Frank Meza 2:53:10 at LA Marathon (70 years old) unoffical time (just finished)

---

Took me a while wrote:

---

Stereo FM wrote:

[quote]Took me a while wrote:
Will Frank sue for damages, then? Why not?

---

I am not Frank's counsel but I would almost assuredly think any counsel he does have would not pursue the case. It's not worth it.

He wanted to give up and go away. You all won't allow that.

I would be more concerned for the posters on this thread if there were a discovery and that necessitated the forum to pierce their veil of anonymity. It can and does happen from time to time. See also: topix.com. Who here is willing to bring this outside of an anonymous forum? My guess is not many.

---

---

Took me a while wrote:

I would be more concerned for the posters on this thread if there were a discovery and that necessitated the forum to pierce their veil of anonymity. It can and does happen from time to time. See also: topix.com. Who here is willing to bring this outside of an anonymous forum? My guess is not many.

---

---

Took me a while wrote:

Plus the very small penis.

---

---

Took me a while wrote:

---

deadesq wrote:
Lives? Careers? Plural? Who, other than Frank? Please present your evidence of these allegations.

---

Diaz? Bland? The ADA? Loyola administration? Kids and parents? If you think this thread has not affected them negatively, you are wrong.

---

---

223. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence: Defined
Facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both. Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining. Circumstantial evidence also may be called indirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may logically and reasonably conclude the truth of the fact in question. For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside. Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. You must decide whether a fact in issue has been proved based on all the evidence.

---

---

Scott Dominguez wrote:
As for representing Frank Meza, I am not. The original email & comment to the LA Times was as a friend at Frank’s request. However, having spent some time on Derek Murphy’s website, I am beginning to second guess my decision as well as our friendship, I get the distinct feeling I have been duped. I feel I need to have a “frank” discussion with him.

I find the consistent lack of photos one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Having only run one marathon myself, how likely is it that someone who doesn’t look like they would be running at the front end of the field but is would be intentionally ignored by the photographers?

---

---

Took me a while wrote:

---

Stereo FM wrote:

[quote]Took me a while wrote:
Will Frank sue for damages, then? Why not?

---

I am not Frank's counsel but I would almost assuredly think any counsel he does have would not pursue the case. It's not worth it.

He wanted to give up and go away. You all won't allow that.

I would be more concerned for the posters on this thread if there were a discovery and that necessitated the forum to pierce their veil of anonymity. It can and does happen from time to time. See also: topix.com. Who here is willing to bring this outside of an anonymous forum? My guess is not many.

---

---

jesseriley wrote:

The first 30 pages of this thread took almost 2 months, the last 30 took 3 days! I guess the trolls want to make Meza the most famous cheater ever. And unlike his marathons, also the fastest.

---

---

Scott Dominguez wrote:
I don’t and have never practiced law in the area of defamation. However, for those questioning my legal expertise based on a previous post and the use of the word slander, I was referring to this [video snipped]

---

---

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV wrote:

---

Scott Dominguez wrote:
As for representing Frank Meza, I am not. The original email & comment to the LA Times was as a friend at Frank’s request. However, having spent some time on Derek Murphy’s website, I am beginning to second guess my decision as well as our friendship, I get the distinct feeling I have been duped. I feel I need to have a “frank” discussion with him.

I find the consistent lack of photos one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Having only run one marathon myself, how likely is it that someone who doesn’t look like they would be running at the front end of the field but is would be intentionally ignored by the photographers?

---

That must have been a hard post to write, Scott. But thank you for taking the time. It takes a strong moral compass to admit when one is wrong. Your Loyola education has served you well.

---