Steve Markevich/ Serpent's Den

Originally Posted by Gecko_Den

Really? The authorities are to blame? That's an interesting hypothesis, are they also to blame for his failure to pay taxes, rent, utilities or child support? I don't have anything against Steve, never met him, but seriously while reading his e-mail he blames everyone but himself for his problems.

Exactly, pay your rent, taxes, utilities and don't be a deadbeat dad and things may be different. He's the only one to blame.

[quote=LakesideBoas;641441]Well, Steve was incarcerated during those five days, so if we must blame someone, we could blame the GF. [quote]



Maybe if he didn't do anything wrong he wouldn't have been thrown in the slammer. Oh I forgot, nothing he does is his fault.

Steve, do you have any information to provide, or are you just trying to up your post count?

Originally Posted by TripleMoonsExotic

Is that what the pop up thing shows? Is it a PDF or something you can save and then upload to a post's attachments?

It does appear the case is still open...and if so...If the law in PA is like the law in Maggie's state...Those animals/supplies should not be being sold on Kingsnake.com until the case is closed (if that is in fact true).

Who is to pay for their upkeep? This isn't a stereo and tv we're talking about.

Originally Posted by rattler

Who is to pay for their upkeep? This isn't a stereo and tv we're talking about.

It doesn't matter...What matters is what the law states.
I'm sure some people would be willing to risk breaking the law (you know, the same thing you're preaching about), but they also must be willing to risk the lawsuit that it could amount to after the case is closed.

I wouldn't know where to find that sort of information that is specific to PA...I'm not even sure my magistrate would be able to answer it...I'm sure it's not a very common question they would get asked.

Originally Posted by TripleMoonsExotic

Steve, do you have any information to provide, or are you just trying to up your post count?

What I'm doing is pointing out flaws in your defending him. Just to let you know I've known Markevich since he lived in Kearny, N.J.. He left to move to Pa. so he could keep hots because he broke the law here so many times and the state was onto him. His excuses for getting himself into trouble is getting old.

Originally Posted by TripleMoonsExotic

It doesn't matter...What matters is what the law states.
I'm sure some people would be willing to risk breaking the law (you know, the same thing you're preaching about), but they also must be willing to risk the lawsuit that it could amount to after the case is closed.

I wouldn't know where to find that sort of information that is specific to PA...I'm not even sure my magistrate would be able to answer it...I'm sure it's not a very common question they would get asked.

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. Steve should have taken care of business and this wouldn't have happened.

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.

So, does anyone know how long he operated out of the store that his animals were removed from in April?

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?