In “today’s world” the biggest challenge facing many a country is the dimension of leadership. Can the same be said of the “message world”? In “today’s world” we have people in leadership positions that is hell bent on self-preservation and not the preservation and growth of their country and its people they claim to serve. It is said that a true leader should constantly seek to improve his capacity to serve the people.

This notion for leaders to serve is a biblical one. The Holy Writ teaches: If you want to be great in God’s kingdom – you’ve got to learn to be the servant of all. One must learn to serve with dignity, humility and unscrupulous integrity. Open up any newspaper today and you will be hard pressed not to read about failed leadership for various reasons. Failure because of corruption, deceit, lies and the list goes on.

Sad to say, that in many quarters of “today’s message world” the same can be said of those in church leadership positions. It is never easy to do the right thing. But a true, pedigreed Christian that had been predestined from the roots will always be given grace to rise up and do it. It is expected of a message leader to be big enough to acknowledge and then to admit to his mistakes. Then smart enough to profit from them. But he needs to be strong enough to correct them. Is it “strong enough” or should we say “Christian enough”? Does this require “common decency” or “holy decency?”

Anyone who claims to follow Elijah will know that it is not an easy choice. But it is your choosing and because of this choice you should know that your reward is not down here. Of Malachi 4 it was said: A huge portion of heaven awaits you! Message leaders, let us live above reproach, let us live true to the requirements of the office of a bishop. Don’t let the message of Malachi 4 fall to the ground! Let us not conquer the laity. No! Let us serve them in humility. Jesus Christ was our True example. He came to serve and not to be served. He did not come via the Aaronic Priesthood, but he was a priest after the Order of Melchisedec and it was Melchisedec that served Abraham with bread and wine.

What you’re about to read is not something that should make any believer proud. Instead it should make us bow our heads in shame. But if the “message world” can learn from it, if it can set someone free, then this narrative would have served its purpose.

On 22 July 2012, bro Quintin brought allegations [1] of defrauding the taxman, dishonesty and financial mismanagement [2] against Pastor Twynham. The deacons and elders were conducting the inquiry because they have the authority to do so as per the scriptures and the Message. Bro Twynham promised to give his full cooperation with the investigation, but he made a complete turnabout after meeting with bro Preggy Pillay on the same day. What happened is for bro Twynham to answer. On 29 July 2012 bro Twynham made the allegations public from the pulpit without the investigation ever being completed and without him cooperating with the investigation. On this day he rejected the allegations and pronounced himself not guilty without there being any investigation whatsoever! This is contrary to the teachings of the scripture and the Message. On 5 August 2012, Bro Twynham “dismissed” the Deacon and Trustee boards unconstitutionally and contrary to the Message.

According to the teachings of Bro Branham and our 1978 Constitution [3] , the pastor has no authority to dissolve any board or dismiss a member on any board. The teachings of the Message are quite clear that only the Church as a whole can vote out an elected church official and according to Clause 4 the 1978 Constitution only the members collectively at a General Meeting can vote out an office bearer. The pastor would only have a single vote and not supreme authority. This is what bro Branham says: [4]

“ If you don’t like your pastor, and there’s two or three people gets something against the pastor, they can’t raise up. If they’re deacons, trustees, they just… Or what officer they are here they just got one vote; that’s all. If he’s assistant pastor, he’s just got one vote. He’s just like the lay member sets back there. The whole vote of the church settles the matter. No deacon board put a pastor out, or no pastor put a deacon board out. The church does that in a general vote of the whole thing. ”

“ In our church, it’s the sovereignty of the church. The church moves, or puts in the trustee, the church moves the pastor, or puts in the pastor, whatever it is, it is the church in all. That’s apostolic. That’s the way it was did in the Bible time. Therefore, we feel that no one person then is a dictator or something in the church. We don’t want that. Every man, every person, myself in voting in anyone, has just got one vote, just like any other person of the church here, just one vote. It isn’t what I say; it’s what the church says (See?) what the church says in the body. You like that? Oh, I think that’s just Scriptural. That’s the way it should be. ”

“We have no bishops and overseers, and boards and so forth, moves this one in and got a lot of authority. There’s nobody got authority here but the Holy Ghost. That’s right. He does the moving. And we take him as the majority of the people, the way the people go ”

Now you decide, is the Message correct or is bro Twynham correct? Bro Twynham’s attempt at the dismissal of the deacons and trustees was therefore substantively and procedurally incorrect and therefore remains invalid. But what could be the underlying motive for such an act? Is it to divide and conquer? Is it to ensure that an investigation is stopped in its tracks? No board, no investigation!

