Talk:Yamashita's gold

Related legal action

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)

Stop using "loot", it is not appropriate

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)

Removing False References

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

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 original 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. 76.173.161.184 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)