On April 10th of this year, the online terrorist and adult business washout known as Monica Foster was sued for defamation in Clark County, Nevada District Court by one of her victims, Jennifer Randazza.
The basis of the suit is a series of tweets and blog posts by Foster in which she claims that Mrs. Randazza — a school teacher — had been engaging in prostitution, organized crime, and pornography.
Foster’s defense was that she had received “an electronic communication” from someone claiming to be Jennifer Randazza — and who Foster believed to be Jennifer Randazza — and was merely repeating what was contained in the communication.
Foster has never produced the text of any such communications, and the case comes down to this: 1) whether Foster ever actually received any “electronic communications” containing the charges she made publicly, and 2) if she did receive such an “electronic communication”, whether Foster was right to have relied on a communication of such flimsy authenticity.
Foster filed a Motion To Dismiss the case, and at a July 1 hearing on the Motion, Foster admitted she could not provide the “electronic communications” which lay at the heart of her case. Foster’s Motion was denied, with the judge remarking, “It’s too bad these emails don’t exist.”
The ruling cleared the way for Jennifer Randazza’s case to proceed against Foster. On July 22, Randazza’s attorneys filed a Notice of Early case Conference, as required under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.
In June, Jennifer’s husband, attorney Marc Randazza, filed, on behalf of himself and his family, an Application for Order for Protection Against Stalking, Aggravated Stalking, or Harassment against the “obsessive” anti-semite and adult business washout.
At a July 25 hearing, the Order was issued against her. Because Foster refused to attend the hearing, she learned of the outcome by reading about it at TRPWL.
The following night, she electronically filed the following gem in the Randazza v. Mayers defamation action:
EARLY CASE CONFERENCE REPORT
Defendant ALEXANDRA MAYERS (”Defendant”) hereby files her Early Case Conference Report.
Pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1, an Early Case Conference is required to be held within 30 days of the date an Answer is filed. Plaintiff JENNIFER RANDAZZA’s attorney who is handling this case, RONALD D. GREEN of RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, filed and served via U.S. mail Defendant a NOTICE OF EARLY CASE CONFERENCE on July 22, 2014 (Defendant received a copy of the filing July 25, 2014 – Exhibit A). The EARLY CASE CONFERENCE was scheduled for August 7, 2014 at the following address: 3625 South Town Center Drive, Suite 150, Las Vegas, nevada 89135 (Randazza Legal Group’s office location).
On June 2, 2014 Plaintiff JENNIFER RANDAZZA’s husband (Marc Randazza – employer and partner to attorney RONALD D. GREEN) filed for a protective order against Defendant (Exhibit B) through the Justice Court of Nevada (JC Department 3 Case #14P00823). The protective order specifically requests that Defendant be ordered not to enter or come within physical proximity of Randazza Legal Group’s office location 3625 South Town Center Drive, Suite 150, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135. The protective order was granted by default to Marc Randazza (Defendant was unable to attend the hearing).
LOL at “unable to attend”…
Attorney RONALD D. GREEN is well aware of the protective order filed by Plaintiff JENNIFER RANDAZZA’s husband Marc Randazza against Defendant. It is completely illogical for attorney RONALD D. GREEN to request that Defendant appear at a location which his client and his employer has requested through the courts that the Defendant not enter or come within physical proximity of.
It appears that attorney RONALD D. GREEN has attempted to lure Defendant into violating a court ordered protective order and/or is attempting to obstruct justice and prevent Defendant from participating in the legal process and proceedings. Defendant as of today has not received (or been served) with the protective order filed by Plaintiff JENNIFER RANDAZZA’s husband.
Defendant will not be attending the currently scheduled EARLY CASE CONFERENCE at the Randazza Legal Group office. Defendant is not willing to attend any meetings, conferences or hearings which Plaintiff JENNIFER RANDAZZA, her husband MARC RANDAZZA, or any Randazza Legal Group employees will be present at (or in physical proximity of) due to the filed protective order and being in fear for her own physical safety and life since MARC RANDAZZA referenced that Defendant be physically harmed in the year 2012 (Exhibit C).
As reported on TRPWL the day the protective order was issued:
Due to the Order, an upcoming conference in the Randazza v. Mayers defamation suit will have to be rescheduled at a location other than the offices of Randazza Legal Group.
Since Foster had not yet been served with the Order of Protection at the time she composed this new filing, this means that, although she acknowledged the existence of the Order in this pleading, she simply chose to ignore the part about how the conference will be not be held at Randazza’s offices.
What does “referenced that Defendant be physically harmed in the year 2012″ mean, you ask? Well, in a public thread posted on Xbiz.net in April of that year, Randazza replied to Foster’s ignorant anti-free speech comments, and concluded by writing: “Now talk your uneducated ass and drive your 1993 Geo off a cliff, please.” (Ironically, Foster had been attacking someone who had created offensive “art” — funny how, now that she’s facing charges of defamation, false light and harassment, she LOVES the first amendment, which she claims protects her “artistic” works of “parody”. It’s only okay when Monica Foster does it.)
And what would a Monica Foster court filing be without naming the only people who actually take a public interest in this case as dangerous stalkers:
In addition, Defendant will not attend any meetings, conferences or hearings which Plaintiff JENNIFER RANDAZZA’s husband MARC RANDAZZA’s affiliates and acquaintances [are present].
Who are Randazza’s “affiliates and acquaintances”? She names three: “documented stalker” Michael Whiteacre (I’ve met Randazza once — while covering this story, in court); Sean Tompkins (whom she also calls a “stalker” based on the hilarious affidavit of “qualified sextrafficking victim Diana Grandmason” (oddly, she doesn’t mention that Grandmason married a child predator/sex offender, then pimped her own daughter); and Tristan Stadtmuller (whom she refers to as “a documented stalker and cyber bully“. The irony of Monica Foster calling someone else a “cyber bully” is delicious.
Foster concludes by stating:
Defendant is willing and able to attend future meetings, conferences and hearings in regards to this case via electronic communication (telephone).
Dated July 26, 2014
Defendant in proper person
How magnanimous of you, Foster. LOL You refuse to physically attend proceedings, but you’ll call in as you did for the hearing on your Motion To Dismiss (which was rejected). Great plan.
Notice that Foster still refuses to directly address the issues central to the case. Everything is someone else’s fault, and Foster demands to be held to a different standard than every other citizen because people don’t like her or her cyber terrorism, and are mean to her online.
I have to add — we at TFPWL are a little disappointed that Stadtmuller got three exhibits in Foster’s latest pleading, while Sean and I each received only one this time around.
The destruction of Monica Foster continues… and a little birdie tells TFPWL that additional plaintiffs are lining up against Foster.
Payback is a bitch.
Randazza v. Mayers A-14-699072-C, District Court, Clark County, Nevada, Eighth Judicial District, Department 32
A big thank you to our friend Matt.