Rayon Payne and Folksalert Answer & Affirmative Defenses Lawsuit

Filing # 93696738 E-Filed 08/06/2019 06:10:17 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JERMAINE CARLOS DIAZ,
Plaintiff,
V. CASE NO: 2019-CA-8025-O
RAYON SHERWIN PAYNE

d/b/a FOLKSALERT APP.
Defendant.
______________________________/
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, RAYON SHERWIN PAYNE d/b/a FOLKSALERT APP answers the Complaint
filed by Plaintiff as follows:
ANSWER
1. Admitted that this is an action for damages but all other allegations are Denied.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
5. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Without knowledge; therefore denied.
1
9. Without knowledge; therefore Denied.
11. Admitted that the Plaintiff is involved with music but Defendant is without knowledge as
to whether Plaintiff is successful with his company or any other allegations in Paragraph
11. Accordingly, same are denied.
12. Admitted that the Plaintiff were active on Instagram but Defendant is without knowledge
as to how much Plaintiff earns as a result of such activities or any other allegations in
Paragraph 12. Accordingly, same are denied
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted that Defendant is known as Keko all other allegations in Paragraph 14.
Accordingly, same are denied
15. Denied.
16. I Admitted to the statements made and Denied all other allegations in this paragraph.
22. Denied.
2
38. Denied.
39. I Admitted to the statement of fact published and Denied all other allegations in this
paragraph.
40. Denied.
41. Denied.
42. Denied.
43. Denied.
44. I Admitted to recording the phone calls and Denied all other allegations in this paragraph.
3
47. Denied.
48. Denied.
49. Admitted to taking said action to remove Plaintiff’s page from Instagram but all other
allegations in Paragraph 49. Accordingly, same are denied
52. Admitted.
53. No response required.
54. Denied.
55. Denied.
56. Denied.
57. Admitted.
59. Denied.
60. Denied.
61. Denied.
62. Admitted.
64. Denied.
65. Denied.
66. Denied.
67. Admitted.
4
69. Denied.
70. Denied.
71. Denied.
72. Admitted.
74. Denied.
75. Denied.
76. Denied.
77. Admitted.
79. Admitted.
80. Denied.
81. Denied.
82. Admitted.
83. Denied.
84. Admitted.
88. Denied.
89. Denied.
5
90. Admitted.
94. Denied.
95. Denied.
96. Denied.
97. Admitted.
99. Admitted.
100. Denied.
101. Denied.
102. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

TRUTH
103. Defendant affirmatively asserts that all statements and comments by Defendant were
true and thus, can not be the basis for a defamation action.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH
104. Plaintiff’s claim is barred under the substantial truth doctrine.
6
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
GOOD MOTIVE – FAIR COMMENT
105. All statements and comments made by Defendant about Plaintiff were made by the
Defendant with good motive and were fair comments made as a private citizen exercising
his right of free speech, discussing matters of public importance, as a concerned citizen of
the community worried about sex trafficking and choose to do a documentary about it.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

PRIVILEGE - QUALIFIED AND CONDITIONAL
106. The matters addressed by Defendant concerning Plaintiff and his activities on social
media as a register sex offender and convicted sex trafficker who forced a 15 year old
into prostitution by using a gun, are matters which concerns the general public. These
statements were made in good faith with the proper motives of informing the public, and
informing social media officials of a dangerous predator on their platform. Therefore the
Defendant’s statements are protected by both qualified and conditional privilege.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

SLAPP SUIT VIOLATION
107. The action brought by Plaintiff is a SLAPP suit precluded by § 720.304(4), Fla. Stat.
(2006), and Defendant is thus entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as a
member of the public with concerns about human trafficking in our communtities and on
the worldwide web.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

FAILURE TO MEET THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO FILING A SLANDER SUIT
7
108. Florida law requires pre-suit notice prior to the commencement of any civil action for
libel or slander. See § 770.01, Fla. Stat. (2006) and Chapter 770 applies to all civil
litigants, both public and private, in defamation actions. The conditions precedent have
not been met and thus the Complaint should be dismissed.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
109. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should
therefore be dismissed. The requisite elements for the claim are not present and/or have
not been properly pled.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

LACK OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEFENDANT
110. No act or omission on the part of Defendant either caused or contributed to whatever
injury (if any) the Plaintiff may have sustained.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
111. Plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate its damages.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

PLAINTIFF AS PUBLIC FIGURE
112. Plaintiff is a public figure who seeked out the public attention with his involvement in
the music industry as well embroiled in public controversies with well known rappers
Sauce Walker. Also the Plaintiff made national headline for being the first person to be
prosecuted under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act for failure to
8
registering as a Sex Offender, and as such is unable to meet the heightened burden of
proof to sustain the claim.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

