From the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for ONE people to dissolve all ties with Government which have connected them with another, and to ASSUME (to take responsibility) among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's Universal Creator entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Repeatedly in history an old military war strategy of “DIVIDE & CONQUER” has been used. Divide the people and conquer the land and its natural resources. The causes of separation of the ONE people have been race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and politics. To become ONE people only one question needs to be asked……”Do you believe in Love?” And if the answer is yes, then virtues of compassion & empathy must follow.GOVERNANCE is the declared cause for the separation of the ONE people. It refers to “all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language.” 1 It relates to “the processes of interaction and decision making among the ACTORS involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms & institutions.” 2 Through governance the Laws of Nature has become symbolic of the laws of the jungle; that the “only” law is to do whatever for survival. It has been the control & domination of the ONE people by governance that kept us in the constant thought of “I” rather than “We”. And for the ONE people to ASSUME is to take responsibility among the powers of the earth, the separate & equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them. Separate & equal station describes BALANCE. Which is to bring equal proportion to ALL ELEMENTS, to keep or put something in a stable position so that it does not fall. For when we allow ourselves to be governed; we hand over all of our responsibilities we have to our children, one another, as well as all elements of planet earth. Therefore, of the ONE people, I state: “I DO NOT GIVE CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED!” It is our Creator given unalienable rights that we are all equal & free.

Whenever any form of Governance becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the ONE people to alter or abolish it, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers as to them to affect their safety & happiness. When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to

1BeDayen, David (June 25, 2014). "Wingnuts and liberals’ bizarre role reversal: Why Export-Import Bank politics are so perverse". Salon.2  Hufty, Marc (2011). "Investigating Policy Processes: The Governance Analytical Framework (GAF). In: Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H., et al. editors. Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives.” Bern: Geographical Bernensia: 403–424.

reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[3]The truth, however, is that in 1861 the principle of freedom of association and right of succession was as widely understood and affirmed in the North as it was in the South. AS the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860:

“The Union depends for its continuance on the FREE CONSENT and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when

that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is

gone.”

The New York Journal of Commerce concurred on Jan. 12, 1861 it warned:

“That a coerced Union, one in which states were forcibly restrained from secession, would change the nature of

government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the People are slaves”

So I ask, have be just become a lazy spoiled people? Are we so concerned with “I” that we continue to hand over our responsibilities of our children, of our land, and of our planet to such greedy careless individuals or do we stand up and take back our responsibilities and lead by example for future generations of “WE” of humanity?

With “WE” the People being the true power, we can claim BREACH OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Under the law all levels of Fiduciary Responsibility must be treated with the highest standard of care, but in the case of the Texas General Land Office all levels of responsibility have been violated.

THE DUTY OF CARE.

THE DUTY OF LOYALTY.

THE DUTY TO ACCOUNT.

THE DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY.

THE DUTY OF FULL DISCLOSURE.

THE DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY.

THE DUTY TO GOOD FAITH & FAIR DEALING.

What is the “REMEDY” for this BREACH of responsibility?

3 In Congress 1776, The Declaration of Independence

(1) “WE” can demand FULL audits of all accounts.

(2) “WE” can file a claims against the Elected Officials role in embezzlement of our Children’s & Veterans Trust Funds.

(3)”WE” can ASSUME the responsibility of our children’s education rather than allow our children to be dummied down.

(4)”WE” can ASSUME the responsibility of managing our lands with equal balance and bring an end to the earthquakes and destructive oil spills.

(5)”WE” can ASSUME the responsibility of managing our wildlife, and conservation of the land.

The only limits that have been placed on us as ONE people are only those limits created by those we allow to place Governance on us!

Please see the extensive research report below for the facts of all allegations listed above as well as attached “Public Record” PDF documentation.

Is the Trans-PACIFIC Partnership Only History Repeating Itself?Proof that the State of Texas is involved in corruption & embezzlement.The first few pages look back into our past history, but please continue reading to see how history

truly is repeating itself in a big, big way!

By: Oshawanna White Eagle

As ONE people, in order to see into the future we must take a look at the past. By taking a look into past history can we learn from the mistakes of our ancestors; and by recognizing those mistakes can we then turn the darkness into light.Founded in 1854, the Republican Party rose to prominence & power when its nominee, Abraham Lincoln, won the presidential election of 1860. As Lincoln has been dubbed as the “Great Emancipator”, by his cult of worshippers, went to war in order to free slaves. But in reality, Lincoln’s determination was to only preserve the Union at any cost. In 1862, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley (the leading Northern newspaperman of the day):

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

Lincoln led the United States through its Civil Wa r —its bloodiest war and its greatest moral, constitutional, and political crisis. [4] [5]In doing so, he preserved the Union, abolished slavery, strengthened the federal government, and modernized the economy.

(Lincoln’s Profile – Highway between Marfa & Presidio, TX)

Another factor that motivated war was the Republican Party’s lust to tax and spend. The North waged war against the South in order to regain the federal tax revenue that would be lost if the Southern states seceded peacefully. In Lincoln’s time, 4 William A. Pencak (2009).Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America. ABC-CLIO. p. 222.ISBN 978-0-313-08759-25  Paul Finkelman; Stephen E. Gottlieb (2009). Toward a Usable Past: Liberty Under State Constitutions. U of Georgia Press. p. 388. ISBN 978-0-8203-3496-7.

Republicans championed a high tariff. They used the proceeds – which were laundered through roads, canals, railways, etc. – to dispense lavish corporate welfare to their backers. To Republicans, the fact that tariffs, corporate welfare and the like favored an anointed few & punished a benighted many was inconsequential.

Republicans demanded the blockade & bombardment of Southern ports because the Confederate constitution had an outlawed protectionists tariffs. Given a 50% tax on goods imported to New York and a 10% tax in Charleston, then much trade would divert from Northern to Southern ports – to the detriment of the former and the profit of the latter. This the Republicans could not abide, hence even before the War started they demanded the blockade & bombardment of Southern ports. [6]

(Elephant Rock – Highway between Marfa & Presidio, TX)

Our current governance will tell you that Lincoln championed for natural rights and racial equality. Both his words and his deeds utterly repudiated any belief in or respect for these admirable principles.

“I have no purpose to introduce political & social equality between the white & black races”. He announced in the 1st (Aug. 21, 1858) of his celebrated debates with Stephen

Douglas “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” He added “Free them [slaves] and make them politically &

socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals.”

It is a myth that Lincoln’s war saved the Union. In the Declaration of Independence (1776), Articles of Confederation (1777-1781) and Constitution (1788), the states described themselves as “free & independent.” These documents could not be clearer: states delegated specified powers to the federal government which they had created as their agent, and they retained ultimate sovereignty for themselves. When they put their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, America’s Founders announced the secession from the British Empire of the states which they represented; and when George III signed the peace treaty ending the war, he named

6 David Gordon’s review of “A Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson, & Roosevelt

all of the states individually. He waged war against thirteen states, not a single entity called “the United States Government.”

Another blatant lie of the Republicans was that Lincoln was a “Defender of the Constitution. As written by Clinton Rossiter in Constitutional Dictatorship (published in 1948):

“Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal”

James G. Randall documented in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (published in 1926):

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and orderedthe military to arrest tens of thousands of political opponents. Without legal authority, in New York hundreds of demonstrators against slavery were shot, newspapers were closed & telegraphic communications were censored. Elections in the North were rigged.

Is history not repeating itself again one might ask? In general terms, PUBLIC GOVERNANCE occurs in three broad ways:

1. Through networks involving public-private partnerships (PPP) or with the collaboration of community organizations;

2. Through the use of market mechanisms whereby market principles of competition serve to allocate resources while operating under government regulation;

3. Through top-down methods that primarily involve governments and the state bureaucracy.

All one must do is look at the facts to see the TRUTH of what the Trans-Pacific Partnership is all about we must take a look at Texas where EMP is fulfilling the condemnation process for the State of Texas by acting on “Eminent Domain.” The term was taken from the legal treatise De Jure Belli et Pacis which used the term dominum eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) and described the power as follows:

“…The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use & even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.”

As Texas Governor Greg Abbott quoted on National Public Radio regarding the Passed Amendments to Texas Constitutional Amendments, “It is what Texans wanted!” But is it really……

(1)Increased Homestead Exemptions - All most people under about the “Homestead Exemption” is that it saves them money on their property taxes. The “Homestead Act” under common law provides the ad coelom doctrine by which LANDLORDS own everything below and above the land, up to the sky and below the earth to its core, with the exception of volatile minerals such as NATURAL GAS. I guess this is also how they get away with flying drones above your property as they are currently doing to the residents of the Big Bend.

(2)Public Road Maintenance – The State of Texas declares that all roads stem off from State Highways; therefore they claim they own all mineral interests under every County Road. But when pipelines are being built in a County and the heavy equipment begins to tear up the roads, the State will declare that the road responsibility belongs to the County. This created a great deal of backlash for the State by West Texas counties in the past so basically they are now passing that responsibility off to land owners to remove the burden of liability off the Counties.

(3)Hunting & Fishing as a preferred management for controlling Wild Life – We have given the responsibility of maintaining balance of our lands to Government. To maintain BALANCE is where all elements are equal or in the correct proportion to keep or put something in a steady position so that it does not fall. Eminent Domain allowed our Government to drill ten miles offshore. The British Petroleum Oil Spill has now created still born deaths in the dolphins in the Gulf Coast as well as the shrimp being hatched without eyes or limbs. State officials repeatedly state that fracking is not responsible for earthquakes when the USGS has recently reported otherwise. The BP oil spill was actually a fracture in the plate, another main fracture is now around Dallas, TX as a new fault line is appearing south of Fort Stockton, TX which is the staging ground for the new pipeline. It is obvious there preferred choice of management is no management at all.

