Talk:Yamashita's gold/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Unnecessary Edit War

JimBob continues to remove extensive noteworthy material supported by numerous reliable verifiable primary and secondary sources. He continues to remove proper material distorting the true history of the lawsuit. According to both the Court Records and numerous contemporaneous news reports from main steam newspapers, Roxas's successors prevailed and obtained a judgment against Imelda Marcos. JimBob for some reason has an interest in distorting the history of events and falsely reporting that the lawsuit was thrown out for insufficient evidence -- when the overwhelming weight of reliable authorities indicate the exact opposite. Third opinions provided by other editors have determined that the material should be included. This represents an egregious abuse of wikipedia and undermines the entire community. Sad.

Although the title of this subsection is correct (unnecessary edit war), the ad hominem attacks on JimBobUSA are not required. Anyone can check the ‘history’ of the article and see “the first shots fired” in this unnecessary edit war is when the IP Editor(s) removed a properly soured portion of the article, as well as the supporting link without explanation. Jim (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Since then I have provided you with multiple reliable verifiable primary and secondary sources (that other editors have recognized as such) that prove the obscure side bar comment that you found in a government statistical analysis to be erroneous. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly offered to allow your erroneous material to remain in the article so long as you permit the mountain of other sources that show it to be erroneous to be included in the article as well. Fr33kman in his third opinion agreed the sources are reliable and my material should be included. If you care about the wikipedia community, why not include both and let the reader decide? 70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are misusing term ad hominem. The term generally refers to a form of argument that focuses on the failings of the opponent's character instead of the merits of the argument itself. As anyone reading this talk page can see, the IP editor has no reservation about addressing the merits of the argument and has repeated it (to use an other fancy latin term) ad nauseam. So, it is not the merits of the argument that are the problem, any rational individual looking at the primary and secondary sources can only reach one conclusion -- that Roxas' successors have a judgment against Imelda for the theft of the treasure. The problem is agenda driven editors who do not care about the merits of argument at all and revert the material without addressing the merits of theses sources: New York Daily News, 460m War Booty Ruling vs. Marcos, March 25, 1996, Supreme Court of Hawaii, Roxas v. Marcos, November 17, 1998, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1998, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Lawyers Debate Value of Stolen Gold, February 29, 2000, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Court Blocks Bid By Marcos Creditors To Collect From US Account, November 1, 2002, Manila Standard Today, Marcos Victims Dying To Get Paid, January 28, 2006, US Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Estate of Roxas v. Pimentel, Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, October 2007, Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines, US Gov't Supports Philippines in the Arelma Case, United States Court of Appeals, 464 F.3d 885, Merrill Lynch v. ENC Corp., September 12, 2006, Supreme Court of Hawaii, Roxas v. Marcos, November 29, 2005, United States Court of Appeals, 464 F.3d 885, Merrill Lynch v. ENC Corp., September 12, 2006. An attack is not ad hominem when the material has been discussed ad nauseam and one side refuses to concede to superior authority and even refuses to compromise, but instead resorts to an unnecessary edit war -- thus the title to this section.

Direct Quotes From Reliable Verifiable Sources

Anyone considering removing material from properly sourced reliable verifiable sources should be prepared to explain how their material comports with the following direct quotes:

New York Daily News, 460m War Booty Ruling vs. Marcos, March 25, 1996

A Swiss court has decided that a golden Buddha statue filled with diamonds Japanese war booty was most likely illegally seized by Marcos from a poor Filipino locksmith who uncovered it in 1971. The Zurich Legal Office will send Marcos' widow, Imelda, an order within days to pay $460 million to compensate the locksmith's family, which, under Philippine law, is owed half the value of any find, the family's lawyer, Andres Baumgartner, said yesterday.... The Golden Buddha Corp. has since uncovered further evidence, and last month won its demand for the further $460 million. The Zurich Legal Office is handling the order for Marcos to make payment.

Supreme Court of Hawaii, Roxas v. Marcos, November 17, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred in failing to grant Imelda’s motion for a directed verdict with respect to the damage award for the gold bullion allegedly contained in the unopened boxes that Roxas discovered.

Because we have already held that there was insufficient evidence to support an award of damages for such gold bullion as may have been contained in the unopened boxes allegedly found by Roxas, inasmuch as the record was speculative regarding the gold’s quantity and purity, see supra section III.I, there is no need to remand for a recalculation of the value of that gold. However, with respect to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars taken from Roxas’s home, a new trial on the issue of value is necessary, and we therefore vacate that portion of the circuit court’s judgment regarding the damages attributable to the golden buddha statue and the seventeen golden bars and remand for further proceedings. On retrial, the circuit court should instruct the jury that the measure of damages for the conversion of the golden buddha and the seventeen gold bars is the highest value of the gold between— and including—the date of conversion and a reasonable time thereafter.

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.

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... In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1998

While setting aside the $22 billion verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Roxas' claim to the gold statue of Buddha and 17 gold bars. It sent that portion of the case back for recalculation of their value.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Lawyers Debate Value of Stolen Gold, February 29, 2000

Attorneys argued yesterday about how a Circuit Court judge should determine the value of a golden Buddha statue and 17 bars of gold that a Filipino treasure hunter said was stolen from him by the late Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos.

Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Court Blocks Bid By Marcos Creditors To Collect From US Account, November 1, 2002

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

Supreme Court of Hawaii, Roxas v. Marcos, November 29, 2005

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

Manila Standard Today, Marcos Victims Dying To Get Paid, January 28, 2006

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.

United States Court of Appeals, 464 F.3d 885, Merrill Lynch v. ENC Corp., September 12, 2006

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' judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand, while holding that the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos could not be bound by that judgment

US Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Estate of Roxas v. Pimentel, Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, October 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. See Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209, 1231-1233 (Haw. 1998).

Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines, US Gov't Supports Philippines in the Arelma Case, 2008

Claimants of the Arelma assets include: ... (5) petitioners Estate of Roger Roxas and Golden Budha Corporation who obtained a $19 million Hawaii state court judgment against Imelda Marcos in 1996.

