So… WHATS IN IT?! Letter From Art Tafoya To Sanchez & GB (English) Then (Spanish)

Art Requests A Committee Of Honor & Justice (English Only)

Official Response From The GB To The Emails From Bishop Arturo Tafoya (English) And (Spanish)

GB Response To Tafoya’s March 26th Letter. (English Only)

Tafoya’s Reply To Sanchez & GB Following March 21st Response (English) And (Spanish)

GB asks ‘What Violations?’ (English) And (Spanish)?

Art Asks About The Bogus Investigation Conducted By The GB (English) And (Spanish)

Follow Up Letter From March 26th 2007

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank You To EVERYONE Supports R4J

Special Thanks To Johnny Cocrane For Releasing These Letters

Bishop President Daniel G. Sánchez 3/16/07 Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus 10807 Laurel Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Bishop President Sánchez and Episcopal Body: Greetings in Jesus Name! I’ve had the blessing of being raised in an apostolic household. It was there that the Lord allowed me to become aware of His love and mercy. I have been on this joyful journey for 45 years and counting. On this journey, I have gone through the process that all His children go through, some glorious and some bad ones as well. During this journey, I experienced the call into ministry of which 26 years has been as a credentialed pastor of the Apostolic Assembly. I am writing with a very heavy heart and a lot of prayer as it relates to the process of the elections at the General Convention held in Long Beach, California last November, 2006. The outcome of said elections has provoked two things: 1. The morale of our pastors is low and is generating a spirit of illness. This first aspect is totally opposed to the theme of the Road Map which is: “Healthy Pastors - Healthy Assembly”. No doubt you have received copies of the letters floating out in cyberspace that verifies this. Furthermore, the letter that was generated by Bishop Daniel Jauhall from the Oregon District, also mentions this point. 2. The Honorable General Board has lost its credibility and respect due to its alleged abuse of power at our electoral convention. One of the most important elements of leadership is trust and at this point there is little to none as it pertains to the Honorable General Board. You cannot impart what you do not possess. Therefore, I humbly request to you as Bishop of the Arizona District and as one of your corporate assistants to initiate what the Constitution of the Apostolic Assembly states to be done in a case of this nature. In my humble opinion the Constitution of the Apostolic Assembly was violated namely Article 5 “The Qualifying Commission”. My request is thus:

1. The establishment of a “Committee of Honor and Justice” as it pertains to Article 39 to investigate with all of its privileges and responsibilities what I am ascertaining as fact.

2. The chair of this committee to be an emeritus bishop such as Baldemar

Rodriguez, Benjamin Quiroz and to them to be given liberty to choose the men that will do the necessary inquiry of the questioned election process. This request is made because the men stated in this article as to who should be in this committee themselves are in question therefore compromising their objectivity.

1

Pastor Rodriguez/Quiroz and the committee should be released to have full authority to investigate the ethics and actions of the qualifying board. 3. This committee be given 60 days to do an inquiry and report back to the

Honorable General Board and Bishops. 4. I also request that the “oath of secrecy” that the qualifying board and others took

be done away with. Please give all who were involved freedom to share what really took place and remove the cloud that is looming over us.

We must stop the disgrace and embarrassment being brought to the Apostolic Assembly. There are many questions that need to be answered and if the heart is clean then let the light shine and bring healing to our church. The beloved writer John said: “And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God. (I John 3:19-21). I understand that 80% of the district supervisors will be replaced at the their corresponding district conventions due to term limits and I hope this issue will be handled appropriately before the first district convention which is upcoming. I am proposing that the entire ministerial body of the Apostolic Assembly unite with me with a day of fasting and prayer for our church on Sunday March 25, 2007 so that the Lord can bring true healing to us as He would want us to be. Once again the beloved Apostle John says it best: “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” (III John 2). It is a sad indictment against us because there are some of us who are intimitaded and fearful to address actions such as these to our authories due to the fear of being marked, I pray this is not so with me. As you can appreciate my journey with the Apostolic Assembly has been long and worth the while and have written this with the fear of the Lord, humilty and with love. God have mercy on us… Bishop Arthur L Tafoya Cc: Episcopal Body Obispo Presidente Daniel G. Sánchez Asamblea Apostólica de la Fe en Cristo Jesús 10807 Laurel Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730

2

Estimado Obispo Presidente Sánchez: ¡Paz de Cristo! Tuve la bendición de haber sido creado en un hogar apostólico. Fue allí donde el Señor me permitió saber de Su amor y misericordia. He estado en esta jornada gozosa por 45 años y sigo contando. En esta jornada he pasado por el proceso que todos Sus hijos pasan, algunas gloriosas y otras malas también. Durante esta jornada, experimente el llamamiento al ministerio de los cuales 26 años han sido con las credenciales pastorales de la Asamblea Apostólica. Estoy escribiendo con un corazón muy pesado y con mucha oración al relacionarse con el proceso de las elecciones en la Convención General llevado acabo en Long Beach, California este último Noviembre, 2006. El resultado de dicha elección ha provocado dos cosas: 1. La moral del pastorado esta muy bajo y esta generando un espíritu de enfermedad. Este primer aspecto esta totalmente opuesto al tema del Road Map que es: “Pastores Sanos – Asamblea Sana”. Sin duda usted ha recibido copias de las cartas que han estado en el ciberespacio que verifica esto. Además, la carta que fue generada por el Obispo Daniel Jauhall del Distrito de Oregon, también menciona este punto. 2. La Honorable Mesa Directiva ha perdido su credibilidad y respeto dado a su alegado abuso de poder en nuestra convención electoral. Uno de los elementos más importantes del liderazgo es la confianza y ha este punto hay muy poca o casi nada en lo que respecta a la Honorable Mesa Directiva. Usted no puede impartir lo que no posee. Entonces, humildemente solicito como Obispo del Distrito de Arizona y como uno de sus asistentes corporales que inicie lo que la Constitución de la Asamblea Apostólica dice que se debe hacer en un caso de esta naturaleza. En mi humilde opinión la Constitución de la Asamblea Apostólica fue violada a saber el Articulo 5 “La Comisión Calificadora”. Mi solicitud es esta: 1. El establecimiento de un “Un Comité de Honor y Justicia” que compete al Artículo 39 para investigar con todos sus privilegios y responsabilidades lo que estoy acertando como verdad. 2. El presidente de este comité pueda ser un obispo emérito como Baldemar Rodríguez o Benjamín C. Quiroz y que ellos tengan la libertad de escoger a los hombres que harán la investigación necesaria del cuestionado proceso electoral. Esta solicitud es hecha por que los oficiales mencionados en este artículo que deben integrar este comité están en cuestión entonces comprometiendo su objetividad. Pastor Rodríguez/Quiroz y el comité deben ser dados la libertad en tener toda la autoridad para investigar la ética y acciones de la mesa calificadora. 3. Este comité tenga 60 días para ser su indagación y reportar a la Honorable Mesa Directiva y a los Obispos. 4. Además solicito que el “juramento de secreto” que tomo la mesa calificadora