(4)Portion of sales tax used to fund Highways & transportation systems – Governor Perry stated that the plans were stopped for the Trans-Texas Corridor or also referred to the NAFTA Superhighway. CENTRA (Spain) would do land leases with the State of Texas, the tax-payers will pay to build the highway, but Spain will collect the tolls charged for driving on these highways. Please watch the YouTube video listed below for more information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGTpOYDku1s

Or since that plan failed could there be another plan at work? Notice the map above says “WATER PIPELINES”. Most people do not realize that “EMINENT DOMAIN” includes the underground water system. Will they be at our most precious natural resource “OUR WATER” next? Just as the Bureau of Reclamation claims it purchased a wetland system in Toyavale, TX which is of the Big Bend area and that it is protecting 2 species of extinct fish that are also being protected by the Texas Parks & Wildlife State Park less than 20 miles down the road. The Bureau of Reclamation fails to mention that the “Phantom Springs Cave” is the largest underground crystal clear aquifer in North America. It also fails to mention that their divers have yet to find the end to the cavern due to its extensive size.

It was recently in the Chicago news that Union Pacific Railroad would not be able to meet the year-end deadline to bring their company up to safety standards therefore the Railroad industry is asking Congress to extend their deadline. So let’s take a look at the TRUTH of what is taking place.

(Volume of Freight being shipped through Texas, a major gateway from Mexico)

UNION PACIFIC – The largest freight mover in Texas:

The original company was incorporated on July 1, 1862, under an act of Congress entitled Pacific Railroad Act of 1862. The act was approved by President Abraham Lincoln, and it provided for the construction of railroads from the Missouri River to the Pacific as a war measure for the preservation of the Union. [7]The "Pacific Railroad Acts" were a series of acts of Congress that promoted the construction of a "transcontinental railroad" (the "Pacific Railroad") in the United States through authorizing the issuance of government bonds and the grants of land to railroad companies. The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 began federal government grant of lands directly to corporations; before that act, the land grants were made to the states, for the benefit of corporations. The State of Texas gave mineral interest rights to Railroad Commission and those interests were used as collateral for bank loans which funded the building of the railroad.In West Texas where the railroad is part of the iconic scenery, I have noticed a major increase in the number of freight trains moving through on a daily basis. But what really has caught my eye are the box cars with the logo of EMP as well as many other railroad cars under the name of Norfolk Southern, Southern Pacific as well as Canadian Pacific. Just as of November 17, 2015, Canadian Pacific has put in a bid for purchase of Norfolk Southern.

7  "An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes 12 Stat. 489, July 1, 1862

(Norfolk Southern System MAP)

(Canadian Pacific System MAP)

(Union Pacific System MAP)

(Southern Pacific System MAP)

FERROMEX (PRIVATE)

MEXICO RAILWAY - IS BEING SEEN ON THE TEXAS UNION TRACKS OF WEST TEXAS.

MORE & MORE FREIGHT CONTAINER COMPANIES ARE SHOWING UP ON THE WEST TEXAS RAILWAYS DAILY:

HUB-Group (NYSE: HUBG) EMP (Norfolk Southern NYSE:NSC)Revenues: US$1.21 Billion (2014) Revenues: US$11.62 Billion (2014)Total Assets: US$3.6 Billion (2014)

COSCO (Chinese Ocean Shipping Company)

Revenues: US$27 Billion (2014)

Pacer StacktrainsPurchased by XPO Logistics March, 2014.

CSX Transportaion (NYSE: CSXT)Revenues: US$12.67 Billion (2014)

American President Lines (SINGAPORE)

Revenues: US$7.9 Billion (2011)

“K” Line (JAPAN) (TYO: KK)

Matson, Inc. (NYSE: MATX) Revenues: US$1.71 Billion (2014)

TTX Company (Private) Predecessor to Norfolk Southern

Conrail Predecessor to CSX

EVERGREEN (EVERGREEN MARINE CORP) (LSE: EGMD) Revenues: US$4.556 Billion (2007)

YANG MING (Private – Taiwan)

CANADIAN NATIONAL (NYSE: CNI)

Revenues: US$12.13 Billion (2014)

BSNF RAILWAY (NYSE: BSNF)

FREIGHT ITALIA (ITALY)

HAPAG-LLOYD (GERMANY)

I am amazed at how the local Texans think the increased freight on the railways is benefiting Texas. The only ones that are benefiting are the billion dollar freight corporations and the U.S Government charging the high tariffs to go through our Texas port entry which is what they claim under the “Guadalupe Hidalgo International Treaty”.It was written in the Big Bend Sentinel (Marfa, TX) dated October 22, 2015 that the Ojinaga, Mexico port facility is working on its “Plan for Customs Infrastructure of Modernization 2013-2018”. Ojinaga Mayor Carmen stresses the need to increase trade to achieve large economic impact on the city. The city of Ojinaga is in a phase of “favorable” changes, he said, and for that reason, it is estimated that the development of international trade at the border achieve the prosperity in order to take advantage in the assets to interchange and then leverage it.

WORLDWIDE TRUCKING FREIGHT CARRIERS THAT HAVE BEEN CROSSING THE PRESIDIO / OJINAGA PORT OF ENTRY IN HIGH NUMBERS ON A DAILY BASIS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

Landstar System, Inc. (NYSE: LSTR)

Revenues: US$3.18 Billion (2014)Total Assets: US$1.0 Billion (2014)

*Sold LNM subsidiary to XPO logistics in 2014 for $87m

Swift Transportation (NYSE: SWFT)

Revenues: US$2.93 Billion (2010)

C.R. England (Private)

Prime, Inc. (Private)*28th Largest Trucking Co.

Con-Way /XPO Logistics (NYSE: CNW) Revenues: US$5.5 Billion (2013)

XPOLogistics XPO Logistics (NYSE: XPO)

Revenues: US$15 Billion (2015)

J.B. HUNT (NYSE: JBHT) Revenues: US$6.17 Billion

WERNER ENTERPRISES (NYSE: WERN) Revenues: US$2.14 Billion (2014)

The Big Bend Sentinel (Marfa, TX) dated November 12, 2015 wrote that “Texas secretary of state’s office meets in Presidio.” Presidio & Ojinaga business leaders and elected officials where they discussed that Texas Department of Transportation has the highest priority to expand the Presidio crossing bridge into Mexico to 4 lanes from 2. Also the international railroad bridge between the sister cities would also be rebuilt. Per Brad Newton, the Presidio Municipal Development Executive Director said the rail bridge is being studied for replacement too, but the levy work done to the Rio Grande has been raised after the 2008 flood. He added, “Elevations for the tracks has changed so it’s going to take longer to get past that hurdle. Texas has a vested interest in Presidio, and the time is right to take advantage of the opportunities before us.”

Recent Congressional Activity:

Vote — Dec 11, 2015 1:04 p.m.

H.R. 644: Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015Passed 256/158This bill became the vehicle for the passage of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which includes a variety of requirements on trade protection and general trade policy. It would authorize and fund United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency within the Department of

Homeland Security. CBP regulates trade of foreign products entering the United States. The funding for CBP would be used to improve the Automated Commercial Environment that the CBP uses to track imported and exported goods. The bill would expand requirements on imports to ensure health, safety, and the protection of intellectual property rights. It includes provisions to prevent “dumping,” a method of predatory pricing used by foreign companies to undercut local Could this explain why Texas has double the number of Customs & Border Patrol agents than before? Is it really about border protection & immigration or it is about the almighty dollar and the trickle down trade agreements of the Trans-Pacific Partnership with our Government officials.Automated Commercial Environment (known as ACE) is explained in a one pager link below that explains how the new ACE software manages & tracks imports & exportshttp://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACE%20Basics%20-%20DIS.pdf

Please see the attached PDF titled “Comparison of Freight Reauthorization Proposals” to get the gest of just how long these plans have been in place. By also reviewing all the various bills and acts incorporated by this Government shows why the previous Land Commissioner of Texas, Jerry Patterson & the current Land Commissioner, George P. Bush have been extorting funds from various Texas Trust Funds for the building of this Freight Infrastructure which only benefits big Corporate business with political kickbacks being paid to our elected officials. Folks under the law this is known as racketeering!

MY OWN RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH “FREIGHT”:

President Obama in his attempt to save the auto industry signed an Act known as the “Cash for Clunkers”. It was a $3 Billion U.S. federal scrappage program. It paid cash to individuals to scrap their old vehicles and to buy new more fuel efficient vehicles. Today because of that scrappage program it has become very difficult for individuals to buy used parts for their older vehicles. Recently I used a web-site that said it would find these parts due to it had access to many auto salvage facilities. Within minutes of putting in my information and what parts were needed, the calls started coming in. Oddly enough the calls were from the same ASIAN man who would just change his name to Steve or Kenny and he called several times lowering the prices until I finally agreed to buy. He would say he was calling from California when my cell phone showed he was calling from Kansas every time. He also had these old seats for the 84 Cadillac in every color imaginable. He also stated that if I gave him a business address who get the parts to me a lot cheaper using FREIGHT. He even negotiated and reduced the freight prices with me. He even slipped once and stated he was calling from EASTERN LINES (a freight company). This was the most amazing part, he said a “Certified Mechanic” would be on the delivery truck and could answer any questions we might have at the time of delivery. Could it be that every Act that President Obama has ever signed has in reality sold out the American people?

