• 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....

THE SNAKE PIT WAS BURGLARIZED *AGAIN* LAST NIGHT!!

That is my point,Neil started all this attorney and lawsuit crap,not me.Neil and Phil know that if they file a suit then I can countersue and since Neil started this Lieblous trash talking then he will lose alot.He is not going to sue no body but the more he rants the more I want to sue him (or the corp. he works for).Neil knew from day one that the P.I. suspected him so he started the smoke screen.Neil let his Alligator mouth overload his hummingbird a$$ this time.He knows as I do (and most of you)That he did commit Insurance fraud and I did contact the Florida Insurance board and they were more then interested in him,By the way Neil,They are reading the archives to see how many times you were confused about what was stolen and they paid for.I find it funny that after the 12/2001 burglary Neil bragged about the alarm system, Kavolar windows and that Fort Knox would be proud,But only he knew that he never had the alarm hooked to 1 window that was covered by a large cage and only he knew that the tape was not working that night and only he know how to get around the motion detectors and only he had a key to unlock a rack that snakes were stolen from.There are so many things that happened in that burglary that ONLY Neil could have know about.Neil does not want to answer these questions here  or to us but these are things that Det. Cole will ask and Neil will have to answer and if he gets "confused" to the police well bye,bye Neil.I am also going to find out who (if anyone)Told Neil that I had those snakes in N.C. So Neil you better work and practice what you are going to say ,Because I will say this they will listen to what Thomas Crowley has to say about you and no matter who had or has a signed contract with him he will have to turn over his report to the T.P.D. And we all know what that says,don't we Neil?<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>
 
Jim,

You are correct in that the donators are the clients in the larger picture of things. James is the one on the contract though so that makes him the legal client.
 
Being the man of integrity, we can expect Dave Lawson to accept service of our summons by mail rather than requiring the sheriff's office to track him down and serve him.  Service by mail will get things going a lot faster and we can resolve some of the pressing questions.

No, I think Dave Lawson made it clear that we are going to court on this matter when on May 23 he posted: "OMG!!!!! Neil Gubitz stop the BULLSH*T right now. If you would ever in you life looked me in the eyes and said my name in connection with your burgleries you would be eating with a straw."

Dave is not going to permit reasoned dialog or, apparently, live by the rules we live by in this and every other civilized country.

Dave is the guy who really wants to shut Neil up, enough to threaten to use legally unjustifiable force to do significant bodily harm to Neil if Neil exercised his right to speak freely. The source of all Dave's discomfort is clearly the oft-quoted request Neil made, asking Rich Z to have the PI look at Dave.
"Rich....I just heard some very disturbing news....I didn't want to put it out publicly....The NEXT TIME you speak to Tom...please make him aware that I would like him to focus on DAVE LAWSON!!!"

Asking an investigator to focus on someone and repeating information Neil received from other sources is not defamation and it certainly doesn't justify great bodily harm.  All it justifies is an admission or denial of the information that Neil received, triggering his concern, or a request to confirm the information by tracking it back to the source.

Innocent folks unjustly suspected (and the smart ones who are justly suspected) invariably say, "Go ahead, focus on me, I will cooperate to the max because I didn't do it."  

Please recall that there was some strange hostility displayed very early by Julie's posts.  Although Dave denied responsibility for her posts, the rest of Dave and Julie's posts would cause a reasonably cautious person to wonder if Julie relied on Dave for some or all of the rumors she spread. Perhaps it means nothing.

Early on, someone, maybe our sharp-eyed resident skeptic (nothing wrong with that) Ritchi Luna, asked how a criminal history affects how we decide whom to believe.  In defamation suit in a court of law, Neil has only the burden of coming forward with the statements Neil made.  We print out the thread and send Dave a list of requests for admissions under oath, mostly that he made the posts.  If he denies anything under oath and we convince the jury that Dave denied a fact in bad faith, then we get attorney's fees for the effort to prove it.

Dave will have the burden of proving the truth of his allegations.  Did Neil really say X to Dave?  Well, when there is a credibility contest in court, the judge instructs the jury to consider whether the witness had been convicted of a felony or a crime of dishonesty.  In civil cases convictions that are so old as to have no present bearing on the witness' present character are not admissible.  The jury won't hear about Neil's old dope conviction, because it was back when everyone, including two presidents, were young and irresponsible.