New York Daily News, 460m War Booty Ruling vs. Marcos, March 25, 1996

• SINGLE SOURCE CLAIM Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Hawaii, Roxas v. Marcos, November 17, 1998

• PRIMARY SOURCE Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1998

• NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Court Blocks Bid By Marcos Creditors To Collect From US Account, November 1, 2002

• NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL – Misquote on the weight of the Buddha and omitted the seventeen bars of gold Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Hawaii, Roxas v. Marcos, November 29, 2005

• PRIMARY SOURCE Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Manila Standard Today, Marcos Victims Dying To Get Paid, January 28, 2006

• NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL – Misspells the name of the Golden Budha Corporation and only comments on the Roxas vs Marcos trial of 1996 and omits the 1998 appeal and recent events related to the judgments. Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals, 464 F.3d 885, Merrill Lynch v. ENC Corp., September 12, 2006

• PRIMARY SOURCE Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

US Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Estate of Roxas v. Pimentel, Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, October 2007

• PRIMARY SOURCE Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines, US Gov't Supports Philippines in the Arelma Case, 2008

• PRIMARY SOURCE Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:

Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident written or narrated by the eyewitness is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; audio and video recordings; historical documents such as diaries, census results, maps, or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, patents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, and television programs.

Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Jim (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference to "public hearings and trials" as primary sources would include the actual trial transcripts of the trial court proceeding (which are not being used as a source), but would not include the appellate court decisions which are at least one step removed from the actual trial and which summarizes or creates an overview of the trial proceeding. Consequently, the appellate court decisions are secondary sources as to what transpired at the trial court level. Also, the point of compiling the direct quotes from the sources is to demonstrate that there was no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. The IP material just accurately reflects what the sources say without any interpretation. Finally, the statements by the Solicitor Generals of the two governments involved are not primary sources. They are secondary sources as they are a step removed (not a part of the Roxas v. Marcos action) and seek to summarize what transpired in Roxas v. Marcos. Thus, those statements are secondary in nature. 70.181.94.213 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Court documents (any) are not published reliable secondary sources. Jim (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So sayeth the lord and master of all wikipedia, JimBobUSA. The wiki guidelines are vague and open to interpretation to leave it to the editor to use his/her commonsense as to what is a primary or secondary source. Secondary sources are ones that provide "accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims." All that is required to be a secondary source is that it be "at least one step removed from an event." An appellate decision is removed from the event of a trial. An appellate decision draws on the primary source of the trial transcripts and other secondary sources (other appellate decisions) to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. So, appellate court decisions are secondary sources vis a vis the proceedings at the trial court level (and certainly secondary sources for events taking place in other separate proceedings). Furthermore, appellate decisions are products of an adversarial process and subject to review by opposing counsel and higher courts making them hyper-peer reviewed and very reliable.

Nevertheless, even if considered primary, appellate court decisions could still be used as sources on wikipedia to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the [appellate court decisions], the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." That is exactly, how the appellate court decisions are being used in the IP provided material. The IP material clearly identifies that it comes from the appellate court decisions and does not assert the finding of the court as an absolute fact. The IP material just describes findings of the appellate court in a neutral way without making any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about the information found in the appellate court decisions (as any reasonable, educated person could tell!). Thus, the IP material would be properly sourced -- even if the appellate court decisions were considered primary, which they are not.

Fortunately, we do not have to worry whether the appellate court decision is primary or secondary, as all the IP material is also supported by numerous unquestionable secondary sources in the form of contemporaneous news reports from mainstream newspapers. Your dismissal of all of these sources as mere editorials just demonstrates your unreasonableness or undisclosed bias. All of the material taken from the news reports are reported "facts", not opinions, as any reasonable educated person could see.

Finally, you solicited a third opinion, and Fr33kman was kind enough to provide one. He went through the IP material and found the sources to be reliable and verifiable and the material based on them worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. I suggest that you step back, take a break, and accept the third opinion of the other wikipedia editor that you solicited. This unnecessary edit war is unfair to the readers of the article and damaging to the whole wikipedia community. 70.181.94.213 (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't see where we have gone through them one-by-one and sorted anything out. I see the third opinion editor's opinion...I see my statement...however, I fail to see the IP Editors secondary sources that make the IP version verifiable. Furthermore. I see statements in the IP version that are stapled together from various internet sources in a vein attempt to strengthen an agenda. Jim (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinions in support of IP material:

"I believe that court material can be included as a direct source in the circumstances outlined in WP:BLP" fr33kman t - c 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) "This source is reliable and what it says should be used." fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "The StarBulletin source can be used" fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "This souce is fine" fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "I agree with the IP that the appellate sources are reliable." fr33kman -s- 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"I've been involved in content disputes over citing court documents before. In general,there is no problem using court docs per se, but there is a problem when editors take liberties drawing conclusions from them. Disputes in this article won't be resolved if they're shaped as a battle between two alternative "conclusions" to be made about the outcome of the trial. The article simply needs to report the story about the trial, beginning, middle, end, and not try to go further, using the trial papers to "prove" or "disprove" that the treasure really existed. To do so at wp would be a misuse of primary sources." Professor marginalia (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC) -- (This general statement of WP policy is actually in support of the IP position, because the IP material clearly identifies allegations as allegations and identifies the decision of the court as a decision of the court. Nothing in the IP material suggests that the treasure actually exists. It merely relates that a US court has awarded Roxas a judgment against Marcos for theft of a portion of the treasure -- which is an established fact.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.94.213 (talk)

Editor’s comments against using court documents (primary sources) and IP versions

• However, yeah, there's definitely a POV issue and general issues with the balance of the article and the integration of the information. This section does little to inform the reader about the larger subject of Yamashita's gold, and opens many questions that it does not answer. More than anything, there are context issues with this section, I think. Mr. IP _Defender of Open Editing_ 13:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [here]

That comment concerns a prior draft of the IP material, not the current version. Also, I have repeatedly assured JimBob that we can make the section shorter once it is agreed that Roxas’ successors were awarded a judgment in a US court for the theft of at least a portion of the treasure. The lengthy material and numerous sources are need to prove JimBob’s material to be erroneous.70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Court documents are regarded as a primary source and should not be relied on as a source for WP. We are looking instead for good secondary sources. An example would be the coverage of the court case in serious newspapers and broadcast media. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC) [here]