TRACKED EVENTS FOR SENATOR JOHN CORNYN – TEXAS [REP]:

Vote — Dec 3, 2015 8:47 p.m.

H.R. 22: Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy ActConference Report Agreed to 83/16Sen. Cornyn [R-TX]: YeaH.R 22, formerly the Hire More Heroes Act, has become the Senate’s vehicle for passage of the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act or DRIVE Act (S. 1647). The DRIVE Act is a major bipartisan transportation bill that would authorize funding for highway infrastructure investments. H.R. 22 became the DRIVE Act through S.Amdt. 2266, which was agreed to in the Senate 62-32 in a cloture vote. Part of the summary requires states to obligate a specified portion of their surface transportation program apportionments for projects for the replacement or rehabilitation of off-National Highway System bridges. Revises national freight program requirements. Amends the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) to extend through FY2021 (Which that is another article in itself!)

Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act (S. 819), which would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank through fiscal year 2019, as well as introduce reforms on taxpayer protection, promotion of small businesses, modernization, and other subjects, was also added into the bill in a 64-29 vote. The Export-Import Reform and Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) through fiscal year 2019, as well as introduce reforms on taxpayer protection, promotion of small businesses, modernization, and other subjects. The Ex-Im Bank is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. [8] Operating as a government corporation, the bank finances and insures foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk. According to its charter, the Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders, but rather provides financing for transactions that would otherwise not take place because commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling to accept the political or commercial risks inherent in the deal. [9] The bank was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive Branch by Congress in 1945. It was last chartered for a three-year term in 2012 and extended in September 2014 through June 30, 2015. [10] [11] The cost and effectiveness of the bank are controversial. While the Ex-Im Bank projects to save the US government $14 billion over 10 years, an alternative analysis from the Congressional Budget Office found that the program would lose about $2 billion over the same period, partly due to discrepancies how credit risk is accounted for. 8 "The Facts about Ex-Im Bank". Export-Import Bank of the United States. Retrieved August 7, 2013.9  "Ex-Im Bank History". Export Import Bank of the United States. Archived from the original on January 23, 2015. Retrieved August 7, 201310 House Joint Resolution 124, which became Public Law No: 113-164 on September 19, 2014.11  "Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011 - 2012), H.R.2072". Library of Congress. Which became Public Law 112-122 on May 30, 2012.

Both conservative and liberal groups have been critical of the bank, and some continue to call for its closure. [12] [13] President Barack Obama was critical of the bank during his presidential candidacy, [14] but has since become a supporter of the program. [15]

President Barack Obama: Congress must act on Export-Import Bank

By President Barack Obama / Guest columnist

El Paso Times POSTED:   06/30/2015 12:58:40 PM MDT

“…Ex-Im has provided support to businesses and boosted exports in all 50 states, as a state-by-state analysis my administration put out shows.

Over the last six years, Ex-Im supported $23 billion of exports in Texas, including $26 million in El Paso alone.”

BELOW IS A PARTIAL ARTICLE WRITTEN IN THE “NEW AMERICAN” DATED WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015:

Texas Launches Gold-backed Bank, Challenging Federal ReserveWritten by   Alex Newman

12 Thomas Fletcher (May 30, 2014). "The Export-Import Bank’s Dodgy Accounting". The Daily Caller. Retrieved July 24, 2015.13 Dayen, David (June 25, 2014). "Wingnuts and liberals’ bizarre role reversal: Why Export-Import Bank politics are so perverse". Salon.14 Goldfarb, Zachary (June 26, 2014). "Candidate Obama, echoing tea party, called Ex-Im Bank 'little more than a fund for corporate welfare'". Washington Post. Retrieved August 25, 2014.15  Landler, Mark (May 30, 2012).  "Obama Extends the Export-Import Bank". New York Times. Retrieved July 24, 2015.

The State of Texas is setting up a gold-backed bank that will allow depositors to bypass the controversial Federal Reserve System and its fiat currency in banking and commerce, according to the state representative who authored the recently enacted law. Under the measure, passed overwhelmingly by lawmakers and signed in mid-June by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, Lone Star State officials will establish and operate the Texas Bullion Depository for anyone who would like to deposit and trade in precious metals. The implications are as big as Texas.While some analysts have said the move may be another sign heralding Texas’ eventual secession from the union, or preparation for financial Armageddon, its advocates say the depository simply makes financial sense. Among other benefits, the institution will provide more options to consumers weary of the increasingly troubled traditional banking and monetary system, which is viewed by the public with growing suspicion. And experts say the effect of making it easier to use sound money in commerce could be far-reaching.  

WHERE IS THE GOLD COMING FROM TO BACK THE NEW TEXAS DEPOSITORY OR IN OTHER WORDS THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE OWNED EX-IM BANK:

I wonder if Texans truly understand and realize where the heck is all that Gold coming from when the rest of the world is dealing with a massive Gold shortage. Could it be from the $10,000,000 paid out in Gold Certificates by Spain on behalf of the British Crown under the “THE GUADALUPE HIDALGO INTERNATIONAL TRUST”? It dates back to when Texas tried to secede from the Union in her past. It was denied by the US Supreme Court due to the State Government was in such conflict that it deemed the secession as unconstitutional. Bonds were stolen and ended up in the US Treasury where they have been held on behalf of Texas for all these years. More details can be reviewed at www.law.cornell.edu Texas vs. White. Also please note that in THE GUADALUPE HIDALGO INTERNATIONAL TRUST, gave the Rio Grande border to Texas, majority of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to the US. Although Mexico ceded Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México, the text of the treaty[16 ]did not list territories to be ceded, and avoided the disputed issues that were causes of war: the validity of the 1836 secession of the Republic of Texas, Texas's unenforced boundary claims as far as the Rio Grande, and the 1845 annexation of Texas to the United States. Texas was the only state that did not turn over lands to the U.S. when they joined the Union. Could this be why the State of Texas is using “International Law” to claim “Eminent Domain”? International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations.

DO YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT A TREATY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW IS ALL ABOUT?16  "Avalon Project – Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2013-07-08.

The Wikipedia definition for a TREATY is an agreement under international law entered into by ACTORS in international law, namely sovereign states & international organizations.

TEXAS ILLEGALLY GIVING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CHILDREN BLACK BOX PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS:

The Convention of Psychotropic Substances of 1971 is a United Nations treaty designed to control psychotropic drugs. Is this why Texas officials get away with administering ABILIFY and other drugs which non-FDA approved black box psychotropic drugs to the children in Texas Child Protective Services System known as “Pathways”? These drugs are issued with warning labels that they are experimental and not to be administered to anyone under the age of 25. The young boys ages 12 to 17, I personally met & witnessed these drugs being administered to suffering from side effects of extreme joint pain, headaches and depression. Could it be all for the greedy Trans-Pacific Partnership agreements with Pharmaceutical Companies along with their back pocket politician kick-backs that this is being allowed? In August of 2011, all 50 states lost their Child Protective Services Federal Funding due to they were illegally billing our Social Security system for these non-FDA approved drugs they were giving to the children. My husband, Mark White Eagle filed the federal complaint that got this done, but it still continues on at the state levels. When will Texans stand up and be the voice for children who have no voice?

TEXAS BREAKING ITS OWN HORSE SLAUGHTER STATUTES TO MEXICO WHICH PROVIDES MEAT FOR CENTS ON THE POUND TO EUROPEAN MARKETS:

Or could this be the same reason Texas is going against its own state statutes outlawing horse slaughter in order to sell our wild mustangs and burros to Mexico for cents on the pound to be slaughtered inhumanely and sold to European markets. They are being transported by “freight” trucking companies through the Presidio / Ojinaga Port of Entry. Texas Mustangs are the same Spanish descendants of the

Mustangs protected by the Bureau of Land Management, but because Texas does not have “Federal Lands” its Mustangs are not being protected. Even the Bureau of Land Management horses who are part of the “BLM Adoption” are being filmed being slaughtered in Mexico at their slaughtering plants. When will Texans be the voice for our wildlife who have no voice? Please visit www.theirlastride.com and www.thunderhooves.com for more information.

WHY WOULD THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT HAUL WILD HORSES & BURROS ALL THE WAY FROM ARIZONA, NEVADA, AND NEW MEXICO TO ODESSA, TX TO ADOPT / AUCTION THEM OUT? ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT ODESSA, TX IS CLOSE TO THE MEXICO BORDER WHERE OVER 80% OF SLAUGHTERED HORSES IN THEIR MEAT PLANTS COME FROM AUCTIONS.

FOLLOWING IS A RECENT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PRESIDIO COUNTY REGARDING THE REBUILDING OF THE PRESIDIO / OJINAGA PORT OF ENTRY:

PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL PORT AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING to be held Tuesday December 8, 2015 AT 4:00 P.M. AT the PRESIDIO COUNTY ANNEX, 300 E O'REILLY ST., PRESIDIO, TX

AGENDA:

1. Establish a quorum.

2. Invocation.

3. Pledge of Allegiance.

4. Communications from Presidio County Judge to board members.

5. Communications from City Of Presidio Mayor to board members.

6. Discussion with action to appoint new members to the Presidio International Port

7. Discussion with action to elect officers to the Presidio International Port

Authority.

8. Discussion with action to hire executive director for the Presidio International Port

Authority,

9. Adjourn.

Executed on Dec. 3, 2015

The Presidio International Port Authority Reserves the Right to Adjourn Into Executive

Session at Any Time During the Course of this Meeting to Discuss Any of the Matters

listed Above, as Authorized by the Texas Government Code including, but not limited to,

Sections 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney), 551.072 (Deliberations About Real

Property), 551.073 (Deliberations about Gifts and Donations), 551.074 (Personnel

Matters), 551.076 (Deliberations about Security Devices), 551.087(Economic

Development) and 418.183 (Deliberations about Homeland Security Issues).