On Sunday 26 August 2012, at a Special General Meeting held at West End Community Centre, the church decided that bro Twynham should be suspended from his pastoral duties with full pay, pending the completion of the investigation into the allegations brought against him. On 28 August and 29 August 2012, bro Twynham was served a pre-suspension and a suspension letter respectively. The letters were on the church letter-head and not from any lawyer. On 30 August 2012, bro Twynham decided to take the law route and wrote us a lawyer’s letter refusing to abide by the suspension resolution citing the 1978 Constitution. Bro Twynham was now completely contrary to 1 Cor 6:1 that states:

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?”

We chose the saints (deacons and elders) but bro Twynham chose the law . Therefore, reluctantly, we had no choice but to consult an attorney. On Sunday 2 September 2012, he announced that a new trustee would be elected, once again unlawful and contrary to the Message. On 6 September 2012, bro Twynham was requested, through his lawyer, to stop the election of a trustee. He refused. On Friday 7 September 2012, we brought an urgent court application to stop the unlawful election of a new trustee, amongst other reliefs sought. (The Main Application). The High Court ruled in our favour to stop the election of a trustee pending the finalisation of the matter. The law dealt with the lawless as the scriptures demand.

The hearing of this application has been stalled because bro Twynham was adamant that a financial forensic audit first be conducted to prove the veracity of the allegations of dishonesty and financial mismanagement against him. To date this audit report has not yet been produced, this despite all records made available to him through the courts. Bro Twynham remains completely silent about the whereabouts of this report. He has deceived his supporters with this silly and money-wasting investigation of over R80 000. We are all aware that SARS, via the prosecuting authority, has brought a criminal case against bro Twynham for tax fraud after a very extensive investigation of over 6 months. This was after bro Quintin reported bro Twynham to SARS on 13 August 2012 for possible tax evasion and after Bro Twynham refused to subject himself to an investigation by the deacons and elders. The theft charge of church monies was added by the NPA, the prosecuting authority and not by bro Quintin. This charge was later dropped by the NPA after representations from bro Twynham’s lawyer. As a result of this unlawful conduct of bro Twynham, the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) brought a successful court application against him for a Restraint Order to seize his assets. The AFU acts when a potential crime has been committed. They make sure that crime does not pay. Bro Twynham was placed under curatorship and NOT the church as he and bro Preggy Pillay now claims.

Brother Twynham has been found guilty of 8 counts of tax fraud on 4 December 2015 in the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court (CCU) Port Elizabeth. The record of the judgment can be found at the below hyperlink. [7]

Magistrate Claassen in his judgement on pages 39 – 40 (para 7.5) found bro Twynham did NOT impress the court as a credible witness. He also found him to be evasive and contradictory. Magistrate Claassen further found:

‘ there is no evidence before the court that the accused (bro Twynham) ever seek clarification on his tax compliance from any person and that he then was incorrectly advice and or that he acted to his detriment because of this ill advice’

‘the accused (bro Twynham) use the money, contributions and tithes from his congregation as his personal piggy bank'.

The bible in I Timothy 3 demands that bro Twynham, as a bishop or pastor, be blameless, honest and not double-tongued. Instead the court found him to be evasive and contradictory. The scriptures also demand of a bishop not to be greedy of filthy lucre (money) instead the court found him to be reckless with the church’s monies and using it as ‘his personal piggy bank’

What a damning finding by an independent court based on the facts before it.

Surely a criminal record such as this scripturally disqualifies anyone from holding the office of a pastor. Unquestionably such a situation demands of any group of message believers to answer the question of Bro Branham namely: “Congregation, do you want to change your pastor?” Most definitely bro Twynham’s advisors and followers cannot be that blindly loyal^7.1as to not even question his suitability to hold the office of pastor given his criminal record? And what about the deafening silence of the Message pastors that deliberately turns a blind eye to this situation?

It is for this reason, “Congregation, do you want to change your pastor?” that bro John Adriaanse, our deacon on behalf of the concerned believers of PE Tabernacle, brought a Joinder Application wherein he simply asks that we be allowed to vote on the matter. It is abundantly clear that bro Twynham was not willing to subject himself to any local church authority, once again contrary to the scriptures and the Message. Bro Twynham opposed this joinder application unsuccessfully. The courts granted bro John’s motion to be joined to the Main Application. In this application bro John cited the disciplinary process to be followed as advocated by Bro Branham and the Bible [8] :

“Yes, we caught him drunk. Or, we caught him doing this, or doing something wasn’t right.”