That is a misstatement of wikipedia policy. Primary sources can be used to "make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Also, all claims in the IP version are backed up with citations to numerous secondary sources in the form of contemporary news reports from main steam newspapers.70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Now, it doesn't fit this case directly, but I think that it's a good principle to live y in any article. It does outline one thing however that is valid for all articles; a primary source can only be used if it has been cited by a secondary source that fits WP:RS, this is for valid WP:V purposes. I've read the article and it looks like some information about the legal action should be in the article, but no where NEAR the amount tht is. Thanks, please discuss what I've said and let's see if we can work this out. :-) fr33kman t - c 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [here]

Later, Fr33kman was kind enough to go through the IP material statement by statement, and he endorsed the use of the sources and material. Note that the following specific statements are dated AFTER the general comment above: "I believe that court material can be included as a direct source in the circumstances outlined in WP:BLP" fr33kman t - c 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) "This source is reliable and what it says should be used." fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "The StarBulletin source can be used" fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "This souce is fine" fr33kman -s- 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) "I agree with the IP that the appellate sources are reliable." fr33kman -s- 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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

That is a general statement with which I agree. It would only be applicable, however, if someone was claiming that the treasure actually existed based upon the court documents. That is not the case in the IP material, which merely related the fact that Roxas claimed to have found the treasure and the fact that a US jury believed him and a US court awarded him a judgment for the theft of at least a portion of the treasure.70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, there's no requirement for reference 2 to do a recap of the full history of the golden Buddha. But, it isn't clear whether the $13M in ref 2 was for only the Buddha or if it included the gold bars too. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC) [here]

That statement is out of context. JimBob was asking Squidfryerchef whether there was Original Synthesis in one particular intermediate statement in the IP material based on only 2 sources. He had not (as far as I can tell) reviewed all the material and sources. Also, note that concerning the purpose of his comment – he did not think there was original synthesis.70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to say; it almost requires a flowchart to go through the figures. Maybe more sources should be brought in to reach agreement. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC) [here]

Once again. He had only been provided by JimBob with two of the intermediate sources. He had not been provided the Manila Standard Today article that lays out the actual specifics of the final judgment nor the statements of the two countries’ Solicitor Generals that confirm the amount of the gross final judgment.70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, no... that is the entire point of this part of NOR. A and B must not be put together in that way, unless a source puts them together. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[here] Jim (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

__________________

JimBob, we have been going back and forth since July. I know you know my material is accurate, reliable and verifiable. You are playing a game. Why? 70.181.94.213 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

IP Editor...your account was created on the 31st of October. How could we have been going back and forth since July? Jim (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, why?70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected yet again due to ongoing edit war. Tan | 39 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolving this once and for all

The dispute regarding the Roxas v Marcos case has gone on long enough. It doesn't need to be this complicated. This is a fascinating lawsuit with real life disputes over "Yamashita's treasure" right smack in the middle of it. What is the real problem here? A Hawaiian court sided with Roxas in 1998. The Hawaii Supreme Court later sided with Marcos that insufficient evidence was presented to value restitution for the treasure seized. It remanded to the trial court that it rework its valuation for the assets seized in its judgment. The trial court returned a new judgment (published 2001 I believe), and this judgment was upheld by the Hawaii Supreme Court. So let's try this again fresh: don't simply repeat what's already been said (that's the reason why the dispute is still stuck-repeating the same thing again and again won't help). I ask you to keep it simple and to the point, 1 little tidy paragraph, that's it: what does this article need to say about Roxas v Marcos? and what does it need not to say? Can we do that? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Professor…I believe you are referring to either the hearing to determine value of the gold in 2001, as per instructions from the Judge or one of the many requests by the claimants for a new judgment hearing in regards to the Roxas vs Marcos appeal (1998)

To date, there either has been no new trial, or it is unpublished/noncitable and nobody knows the outcome. Jim (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not so. There was a decision, it was upheld at the Hawaiian Supreme Court, and as such is the official outcome. Currently the plaintiffs are attempting to find ways to collect, some attempts involving separate litigation. (see Merrill Lynch v Arelma Inc.)Professor marginalia (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, nonpublished or noncitable judgments don't mean the outcome is unknown-the judgment is a resolution for that particular case. It simply means the rulings don't have an effect on case law. They aren't to be used as legal precedents.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some attemps are correct. All have failed. Do you have a point in there, somewhere? Jim (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, "some attempts are correct". The plaintiffs prevailed in getting a judgment against Imelda Marcos. Finding a pot of money where they can successfully collect on it is another issue. But there has been an outcome in the Roxas v Marcos case in 2001. It's been upheld at the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2005. Is the point I'm making still unclear to you? There's been a 6 month plus edit war over this section. Is there a dispute there's been a judgment in this case? If not, then let's not get sidetracked. Let's just see this section finished once and for all and move on. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a fourth amended judgment in 2001. There is nothing describing what was in the fourth amended judgment from 2001 (unpublished/noncitable). The only judgment regarding any monies was the human-rights charges. For all general purposes, the human-rights issue in not related to Yamashita’s treasure. There has not been a new trial for the other charges (conversion of the Buddha), which that is what this ‘debate’ is about.

Was the fourth amended judgment in 2001 about the human-rights issue, or the conversion charges? There are no reliable references that contain the results of the fourth amended judgment. The judgment against Imelda Marcos was for the human-rights charges, only. Jim (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reprise

Now that we've figured out the result of the lawsuit, we can return to this issue of finishing the section and hopefully freeing everyone up to focus on much needed improvements in other articles. I've rewritten the section to bring more attention to Roxas's story and noting the outcome of the case. It was (is) a very complex case with legal threads running every which way, from courts in the Philippines, Hawaii, California, New York, Switzerland, and drawing together all manner of interests, be they estates, other claimants, etc. But they're peripheral to the treasure and the events surrounding its recovery. I think if there's sufficient interest in the legal minutiae in this case, it should spin out into a stand alone article. That degree of detail just isn't suitable for this article because so little attention was given in the case to authenticating the treasure Roxas found as Yamashita's treasure. I preserved treasure's provenance as told by Roxas in his testimony. I also tried to preserve all the lawsuit related sources already referenced in the article and keep them for reference.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Roxas v Marcos

