Talk:Yamashita's gold/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removed conspiracy theory that the US military found much of the “loot” and used it to finance the cold war. The conspiracy theory was generated from a novel, and has not been referenced too by any other reliable sources. Although mentioned in a book review, no further citations, reliable sources or references have been supplied by “other historians” to support this conspiracy/fringe theory.

Extraordinary claims of this magnitude demand extraordinary reliable sources to support it. Please source “other historians” and provide citations of other organizations supporting the claims made if other editors feel the need to include this in the article. Jim (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Try discussing this first. You have been warned enough times. It won't be too hard to find someone to block you next time you do this. Grant | Talk 13:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed conspiracy theory due to lacking references (again) Jim (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was reverted to include the conspiracy theory. Reason given was: "This what is alleged by the Seagraves - We do not have to decide if it is true or false.." This says editors can contribute false information. Jim (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe Wikipedia is still suffering through this nonsense. It's fine to discuss the Seagraves's elaboration of this tall tale, and their silly books, but we owe it to the readers to keep some distance. Enough of this "many credible historians have argued well-documented" weasel worded crap. If the Seagraves claim something, say "the Seagraves claim X" and put it in a section called "According to the Seagraves," stop with the puffery and

> 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant, you need to stop with the frivolous warnings on my talk page. Because you have a stake in this article, you need not abuse your administrative duties. Removing the conspiracy theory you champion is not grounds to have me blocked. I have now received six warnings for removing false references and other materials you champion. Apparently, editors have to get your permission before removing dubious and false material you support.

Grant’s latest threat: This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Grant | Talk 13:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)...that ain't rightJim (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It won't be me that blocks you. Just keep on doing on what you like to do, and you will find out how the WP community views the kind of negative and disruptive behaviour that you habitually engage in.

You have refused to accept consensus with other editors, and ignored my offers of compromises and mediation. Life is too short for me to waste time discussing anything with you any further. Grant | Talk 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with including the later ruling: we are relying on our own interpretation of the ruling. Please find analysis in independent reliable sources before re-inserting that paragraph. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of reasonable, non-recalcitrant editors who may be interested:

I will leave the {{totally-disputed}} template for now, even though it has never been justified, except by untruths and half-baked

. However, I have just removed many other spurious usages of templates.

Apart from anything else these instances are covered by {{totally-disputed}} (even though I "totally dispute" any need for it). Grant | Talk 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• You appear to be asserting
  WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign. Guy (Help!
  ) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Favourable review" - so what? That's not peer-review. This is a one-source conspiracy unless and until you provide corroborating sources, and corroborating sources does not mean book reviews saying what an interesting conspiracy theory it is. A review would be valid in the context of an article about the Seagrave book, but this is not about the Seagrave book. Or rather, this is not supposed to be a statement of the Seagrave's thesis without the benefit of other context. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Locking this article does no good. Last time locked, the main character (Grant56) refused any discussion, and resumed defending the false referencing…. even adding more dubious materials. Wikipedia needs to take a serious look at the abuse of administrative positions in this article. Grant has succeeded in starting another edit-war and causing the lock-down. Jim (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• What's clearly needed is more references. Most of this article appears to be drawn from Johnson's review of the Seagraves' book. Where are the other sources that make this a notable conspiracy theory? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG, I can only quote George Orwell: "sanity is not statistical".

Please don't insult me with spurious accusations of "ownership" or attempt to patronise me by referring me to irrelevant policies.

I have just included (and you have deleted) a mention of the long and generally favourable review by prominent historian Chalmers Johnson, in the London Review of Books. You don't seem to be aware that any book review is a source in itself. Especially a lengthy one in the LRB, by a respected historian.

I have spent months here trying to reason with User:JimBobUSA, who cannot sustain his lawyerising criticisms with any substance, and seems impervious to consensus and policy, let alone reason. Then you wade in. Anyway, I have a life to attend to and I no can longer afford the time required to fight this agenda-driven bullshit. Have a nice debate between yourselves and do whatever you like to the article. Grant | Talk 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I think you will find that the LRB is peer-reviewed. Anyway, I'm gone for good. Grant | Talk 10:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw this on AN/I, and thought I'd look in, as I like Neal Stephenson as much as the next chap.

Guy, Grant65 is correct, a book review in the LRB that discusses the theory would be an additional independent source, as book reviews in such locations are frequently only incidentally about the book.

Grant65, unfortunately that doesn't help you to demonstrate notability in this case, as Johnson actually says that "The Seagraves’ narrative is comprehensive, but they are not fully reliable as historians" and "The authors seem to sense that they might have a credibility problem."

That being said, nowhere does Seagrave directly challenge the role of the CIA, for example, even though he adds 'presumably' before Truman's name to indicate that he isn't sure. Johnson's not a fringe opinion about postwar Asia. Relata refero (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it further. There have been a couple of TV series that have mentioned the theory as well. Channel 4 has an archive of one. I've read one novel based on the theory that was a worldwide bestseller, and there appear to have been at least half a dozen others. Objectively speaking, I can't claim that I think it is non-notable enough to not be mentioned as a well-known conspiracy theory in an article about the mystery. Relata refero (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. My main problem here is that the article has very few sources, the conspiracy theory seems to have only one real source of origin and no great currency. I'd like to see more sources and - more importantly - I'd like to see less appearance of advocacy in the content itself, which is why I toned it down a little. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Well, do we have a reliable source that specifically addresses the theory to debunk it? There's a place to start. Relata refero (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Likely not - most governments react to such obvious nonsense by ignoring it. It's a long-standing problem in conspiracy theory articles that the subjects of the theory very often do not dignify the theory with an authoritative official response. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need an official response, we need an article or discussion by someone of equivalent stature to Johnson. Relata refero (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory lives in two places. It was born in the Seagrave’s novel and mentioned in Johnson’s book review. I think this falls way short of notability and cause for anyone of authority to try and “debunk” something so wild and crazy. Jim (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. This is a page on something notable only for inspiring crazy theories. This is a notable crazy theory and belongs on the page. Fight this battle elsewhere. Relata refero (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn’t? Perhaps you can step-up to the plate and provide some citations or reliable references that support the Seagrave’s conspiracy theory that the US military found much of the “loot” and used it to finance the cold war. I thought the Talk Page was the “battleground” to resolved these issues, while the article is locked down from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA (talk • contribs) 09:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Two have been provided. That is sufficient for a mention in this article on a footnote in history. If you can find any that discuss it to debunk it, bring them here. Relata refero (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I read the Seagrave’s book (Gold Warriors) and evidently, Chalmers Johnson did too. His book review is a mirror image of the book he read, and reviewed. The things most important missing from the Johnson book review is documentation(s) and references other than from what he read in the Seagrave’s novel. Johnson’s references are the same as the book reviewed. Redundant source. Redundant source.

Fun-Filled Factoid: Seagrave’s London based publisher Verso (who was known as New Left Review) and London Review of Books are located less than one mile from each other in London. Jim (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The source isn't redundant, because its a major review from a well-known authority that backs up the speculation. And what precise references are you interested in? Its speculation, man! Get over it. Its notable enough to be in here, and you're achieving nothing keeping it out. Focus on the precise text, and we'll get somewhere.

And I lived one mile from the LRB as well. Your point? Relata refero (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have a copy of Asian Loot: Unearthing the Secrets of Marcos, Yamashita and the Gold by Charles McDougald from 1993? Seems to also be on this topic. Maybe it's been discussed already. I meandered here at random today, and my first glance at this article left me feeling that it's a fringe theory but most of the most outrageous claims are tempered now and pointed out as contested. this was probably a result of tremendous effort and work here by the editors. Also sounds like it has been a quite painful process to get here. I for one think it's fine to have wacky theories in the encyclopedia if they are notable, but it is a real shame that more scholars have not critiqued this one with more effort so we're just left with ambiguity. (though i fear some weasel words still reduce the quality of the article and that would be good to fix still) Perhaps as this theory gains notability over time it will also consequentially gain more useful scrutiny and this article can continue to improve. But if credible scholars and historians ignore it, then we're left without much resolution. My favorite quote though was "it was a lot of hogwash" from this reference... - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash would be a correct term. The Yamashita gold urban legend has already been “debunked” by the top historians in the Philippines. What would be the logic in trying to “debunk” a conspiracy theory in the Seagrave’s novel? A conspiracy theory based on an urban legend should be written as such. Jim (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to change the tone or style, not the content. Relata refero (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission to continue editing the article, Yamashita’s gold. Since the article is supposed to be about Yamashita’s gold, it (the article) needs to be more centered on the actual legend/myth itself, and not from one publication that was spun-off from the myth. I have protested from the beginning that the article was more of an advertisement and book review for the Seagrave’s novel, than about the actual legend/myth itself. The other novels and movies just have a mention in the “popular culture” section of the article, and they do not publicize selling additional CD-ROMs to support their agenda, like the article does for the Seagrave’s.

Yamashita’s gold is an urban legend in the Philippines, and the article should reflect upon that knowledge. Every attempt made by myself, and other editors, to include that pertinent bit of information has been futile. It would be nice if the article got back on track, added some truth to the matter. This urban legend pre-dates the Seagrave’s novel by decades, but for reasons unknown, many of these facts have been omitted from the article. Can the weasel words, the “sly-editing” trying to make something out of nothing and allow editors to include the fact that Yamashita’s gold is known to be an urban legend in the Philippines.

Maybe the Seagrave’s wacky anti-American conspiracy theory of how General Macarthur and the president of the United States (and succeeding presidents knew, too) found billions of dollars in gold bullion and financed the cold war (skipped over the Korean War) could be another Wikipedia article. Or, maybe the conspiracy theory of how Emperor Hirohito appointed his brother head of a secret organization in charge of the looting. Why should this article be a playground for conspiracy theories and continually leave out pertinent facts. Jim (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because, as you note, this topic is notable only as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Thus such notable speculation as the two you mention should be front-and-centre. Relata refero (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories due to poor editing and hidden agendas, in my humble opinion. I agree with Guy (above): "Where are the other sources that make this a notable conspiracy theory?" as well as: ""Favourable review" - so what? That's not peer-review. This is a one-source conspiracy unless and until you provide corroborating sources, and corroborating sources does not mean book reviews saying what an interesting conspiracy theory it is.". I have probably typed this a few times on this page, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources to support it. A book review falls short of being an extraordinary source. Not exactly following the fringe theory guidelines set by Wikipedia now, are we?

The article needs to get back on track. The article is about Yamashita’s gold, firstly. The article is not a book review for the Seagrave's novel or a forum for promoting fringe theories. Jim (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold is a fringe theory. By all means quote a historian saying it doesn't exist.

And as for the claim that Seagrove's book is a single source for the CIA theory, well, possibly: but it has receied non-notable coverage in multiple reliable sources, including the London Review of Books. That makes it notable enough for a page on a fringe theory. Relata refero (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Yamashita’s gold and not the Roxas vs. Marcos trial. The article includes versions of the trial from both sides to balance out the article.

If the IP editor feels the need to include more information about the trial, they need to supply independent reliable sources that support that information, and not rely on our own interpretation(s) of the rulings. Jim (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the Judicial Opinion. The prior summary of the finding of the Court was dead wrong. The Court did not throw out the entire case. There was insufficient evidence to prove the cambers full of gold. However, the verdict was upheld as far as the Golden Budda and the 17 bars of gold. The following is a direct quote from the conclusion of the case as cited: "Based on the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse that portion of the circuit court’s amended judgment awarding GBC $22,000,000,000.00 for “one storage area” of gold bullion, (2) vacate those portions of the amended judgment (a) entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and against Imelda, in her capacity as personal representative of the Marcos Estate, (b) awarding GBC $1,400,000.00 in damages for conversion of the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars, and (c) entering judgment in favor of Imelda and against the plaintiffs-appellees on GBC’s claim for constructive trust, and (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed."

So the court ruled that Plaintiff proved that Roxas found the gold budda and 17 bars of gold. To imply that the court completely rejected Roxas claim is simply wrong and completely misleading. The opinion of the Court is sufficient reference to prove what the Court said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor: Please stop removing referenced material. Jim (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim, you are a sick man. Your material is directly contradicted by the published decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court -- which was one of the references cited by your material. The Court decided that Roxas established that he found the golden Budda and 17 bars. End of story. I am not sure what interest you have in distorting the public record on this matter, but you are not rational and your comment "please stop removing referenced material" is patently absurd, because referenced material is only worth anything if it accurately reflects the material it references -- which your material does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor: Please stop the personal attacks. I would suggest citing a reference that disputes the material. Debate the issue, not the editor. Jim (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

JimBoobUSA: I'll tell you what, if you can show how my summary inaccurately reflects the findings of the Hawaii Supreme Court, and that the previous summary that you keep reverting to is a more accurate representation of what the Court found, then I'll let it rest. You say you want to debate the issue, but you really don't. You do not address the relative merits of the changes, you just revert them back and add a cryptic explanation that justifies nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor: Please cite a reference that will support your POV, and disputes the present material/sources. Again, stop with the name calling. Jim (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Let us try this again Jim Bob. Please read the following:

"...remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed."