The jury will hear me cross-examine Dave about his felony convictions.  Because the crime of Witness Intimidation (Dave's personal page on the Florida Department of Corrections website is my source) is generally considered to strike at the very heart of the judicial process of dispute resolution, it may very well be that the judge will allow us to name the charge.  At the very least Dave will admit to three felony convictions, because he got one for Intimidation (5 yrs) one for Burglary (5 yrs), and one for Exploitation of the Elderly (12 yrs).  Dave's sentences were concurrent, you see.

The judge will also instruct the jury that they should consider whether the witnesses had an opportunity to know and see the things about which they testify.  Dave will have to subpoena Crowley (not Neil), along with any other witnesses Dave thinks will help to prove the truth of what Dave says.  He will have to disclose the witnesses (all four of them who haven't posted on this board? Osco Boswell and Lola Fan digital, what were the fake names in the Snake man Stalker thread?) And we will check their criminal backgrounds far more thoroughly than I checked Dave's so far, and hire a competent investigator before we go to trial.  

Because Dave will have the burden of proving truth, he will have to subpoena Neil's dad to say, "Yeah, the little snake-hugger has been waiting since he was nine years old to get me back for making him take his first garter snake back to the woods. Don't know how I could have missed the signs all these years."

Dave has the burden, so he will subpoena the "Insurance Board" and address his questions to an empty chair, because there is no "Insurance Board."  And guess what, there wasn't any insurance because it was cancelled last year, so the Florida Department of Insurance doesn't care who done it!
Neil had no motive.

All Dave' anonymous sources will have to come forward and testify under oath in public.  Dave, accept service by mail.

Things are different in a criminal prosecution.  For example, where the facts of another burglary are sufficiently similar to the facts of a burglary being prosecuted, evidence of the other burglary may be admissible to show identity, motive, intent, a common scheme or plan, or to rebut certain defenses.

Dave has gone on at great length in prior pages about what the police are going to do and what can be proven, as if he were an authority.  The truth is that short of a confession, or a yet unknown witness, these burglaries are unlikely to be "solved" to the satisfaction of every reasonable doubt.
I still watch CSI, but it just isn’t really like that.

However, just because a celebrity beats a charge at trial, doesn't mean we invite him to marry or daughter and give him a big sharp, knife for a wedding present.

An good investigator/detective considers everyone a "suspect," meaning that he has to prioritize his search. We   can narrow the suspects to those who were in the Tampa area (lots of unknowns), have ability to handle the snakes (means), knowledge to prioritize what to take (can't carry everything), have some knowledge of the contents of the Pit (dumb to burgle a pet shop with nothing but a bunch of hamsters and weasels), and suggested by the circumstances, some experience in committing burglaries or staging it to look like one (means). Does that narrow it down enough to point the finger at anyone?  No but it narrows it enough to suggest what characteristics the PI should be looking for.  Princess Grace of Monaco is definitely off the list.

How about motive? Neil would be a "suspect" (the owner always is) unless there is no evidence of a motive, means and opportunity (just like the spouse/romantic interest/roommate is always a suspect until excluded in a homicide investigation).

About motive.  Nothing credible on Neil until you show us the insurance policy or the payoff.  Doing dirt to daddy is way to silly for words.  Who else had motive, let alone means and opportunity? Without motive, Neil is off the hook.  Neil can sell his animals for more as "Neil's Snakepit" than as some backstreet guy in a raincoat "pst, buddy, but a nice snake cheap?"

Back to motive; either a covetous collector (big risk for a few more rat-vacuums), or a person with means to make a sale, preferable quick.  Where were there any herp shows right after and who went to them from the Tampa area. Call me if you know, cause I don't.

As was pointed out by an alert member, the thief may well have had buyers for specific items, although we can't rule out someone who just knew what sells high.  If someone could under oath testify that he saw any particular person in possession of snakes meeting the description of those stolen, and the snakes were sufficiently unique and identifiable, a prosecution might succeed. If the person were an innocent buyer, it would be nice if that person cooperated.  Not cooperating makes a person look guilty to the rest of us.