The outcome of Roxas v Marcos is under dispute, so we'll tackle that first. Again, let's try not to get too wordy about this. Jim, you say that only the human rights claim has been resolved. What's your source for this? I'll gather up the info I've seen too and we'll compare to nail down where the confusion's coming from.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this appears to already have been rehashed above, I want to make sure that the source of the confusion isn't really over terms. The comment posed was, "There has not been a new trial for the other charges (conversion of the Buddha), which that is what this ‘debate’ is about." This sounds as if the editor assumes a whole brand new case is expected based on the appeal. This is not so. The appeals court simply remanded the case return to the lower court to recalculate the assessed value of the conversion. That's what "trial" means here, a retrial specific to the damages assessment phase of the case. That's what the fourth amendment to the 1996 judgment addressed-the appeals court judgment forced the lower court to reassess the value of compensation to be made on the conversion. An appeals court can only remand for legal or procedural errors-that's what it did in this case, saying there were errors of law committed when the lower court calculated the value of the award. This link is alluding to the new hearing to recalculate the damage award granted for this single case. It says, as has been pointed out, this shows that this recalculation applies to the conversion claim, not the human rights abuse claim. This hearing resulted in the 4th Amendment to the 96 judgment. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Appeal court rulings relating to conversion: "We further hold that Imelda is correct that the evidence, adduced at trial, of the value of the thousands of gold bars allegedly contained in unopened boxes discovered by Roxas and converted by Ferdinand was too speculative to support an award of damages. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the circuit court's amended judgment concerning damages for conversion." And "remand the matter to the circuit court for...a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars." The ruling also clearly shows Imelda is not only liable for human rights violation. She is also liable for Ferdinand's role in the conversion of the gold. The court found there were errors in assigning Imelda an additional personal responsibility of her own besides Ferdinands. The court ordered that the question of her personal liability be retried. Golden Buddha Corp has no claim on Roxas' human rights abuse damages. It has claim only to the treasure taken from Roxas. So the only questions remaining to be answered after this appeal is how to calculate the value of the rest of the treasure (the value of goods in the unopened boxes was excluded from the award), and whether or not GBC was due any additional award based on Imelda's personal role depriving Roxas of the treasure.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort Professor marginalia. We also have a direct cite from a secondary source providing us the contents of the final judgment. In January of 2006, just 2 months after the Fourth Amended Judgment was affirmed, a news report in the Manila Standard Today reported on the various debtors trying to collect against Marcos. In that article, the paper reported that the "Golden Buddha Corp. has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 plus taxable cost of $61,074.54 as of Oct. 21, 1996." and "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." This cite is pretty conclusive, contains legalese obviously taken verbatim from the judgment itself, and is consistent with the statements made by the US Solicitor General in 2007 and the Solicitor General of the Philippines in 2008. We know that the $13 million judgment concerns the conversion of the treasure, because as you rightly point out, that that is the only claim assigned to the GBC. The article corrected the spelling of "Buddha" and did not accurately report the misspelling of "Budha" found in the corporation's actual name, but that is something any spell checker or editor would likely have done before the article went to press. The "as of 1996" language is used because judgments are backdated as of the date of the initial trial after modification on appeal. Also, we know the article is not talking about the initial judgment overturned in 1998, because if the article was discussing the judgment as of 1996 the amount would have been $22 billion, not the $13 million figure that was not set until after the hearing on remand in February of 2000. We know for a fact what the outcome of the litigation was, because we have the contents of the judgment reported to us in the Manila Standard Today. 70.181.94.213 (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Professor, it appears you wish to continue the lengthily debate about the outcome of the 1998 appeal. That is not my objective. If perhaps you have some references to bring to the discussion, please present it/them the GBC was awarded X amount of dollars in the 2001 fourth amended judgment. I think we can all agree that the conversion for the Buddha and seventeen bars of gold was vacated and a new trial ordered. The results of the new trial are needed, not newspaper editorials referring to the 1996 or 1998 trials. Jim (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need more sources as to the final results of the case??? ["Manila Standard Today, Marcos Victims Dying To Get Paid, January 28, 2006"], ["US Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Estate of Roxas v. Pimentel, Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae, October 2007 (See page 2)"], ["Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines, US Gov't Supports Philippines in the Arelma Case"], ["United States Court of Appeals, 464 F.3d 885, Merrill Lynch v. ENC Corp., September 12, 2006 (See ¶ 10)"] There are plenty of details we might argue about, but there is no legitimate dispute that Roxas' successors obtained a judgment for conversion of a portion of the treasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.94.213 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"I think we can all agree that the conversion for the Buddha and seventeen bars of gold was vacated and a new trial ordered". Something is wrong with this sentence since it's impossible for a judge to vacate a conversion. I don't want to argue an incorrect assumption about what you meant, so could you restate it? The problem isn't lack of sources as I look over this page. The problem is a (certain) disbelief or incomprehension about what they say.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"The "as of 1996" language is used because judgments are backdated as of the date of the initial trial after modification on appeal." That's true. It isn't an altogether new judgment-it's an amendment to the 1996 judgment. And this isn't merely assumption here. It's clear (insert)for the trial court Roxas v Marcos docket report(/insert) that the original 1996 judgment becomes the official closing date assigned to the case and it remains unchanged even though there is further work in the case for another 10 years following 1996.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)-(insert made at 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

(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 Jim (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You are correct. There is no dispute here that the higher court "vacated...awarding GBC $1,400,000.00 in damages for conversion". But they did not vacate the finding that Ferdinand did, indeed, convert Roxas's treasure. The judgment itself says it outright: "There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Roxas 'found' the treasure pursuant to Philippine law." Accordingly, the court uphelp the jury’s verdict concerning Ferdinand’s liability for conversion. There was no contrary opinion that GBC wasn't entitled to damages. The higher court simply remanded back to the lower court that it recalculate the amount of damages GBC was due. The court found the calculation used to value the treasure was flawed, not that there was insufficient evidence to show there was treasure taken.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"The "as of 1996" language is used because judgments are backdated as of the date of the initial trial after modification on appeal." Did I miss where this was referenced? How can we decide what was in the mind of the journalist when they penned this opinion piece. The “as of 1996” language could have very well been used due to poor investigative journalism. Jim (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not an editor making a mistake. As I said, it's not a "hunch." It's the way it always works. It's the way the courts respond to a remand on a case that's reached a judgment. As I've said, it's obvious what was done in this case from looking at the case record. I've seen the docket report online-it's all there including the amendments.(I'll find the link to the website where it can be searched if nec. One can't link directly to the docket report however.) The case ending date is unchanged-this simply the rule of the court in how its cases are recorded.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The elusive piece of the puzzle is the forth amended judgment from September 6, 2001. Reading the Summary Disposition Order of November 29, 2005 that affirmed that judgment, the dollar amount of the conversion was not the only topic of discussion.