That quote came from the actual Hawaii Supreme Court decision properly referenced in the article. If you do not understand that excerpt from the Hawaii Supreme Court, because you lack either the legal training or the mental reasoning capacity, please recuse yourself from further edits to this section. You have proven yourself unqualified. For your edification, the Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment against Imelda based on GBC's claim of conversion. GBC's claim of conversion (and for those of you in Rio Linda, conversion means stealing) was based upon the stealing of the golden Buddha and the 17 bars from Roxas. The Supreme Court even directed the trial court to conduct a new trial on the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars. Thus, there was a judicial finding that Roxas found the Golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold, but those items were converted (stolen) by Marcos. It cannot be reasonably disputed that that was the finding of the Court. Are you going to be reasonable Jim Bob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that quote came from the appeal, as the transcript(s) to the trial are not yet available to the public. Furthermore, you need to start your assessment at the number three (3), and read from there:

(3)remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

What this means under section (3)(b) is that a new trial will be held for the plaintiffs allegations that a gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold were removed from the Roxas house. This does not mean there was a ruling that a gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold existed.

To date, and as you well know, all attempts for a new trial has been denied. Therefore, you need to supply third-party documentation or reliable independent sources that will support your POV that “the Court decided that Roxas established that he found the golden Budda and 17 bars”. Until the “new” trial…nothing has been decieded. Jim (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

JimBob thanks for making an effort to explain your reasoning, but you are wrong. The quote was from the Hawaii Supreme Court which is a court of appeal, the ultimate court of appeal under Hawaii law. It's legal findings are based upon the factual findings of the trial court and are final. The matter was remanded (returned) to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment against Imelda on GBC's claim of conversion. GBC's claim of conversion was for the Golden Buddha and the 17 bars of gold. That part of the initial trial court judgment was "affirmed". GBC established that Marcos converted the Buddha and the 17 bars of gold. A logical necessity for such a finding would be that the Buddha and the bars existed, were found and were taken by Marcos. Those facts were established to the satisfaction of the legal system. What was reversed by the Supreme Court was the claim based upon the chamber full of gold (too speculative), and that portion of the trial court's judgment that fixed the value of the Buddha and the bars. The Supreme Court held that the trial court used an improper method for determining the value of the Buddha and the 17 bars. So the matter was remanded to the trial court to determine the value of the Buddha and the 17 bars. Value was the only issue left to decided, BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE BUDDHA AND THE BARS EXISTED, WERE FOUND AND WERE CONVERTED BY MARCOS.

Now this does not mean that the Buddha and the Gold actually existed, but does establish that those facts were established to the satisfaction of a court of law in a contested proceeding. Facts are stubborn things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. IP Editor: It is obvious that your interpretation and my interpretation are not the same in this matter. Contributing editors must be able to cite independent reliable sources that support the information, and not rely on our own interpretation(s) of the rulings. I have done so, and you continue to remove it from the article.

I see this going nowhere, but back and forth. Jim (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can break the log jam. Here is the quote that you are relying on for your POV:

Largest damage award reversed on appeal During 1996 the largest amount of damages awarded to a plaintiff winner among the sampled cases in the 45 counties involved a case with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos as defendants. In this tort claim Rogelia Roxas alleged that the Marcoses had confiscated crates of gold bullion allegedly found by Roxas. A jury in Honolulu awarded $22 billion in compensatory damages that after the jury verdict had increased with interest to over $40 billion. The jury did not award punitive damages. The case took nearly 8_ years to process from the time it was filed in March 1988 to its jury verdict in July 1996. The actual jury trial lasted 15 days. On November 17, 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the $41 billion judgment against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion while treasure hunting north of Manila in 1971. Source: Roxas v Marcos, 89 Hawaii 91, 969 P. 2d. 1209 (1998).

As you can see this "source" of yours uses as its only source the opinion of the Hawaii Supreme Court -- the same source that I am using. So, the ultimate source is the judicial opinion itself.

The statement in your source is technically correct, just incomplete. In the Hawaii Supreme Court decision, the court did reverse the $41 billion dollar award and did, in fact, find that there was insufficient evidence that Roxas discovered gold bullion. However, as can be seen merely by reading the ultimate source, the judicial opinion, the claim that the court reversed for insufficient evidence involved only the gold bullion purportedly found in the secret chamber -- not the golden Buddha and the 17 bars. That part of the court's decision is clear from reading the actual court opinion. The court affirmed that portion of the trial court judgment finding that Marcos had converted the Buddha and the 17 bars.

I have a law degree and over 15 years of solid experience analyzing judicial opinions. I also have spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case. I know what I am talking about. However, I do not need to rely on my own interpretation of the Court opinion. Anyone with Black's law dictionary, some common sense and a working understanding of the English language can plainly see that the Court affirmed the finding that Marcos converted the Buddha and 17 gold bars. If that was not the case, why did the court award the Plaintiffs "an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars." This statement found in the ultimate source on this issue clearly establishes that there was a judicial finding that Roxas had found the Golden Buddha and 17 bars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to call it quits JimBob. You are just dead wrong, and if you cannot see it after reading the Manilla Times, the Star Bulletin and another Hawaii Supreme Court decision affirming the judgment, well then you are just being obtuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I think I have demonstrated that your edit is erroneous. The source you are relying on is a secondary source that merely refers to the ultimate source -- the Hawaii Supreme Court opinion. I have demonstrated how your source is technically accurate but incomplete, making the clear implication of your edit totally erroneous. I have pulled out actual quotes from the court's opinion proving your edit wrong. Then I provided links to contemporaneous news reports establishing that there was in fact a re-trial on the value of the Buddha and 17 bars of gold and that a judgment was awarded. Finally, I provided yet another link to the Hawaii Supreme Court showing that the judgment was affirmed. The issue is settled, there has been a legal finding in an American court that Roxas found the Golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold. End of story. Are we going to continue this slow speed edit war until the article is locked, or are you going to participate in an honest debate? If you have some ownership interest in refuting the idea that the gold was ever found, fine. Then cite to a source where Roxas' son claims his dad never found the Buddha, but you cannot change what the Hawaii courts found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Loot is a very informal word and should not be used when writing serious articles. Given that there are additional grammatical issues, I have tagged it for cleanup. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is not an informal word (any more than e.g. "rape" is). What other grammatical issues are you referring to? Grant | Talk 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Court documents (transcripts/proceedings) are not reliable sources, and depends on self-interpretation by the reader. Reliable third-party sources need to be supplied. Content must be verifiable.

I have listed below material added to the article, that the sources/references do not support.

• Source cited does not support “found a sealed concrete chamber”
• Source cited does not support “opened the chamber and found crates of gold bullion and a one-ton gold Buddha with a screw-off head that was filled with diamonds”
• Source cited does not support “Roxas claims he took what he and his men could carry -- the Buddha and 17 gold bars”
• Source cited does not support “A jury in Honolulu awarded $22 billion in compensatory damages -- representing the estimated value of the entire chamber filled with gold.”
• Source cited does not support “on November 17, 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the $22 billion portion of the judgment against the Marcoses (the chamber filled with gold).”
• Source cited does not support “the Court sustained the portion of the verdict that found that Marcos had converted the golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold.”
• Source cited does not support “There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support The Jury's Special Finding That Ferdinand Converted The Treasure That Roxas Found”
• Source cited does not support “a judicial finding based upon substantial evidence that at least some portion of Yamashita's gold was found”
• Source cited does not support “that judgment was affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court on November 25, 2005” added by Jimbob: It actually says: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.”

Jim (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you Jim. What is your interest?

Just because you lack the reasoning ability to understand what the Hawaii Supreme Court was saying does not mean that it is not a legitimate source. On the contrary, it is the ultimate source for the secondary source you relied upon which provided an incomplete and deceptive summary of what happened in the decision. Anyone reading the actual decision of the Court -- who knows how to read -- can see that.

Most of those things you claim that were not supported were almost direct quotations or para-phrasings from the actual decision of the Court. In fact, the quote “There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support The Jury's Special Finding That Ferdinand Converted The Treasure That Roxas Found” is not only a direct quote, it is a direct quote from a heading of a major section from the court's decision.

What is your explanation for deleting the contemporaneous news reports concerning the retrial and the existence of an outstanding judgment that they are trying to collect?

Can you explain the legal difference between the highest court in Hawaii ordering a judgment affirmed and the judgment being affirmed? I didn't think so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor...in the Roxas vs Marcos appeal, under III. DISCUSSION Section G is just that. Discussion about trial material. Using these discussions as "quotes" or rulings/findings is dubious editing and misleading at best. Below is that particular discussion…not a ruling…discussion:

G. There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Special Finding That Ferdinand Converted The Treasure That Roxas Found.

Imelda argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s special finding that Ferdinand converted the golden buddha and the rest of the treasure found by Roxas. She reasons that: (1) there was no evidence to show that the search warrant displayed by the raiding party was not valid; and (2) Roxas failed adequately to “occupy” the treasure remaining in the tunnels after dynamiting the entrance closed and, therefore, had no further right of possession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

JimBob, this is yet another reason why you should disqualify yourself. You clearly do not understand how to read legal writing. The headings ARE the actual findings of the court. Of course, the court will lay out what the other side is alleging, then demonstrate why that allegation is wrong. If you continued to read beyond the quote that you provided above, you would see that the court systematically dismantled Imelda's allegations. That was why every thing was prefaced with, "Imelda argues..." or "She reasons..." because they were about to explain why she was wrong. That is why you have to look at the conclusion. That is why it is important that the Court AFFIRMED the finding that Marcos converted the treasure. Also, the extended quote that I provided concerning the discovery of the gold filled chamber was taken from the "Factual Background" portion of the Court's opinion. That section lays out what the evidence at the trial demonstrated. It was not an argument of a party, it was a summary of the evidence.

All this is pointless though until you can honestly address the other sources -- the existence of contemporaneous news reports of the retrial, the existence of a judgment that the GBC was trying to enforce, and the order of the Hawaii Supreme Court affirming the judgment. Your version of events is completely incompatible with these news reports.

Why would the Star Bulletin report on the retrial in February of 2000 if the case was tossed out (as you allege) in 1998?

Why would the Manilla times report in January of 2006 that the GBC has a judgment in excess of $13m if the case was tossed out in 1998?

Your version of events is completely incompatible with the verifiable sources. Time to go to bed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor...You continue to use your opinion(s) in this discussion, and refuse to cite proper sources. Newspaper articles, although entertaining, are not reliable sources. Please cite proper sources that can verify a judgment in excess of 13-million. Your opinions have been twisted and skewed, at best, and rather insulting to me. Debate the issue/sources and not the other editors.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse that portion of the circuit court’s amended judgment awarding GBC $22,000,000,000.00 for “one storage area” of gold bullion, (2) vacate those portions of the amended judgment (a) entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and against Imelda, in her capacity as personal representative of the Marcos Estate, (b) awarding GBC $1,400,000.00 in damages for conversion of the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars, and (c) entering judgment in favor of Imelda and against the plaintiffs-appellees on GBC’s claim for constructive trust, and (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

In the conclusion above (Roxas vs Marcos) we can plainly see the amended judgments have been vacated, and a new trial ordered. Please cite the proper references that a new trial has taken place, the proceedings and the verdict(s) of that new trial. Jim (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement added to the article says: "The matter was heard on February 28, 2000 and the Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54. That judgment was ordered affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court on November 25, 2005."

No reliable references are given to verify the proceedings of February 28, 2000. What judgment was affirmed in November of 2005, surely not from the proceedings from February of 2000? Again, the sources cited do not support the claims made. Jim (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you think that you can just keep reverting until you chase me away like you did to Grant. We will just have to see....

Here is a direct quote from Hawaii Supreme Court's conclusion that you quoted above, with portions irrelevant to our debate deleted:

Based on the foregoing analysis, we … remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on ... GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

Try re-reading this in the context of the other sources cited -- the contemporaneous news report of the second trial concerning the value of the Buddha and the 17 bars, the contemporaneous news report of the final judgment in excess of $13 million dollars that the GBC was attempting to execute, and the Order of the Hawaii Supreme Court affirming the judgment in favor of the GBC against Imelda.

Like I said. Facts are very stubborn things.

I have reviewed your debate with Grant. This is very different. There you were debating what theories should or should not be included. Here you are getting the FACTS wrong. The fact is that there has been a legal finding in a US court that the Golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold were found in a cave north of Manilla. That does not mean that Roxas actually found the gold, just that he proved it to the satisfaction of a jury and with sufficient evidence to up hold the jury verdict according to the Hawaii Supreme Court. It may still have been a hoax. He may have pulled the wool over the eyes of the jury and the justices, but that still does not change the fact of what happened in the Hawaiian court room. Your edits are getting the facts wrong. The court held that Roxas found some of the treasure and your edit implies that his case was tossed out as frivolous. That is just getting the facts wrong as we know that is incorrect. WHY ELSE WOULD THE GBC HAVE A THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT AGAINST IMELDA IN 2006? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…please cite a reliable reference, that is verifiable, that GBC has a 13-million dollar judgment against Imelda Marcos in 2006. Also, please cite an independent third-party source that supports your opinion there has been a legal finding in a US court that the gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold were found in a cave, north of Manila. Jim (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…you accidentally left out “(2) vacate those portions of the amended judgment” from your “direct quote”. Ironically, that portion is very relevant to our “debate”. Jim (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor...here is the Order Denying Motion For Reconsideration in regards to the Golden Budha Corporation vs. Imelda Marcos appeal. If the Golden Budha Corporation (GBC) has/had a $13-million dollar judgment, it is not evident by these appeals. http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2005/24605recond.htm

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee the Golden Budha Corporation on December 9, 2005, requesting that this court review its summary disposition order filed on November 29, 2005,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 19, 2005.

