Bad Guy Steve Markevich/ Serpent's Den

[KNOBTAIL]

It really does not matter,

The information that I provided was for commercial situations. The landlord can evict for more then just non payment of rent.. Its his premise and its his rules. When you sign the lease you are agreeing to the terms of the lease. But that does not let Steve off the hook.. He should have safe guareded his animals, as well as making very certain that anything harmful to the general public was well under control.. Steve is and has had a haphazardness about his reptiles especially poisonous snakes. His difficulties with these permit required dangerous snakes are not isolated . As he already had court related issues from the past..

The bottom line, a callous disregard and not to mention an open invitation for authorities to provide greater reasons to prevent others from obtaining legitimate permits... People go out of business every day. Going out of business and leaving snakes poisonous or not represents not only the possibility of potential harm to the general public, but a complete disrespect with an "an I dont give a dam" conclusion.. Enough said..

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

I don't think anyone is saying that he couldn't have handled things differently. Hindsight sucks. Steve did what he did, and now he's living with the consequences...Which evidently includes him having his name (possibly) wrongfully tarnished in the newspapers and online...Him having to hire lawyers to (possibly) sue his landlord...Etc, etc etc.

The information that I provided was for commercial situations. The landlord can evict for more then just non payment of rent.. Its his premise and its his rules. When you sign the lease you are agreeing to the terms of the lease.

Are you quoting Pennsylvania law, or Florida law? That is the point. In regards to leasing, each state is different. This is why to assume anything on the leasing situation is a bad idea. I'm sorry, but in Pennsylvania, the whole "his premise and his rule" thing does not apply...State law (at least in PA) trumps what a lease says in court.

As he already had court related issues from the past.

What court related issue? The information I found on him for Carbon County, the only charges that weren't dismissed are the current ones on animal cruelty and the like that have not been ruled upon as of yet.

The bottom line, a callous disregard and not to mention an open invitation for authorities to provide greater reasons to prevent others from obtaining legitimate permits... People go out of business every day. Going out of business and leaving snakes poisonous or not represents not only the possibility of potential harm to the general public, but a complete disrespect with an "an I dont give a dam" conclusion..

Bottom line...Their has been no court ruling that what is being claimed in the article from the original post is true. That includes the allegations about the VENOMOUS reptiles, animal abuse, animal deaths, etc. I'm genuinely surprised that the whole innocent until proven guilty is being ignored here and opinions are be based on a biased article that was published many months after charges were filed. If I didn't do something and was condemned without even the court ruling upon it...I think that would suck...But that's me.

Going back and forth of the whole thing isn't help the situation. The only things that are going to help is Chris Foley providing physical proof that he was legally authorized to sell Steve M's animals, the court case involving the animal abuse charges is ruled upon and Steve's lawsuit against his previous landlord is completed.

 

[shrap]

The bottom line, a callous disregard and not to mention an open invitation for authorities to provide greater reasons to prevent others from obtaining legitimate permits... People go out of business every day. Going out of business and leaving snakes poisonous or not represents not only the possibility of potential harm to the general public, but a complete disrespect with an "an I dont give a dam" conclusion.. Enough said..

So your OPINION of Steve's intentions about all of this is "enough said"? You certainly have a very high opinion of yourself Jerry.

 

[bsharrah]

Like Stephanie said, each state is different. Unless you are familiar with commercial leasing law in PA, your speculations are just that. Many would be surprised how different laws vary from one state to other. It amazes me how many people on the BOI try to reference their state laws in transactions, or other situations, that are occurring in another state.

I agree with Sammy, Steve has hit rock bottom, and many of us can't even concieve what that would be like. I have read nothing to indicate his mistakes were intentional.