“Them witnesses must first be tried. “Don’t receive an accusation against an elder ‘less it be of two or three witnesses, let them first be proved; against an elder.” Then you have to swear to it, that they saw it; and prove it, they saw it.

And then, if you did, then that sin is rebuked openly, that, “its wrong.” Then say “Congregation, do you want to change your pastor?”

And if the congregation votes, “Forgive him, and let him go on yet,” that’s the way it has to stand. See? That isn’t that fair enough the way to run a church? That’s what the Bible said. We have no bishops and overseers, and boards and so forth, moves this one in and got a lot of authority. There’s nobody got authority here but the Holy Ghost. That’s right. He does the moving. And we take him as the majority of the people, the way the people go.’

The Main Application (that was now reduced to a mere request that the church be allowed to vote) was finally heard in the High Court on 3 December 2015 after three long years of delaying tactics by Bro Twynham. The judge was very impressed with Bro Branham’s procedure for dealing with allegations against an elder. He described the honourable Reverend Branham as a fair man. This is EXACTLY the process the deacons and elders followed in July 2012 when bro Twynham stubbornly refused to subject himself to this Biblical process. The only step needed to complete the process was to bring the matter before the church and thereafter for the church to decide, through a voting process, if they wanted bro Twynham to continue as the pastor. This is apostolic!

Judgment in the Main Application was handed down on Tuesday 9 February 2016. Judge J. Smith ruled in our favour and made it a Court Order that there will be a General Meeting where members can discuss the misconduct of bro Twynham and vote on whether they still want him as pastor. The judgment is now a public document [9] available to anyone. It remains a puzzle to us as to how such a simple process (to resolve a dispute such as this in a message church) was so strongly opposed by the incumbent pastor. We as the concerned believers had to ask the courts to help us implement the message of our beloved prophet. What has happened to true leadership?

Has the gesture of Sarah Branham in an open letter to all message believers come true where she admonished?

“ I believe that the return of our Lord is very near. The things which are not right amongst God’s people must be straightened out immediately. If we are not willing to do so the law will have to do it for us .”

All of us who proclaim to follow the Message should be willing to straighten out the things which are not right amongst God’s people. Bro Branham expects of us to do so.

“Now, if there's anything wrong in the church that you ever know of, some individual or some person or anything, you are duty bound and will answer before God if you don't clear that thing out; you, the church. Now, remember, it's not on my shoulders. It's on yours. And anything wrong in the church, God will make you answer for it.”

(a) The first respondent (PE Tabernacle) must convene within 30 days from the date of this order, a general meeting of its members to allow the applicants (Bro Quintin Isaacs and bro John Adriaanse) to present allegations of misconduct by the second respondent (bro Twynham);

(b) The bona fide members of the first respondent (PE Tabernacle) attending the meeting must be called upon to vote on whether or not disciplinary action should be instituted against the second respondent (bro Twynham) and if so, the procedure to be adopted in respect thereof.’

I am of the view that it will suffice under the circumstances for the First Respondent (PE Tabernacle) to call a general meeting within a prescribed period, and that the existing office bearers of the First Respondent must be allowed to arrange and conduct the meeting in accordance with its procedures.’

Please note that as with all the other arrangements for the general meeting, Judge Smith J opted to leave the determination of the qualification of who would be able to vote in the court sanctioned general meeting as bona fide members, to the ‘existing office bearers’.

There was an agreement between bro Twynham and us to have the General Meeting on Saturday 5 March 2016. However, on the afternoon of 3 March 2016, bro Twynham delivered his latest version of the membership list. This new list had more than 200 new names that neither the leadership nor the believers had ever heard of. There was no time to check the truthfulness of bro Twynham’s claim that these persons were members of PE Tabernacle before this general meeting. This sudden increase in the membership list was all the more suspicious because bro Twynham had originally filed a membership list of 360 members in the Main Application. Subsequently he had increased the list a few times, each time it included people, who it seemed, had little connection with the church. As a result this first general meeting was postponed.

An impasse arose between the parties as a result of this postponement. On 2^nd March 2016, the Concerned Believers wrote to bro Twynham using the church’s letterhead, to demand an office bearers meeting to make the necessary arrangements for the general meeting, in an attempt to comply with the court order. This was an attempt to break the impasse. Bro Twynham simply ignored this letter and his attorney took exception to this letter because we had addressed his client directly. The deadline set by Judge Smith J came and went.