If the forth amended judgment went favorable for the plaintiff’s (GBC), then one would think the Summary Disposition Order would have clinched (or sealed) the judgment. Presented here, is the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, filed by GBC, in regards to the Summary Disposition Order of November 29, 2005. Jim (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We know that there is a final judgment as of Nov. 2005. The question is: what was the final judgment? After everything was said and done and the judgment was final, the Manila Standard Today reported the contents of the judgment. The problem is that Jim does not believe the report in the Manila Standard Today. He claims that the "as of 1996" language means that the Manila Standard Today report was discussing the old judgment initially awarded by the trial court that was reversed and remanded in 1998. This is extremely unlikely. Are we to believe that the reporter was mistakenly reporting on 9 year old news only two months after the real final judgment was finalized? Of course not. He was reporting on the brand new judgment that just recently became final and was a current event. We also know this to be the case, because we know that $13m was not awarded in 1996, $22b was awarded in 1996. If the report was discussing the old judgment as of 1996 it would have reported the 22 billion dollar figure, not the $13 million awarded in 2000. I think that the custom of back dating of judgments back to the initial trial date satisfactorily explains the "as of 1996" language. This plus the definitive language of the Manila Standard Today report "GBC has a judgment" and is trying to collect it against Marcos, puts the burden on Jim to cite to authority that calls into question what the newspaper report unequivocally says. We also know that the figures in the Manila Standard Today are reliable, because the total amount of both the conversion judgment ($13 million) and the false imprisonment judgment ($6 million) for a total judgment of $19 million, is cited by both the US Solicitor General and the Philippines Solicitor General as the amount of the final judgment that the Roxas claimants were seeking to collect in the Arelma case. There can be no reasonable doubt based upon the sources that the GBC was awarded $13 million as a result of the conversion of the golden buddha and the 17 bars of gold. Also, Jim, as we discussed before, the Order Denying Reconsideration filed by the GBC is easy to understand. The GBC was initially awarded $22 billion, and that was reduced to only $13 million. It is easy to understand that the GBC was disappointed with the amount and was hoping to recover much more. But for the purposes of this article, the GBC's satisfaction with the amount of the judgment is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the GBC was awarded something for the conversion of the treasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.94.213 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Jim (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"If the forth amended judgment went favorable for the plaintiff’s (GBC), then one would think the Summary Disposition Order would have clinched (or sealed) the judgment." It's easy to see from this appeal that a) one issue GBC was appealing on issues that related to who it could collect from, and the court denied their appeal on this. It makes no sense that GBC would appeal who it could collect from if there was nothing to collect. And b) Imelda appealed the method used in the amended judgment to calculate the award for conversion and lost. It makes no sense that Imelda would appeal the method used in the award for conversion if the value of the award was $0. Why did GBC appeal if they received a money reward? A couple easy guesses here: because they wanted a bigger one, and they more sources open to them to collect it from. Collection has been a real problem for GBC.Professor marginalia (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim, the IP is correct. This is not a case of synthesis at all. The same case you say was overturned is the same one that the 98 remands (which you cite as overturning parts of the initial judgment) resulted in 4th amendment changes to the judgment. The same one, and it to this day is recorded by the circuit court in Hawaii as ending in 1996. This is what the court decided the ending date to be, not some editor in Manila. It's the same case, it's not synthesizing a new claim, it's corroborating the same claim with a secondary source. All the appeals and judgments we're looking at in Roxas v Marcos refer to a single case ending in 1996, recorded as ending in 1996, even while judgment amendments and appeals and motions to garnish and changes of address are logged to it up thru 11/5/2008. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC) To clarify, "synthesis" of claims is a problem, "convergence" of claims from different sources to a single claim made here is good. The Manila article is a reliable source that has not been contradicted by any source I've seen so far. If it isn't contradicted, there's no disputable issue with using it to cite the claim.Professor marginalia (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. The Manila editorial is a human-interest article (last one in a series) about the atrocities Marcos created in the Philippines. It makes a brief mention of the Roxas trial, and none about the 2001 forth amended judgment. Guessing that GBC was asking for reconsideration because they did not get enough money is…well, hogwash without reliable sources backing it up. Jim (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Although they are not using quotes, the Manila editorial is quoting a human-rights class action suit from 2004. That predates the final judgment of November 2005, and the theory that the editorial was reporting on the final judgment of 2005. Jim (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim says, "Guessing that GBC was asking for reconsideration because they did not get enough money is…well, hogwash without reliable sources backing it up." [Here you go...] "Roxas’ judgment was originally for $22 billion, plus interest that nearly doubled the amount. But the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed, and the judgment on remand—for the greatly reduced sum—is now being appealed by the estate, which hopes the high court will reconsider its original ruling, the estate’s attorney, Daniel Cathcart of Los Angeles, said yesterday."

• Oddly enough, the “reliable source” editorial misses the weight of the Buddha by several hundred pounds, and omits the seventeen bars of gold all together. Jim (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim says, "Although they are not using quotes, the Manila editorial is quoting a human-rights class action suit from 2004." Now this is not just guessing, it is pure fabrication. The human-rights class action was brought in the Philippines (see second sentence, " At home (Manila), the 9,539 people who successfully sued Ferdinand Marcos for human rights violations are dying without receiving a single centavo in indemnities."). However, the sentence immediately preceding the description of the GBC's judgment reads as follows: "Following a trial and appeal in Hawaii state court, both Golden Buddha and the estate of Roxas received judgments against Imelda Marcos." So, the Manila Standard Today article is clearly talking about competing claims to Marcos' money, including both the Philippines human rights judgment and the Hawaii state court judgment in favor of the GBC. Also note that the Manila Standard Today reports that this is the judgment "Following a trial and appeal..."

