In The Supreme Court

The Honorable Kaye G. Hearn, Chief Judge

Anonymous Taxpayer,                    
(Gary Patriot)   ………………………………………… Appellant-Petitioner


SC Department of Revenue…………………………Respondent-Respondent 

Response to Reply to Return of DOR

Gary Chapman, Pro Se
Greer, SC 29651

Ronald Urban, Chief Counsel for Litigation
301 Gervais Street
Columbia, SC 29211

Petitioner hereby files his Response to Reply to Return of DOR which was dated August 20, 2008

1. It is unfortunate that the Department of Revenue failed to receive Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner certified in his pleading to the court and again here that he served the pleading on opposing counsel by depositing a copy of it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the same day he mailed his petition to the Court. It was addressed to:

Ronald Urban, Chief Counsel for Litigation
301 Gervais Street
Columbia, SC 29211.

Petitioner would be happy to forward another copy to DOR if they would like one.

2. Petitioner is a pro se litigant and did his best to file a proper Writ of Certiorari, stating the background of the case.

3. Petitioner thanks Mr. Urban’s office for their diligence in attaching The Motion to Dismiss, Memorandum and Affidavit to their Return. Petitioner did not think these were necessary to include as the court rules only called for a copy of the order.

4. DOR relies upon Toomer v. Toomer, 244 S.C. 399, 137 S.E2d 406,408 (1964) stating “the right of appeals is a matter of grace and is not an inherent or vested right…..” This would indicate that not all persons have access to the appeals court and the law would be unevenly applied to wealthy parties and would show discrimination based on wealth. This court has the authority to supersede the rules in existence, especially when they violate Chapman’s Constitutional right to due process.

5. The state also erroneously relies upon Horn v. Blackwell 212 S.C. 480, 48 S.E. 2d 322, 323 (1948) which is a different creature totally from instant case. “…as a condition precedent to the right to appeal from an order of ejectment.” (Emphasis added.) Said case is an ejectment case for failure to pay rent and the money owed is in jeopardy. In instant case taxpayer is not going anywhere and teaches at a community college. DOR can easily collect any amount due without jeopardy.

Chapman does not owe the money claimed by the tax collectors. This case stemmed from an IRS printout. These printouts are notoriously grossly incorrect.

6. The fact that Chapman did not file tax returns for other years is not in question in this case, has no bearing on this case and has not been litigated. This is a mere tactic by DOR to paint a negative caricature of Chapman to persuade the Court to act in its favor, ignoring Chapman’s Constitutional right to due process.

Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that I sent properly on this date one copy of this Record of Appeal to opposing counsel at:

Ronald Urban, Chief Counsel for Litigation
301 Gervais Street
Columbia, SC 29211

and two copies to the Clerk of The Supreme Court at:

Clerk of Supreme Courthouse
Supreme Court Building
1231 Gervais Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Date: September 24, 2008
Gary Patriot, Pro Se
Greer, SC 29651