Bart

 

[KNOBTAIL]

What I am quoting

was from NY not Fla. or Pa . I was a landlord and even if those people who just left there premise without paying there lease obligation were liable for the balance. Allot depends on how the lease was signed, the length of time, and if there was a surety involved.. Hindsight may be 20/20, but Steve should have packed up those snakes and any other herps and either provided some homes for them or surrendered them to some herp society or other group that could handle them rather then leave them there.. Which by anyones standard was the worst choice to make..

Anything left behind once the lease is broken by the tenant becomes the property of the landlord. He is under no obligation to return anything that may be left and that includes fixtures, electrical equipment, etc.. Yes the landlord must have a key to the premise in case of fire or flood or a break in whether the lease is in good standing or not.

Steve has had his share of difficulties with selling poisonous snakes which also involved litigation. Thank goodness none were death related issues, but again common sense did not prevail. The kid who bought that snake was stupid, Steve was lucky, but for sure he did not learn his lesson . Which should have been to get rid of those snakes . Certainly the expense of litigation was not worth the sale.. This is all part and parcel to bad choices which should not have happened in the first place, but did becasuse of a lack of thought on the consequences which in every outcome has proved to be a bad one for Steve.. Now it has grown into a more serious nature.


Shrap, you are correct, I do have a high opinion of myself, because I think before I act, I use reason before emotion, and I surround myself with people who can provide some positive direction if a problem arises.. In this case, had he (Steve) dealt with people who could have helped him , the outcome would have been different and certainly less costly in time,money and possibly icarceration...

 

[HopingForBabies]

What I wonder is,why does everybody give a good crap?? People are busting his balls about something that should be private. I don't see everybody putting thier financial problems up here on the board. He has to dig himself out of his hole,and everybody contemplating what the laws are and should be are not helping him. That is why he has to get a lawyer,to find what the laws really are. I wish him luck in all this. It is unfortunate and I am sure he will rise above all of this.

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

was from NY not Fla. or Pa . I was a landlord and even if those people who just left there premise without paying there lease obligation were liable for the balance. Allot depends on how the lease was signed, the length of time, and if there was a surety involved.. Hindsight may be 20/20, but Steve should have packed up those snakes and any other herps and either provided some homes for them or surrendered them to some herp society or other group that could handle them rather then leave them there.. Which by anyones standard was the worst choice to make..

Anything left behind once the lease is broken by the tenant becomes the property of the landlord. He is under no obligation to return anything that may be left and that includes fixtures, electrical equipment, etc.. Yes the landlord must have a key to the premise in case of fire or flood or a break in whether the lease is in good standing or not.

I am a current residential landlord in Pennsylvania and I am aware of what I can and can not do per state law. It's not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. If their was an illegal (ie not court ordered) lock out or seizure of property (if Steve did not abandon the property after an eviction notice was issued)...Yes, Steve can sue the landlord. If you read the thread, you would know why the landlord is under question as it is suspected he did not follow the appropriate legal procedure given the time frame provided...You would also know why Steve himself couldn't physically remove all of the animals...

poisonous snakes

Lets start using the correct terminology here...The word is venomous.

 

[TattooLost]

What I wonder is,why does everybody give a good crap?? People are busting his balls about something that should be private. I don't see everybody putting thier financial problems up here on the board. He has to dig himself out of his hole,and everybody contemplating what the laws are and should be are not helping him. That is why he has to get a lawyer,to find what the laws really are. I wish him luck in all this. It is unfortunate and I am sure he will rise above all of this.

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent, Hoping. Just because someone doesn't know how to manage a business financially, doesn't mean they don't send what people pay for or not ship well.

In all honesty though, I'm a bit reluctant to buy hets in a case like this. Someone in dire financial straits may well become dishonest in an attempt to bail themselves out. I'm not saying he's doing that, just spouting out the worries that go through my head. Steve seems like an up-and-up guy.