PIT tags and clear photos of morphological details of our snakes or suspected stolen snakes can make a case like this.
Without them, a cooperating witness or a confession, not even Sherlock Holmes could "solve" the burglaries.

Odds are the thief had some help. Gotta have a lookout/getaway driver, at least. Folks who do these things often double-cross each other or drop a dime when the other guy annoys them.  Whoever did the burglary: be very kind and generous to your accomplices.

Meanwhile, Dave is going to accept service by mail and we can get on with this.
 
Oh, and how does Dave know Neil was the only one who knew the window was not alarmed.  Mass mind reading? " I felt a great disturbance in the Force, Luke."

Neil has said everything there is to say over and over, so I don't think he needs to post anymore.  Before you say, "But what about X, Y an Z?" please switch to the printable and re-read this mess like I have been doing for days.

Philip Townes
 
One last thing before I let the LAW take it's course...

I will let you ALL know if Dave ACCEPTS Service from the PO, or he tries to run and hide (like I'm pretty sure he will)!!

You wanted to get it over with, Dave, NOW, you're going to have a chance to PROVE IT!! ....Neil
 
Neil.
if Philip Townes is your lawyer I would be worried. Is he just starting out? Is his post meant to intimidate Dave?
If I had a lawyer I would hope that he was busy enough at work and not have the time to come on the BOI and post about my case. This is suppose to be a professional lawyer?
This has to be a first where a lawyer comes on the internet and support his client. Also comes on and lays out his defense and what Dave will need to do. Whats his fee? 3 box tops from cap n crunch!
I would not be happy with a lawyer like that.
Dave should read his post and if it has merit (which I doubt) he now knows exactly what to do.
This is my opinion but, You seem to be happy with him.
Scott Cook
 
That all sounds fine and dandy Phil.Acording to you I can take every person that has ever said somethingbad about me to court and not have to prove anything but rather they have to prove everything,Is that about it?The thing is Neil will have to give the name  or names of the person (s) that told him I had those snakes in N.C.,CORRECT? Now this brings me to another point Phil,You are saying that I did not give info to a insurance board investigator so that would mean Neil has nothing to hide from considering he admittly  "got confused" and padded the claim.The fact that Neil got on this thread and said "Daves a liar" gee I guess I can not countersue him for that.Well  Phil send your papers and I have already given you the name of my attorney (she has been a family friend so she has been advising me but no retainer yet).My record can be heard but not Neil's and mine is from "93".I can prove what I say and I do have people waiting to get on the stand this is not going to be a cake walk and I do think that you will lose and Neil (Neil's daddy)will pay.Send you papers and tell you client he should realy stop telling people that I robbed his store my witness list keeps growing.
 
Philip D. Townes, Attorney
37 North Orange Avenue, Suite 500
Post Office Box 3111
Orlando, Florida 32802-3111
Phone: 407-926-4052
Fax:     407-236-0430
[email protected]


Please go to the thread titled "A List of People Not To Do Business With."  

I would appreciate some clarifications on your motives for you post on that thread.

Thank You
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please recall that there was some strange hostility displayed very early by Julie's posts.  Although Dave denied responsibility for her posts, the rest of Dave and Julie's posts would cause a reasonably cautious person to wonder if Julie relied on Dave for some or all of the rumors she spread.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Very interesting, particularly when Neil has Julie in so high esteem. After all they are neighbors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I HATE having to get into this thread, but....when you start accusing Julie and Lyman for things that they had NO PART IN....that's where I draw the line! They live in the same complex that I do....I know them VERY WELL! They are the INNOCENTS in this! They are probably the MOST HONEST people you will ever meet!!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Best regards,  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>
 
Hey,I have a idea,Why don't Neil tell everyone what he ask Julie to do with the albino and anery boas the night before they were "stolen" and why he ask her to do it.Oh and Neil you know there were witnesses to that exchange as well.But do not worry it will all come out in court.Did everyone know that Neil is a Psyhic?He was telling people a month before each and every burglary that he knew that he was going to be robbed,Hey Neil,I know Ihave ask this before but can I have the lottery number?