Also note this quote from the the Hawaii State Supreme Court’s description of the initial judgment awarded in 1996:

The circuit court filed its judgment pursuant to the jury’s verdict on August 28, 1996. The judgment recited that it was entered “in favor of Plaintiff Felix Dacanay, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Roger Roxas” and “against Defendant Ferdinand Marcos” on the battery and false imprisonment claims and in favor of GBC and “against Defendant Ferdinand Marcos” on the conversion claim. Judgment, however, was entered in favor of Imelda and against the plaintiffs-appellees on all claims that they had asserted against her.

So, in 1996, the judgment was against Ferdinand only, and Imelda was exonerated. But the judgment reported in the Manila Standard Today is against Imelda to the extent of her interest in the Estate of Ferdinand. Funny how the judgment reported in 2006 by the Manila Standard Today is completely inconsistent with the judgment awarded in 1996, but perfectly consistent with the judgment that the Hawaii Supreme Court instructed the trial court to enter after remand -- not to mention consistent with the two separate statements by the two nations' Attorneys General.

At some point we have to address the elephant in the room. Jim is unreasonable or resisting this material in bad faith.70.181.94.213 (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied almost word for word. Editorials do not necessarily have to be historically correct or true, just entertaining.

Manila Standard Today Editorial:

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.

MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Plaintiff,

vs.
ARELMA, INC., et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. CV00-595-R - February 23, 2004

37. Neither Golden Budha Corporation nor Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Estate of Roger Roxas, has a judgment against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos. (Jt. Pretrial Stip.)

38. Golden Budha Corporation has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 as of October 21, 1996. (Jt. Pretrial Stip.) This claim, if any, is junior to the claim of the class of Filipino Judgment Creditors in MDL No. 840.

39. Felix Dacanay, as personal representative of the Estate of Roger Roxas, has a judgment against Imelda Marcos in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos in the principal amount of $6 million as of October 21, 1996. (Jt. Pretrial Stip.) This claim, if any, is junior to the claim of the Filipino Judgment Creditors in MDL No. 840.

Jim (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks tendentious. The article you're objecting to is not an editorial. An editor is arguing from both sides of their mouth to reject a claim because it came from a primary source (court document) only to turn around and insist a claim is only acceptable if it comes from a primary source (court document), and then reject the claim even when both a primary source and 2ndary source are supplied. The primary source in Merrill Lynch v Arelma (court document) says $13mil and $6mil was awarded in the case. The 2ndary source Manila Standard says $13mil and $6mil was awarded in the case. What you've quoted above from a primary source confirms the information given in the 2ndary source you object to above: they both say the same thing. There's no justification for wasting more time with this.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Professor…you evidently have not read what I typed. The IP Editor is making claims that the Manila editorial (and it is a multi-part editorial) is in reference to the Order of 2005. I have shown the source where the editorial is quoting from, in 2004. If you have problems with editors presenting references to back their claims, such as I just did. Sorry. Jim (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Jim says, "Although they are not using quotes, the Manila editorial is quoting a human-rights class action suit from 2004." Now this is not just guessing, it is pure fabrication." Nope. Not fabrication at all. Jim (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP wasn't disputing the dates. The IP was disputing the insinuation that the Manila article only spoke of the human rights claims. This is clear from the comment. Do you understand that there are multiple cases relating to Marcos? The Merrill Lynch case was one of them. It related to questions about which of the assorted claimants (which include the Roxas estate, GBC and the victims in the Pimentel human rights case) were allowed to be paid from the pot of Marcos money Merrill Lynch held in deposit. This case cannot affect the judgment awarding Roxas/GBC. It only effects whether that judgment can be paid from the Merrill Lynch account. This Merrill Lynch v Arelma court appeal describes the outcome of the Roxas/GBC case. It's dated 2004, well after the 4th amendment to the judgment in 2001-a judgment which was also affirmed in the appeal. There is no discrepancy among the claims from these sources describing the Roxas v Marcos case. Your references above back up the IP's claim, not your own. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP stated the Manila editorial supported the Order of 2005. I have shown otherwise. The editorial was structured after the 2004 human-rights case, NOT the Order of 2005 Roxas vs Marcos. Jim (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(facepalm).The Manila piece is an article, obviously not an editorial. Herrera is a reporter for the Manila Standard. The URL itself identifies it as "news".look Opinion pieces at the Manila Standard are identified as "editorial" and "opinion" both and in the URL is the identifier "editorial" as well.look. Continuing to refer to it as "editorialization" or "entertainment" is wikilawyering considering you've persistently insisted the claim must be sourced to 2ndary reliable sources. This is exactly the source you've repeatedly called for, and now you appear to be looking for a new excuse to dismiss the claim. The article supports that the judgment reached in Roxas v Marcos awarded approx $19 mil to plaintiffs. It's dated 2006. There was never a change to the money awarded in the case after 4th amendment in 2001, not in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006. We know because we've linked the appeals court's judgments and we've all read them, correct? They show that the Roxas v Marcos judgment is affirmed, reconsideration denied. So your trying to make assumptions over whether the reporter quoted a figure from 2004, 2005, or 2006 is irrelevant. Continuing to battle over this source is simply chasing your tail. We have sources, they are consistent with one another, and the objections you've raised have been addressed. We've sourced the general outcome of Roxas v Marcos. It's time to move on to discuss drafting the section describing the case in this article.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim, the brief that you found in the Arelma case and the Manila Standard Today article correspond, because they are both citing to the same original source -- the judgment in the Hawaii state court action. Your assumption that the Manila Standard Today was citing the brief that you found from the Arelma case is without foundation. They both say the same thing, because they both cite to the same judgment, which as the professor correctly points out, did not change from 2001 until it became final in November of 2005.

I whole-heartedly agree that it is time to call this fight and start drafting the article using this material. However, Jim, if you insist on continuing this pointless debate, please explain to me why the description of the judgment by the US Solicitor General as of October of 2007 and the description of the same judgment in 2008 by the Philippines Solicitor General all agree with the judgment as described in the Manila Standard Today... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.94.213 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing four RS to the claim,

1. Philippines Solicitor General's office,
2. United States govt's amicus brief to US Supreme Court,
3. petition for a writ of certiori to US Supreme court,
4. New story published in Manila Standard.