I await your citation from an independent third-party source that supports your opinion there has been a legal finding in a US court that the gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold was found in a cave, north of Manila Jim (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to step back. You are obviously not a lawyer and do not understand what you are reading. This section concerns the related "legal" action. The best source as to what happened in a legal proceeding are the Court records. No other "independent reliable source" is needed as the Court's decisions are the ultimate authority. We do not need some half-cock historian to tell us what happened in a legal proceeding, because the judge or justice writing the opinion of the Court is far more capable and far more authoritative. This section describes what happened in the Hawaiian courtroom. For that, the Judge gets to talk unfiltered. The 1998 Court decision is very clear as to what happened in the courtroom and what they decided. You refuse to recognize the truth -- for some unknown reason. As for your questions, they are easily answered by anyone familiar with how courts, trials and appeals work:

The explanation for the denial of the motion for reconsideration brought by the GBC is simple. They were not happy with the amount of the $13 million dollar judgment. If you look at the November 2005 decision, you will see that the GBC was the appellant in that proceeding and Marcos was a cross-appellant. Clearly, the GBC won, but was not happy with the amount. Marcos lost and was unhappy she lost. Both sides appealed, both sides lost the appeal. The judgment was affirmed. The GBC was still unhappy with the amount awarded and asked the Court to reconsider its decision limiting its judgment at $13 million. The Court refused to reconsider its ruling. It all makes perfect sense to anyone who knows how to read these things -- which you clearly are not. If Imelda had won, why would she have cross-appealed? She would not have, and would have merely been a responded.

Finally, as cited over and over again for you, in January 2006, the Manilla Standard Today reported as follows:

Following a trial and appeal in Hawaii state court, both Golden Buddha and the estate of Roxas received judgments against Imelda Marcos.

Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996.

Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996.

The decision of the Court speaks for itself and is perfectly authoritative as to what happened in the related legal proceeding. You may not understand what you are reading, but you must admit that your version of events of what transpired in the trial (that the case was tossed out for insufficient evidence) is completely incompatible with the contemporaneous news reports from respected news sources. And just look at the language used in the news report: "has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate" that language is consistent with the very technical ruling by the Hawaiian Supreme Court concerning the proper capacity that Imelda can be held responsible for Ferdinand's conduct. Second, look as the effective date of the judgment: "as of Oct. 21, 1996." That is the date of the original trial. The details of the Manilla Standard Today report are so technical and so specific and so consistent with the actual judicial decisions (or at least my reading of those decisions) that its accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…the newspaper article you have cited (the Manila Standard Today) is actually in reference to Marcos and human rights violations and compensation. There is a short mention of the Roxas vs Marcos proceeding in 1996. That is far from being “contemporaneous news reports” when an article is written in 2006 and fails to inform the reader of the currant status. Then again, this article is not about the Roxas vs Marcos trial or any of the following appeals or judgments. Also noticeable is the misspellings of the Golden Budha Corporation. That little ditty fails the “respected news source” test.

The November 2005 “decision” is actually the SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER. That is why GBC filled for RECONSIDERATION in December 2005 (which was denied), because the fourth amended judgment, filed in September of 2001, more than likely did not swing in GBC’s favor. Then again, that is just my opinion, as that proceeding has not been provided.

Summary Disposition Order

Order Denying Motion For Reconsideration

I still await your citation from an independent third-party source that supports your opinion there has been a legal finding in a US court that the gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold was found in a cave, north of Manila Jim (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the foregoing analysis, we … remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on ... GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/969P2d1209.html

Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news05_jan28_2006

In 1998, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ordered the trial court to enter judgment in the GBC's favor against Imelda on the claim of conversion and awarded the GBC prejudgment interest "on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars." In February 2000, there is a retrial on the value of the Buddha and 17 bars. Then in 2006, the GBC tries to collect a 13 million dollar judgment against Imelda (in the exact same legal capacity as ordered by the Hawaiian Supreme Court) with a cost award dating to the same trial date in 1996. How, pray tell, do you connect these dots? (Other than sticking your head in the sand and pretending these facts do not exist?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…your opinion(s) are not aligned with real cited references

• In 1998, the Hawaiian Supreme Court vacated the Plaintiffs charges of conversion
• The fourth amended judgment was filed in September of 2001
• A human-interest newspaper article written in 2006, does not translate into official court documents.

Jim (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WRONG In 1998, the Hawaiian Supreme Court specifically directed the trial court to enter judgment in GBC's favor ON THE CONVERSION CLAIM and further awarded prejudgment interest on the value of the converted buddha and 17 gold bars. You loose right there. To make that finding, the court already established the discovery of that portion of the treasure. The rest is just gravy, consistent and reliable gravy. The 1998 decision is suficient to shut you and your pet theory down. It has always been sufficient to prove you wrong.

READ THIS:

we … remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on ... GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars.

http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/969P2d1209.html Do you know what that means? It means that your petty, ownership driven interest in this issue is WRONG. It has always meant that you have been wrong.

The fact that you will not admit your error after reading the above and the consistent contemporaneous reliable news reports (http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news05_jan28_2006 & http://starbulletin.com/2000/02/29/news/story3.html) is inexplicable.

In 1998 the Hawaiian Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment on the claim of conversion of the buddha and the 17 gold bars that were found by Roxas while searching for Yamashita's gold in a cave north of Manilla. That is an unassailable reliable supported fact. Any revision by you that is inconsistent with this fact will immediately be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…you continue to evade my request for a citation that will support your opinion there has been a legal finding in a US court that the gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold was found in a cave, north of Manila. The transcript provided of the Roxas vs Marcos appeal (and subsequent appeals) do not support your opinion. If you believe these documents are capable of supporting your opinion(s), please point to that specific paragraph or line.

Furthermore, the matter of conversion was vacated from the Roxas vs Marcos 1 trail. There was no judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse that portion of the circuit court’s amended judgment awarding GBC $22,000,000,000.00 for “one storage area” of gold bullion, (2) vacate those portions of the amended judgment (a) entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and against Imelda, in her capacity as personal representative of the Marcos Estate, (b) awarding GBC $1,400,000.00 in damages for conversion of the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars, and (c) entering judgment in favor of Imelda and against the plaintiffs-appellees on GBC’s claim for constructive trust, and (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed. Jim (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

____________________

Jim, thanks for pointing out the typographical error in the legal name of the Golden Budha [sic] Corp. It made my search more productive. If I am misreading the 1998 Hawaiian Supreme Court decision, I am in very impressive company.

In October of 2007, The Solicitor General of the United States of America before the Supreme Court of the United States of America summarized the ultimate result of the Roxas v. Marcos case as follows:

Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/6invit/2006-1039.pet.ami.inv.pdf

(Don't let the numbers fool you. The solicitor general is talking about both the $13m judgment for the gold and the $6m for the arrest and torture of Roxas, for a total of $19m.)

In March of 2007, The Government of the Philippines petitioning before the Supreme Court of the United States summarized the ultimate result of the Roxas v. Marcos lawsuit as follows:

The Estate of Roger Roxas and the Golden Budha (sic) Corporation have similar interests. The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men. Roxas was tortured and imprisoned, giving rise to human rights claims valued at $6 million. Roxas formed a corporation to which he assigned his rights in the treasure; the corporation, for reasons connected with the warrants issued to Roxas, carries a misspelled name. The Estate of Roger Roxas and the corporation (collectively Roxas) won an initial judgment against Imelda Marcos and the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos. Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Hawai‘i 91, 969 P.2d 1209 (1998). The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has allowed Roxas’s judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand, while holding that the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos could not be bound by that judgment. Id. at 1244. Roxas claims the Arelma assets both as a creditor of Marcos and on the basis that the $2 million used by Marcos to set up the Merrill Lynch account were most probably derived from the Yamashita Treasure and can be traced to the property stolen from Roxas.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Arelma_Petitionfinal.pdf

Finally, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States of America through Justice Kennedy recognized that Roxas and the GBC had a judgment to execute against the Marcos Estate as a result of the 1998 Hawaiian Supreme Court decision.

In a related action, the Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha [sic] Corporation (the Roxas claimants) claim a right to execute against the assets to satisfy their own judgment against Marcos’ widow, Imelda Marcos. See Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Haw. 91, 113–115, 969 P. 2d 1209, 1231–1233 (1998).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1204.ZO.html

You see, it is a settled legal fact that GBC has a judgment to execute against Marcos, the issue is whether GBC can collect. If they have to get in line with all the other claimants they will never see a dime. If they can prove any current assets are directly attributed to the stolen treasure, they have priority in collecting against that asset. Just because they failed to collect or were unable to prove certain assets were not directly attributable to the stolen treasure does not alter the fact that the GBC has a final judgment against Marco based upon Fredinand's conversion of the Gloden Buddha and 17 bars of gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…you’ve left the arena on the gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold conversion issue in the Roxas vs Marcos proceedings, and have now started a discussion on the Roxas vs Pimentel proceedings. I am in great hopes that you understand those are two different issues. Yikes. Jim (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

____________

Jim, in the proceeding of the Philippines v. Pimentel, the issue was the collectibility of the judgment awarded to the GBC in the Hawaiian state court action against certain assets. The existence of the GBC judgment was recognized by the Solicitor General, the Philippines Government and the US Supreme Court. These sources confirm the existence of the judgment that you are denying exists. YIKES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…that is your opinion. The mention of the 1996 Roxas vs Marcos trial in the Pimentel proceedings does not magically change the rulings/judgment of the 1998 appeal and subsequent reversal of the judgment against Marcos. Furthermore, this battle of crossover court cases, judgments and proceedings have been debated to death on this talk page. See Talk:Yamashita's_gold/Archive_1#Misinterpreted_Court_Rulings_in_Article_Removed Jim (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

False References, Dubious Statements and Personal Opinions in Article

"Nevertheless, the Court sustained the portion of the verdict that found that Marcos had converted the golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold (the 24 he took out of the chamber minus the seven that he sold)."

• The Court vacated any rulings on the conversion, and ordered a new trial.

"Thus, there has been a judicial finding based upon substantial evidence that at least some portion of Yamashita's gold was found."

• There have not been any judicial findings that some portions of Yamashita’s gold has been found.

"The matter was heard on February 28, 2000"

• The fourth amended judgment was filed in September of 2001. The “matter” referenced was a preliminary hearing (evidentiary hearing). Judge Milks instructed the attorneys to present written facts by March 31 that would determine a reasonable time it would have taken an investor to replace the gold.

"and the Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54"

• The reference given is a newspaper article, that cites the events of the 1996 Roxas vs Marcos trial. The newspaper article is void of any rulings, appeals or further details from 1996 to 2006.

"That judgment was ordered affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court on November 25, 2005"

• The Summary Disposition Order on November 25, 2005 did not affirm the findings in the 1996 Roxas vs Marcos proceedings. What was affirmed, was the fourth amended judgment that was filed September 6, 2001

Jim (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

______________ Jim, look at what you are reverting to. You revert to a version that claims the case was tossed out completely in 1998, but in 2007 and 2008 we have the US Solicitor General, the Philippines Government and the US Supreme Court all referring to GBC's judgment. We know there is a judgment. To deny it is bad faith on your part. You can argue that the Star Bulletin or Manilla Standard Today are not reliable sources, but the US Supreme Court???? Refer to my discussion in the prior section for more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…the Pimentel proceedings makes mention of the 1998 Roxas vs Marcos judgment. That is all it does, is to make mention. The US Supreme Court makes no rulings, judgments or amendments to any of the Roxas vs Marcos verdict(s) in any capacity, in the Pimentel proceedings. The Court does however; make a ruling against the Roxas claims in the Pimentel proceedings

"The court also rejected the claim of the Roxas claimants, finding that they had not proved that the assets in the Arelma account derived from property stolen from Roxas, and that their claims were, in any event, inferior to those of the Pimentel claimants." Jim (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

________________________

I agree with you 100%. The US Supreme Court makes mention of the 1998 Roxas v. Marcos judgment in its factual recitation. Thus, the Sup.Ct. is a very persuasive source that the judgment exists. But there is more, the Sup.Ct. was considering competing claims to the assets in question. So, the judgment must have been monetary in nature (if the Roxas judgment was for nothing, the Philippines Government would not have bothered to interplead Roxas as a competing claim). The decision by the Sup.Ct. was that Roxas' judgment was inferior to the other claims, but the existence of a valid state court judgment was a legal and factual given.

Plus you have the statement of the US Solicitor General: "Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas." http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/6invit/2006-1039.pet.ami.inv.pdf

And the Philippines Government in its petition to the US Supreme Court came right out and admitted: "The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men. ... The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has allowed Roxas’s judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand." http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Arelma_Petitionfinal.pdf

What reliable source can you cite to that refutes the 2007 and 2008 statements of the US Solicitor General, the Philippines Government and the US Supreme Court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…what are the statements made in 2007 and 2008 that needs refuting? Being the US Solicitor General, the Philippines Government and the US Supreme Court made no rulings, judgments or amendments to the 1996 Roxas vs Marcos trial or the 1998 Roxas vs Marcos appeal (or any subsequent proceedings) during the Pimentel proceedings, there is noting to refute. Surly this must be a rhetorical question.