Oh,Phil is trying this case here and he is trying to use everone here as judge and jury and it does not look good for Neil.
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey,I have a idea,Why don't Neil tell everyone what he ask Julie to do with the albino and anery boas the night before they were "stolen" and why he ask her to do it.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Dave,

If you have something in writing post it. If not it is just hearsay.

Thanks.
 
That is why I said to ask.I have to have hard proof no matter what I say.On the other hand Neil only has to say it to be believed.Thimk Iam joking read this thread.
 
Dave,

If it was the case that everyone believes Neil without proof this thread would have stopped on page 10  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>

"Dave should read his post and if it has merit (which I doubt) he now knows exactly what to do. "

Scott was right on with this quote. Why give the opposition your game plan with plenty of time to disect and plan for it? A lawyer wouldn't bluff would he? <----Sarcasm

Neil for 10K in California I could hand you a lawyer that would have shut down this whole argument in less than a week. Or better yet you could have just come on here and stated clearly and concisely what happened (with supporting facts) and spent the money on restocking your store. $700 of that would have done for the PI and you could have seen the report and been able state with documentation that either that the PI was incompetent or what a diagnosis of the case was.

Neil, there had been a few postings on here before from people that said your store was dirty, dead animals etc. These postings were quickly shut down by you stating the error in those reported "facts" and a few people standing up to say they had been there and not seen that. Those threads stopped within a few posts (did any even get over 1 page).  Now either Dave needs to look for a job in Washington DC because he is the best spin doctor in the world OR there is something of substance behind what he has shown and the way you replied to make A LOT of people question you.
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I think Dave Lawson made it clear that we are going to court on this matter when on May 23 he posted: "OMG!!!!! Neil Gubitz stop the BULLSH*T right now. If you would ever in you life looked me in the eyes and said my name in connection with your burgleries you would be eating with a straw."
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

HA HA HA HA HA HA  What happend Mr. Perry Mason.  Your slander and libel suit was to weak?  So now you are going for a threat instead?

You said that Neil was exercising his first ammendment right by saying Dave stole the snakes.......Well wasn't Dave
also  exercising his first ammendment right by saying Neil stole his own snakes?  ALSO wasn't dave exercising his right to protect his reputation  when he said he would punch out Neil if Neil would have looked at him in the face and accused him.


So let me get this straight.

If dave lies..it is a lie.
If Neil lies...it is a temporary lapse in memory?DOUBLE STANDARD

If Dave accuses Neil....it is slander liebel etc etc
If Neil accuses Dave.....it is okay.DOUBLE STANDARD

If Dave threatens to "protect" his good name....he is going to get sued.
If it's Neil....sh!t you will even represent him. DOUBLE STANDARD

Dave's criminal past renders him with no credibility.
Neil's criminal past (which he lied aobut...I mean had a temporary laps in memory about) is totally okay.

Welcome to the land of double standards.

I always saw Perry mason argue and plan his cases on tv.
I never knew he would be so good as to do it over the internet.

Hey are you getting paid by the hour....or are you getting paid by how many words you type?

Becasue you sure do type a lot....I wonder if you get paid a lot too.

try this next quote
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Asking an investigator to focus on someone and repeating information Neil received from other sources is not defamation and it certainly doesn't justify great bodily harm</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
In english it means...YOUR client NEIL GUBITZ was the investigators main suspect....so he tried to take attention away from hmself.
Then you come up with a story of..hey all the owners are suspects in the begginning....SURPRISE......YOur client was a suspect in the END.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In defamation suit in a court of law, Neil has only the burden of coming forward with the statements Neil made.  We print out the thread and send Dave a list of requests for admissions under oath, mostly that he made the posts.  If he denies anything under oath and we convince the jury that Dave denied a fact in bad faith, then we get attorney's fees for the effort to prove it.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Well what happens when what Dave says is true?