The four sources are solid. When we have the US govt, Merrill Lynch, Philippines govt, and Manila Standard sourcing the claim, and no RS contradicts it, then it's time to stop beating the dead horse. Let's get on with drafting the section.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Here is yet another source dated AFTER the filing of the final judgment reporting that Roxas has a $6m judgment on the human rights claim and a $13m judgment on the conversion claim. Marcos Torture Victims Entitled to Millions, Ninth Circuit Says, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, May 5, 2006

Also claiming a right to the funds in the interpleader action was the estate of Filipino treasure hunter Roger Roxas, who won a $13 million judgment for the conversion of an 800-pound gold Buddha. The statue, Roxas claimed, was forcibly taken by agents of Marcos along with other artifacts found in a dig around Baguio City. Roxas claimed that he was also tortured and imprisoned, giving rise to a human rights claim valued at $6 million, and the panel held that he is entitled to a pro rata share of the money in the Arelma account.

Here is a source that explains the “as of October 21, 1996” language found in the Manila Standard Today article. Hawaii Supreme Court, Order Dismissing Appeal And Cross-Appeal, March 21, 2001

The October 18, 1999 judgment purported to be an amendment to the October 21, 1996 certified judgment, but the certification was effective only as to those claims certified as final on October 21, 1996 and not to claims subsequently decided by the October 18, 1999 and June 26, 2000 judgments, even though those judgments were entered nunc pro tunc to October 21, 1996.

This source indicates that in the third amended judgment, rulings from 1999 and 2000 were entered nunc pro tunc to October 21, 1996. I think it is a relatively safe assumption that the trial court did the same thing with the fourth amended judgment. Anyway, given the number of post-final-judgment sources reporting the same $6m and $13m numbers, I think the burden is on the editor objecting to the material to call into question the sources. And merely referring to the effective date of a nunc pro tunc judgment does not sufficiently call the sources into question.Tommylotto (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Tommylotto…we have discussed that particular article you have cited. They failed to mention the seventeen bars of gold, and misquoted the weight of the Buddha. Thanks for the intel on the "as of" language. Jim (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My thanks as well Tommylotto. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting over the hump

In regards to the Roxas vs Marcos 1 trial, I concede to the point that Roxas/Golden Budha did obtain a judgment, nunc pro tunc, as of October 21, 1996 (thanks again to Tommylotto’s intel). I will post that particular passage below. Nevertheless, in my opinion, secondary reliable sources are still needed that connect this judgment with actually finding treasure.

APPENDIX E

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER
& SMITH INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ARELMA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. CV00-595-R

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

5. Defendant Estate of Roger Roxas (Roxas), whose personal representative is Felix Dacanay, a resident of Flor-ida, and defendant Golden Budha Corporation (Golden Budha), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Georgia, (collectively Roxas/Golden Budha) obtained a judgment, entered nunc pro tunc as of October 21, 1996, against Imelda Marcos, in her personal capacity to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, in the sum of $19,275,848.37, plus taxable costs of $61,074.54 (the Roxas/Golden Budha Judgment).

Jim (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I hope you're not suggesting that judgment is for some theft separate from to Roxas claim against the theft of recovered loot that he concluded, and testified as much, was Yamashita's treasure. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim, once you concede that the GBC has a judgment for $13m, figuring out what it is for is relatively easy. You have the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1998 describing GBC and its claims:

On June 3, 1986, Roxas assigned all of his rights to the Yamashita treasure to GBC, which Dacanay had incorporated in Georgia, in exchange for a minority holding of non-voting shares....GBC asserted claims for relief against both Ferdinand and Imelda for (1) conversion, (2) constructive trust, and (3) fraudulent conveyances. In particular, GBC’s claims related to the taking of the golden buddha, the gold bars, and other items from Roxas’s home, as well as the taking of the gold bars from the treasure site and the subsequent conveyances of some of those items.

Then the Arelma Petition states:

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.

And finally, the Manila Standard Today is looking more and more reliable:

Court records show that Roxas claimed to have found a buried treasure in the Philippines in 1971 consisting of a golden Buddha and an untold amount of gold bars from the so-called “Yamashita treasure.” Roxas asserted that the Philippine military tortured him and “stole the Buddha and gold bars for the Marcoses.” Roxas’ claim was assigned to Golden Buddha Corp., a Georgia-based corporation syndicated for the purpose of litigating his “claim of theft” against former First Lady Imelda Marcos.

This material is good. I suggest Jim consider removing the dispute banners.Tommylotto (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

There is no outstanding dispute regarding outcome of the Roxas case. The section describing it needs improvement though. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tags

With the rewrite to the section, I removed remaining NPOV tags. If there are remaining concerns about elements of the article, I urge editors to raise the concerns on the talk page, be specific describing how you think they can be improved, and to work at building consensus for the improvements.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Professor, I like your version. However, I would like to make the following suggestions:

1) Buddha is misspelled in the actual name of the company, the actual company name is the Golden Budha [sic] Corporation

2) I think we should use the Manila Standard Today article as the source of the final judgment. It has been proven to be very accurate and the only inaccuracy that I see is that it corrected the spelling of Buddha in the company name

3) I would suggest a minor revision to the final paragraph for clarification:

Following his release, Roxas put his claims against Ferdinand on hold until Ferdinand lost the presidency in 1986. But in 1988, Roxas and the Golden Budha [sic] Corporation, which now held the ownership rights to the treasure stolen from Roxas, filed suit against Ferdinand and wife Imelda in a Hawaiian state court seeking damages for the theft of the treasure and the surrounding human rights abuses. Roxas died mysteriously on the eve of trial, but prior to his death he gave the deposition testimony that would be later used in evidence. In 1996, a jury determined that Roxas had found the treasure, that Marcos stole the treasure, and awarded the Golden Budha Corporation what was then the largest judgment ever awarded in history, $22 billion, which with interest increased to $40.5 billion. In 1998 the Hawaii State Supreme Court affirmed the holding that Roxas had found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos, but reversed the damage award for the chamber filled with gold as being too speculative and ordered a new hearing on the value of the golden Buddha and 17 bars of gold. After years of legal wrangling the Golden Budha Corporation obtained a judgment against Imelda Marcos to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 and Roxas’ estate obtained a $6 million judgment on the claim human right abuse. Tommylotto (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