3

4

y otros sea quitado. Favor de dar a todos los envueltos la libertad de compartir lo que realmente sucedió y quitar la nube que se esta asombrando sobre nosotros. Necesitamos que la desgracia y vergüenza siendo traída a la Asamblea Apostólica pare. Hay muchas preguntas que necesitan ser respondidas y si el corazón esta limpio entonces hay que dejar que la luz brille y traiga sanidad a nuestra iglesia. El estimado Apóstol Juan dice: “Y en esto conocemos que somos de la verdad, y aseguraremos nuestros corazones delante de él; pues si nuestro corazón nos reprende, mayor que nuestro corazón es Dios, y él sabe todas las cosas. Amados, si nuestro corazón no nos reprende, confianza tenemos en Dios;” (I Juan 3:19-21). Entiendo que 80% de los obispos supervisores serán reemplazados en sus convenciones distritales correspondientes dado al limite de su término y espero que este asunto sea tratado apropiadamente antes de la primera convención distrital que esta próxima. Estoy proponiendo que todo el cuerpo ministerial de la Asamblea Apostólica se una conmigo en un día de oración y ayuno para nuestra iglesia el domingo 25 de marzo del 2007 para que el Señor traiga verdadera sanidad como Él quiere que estemos. Una vez más el amado Apóstol Juan lo dice mejor: “Amado, yo deseo que tú seas prosperado en todas las cosas, y que tengas salud, así como prospera tu alma. (III Juan 2). Es una triste acusación en contra de nosotros por que hay algunos de nosotros que somos intimidados y temerosos al dirigir acciones como estas a nuestras autoridades dado el temor de ser marcados, oro que no sea así conmigo. Como pueden apreciar mi jornada con la Asamblea Apostólica ha sido larga valiendo la pena y lo he escrito con el temor de Dios, humildad y con amor. Dios tenga misericordia sobre nosotros… Obispo Arthur L. Tafoya XC: Cuerpo Episcopal

Dear President Sanchez and Episcopal Body: 3/18/2007 Once again I greet you in Jesus Name! My last letter to you consisted of the request of the formation of the “Honor and Justice Committee” which I believe we must pursue if healing is to come to our Assembly. During the last administration under your watch you established the Road Map strategy which will guide us through a few more years until the year 2011. This was what the Holy Ghost spoke to you and you presented it to the then Honorable General Board, Episcopal Body and finally to the Pastors for their corresponding approval. The strategy has evolved from there in its infancy stages until now under the heading of “Healthy Pastors, Healthy Assembly”. We commend you for this. Also, I am reminded of your statement to us in a ministerial meeting where you mentioned of the need for “us to get our house in order.” This statement was made in our ministerial meeting at Long Beach, California at our 2005 convention. This challenge to us ministers of our church, the Apostolic Assembly, still resonates in my heart. Having stated the above, in my opinion the Road Map strategy has suffered a major setback due to the electoral process. In my humble estimation the commencement of getting the house in order must begin from the proverbial top and filters down to the bottom. We need to focus on what is most important at this time and it is the need for getting the house in order and then healing to the pastors. Therefore, I am proposing that the Road Map Regional Seminars that have been planned for our Assembly in our nation throughout this year be temporally postponed until order is restored at the top. My proposal consists of a concern that we (the most important person in the church) “the pastor” might not want to make the necessary investment of time and money for these events due to the lack of motivation from the grassroots men. Again, (pastors) who will make small effort to go to these events given the set of circumstances that we are presently in. . The Holy Spirit through the pen of His vessel wrote: “He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds: From following the ewes’ great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skillfulness of his hands.” (Psalm 78:70-72). ” Let’s continue to be men of integrity and walk in the light of truth. I pray that this proposition will be corresponded to and begin to make amends to bring closure to this issue that has provoked a lot of concern, confusion and conflict to many who love our Assembly. In Jesus Name! Bishop Arthur L. Tafoya Arizona District Cc: Episcopal Body

1

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus Translation of Original Document Dated March 21, 2007

OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE GENERAL BOARD TO THE E-MAIL FROM

BISHOP ARTURO TAFOYA

March 21, 2007 Dear Bishop Arturo Tafoya, peace of Christ.

In reply to your e-mail to the Bishop President Daniel Sanchez and the Episcopal Body, dated March 16, 2007, We, the General Board of Directors of the Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, in the honest spirit of prayer, with all respect but with all firmness respond to you the following:

1. “Request for the establishment of a Commission of Honor and Justice”.