What will happen when the PI says your client stole his own snakes?
What happens if the PI says I do not have any conclusive evidence YET..But in  my EXPERT opinion your client stole his snakes. what happens then?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Asking an investigator to focus on someone and repeating information Neil received from other sources is not defamation </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>b  Well wasn't Dave doing the same thing...He was repeating either what he has heard or what he knows... Double Standard
 
To all who post on this thread---  
 Look at what this has turned into!  If you have things to post, back them up with proof.  He said, she said, gets you nowhere.  Everyone posting accusations, post facts to back them up, PERIOD.  Some people have already stated "what a joke this has become"  This site is too valueable to have it's credibility lost over crap and speculation like this topic is full of.  Let's not kill it!
 I have not taken sides, as there are no sides to take.  In my opinion, still most of the stuff being slung back and forth here has been unsubstantiated (lack of proof?).  If I have missed something, correct me, but has any criminal wrong-doings been proven as of yet?  Has Dave backed up any of what he says with proof and facts?  Not much if any....  He just recently stated something about an exchange of snakes before the robbery.  He was asked to back it up with proof by someone else, and came back to cry about having to prove what he says??  Yes, you're making the accusations, back them up, PERIOD.
 I have never done business with either Dave or Neil, I also am not here to say either one is good/bad.  I am only here to ask for proof of what is being said and do away with the spreading of manure.
 To Ritchie Luna....
 Ritchie, you are and have also been a staple to this site.  I have to ask though, what do you know that you have'nt told that made you do a total 180 degree turn on your opinion of this thread?  You all of the sudden turned on Neil like a dog with rabies?  You have always seemed to gather the info before you chewed upon your prey, what do you know that we don't know?  Did you see the report from the PI ?  Did you question people and investigate on your own to come to the conclusion you have?  Have you been told, with proof to back it up, things that made this mess clear to you?
 I hope I'm not opening myself up here to a bunch of crap from people, just want to get to the bottom of all this.  If you took away all the posts with no proof to back them up, how many would you have left??  
 
 Bob
 Hanover Herps
 
Hey Neil,
Ask Phil if he can use the tapes I played for you the other day, you know, the ones from the Police Department. If he can, I will make them available to him. He can also get in touch with the digial communications tech that made the tapes. We aren't taking sides, but this may be something to help prove someone's credibility, or lack of.

There are plenty more things I'd like to say, but, yes, this is a moot point, and then again it would look like I'm taking sides. I'm not.

But there is one thing I have to say:
Ritchie, somewhere along the line, I got the impression you have defended this Great Country and Her Constitution. Within that Constitution, it provides us with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have now judged Neil for not proving his innocence, and allowed Dave to be the jury without proof. DOUBLE STANDARD?  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'> It appears we have all become a jury of Neil's peers.

JENNY MARTELIZ
 
Hi Jenny....
 What tapes??  What are they about???  Can you elaborate?<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>  
 Don't worry about taking sides or what not, if you have anything that would shed light on this, PLEASE DO....
 
 Bob
 
Yes Jenny, please elaborate for us. I think it would benefit us all greatly. Well, maybe all but one or two.

On a lighter note, it has been an excellent holiday weekend. I hope y'all are having a good one so far. I really don't have much to say. I just wanted to be able to say that I posted on Page 69!!!  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>   <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>   <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>

*LOL* *LMAO* Enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend folks.
 
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr. Townes
Please respond to my inquiry on your motives to this post of yours in this thread.

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/cgi-bin....4;st=10

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Tim Bowles
Arboreal of the Rainforest</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

This was sent to Mr Townes via the email system on this site.  So when he returns to view this thread he will immediately be notified that I have requested his reply.
 
Dave and Neil, Ill tell ya guys what, your both friggin idiots for continueing in this thread. Are you guys that blind that you cant see.....the wolves have been hungry and man, the two of you just slice those wrists and let the wolves lick the blood right off, dont ya? Take my advice SHUUUUUUUTTTT UUUUPPPPP!!!!!!!!!! The both of ya are digging your holes deeper and YES neither of you got any credibilty what so ever anymore. Let the courts handle it...........

Neil if your lawyer is still allowing you to speak within these forums and is still representing you, ill tell ya what he is a dumb a$$ that is going to lose your case.
 
Back
Top