The Republic of the Philippines (plaintiff) brought a civil suit against its former president, Ferdinand Marcos, and his wife, Imelda (defendants), asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and other applicable U.S. law. The Republic alleged that the Marcoses (and other defendants) arranged for investments in real estate in Beverly Hills, California, of $4 million fraudulently obtained by the Marcoses; that the Marcoses arranged for the creation of two bank accounts in the name of Imelda Marcos at Lloyds Bank of California totaling more than $800,000, also fraudulently obtained by the Marcoses; and that the Marcoses transported into Hawaii fraudulently obtained money, jewels, and other property worth more than $7 million. The key to the Republic's entire case is the allegation that the Marcoses stole public money. The federal district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the Marcoses from disposing of any of their assets except to pay attorneys and their living expenses. The Marcoses appealed.

1. At the outset of Case, Justice Noonan acknowledges a key ambiguity in this case that will require clarification before announcing his decision. How does that ambiguity affect the reasoning?
Clue: Notice the key concept in the first of the two defenses used by the Marcoses.
2. What behavior of the Marcoses made it highly unlikely that the first defense would be effective?
Clue: Review Justice Noonan's rationale for not honoring the defense.
3. What ethical norm is implicit in the Marcoses' struggle against the preliminary injunction?
Clue: Look back at the discussion of the ethical norms and eliminate those that seem inconsistent with the Marcoses' behavior and interests.