Our Constitution establishes in article 39, sections III and IV that a Commission of Honor and Justice be constituted when the Bishop President, a member of the General Board of Directors, or a Bishop Supervisor has violated the Constitution. To process your request we ask that you specify the following:

a) What articles were violated? Indicate the specific section of the articles that were violated in your opinion.

b) Explain why and how they were violated. c) Provide evidence of the presumed violations (proof, witnesses)

When the General Board of Directors receives the above mentioned information, it will examine the evidence to decide to proceed or not in setting up a Commission of Honor and Justice as is indicated in sections III and IV of article 39.

2. Note that [ eventhough ] you hope to protect the integrity of the Constitution,

but your request to designate different ministers others to those indicated in sections III and IV of article 39 for a Commission of Honor and Justice, violates the Constitution in the mentioned article. If a Commission of Honor and Justice is to be established, it will be set up in accordance to what is stipulated. Said commission will work in accordance to the spirit of article 39, which sets as its first goal to correct and rectify the conduct of whom has committed the violation.

3. Your e-mail is defamatory in different points. Without even presenting any

evidence to form a Commission of Honor and Justice nor await your ruling, you insult the Bishop President, defame the whole General Board of Directors and question the ethic of the Qualifying Committee without showing proof. Even more, you fail from the beginning in following the steps that are set forth by the Constitution in article 36, section VII which orders:

“Accusations against members of the General Board of Directors, district

bishops and auxiliary elders shall be presented in writing and in duplicate to

1

2

the Bishop President or, in his absence, to the Bishop Vice-President, and include the signatures of no less than two accusers (1 Timothy 5:19)”

To sum it up, please show evidence that the people you are accusing have violated the Constitution. If you wish to make a formal accusation, send your letter with your proof by certified mail to the General Offices and personally sign your letter. We are responding to your e-mail which lacks your own handwritten signature as a sign of courtesy since e-mail is not a formal means for these procedures. Note also that we are only sending copy to the bishop supervisors without involving ministers not connected to this procedure. 4. Answers to your different commentaries.

a) “The Pastoral morale is very low” This is your personal opinion and reflects your feelings. Bishop Tafoya, you can not speak on behalf of all pastors of the Apostolic Assembly. You would be surprised of the enormous quantity of e-mails, telephone calls, and personal conversations by which healthy* apostolic pastors ask us with enthusiasm to continue forward. b) “Without doubt you have received copies of the letters that have

been in cyberspace that verify this”. In The Apostolic Assembly, anonymous letters never have had any value. Only when a letter is signed can value be given to it. We never accept anonymous letters to verify anything. c) “The Honorable General Board of Directors has lost its credibility

and respect given to its alleged abuse of power” This is your personal opinion, and not having it accompanied with proof, it is a grave defamation of honor. We require that you retract and apologize in writing with respect to it. d) “You cannot give what you do not posses” We advise you not to take the place of God, who is the only one who knows the ** heart (Psalms 44:20-21) e) “I request that the swearing to secrecy…” History of our elections has taught that the work of the Qualifying Committee requires confidentiality. The Constitution does not mark any process to break the commitment of confidentiality.

Final Commentaries: Bishop Tafoya, keep in mind that section V of article 5 provides for opportunity

for any minister with a right to vote, to present any objection that he would have against any candidate for the Qualifying Committee “after the candidates have been announced and before they have been presented in prayer” in the moment of the elections. You had the opportunity to object to each candidate throughout the entire process and you did not do it, neither did any of the other hundreds of pastors that were there.

On the other hand, you accepted to be candidate, for two positions in the General Board of Directors with the approval of the Qualifying Commission to which you are now questioning its “ethics and actions”.

3

In your final paragraph, you mention feeling “intimidated and fearful”. We remind you that according to Romans 16:17, what we should fear and avoid is being instruments of division.

* adjective for healthy can also mean “wholesome” ** ”the secrets of” are lacking as the bible passage states but quote lacks With respect to your invitation to pray and fast, due to challenges of an

administration that is beginning, know that we have remained in prayer and fasting together with our support of a large network of pastors that every day are fasting and praying for us.

Finally, Bishop Tafoya, in spite of the firmness of our response, we remind you that all pastors and bishops have open doors to the General Offices to make an appointment with us and converse in the most brotherly spirit.

We have nothing to be fearful of or to be embarrassed about of our Qualifying Committee, who is devoted to the Constitution and to the document “Capabilities, Qualities, and Rights”, a document that you approved as bishop March 9, 2005 in the Group Meeting in Ontario California and that you approved as official document in the General Convention in Long Beach California. We remind you to reread that mentioned document.

Summons: Bishop Tafoya, The General Board of Directors officially requires your presence on April 18, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in the General Offices so that you can personally present your accusation duly accompanied with evidence. In the case you decide to withdraw your accusation, we ask you that you indicate it in writing and that you bring this letter personally to this appointment. Sincerely, General Board of Directors: <signature> <signature> Daniel Sanchez Samuel Valverde Bishop President Bishop Vice President <signature> <signature> Eduardo Pacheco Leobardo Maffey Bishop Secretary General Bishop General Treasurer <signature> <signature> Arturo Espinosa Abel Aguilar Bishop Secretary of Bishop Secretary of Foreign Missions National Missions <signature> <signature> Ismael Martin Del Campo Victor Prado Bishop Secretary of Bishop Secretary of Christian Education Social Assistance

4

Qualifying Board (Electoral Convention 2006 – Long Beach, CA): <signature> <signature> Daniel Sanchez Samuel Valverde Bishop President Bishop Vice President <signature> <signature> Arturo Espinosa Celestino Guzman Secretary Bishop of District Bishop of Mid-West Foreign Missions <signature> Felipe Gaxiola District Bishop of North Central California

Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus Translation of Original Document Dated March 21, 2007

Summary: Copy of Letter to Bishops regarding Bishop Tafoya’s E-Mail

March 21, 2007 Dear Bishops: We greet you in the name of our Lord Jesus with the glorious Peace of Christ! This letter is to inform you of the following matters related to our beloved church. Attached, find the following:

1. Official answer from the General Board of Directors to the e-mail sent by Bishop Arturo Tafoya dated March 16, 2007.

2. Official answer from the General Board of Directors to the letter sent by Bishop

Daniel Jauhall dated March 3rd, 2007 Also, we inform you that categorically we will not be proceeding with the suggestion of Bishop Arturo Tafoya to postpone the Church Roadmap Seminars. They will be held, God willing, just as how they were programmed for in the four regions of the country. On the contrary, we feel very excited for the large number of pastors and ministers that have registered, as of yesterday, more than 636. Nonetheless, in case the suggestion of Bishop Tafoya caused some doubt or distraction for attending these events, WE ARE EXTENDING THE REGISTRATION DATE TO MARCH 30, 2007. With respect to that, within a few days we will send you more promotional information. It is important to register those that will be attending so they can receive their study notebook. Extraordinary Episcopal Reunion We are arranging to meet all bishops at the Episcopal reunion on April 18th, 2007 from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. This will take place in the Hilton Hotel located at 700 N. Have Ave, Ontario, CA 91764 1-800-346-8357. In this meeting, the topic to be discussed will be elections of the General Board of Directors that will take place November 23, 2006* in the city of Long Beach, California. We wish to give you all thanks for your prayer, backing, and support. Your calls and [ other ] communications inspire us to move forward in the name of the Lord Faithfully, General Board of Directors [ signature ] [ signature ] Daniel Sanchez Samuel Valverde Bishop President Bishop Vice President [ signature ] [ signature ] Eduardo Pacheco Leobardo Maffey 5

Bishop General Secretary Bishop General Treasurer [ signature ] [ signature ] Arturo Espinosa Abel Aguilar Bishop Secretary of Foreign Missions Bishop Secretary of National Missions [ signature ] [ signature ] Ismael Martin Del Campo Victor Prado Bishop Secretary of Christian Education Bishop Secretary of Social Assistance * < Note from translator: Date in letter is 2006 which is probably an error by the author >

6

 

 

 

 

April 18, 2007 Bishop President Daniel G. Sánchez, Honorable General Board and Episcopal Body 10807 Laurel Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Members of the Honorable General Board and Episcopal Body: We greet you in the name of Jesus Christ. Praying and trusting that you and your loved ones are in good health! Let me begin my remarks by thanking you for the response that my request letter (March 16, 2007) generated in the request of the establishment of the “Committee of Honor and Justice”. Also, with my presence here today, I correspond to your citation of this meeting and request that all the dialogue be focused on the three questions you asked, which I will with the Lord’s help answer respectfully in due course. First with regard to your response to me in your letter dated March 21, 2007, you allude to the element of offense which is repeated numerous times throughout your response to me. It has never been my intention, and I pray that it will never be, to offend anyone, much less our organizational leaders. Perhaps the words I used regarding the credibility of the Honorable General Board and abuse of power were ill-chosen and if they were found to be offensive, then I beseech your forgiveness. Nonetheless, the spirit of our request-that a Committee of Honor and Justice be created- still stands. Secondly, prior to me sending the e-letter to all the members of the Honorable General Board and Episcopal Body, we sent an e-mail directly to Bishop President Sánchez. The Bishop President responded to me with these words: 3/16/07 Bishop Tafoya, ¡PdC! Thank you for your heads-up. This is the first real letter with any substance to consult the Constitution. I will pass your recommendations under advisement and give you an official response in the next week or so. God Bless dgsánchez (Please see attached copy of the e-mail, emphasis is mine). As we read his response to my e-mail, I did not read from his text that my letter was out of order much less an accusation. Furthermore, in your March 27, 2007 letter to me you stated the following: “If you wish to make a formal accusation, send your letter with your proof, via certified mail to the General Offices and sign your personal letter.” Once again, our letter to you was never intended as an instrument of accusation but of concern and recommendations as you received it.

1

I now respond to your questions which we hope and pray you will correspond to our request. They are as follows:

1. What articles were violated? In our opinion the 2007 Apostolic Assembly’s

Constitution Articles 4 Clauses II and XII; Article 5 Clauses I-V and Article 10 Clauses VIII and XIII were violated.

Article 4: II. “A day prior to the elections, the General Board of Directors will appoint an Electoral Committee, comprised of five or seven qualified ministerial members, which will preside over the elections the entire period of time that the election of the General Board of Directors may require. It will deliver the results of the election to the incumbent General Board of Directors, which then will proceed to carry on the work of the convention that remains to be done.” XII. “The Electoral Committee will tally the votes and announce the results to the electoral assembly, and present the elected candidate.”

Article 5

I. “A day before the elections, the General Board of Directors in full, will name a Qualifying Committee, that will be comprised of three members of the General Board of Directors and two district bishops, which will be responsible for carrying out the work described as follows:” II. “The Qualifying Committee shall consider those ministers, who have received a greater number of votes as to their capabilities, qualities, and their rights, and shall approve two to five of them as candidates. From these, the assembly of pastors shall select, through their vote, until one of them is elected by a simple majority and if there are no constitutional objections.”

III. “Whenever one of the nominees receives two thirds or more of the votes cast, which in this case constitutes an overwhelming majority, and is approved by the Qualifying Committee, that body shall notify the Electoral Committee so that the candidate can be declared elected for the position to which he was nominated. These decisions shall always be made in accordance with the criterion set forth by this Constitution.”

IV. “If the Qualifying Committee determines that the persons nominated do not meet the qualifications of the present Constitution, or lack the capabilities, qualities or the right to be proposed as nominees, the Committee shall order a new selection.”

V. “After the candidates have been announced and before they are presented in prayer, if there are any objections against any one of them, the elections will be suspended until the objector presents his objection privately before the Qualifying Committee. The objection must be credible and evidence must be provided in

2

order for the Qualifying Committee to suspend the election of a candidate. Should this occur, the Qualifying Committee can select another candidate, next in line, with the majority votes and who fulfills all the requirements, or order that a new election be held. No objections nor discussion will be presented before the assembly.”