JFII.ED FOR RECORD at ( ('J s 8M

DEe - 4 2015

As you read the disclaimer above, you might be asking yourself “Why is the Port Authority discussing “Real Property” (real estate / land) and deliberations of gifts & donations?” This is where things get really interesting. UNDER THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES CODE SECTION 31.65 REGARDING GIFTS AND REAL PROPERTY”:

(a) In the absence of any law to the contrary, the commissioner may, if he determines it to be in the best interest of the state, accept grants, gifts, devises, or bequests, either absolutely or in trust, of money or real or personal property on behalf of the state. Real property so acquired by the state becomes public free school land unless the person making the grant, gift, devise, or bequest provides that the real property is to be possessed, administered, or used by a particular state agency, board, commission, department, or other particular state entity.(b) Under Subsection (a) of this section, the commissioner may accept a grant, gift, devise, or bequest even if it is encumbered, restricted, or subject to a beneficial interest of private persons or corporations as long as any current or future use or interest in the grant, gift, devise, or bequest is for the benefit of the state.(c) If the commissioner determines that the real property acquired by the state by grant, gift, devise, or bequest is not suitable for the purpose for which the grant, gift, devise, or bequest was originally made, the commissioner together with the agency, board, commission, department, or other state entity designated to possess, administer, or use the real property may exchange the real property for real property that is suitable for such purpose.

A PRIME EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS TYPE OF “PRE-AUTHORIZED LAND FLIP” WHICH DOES NOT FOLLOW COMMON LAW CAN BE USED BY OUR TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE:

(1)Christmas Mountain Ranch located in Terlingua, Texas consisting of 9,269.6 acres by donated by “Conservation Easement” to a non-profit organization by the name of THE CONSERVATION FUND. This “Charitable Donation” would give the ranch owner substantial tax-deductions, by would still allow him “perpetual” use of the ranch.

(2) THE CONSERVATION FUND then “GIFTED” the land deed for Christmas Mountain Ranch to the State of Texas on behalf of our children’s Permanent School Fund.

(3) The Texas GLO Commissioner then sold this pristine 9,269.6 acre ranch to the Texas University System for the total sum of $10.00 stating that the sale would be to benefit the University in its archeological & philanthropic studies.

(4)The Texas University System in turn then leased the 9,269.6 acre ranch back to the owner to form the Terlingua Ranch & homeowners association. The transaction allowed the rancher to maintain his hunting leases on the land which Terlingua Ranch is basically a high sport hunting lodge. As well he also can charge “Homeowners Association Fees” to individuals who build homes on the ranch. As well as easements were allowed to the Big Bend National Park in order to cross the Christmas Mountain range.

(5)In regards to the higher education purpose of Christmas Mountain, there were on blank documents on that were never signed nor executed by the University System on file at the Brewster County Courthouse.

Another well-known non-profit land conservation group in Texas is The Nature Conservancy. They are the owners of the 3 “Sky Island” Mountains in Texas, New Mexico & Arizona. They say it is to preserve nature for the people, but these facilities are very seldom open to the public other than maybe a hiking trail. These lands house the most rare holistic herbs, plants, trees, & underground water systems in the world. They hire only top scientists to catalog these rarities and only allow the

“Elitist” of the world such as Investment bankers to take in all that these lands have to offer. They always seem to own the lands which are holy sacred sites for the Native American Indians and they do not allow access to the Natives to these sites. The Nature Conservancy in Fort Davis, TX has recently invested in an underground bunker, so please tell me what does that have to do with nature conservancy?

The BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK:

Pioneers Carter & Townsend presented President Roosevelt with “Land Deeds” in order to gift the Big Bend Park to the people of the U.S. so that it could become a “National Park” since Texas did not own any Federal Lands. Since that time the park has become an United Nations Biosphere Reserve in 1976. Could this same type of pre-authorized land flip using a “Conservation Easement” given the Big Bend to the UN? Could that be why the local residents are seeing UN non-English speaking soldiers marching up and down the dried up river beds of the Big Bend? And how did it come to be that British Petroleum owned by the British Crown come to own the majority of mineral interests of the Big Bend which happens to be the only place in the world where every geological formation & mineral exist?

REGARDING THE “PERMANENT SCHOOL TRUST FUND”:

As the Texas land commissioner being a trustee for the Permanent School Fund Lands; under law “Fiduciary Responsibility” carries the highest standard of care. Every transaction made must be for the higher good of the Children’s Permanent School Fund as well as the people of the State of Texas. These types of scrupulous land transactions are nothing more than a “good ole boy network of doing favors for the wealthy”.

Just like the Trans-Pecos Pipeline that threatening to destroy the “Last Frontier” of the Big Bend; which is the last place for Texans to enjoy NATURE. The pipeline is to run underneath the Rio Grande River and supply natural gas to Mexico and be imported to other countries. The Big Bend Conservation Group has recently reported findings that Mexico has been building their side of the pipeline for the last 2 years. Isn’t that like building a bridge to nowhere? Also the owner of “Energy Transfer Partners” who will build the Trans-Pecos Pipeline has recently been appointed by Governor Abbott to the “Texas Parks & Wildlife” board which are lands from the children’s Permanent School Trust. How about that “Conflict of Interest”. Under the Texas Natural Resources Code Section 31.41 NATURAL GAS ACQUISITION CONTRACTS - If the land office is able to substitute a contract using in-kind royalty gas from state-owned lands or using other gas for a contract under which a state agency acquires or proposes to acquire its natural gas supplies, the commissioner shall inform the comptroller each month of the amount of savings attributable to the substitution. How long has the Texas General Land Office been in the energy business of making money from receiving natural gas “in kind” rather than being paid royalty interest and in turn selling the natural gas to the public for a profit?

A recent land auction by the order of the Texas General Land Office in Presidio & Hudspeth counties caught my attention. A parcel of the land that was sold sat right on the border behind the Presidio International Airport. This land is referred to as Texas Sovereign Land; meaning it is part of the 60 titles that were grants issued to Texas by Spain on behalf of the British Crown. This land was never settled because of its remote location and is referred to as “No Man’s Land” due to the fact it has no easements allowing you to get to the land. Why would someone buy thousands of acres of land with no legal access to step foot on it? Also in Hudspeth County in Sierra Blanca route to El Paso; there was 20 acres of land purchased that Interstate-10 runs right through it. The broker I spoke to laughingly stated, “The only thing you could do with that land is put a TOLL booth on it!” Exactly right, it sure sounds like the NAFTA Superhighway to me; where lands are leased to Spain, Texans pay for the infrastructure, and Spain charges the tolls for the highways we pay to have built. It was with this information and learning that Texas Land Commissioner manages a “GIFT TRUST” that I sent by Certified Mail a letter to Senator Jose Rodriguez whose district includes El Paso, Presidio & Hudspeth Counties. As written in the Big Bend Sentinel, Senator Rodriguez supports the Trans-Pecos Pipeline. Please note the language in the letter regarding the Texas Natural Resources Code regarding is advance knowledge of land auctions.

GOVERNOR ABBOTT APPOINTS OWNER OF THE TRANS-PECOS PIPELINE COMPANY “ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS” TO THE BOARD OF TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE: The man who wants to destroy the “Last Frontier” of Texas by running a pipeline across the Big Bend and under the Rio Grande River to supply Mexico with Natural Gas is such a perfect conservationist to be chosen for our Texas Parks & Wildlife Board. These once again Texas Parks are under PUBLIC LANDS held in TRUST and therefore a conflict interest exists under Trust Fiduciary Responsibility.

Maybe it is time we hold these Senators accountable and hold their feet to the fire when “WE” the people demand answers! And if these are supposed to be “closed bid” auctions…”Why does the Senator get notified of land sales and leases by the brokers prior to the auction?”

Under the Texas Natural Resources Code 31.1571 Governor’s Report (d) Any unused or underused state property may be sold or leased, or an easement over the property may be granted, to the United States for the use and benefit of the United States armed forces if the commissioner or the commissioner's designee, after consultation with appropriate military authorities, determines that the sale, lease, or easement would materially assist the military in accomplishing its mission. A sale, lease, or easement under this subsection must be at market value. The state shall retain all minerals it owns with respect to the land, but it may relinquish the right to use the surface to extract them. Is this how the “NO MAN’S LAND” auctioned off can receive easements for access?

TEXAS LEGISLATURE CREATES A NEW WAY TO TRANSFER REAL PROPERTY AT DEATH:

Thanks to the 84th Legislation, Texans can transfer real property without going to probate. They can get the tax exemption (Homestead), use it as bank collateral on a loan, or sell the property, as they like. Ignorance is bliss for the Texas GLO, for if someone doesn’t realize they have a “land grant” deed which is common in Texas and is not subjected to property taxes. Many of these land grants were to be honored under the GUADALUPE HIDALGO INTERNATIONAL TREATY, if people do not understand land law they can be tricked into changing the type of title and “boom” the property is now a “property tax” generating deed for Texas has not honored these grants for many years. Or could this even be a “quick” title solution so that if a “pipeline” needs to be installed, it can’t be held up or delayed for land which is tied up in a lengthy probate process? When will Texans realize nothing is ever done in reality to benefit the people, but rather the corrupt and ruthless elected officials who are making bundles off our repeated ignorance?