On 13 April 2016, a month and a half after the deadline that Smith J had set for the general meeting to take place, the Concerned Believers wrote to bro Twynham’s attorney recording that:

The letter set out the proposed arrangements for an office bearers meeting. The reason that the office bearers and Concerned Believers took matters into their hands was because, PE Tabernacle and its members had not yet complied with the court’s judgement, and it had become urgent to ensure compliance with the order. Bro Twynham was given the choice of dates between the 18, 19 and 21 April 2016 for the meeting. A proposed agenda was attached to the letter. This agenda set out all the aspects upon which the office bearers needed to decide upon in order to arrange the general meeting.

On 15 April 2016 we wrote bro Twynham another letter via his attorney to reiterate that the office bearers meeting had to go ahead in order to comply with Smith J’s judgement and that it will happen on 21 April 2016.

On 19^th April 2016, two days before the office bearers meeting bro Twynham launched an urgent application in the High Court, seemingly in the name of PE Tabernacle, to interdict (stop) the office bearers meeting from going ahead. This brand new application was brought under case number 1295/2016. The matter was eventually heard at 16:00 on Thursday afternoon 21 April 2016, just before the office bearers meeting was to take place. The application was dismissed at 17:30 that same afternoon, by Judge Tshiki J with costs. Bro Twynham had wasted a further R200 000.

The office bearers meeting was able to go ahead as planned. The reasons for the judgement of Tshiki J were subsequently issued. This judgement is found at the below link. [11]

The office bearers meeting went ahead as planned that same evening, in the board room of the Town Lodge in Summerstrand. The meeting commenced at 20:05. The meeting was attended by Dean Murray, a local independent attorney, who chaired the meeting at our insistence. This was to facilitate the smooth running and to also ensure that the meeting would be conducted in a civil and procedurally fair manner. All parties present at the meeting agreed that Murray should chair the meeting.

All of the ‘existing office bearers’, in other words those who held office in 2012, attended the office bearers’ meeting. A total of 13 office bearers were in attendance. These were bro Twynham (pastor), Harry Van Rooyen, Manie Francis, John Adriaanse, Peter Minnaar, Joel Felix, Norman Van Buchenrode (deacons) and Stanford Boucher, Bruce Jordaan, Rodger Thomas, Quintin Isaacs, Peter Peters and Lindsay Nicholson (trustees). Also present were the respective legal representatives of the parties.

The agenda items that had to be dealt with in order to arrange the general meeting, were decided on by agreement and where there was any disagreement, these issues were put to a vote. The minutes of this meeting can be found at the link below. [12]

The following are the most important decisions taken at this meeting, with respect to the arrangement of the court ordered general meeting:

· The general meeting would take place on 28 May 2016 at Andrew Rabie High School;

· Dean Murray as the independent chairperson would preside over the general meeting as well as the determination of membership lists and registration;

· the length of time bro Quintin Isaacs and bro John Adriaanse would be allowed to address the meeting on the disciplinary accusations against bro Twynham;

· the length of time that bro Twynham would be allowed to reply to the disciplinary charges;

· that the vote as to whether bro Twynham should be disciplined would be taken by secret ballot; and

Since there was no agreement on the exact composition of the membership list of PE Tabernacle, and who would be entitled to vote, the office bearers approved the membership criteria in accordance with Clause 2 of the 1978 Constitution. This clause is in perfect harmony with criteria used by bro Branham in Placing of Deacons [13] paragraphs 1 and 25. This decision was accepted by a majority of 8 votes for and 5 votes against at the office bearers’ meeting. Bro Twynham and his group voted against their own constitution and the Message.

Each group had to submit financial records for the last two years to the independent chairperson and from these records membership lists were supposed to be prepared in order to prevent any falsification of membership lists. We submitted our financial records and membership list by the agreed due date but bro Twynham failed to submit any financial records or a membership list. In a letter addressed to our attorney bro Twynham stated that the records are in possession of the curator because PE Tabernacle was under curatorship. This is a blatant lie! The curator, Mr Mike Timkoe, in a reply email to our attorney confirmed that bro Twynham was under curatorship and not PE Tabernacle.

Bro Twynham went ahead with his meeting of interested persons on 15 May 2016, this is despite our attorneys writing him a letter to record that the meeting can only be a meeting of interested parties and cannot be a general meeting, because a general meeting is only possible if the membership of PE Tabernacle was already in place. Furthermore, bro Twynham was warned that this course of action was in contempt of Smith J’s judgement, which prescribed that it was the ‘existing office bearers’, who were to make the arrangements regarding the general meeting, not a meeting of interested parties, who may or may not be members.