Article 10

VIII. “The Bishop General Secretary shall follow the proper protocol in notarizing all legal documents according to the governing laws of each country.”

XIII. “The Bishop General Secretary shall surrender an inventory of books, files and equipment related to the office of the General Secretariat to his successor before a committee appointed by the Bishop President.”

2. Explain why and how they were violated. I can not say why they were violated

because this particular action was not taken by us to explain the reasoning behind these questionable actions. This is the aspect that we are trying to get to the bottom of as to why the aforementioned actions were taken given the elections results. Our part is to cite the violations, therefore, our correspondence to this part of your inquiry. In our opinion this is how they were violated: A. Article 4 Clause II- First, the Electoral Committee did not preside over the entire electoral process as cited in this clause. There were General Office Administrators who were in charge of the last portion of the electoral process for each position. Secondly, the results of the questioned elections were not delivered to the incumbent General Board of Directors, especially the Bishop General Secretary (the secret keeper and official archive keeper of legal proceedings such as these). Per the admission of one of the Qualifying Board members (Midwest District Bishop Celestino Guzmán, of Waukegan, Illinois), he was instructed to be the custodian of the results (votes, tally sheets and computers results, etc.). These results were/are under his custody outside of the confines of the General Offices where the official documentation of the organization is to be kept. No where in our Constitution does it afford the privilege to any one for documentation of this nature to be taken outside of the providence of the official and legal corporate offices per our registration as a California corporation. Clause XII- At this point in the election process, an electronic touch pad was used to receive the votes from which the pastors cast (punched) their respective vote to elect a candidate and tallied by a computer server. The touch pad computer results were not tallied by the Electoral Committee nor were they supervised by the aforementioned committee. This particular aspect of the election tally was handled exclusively by the General Office Administrators, bypassing the Electoral

3

Committee (who were formally approved and presented as such by the Honorable General Board as cited in Article 4 Clause II) who should have been overseeing this most important and final result of the election. The Electoral Committee testifies that they had nothing to do with the final vote results; therefore, violating Article 4 Clause XII which states: “The electoral Committee will tally the votes (the computer tally/final result) and announce the results. There was no Electoral Committee supervision present or around to verify legitimacy. Article 5 Clause I- It is our understanding that there was a heated debate as to who integrated the Qualifying Committee and finally the voice of the Bishop President won out. Our Constitution says thus though: ““A day before the elections, the General Board of Directors in full, will name a Qualifying Committee, that will be comprised of three members of the General Board of Directors and two district bishops, which will be responsible for carrying out the work described as follows:” Furthermore, it has been consistent throughout our organizational history that since the Bishop General Secretary is the filer and archivist of all the official organizational proceedings including this election, he has been a member of the Qualifying Committee. The decision not to include the Bishop General Secretary as in prior General Board elections on this 2006 Qualifying Committee makes one question the integrity of said election. Clause II- In the first round of the electoral process those who got the majority of votes were not approved as candidates as opposed to those who got 2 or 3 votes as was the case with the positions of General Secretary Daniel Salomón and Foreign Missions Juan Fortino both being current board members at the time of the elections. Each received majority votes and was disqualified. Those that got the least amount of votes were pushed up in front of all the other candidates which had the most or the majority of the votes.

Clause V- With regards to the suspension of the election of a candidate the

Constitution states: “The objection must be credible and evidence must be provided in order for the Qualifying Committee to suspend the election of a candidate.” This clause must take place in order for the Qualifying Committee to suspend the election of a candidate. Note: the Constitution uses the word “must” two times to get its point across.

If the objection was indeed credible and evidence was provided and valid,

“…then the committee shall order a new selection” (It does not say the Qualifying Committee can pick its own candidates), it says it “can select a new candidate next in line, with the majority votes and who fulfills all the requirements.” Let me make it plain and simple. If the Qualifying Committee were to suspend 10 candidates one after the other then there must be credible

4

written evidence for each disqualification to prove the actions to suspend 1 or 10 of the next in line candidates.

Neither the Constitution nor the C.I.D. Document gives power to the Qualifying

Committee to choose any candidate on its own personal preference, opinion, discretion, judgment, etc.

i. It must be the vote/voice of the pastors that elects an official. ii. The C.I.D. document is only a guideline as the document says on Page One. It does not supersede or replace the Constitution.

In our opinion, the Qualifying Board either selected there own choices from the list of candidates or had a predetermined list of its own. One thing we know for sure, they did not regard the pastoral voice to select a candidate. Not one candidate with the majority of pastoral votes was selected to run except for the office of the Bishop President and Bishop Vice-President which was announced accordingly: “Por mayoría de votos...”

C. Article 10 Clause VIII- Since the Bishop General Secretary is the official responsible to record and file (Article 10 Clause I) and shall represent the organization (Article 10 Clause VII), therefore, he is to notarize all official records including said conventions results to the corresponding laws which Article 4 Clause II affords him. That did not transpire under the incumbent General Board of Directors. For it says: “The Bishop General Secretary shall follow the proper protocol in notarizing all legal documents according to the governing laws of each country.” Clause XIII- Given that he was not the custodian of the conventions results as cited above, how can he surrender something that he does not posses? It is our opinion that by him not surrendering these results which are to be chronicled in the archives of our corporate general offices, the Qualifying Commission forced the General Secretary to breech his secretarial obligations. The direct order by the Qualifying Commission not to turn over the election results as the Constitution states but kept it among them was very unethical. This clause states the following: “The Bishop General Secretary shall surrender an inventory of books, files and equipment related to the office of the General Secretariat to his successor before a committee appointed by the Bishop President.”