Just as implied in the Texas Natural Resources Code about when no law applies, the Commissioner can do as he sees fit with the gift as long as it is in the best interest of the State. Below is the same language regarding gifting which is on the U.S. Customs & Border Protection web-site:

http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/resource-opt-strategy/public-private-partnerships

Customs & Border Patrol / Public-Private Partnerships:

There are more people and goods coming through our ports of entry than ever before. Last fiscal year, CBP inspected more than 360 million travelers at our air, land, and sea ports of entry.  Since 2009, we have seen growth in both trade and travel.  In Fiscal Year 2013, total passenger volume was 6.4% higher and total import

value was nearly 40% higher than in Fiscal Year 2011. We expect these trends to continue.Travel and trade play a critical role in the nation’s economic growth, and CBP recognizes its role in driving that growth through our trade and travel facilitation mission. To support increasing volumes, CBP developed a comprehensive Resource Optimization Strategy that includes Business Transformation Initiatives, a data-driven Workload Staffing Model and alternative sources of funding that include public-private partnerships — like the reimbursable service pilots authorized last year under Section 560.Section 559 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, is another key component of CBP’s alternative sources of funding solution. This authority allows us to support requests for expanded services as well as improvements to infrastructure through both reimbursable service agreements and donation acceptance authority, respectively. Reimbursable services under Section 559 include customs, immigration, and agricultural processing; salaries for additional staff; and overtime expenses at airports. The new donation acceptance authority provides even greater flexibility, allowing CBP and the General Services Administration (GSA), to accept donations of real or personal property or non-personal services to be used for construction, alterations, operation, or maintenance of a new or existing port of entry.CBP views these authorities as an opportunity to proactively work with stakeholders and communities to identify business solutions for a variety of border management needs.  CBP has a team in place to support these efforts and to offer a streamlined application and evaluation process, with analytical support and guidance to meet the needs of our prospective partners.The opportunities available under Section 559 to expand our partnerships will continue to enhance the set of solutions developed to address the increased demands on CBP’s existing resources and improve services to interested stakeholders in all port environments. CBP recognizes that increased economic activity can be driven by additional services and enhanced infrastructure; and this is one more way we can accommodate such change.For parties interested in CBP’s donation acceptance authority: Pursuant to Section 559 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 CBP and GSA are authorized to accept donations of real property, personal property (including monetary donations) and non-personal services from private sector and government entities. CBP will evaluate proposals from private corporations, public entities, municipalities, port authorities, consortiums, and any other private sector or Government entity. Donation proposals will be evaluated based on their individual merit and ability to satisfy the evaluation criteria posted on CBP.gov.  Please also note that CBP and GSA will only consider submissions that envision Federal ownership of the proposed donation.For parties interested in partnering under a reimbursable service agreement:  the open application period for reimbursable services for this year closed on April 30, 2014.  We will announce the next application period in early 2015.

MEXICAN / U.S. STAKEHOLDER INTERNAL MEETING FOR THE PORT OF ENTRY IMPROVEMENT “PROJECT”:

Could this be why the Public Notice Posting was at the Presidio Courthouse announcing a meeting for: Internal Port of Entry Improvement Project CSJ 0104-10-006 Mexican / U.S. Stakeholder Coordination Meeting with NO ACTION required by the Presidio Municipal Development District, Presidio City Council, the Presidio Port Authority, & the Presidio County Commissioners Court. The agenda: To bring completion to “The Project”.

THIS NEXT ITEM IS ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS:

Excerpts taken from the Big Bend Sentinel Dated October 22, 2015

Founder of Texan by Nature, Laura Bush, Texas Parks & Wildlife Director Carter Smith, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Director Dan Ashe, & CEO Collin O’Mara of the National Wildlife Federation unveiled a conservation plan to help sustain the “MONARCH” butterfly & pollinators. (Ironically the British Crown is also referred to as the “MONARCH” butterfly) As Mrs. Bush stated “Conservation truly begins at home, and Texans will lend their time, expertise, land, and resources. The Conservation Plan will be implemented by a task force of STAKEHOLDERS. It will be a collaborative effort of the Texas Parks & Wildlife, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, NWF, Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust , Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Texas Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the University of Texas San Antonio just to name a few. The working group has been asked to identify U.S. PRIORITIES and actions for monarch conservation for the state.

Texas Department of Transportation is planning to partner with the USFWS and the Native Plant Society of Texas to establish gardens at safety rest areas. June 2014 President Obama issued a memo acknowledging the importance of pollinators & setting the national direction for a strategy to address four themes: research, education, habitat, and PARTNERSHIPS. In response to the memo, Ashe challenged the USFWS to INCOPORATE monarch conservation into ongoing activities and highlight new opportunities, particularly areas within the migratory flyway. Ashe announced his commitment to spending $4 million, starting in October, to support PARTNERSHIP DRIVEN, conservation projects.

Texans need to learn to read between the lines with these folks. For example U.S. Priorities is listed in the Texas Natural Resource Code 31.065 explains how gift, grants, and etc. to the Permanent School Fund can be sold then deposited in Natural Resources Conservation Fund under the Texas Parks & Wildlife code. As you may remember in the Governance, it refers to the ‘POWER OF LANGUAGE”.

THE TEXAS “CERN” SUPER COLLIDER:

Why the $2 Billion failed CERN “Super Collider” IS addressed under the Texas Natural Resources Code? There are eyewitness reports of seeing a missile that hit the chemical plant in Waxahachie, TX to later have that same company lease the CERN facilities. Isn’t the highest priority of the Texas GLO is to have all their properties generating the maximum revenues possible? And I feel an audit should be in demand to find out exactly where the $2 billion dollars came since the Texas General Land Office claim they own this facility.

TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE HISTORY:

To give a bit more background on the history of the Texas General Land Office, it was seven years ago a former Senator with high political ties by the name of Jerry Patterson became the Land Commissioner of Texas. Mr. Patterson decided that his office could do a better job of managing the assets of the General Land Office rather than the other offices that handled all monetary receipts of all transactions. This took away all checks & balances for receipt activities of the GLO. Mr. Patterson claimed the increased returns of the assets would be used for "INFRASTRUCTURE”. He submitted a strategic plan for “Legislative Appropriation Requests” to then Governor Rick Perry for approval in August of 2014. Oddly enough these requests were for the fiscal years of 2016 & 2017 which were out of the timelines for the offices of both of these elected officials.

Following are the stated management duties of the Land Commissioner in Mr. Jerry Patterson’s report:

Funds Management Deputy Commissioner:

– is generally responsible for all of the strategic and tactical financial operations relating to the financing mechanisms associated with the programs administered by the Veterans Land Board of the State of Texas (VLB). Within that Construct, Funds Management plans and manages the issuance of all tax‐ exempt and taxable bonds for the VLB and hedges associated interest rate risk by entering into interest rate swaps and other bond enhancement agreements. Inaddition, it oversees the financial operations of the VLB loan programs, including the certification and sale of GNMA and FNMA pass‐through mortgage‐backed securities in the secondary market. Funds management also manages the Veterans Land Board investment portfolio to maximize return and minimize risk, while ensuring that programmatic liquidity and cash flow needs are satisfied. 

The division also ensures that the Veterans Land Board investment portfolio maintains compliance with federal arbitrage regulations. In addition, the division manages the higher‐level

financial operations of the Texas State Veterans Homes Program, including the determination and recommendation of resident room rates and the negotiation offinancial contractual terms with veterans home contract operators.  Texas General Land Office Functional Agency Descriptions 17 Funds Management is also responsible for determining and recommending strategy and policy for the TXGLO Permanent School Fund Real Assets Investment Portfolio and for managing all aspects of the portion of the portfolioinvested in externally managed real assets investment funds. The Deputy Commissioner of Funds Management Serves as the chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee of the portfolio and serves as the key contact between the operations of the portfolio and the School Land Board, as well as providing oversight of the portfolio's external Investment managers, investment advisors, and accounting/custodial /performance measurement agent. Funds Management also prepares and distributes the quarterly investment reports for both the GLO/PSF Real Assets Investment Portfolio and the VLB fixed‐ income portfolio. Finally, the program area also routinely assists other General Land Office divisions and program areas with complex financial planning and analysis. 

VETERANS MORTGAGES ARE INVOLVED IN MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITY INVESTMENT BONDS SOLD ON THE SECONDARY MARKETS WHICH ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE UNIVERSAL COMMERICAL CODE:

Do you think our Veterans understand that under the Universal Commercial Code used by the Banks, it is illegal to package up mortgages and sell them as “Mortgage Backed Securities”? An investor’s class action law suit can be filed which could put a lien on their properties. Do you think this was transparent in their loan documents? This is just another repeat of the MERS scandal and bank mortgages which currently has many Texas counties involved in a class-action lawsuit against MERS.

TEXAS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ACTS UNDER “CONFLICT OF INTEREST” UNDER FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILTY:

In regards to TRUSTS; there is such a thing called Fiduciary Responsibility. Under law this the highest “Standard of Care”. Under this responsibility there is something called a “Conflict of Interest” and this arrangement is definitely a conflict. An acting fiduciary Trustee cannot also sit and be the decision maker of portfolio management as well as be the only go between to the School Board. This is like so many of our Texas Sheriffs who access local fines also being the County Tax Collector. Under the Constitution these types of conflicts of interest are considered “unconstitutional”.