We found a notice for this meeting in the local newspaper, The Herald on 29 April 2016. The notice, advertised this meeting as a special general meeting. This was a grievous contravention of Judge Smith J’s judgement.

We have managed to obtain an audio recording of this meeting and have made a transcript of the meeting. Bro Pillay chaired the meeting and was at all times acting on the instruction and with a mandate from bro Twynham. Their purpose of the meeting was to have the membership criteria of Clause 2 of the 1978 Constitution suspended without having regard for Clause 12 which stipulates how the Constitution should be amended.

Only a properly constituted general meeting can take resolutions such as suspending the enforcement of membership criteria as enshrined in the 1978 Constitution. Furthermore, there was certainly no notice issued ten days before the meeting, as prescribed by the constitution, that the application of a clause of the constitution was to be suspended. The resolution taken at this meeting therefore had no force and effect as the resolutions were not taken at a properly constituted general meeting. The General Meeting called for Sunday 29 May 2016 has therefore no legal basis because it was attended by persons whose apparent membership is in contravention of Clause 2 of the 1978 Constitution.

At this very same meeting of 15 May 2016 blatant lies were told. Bro Pillay told the meeting:

‘we looked at the criteria, we look at the criteria that stipulate in section 2 that deals with regular attendance together. That became a problem for everybody, including the other faction or the concerns raised tithing to be paid into the storehouse of this church has been a problem because tithing has been done separately and we have been under curatorship since 10 December 2013.’

It is completely false that PE Tabernacle was ever under curatorship. Bro Pillay also claimed to those attending this meeting, that the 1978 Constitution does not make provision for deacon boards and trustee boards. This is also patently false, clause 6(b) of the 1978 Constitution provides that one of the duties of the pastor is:

Bro Pillay rejects the decision taken by the office bearers, that in order to qualify to vote at the general meeting, they had to have tithed in the previous two years and that financial records should be provided to the independent chairperson to confirm this. He maintained that:

‘ with tension amongst us around finances and being under curatorship by Mr Mike Timkoe for the last three years, it is impossible for us to even use this criteria of tithings and offering to be characteristics, amen.’

‘ So now, without breaking Section 2 of the constitution and without legalistically following it because we were under curatorship, one and number two, we have no records.’

These statements are false and devoid of all truth, especially if the absence of financial records is attributed to the alleged curatorship of PE Tabernacle. It was bro Twynham who was under curatorship not the church.

It would appear that this meeting was arranged by bro Twynham and his associates to nullify the authority to arrange the general meeting from the ‘existing office bearers’. The actions of bro Twynham and bro Pillay were designed to try and flout the judgement of Smith J and could be seen as contempt of the High Court.

In arranging the General Meeting ordered by the High Court we endeavoured to comply with all the decisions taken at the office bearers meetings of 21 April 2016.

On Saturday 28 May 2016 the bona fide members of PE Tabernacle held the General Meeting where they voted to take disciplinary steps against bro Twynham for defrauding the taxman, mismanagement of church funds and dishonesty. These are very serious allegations. On this day both bro John Adriaanse our deacon, and bro Quintin Isaacs our trustee, presented condemning evidence to proof these allegations. As a consequence the members voted to have bro Twynham removed from his pastoral office in accordance with the Message [14] ^{,

[15]

,

[16]} ,nominated and voted in bro David Cupido as the new pastor.

The General Meeting was a court ordered meeting based on a judgment delivered by the honourable judge Smith J on 9 February 2016. The judge mandated the existing office bearers to arrange and conduct this meeting and not bro Twynham or bro Pillay. Any other GM arranged by these two has no force and effect and is in contempt of the judgment of Smith J.

At their GM of Sunday 29 May bro Pillay and bro Twynham told the attendees that PE Tabernacle was under curatorship. They lied! Bro Twynham was under curatorship and not the church. Listen to the recording of their meeting to convince yourself.

This meeting had no connection whatsoever with the arrangements made by the office bearers, at the meeting on 21 April 2016 and was not a general meeting of PE Tabernacle and all decisions taken there had no force or effect.

It is extremely unfortunate that bro Twynham and his group of office bearers, and especially bro Pillay, decided to ignore the resolutions taken at the office bearers meeting on 21 April 2016. This meant that many of his followers who may have been able to vote in the general meeting ordered by Smith J, did not because bro Twynham and bro Pillay mislead them about the legal position as well as the true position of PE Tabernacle, and persuaded them to exclude themselves from the court sanctioned process.