3. Provide evidence of the alleged violations (proof, witnesses). It is our

understanding that you have the proof that you are requesting in the form of the ballots, tabulation sheets and touch pad results. Secondly, all the members of the Electoral Committee (Pastors: Abel V. Torres, Herminio Leal, Elías N. Duarte, José Guadalupe Zuñiga and Jesse Guerra, Sr.) are the witnesses. These men will no doubt testify when called upon. In addition to the foregoing, an e-letter March 24, 2007 (see attached letter) from Former West Texas Bishop Abel V. Torres to Bishop President Sánchez (Pastor

5

Torres having been appointed by Bishop President Sánchez to be part of the Electoral Committee) states that candidates Bishops Daniel Salomon and Juan Fortino as well as other candidates received more votes by the pastors and were subsequently disqualified by the Qualifying Commission. Furthermore, he submitted that candidates who received only two or three votes were eventually selected for unsubstantiated reasons.

If there was a justifiable reason for these and all the others who had the next largest number of votes yet were disqualified, then certainly there must be proper documentation that shows good cause for each candidate’s disqualification. We submit and the language of the C.I.D. document (Capabilities, Qualities Rights) authored by Bishop Ismael Martín del Campo written in (Spanish language only) concurs: “disqualification can not be judged on the Qualifying Committee’ personal opinions, likes or dislikes”. There must be credible evidence or proof for the disqualification of anyone who received in this case more than 3 votes. The C.I.D. document states the following: “Cannot be selected or approved by an arbitrary or discretional basis.”

Arbitrary [adjective]- not decided by rules or laws but by a person's own opinion. Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) Discretionary [adjective]- left to discretion: exercised at one's own discretion; specifically: relating to the policy-making function of a public official. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

Could you please provide clarification on how the candidates that the Qualifying Committee selected and approved with less pastoral votes were more capable, had more abilities and had more rights than the others who were disqualified even though they had more votes? In other words one cannot say: “In my opinion or in our judgment”. They must provide credible evidence of their decision to disqualify a candidate (Article 5 Clause V). This Qualifying Committee ultimately overruled and ignored the convention pastoral voice/vote which has yielded your responses to us and others and no doubt has caused documents of inquiry and requests such as ours. In doing so, this Qualifying Committee no doubt must have on file personal documentation and résumés of each candidate to show proof of why it disqualified each candidate especially those candidates who had more pastoral votes than others. These documentations and résumés are very important to have on record for cases such as these. Also, we have always been told by you our organizational leaders to always have a document or paper trail to substantiate any case. As far as the reference in your letter that "nobody talked or objected" during the election proceedings; the pastors were showing you reverence, respect and esteem they had for the Qualifying Committee. Nobody spoke out because everybody believed and trusted in you. (Our concern is: what will take place once the convention of pastors become aware

6

7

of these abnormalities) It was after these proceedings that the Electoral Commission (vote tabulators) started to share the injustice that had been committed during the electoral process. Thank you for your accommodations in this matter. It is our utmost desire to handle this dilemma in house (Article 39) with the fear of the Lord and with sincere humility. Therefore, having answered the above questions from your document to us, we once again recommend and request the establishment of “The Committee of Honor and Justice” in accordance to Article 39 Clauses III and IV which emerge from the violations cited above. Therefore as stated before in our previous letter, we humbly recommend and request that those who were on the Qualifying Committee as well as those who are the present members of the Honorable General Board should not be integrated into this committee due to the possible conflict of interest. It is our opinion that there were inappropriate proceedings during these elections as has been carefully stated above. Since our documents were sent to the entire Honorable General Board and Episcopal Body, I pray the same opportunity for me to personally read these answers to the aforementioned joint body later on today at our extraordinary meeting as you discuss the 2006 elections of the Honorable General Board as your March 21, 2007 letter of convocation states. We regret you denying our request to have the outgoing Honorable Board Members and all the electoral staff of this referenced convention present today (they were directly or indirectly involved in this election process) to speak and answer questions. Now we have no other recourse but to speak for ourselves and try to find answers as well. Finally, due to the serious nature of this discussion, I ask that all other questions be given to us in writing. God bless you! Respectfully submitted, Arthur L. Tafoya Bishop Supervisor Arizona District

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.” Zechariah 7:9

Cc: Members of the Honorable General Board and Episcopal Body.

18 de abril de 2007 Obispo Presidente Daniel G. Sánchez, Honorable Mesa Directiva y Cuerpo Episcopal 10807 Laurel Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Estimados Miembros de la Honorable Mesa Directiva General y Cuerpo Episcopal: Los saludamos en el glorioso nombre de nuestro Señor Jesucristo. Orando y creyendo que ustedes y sus seres queridos estén en buena salud! Déjeme empezar mi comentario dándoles las gracias por la respuesta que la carta de solicitud género (16 de Marzo, 2007) en la solicitud del establecimiento de la “Comisión de Honor y Justicia”. Además, con mi presencia hoy aquí, estoy correspondiendo con la citación de esta reunión y solicito que todo nuestro dialogo este enfocado en las tres preguntas que ustedes preguntan, que con la ayuda de Dios contestare respetablemente en su debida oportunidad. Primero con respecto a su respuesta a mí carta con la fecha del 21 de marzo de 2007, ustedes aluden al elemento de la ofensa que es recitada numerosas veces a través de su respuesta hacia mí. Nunca ha sido mi intención, y oro que nunca sea, de ofender a ninguna persona, mucho menos a nuestros líderes organizacionales. Quizás las palabras que utilicé con respecto a la credibilidad de la Honorable Mesa Directiva y el abuso del poder- fueron ofensivas y si lo fue, solicito de su perdón. No obstante, el espíritu de nuestra solicitud-que la creación del Comisión de Honor y de Justicia- todavía esta en pie. En segundo lugar, antes de que enviara la carta-e a todos los miembros de la Honorable Mesa Directiva y el Cuerpo Episcopal, enviamos un correo-e directamente al Obispo Presidente Sánchez. 3/16/07 El Obispo Presidente responder a mí con estas palabras:

Bishop Tafoya, ¡PdC! Thank you for your heads-up. This is the first real letter with any substance to consult the Constitution. I will pass your recommendations under advisement and give you an official response in the next week or so.

