IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA CASE # A14D0182 _______________________________________________________________________ ALEXANDER HARVIN

Applicant v. MERSCORP, INC., et al., Respondent

On Application fo Disc etiona ! Appeal f o" t#e S$pe io Co$ t of Roc%dale Co$nt!, Case & '()*CV))'(M +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ APPLICANTS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION _____________________________________________________________

ALEXANDER HARVIN IN PRO SE P.O.,OX -'../ CON0ERS, 1EOR1IA *(()* 233(4 -5)6(3-5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 7ood $ff v. Mo 8an Co$nt! '/5 1a. ./) 2'((-4 99999999999999999999999. * El"o e v. El"o e, )33 1a.App. .-' 2):-.49999999999999999. * Pa e

'

RESPONDENT CONCEDES THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HA!E PERSONAL "URISDICTION Lac%in8 in a$t#o it!, Respondent eso ts to #!pe ;ole to o;sc$ e t#e facts, "a%in8 o;vio$s atte"pts to deni8 ate and ;elittle t#e Applicant <it# pe=o atives s$c# as absurd, frivolous, and unintelligible. All t#e <#ile, Respondent concedes t#at> Harvins failure to properly serve MERS was yet another reason dismissal of his complaint was proper.1

Respondent?s app oac# is concededl! i"a8inative@ Ha vin s$88ests a et$ n to t#e facts and cont ollin8 a$t#o it! to esolve t#e iss$es aised ;! t#is application fo disc etiona ! appellate evie<. #$$%&'(( )* M$& a+ C$'+,-. 2/4 Ga* 0/1 120082 E34$&e )* E34$&e. 155 Ga*A66* 082 117702

See Respondent?s esponse in opposition to Applicant?s Motion fo econside ation.

CERAIBICAAE OB SERVICE On t#is )(t# da! of Be; $a ! '()5 a t $e and co ect cop! of t#is Repl! to Respondent?s Response In Opposition to Applicant?s Motion Bo Reconside ation <as delive ed ;! elect onic "ail to>

DAVID M. PERNINI dpe niniC<a 8of enc#.co" SHANON D. Mc1INNIS s"c8innisC<a 8of enc#.co" Co$nsel fo Respondents

+++++++++++++++++++++ ALEXANDER HARVIN In P o Se