 

[SERPENTS DEN]

was from NY not Fla. or Pa . I was a landlord and even if those people who just left there premise without paying there lease obligation were liable for the balance. Allot depends on how the lease was signed, the length of time, and if there was a surety involved.. Hindsight may be 20/20, but Steve should have packed up those snakes and any other herps and either provided some homes for them or surrendered them to some herp society or other group that could handle them rather then leave them there.. Which by anyones standard was the worst choice to make..

Anything left behind once the lease is broken by the tenant becomes the property of the landlord. He is under no obligation to return anything that may be left and that includes fixtures, electrical equipment, etc.. Yes the landlord must have a key to the premise in case of fire or flood or a break in whether the lease is in good standing or not.

Steve has had his share of difficulties with selling poisonous snakes which also involved litigation. Thank goodness none were death related issues, but again common sense did not prevail. The kid who bought that snake was stupid, Steve was lucky, but for sure he did not learn his lesson . Which should have been to get rid of those snakes . Certainly the expense of litigation was not worth the sale.. This is all part and parcel to bad choices which should not have happened in the first place, but did becasuse of a lack of thought on the consequences which in every outcome has proved to be a bad one for Steve.. Now it has grown into a more serious nature.


Shrap, you are correct, I do have a high opinion of myself, because I think before I act, I use reason before emotion, and I surround myself with people who can provide some positive direction if a problem arises.. In this case, had he (Steve) dealt with people who could have helped him , the outcome would have been different and certainly less costly in time,money and possibly icarceration...

Jerry you are oblivious to the facts and therefore should stop spamming this thread with nonsense and defamation with things that have nothing to do with the current situation.
No animals were left behind. They were illegally removed. What you read in the newspaper is a bunch of fabrication and your assumptions of court proceedings and a litigation is a fabrication of your own mind so if you are not CERTAIN what you say you too are breaking the law with at least slander and defamation. So stop flapping unless you know what you’re talking about is TRUE.

 

[SERPENTS DEN]

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent, Hoping. Just because someone doesn't know how to manage a business financially, doesn't mean they don't send what people pay for or not ship well.

In all honesty though, I'm a bit reluctant to buy hets in a case like this. Someone in dire financial straits may well become dishonest in an attempt to bail themselves out. I'm not saying he's doing that, just spouting out the worries that go through my head. Steve seems like an up-and-up guy.

It's okay if your are reluctant to buy hets from me and I understand where you are coming from but on the other hand I haven't been in business this long screwing people because in this business word travels quickly and I would have been out of business many years ago.

 

[shrap]

I am a current residential landlord in Pennsylvania and I am aware of what I can and can not do per state law. It's not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. If their was an illegal (ie not court ordered) lock out or seizure of property (if Steve did not abandon the property after an eviction notice was issued)...Yes, Steve can sue the landlord. If you read the thread, you would know why the landlord is under question as it is suspected he did not follow the appropriate legal procedure given the time frame provided...You would also know why Steve himself couldn't physically remove all of the animals...



Lets start using the correct terminology here...The word is venomous.

Jerry obviously came to this thread with a biased and preconceived opinion of Steve. The facts and circumstances surrounding this thread obviously are of no interest to Jerry. Jerry simply found Steve guilty based purely on what ever issues Jerry has with Steve from the past.

 

[SERPENTS DEN]

What I wonder is,why does everybody give a good crap?? People are busting his balls about something that should be private. I don't see everybody putting thier financial problems up here on the board. He has to dig himself out of his hole,and everybody contemplating what the laws are and should be are not helping him. That is why he has to get a lawyer,to find what the laws really are. I wish him luck in all this. It is unfortunate and I am sure he will rise above all of this.

Thank you David and I'll tell you it wasn't easy for me to post my personal and financial issues up here for the world to judge me. You can kick me down lock me up and beat me but one thing is for sure I will rise above.

I bet you nobody heard about me having a heart attack and signing myself out of the hospital against doctors orders so I could take care of my animals huh, yup how many of your heard that? That is the truth and love I have for my animals.