If, by chance, you think the mere mentioning of a previously tried case would imply anything different than the verdict(s) given at that time, I would ask for a reliable reference that would support that theory. Jim (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

_________________

You are confusing verdict with judgment. The jury made certain findings in 1996 that was the verdict. There was an appeal resulting in the 1998 decision of the Hawaiian Supreme Court. There were more proceedings and appeals resulting in a final judgment in November of 2005. You claim the 1998 decision says that the case was thrown out for insufficient evidence -- end of story. I claim that the 1998 decision held that Roxas established with sufficient evidence that Roxas found the Golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold and Marcos converted the treasure. In support of my interpretation of the 1998 ruling and the existence of an ultimate judgment in favor of Roxas, I have cited a contemporaneous news report of the rehearing on the value of the Buddha and gold bars, a contemporaneous news report stating that Roxas has secured a judgment that they were seeking to collect, a statement by the US solicitor General that Roxas has a judgment due to the theft of the treasure, a statement by Philippines Government that Roxas found Yamashita's treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos, and the US Supreme Court saying that Roxas has a judgment against Marcos that is competing for collection with other claims for Marcos' assets located in the US.

You reject all this evidence and revert the article to a 1996 Statistical Bulletin. I repeat my question, which is not rhetorical, What reliable source can you cite to that you believe refutes the 2007 and 2008 factual statements of the US Solicitor General, the Philippines Government and the US Supreme Court?

These are the statements that you need to refute:

The statement of the US Solicitor General: "Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas." http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/6invit/2006-1039.pet.ami.inv.pdf

And the Philippines Government in its petition to the US Supreme Court came right out and admitted: "The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men. ... The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has allowed Roxas’s judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand." http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Arelma_Petitionfinal.pdf

US Sup.Ct. "In a related action, the Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha [sic] Corporation (the Roxas claimants) claim a right to execute against the assets to satisfy their own judgment against Marcos’ widow, Imelda Marcos. See Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Haw. 91, 113–115, 969 P. 2d 1209, 1231–1233 (1998)." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1204.ZO.html (Note the US Sup.Ct. recognizes the Roxas claimants have a judgment against Imelda that they are seeking to satisfy against certain assets.)

76.173.161.184 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1st Statement: No need to “refute” this, as it is in the Roxas vs Pimentel document. Furthermore, in October 1996 there actually was a judgment awarding Roxas and the Golden Budha Corp. millions of dollars. Unfortunately, the money was lost on appeal, and the other claims against Marcos was vacated from that trial, and a new trial ordered. Incidentally, Roxas lost out in this case as well.

• 2nd Statement: Yep. In the Republic of the Philippines vs Pimentel, Roxas and the Golden Budha Corp., the 1996 case of Roxas vs Marcos was brought up under the “Parties and Proceedings” header. Theoretically, that could be the Respondents (Roxas,GBC) statements. I could not find, specifically, where the US Supreme Court came right out and admitted what you claim. By the way, check out this tidbit. The US Supreme Court gave Roxas a double spanking:

"Roxas was a victim, too. His injury was suffered before the date used to determine the Pimentel class. The district court, however, found that Roxas had not proven that the assets in the Arelma account derived from any treasure stolen from him. Roxas contends that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding the source of the funds and in excluding depositions of fact witnesses from his earlier action against Marcos. We do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in either ruling. The expert failed to produce the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and the district court acted within its discretion in excluding his testimony. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105-06 (9th Cir.2001). As for the depositions, they were excludable as hearsay because the cross examination in the prior proceeding was not undertaken by a party with a “similar motive to develop the testimony.” Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1). We agree with the district court that the record does not support a finding that the Arelma assets were stolen from Roxas."

• 3rd Statement: That document describing the events of the Philippines vs Pimentel, Roxas and the Golden Budha Corp. proceedings mention that Roxas and Golden Budha Corp (Roxas claimants) claim a right to execute against the assets to satisfy their own judgment, and the trial case numbers and such are given. Your “note” is an opinion (or point of view) that the US Supreme Court recognizes whatever, when they could just be echoing “Parties and Proceedings”. Dubious, to say the least. Jim (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

_________________________

Jim, the 1998 Hawaii Court decision speaks for itself as to what they held. I know you dispute my "interpretation" but here are quotes from that decision that support my interpretation that you need to explain away:

A. Accordingly, we remand for a new trial on the limited question of the proper valuation of the converted property.

B. we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to award prejudgment interest to GBC with respect to the damages resulting from the conversion of Roxas’s property. Therefore, we remand the matter for the entry of an award of prejudgment interest in GBC’s favor with respect to the converted property.

C. There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Special Finding That Ferdinand Converted The Treasure That Roxas Found.

D. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Roxas “found” the treasure pursuant to Philippine law.

E. We hold that Roxas’s deposition testimony contained sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he “found” the treasure “by chance or by luck.” Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict concerning Ferdinand’s liability for conversion.

F. There Was Insufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Damage Award Pertaining To The Value Of The Gold Bars Allegedly Contained In The Unopened Boxes Found Near The Golden Buddha.

G. By contrast, Roxas testified that he had estimated both the weight and size of the golden buddha statue based on the work of his laborers in removing it from the tunnels. The plaintiffs-appellees also introduced photographs showing the size and design of the statue. Furthermore, Roxas testified as to the results of two chemical analyses performed by potential purchasers of the statue, both of which determined the statue to be of a purity over twenty carats, and one of which allegedly determined that the gold in the statue was twenty-two carats. Accordingly, there was a reasonable basis for the jury to make a determination that the statue was composed of virtually pure gold and, as of the date of conversion, was worth $1,300,000.00, in accordance with Colton’s testimony.

H. Because we have already held that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of damages for such gold bullion as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas, inasmuch as the record was speculative regarding the gold’s quantity and purity ... there is no need to remand for a recalculation of the value of that gold. However, with respect to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars taken from Roxas’s home, a new trial on the issue of value is necessary, and we therefore vacate that portion of the circuit court’s judgment regarding the damages attributable to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen golden bars and remand for further proceedings.

I. Accordingly, we hold that, upon retrial of the issue, the circuit court should award prejudgment interest on the damages arising out of the conversion of the golden buddha and the seventeen gold bars from the date corresponding to the value of the gold chosen by the jury.

J. Based on the foregoing analysis, we ... (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

I think these statements are pretty clear, but any ambiguity can be resolved by what judgment was ultimately entered after remand.

I am sure that you agree that the Roxas case is now over. The judgment (whatever judgment was awarded) was ordered affirmed in November of 2005 and the motion for reconsideration was denied in December of 2005. So, the judgment is final. The question is what were the terms of that judgment. Unfortunately, the actual judgment is not online, and the opinion of the Hawaii Supreme Court affirming the final judgment in November of 2005 does not tell us the terms of the judgment. So, to figure out what that final judgment was, we need to look at other sources. So, what other post-2005 sources do we have that describe the terms of the judgment?

1. We have the contemporaneous news report from the Manila Standard Today of January 2006 (just a month after the judgment became final). This report is extremely detailed:

Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of

$13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996.

Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news05_jan28_2006

This description is persuasive in its detail, because Imelda's capacity is the same very technical capacity required in the 1998 Hawaii Supreme Court decision and the cost date is also consistent with the date of the trial. Other than spelling Buddha correctly (as opposed to incorrectly as in the legal name of the company), I see no reason to question this report. Furthermore, I have never seen anything post-2005 to dispute this report and you have never produced anything post-2005 to refute the accuracy of this report.

2. We have the statement of the Solicitor General of the United States of America in 2007:

Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/6invit/2006-1039.pet.ami.inv.pdf

Once again, this is consistent with my understanding of the 1998 Hawaii Supreme Court and the report in the Manila Standard today -- note how $13m + $6m = $19m.

3. We have the statement of the Philippines Government in 2007:

The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men. ... The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has allowed Roxas’s judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Arelma_Petitionfinal.pdf

Once again this is consistent with my understanding of the 1998 decision and consistent with all post-2005 statements concerning the nature of the final judgment.

4. We have the statement of Justice Kennedy writing for the US Supreme Court in 2008:

In a related action, the Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha [sic] Corporation (the Roxas claimants) claim a right to execute against the assets to satisfy their own judgment against Marcos’ widow, Imelda Marcos. See Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Haw. 91, 113–115, 969 P. 2d 1209, 1231–1233 (1998).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1204.ZO.html

Once again this source is consistent with all the other post-2005 sources concerning the nature of the final Roxas judgment in that they recognize it as a valid final judgment competing for priority of collection against certain assets located in the US.

You try to dismiss these statement because they are in another lawsuit, which did not necessarily end up the way that the Roxas parties wanted. But that is not relevant to our dispute. We are disputing whether there is a valid final judgment against Marcos for the value of the converted treasure -- not whether Roxas deserves priority over the human rights class or can prove that the assets in the US were derived from the converted treasure. Roxas may have lost all of those battles and never collected a dime, but that does not change the fact that he was awarded a $13,000,000 judgment as a result of the converted golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold.

I look forward to your explanation of the statements above from the 1998 decision, as well as your citation to any source that is post-2005, post-final judgment that calls into question the consistent statements of the Manila Standard Today, the US Solicitor General, the Philippines Government, and the US Supreme Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor said: "We are disputing whether there is a valid final judgment against Marcos for the value of the converted treasure". Did I miss the part where you cited the final judgment? You continue to retry the Roxas vs Marcos 1 trial of 1996, The Roxas vs Marcos appeal of 1998, various human-rights cases and a couple of newspaper articles. You also seem to confuse referencing a proceeding with somebody making a statement. Very dubious. I still await your citation of a valid final judgment. Hint: September 6, 2001 Jim (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

_________________

Sorry, I am not going to play your game. If you think something happened on September 6, 2001 that is relevant to our discussion, cite it and explain. I will not do your work for you. In fact, I imagine that anything of that date would bear little relevance to our dispute, because it would be before the Roxas v. Marcos judgment was final in November of 2005 when the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, http://hawaii.gov/jud/opinions/sct/2005/24605sdo.htm and the end of the road was finally, finally really reached in December of 2005 when the Hawaii Supreme Court denied rehearing. http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/sct/2005/24605recond.htm So, I suggest you look to more recent sources to refute my post 2005, post final judgment citations as to the final outcome of Roxas v. Marcos.

On the other hand, I have culled out the statements explaining the clear meaning and specific holdings of the 1998 decision.

A. Accordingly, we remand for a new trial on the limited question of the proper valuation of the converted property.

B. we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to award prejudgment interest to GBC with respect to the damages resulting from the conversion of Roxas’s property. Therefore, we remand the matter for the entry of an award of prejudgment interest in GBC’s favor with respect to the converted property.

C. There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Special Finding That Ferdinand Converted The Treasure That Roxas Found.

D. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Roxas “found” the treasure pursuant to Philippine law.

E. We hold that Roxas’s deposition testimony contained sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he “found” the treasure “by chance or by luck.” Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict concerning Ferdinand’s liability for conversion.

F. There Was Insufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Damage Award Pertaining To The Value Of The Gold Bars Allegedly Contained In The Unopened Boxes Found Near The Golden Buddha.

G. By contrast, Roxas testified that he had estimated both the weight and size of the golden buddha statue based on the work of his laborers in removing it from the tunnels. The plaintiffs-appellees also introduced photographs showing the size and design of the statue. Furthermore, Roxas testified as to the results of two chemical analyses performed by potential purchasers of the statue, both of which determined the statue to be of a purity over twenty carats, and one of which allegedly determined that the gold in the statue was twenty-two carats. Accordingly, there was a reasonable basis for the jury to make a determination that the statue was composed of virtually pure gold and, as of the date of conversion, was worth $1,300,000.00, in accordance with Colton’s testimony.

H. Because we have already held that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of damages for such gold bullion as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas, inasmuch as the record was speculative regarding the gold’s quantity and purity ... there is no need to remand for a recalculation of the value of that gold. However, with respect to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars taken from Roxas’s home, a new trial on the issue of value is necessary, and we therefore vacate that portion of the circuit court’s judgment regarding the damages attributable to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen golden bars and remand for further proceedings.

I. Accordingly, we hold that, upon retrial of the issue, the circuit court should award prejudgment interest on the damages arising out of the conversion of the golden buddha and the seventeen gold bars from the date corresponding to the value of the gold chosen by the jury.

J. Based on the foregoing analysis, we ... (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

You have not explained away any of those statements, each of which prove your revision erroneous.

I have provided you with specific statements from contemporaneous news sources and umimpeachable legal sources as to the nature of the final judgment.

1. We have the contemporaneous news report from the Manila Standard Today of January 2006 (just a month after the judgment became final). This report is extremely detailed:

Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of

$13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996.

Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news05_jan28_2006

This description is persuasive in its detail, because Imelda's capacity is the same very technical capacity required in the 1998 Hawaii Supreme Court decision and the cost date is also consistent with the date of the trial. Other than spelling Buddha correctly (as opposed to incorrectly as in the legal name of the company), I see no reason to question this report. Furthermore, I have never seen anything post-2005 to dispute this report and you have never produced anything post-2005 to refute the accuracy of this report.

2. We have the statement of the Solicitor General of the United States of America in 2007:

Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/6invit/2006-1039.pet.ami.inv.pdf

Once again, this is consistent with my understanding of the 1998 Hawaii Supreme Court and the report in the Manila Standard today -- note how $13m + $6m = $19m.

3. We have the statement of the Philippines Government in 2007:

The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men. ... The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has allowed Roxas’s judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Arelma_Petitionfinal.pdf

Once again this is consistent with my understanding of the 1998 decision and consistent with all post-2005 statements concerning the nature of the final judgment.