WHEN YOU SMELL A RAT THERE USUALLY IS A RAT – WHY AFTER

ALL THESE YEARS DID THE TEXAS GLO TAKE THE ALAMO & ITS ARCHIVES AWAY FROM THE “DAUGHTERS OF THE REPUBLIC”?:

House Bill 3726 passed during the 82nd regular session put the Alamo under the jurisdiction of the General Land Office. The GLO is responsible for the preservation, maintenance, and restoration of the Alamo Complex and its contents, and is responsible for the protection of the historical and architectural integrity of the exterior, interior, and grounds of the Alamo Complex. A new 3-year Management and Operating Agreement with the Daughters of the Republic of Texas 10 (DRT) was executed on September 1, 2013.

Could it be so that they could gain control of the Fund Accounts? February 22, 2016 court date has been set. Daughters of the Republic are currently taking legal suit against the Texas General Land Office for its attempts in confiscating the libraries artifacts and donations. Under the Texas Natural Resources Statute where no law applies regarding gifts, the Land Commissioner, George P. Bush has authorization to do as he pleases regarding gifts. Governor Perry approved for Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson to use funds from the Daughters of the Republic accounts to finance his “INFRASTRUCTURE” projects. See the attached “Legislature Appropriation Requests” 2016-2017 Report.

CONTINUED STRATEGIC PLAN FROM THE “LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATION REQUESTS” REPORT - COULD THIS BE WHY TEXANS ARE PAYING HIGHER ENERGY RATES:

Energy Resources Deputy Commissioner: – is responsible for two divisions, Mineral Leasing and the State Energy Marketing Program (SEMP) Energy Resources is responsible for maximizing revenue Deposits to the Permanent School Fund from the management of oil, gas and other minerals realproperty assets, and the management of SEMP which further increases revenue deposits to the Permanent School Fund by marketing natural gas and power to its public retail customers. 

SEMP Expands economic opportunities by serving the school children and all people of Texas by increasing revenue to the Permanent School Fund (PSF) through Effective sale of state oil and gas production and associated power and by Providing energy savings to as many Public Retail Customers (PRCs) as possibleUtilizing prudent stewardship of program resources. The program is specifically designed to enhance earnings to the PSF and to enhance the PSF royalty value derived from oil and gas royalties by taking these products in‐ kind (TIK) and providing them to PRCs at prices that provide savings to the PRCs. Cash royalties are utilized for third party purchases in certain areas in order to provide reliablesupplies at competitive market pricing.

IS THIS WHY TEXAS ELECTRIC RATES ARE EXPECTED TO

INCREASE BY 16% IN 2016:

UNDER THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982 - The waste program, which was expected to cost billions of dollars, would be funded through a fee paid by ELECTRIC UTILITIES on nuclear-generated electricity. An Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management was established in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to implement the Act. [17]

GOVERNOR ABBOTT APPOINTS NUCLEAR WASTE COMPANY OWNER TO TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE BOARD – ANOTHER CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHERE A TRUST IS INVOLVED:

Could this be the reason the residents of Van Horn, TX are fighting to prevent an above ground nuclear waste site from being installed at the foothills of their mountains? And of course our Government is trying to amend this bill which will allow this TPP Corporation to move forward. The owner of said Corporation was recently appointed by Texas Governor Abbott to sit on the “Texas Parks & Wildlife Board” which are public lands from our children’s Permanent School Trust.

The   Disaster Recovery Program:

Is responsible for managing disaster recovery grants through the U.S.  Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Disaster Recovery (DR) Program serves to rebuild and restore Texas communities impacted by natural Disasters, which includes housing (both single and multi‐family and down‐ payment assistance), infrastructure (public facilities from roads to seawalls drainage, and energy generators), and long‐ term planning and economic development. 

The Land Office is also responsible for managing the GOMESA funds which are related to the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act which is to help rebuild our damaged coastlines from the BP Oil spill. If you continue to read in the report it only suggests educational agendas. So could this INFRASTRUCTURE refer to an International Railroad bridge that was burned and destroyed by flooding? Not let’s take a look at the Land Commissioner’s proposal and how it is he plans to finance his infrastructure plans by taking money from the Permanent School Fund and the Veteran’s Funds……..

****Review the attached reports, Legislative Appropriation Requests 2015 – 2017 and 2011- 2013 to view where funds are being removed from the Permanent School Trust, The State University Fund, The Veterans Trust, The Daughters of Republic Funds in order to fund “INFRASTRUCTURE” projects.

WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

17 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 96 Statutes at large 2201, 42 U.S. Code 10101 et seq.

To get a better understanding of the big picture of what is taking place, I ask one simple question. What is it that keeps humanity in economic oppression and in starvation? It is by “WHO” controls the land and its natural resources. For which has been behind every single war on this planet which has led to only corruption and squandering of our children’s educational funds. Please see the following documents explaining the history as well as the explanation of how the Trust Funds are structured.

IRONICALLY; INFORMATION BELOW WAS PROVIDED BY THE “LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY”WRITTEN BY: MARGARET BIRD

A HISTORY OF FEDERAL LAND GRANTS TO SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Margaret R. Bird

October 30, 2015

Perhaps the most neglected educational funding topic in all of education is school trust lands—lands granted at statehood by the federal government for the support of common schools. Though most educators have heard of land grant universities and to many the old English practice of granting lands to support schools is vaguely familiar, today most education leaders are left speechless when informed that the practice is alive and well in the United States to the tune of 45 million acres and $72 billion held in endowment funds for the support of public schools.

This paper is written to provide the reader with an historical foundation on which to place any newly found knowledge of school trust lands, of the current status of the land management in their state, and even of the potential that might be accomplished with these lands and the revenue from the funds for the benefit of our public schools and school children, if long-term planning were employed.

SCHOOL LANDS – A CONCEPT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS

Intricately embedded throughout the history of our country is the concept of granting lands for the support of education. Early founding documents of the nation, as well as the founding compact for each state known as the statehood act or the enabling act, dealt extensively with these land grants for education. The concepts of free education and compulsory taxation to support schools are generally accepted principles today, but were not universally embraced during the early history of the United States. It is, however, surprising how these concepts were integrally woven into the founding documents of the nation and some states, even though they may not have been uniformly applied in all states.

English settlers brought the concept of creating permanent funds for the support of education to the colonies. The monasteries of the Middle Ages were endowed with perpetual funds to provide education, and the practice was continued by wealthy individuals when Henry VIII closed the monasteries. The permanent funds were not all money for some included land granted for the support of the school. Many early institutions of higher learning in America were initially funded with grants of land by the king or governor, resulting in the title “land grant university.”

In 1777, the Georgia constitution required schools to be supported by the state, however almost half of the counties did not accept the state support due to the stigma of pauperism associated with the state dollars. At the time of statehood, West Virginia, Maine, Wisconsin and Kansas had free schools. Other states such as Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Ohio, and Indiana charged parents and guardians for school attendance.

Many of the original colonies claimed land from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. A great deal of heated debate and discussion both during and after the Revolutionary War revolved around how the western lands in the ocean-to-ocean states were to be handled. State militiamen had been promised lands for their service during the war. This controversy over the western lands delayed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. Colonel Broadhead was even stationed in the western country to prevent settlement until the controversy could be resolved. Finally on October 10, 1780, Congress passed a resolution18 pledging:

The western territory ceded to states should be disposed of for the common benefit of all states, This territory should be formed into states to be admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original

states, The expenses incurred by the states in subduing British posts should be repaid, and Most important to this discussion, Congress should regulate the manner and condition of the sale of lands.

Despite the passage of this resolution, many states still held onto millions of acres of western land for compensation to their Revolutionary soldiers. Slowly over the period from 1781 to 1786 states relinquished those claims.

It took another five years before Congress determined how it wanted to regulate and survey the western lands. On May 20, 1785, Congress adopted an ordinance that provided for the survey and sale of these lands. The territory was to be divided into townships, each six miles square. Each township was to be subdivided into 36 one mile square lots, which are called sections today. Lots 8, 11, 26, and 29 were reserved to the United States for future sale and Lot 16 was reserved “of each township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township.”19

The Northwest Ordinance or General Land Ordinance of 1787 provides that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged…” but it makes no provision for the reservation of Section 16 for schools. The Northwest Ordinance provided for the governance of a territory and laid out the steps and benchmarks for statehood. It is the contracts for the sale of this western land that set aside Lot 16 plus two townships for a university. The Northwest Ordinance did not reserve land for schools. Rather, it was the Ordinance of 1785 and the contract for the sale of western territory that are the two instruments establishing the reservation of lands for the support of education.

LANDS GRANTED OR PROVIDED

181 Journals of Congress, VI, page 213.19 Laws of United States of America, 1789-1815, Vol. I, Chapter 32, pages 563-569.

Among those knowledgeable about school trust lands, there is the tendency to believe that school trust lands are solely a western issue. That is not the case. In 1788, Massachusetts provided for the reservation of school lands to encourage settlement in its eastern territory. Tennessee was admitted to the union in 1796 and was the first state admitted into the union in which there were federal lands at the time of admission. Tennessee was granted a portion of those federal lands for the support of schools, but because of extensive settlement did not receive Section 16. The education land grant to Tennessee lagged statehood by ten years, but finally occurred in 1806. Ohio and Alabama were the first states to be expressly granted Section 16 for the support of education in 1803. Every state, except Maine and Texas, admitted from 1803 through 1848 received Section 16 for education.

Oklahoma received an extra $5 million20 as part of the permanent school fund when the territory of Oklahoma became a state because Indian lands had been set aside by treaty and were not available for the grant to education. Texas, which entered the union as an independent republic, had no federal lands within its borders so there were no federal lands to grant to the schools. On July 26, 1839, Texas had provided for the reservation of 13,284 acres 21 within each county for education. Then in 1840, Texas increased the reservation to 17,712 acres.22 By 1906 Texas had the largest permanent fund and has maintained her dominance to this day by strict adherence to trust principles and commitment to the preservation of the permanent fund shown by the absence of raids on the fund.