NO PROVABLE FALSE ASSERTIONS OF FACT
113. The Defendant’s statements are not properly subject to a slander suit because they
contained no provably false assertions of fact.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
114. The Defendant is immune from this suit pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230(c).
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

ANY VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE 934.10 WAS IN GOOD FAITH
115. Defendant has a good faith reliance because all recordings were done while
Defendant was conducting interviews as a blogger for Folksalert. And Defendant on
around or February15, 2019 was and still is a victim of harassment perpetrated by
Plaintiff so keeping records such as phone calls and texts was essential for Defendant to
procure a Temporary order of protection against Plaintiff. See
case#48-2019-DR-002903-O with the Clerk of this court.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

UNCLEAN HANDS
116. The Court should take notice of Plaintiff’s conduct prior to him filing this frivolous
lawsuit which was another way of intimidating and harassing Defendant. The Plaintiff
has made numerous violent threats towards Defendant directly and has 3rd parties follow
9
and videotape Defendant at work and his home. The Plaintiff have made viable threat
where he said he had many opportunities to blow Defendant top off. Because of
Plaintiff’s violent past of using a gun to force a child into the sex trafficking and as he’s a
lifetime register sex offender the Defendant has filed a police report with the Orlando
Police Dept. Case# 2019-00064689 and has obtained a temporary restraining order
against Plaintiff. See case#48-2019-DR-002903-O with the Clerk of this court.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER SECTION 934.10(3)
117. Plaintiff’s claims in paragraph #44 and #46 are phone interviews which were
conducted in September 2012 and the Plaintiff had full knowledge of these recordings
and thus should be barred.
SIXTHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

INCREMENTAL HARM
118. Defendant’s statement causes no significant damage to the Plaintiff's reputation
which was already sufficiently tarnished by his own doing when he was convicted of sex
trafficking a minor and which he’s was order by the court to be a lifetime sex offender .
Thus any claims asserting defamation should be barred.
10
Respectfully submitted,
RAYON SHERWIN PAYNE, PRO SE
/s/ Rayon Payne

_______________________________
8815 Conroy Windermere Rd
Ste. #208
Orlando Florida 32835
Tel: 646-543-6557
Email: info@folksalert.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal this 6th day of August, 2019, to: ERIC P. LARUE
II, 501 S. New York Ave. Winter Park Fl 32789.
RAYON SHERWIN PAYNE, PRO SE

/s/ Rayon Payne
___________________________
11

Rayon Payne and Folksalert Answer & Affirmative Defenses Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rayon Payne and Folksalert Answer & Affirmative Defenses Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing # 93696738 E-Filed 08/06/2019 06:10:17 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL

JERMAINE CARLOS DIAZ,

V. CASE NO: 2019-CA-8025-O

RAYON SHERWIN PAYNE

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

filed by Plaintiff as follows:

4. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.

5. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.

8. Without knowledge; therefore denied.

10. Without knowledge; therefore Denied.

11. Accordingly, same are denied.

Paragraph 12. Accordingly, same are denied

Accordingly, same are denied

17. Without knowledge; therefore Denied.

allegations in Paragraph 49. Accordingly, same are denied

50. Without knowledge; therefore denied.

51. Without knowledge; therefore denied.

53. No response required.

58. No response required.

63. No response required.

73. No response required.

78. No response required.

85. No response required.

86. Without knowledge; therefore denied.

87. Without knowledge; therefore denied.

91. No response required.

92. Without knowledge; therefore denied.

93. Without knowledge; therefore denied.

98. No response required.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

104. Plaintiff’s claim is barred under the substantial truth doctrine.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

Defendant’s statements are protected by both qualified and conditional privilege.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

(2006), and Defendant is thus entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as a

the worldwide web.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

not been met and thus the Complaint should be dismissed.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

not been properly pled.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

injury (if any) the Plaintiff may have sustained.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

111. Plaintiff has failed to properly mitigate its damages.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

proof to sustain the claim.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

contained no provably false assertions of fact.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

Defendant was conducting interviews as a blogger for Folksalert. And Defendant on

around or February15, 2019 was and still is a victim of harassment perpetrated by

procure a Temporary order of protection against Plaintiff. See

case#48-2019-DR-002903-O with the Clerk of this court.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

against Plaintiff. See case#48-2019-DR-002903-O with the Clerk of this court.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

and thus should be barred.

SIXTHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

118. Defendant’s statement causes no significant damage to the Plaintiff's reputation

Thus any claims asserting defamation should be barred.