This Court entered an order requiring Respondents to respond by 9:00
a.m. on December 6, 2006, but precluding Mr. Diaz from filing a reply..4.
Just before 9:00 a.m., undersigned received the Respondent’s Response to
Mr. Diaz’s Petition. This Response raises new matters and issues, and contains blatantly
deceptive assertions and arguments. Denying Mr. Diaz an opportunity to address these
matters violates Mr. Diaz’s due process rights, specifically the right to fair notice and
reasonable opportunity to be heard.
5. For example, in the Response the State advances the argument that the
Petition improperly seeks a declaratory judgment.1 Of course, the State made a similar
argument in Jones v. Butterworth, 691 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1997), when it asserted that Mr.
Jones was seeking a declaratory judgment that electrocution was unconstitutional.
However, the State’s position was rejected.