Talk:Yamashita's gold

Removed Fiction Book as Reference

Removed the book “Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie: What Happened To Hirohito’s Gold?” by Richard Hoyt from the Reference section. The copyright page reads:

“This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously” Jim (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference: The Philippines Under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

Might any of the other editors have a copy of this publication? The internet offers very little about the content. Book reviews are short, and claim the book uses “new perspectives of the Occupation based on Japanese and other hitherto unused primary sources.”

It would be most interesting to read some quotes from that publication, pertaining to this article. Oddly enough, the article lacks any quotes from this book, even though it is used as a reference. Jim (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed False Referencing: The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

The book “The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction (Ikehata Setsuho and Ricardo Trota Jose, editors) does not support the following claims in the article:

• Yamashita’s gold existed
• Yakuza gangsters organized looting
• The Japanese government would use loot from Southeast Asia to finance the war effort
• People who knew of the loot were killed during the war, or later tried for war crimes
• The loot was concentrated in Singapore and later transferred to the Philippines
• The United States recovered much of the loot and used it to finance the Cold War

Jim (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Conspiracy Theory

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 WP:FRINGE theory pushing. <eleland/talkedits> 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)

2002 ruling

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)

Wikilawyering and templatemania

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 lawyering. 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 ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, 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)

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

In 2001 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the GBC was a claimant to certain funds possessed by Marcos due to a judgment obtained in state court.

The Roxas Estate and Golden Budha assert claims as judgment creditors of the Marcos Estate on the basis of judgments obtained in state courts.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/309/309.F3d.1143.01-71841.02-15340.html

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.