God Bless dgsánchez

(Vea por favor la copia unida del correo-e, énfasis es el nuestro).

Al leer su respuesta a nuestro correo-e, no leí en su texto que mi carta estaba fuera de orden mucho menos fuese de acusación. Además, en su carta del 27 de Marzo, 2007 a mí ustedes indicaron lo siguiente: “Si usted desea hacer una acusación formal, envíe su letra con su prueba, vía correo certificado a las Oficinas Generales y firme su carta personal.” De nuevo, nuestra letra a ustedes nunca fue como un instrumento de acusación sino de pendiente y de recomendaciones como usted lo recibió.

1

Ahora respondo a sus preguntas que esperamos y rogamos que correspondan a nuestra petición. Son como sigue:

1. ¿Qué artículos fueron violados? En nuestra opinión la Constitución de la Asamblea Apostólica del 2007 los Artículos 4 Cláusulas II y XII; Articulo 5 Cláusulas I-IV y Artículo 10 Cláusulas VIII y XIII fueron violadas.

Artículo 4: II. Un día antes de las elecciones, Ia Mesa Directiva General nombrará una Comisión Electoral integrada por cinco o siete ministros caracterizados, Ia cual presidirá Ia reunión electoral por todo el periodo de tiempo que dure la elección de a Mesa Directiva General, y deberá hacer entrega de los resultados de dicha elección ala Mesa Directiva General en funciones y esta procederá a desarrollar los trabajos de convención que quedaren pendientes.

XII. La Comisión de Elecciones hará el cómputo de votos, dará a conocer a Ia asamblea el resultado y presentara al candidato electo

Articulo 5 I. Un día antes de las elecciones, Ia Mesa Directiva General en pleno nombrará una Comisión Calificadora, que será integrada por tres miembros de Ia Mesa Directiva General y dos obispos de distrito, Ia cual se encargará de realizar las funciones que enseguida se describen: II. La Comisión Calificadora tomará en cuenta, de aquellos ministros que hayan obtenido un mayor numero de votos, su capacidad, idoneidad y derecho, y aprobará de dos a cinco de ellos como candidatos. De entre estos últimos Ia asamblea de pastores escogerá mediante el voto, si no hubiere inconvenientes de los previstos en Ia presente Constitución, hasta que uno de ellos obtenga una mayoría simple. Ill. Cuando uno de los candidatos hubiere obtenido las dos terceras panes o más de los votos emitidos, lo cual constituye en este caso el voto abrumador, y fuere aprobado por a Comisión Calificadora, esta lo hará saber a Ia Comisión de Elecciones para que sea declarado electo para el puesto al que fue propuesto. Estas decisiones serán tomadas siempre de acuerdo con los lineamientos marcados en esta Constitución IV. En caso de que a Comisión Calificadora determine que las personas propuestas no llenan los requisitos establecidos en Ia presente Constitución, o carecen de capacidad, idoneidad y derecho para figurar como precandidatos, Ia misma deberá ordenar que se haga una nueva selección. V. Si después de ser presentados los candidatos y antes de que se ore por ellos hubiere objeciones en contra de cualquiera de ellos, se suspenderán las elecciones mientras que el objetante discute privadamente ante Ia Comisión Calificadora. Las objeciones deberán ser pruebas fehacientes, para que Ia Comisión Calificadora suspenda Ia elección de un candidato. Si esto sucediere, ésta podrá seleccionar otro candidato entre quien en turno tenga mayoría de votos y Ilene

2

los requisitos, u ordenar que se haga una nueva elección. Ninguna objeción será presentada ni discutida ante el pleno de Ia asamblea. Articulo 10 DEBERES DEL OBISPO SECRETARIO GENERAL VIII. Protocolizara todos aquellos documentos que requieran notarizacion, de acuerdo con las leyes que rijan en cada país.

XIII. Entregara a su sucesor por inventario y ante Ia comisión que para ello nombre el Obispo Presidente, los libros, archivos y enseres correspondientes a Ia secretaria a su cargo.

2. Explique por que y como fueron violados. No puedo decir por que fueron violados por que esta acción particular no fue tomada por nosotros para explicar el razonamiento detrás de estas acciones cuestionables. Este es el aspecto que nosotros estamos tratando de llegarle al fondo en como es que las acciones antes mencionadas fueron tomadas dándonos el resultado electoral. Nuestra parte es de citar las violaciones, por lo tanto, correspondiendo a esta parte de su indagación. En nuestra opinión esta es la manera que fue violada: A. Articulo 4 Cláusula II- Primero, la Comisión Electoral no presencio sobre todo el proceso electoral como cita esta cláusula. Había Administradores de las Oficinas Generales que estuvieron encargados de esta última parte del proceso electoral para cada posición. Segundo, los resultados de las elecciones en cuestión no fueron entregados a la Mesa Directiva General en función, especialmente al Obispo Secretario General (el mantenedor de los secretos y el guardador de los archivos de los procedimientos legales como estos). Por la admisión de uno de los miembros de la Comisión Calificadora (Obispo del Medio-Oeste Celestino Guzmán, de Waukegan, Illinois), el fue instruido de ser el custodio de los resultados (votos, hojas de tabulación y resultados de las computadores, etc.). Estos resultados fueron/están bajo su custodio afuera de los confines de las Oficinas Generales donde la documentación oficial de la organización debe estar. En ninguna parte de nuestra Constitución le da el privilegio a nadie para que documentación de esta índole sean sacadas fuera de la providencia de las Oficinas Generales que son oficiales y legales como la registracion de una corporación en California. Cláusula XII- A este punto en el proceso electoral, una almodilla electrónica de toque fue usada para recibir los votos de donde los pastores escogieron (poncharon) su respectiva voto para escoger un candidato y sumado por un servidor de computadora. Los resultados de almodilla de toque de la computadora no fueron computados por la Comisión Electoral ni fueron supervisados por la comisión ya mencionada. Este aspecto particular fue manejado exclusivamente por los Administradores de las Oficinas Generales, sobrepasando la Comisión de Elecciones (quienes fueron aprobados y presentados como tal por la Honorable Mesa Directiva como es citado en el Articulo 4