 

[KNOBTAIL]

Thanks for the reply

I wish you the best of luck in your difficulties !

 

[Southern Wolf]

Jerry obviously came to this thread with a biased and preconceived opinion of Steve. The facts and circumstances surrounding this thread obviously are of no interest to Jerry. Jerry simply found Steve guilty based purely on what ever issues Jerry has with Steve from the past.

Very well put.

 

[SERPENTS DEN]

Jerry obviously came to this thread with a biased and preconceived opinion of Steve. The facts and circumstances surrounding this thread obviously are of no interest to Jerry. Jerry simply found Steve guilty based purely on what ever issues Jerry has with Steve from the past.

Jerry is a tyrant, I've done business with him once face to face in Florida many years ago. I purchased fruit flies and a bunch of his fruit fly kits to resell out of my store but was not very pleased and contacted him and ended up eating my losses and letting it go at that.

 

[HappyHillbilly]

I'm hesitantly posting this. I haven't already drawn any conclusions but odds are someone will misinterpret my post as if I have. I hope nobody mistakes my questions as accusations, insinuations, assumptions, etc. They're just a few things that I'm struggling with and I think might shed a bit more light on the whole ordeal.

I've read every post of this thread but there is still a chance I've overlooked something.

In the timeline that Mr. Markevich had given to "TripleMoonsExotics" in post #11, it states;

On April 14th I received a subpoena from my landlords to appear in court on April 21st. Now if that was not enough stress to deal with it gets worse.

At this time I’m in need of about $10,000.00 immediately to get me through April.

On April 15th I was in the store when suddenly the generator was turned off. I went outside to see what happened and standing there was Lehighton Police Chief Matthew Bender. He noted that I owed money to the Lehighton Borough for Electric Usage and started questioning me on how and why I didn’t pay my bill. I explained to him I didn’t have enough to pay it in full and a friend loaned me the money so I could keep the power on in the store etc. He told me I can’t use the generator at all and told me that Carbon County Domestics issued a warrant for my arrest. He then handcuffed me and took me to the station for a short period till I was transferred to the Carbon County Correctional Facility to start my six-month sentence. I called my girlfriend and told her to start moving everything thing out immediately. I also tried calling my landlord but he would not pick up the phone.

My girlfriend started moving out my animals on April 16th, and tried numerous times to reach my landlords but they failed to answer her calls so she left messages to them to let them know she was taking care of everything and was vacating the store for me since I was unable too.

On April 21st. my girlfriend went to the store and the landlords had someone come in to remove almost everything that was in the store under false pretenses that they were in trouble because they were abandoned without any heat, light or care when in fact it was very evident moving out has already been underway.

What happened in the landlord/tenant court case on April 21? Did the court automatically rule in the landlord's favor since you were not present? That's usually what happens but I don't want to assume here.


I may have missed it but I don't recall any efforts to remove snakes from the business between April 21 and July 22, the day the newspaper article claims 160 snakes were confiscated.

You stated in post #88;

The animals were never abandoned and my girlfriend just got out of the hospital April 15th from having her appendix removed and she went up the next day and started packing up and removing my animals. She notified my landlords of this and they rushed to have everything removed before she could remove anything else. This was all illegally done before any eviction notice. I heard from a witness the animals were removed on April 19th An eviction notice was granted on April 21st and I don't know how much time I had legally to get my stuff out but it was already removed!

Courts are notorious for issuing orders to be executed in increments of 30 days. From April 21 - July 22 there were 92 days. Makes me wonder if the court issued an eviction to be carried out after 90 days. The newspaper article didn't mention eviction procedures, though. It claimed the confiscation was based on abuse/neglect, abandonment.

In that last quote Mr. Markevich said that the landlords, "...rushed to have everything removed before she could remove anything else."
However, the newspaper article claims that 160 snakes were removed from the store on July 22.