4. We have the statement of Justice Kennedy writing for the US Supreme Court in 2008:

In a related action, the Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha [sic] Corporation (the Roxas claimants) claim a right to execute against the assets to satisfy their own judgment against Marcos’ widow, Imelda Marcos. See Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Haw. 91, 113–115, 969 P. 2d 1209, 1231–1233 (1998).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1204.ZO.html

Once again this source is consistent with all the other post-2005 sources concerning the nature of the final Roxas judgment in that they recognize it as a valid final judgment competing for priority of collection against certain assets located in the US.

You have failed to address these citations. You are not approaching this discussion in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…at the risk of sounding rude, I suggest you read the documents you cite. The Summary Disposition Order of November 29th 2005 clearly states:

• The plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees the Estate of Roger Roxas and the Golden Budha Corporation (GBC) [collectively, hereinafter, "the Appellants"] appeal from, and the defendant-appellee/cross-appellant Imelda Marcos [hereinafter, "Imelda"] cross-appeals from, the fourth amended judgment, filed on September 6, 2001, of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Marie N. Milks presiding.

• Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we affirm the September 6, 2001 fourth amended judgment of the circuit court for the following reasons:

• 5) Notwithstanding the Appellants' argument that certain witnesses' "opinions and probable estimates pertaining to the quantity, quality, and/or purity of the gold" would have produced a fairer measure of damages than the New York rule, the Appellants do not indicate where in the record such testimony can be found. Therefore, they have waived this point of error by failing to provide citations to the record pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(7).

• 6) Insofar as this court: (a) held in Roxas I that judgment could not properly lie against Ferdinand's Estate, nor against Ferdinand himself, 89 Hawai`i at 123, 969 P.2d at 1241; and (b) instructed the circuit court to "hold Imelda personally liable, at least to the extent of her interest in the assets of the . . . Estate [of Ferdinand], for the amount of the . . . judgment against Ferdinand," the circuit court's fourth amended judgment followed this court's mandate precisely. No relief pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) was warranted. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, November 29, 2005.

Even the casual reader can understand the Summary Disposition Order of November 2005 was not a “final judgment”, as you dubiously claim, and did not “affirm the judgment”. It affirmed the fourth amended judgment, filed on September 6, 2001 Jim (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

______________

Okay, I'll give you a quick legal education. A judgment is filed in the trial court but does not become final until the time period to file an appeal expires -- about 30 days depending on the jurisdiction. If an appeal is taken, the judgment does not become final until the final appellate decision is rendered and remittitur is issued and the judgment is returned to the trial court (about another 30 days). Obviously, in the case of Roxas v. Marcos a fourth amended judgment was filed in the trial court on September 6, 2001. An appeal was taken, it bounced around the appeals courts for a few years, then as you cite above, the fourth amended judgment was ordered affirmed in November of 2005. The GBC brought a motion for reconsideration which was denied in December 2005. Thus, remittitur would have been issued in January of 2006 and the fourth amended judgment originally filed on September 6, 2001 would finally have become a final judgment in January of 2006, which if it were a monetary judgment in the GBC's favor could now for the first time be executed on Imelda's assets. The question still remains what were the terms of the fourth amended judgment filed on September 6, 2001 and affirmed on November 29, 2005...

So, I agree with you that the September 2001 judgment is the final judgment, but it did not become the final judgment until January of 2006. What happened in January of 2006? I will tell you. A story ran in the Manila Standard Today newspaper about competing claim to the Marcos assets, including a description of the terms of the newly final judgment in the case of Roxas v. Marcos:

Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of

$13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996.

Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news05_jan28_2006

It is not speculation that these terms reported in the Manila Standard Today are accurate. It is a fact, because these terms are repeated in 2007 by the most reliable source imaginable -- the US Solicitor General on behalf of the United States Government before the US Supreme Court. The Roxas v. Marcos judgment is described as follows:

Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2007/2pet/6invit/2006-1039.pet.ami.inv.pdf

Obviously, I would like to see the actual words in the September 2001 fourth amended judgment, but I know what is in it, because we have the description of what is in it in the contemporaneous news report and the description by the US Solicitor General.

As you know, I am a wiki neophyte. I suggest some type of dispute resolution, but I am not sure how to initiate it. So, I would appreciate it if you would initiate some type of third party resolution so that this edit war can be resolved once and for all. 76.173.161.184 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…I find your “quick legal education” to be flawed, and incorrect. Sorry. Jim (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

____________

How so? You do not get off so easy. Provide a cite to the contents of the final judgment in Roxas v. Marcos. Are you questioning the reliability of the US Solicitor General? 76.173.161.184 (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have removed your statistical analysis. The more I think about it, it is just too misleading. The Hawaii Supreme Court did not find that there was insufficient evidence that Roxas found the treasure. What they found was that there was insufficient evidence to prove the amount and quality of the gold that was found. The damages would be too speculative to establish a legal right to damages.

There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Special Finding That Ferdinand Converted The Treasure That Roxas Found.

There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Roxas “found” the treasure pursuant to Philippine law.

We hold that Roxas’s deposition testimony contained sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he “found” the treasure “by chance or by luck.” Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict concerning Ferdinand’s liability for conversion.

There Was Insufficient Evidence To Support The Jury’s Damage Award Pertaining To The Value Of The Gold Bars Allegedly Contained In The Unopened Boxes Found Near The Golden Buddha.

By contrast, Roxas testified that he had estimated both the weight and size of the golden buddha statue based on the work of his laborers in removing it from the tunnels. The plaintiffs-appellees also introduced photographs showing the size and design of the statue. Furthermore, Roxas testified as to the results of two chemical analyses performed by potential purchasers of the statue, both of which determined the statue to be of a purity over twenty carats, and one of which allegedly determined that the gold in the statue was twenty-two carats. Accordingly, there was a reasonable basis for the jury to make a determination that the statue was composed of virtually pure gold and, as of the date of conversion, was worth $1,300,000.00, in accordance with Colton’s testimony.

Because we have already held that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of damages for such gold bullion as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas, inasmuch as the record was speculative regarding the gold’s quantity and purity ... there is no need to remand for a recalculation of the value of that gold. However, with respect to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars taken from Roxas’s home, a new trial on the issue of value is necessary, and we therefore vacate that portion of the circuit court’s judgment regarding the damages attributable to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen golden bars and remand for further proceedings.

 76.173.161.184 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…you cannot remove properly cited material that comes from a reliable source and is verifiable from articles on Wikipedia. Jim (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Corrected dubious statement "The evidence considered by the court included this direct quotation from the judicial opinion by the Hawaii Supreme Court". The factual background is in reference to the Plaintiff’s claim in the Roxas vs Marcos 1 proceedings. This is not a quotation from the judicial opinion. Judicial Opinions are not evidence. Jim (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV-pushing statement: "Thus, there has been a judicial finding based upon substantial evidence that at least some portion of Yamashita's gold was found." The reference cited does not contain that statement, but is the editors opinion. Jim (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I left in your misleading statement from the statistical bulletin, but I describe where the claim came from, then right after the statement, I cite the actual judicial decision to prove it wrong. You want it in. In it stays.

I'll agree to take out the statement concerning the finding of Yamashita's gold, but I replaced it with the quote from the Philippines Government saying Roxas found Yamashita's treasure. It seems like a nice way to end the section. 76.173.161.184 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee...thanks for allowing my properly cited material to remain. In reference, too the document you claim has a "quote" from the Philippines Government. The quote is from the Parties and Proceedings section. Please point out, specifically, where the document concludes who made that statement. Furthermore, there are three other Petitioners listed on that particular Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. How can you say, with certainty that "quote" was not from one of the other Petitioners, or even the Respondents for that matter?

This is but a small example of the horrendous amounts of dubious statements and personal opinions you have infested the article with. That is the reason Wikipedia requires the content we editors contribute to the article must be verifiable. See

WP:VERIFY Jim (talk

) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

__________

I left your source in against my better judgment, because it is wrong. However, you seem to insist on its inclusion. So long as you permit the description of the source and the quote from the ultimate source demonstrate that it is erroneous, fine. It makes for an article that is more difficult to read, but whatever...

The Petition filed before the US Supreme Court was indeed filed jointly by the Bank of the Philippines, Arelma, Inc. and the Philippines Government. As a joint petition, lawyers for all three petitioners had to sign. Thus, the Philippines Government signed off on the language used in this petition. The petition was an official statement of the Philippines Government to the US Supreme Court. The quote was taken from the section were the Philippines Government was describing the parties and proceedings to the US Supreme Court. Thus, the quote was a statement that the Philippines Government was representing as fact to the US Supreme Court. If you have a problem with the Philippines Government's POV pushing, take it up with them.

76.173.161.184 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor said:

"So, I agree with you that the September 2001 judgment is the final judgment, but it did not become the final judgment until January of 2006. What happened in January of 2006? I will tell you. A story ran in the Manila Standard Today newspaper about competing claim to the Marcos assets, including a description of the terms of the newly final judgment in the case of Roxas v. Marcos"

Let me get this straight. You claim that because of a human-interest story published January 28, 2006 in the Manila Standard Today newspaper, the US Supreme Court made a final judgment to a case filed in September 2001, also in January of 2006...just because of that article. In addition, even though the newspaper article dates the judgment as that of the Roxas vs Marcos 1 trial of 1996, which was lost on appeals, that judgment is now the new judgment

Good greif. Jim (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One more time, here is the chronology of Roxas v. Marcos:

1996 Trial -- Roxas wins, is awarded $22 billion

• Roxas vs Marcos 1 trial - unpublished/noncitable Jim (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1998 Appellate decision -- Roxas still wins, but insufficient evidence for chamber full of gold and trial court used wrong standard for calculating the damages for the buddha and 17 bar. New trial ordered on value of gold only. The 1996 win on the conversion claim was affirmed, just damages still in question.

• Roxas wins on claims of false imprisonment and battery. Roxas loses $22 billion on appeal, Roxas loses on petition of constructive trust, Roxas claims for conversion of the gold Buddha and 17 bars of gold are vacated from the Roxas vs Marcos 1 trial, and a new trial ordered. Jim (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2000 proceeding -- trial court hears evidence on the value of the gold buddha and 17 bars as instructed by the Hawaii Supreme Court

• Preliminary Hearing to determine a reasonable time it would have taken an investor to replace the gold, as instructed in the Roxas vs Marcos appeal Jim (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2001 fourth amended judgment filed -- this judgment reflected the results of the 1996 trial, the 1998 appellate decision and the 2000 proceeding on the value of the gold. Court costs and post judgment interest are awarded to Roxas as the prevailing party as of the date of the 1996 trial, give or take a month or so to account for the filing of various post-trial motions.

• Fourth amended judgment is unpublished/noncitable. Any theories or opinions are strictly personal opinions, dubious and speculative at best. Jim (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2005 Appellate decision -- After a lengthy appeal process, the 2001 fourth amended judgment was affirmed. The GBC was not happy with only $13,000,000, but for the purposes of our dispute that is irrelevant. In December of 2005, the motion for reconsideration is denied, and in approximately January of 2006, the 2001 fourth amended judgment based upon the finding of the 1996 trial as modified by the 1998 decision and the 2000 proceeding in finally final. The GBC can finally start trying to execute on Marcos assets.

• The 2005 Summery Disposition Order is self-explanatory. “Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we affirm the September 6, 2001 fourth amended judgment of the circuit court for the following reasons:” The fourth amended judgment is unpublished/noncitable. Jim (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jan. 2006 Newspaper Report -- Shortly after the judgment in Roxas v. Macros finally became final, the Manila Standard Today reports the contents of the judgment in an article discussing competing claims to Marcos assets.

• Newspaper editorial also misspells the name of Roxas’s corporation The Golden Budha. A common mistake made by those who do not research what they print, and are not serious about investigative journalism Jim (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

2007 Brief By US Solicitor General -- In a proceeding before the US Supreme Court concerning competing claims to Marocs assets, the US Solicitor General on behalf of the United States of America describes the Roxas v. Marcos judgment as one of the competing claims and describes it consistent with the Jan. 2006 Newspaper Report.

• Of all the dubious, and false statements made on this talk page…I nominate this one for the top-ten list. There is no physical way to know exactly what the Solicitor General said, if anything at all. Jim (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If a copy of the 2001 fourth amended judgment were online, I would cite it for you, but it is not. So, I cannot tell you with absolute certainty what is in that document. However, I have two sources that describe the contents of that judgment -- the news report and the Brief by the US Solicitor General. Both of these sources are verifiable and reliable. Even without seeing the judgment itself, I can state with certainty based upon verifiable and reliable sources that Roxas was awarded $6m for human right violations and the GBC was awarded $13m and change for the stolen treasure. And all this still dates back to the 1996 trial of this matter where it was established that Roxas found the treasure and it was stolen by Marcos. The next decade was spent wrangling on appeal and a follow up proceeding on the limited issue of the value of the gold. 76.173.161.184 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…although the timeline of events are not arguable, the content suffers greatly. It is more that obvious that you cannot cite independent third-party sources (published secondary sources) as per the Wikipedia guidelines, that could support your opinions. See

WP:SECONDARY for more on that. The news report of 2006 cannot tell you what could be in the 2001 fourth admended judgment, and the "Breif by the US Solicitor General" is also another fallacy. Jim (talk

) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor said: “The quote was taken from the section were the Philippines Government was describing the parties and proceedings to the US Supreme Court”

IP Editor…I request once again that you read the documents you have supplied to support your opinions. There is no Parties and Proceedings section in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari that the Philippines Government was involved in. Your statement: “In fact, the Philippines Government, in its petition filed before the US Supreme Court, stated in its description of the findings in the Roxas v. Marcos case as follows: The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men” is not supported by your own citation. Here is another hint: Scroll down to Appendix A (page 41) and read up on the Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc vs ENC Corp Jim (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV statement: “The existence of this judgment has been recognized by the Solicitor General of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America" from the article. No independent third-party sources have been provided. See

WP:SECONDARY Jim (talk

) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

______________

I think we are close. I agree that I was wrong to attribute the statement concerning Yamashita's treasure to the Philippines Government. Although the statement was in the government's petition, it was only part of Appendix A, not the actual petition. So, it was unfair to attribute that statement to the Philippines Government. It should properly be attributed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, because that is where the statement appears in the decision of the court written by Judge Noonan.