In 1846 the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington D.C. requested that two sections, Section 16 and Section 36, be granted to schools for their support instead of just one section. The following year the Secretary of the Treasury made a similar request of Congress. Representative John Rockwell of Connecticut tried to give Wisconsin two sections in 1848 in their admissions act, but his amendment was defeated. By August of that year, two sections were set aside for schools in enabling legislation in Oregon and Minnesota. California was subsequently admitted September 9, 1850, with two sections per township set aside for schools. States receiving 2 sections include: California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Nevada was originally granted Sections 16 and 36 that equaled close to four million acres (3,985,422 acres). In lieu of this original grant, Nevada accepted 2 million acres with the right to select those acres from any of the unappropriated federal lands within its borders. Most of these Nevada school trust lands have been sold and only a few thousand acres of school trust lands remain today. Most of their property tax is derived from these former school lands. Beginning in 1894, Utah was granted four sections (Sections 2, 16, 32, and 36) because of the arid worthless nature of the lands. Arizona and New Mexico were later also granted four sections.

These lands, regardless of the sections granted, gave the schools ownership in all parts of the state. Those states receiving Section 16 received 1/36th or 3% of the state to support education. Those states receiving Sections 16 and 36 were granted 1/18th or 6%. Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico received Sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 which represented 1/9th or 11% of the state granted for the support of education.

The school lands were either leased or sold to generate revenue. The surface of school trust lands was leased for grazing or agriculture during the early settlement of most states. Later lands have been leased for every economic activity that occurs on private lands—convenience stores, habitat protection, commercial developments, malls, industrial parks, residential home sites, to name a few. Timber and forest products are renewable resources and

20 As of 1905 the $5 million had not been dispersed to Oklahoma. The federal government was paying interest only.21 Three Spanish leagues.22 Four Spanish leagues.

can be sold over and over again if harvested in a sustainable manner. Minerals, in those states fortunate to have them, have contributed substantially to the support of schools. Royalties as a percent of value are paid on any minerals produced. Many states also reserve the right to receive an actual percent of the substance being produced, called “in kind royalty production.”

CREATION OF THE PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND

Connecticut was the first state to establish a School Fund, doing so in 1795. The idea of establishing a perpetual permanent fund began to catch on, and Connecticut was followed by New York in 1805 and Massachusetts in 1834. When referring to this fund, states use various names such as Common School Fund, Permanent School Fund and State School Fund.

A permanent fund was to provide a growing funding source for schools—passed from generation to generation as an endowment or birthright for the education of the children. Dr. Fletcher Harper Swift, who in 1906 began the most exhaustive research into the permanent school funds ever undertaken, concluded, “The general permanent common school fund, then, did not supplant these other sources, but served to increase the revenue derived for the more important of them by the incentive and unity which it gave to the free school movement.”23

Many mid-western and western states were required as a condition of statehood in their enabling act to establish a permanent fund. In those states where a permanent fund was required by the enabling act, the state constitution then set out the parameters required of the state for the protection of the school fund. Many of these funds are guaranteed by the state constitution against loss or diversion. Thus the enabling act, in conjunction with the state constitution, created a bilateral compact between the United States and the state that could not be changed without the consent of both parties.

FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

TO THE PERMANENT SCHOOL FUNDS

The federal government granted or loaned funds to states that in turn routed those funds to their permanent school fund. States also chose to deposit certain revenue streams or funds in their school fund—much as tobacco settlement funds have been deposited in the permanent school fund in some states today.

California regarded Sections 16 and 36 as belonging to the townships24 and instead created their permanent school fund from the proceeds of the sale of 500,000 acres of internal improvement lands granted in 1841 by Congress to Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri and extended to all states admitted subsequently to the passage of the 1841 act. This Internal Improvement Act (IIA) of 1841 empowered states to use the proceeds of the lands for “Roads, railways, bridges, canals and improvements of water courses

23 Swift, Fletcher Harper, A History of Public Permanent Common School Funds in the United States, 1795-1905, Henry Holt and Company, 1911, p. 24.24 Report California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1864-65, page 249.

and drainage of swamps…”25 The IIA funds were given on the condition that states would grant free transportation for the mail, federal troops and war supplies over these improved passageways. Ultimately well over ten million acres were granted. California, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, Kansas and Nevada by constitution combined their internal improvement lands with the school lands to establish permanent common school funds managed by the state. Unfortunately, Kansas failed to enact laws to carry out the constitutional provisions for their lands, and their proceeds were never added to the state permanent school fund.26

Beginning with the Revolutionary War and continuing for several decades, the nation was saddled with insurmountable debt. The national costs of the Revolutionary War plus the states’ debts for the war assumed by the general government exceeded $120 million. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 with certain other French claims came to an additional $15 million. The War of 1812 added another $100 million. However, the unprecedented economic prosperity from 1827 to 1837 wiped out all the debt and left the nation with a $40 million surplus in the Treasury. Congress approved a bill June 23, 1836, to loan any surplus on January 1, 1837, in excess of $5 million to the states on the basis of the number of representatives they had in Congress. It must be emphasized that this was a loan that could be called with 30 days’ notice. These loans have never been called for and have been regarded by the states as a gift. The majority of states set aside all or part of the loan for the support of schools.27

STATE FINANCIAL AND LAND CONTRIBUTIONS

TO THE PERMANENT SCHOOL FUNDS

Many of the original thirteen colonies wanted similar support for their schools, so in 1821, Maryland passed a resolution that all states should have an equal right to participate in the school grants. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Virginia agreed; however, these states were not successful in getting the resolution through Congress. Thus, those states not getting Section 16 for schools included the original thirteen colonies, plus Kentucky, Maine, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Those states not receiving federal grants of lands established their own school funds or school lands. Like western states, revenue streams from licenses, lotteries, taxes, forfeitures, fines, escheats, and grants were employed to build the school fund. Ten states28 used the revenue from land sales as a portion of their permanent fund. North Carolina added money derived from the sale of swamp or vacant lands. In 1828, Maine reserved 13 townships and added 12 more townships a few decades later.

States also contributed state sources of land and revenue to the permanent school funds. As mentioned earlier, Connecticut was the first state to establish a permanent fund for the support of schools. The proceeds from the sale of 3.3 million acres in Ohio (part of western Connecticut at the time) were used to establish the Connecticut fund. New York provided a permanent fund from the proceeds of the sale of 500,000 acres. Georgia reserved two lots in each survey district for the support of schools. In New Jersey the proceeds for all submerged lands went to their permanent fund. The proceeds from swamplands in North Carolina as well as vacant lands provided the revenue for 25 U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. V, Chapter 16, approved September 4, 1841.26 Kansas School Law, 1905, p. 5.27 The exact amount deposited in the permanent school fund from the U. S. Surplus Revenue of 1837 is available in the paper entitled, “Permanent State School Funds,” in this notebook.28 Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

their permanent fund, known as the Literary Fund. Maine, upon separating from Massachusetts, ultimately reserved 726,625 acres. Pennsylvania set aside 60,000 acres for a permanent fund, but the $1.5 million that had been realized from the lands by 1834 never made it to the Common School Fund. After dedicating the proceeds of over 42 million acres to their permanent school fund, the Texas constitution of 1845 dedicated an additional one-tenth of the state taxes to the fund for education also. Although Colorado’s constitution of 1876 provided five sources for building their permanent fund including escheats, grants, gifts, devises to the state for education, and the land grant, only the federal land grant has been deposited in the Colorado fund to date.

Many states deposited license monies in the fund –everything from marriage licenses, which may be understandable, to tavern licenses. Confiscations, taxes on banks, Supreme Court fees, gambling, proceeds from swamp lands, and money derived from exemption from military service are but a few of the sources used by states to increase permanent funds for schools. Some states also deposited state funds into the permanent school funds. Montana set aside ten sources, including proceeds from the sale of timber and other property from school lands.29

LANDS AND FUNDS PROTECTED AS A TRUST

The lands granted at statehood by the federal government were granted in trust for the support of common schools. The state accepted the responsibilities of trustee, requiring it to act in the best interest of the beneficiary—the schools. These lands were not simply a gift, but were part of a sacred agreement between each new state and the federal government. Each state gave up the right to tax federal lands in exchange for being granted lands to support schools and other needed institutions within its boundaries.

It was in recognition thereof, i.e., in order to ‘equalize’ the status of the newly admitted states with that of the original thirteen states, that the Congress enacted the federal land grant statutes. The specific purpose was to create a binding permanent trust which would generate financial aid to support the public school systems of the ‘public land’ states. The nature of the congressional land grant program was ‘bilateral’ in effect. It constituted a solemn immunity from taxation of federal lands reserved or retained in ownership by the United States within the territorial boundaries of the newly admitted states in return for the acceptance by the states of the lands granted, to be held and administered by the states under trust covenants for the perpetual benefit of the public school systems.30

The grants of land by Congress at statehood along with the state constitution adopted by the people of the state created an “irrevocable compact.”31 The Washington Supreme Court summarized the issue of school trust lands well when it said, “Every court that has considered the issue has concluded that these are real, enforceable trusts that impose upon the state the same fiduciary duties applicable to private trustees.”32

So what are the duties imposed on private trustees? Simply put, the state, as trustee, owes the following to schools in administering their grants33:

29 Enabling Act, Secs. 10, 11, 13 Montana Civil Codes, 1895, Vol. I, p. cxxxiii.

30 State of Utah v. Kleppe United States Court of Appeals, tenth Circuit No. 76-1839, 586 F.2d 756 (1978), pg. 758. 31 Oklahoma Education Association, Inc. v. Nigh, 642 P.2d 230, 235 (Okla. 1982)32 County of Skamania v. State of Washington, Washington Supreme Court, No. 49799-1, pg. 6.33 A thorough listing of standard trust principles and the duties of a trustee is available in Cases and Text on The Law of Trusts, by Bogert, Oaks, Hansen, and Hill, the Foundation Press, Inc., (1991).