Bro Twynham and bro Pillay lied about the financial and legal position of PE Tabernacle, to those who would have been entitled to vote. It is simply not true that PE Tabernacle was ever under curatorship. The Honourable High Court granted a restraint order against bro Twynham and only he was placed under curatorship.

There was simply no excuse for bro Twynham not to keep proper financial records of the income he received for and on behalf of the church, through the receipt of tithes and offerings at meetings of his faction of PE Tabernacle for the last few years. He was under obligation to keep proper financial records by the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 because PE Tabernacle is registered as a public benefit organisation and is exempted from paying taxes.

Bro Twynham has already been convicted of 8 counts of tax fraud on 4 December 2015 in the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court (CCU) Port Elizabeth, but it seems that even after this conviction there is still no record of the tithes and offerings that came in, or how much of the money he took for himself.

He was convicted of tax fraud after failing to keep proper account, which facilitated his evasion of tax.His failure to keep proper records of the income received on behalf of PE Tabernacle, after he was convicted of tax fraud, warrants an adverse credibility finding.

Bro Twynham, led by bro Pillay and his office bearers, arranged two alternate meetings that they alleged were general meetings. This meant that their followers did not know that the general meeting which the ‘existing office bearers’ arranged for PE Tabernacle for 28 May was the correct one. If anyone is to blame for denying any potential voters a vote at the properly constituted general meeting, on who the pastor should be, it was bro Twynham and his associates. 362 persons were misled to vote not to take disciplinary steps against a convicted criminal whose life is not above reproach as the scripture demands in I Timothy 3:2:

Brother Twynham applied to the presiding magistrate for leave to appeal his conviction for tax fraud and he also petitioned the Grahamstown High Court against his conviction. Both his application for leave to appeal and his petition against his conviction have been dismissed. Despite his conviction on tax fraud which enjoyed extensive publicity and him being voted out at a properly constituted general meeting, he continues to claim to be pastor of PE Tabernacle.

Surely a criminal record such as this would scripturally disqualify anyone from holding the office of a pastor.

The untenable situation brought upon us by failed leadership for the last 4 years is nearing the end. Bro Twynham and his office bearers must now face up to the reality of the situation. They have however continued as if nothing has happened with their scant disregard for legal processes.

…To restore, means, "to bring back." Or, to restore, a--a claim can be enforced, now, to bring anything back to its rightful owner, where it belongs. Therefore, some way, it went away from its rightful owner, and can wander around anywhere. But, to restore, is to bring it back to it who really owns it, or to bring it back to its natural estate where it was at the first time, bring it back into its natural condition. In order to do this, we have a right to enforce, if there's a law, to enforce this rightful condition of restoration, to restore.

There is a South African law to enforce our rightful position and this step has now been put in motion to compel bro Twynham and his office bearers to stand down and to restore all church property to the rightful owner, the believers of PE Tabernacle and its new pastor.

You will no doubt be told more lies but the court records are conclusive and overwhelming. Need more truthful information? Please consult all the hyperlink references we have included in this communique.

[1] http://www.fallnicolaitism.co.za/documents/QPILetter.html

[2] http://www.fallnicolaitism.co.za/documents/QPITestomony.html

[3] http://www.fallnicolaitism.co.za/documents/PETabernacleConstitution20160906.html

[4] Baptism of the Holy Spirit 58-0928M para 186

[5] A Super Sense 59-1227E para 15

[6] Hebrews Chapter 7(#2) 57-0922E para 289

[7] http://www.fallnicolaitism.co.za/documents/SvsT20160119.html

^7.1 Influence pg 12 par 89 64-0315

[8] Hebrews Chapter 7(#2) 57-0922E para 283-289; 1 Tim 5:19-20

[9] http://www.fallnicolaitism.co.za/documents/JudgeSmithJudgement.html

[10] Hebrews Chapter 7(#2) 57-0922E para 292

[11] http://www.fallnicolaitism.co.za/documents/JudgeTshiki20160906.html

[12] http://www.fallnicolaitism.co.za/documents/MinsOBM21April20160906.html

[13] Placing of Deacons 57-0820E para 1 & 25

[14] Baptism of the Holy Spirit 58-0928M para 186

[15] A Super Sense 59-1227E para 15

[16] Hebrews Chapter 7 (#2) 57-0922E para 289