The down and out hate site owner grasps at straws in her latest court filings in the defamation action brought by Jennifer Randazza
Beginning in February 2014, adult business washout Monica Foster began posting Twitter comments and drafting defamatory blog posts claiming that Jennifer Randazza, wife of noted Nevada attorney Marc J. Randazza, has been involved in prostitution, organized crime, and pornography.
On April 10, 2014, in hopes of putting an end to the defamation and harassment, Jennifer Randazza filed suit in District Court in Nevada, for claims of defamation and false light.
Foster, who, according to court documents, is almost penniless, has had her court fees waived and has been acting as her own counsel in the case.
In May, Foster filed a rambling Motion To Dismiss the action, and, at a July 1st hearing — at which the paranoid Foster made her “appearance” by telephone. The court learned at that time that the “electronic communications” Foster has claimed were the basis of her defamatory posts do not exist, and Foster’s motion was denied. In other words, the Randazza v. Mayers action survived Foster’s attempt to get it tossed out of court.
The Randazzas also filed an Application for Order for Protection Against Stalking, Aggravated Stalking, or Harassment against the “obsessive” anti-semite in May, and last month the 35-year old Foster, real name Alexandra Melody Mayers, failed to show up for the hearing in that matter.
In a six-minute hearing in Las Vegas Justice Court, the Order of Protection was issued against Foster, requiring her to stay away from the Randazza family, their residence, his place of business, and their children’s schools.
Due to the Order, an Early Case Conference in the Randazza v. Mayers defamation suit (something which is required pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure) had to be rescheduled at a location other than the offices of Randazza Legal Group. Foster was then informed by Jennifer Randazza’s counsel, Theresa Haar, that the conference had been moved to the Las Vegas offices of Holland and Hart LLP, at 9555 Hillwood Drive.
The purpose of an Early Case Conference is to discuss possible settlement of the case, and propose a plan for discovery. Naturally, it doesn’t benefit Foster to discuss discovery in the case, because she would have to talk about those pesky “electronic communications” that she cannot produce, and which everyone concerned is convinced never existed in the first place.
Which brings us to Foster’s two latest court filings.
(Since the two documents are fundamentally similar, and also include claims and arguments addressed in TRPWL‘s earlier coverage of this case, we post here only the highlights of the two documents — each of which contained around 40 pages of mostly irrelevant exhibits.)
Foster starts with a Notice – a strange document that trumpets her “intent” to comply with the order of another court in another matter.
This Notice is apparently intended as a lengthy throat clearing, in which Foster strives to show the court that she’s a responsible citizen who obeys the law. Innocent as a dove, that’s Monica Foster.
She also includes a bit of spurious legal conclusion:
No, Foster, you’re still required under the rules of the court to serve your pleadings on the other litigant.
Foster’s second pleading last week is her Objection to the Notice she was sent regarding the rescheduled Early Case Conference.
No, Foster, Ms. Haar is not your agent — she is an agent of Jennifer Randazza and an officer of the court in a case that the Judge who issued the Order of Protection was aware of. In fact, it was the Judge’s suggestion to reschedule the hearing at an alternate location. Therefore, the claim that Foster’s attendance would violate the Protection order is patently false.
Also, as one can see, Jennifer Randazza’s counsel made it absolutely clear that Foster’s attendance at the conference would not be viewed by the plaintiff as a violation of the Protective Order, either.
Foster, however, has gotten herself into so much trouble already that she is terrified to appear. In fact, she has already stated on the record that she will not participate in the proceedings in this case.
Needing an alibi, Foster trots out her most ubiquitous one: there exists a massive dark conspiracy against her, and the Randazzas are a part of it!
So, how did the Amended Notice sent to Foster actually read?
Of course we all know how this ends… all of us, even Foster.
Randazza v. Mayers A-14-699072-C, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Eighth Judicial District, Department 32