Notes:

(1) I am hugely saddened to have to finally accept my complete failure regarding my current inability to be able (legally, within the corporation's original year 2002 restrictions) to authorize the MPWCF to legally pay out the entire 100% of my estate's bequest to San Miguel charities.  According to varying previously publicly announced governing restrictions, I am required by USA and Texas tax laws - the MPWCF is incorporated in Texas - to instead pay a great portion of that bequest to similarly qualified charities with similar missions but located in the USA.  I have accomplished many things in my lifetime but the original goals of this Foundation were the proudest of what I had hoped to be my last accomplishment and final legacy and that is obviously now not going to happen quite the way as I had planned).  The reasons for my failure are complicated.  I had hoped to spend more of my last years' time on earth in authorizing even more local grants like the loans to women (microloans: credit to start small businesses working out of their homes) project, and/or so many other needed projects.  Once again, I accept the failure as my own (if only because of the poor judgment I made in completely trusting the promises of others..  

You can read more about these governing restrictions at founders will (see "d-restrictions on the use of the endowment bequeathed to the Foundation") wherein the long-standing requirements for both transparency and continuity were ignored for too long by both too many potential as well as then-current grantees. 

At the date of this writing, I have so far still been able to keep and exceed all of the rest of my original pre-death promisese entire bequest to the MPWCFoundation (see funding -- us$9,000,000)  or more as of December 31, 2021)  greatly exceeds my original historical intentions which were only us$500,000 at first.  

(2) the above table DOES NOT INCLUDE any OTHER additional monies (funds, stocks, etc.) that are also to be (or have already been) separately allocated to, or distributed to, Rider and/or ACLUF in accordance with the separate Clauses #3 through #6 of Schedule B of the Michael Wein Trust Agreement.  The funds in the above table are, therefore, IN ADDITION to any bequests distributed under said Clauses #3, #4, #5, and #6..

(3) If any of the USA organizations are no longer in existence (or just not locatable by the Successor Trustee), the endowment grants should be given instead to any comparable USA (preferably New York City or NYC area) organization that provides food for the hungry, and/or housing for the needy, and/or represents women's interests. etc., etc., etc.

(4) at the sole discretion of the Successor Trustees of the Founder's Trust (also known as his Executors), these remaining endowment funds may be paid to any of the charitable organization that, in the sole opinion of the Successor Trustee, meets his own opinion of organizations that Michael Wein would approve of (most specifically benefiting women and children's education).

(5) the column "original maximum possible %" discloses the maximum percentage each San Miguel Grantee might have been allocated IF they had come anywhere near being close to complying with our original requirements (all of which each grantee had repeatedly over the years agreed to previously) for transparency and/or continuity.  In the absence of such compliance, the "Founder's latest decision" is what he currently (or after his death) authorizes for each Grantee's share of our Funds.  We have cajoled, threatened, explained, begged, and otherwise given every PAST and present grantee huge latitude in complying but while most of them agreed wholeheartedly to the above concepts, they have all, in important ways, resisted and resisted its execution, coming up with excuse after excuse.  And over the years we continued to compromise our demands.   But now, in 2014, after a minimum of (and in some cases, much more than) 9 years of trying, the Founder issued the current differences in percentages between those two columns.   Do remember that the problems lie not in any Grantee's mission but rather in their intentionally or unintentionally hiding something quite important of what is going on in their organizations (i.e., required transparency is lacking) as well as in their lack of complete provisions for attaining organizational continuity.  In this latter case,  we ask why would any organization operating in a community where their volunteers are so much more likely to die or otherwise disappear unexpectedly NOT provide for educated and informed continuity of operations?  So, we feel completely justified and comfortable in re-directing funds from these SMA organizations to those of better-run, more transparent, and thusly more stable, USA organizations doing the same type of work for almost identically needy people.   In summary, and in the absence of fulfillment of our long known transparency and continuity requirements, we feel it would be foolish, no, actually stupid, for us to just hand out  us$8,000,000 or probably more without receiving greater assurances about how this vast amount of money that the Founder spent so much of his life in acquiring was to be both controlled and then used by these local organizations.  Nevertheless, in deference to our original promise at corporate inception, we leave the original promise of approximately us$500,000 to SMA charitable organizations.  Our re-review in 2021 has reinforced our belief in what turned out to be our 2014. wisdom

(6) (7) (8) this is no longer applicable                   

(9) see the promises_unkept webpage for more details