On point 1, one source explained that the proper name of the corporation is spelled "Buddha" but due to some kind of prior documentary issue the misspelling of the Plaintiff was preserved. If this needs clarification in the article, I'll find the cite. But it sounds as if the name really is "Buddha'", but the court doc misspells it throughout the case due to some agreement related to the spelling used in some kind of document related to the case. Point 2, sounds fine. Will check it out. But point 3's minor clarification, "the supreme court affirmed the holding that Roxas had found the treasure" will be battled over unless we nail that language down exactly. What are the sources for this specifically? I don't recall reading any description of the judgment where it put like that.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1) State of Georgia annual corporation registration for the Golden Budha Corporation (since 1986) can be found here: [Golden Budha Corporation] Jim (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 2) The Manila Today “Last of a series” is an editorial about the misgivings of Marcos. Not only does it include the misspelling of the Golden Budha Corporation (the document they used spells it correctly), it also misquotes the amount of the judgment. “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” is not accurate reporting that can be verified. Jim (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
3)Request specific sources for:

• Roxas died mysteriously on the eve of trial
• In 1998 the Hawaii State Supreme Court affirmed the holding that Roxas had found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos,

"After years of legal wrangling" is a bit on the over-drama side (rolleyes) Jim (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin would make a better reliable reference as to the judgment award. It is an actual news report written during the time of the event, and not a human-interest piece in a foreign newspaper. Even though the article misspells the Golden Budha Corporation’s name, the amount of the judgment is correct. [Honolulu Star-Bulletin, July 13, 2004] Jim (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Two in agreement then that Budha is the correct spelling-we'll go with it then. The Manila standard piece is not an editorial and common sense shows they don't disagree, but that the Star was too casually worded. Both are respected news sources. The Star claims Roxas was awarded $19.3 million-which is impossible because he was dead for years by then. Roxas was not the plaintiff by then. Who were the parties who took up after Roxas to pursue the Marcoses in the case? The Estate of Roxas and the GBC were, and the $13.3ish mil to GBC + $6 mil to the estate reported in the Standard is $19.3 mil, the number used in the Honolulu star. We'll find the sources referring to a mysterious death. We need to stick closely to sources for any claims here about the jury's supposed findings regarding how Roxas came to the treasure, and not come to any conclusions here that aren't clearly spelled out in the sources. I agree that the "legal wrangling" should be toned down.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've cited both the Star and the Standard, along with a Supreme Court filing which corroborates the $13.3 and $6 mil figures given in the Standard. Those figures are nailed as tight as we should need at this point. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

22-billion award vs. Marcoses reversed in the Filipino Express 11-29-1998, "On the eve of the trial in 1993, Roxas died mysteriously in the Philippines"- will add the cite.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(palmface)Too much drama, too much drama

"However, Los Angeles attorney Daniel Cathcart said he will collect all the money for the treasure hunter he represented in the Marcos case, Rogelio Roxas, who died in 1993. Roxas' death in the Philippines was determined to be a result of tuberculosis even though an autopsy and toxicology tests were not performed, Cathcart said. He said he spoke to his client by telephone about coming to Hawaii for the trial, and learned Roxas died 90 minutes after the call." [here] Jim (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with a simple "he died" unless we find a source that sorts out a better explanation of the conflicting accounts of the cause of his death.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Jim requests specific sources for: "In 1998 the Hawaii State Supreme Court affirmed the holding that Roxas had found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos.":

The following are direct quotes from the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruling in 1998. The context is clear that these statements represent the findings of the Supreme Court and not allegations of the parties or findings of the trial court on review:

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

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

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

We can quibble about whether to use "stole" or "converted", but I do not think there is a difference in this context. Tommylotto (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is good. We have to take extreme care to follow this wording. The phrases in quotes would seem to refer to "found" and "chance or by luck" as used in laws covering treasure hunting in the Philippines, but could come off more like scare quotes here.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How about: "In 1998, The Hawaii Supreme Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Roxas found the treasure and that Marcos converted it. However, the court reversed the damage award holding that the $22 billion award of damages for the chamber full of gold was too speculative as there was no evidence of quantity or quality, and ordered a new hearing on the value of the golden buddha and 17 bars of gold. After several more years of legal proceedings, the Golden Budha Corporation obtained a final judgment against Imelda Marcos to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate in the principal amount of $13,275,848.37 and Roxas’ estate obtained a $6 million judgment on the claim for human right abuse."Tommylotto (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

---

"After years of legal wrangling" is a bit on the over-drama side (rolleyes) Jim (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to condense 8 years and 4 amended judgments of irrelevant legal machinations for the purposes of making this article accurate but concise. As always, open to suggested language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I have a problem with this language:

A 1998 state supreme court ruling would reduce this award substantially. The Hawaii State Supreme Court rejected the value of the awarded judgment on appeal, finding fault with the methods used by the jury to calculate the award. The supreme court also ruled that was too speculative for the jury to estimate any value for items in the boxes Roxas never opened.

It does not seem to have a NPOV. According to this material the supreme court "reduces substantially" "rejected" "finding fault"... All of the actions of the supreme court are characterized in the negative. A neutral point of view would first explain that the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the jury findings that Roxas found the treasure and Marcos converted it, but then go on to explain that the Court reversed the damage award. On the question of whether Roxas actually found Yamashita's treasure or not, the 1998 decision was a big victory. To characterize it constantly in negative terms is POV pushing. Tommylotto (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The $19 million is .0008th of the original award, and in its context "substantial reduction" is relative to the previous statement where the award was described as being at one time the largest ever awarded. The statements are each exactly correct. But you make a point that where the supreme court affirmed the lower court could be specified as well. It's inferred in the events described there now, but the key findings in support of the Roxas and GBC side can be better spelled out. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree everything that you wrote is accurate, but it emphasizes the negative aspects of the 1998 ruling while burying the most significant finding of the Court as far as this article is concerned -- that a US Court has held that Roxas found the treasure.Tommylotto (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with your edits today filling a few holes. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)