There's a pretty large gap in the timeline of defendants' actions in referrence to the store and/or snakes; from April 21 - July 5, the date Mr. Markevich contacted someone that appears to be an attorney. This was 17 days before the 160 snakes were confiscated.

From: Steve Markevich
Subject: Snakes
To: "Tom Klonis"
Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 2:48 PM

Tom,

Can you help me get my stuff back by writing a letter and or call my landlord and Donna Crum who contacted me using a hotmail address? Attached is a list of everything taken from me.


I will give you a call tomorrow.

Thanks,
Steve

I can't help but wonder why 160 snakes were at the store on July 22 if his GF began removing them on April 16 and he said that soon thereafter his landlords "...rushed to have everything removed before she could remove anything else."

Mr. Markevich stated in post #88 - "I heard from a witness the animals were removed on April 19th."

It seems to me that either:

• All snakes were removed and 160 were brought back on or before July 22,
  
• All snakes were removed on April 19 and the "160 snakes confiscated on July 22" story was conjured up by the police & newspaper.
  
• All but 160 snakes were removed by one, or both, parties.

I remember reading about this back in July. Where I read it, I can't remember, but I do remember the story. I can't remember if it was a newspaper article or a forum. According to the article linked in the first post the reason it's news now is because of the rescuer petitioning the courts to get rid of the animals, and I can't blame him for that. If the ads by Mr. Foley that Mr. Markovich presented were posted before October 23 it seems to me that Mr. Foley may have erred, although I doubt he did so intentionally.

Right now, if anyone is in need, deserving, of any help, I say it's Mr. Foley. He's got quite a job with taking care of all those snakes while Mr. Markevich plays hide - n -seek with the authorities. That's about the only real conclusion I can draw so far.

TripleMoonExotics

Lets start using the correct terminology here...The word is venomous.

Please don't take this personal, I honestly mean no harm, no foul. But - "poisonous" and "venomous" are scientifically equal, except for their typical delivery method. A venomous snake's venom is toxic, just like poison is. It can poison the bloodstream without being injected (or envenomated).

I have fallen into the reptile hobby's infatuation of "venomous is the proper word" syndrome myself before. But it's not true. Poison/Venomous - basically, chemically, scientifically one and the same.

Ya'll have a great day!
Michael Sanders

 

[HappyHillbilly]

Something I left out:

On April 21st. my girlfriend went to the store and the landlords had someone come in to remove almost everything that was in the store under false pretenses that they were in trouble because they were abandoned without any heat, light or care when in fact it was very evident moving out has already been underway.

If 160 snakes were in the store on or after April 21 without heat/light, why did the police or animal welfare not remove them until July 22?

Later!
Michael Sanders

 

[Dreqqus]

Not to take this too off topic but, by wikipedia:

In medicine (particularly veterinary) and in zoology, a poison is often distinguished from a toxin and a venom. Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defined as biologic toxins that are injected by a bite or sting to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances which are absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut.

And to throw in my 2 pence, I've been on the wrong end of an animal based dispute with a landlord, that I later found out was illegal, or at the very least questionably legal on their behalf, so I will wait until we see what the Pennsylvania Commercial Leasing regulations before judging this situation

 

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Please don't take this personal, I honestly mean no harm, no foul. But - "poisonous" and "venomous" are scientifically equal, except for their typical delivery method. A venomous snake's venom is toxic, just like poison is. It can poison the bloodstream without being injected (or envenomated).

I have fallen into the reptile hobby's infatuation of "venomous is the proper word" syndrome myself before. But it's not true. Poison/Venomous - basically, chemically, scientifically one and the same.

What Dustin said...
Though I will add, while maybe scientifically equal, in the reptile industry, we use the term venomous because they envenomate (inject toxin). While herps that are poisonous (dart frogs for example), toxins are ingested or absorbed through the skin.
Completely and utterly off topic...But you get my drift...

 

[hhmoore]

If rattlesnakes are poisonous, why can they be eaten?