I added the the brief of the US Solicitor General and the findings of Judge Real (also in the Petition Appendices) as sources for the current state of the final judgment.

I clarified the source of the long quote from the Court's opinion.

I made various minor edits to to make the article more readable.

I do think we are close to an agreement.

67.120.59.46 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume you agree that the section on related legal matter is accurate and properly sourced. May we remove the disputed banner? 98.151.55.160 (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that the section on related legal matter is "accurate and properly sourced". I am awaiting input from other editors. This article does not carry an urgency level, so it will be a slow resolve. I have posted [here] and [here]. Jim (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello All! I have read some of what has been written here. I believe that court material can be included as a direct source in the circumstances outlined in

;

"Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy." ^[1]

Now, it doesn't fit this case directly, but I think that it's a good principle to live y in any article. It does outline one thing however that is valid for all articles; a primary source can only be used if it has been cited by a secondary source that fits

00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings freekman. Thank you for your input in this matter.

The section in question ‘Related legal action’ is a barrage of personal opinions, skewed and misquoted information by the IP Editor. Even when the IP Editor “allowed” the material cited by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, he quickly followed that with his POV statement, and not referenced material refuting the material from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Below are but a few of the issues I would like to bring to the table. There are more, but this is a start:

“Furthermore, the Court sustained the portion of the verdict that found that Marcos had stolen the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold (the 24 bars Roxas took out of the chamber minus the seven that he sold).”

• There was no verdict stating that Marcos had stolen the gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold.

“With respect to this claim, the Hawaii Supreme Court specifically found as follows: 1) “There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's special finding that Ferdinand converted the treasure that Roxas found”; and 2) “There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that Roxas "found" the treasure pursuant to Philippine law.” The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and gold bars.”

• These are some of the jury’s special findings, not the Hawaii Supreme Court. The article also fails to show the defendant’s rebuttal (reply) and various other legal issues to the special findings, which makes this unbalanced and biased.

“On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold. Currently, Felix Dacanay, as the personal representative of Roxas' estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos in the principal amount of $6 million for the human rights claims concerning Roxas' arrest and torture, and the Golden Budha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 on the claim of the converted treasure. That judgment was ordered affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court on November 25, 2005”

• This is a mixture of gobbledygook. The IP Editor has taken snippets from newspapers and makes dubious claims that “that” judgment was affirmed. There are no citations provided to support that claim

“In a related legal proceeding in 2006, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal while describing the findings of the Roxas v. Marcos litigation stated: "The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men.”

• The IP Editor has taken the Plaintiff’s complaint from a human-rights case, and makes dubious claims that the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal is describing the findings of the Roxas vs Marcos trial. These are claims made by Roxas

Again, these are just a few to get the ball rolling. The IP Editor needs to abide by

WP:RS like everybody else, including myself. The Yamashita’s gold article has now taken a backseat to the Related legal action section. Also notable, is the IP Editor has also made the same POV claims on the Rogelio Roxas article. Jim (talk

) 01:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

________

Thank you for your input Fr33kman.

The problem that we are having with this article is that JimBob has a pet theory that Yamashita’s Gold is an urban legend, and consequently, he is hostile to any material that refutes his theory. He claims that I am guilty of POV pushing, but what better example of POV pushing could you imagine other than assigning this article under the category of “urban legends”? There is significant evidence that the treasure was found by Roxas and stolen by Marcos. The evidence was sufficient to convince a jury in Honolulu, and satisfy the Hawaii Supreme Court, and sufficient to give rise to a multi-million dollar judgment against Imelda to the extent of her interest in Ferdinand’s estate. One can legitimately argue that Yamashita’s Gold never existed. However, to state as fact that the treasure never existed and the whole topic is an urban legend just misrepresents the facts and is pushing an agenda.

I would agree that the section on the related legal proceeding has become rather long in relation to the rest of the article. However, the additional explanation and additional sources became necessary to demonstrate that a false source insisted upon by JimBob is obviously false. JimBob has insisted upon the inclusion of a statistical analysis that asserts that in 1998 the Hawaii Supreme Court, “found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion while treasure hunting north of Manila in 1971.” That statement implies that Roxas could not prove his case and was unable to establish that he found the treasure. In fact, anyone reading the actual decision of the court knows that the exact opposite was true. The court found that Roxas had provided sufficient evidence to prove that he found the treasure, and the court affirmed the finding that Marcos had converted (stolen) the treasure. According to JimBob’s statistical analysis, Day is Night. However, anyone reading the actual judicial decision that the statistical analysis purports to summarize will find that Day is still Day. The confusion in the statistical analysis came from the fact that the court reversed the damage award for insufficient evidence of the quantity and quality of the gold left by Roxas in the cave. Nevertheless the court still held that Roxas found the treasure, the treasure was stolen by Marcos, and Roxas could recover the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold -- just not the chamber full of gold, because that claim was based upon speculation about how much gold and what quality of gold. A lengthy explanation of the proceeding was made necessary to refute the erroneous statement found in JimBob's statistical analysis. The additional material was made necessary by JimBob’s erroneous and misleading source.

Concerning the sources: My material relies upon neutral descriptions of what actually transpired in the judicial proceeding as stated in the actual judicial decisions that record what happened in the proceeding, as well as contemporaneous news reports from mainstream newspapers. I would posit that judicial appellate decisions are the equivalent of the literary history of a judicial proceeding and form the best source for what transpired in a given proceeding. In that sense the appellate court decision would be the most reliable secondary source for the lawsuit that one could imagine. However, the decision could also be considered a primary source, and as stated in WP:PSTS, “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia…” Use of primary sources can be used to “make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.” I would further posit that any educated person reading the appellate court decision (even JimBob) would necessarily concede that JimBob’s source is incorrect. Rather, the court held that Roxas submitted sufficient evidence to prove that Roxas found the treasure and the court affirmed the portion of the jury’s finding that Marcos had converted the golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold. WP:PSTS goes on to say that, “Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment…” I would posit that common sense and good editorial judgment warrants that a section describing a legal proceeding use as its sources the actual decisions of the courts involved, regardless of whether the decisions are considered a primary source or a secondary source. 67.120.59.46 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

_________

Just to beat a dead horse, I added a bunch of other secondary sources (mainstream newspaper reports) to support the proposition that the outcome of the lawsuit was a $6 million dollar human rights judgment and a $13 million dollar judgment for the converted treasure. I also added reference to the Swiss court's finding in favor of Roxas in 1996 supported by the secondary source of a mainstream newspaper report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…you are correct in your beating a dead horse analogy. You do not seem to understand the difference between news reporting and opinion pieces in newspapers. You have taken another human-interest story that has a short blurb about the Roxas vs Marcos proceedings and try to use it as a reliable reference. That is not abiding by the Wikipedia guidelines of

WP:RS. Jim (talk

) 07:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

_______________

By beating a dead horse I was referring to that fact that your statistical analysis was wrong. I cannot believe that after reviewing all of the material that I have provided for your review, you would resort to an edit war again and delete all of my material wholesale and revert to your version where the final word is your statistical analysis, that we all know is wrong. I even agreed to keep your erroneous cite so long as we kept the other material that proved it wrong. Unfortunately, you are more interested in distorting the record rather than presenting it honesty. Look at the Metropolitan News Enterprise. That legal newspaper has been serving the legal community in Los Angeles area for over 100 years. Its November 1, 2002 article states as follows:

Another creditor is the estate of Filipino treasure hunter Roger Roxas, who won a $13 million judgment for the conversion of an 800-pound gold Buddha. The statue, Roxas claimed, was forcibly taken by agents of Marcos along with other artifacts found in a dig around Baguio City. Roxas’ judgment was originally for $22 billion, plus interest that nearly doubled the amount. But the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, and the judgment on remand—for the greatly reduced sum—is now being appealed by the estate, which hopes the high court will reconsider its original ruling, the estate’s attorney, Daniel Cathcart of Los Angeles, said yesterday. http://www.metnews.com/articles/phil110102.htm

That is certainly a reliable secondary source. It is not an opinion piece. Rather, it is hard news reporting on the status of the Roxas v. Marcos proceeding at that time. We know that as of November 1, 2002, there was a 13 million dollar judgment for the conversion of the buddha, and it was awaiting on appeal to become final. This report was shortly after the fourth amended judgment was filed that ultimately became final in November of 2005. There can be no legitimate debate that the GBC won the trial and was awarded $13m (and change) for the conversion of the gold. This taken together with all of the other news reports and neutral recitations of the material culled from the court records provide overwhelming evidence that your statistical analysis is just dead wrong.

Can you cite to any other authority, other than that statistical analysis, to support your position that Roxas' case was thrown out for insufficient evidence and that the GBC does not have a $13 million dollar judgment for conversion of the gold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.59.46 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor…you have supplied yet another human-interest story. There are literally hundreds of these editorials on the internet to be found. Take note that this particular human-interest story comes four years after the appeal verdict. Also notable; the story you have selected as “a reliable secondary source” and “hard news reporting” reports the gold Buddha weight as only 800-pounds. That is only 1200-pounds shy of Roxas’ claim the Buddha weighed one-tonne. Yep…hard news reporting it be! Jim (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. What I'd like you both to do is to create the version of the section that you would personally like to see on the page below, and we'll go through them both, line by line. I think that this is the fairest way forward. All editors: Please do not edit, add to or comment on the other parties section until I start the conversation!

Thank you fr33kman -s- 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim's version

In March 1988, a US lawsuit was filed by Rogelio Roxas against former Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos. Roxas alleged that Marcos had confiscated crates of gold bullion and a one-tonne gold Buddha he had found in 1971, while searching for the Yamashita treasure, north of Manila. Roxas died prematurely in suspicious circumstances, leading to suggestions that he was murdered. A jury in Honolulu awarded $22 billion in compensatory damages that after the jury verdict had increased with interest to over $40 billion. The jury did not award punitive damages. On November 17, 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the $41 billion judgment against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion while treasure hunting north of Manila in 1971. Jim (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IP's version

In March of 1988, Rogelio Roxas filed a lawsuit in the State of Hawaii against former Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda Marcos. Roxas claimed that he was a treasure hunter who in 1971 was searching for Yamashita's gold. The evidence and testimony submitted by Roxas alleged the following:^[2]

Sometime in 1970, Roxas’s group began digging on state lands near the Baguio General Hospital. After approximately seven months of searching and digging “24 hours a day,” the group broke into a system of underground tunnels. Inside the tunnels, the group found wiring, radios, bayonets, rifles, and a human skeleton wearing a Japanese army uniform. After several weeks spent digging and exploring within the tunnels, Roxas’s group discovered a ten-foot thick concrete enclosure in the floor of the tunnel. On January 24, 1971, the group broke through the enclosure. Inside, Roxas discovered a gold-colored buddha statue, which he estimated to be about three feet in height. The statue was extremely heavy; it required ten men to transport it to the surface using a chain block hoist, ropes, and rolling logs. Although he never weighed the statue, Roxas estimated its weight to be 1,000 kilograms, or one metric ton. Roxas directed his laborers to transport the statue to his home and place it in a closet. Roxas also found a large pile of boxes underneath the concrete enclosure, approximately fifty feet from where the buddha statue had been discovered. He returned the next day and opened one small box, which contained twenty-four one-inch by two-and-one-half-inch bars of gold. Roxas estimated that the boxes were, on average, approximately the size of a case of beer and that they were stacked five or six feet high, over an area six feet wide and thirty feet long. Roxas did not open any of the other boxes. Several weeks later, Roxas returned to blast the tunnel closed, planning to sell the buddha statue in order to obtain funds for an operation to remove the remaining treasure. Before blasting the tunnel closed, Roxas removed the twenty-four bars of gold, as well as some samurai swords, bayonets, and other artifacts…. During the following weeks, Roxas sold seven of the gold bars and sought a buyer for the golden buddha. Roxas testified that Kenneth Cheatham, the representative of one prospective buyer, drilled a small hole under the arm of the buddha and assayed the metal. The test revealed the statue to be solid twenty-two carat gold. Roxas also testified that a second prospective buyer, Luis Mendoza, also tested the metal of the statue, using nitric acid, and concluded that it was “more than 20 carats.”

