• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Bad Guy Steve Markevich/ Serpent's Den

Did I miss something? Steve says his animals were stolen, but it sounds like the landlords locked him out, because bills weren't paid. Laws vary from state to state, but here in CA if you fall to far behind on your rent. People can lock you out eventually and auction off your stuff to recoup the money lost. This time live animals were involved which makes the situation unfortunate. How far behind on the bills was Steve? That seems to be an important question here that is missing (or I missed it). You usually don't get locked out for being behind a months rent. Was it 1,? 2? 3? or more? The landlord does have a rights here to. He has the right to try and recoup money lost. I agree with everyone that there is more to this than meets the eye. In my opinion we are walking blind, because Steve (only in third person) and Chris aren't talking on here. We know the landlords, newspapers, and police aren't going to tell us anything on here. We're just piecing together a few details that could be true or not.
 
dberes said:
Did I miss something? Steve says his animals were stolen, but it sounds like the landlords locked him out, because bills weren't paid. Laws vary from state to state, but here in CA if you fall to far behind on your rent. People can lock you out eventually and auction off your stuff to recoup the money lost. This time live animals were involved which makes the situation unfortunate. How far behind on the bills was Steve? That seems to be an important question here that is missing (or I missed it). You usually don't get locked out for being behind a months rent. Was it 1,? 2? 3? or more? The landlord does have a rights here to. He has the right to try and recoup money lost. I agree with everyone that there is more to this than meets the eye. In my opinion we are walking blind, because Steve (only in third person) and Chris aren't talking on here. We know the landlords, newspapers, and police aren't going to tell us anything on here. We're just piecing together a few details that could be true or not.
Click to expand...

How the residential (I'm not sure if there's a difference with commercial) landlord/tenant system works in PA is as follows (I myself am a landlord and did have to do this):

•A signed 30 day eviction notice must be physically handed to the tenant (this must be witnessed by someone on "your side")
• After that 30 day eviction notice is passed, charges to remove the tenant must be filed through the court house or magistrate
• You can not have the tenant or his/her belongs removed until after the court makes a decision on the matter
• After the court makes a decision, the tenant is granted an additional 15 or 30 days to vacate
• After those 15 or 30 days are up, the tenant can be locked out and any property remaining becomes the property of the landlord
 
Their is an active Magisterial District case against Steve Markevich in Carbon County dated July 23, 2008. If you use this website you can pull up the Docket Number and I think details (the website is not Mac compatible, when I click on the magnifying glass it just doesn't work for me, so I have no idea what details are actually available).
 
Is there a clause that deals with folks who are in jail? He may have gotten out within the time frame, but being that his belongings were animals they could not just be left there waiting for him to come back when he got out.
 
DaveyFig said:
Is there a clause that deals with folks who are in jail? He may have gotten out within the time frame, but being that his belongings were animals they could not just be left there waiting for him to come back when he got out.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of. I can stop in on my magistrate Monday and see if there's anything (they were EXTREMELY helpful when dealing with my tenant issue). I know in the oddles of paperwork and information they gave me their was nothing mentioned. I believe you would still have to go to court and have them decide though...You can't just take things without getting your butt in trouble, legally, later.
 
3toe said:
Jerry,

you are way wrong about Steve, but i guess we all have the right to voice our opinions.
but before anyone goes and judges him, they should know all the facts, not just an article
in the papers.

Dave
Click to expand...

What is the answer to him having the animals in an area that it's not legal to have them? Why did he let things get so far out of hand to get it get to the point it did financially? If the business wasn't doing well it's time to cut your losses and sell off the animals at cost just to keep your head above water for a while. If that doesn't work then it's time to get a real job.
 
The link shows 339 charges against him, most of which are for keeping prohibited animals and cruelty to animals. Charges 1 and 2 are Recklessy endangering another person, and public nuisances.
 
DaveyFig said:
The link shows 339 charges against him, most of which are for keeping prohibited animals and cruelty to animals. Charges 1 and 2 are Recklessy endangering another person, and public nuisances.
Click to expand...

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).
 
LakesideBoas said:
In order to remove animals from his facility Steve would have had to have someplace to move them to. Relocating that many animals also takes time.

Steve does not mention an eviction notice just that the landlord was taking him to court (probably for the eviction proceedings). So he may have felt he had some time to do this. Once the electric was disconnected he would have had to provide heat for them somehow. He stated he was using propane heaters in addition to a generator.

The timeline Steve provides that the animals left at the store that had not been relocated was April 16th (when he was arrested and his GF asked to move the animals) to April 21st (the day they came to take the "neglected/abandoned animals). That is five days. Five days that they might not have had their water changed and most likely were put into temporary housing in order to move them. Thus explaining to those of us who care for these animals an explanation for their "sub-standard" housing.

The authorities turned off the generator. I asked Steve if they had turned off the propane heaters also, as if they did, they created the very conditions they came to the "rescue" of: conditions conducive to RI and death to a reptile. He hasn't had a chance to get back to me yet, but if they did turn off the only heat in the building, knowing it was used to house and maintain reptiles I feel that makes the so called authorities entirely culpable for the health situation described in the article.

Would I have done things entirely the way Steve seems to have? I do not know as I have never been in a situation such as that and I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
Click to expand...

Sound like an excuse if the animals needed that much heat but it wasn't cold then. They would have survived a few days.:NoNo:
 
Gecko_Den said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



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.
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
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).
Click to expand...



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

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. ;)
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
Steve, do you have any information to provide, or are you just trying to up your post count?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...


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.
 
rattler said:
What I'm doing is pointing out flaws in your defending him..
Click to expand...

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.

rattler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?:shrug01:
 
Back
Top