`  == 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?   `