Roxas went on to allege that after he discovered the treasure, he was arrested by Marcos, the treasure was seized, and he was tortured. After his release, Roxas died under suspicious circumstance, creating the impression that he might have been murdered. The lawsuit seeking damages for the human rights violations associated with Roxas’ arrest and torture was asserted by Roxas’ estate, while the claim for the seized treasure was asserted by The Golden Budha [sic] Corporation, a company formed for the purpose of asserting Roxas' rights to the treasure. In 1996, a jury in Honolulu awarded Roxas $6 million for the human rights claim and awarded the Golden Budha Corp. $22 billion in compensatory damages for the seized treasure that with interest increased to over $40 billion.^[3] Also in 1996, A Swiss court decided that a golden buddha statue filled with diamonds in Japanese war booty was most likely illegally seized by Marcos from Roxas. The Zurich Legal Office would order Marcos' widow, Imelda, to pay $460 million to compensate Roxas' family.^[4]

On November 17, 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the $41 billion damage award against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The court found that: "...there was insufficient evidence to support an award of damages for such gold bullion as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas, inasmuch as the record was speculative regarding the gold’s quantity and purity..." However, the Court sustained the portion of the jury verdict finding that Roxas had “found” the treasure and that Marcos had converted (unlawfully taken) the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold from Roxas. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the value of the converted golden statue and 17 gold bars.^{[5] [6]}

On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold ^[7] and awarded approximately $13 million.^[8] After many years on appeal, Felix Dacanay, as the personal representative of Roxas' estate, finally secured a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos in the principal amount of $6 million for the human rights claims concerning Roxas' arrest and torture, and the Golden Budha Corp. secured a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 on the claim of the converted treasure.^{[9] [10] [11] [12]} That judgment was ordered affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court on November 25, 2005. ^[13] In a related legal proceeding in 2006, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal summarized the findings of the Roxas v. Marcos litigation as follows: "The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men."^[14]

Third opinion

My opinion is that unless the claims contained in the court document are plainly and clearly explained in the articles as claims, then the [court document can not be used unless the claims contained within can be cited in a secondary source. This is clearly policy at Wikipedia. The court document can be used as a primary source to say that "X claimed before court that Y was truly the father of her baby". This makes it clear that it is just a claim, and not necessary the truth. Our inclusion criteria here at Wikipedia is, truth is not the most important, verifiability is. If it can be verified, then it doesn't matter if it's true or not. It should be included. Find reliable sources that cite the court case and then cite those sources as saying what the claims in the court case are. Any one can write whatever they like in a court case; I could claim I'm an alien from the planet Xog: doesn't make it true! :-) fr33kman -s- 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC) _____________________

Thanks Freekman

I agree with most of what you have to say, and if you read the IP version closely, you will see that the claims and allegations from the court record are clearly identified as such: “The evidence and testimony submitted by Roxas alleged…” and “Roxas went on to allege….” Where I would disagree with you is if you are asserting that under no circumstances can an appellate court decision be treated as a reliable secondary source. I do not think that is, or should be, the case. An appellate decision is a piece of literature and an historical work in that the decision describes the history of that particular legal action. The appellate decision will often summarize the pleadings and proceedings of the trial court, and thus become the most reliable secondary source as to what transpired in a given legal proceeding. Furthermore, since the decision is the measured work of judges in an adversarial system subject to review by the opposing attorneys and often other judges in other courts, the decision could be considered hyper-peer reviewed. That being said, even if the court decisions are considered primary sources, they can still be used according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. As stated in WP:PSTS, “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia…” Use of primary sources can be used to “make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.” The use of the court records in the IP version is consistent with these guidelines. Finally, the IP version does not rely solely on court decisions. The fact that Roxas and his successors were successful in establishing in a court of law that Roxas found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos has been established in the IP version through the use of the following reliable secondary sources -- New York Daily News, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Manila Standard Today, and even a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines.

To move this dispute towards resolution, someone needs to explain to JimBob that he will not be permitted to exclude all of this material and leave the reader with the false impression that Roxas’ case was thrown out for insufficient evidence. JimBob needs to accept that the article, to be honest, accurate and verifiable, needs to include a summary of the Roxas action that somehow ends with Roxas’ successors achieving some sort of win and obtaining a judgment against Imelda. 67.120.59.46 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Secondary Source -- another contemporaneous news report from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- has been added to support the statement that the November 1998 court decision upheld Roxas' claim that he found the gold Buddha and 17 bars of gold and the court only remanded to determine the gold's value. 98.151.55.160 (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I advise you all that this article should go through the

15:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Page fully protected for 48 hours due to edit warring by various IP addresses and JimBob. Please hash this out here.

Tan | 39

15:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

__________

I have tried to work with JimBob to make a compromise solution. If he had just an honest dispute with how a statement is phrased it could be discussed, but he insists on erasing all history since 1998. Since then it has been conclusively established that Roxas' successor won a $13m judgment for the theft of the treasure. Nevertheless, JimBob refuses to allow any material into the article that demonstrates that Roxas established to the satisfaction of a US court that he found the treasure. I am not a clever wikilawyer like JimBob, but I will explain my position to anyone anywhere. The facts are the facts. History is history. The sources are reliable and verifiable. To accept JimBob's version one must consciously close ones eyes to all the news reports since 1998 as well as a multitude clear well-documented court decisions as well as a press release by the Solicitor General of the Philippines Government. Even the US Solicitor General in a Brief on behalf of the United States of America before the US Supreme Court reported to the court of the FACT that Roxas' successor won a judgment for the theft of the treasure. Sorry, but JimBob is more interested in distorting history than working on a mutually acceptable version based upon the reliable and verifiable sources. 98.151.55.160 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While you clearly have a right to state your case, please do so without resorting to borderline personal attacks and negativity. Doing so merely undermines your credibility.

Tan | 39

16:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My credibility should be determined by the material that I have provided and the sources that support that material (which is overwhelming). 98.151.55.160 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, it should. However, your attitude isn't appropriate for a civil, mature Wikipedia discussion.

Tan | 39

17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's get this thing sorted out

As has been previousley stated, a court document is a primary source, the court is the publisher and the litigant parties can claim anything they like, including that the moon is green if they wish. Let's back them up with secondary sources. If the contents of a court case are so important to a subject, then it will be written about by reliable sources and should be easy to verify. IP, please itemise the additions you want to make and the sources that you feel back them up and as a group we'll go through them one-by-one and sort this out. As stated, edit wars hurt our encyclopaedia and force readers to go elsewhere. The onus is on the person inserting edits into an article and not on any other editor.

We'll all work together, but the attacks must end. fr33kman -s- 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IP's desired additions

Not sure what you are looking for. Here are the additions and the sources that I have provided before... If someone has a problem with a specific addition or source, please specify what part you have a problem with and what the objection is, and I'll be happy to explain why it is adequately supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Here is the material:

1. In March of 1988, Rogelio Roxas filed a lawsuit in the State of Hawaii against former Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda Marcos. Roxas claimed that he was a treasure hunter who in 1971 was searching for Yamashita's gold. The evidence and testimony submitted by Roxas alleged the following:^[1]

Sometime in 1970, Roxas’s group began digging on state lands near the Baguio General Hospital. After approximately seven months of searching and digging “24 hours a day,” the group broke into a system of underground tunnels. Inside the tunnels, the group found wiring, radios, bayonets, rifles, and a human skeleton wearing a Japanese army uniform. After several weeks spent digging and exploring within the tunnels, Roxas’s group discovered a ten-foot thick concrete enclosure in the floor of the tunnel. On January 24, 1971, the group broke through the enclosure. Inside, Roxas discovered a gold-colored buddha statue, which he estimated to be about three feet in height. The statue was extremely heavy; it required ten men to transport it to the surface using a chain block hoist, ropes, and rolling logs. Although he never weighed the statue, Roxas estimated its weight to be 1,000 kilograms, or one metric ton. Roxas directed his laborers to transport the statue to his home and place it in a closet. Roxas also found a large pile of boxes underneath the concrete enclosure, approximately fifty feet from where the buddha statue had been discovered. He returned the next day and opened one small box, which contained twenty-four one-inch by two-and-one-half-inch bars of gold. Roxas estimated that the boxes were, on average, approximately the size of a case of beer and that they were stacked five or six feet high, over an area six feet wide and thirty feet long. Roxas did not open any of the other boxes. Several weeks later, Roxas returned to blast the tunnel closed, planning to sell the buddha statue in order to obtain funds for an operation to remove the remaining treasure. Before blasting the tunnel closed, Roxas removed the twenty-four bars of gold, as well as some samurai swords, bayonets, and other artifacts…. During the following weeks, Roxas sold seven of the gold bars and sought a buyer for the golden buddha. Roxas testified that Kenneth Cheatham, the representative of one prospective buyer, drilled a small hole under the arm of the buddha and assayed the metal. The test revealed the statue to be solid twenty-two carat gold. Roxas also testified that a second prospective buyer, Luis Mendoza, also tested the metal of the statue, using nitric acid, and concluded that it was “more than 20 carats.”

2. Roxas went on to allege that after he discovered the treasure, he was arrested by Marcos, the treasure was seized, and he was tortured. After his release, Roxas died under suspicious circumstance, creating the impression that he might have been murdered. The lawsuit seeking damages for the human rights violations associated with Roxas’ arrest and torture was asserted by Roxas’ estate, while the claim for the seized treasure was asserted by The Golden Budha [sic] Corporation, a company formed for the purpose of asserting Roxas' rights to the treasure. In 1996, a jury in Honolulu awarded Roxas $6 million for the human rights claim and awarded the Golden Budha Corp. $22 billion in compensatory damages for the seized treasure that with interest increased to over $40 billion.^[2]

3. Also in 1996, A Swiss court decided that a golden buddha statue filled with diamonds in Japanese war booty was most likely illegally seized by Marcos from Roxas. The Zurich Legal Office would order Marcos' widow, Imelda, to pay $460 million to compensate Roxas' family.^[3]

This source is reliable and what it says should be used. fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is a single claim source, and does not reflect any of the Swiss Court Rulings by any other news agencies. Jim (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

4. On November 17, 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the $41 billion damage award against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The court found that: "...there was insufficient evidence to support an award of damages for such gold bullion as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas, inasmuch as the record was speculative regarding the gold’s quantity and purity..." However, the Court sustained the portion of the jury verdict finding that Roxas had “found” the treasure and that Marcos had converted (unlawfully taken) the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold from Roxas. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the value of the converted golden statue and 17 gold bars.^{[4] [5]}

The StarBulletin source can be used fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The source may be fine, but the contents of this section are not in the reference used. Jim (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

5. On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold ^[6] and awarded approximately $13 million.^[7]

This souce is fine fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• This statement is a complete fabrication Jim (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

6. After many years on appeal, Felix Dacanay, as the personal representative of Roxas' estate, finally secured a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos in the principal amount of $6 million for the human rights claims concerning Roxas' arrest and torture, and the Golden Budha Corp. secured a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 on the claim of the converted treasure.^{[8] [9] [10] [11]}

7. That judgment was ordered affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court on November 25, 2005. ^[12]

8. In a related legal proceeding in 2006, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal summarized the findings of the Roxas v. Marcos litigation as follows: "The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men."^[13]

Let's everyone take a read of this

I've been going over Wikipedia with a fine tooth comb for guidance in this issue, let's all read this and then review -> Use of court documents as reliable sources. This is not full community consensus but it does give us a starting point. I'm still looking for more guidance. fr33kman -s- 16:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Extracting bits and pieces of court documents, combined with bits and pieces of various newspaper human-rights editorials (A+B=C) is not using the documents as reliable references, but trying to build a story. I did not see any examples such as what is being discussed here at that link.

I firmly stand behind citing independent third-party sources (published secondary sources). Jim (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in content disputes over citing court documents before. In general,there is no problem using court docs per se, but there is a problem when editors take liberties drawing conclusions from them. Disputes in this article won't be resolved if they're shaped as a battle between two alternative "conclusions" to be made about the outcome of the trial. The article simply needs to report the story about the trial, beginning, middle, end, and not try to go further, using the trial papers to "prove" or "disprove" that the treasure really existed. To do so at wp would be a misuse of primary sources.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

__________

Reading the opinions you referred us to (thank you BTW), it seems that the use of the appellate decisions in the IP material is appropriate. The allegations of the parties are clearly identified as allegations. The findings of the courts are not stated as absolute facts, but as merely the findings of the court. In the cited article someone was trying to use obscure facts buried in obscure court papers scanned and put on an unreliable site. Here the IP version is using the official decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court in a published decision that has gained significant notoriety resulting in numerous news reports that are also cited as secondary sources.98.151.55.160 (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The “IP version” is trying to use vacated material from the Roxas v Marcos trial, and poorly written media material to support those issues. Jim (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that the appellate sources are reliable. Any thing that is not a proven fact, must be refered to as a claim and should only be used if it can't be backed up elsewhere. The opinions of the judge can be included as an opinion. The key points we need to consider are: 1) we are not going to do any original research here, 2) we have to place the needs of wikipedia and the needs of the reader over the needs of any editor here, and 3) since this topic doesn't seem to have really been discussed in detail by the community (court document usage) should we start a discussion over at

WT:RS? In the mean time, I'm asking BOTH of you to stop editing the article and stop reverting each other's edits. fr33kman -s-