Duty of undivided loyalty to the schools Duty to avoid conflicts of interest Duty to make the trust property productive Duty to be prudent Duty to account to the schools by providing information and keeping and rendering all accounts

These duties collectively are often referred to as fiduciary duties because they are the duties imposed by the law and the courts on a trustee, or fiduciary.

It is important for school beneficiary to understand how rigidly courts enforce the trust duties—how seriously they take a breach of trust. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Cardozo case eloquently spoke:

Many forms of conduct, permissible in a workaday world for those active at arm’s length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard behavior. As to this there has developed a tradition that is unbending and inveterate. Uncompromising rigidity has been the attitude of courts of equity when petitioned to undermine the rule of undivided loyalty by the ‘disintegrating erosion’ of particular exceptions [Citation.] Only thus has the level of conduct for fiduciaries been kept at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd. It will not consciously be lowered by any judgment of this court.

The United States Supreme Court in the Lassen case34 recognized Congress’ concern in placing restrictions on the states in the use of the school trust lands that the lands provide as much support as possible to the schools and other beneficiaries and exclusively to the named beneficiaries of the grant.

To understand the order of legal strength, enabling acts always preempt state constitutions, which always preempt state law.35 This means if there is a conflict between the state enabling act and the state constitution or laws, the enabling act always prevails because the state constitution is required to be consistent with the enabling act, and state statutes must be consistent with the constitution.

Those same trust principles that apply to the lands also apply to the revenue made from the land.36 The permanent common school fund by whatever name it is called in a state has the same legal protection as the lands granted in trust for the support of schools. The trust corpus includes the lands, the proceeds, and the permanent fund. In order to receive these legal protections requiring the state to act with undivided loyalty in the best interest of the schools, the State Board of Education or another education entity must be aware of the breach and take legal action. Only then does the power of the law intercede on behalf of the schools as beneficiaries.

PERMANENT FUNDS 1906 AND THE PRESENT

A LESSON TO BE LEARNED BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE

Dr. Fletcher Harper Swift conducted an exhaustive study of the permanent school funds in 1911 for his dissertation from Columbia University. Even at that time there had been considerable erosion in many funds. Today the permanent funds in eastern states no longer exist. His study led him to conclude that the losses of permanent funds were attributable to:

34 Lassen v. Arizona, United States Supreme Court, No. 84, 87 S.Ct. 584 (1967) pg. 589.35 Department of State Lands v. Walter Pettibone, supreme Court of Montana No. 83-281, 702 P.2d 948 (Mont. 1985), pg. 953.36 Alamo Land & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Arizona, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Court No. 74-125 (1976), and pg. 298 reads, “The proceeds of any of said lands shall be subject to the same trusts as the lands producing the same.”

sacrifice of the school fund to local interests, as occurred in California carelessness and incompetence in management lack of responsibility to any higher authority proceeds being lost or applied to things other than the fund inadequate legislative protective provisions

Dr. Swift also concluded that an additional defect in building the permanent fund derived from the management structure of the lands. “The result is that by far the majority of states have entrusted the care of millions of acres of school lands, and the investment of the proceeds to the sales of the same to officers or to a board composed of several officers, all overburdened with other duties.” This management defect is still evident today in many states that entrust the management of the lands to boards of elected officials whose primary job is unrelated to the management of the lands.

As far back as 1870, the Missouri Public School report indicated, “There is a criminal responsibility resting somewhere for the gradual wasting away of the public school fund.”37 Dr. Swift believed that it was unworthy of an intelligent commonwealth to expect some busy and sought-after person such as a Governor, State Treasurer or State Superintendent to manage a large fund well.

The constitutions of many of the land grant states provided for the protection of the permanent fund against loss or diversion. Repayment of loss is thus constitutionally guaranteed.

“In many states the permanent funds and the proceeds which should have been added to them have been cared for so carelessly diverted, squandered, wasted, and embezzled so shamefully, that what ought to be a magnificent endowment, whose income would to-day be yielding an appreciable relief from taxation, has dwindled to an almost negligible sum, or exists as a permanent state debt on which interest is paid out of the taxes levied upon the present generation,” 38 said Dr. Swift in 1911. Currently wilderness groups not wanting trust lands inside potential wilderness areas, open space advocates without the financial resources to purchase school trust lands, developers not wanting to pay full market value, and a myriad of others may want to see the trust protection diminished. Western states may today be at a crossroads. History has shown what will happen to these valuable trusts without the watchful eye of beneficiaries and education leaders.

There are currently 45 million acres of school trust lands and over $72 billion39 in the permanent school funds remaining in mostly western states40. The eastern and mid-western states have sold their school lands and “diverted, squandered, wasted, and embezzled”41 the resulting funds. It is a matter of trust, and the awesome responsibility to guard and protect these trusts for the benefit of future generations is now squarely on the shoulders of trustees and beneficiaries in the states still holding these magnificent endowments for public schools.

37 Missouri Public School Report, 1870, p. VI...38 Swift, p. 11.39 As of FY 2014.40 Mississippi, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska all still have school trust lands.41 Swift, p. 11.

TEXAS SCHOOL TRUST LANDSFY 2014 Ending August 31, 2014

When Texas entered the Union as a state in 1845, Texas retained all of its public lands. In 1873, the Texas Legislature set aside one-half of the remaining public domain to benefit public schools. The Texas Permanent School Fund was created with a $2 million appropriation by the Texas Legislature in 1854, expressly to benefit public schools in Texas. The Permanent School Fund consists of all land and all revenues derived from the land or other properties appropriated for the support of public schools. Today, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) manages over 12 million acres of school mineral rights and over 760,000 school surface acres. Most of the lands are scattered in the western part of Texas near El Paso. Here is what was earned for schools last year:

Oil and gas generated $617,108,262 in FY 2014, surface uses added $10.9 million, minerals another $1 million and $86.4 million from other revenue sources. Texas has 10.35 miles out from shore as their seaward boundary. All revenue from these shoreline submerged lands also goes to schools.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 -

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

800,000,000

Gross Revenue from School Trust Lands

How does this revenue get to schools and benefit students? The Permanent School Fund investments generated $838.7 million in FY 2014 that was distributed to local school districts on a per-pupil basis. Since 2007 under the direction of the Land Commissioner, the General Land Office has invested the revenue from minerals, farming, grazing, and various other endeavors that are deposited into the Real

FY 2014 School Trust Revenue $715.4 million

Oil and Gas 86.3%

Surface Revenue 1.5%

Mineral Revenue 0.1%

Other Revenue 12.1%

Estate Special Fund Account (RESFA). This invested revenue is also part of the Permanent School Fund and in FY2014 returned $130 million to the Texas Education Agency portion of the PSF.

So for every dollar made in FY2014 from the lands by the GLO, here is where the dollar went:

States like Texas that invest all of their revenue in their school fund have more money to support schools, just as people who save have more money than those who spend. Prudent investments, compounded over time, generate greater returns for schools. The Texas Permanent School Fund is the largest school trust fund in the nation, and the second largest educational endowment. The net portion of the fund invested by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has grown to $30.7 billion. The net portion of the fund invested by the General Land Office (GLO) has grown to $4.3 billion. For FY 2014, The TEA returned 15.94% total time-weighted return from its investments and GLO returned 9.73%, inclusive of cash42. Because of the careful management and investment of the funds within both parts of the Permanent School Fund, $838.7 million was distributed directly to schools.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014$0

$5,000,000,000$10,000,000,000$15,000,000,000$20,000,000,000$25,000,000,000$30,000,000,000$35,000,000,000$40,000,000,000

Market Value of Permanent School Fund

Various states use trust funding differently. Wisconsin funds school libraries. Washington and Colorado build schools in rural parts of the state. Arizona funds classroom needs. Minnesota and South Dakota send much needed additional funding directly to each local school district. And Utah allows parents, teachers, and the principal elected in every school to develop programs to improve academic performance. All other states put the investment distribution to schools into the overall education funding pot, usually supplanting other revenue with that from the children’s trust.

FOR A MAP & INFO ON TEXAS, PLEASE VISIT THE CLASS WEBSITEAND THE WEBSITE OF THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE

A big thank you to Margaret for all the work she does trying to educate the people about their State Trust Lands!42 At August 31, 2014, the 5-year return for the GLO portion of the PSF, including cash, was 7.00%; the 5-year return for TEA-managed portion was 11.30%.

Management Expenses – 3% RESFA – 97%

In a November town hall meeting held in Marfa, TX, Senator Jose Rodriguez discussed how the Educational system and our State Universities are out of money. I asked him where did all of the billions of dollars generated from mineral interests owned by both Trusts go; he could not answer. When the Big Bend Sentinel interviewed him, he referred to me as being “combative”. I think we as Texans need to ask “Where are the hanging nooses for these treasonous thief’s?”

As recently written about in the Alpine Avalanche, Alpine, TX with a population of less than 5,000 recently had to add a $1,000,000 book entry deficit to their books for their portion of the shortfall not paid into the Texas Teachers Retirement Fund. Do this make any sense? When will TEXANS “wake-up”?