should, but...Are you saying that it's ok to do something illegal if it suits a certain purpose? If the individual(s) who took on the animals until the court has made a decision can not afford to take care of them, then they should have no accepted them at all, IMO.

Isn't it possible, that because of the (probable) crazy situation during those months that the animals were illegally seized? I'm pretty sure that's what they'll decide with this open case...Whether in fact what happened was animal abuse (and whatever other charges their were) and whether or not the accused will receive his animals/property back.

Originally Posted by TripleMoonsExotic

No, you're not pointing out flaws...You're flapping your gums (fingers?).

It's entirely possible that Steve (and/or his girlfriend) were illegally locked out of the store before eviction proceedings were completed and/or fulfilled (again, I'm not sure about commercial, I can only speak of residential)...

The case is still open, and until it is closed, I don't think anyone can say without a doubt what did and did not happen...Because the only people that know are the people that are not posting on this thread. I e-mail Chris Foley with a link to this thread and he too does not wish to get involved in the thread at this time.



I'm going to read more into this then I should, but...Are you saying that it's ok to do something illegal if it suits a certain purpose? If the individual(s) who took on the animals until the court has made a decision can not afford to take care of them, then they should have no accepted them at all, IMO.

Isn't it possible, that because of the (probable) crazy situation during those months that the animals were illegally seized? I'm pretty sure that's what they'll decide with this open case...Whether in fact what happened was animal abuse (and whatever other charges their were) and whether or not the accused will receive his animals/property back.

OK, I understand the law you state but if the confiscated items were electronics, furniture or normal store type shelf items they would be put into storage until the suite was settled. What I'm going to ask you is what does the law say about live animals and their care until a court case is settled?

Originally Posted by rattler

OK, I understand the law you state but if the confiscated items were electronics, furniture or normal store type shelf items they would be put into storage until the suite was settled. What I'm going to ask you is what does the law say about live animals and their care until a court case is settled?

I understand what you are saying, I really do. But the problem lies in the fact that a lot of times the non warm and fuzzy animals (anything but Dogs & Cats) are considered "livestock" or "property" and have an entirely different set of rules. Look at the Amish in PA...They are the top producers of puppy mill dogs in the US...They abuse (at least what most people would call abuse) their horses and cattle...Without any repercussions...Because the animals are considered "livestock" (yeah, even the dogs).

Like I said, I don't know what the legalities of live animals and their care while a court case is settled in Pennsylvania is...But I can almost guarantee that the animals and property can not be sold until the case is finished because ownership is still retained by the accused until a court decides otherwise. I do think that if Steve retains ownership, the cost of feeding and caring for the animals while the court case was in process should be reimbursed (even if the court doesn't say he has to, it's the right thing to do)...But I also think that if any of the animals and/or supplies were sold while the case was in process, whom sold them should have to face those consequences.

I can ask my magistrate about this, but I really don't think they'll have an immediate answer because it's such an unusual question (especially in relation to reptiles - I'm sure I'll get a funny look on that one ).