18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Freekman…the issue here is not about using Judge’s opinions, but the IP’s version(s) of claiming rulings/judgments that did not take place. Inclusions such as “On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold and awarded approximately $13 million.” is a complete fabrication. There seems to be some confusion here as to what the debate/issue is about. Jim (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If the material was vacated in 1998 as Jim claims, why did the US Solicitor General for the United States of America in October of 2007 (just last year) in a Brief before the United States Supreme Court recognize "Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas."? The circle cannot be squared. Why did the Solicitor General of the Philippines Government issue a press release in 2008 state that the "Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos in 1996."? The circle cannot be squared. Why did the Manila Standard Today report in January of 2006 that the "Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996. Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996." The circle cannot be squared. Jim has not and cannot cite to any authority to refute these sources. Also, Jim's claim of fabrication is just that -- a fabrication by Jim. As stated in the cited source the Honolulu Star-Bulletin dated February 29, 2000, "Attorneys argued yesterday about how a Circuit Court judge should determine the value of a golden Buddha statue and 17 bars of gold that a Filipino treasure hunter said was stolen from him by the late Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos." I note that after I made the effort to breakdown line-by-line the additions I sought to add including the sources for those additions, Jim made no effort to explain why each of the changes were unacceptable, he just reverted to the edit war and removed all the material. The material that I added and which seems to be approved of by the other editors here has been removed. Nevertheless, I will respect Fr33kman's request that I not replace the material for the time being —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.55.160 (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse that portion of the circuit court’s amended judgment awarding GBC $22,000,000,000.00 for “one storage area” of gold bullion, (2) vacate those portions of the amended judgment (a) entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and against Imelda, in her capacity as personal representative of the Marcos Estate, (b) awarding GBC $1,400,000.00 in damages for conversion of the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars, and (c) entering judgment in favor of Imelda and against the plaintiffs-appellees on GBC’s claim for constructive trust, and (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

Jim (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Federal Supreme Court Rulings can be found [here], and do not support the single source newspaper claim that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ordered Imelda Marcos to pay Roxas (Golden Budha Corporation) 460 million dollars. Jim (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"On November 17, 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the $41 billion judgment against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion while treasure hunting north of Manila in 1971." can be found [here]. Jim (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: SWISS RULING -- The New York Daily News report speaks for itself and as a mainstream newspaper it is a reliable source. The cite you provided only included judgments by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court involving Fredinand Marcos. There are other courts in Switzerland and the reported ruling was against Imelda. The fact that you cannot find the judgment in question on the cite you provided does not mean that it does not exist elsewhere by another court and against Imelda only. Plus, the judgments are only in French or German and without a translator, I cannot tell what is or is not there. In any event, the material I provided makes it clear that the decision is merely the opinion of a Swiss court and no more. It is supported by a reliable secondary source (a mainstream newspaper) and is entitled to be included. In the event that you can locate some equally reliable material indicating that this Swiss ruling was reversed or modified, obviously, the material that I have provided can be amended or if appropriate removed. However, from the cite you have provided I see no reason why it should not be included. ARE YOU DISPUTING A RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCE BY REFERENCING A PRIMARY SOURCE. Is that not rather hypocritical of you? 98.151.55.160 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS -- We have discussed that document before. It's only source was the Hawaii Supreme Court decision and its statement is incomplete and misleading as only a portion of the judgment was reversed while the remainder was affirmed. I have provided you with overwhelming authority that the Court upheld the verdict re conversion of the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold, proving your document erroneous. Nevertheless, out of respect to you, I have agreed to allow that cite to remain in the article so long as the other material demonstrating it to be erroneous is also included. 98.151.55.160 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RE CONCLUSION OF HAWAII SUPREME COURT. It is not disputed that the court reversed the $22 billion damage award. But that is not all the court did in that decision. For our purposes today, here is the relevant portion of that same conclusion: "Based on the foregoing analysis, we ... (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed." This language makes it clear that the Hawaii Supreme Court was remanding the matter to the trial court with instruction to the trial court to enter judgment against Imelda on the claims of battery, false imprisonment and conversion. The conversion was of the buddha and 17 bars, and the Supreme Court ordered the trial court to hold a new hearing on the value of these items and to award prejudgment interest on these items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.55.160 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP Editor asked: "If the material was vacated in 1998 as Jim claims, why did the US Solicitor General for the United States of America in October of 2007 (just last year) in a Brief before the United States Supreme Court recognize "Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas."? They also asked: "Why did the Solicitor General of the Philippines Government issue a press release in 2008 state that the "Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos in 1996."?

Those are the plaintiffs/petitioners claims. No more, no less. To insinuate the US Solicitor General for the United States of America or the Solicitor General of the Philippines Government may have had a hand in on those allegations or statements are purely misleading. Both documents clearly state PETITIONERS and reference to the 1996 Roxas v Marcos trial, and not the 1998 appeal where the 1996 judgment was vacated from that trial. Jim (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No. There was a trial in 1996. Roxas' estate and the GBC won the trial in 1996. The ruling was appealed. In 1998 only a portion of the judgment was vacated (the $22 billion), but the rest was affirmed -- The 1996 trial determined that Roxas found the treasure, Marcos converted it, and Roxas is entitled to damages for the converted golden buddha and 17 bars of gold. Further proceedings were held, but only to determine value, an amount of $13m was finally affixed as the value of the buddha and 17 bars, more appeals were held, and the judgment was finally made final in November of 2005 -- but the judgment (whenever it became final) is dated as of the date of the original trial that Roxas won 1996 (as has been reported in the Manila Standard Today in 2006, by the US Solicitor General in 2007, the Philippines Solicitor General in 2008 and all the other primary and secondary sources that I have repeatedly provided to you.)

"To insinuate the US Solicitor General for the United States of America or the Solicitor General of the Philippines Government may have had a hand in on those allegations or statements are purely misleading." That is not what I am implying. The US Solicitor General was presenting a brief to the US Supreme Court concerning the US's position on a high profile dispute over the right to certain assets involving the Government of the Philippines. In presenting the US's position, the US Solicitor General had to explain the applicable facts to the high court. One of the facts presented to the high court by the US Solicitor General in the Statement of the case section (not the Discussion of the arguments section) was: "Petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation (Roxas claimants) obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos, Marcos’s wife, in October 1996, based on claims of torture, imprisonment, and theft of a treasure owned by Roxas." That was presented by the US solicitor General as a fact. The US Solicitor general did not say that the Roxas claimants claim they were entitled to a judgment, but said that the Roxas claimants actually obtained a judgment in 1996. Then the US Solicitor General explains the Roxas claimant's position in this case, "The Roxas claimants seek to execute their judgment against the Arelma account, and further claim that the money used to fund the Arelma account derives from the stolen Roxas treasure." By the time that this brief was written in October of 2007, the judgment was an established fact. The Roxas claimants "claim" in that case was that that judgment (which is an established fact) could be executed against those certain assets. They lost that fight to collect, but the US Solicitor General statement in its brief is yet another reliable source for the IP Version that Roxas' successors have a judgment in a US court for the theft of the treasure along with all the other primary sources and numerous third-party secondary sources in the form of contemporary news reports from mainstream newspapers that all say the same thing -- Roxas has a judgment for theft of the treasure as a result of the trial held in 1996.

The IP Editor asked: "Why did the Manila Standard Today report in January of 2006 that the "Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996. Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Roxas estate, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest of the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $6 million as of Oct. 21, 1996."

Newspaper editorials are not required to be factual, just entertaining. This particular editorial (as well as the hundreds just like it) is using data from the Roxas v Marcos 1 trial in 1996 and not the appeal in 1998 where the judgments have been vacated and a new trial for those allegations ordered. That is entertainment value, not truth in reporting. Pi cannot be squared to a definite number Jim (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the news reports cited in the IP version, only one the "Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1998" was an editorial and the portion used from that editorial was not the opinion expressed but the factual assertion in the piece: "While setting aside the $22 billion verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Roxas' claim to the gold statue of Buddha and 17 gold bars. It sent that portion of the case back for recalculation of their value." That was not opinion, but the one of the facts upon which they were expressing an opinion. All other news reports were actual news reports and you calling them editorials do not make them unreliable sources -- particularly when all the sources cited in the IP version all agree with each other and with the primary sources and the only odd ball out there is the statistical analysis that you continue to cling to. Also, if the reporters at the Manila Standard today were actually discussing the state of facts as of October 1996, they would not have used the $13 million figure (which was not set until February of 2000), but would have used the $22 billion figure awarded back in 1996. The Manila Standard Today was reporting the legal facts apparently lifting the legalese language directly from the judgment.

The IP Editor made this statement: RE: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS -- We have discussed that document before. It's only source was the Hawaii Supreme Court decision and its statement is incomplete and misleading as only a portion of the judgment was reversed while the remainder was affirmed. I have provided you with overwhelming authority that the Court upheld the verdict re conversion of the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold, proving your document erroneous. Nevertheless, out of respect to you, I have agreed to allow that cite to remain in the article so long as the other material demonstrating it to be erroneous is also included.

The document provided is a secondary reliable source. The Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs) has drawn it conclusions based on the actual court documents (Source: Roxas v Marcos, 89 Hawaii 91, 969 P. 2d. 1209 (1998)). This is not “erroneous”. Furthermore, the Court vacated the conversion of the gold Buddha and seventeen bars of gold and a new trial ordered. [Here]And, does not uphold the conversion judgment from the 1996 Roxas v Marcos 1 trial.

"Accordingly, the circuit court’s jury instruction regarding the valuation of the converted gold was erroneous. Likewise, the special verdict form erroneously required the jury to value the gold as of the date of conversion. Because we have already held that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of damages for such gold bullion as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas, inasmuch as the record was speculative regarding the gold’s quantity and purity, see supra section III.I, there is no need to remand for a recalculation of the value of that gold. However, with respect to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars taken from Roxas’s home, a new trial on the issue of value is necessary, and we therefore vacate that portion of the circuit court’s judgment regarding the damages attributable to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen golden bars and remand for further proceedings. On retrial, the circuit court should instruct the jury that the measure of damages for the conversion of the golden buddha and the seventeen gold bars is the highest value of the gold between— and including—the date of conversion and a reasonable time thereafter. [FN47] The reasonable time is bounded by the latest date on which a reasonable investor with adequate funds would have replaced the converted gold. The reasonable time cannot extend beyond the date of the close of evidence at trial. Moreover, the circuit court should require the jury to make special finding of the date corresponding to the highest value of the gold within the reasonable time for purposes of calculating an award of prejudgment interest. See infra section III.M.2."

Jim (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You cited the right section, but you apparently don't understand it. The jury accepted Roxas' story that he found the entire treasure trove and that Marcos stole it. So, the jury and trial court judge awarded $22 billion in damages. On appeal, the appellate court does not retry the case. It only makes sure that the law was applied correctly and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. As the section you just cited states, there was insufficient evidence to establish the quantity and quality of the gold "as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas." So, as you can see, the finding that there was insufficient evidence only applies to the portion of the treasure that Roxas left in the cave, not the portion of the treasure that he allegedly took out of the cave -- the buddha and 17 bars. There was sufficient evidence of the quantity and quality of that gold to support a damage award. So, the jury verdict of 1996 was affirmed as to the claim of conversion of the buddha and 17 bars. However, the trial court used an improper method to value the gold. So, the appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining the value. The 1996 verdict was upheld -- Roxas found the treasure and Marcos stole it. All that was left to determine on remand was the value of the buddha and 17 bars.

This is not a matter of interpretation, just a matter of reading comprehension. Furthermore, it is consistent with the other secondary sources that I have cited. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1998: "While setting aside the $22 billion verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Roxas' claim to the gold statue of Buddha and 17 gold bars. It sent that portion of the case back for recalculation of their value." Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Lawyers Debate Value of Stolen Gold, February 29, 2000: "Attorneys argued yesterday about how a Circuit Court judge should determine the value of a golden Buddha statue and 17 bars of gold that a Filipino treasure hunter said was stolen from him by the late Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos."

As I have stated repeatedly, I agree that your Statistical Analysis would ordinarily be a reliable secondary source. However, in this case it is wrong. If you want it to be included, fine, but I would insist on the inclusion of all the other reliable primary and secondary sources that I have provided that prove your Statistical Analysis to be erroneous. Leaving it as the final word is not an option.98.151.55.160 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Let it be noted that the only other editor to leave a third opinion (fr33kman) has stated the IP sources are reliable and should be included. JimBob has ignored this third opinion and has resorted to the self help of an edit war removing material supported by reliable verifiable sources.98.151.55.160 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

From above: "I've been involved in content disputes over citing court documents before. In general,there is no problem using court docs per se, but there is a problem when editors take liberties drawing conclusions from them. Disputes in this article won't be resolved if they're shaped as a battle between two alternative "conclusions" to be made about the outcome of the trial. The article simply needs to report the story about the trial, beginning, middle, end, and not try to go further, using the trial papers to "prove" or "disprove" that the treasure really existed. To do so at wp would be a misuse of primary sources.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)" Jim (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes and references

The IP Editor is taking the wording from one source (such as court documents) and the wording from another source (such as a newspaper editorial to form a sentence. The IP Editor is also using human-interest editorials that are not based on investigative journalism or news reporting.

• However, the Court sustained the portion of the jury verdict finding that Roxas had “found” the treasure and that Marcos had converted (unlawfully taken) the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold from Roxas

• On February 28, 2000, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the value of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold and awarded approximately $13 million

• and the Golden Budha Corp. secured a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 on the claim of the converted treasure. That judgment was ordered affirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court on November 25, 2005.

• In a related legal proceeding in 2006, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal summarized the findings of the Roxas v. Marcos litigation as follows: "The Yamashita Treasure was discovered by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos’s men.”

Jim (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP Editor is also altering other editor’s additions to the article (mine), and deleting the link to the referenced source. Jim (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)