3

Cláusula II) quienes deberían estar sobre viendo esta parte de mas importancia y resultado final de la elección. La Comisión de Elecciones testifican que ellos no tuvieron nada que ver con el resultado final, por lo tanto violando el Articulo 4 Clausula XII que dice: “La Comisión de Elecciones hara el computo de votos (la tabulación de la computadora/resultado final) y dará a conocer a la asamblea el resultados. No había supervisión presente o alrededor por parte de la Comisión de Elecciones para verificar su legitimidad. B. Articulo 5 Cláusula I- Es nuestro entendimiento que hubo una discusión calurosa sobre quien integraría la Comisión Calificadora y finalmente la voz del Obispo Presidente gano. Sin embargo nuestra Constitución dice así: ““Un día antes de las elecciones, la Mesa Directiva General en pleno nombrara una Mesa Calificadora, que será integrada por tres miembros de la Mesa Directiva General y dos Obispo de distrito, la cual se encargara de realizar las funciones que enseguida se describen:” Además, ha sido consistentemente a a través de nuestra historia organizacional siendo que el Obispo Secretario General es el filer y archivero de todo el procedimiento organizacional oficial incluyendo esta elección, el ha sido un miembro de la Comisión Calificadora. La decisión de no incluir al Obispo Secretario General como en las otras elecciones de la Mesa Directiva en esta Comisión Calificadora 2006 hace que uno cuestione la integridad de dichas elecciones. Cláusula II- En la primera ronda del procedimiento electoral aquellos que recibieron la mayoría de los votos no fueron aprobados como candidatos al contrario aquellos que recibieron de 2 o 3 votos como lo fueron las posiciones del Secretario General Daniel Salomón y Misiones Extranjeras Juan Fortino ambos siendo miembros de la Mesa Directiva al tiempo de las elecciones. Cada quien saco la mayoría de votos y fueron descalificados. Aquellos que recibieron la cantidad más pequeña fueron empujados en frente de todos los demás que tenían la cantidad mas grande o mayoritaria. Cada uno que recibió la mayoría de votos fue descalificado. Aquellos que recibieron la minoría de votos fueron empujados hacia al frente de todos aquellos que tenían la gran parte o mayoría de votos.

Cláusula V- Con respecto a la suspensión de la elección de un candidato la

Constitución dice: “Las objeciones deberán ser pruebas fehacientes, para que la Comisión Calificadora suspenda la elección de un candidato.” Esta cláusula se debe de realizar para que la Comisión Calificadora suspenda la elección de un candidato. Nota: la Constitución usa la palabra “debe” dos veces para hacer claro su punto.

Si las objeciones fueron en realidad creíbles y la evidencia fue provista y valida,

“…ordenar que se haga una nueva elección” (No dice que la Comisión Calificadora escogerá su propio candidato), dice que “podrá seleccionar otro candidato entre quien en turno tenga mayoría de votos y llene los requisitos.”

4

Déjeme ser claro y sencillo. Si la Mesa Calificadora llegara a suspender a 10 candidatos uno detrás de otro entonces debe haber evidencia creíble escrita para cada descalificación para probar las acciones en suspender de 1 a 10 candidatos que siguen en línea.

Ni la Constitución ni el Documento C.I.D. le da poder a la Mesa Calificadora para

escoger su candidato de preferencia persona, opinión, discreción, juicio, etc. i. Debe ser la voz/voto de los pastores que elijen a un oficial.

ii. El Documento C.I.D. es únicamente un guía como lo dice en la Pagina 1. No supersede o reemplaza la Constitución.

En nuestra opinión, la Mesa Calificadora una de dos selecciono a sus propias selecciones de la lista de candidatos o tenían una lista predeterminada de ellos mismos. Una cosa que si sabemos por seguro, es que ellos no consideraron la voz pastoral para seleccionar a un candidato. Ni un candidato con la mayoría de los votos pastorales fue seleccionado para correr con la excepción del Obispo Presidente y Obispo Vicepresidente quienes fueron anunciados consiguientemente: “Por mayoría de votos...”

C. Articulo 10 Cláusula VIII- Siendo que el Obispo Secretario General es el oficial responsable para registrar y archivar (Articulo 10 Cláusula I) y representara la organización (Articulo 10 Cláusula VII), entonces, el es el que notarizira todos los records oficiales incluyendo dicha convención con las leyes que rijan del cual el Articulo 4 Cláusula II le permiten. Esto no sucedió bajo la Mesa Directiva en funciones. Pues dice: “El Obispo Secretario Genera protocolizara todos aquellos documentos que requieran notarizacion, de acuerdo con las leyes que rijan en cada país” Cláusula XIII- Dado que el no fue el custodiante de los resultados de las elecciones como es citado arriba, como puede rendir algo que el no posee? Es nuestra opinión que al el no rendir estos resultados que deben ser hecho la crónica en los archivos de las oficinas corporales generales, la Comisión Calificadora forzó al Secretario General a que viole sus obligaciones secretariales. La orden directa por la Comisión Calificadora de no entregar los resultados como la Constitución dice sino que los mantienen entre ellos fue y es de muy poca ética. Esta cláusula dice lo siguiente: “Entregara a su sucesor por inventario y ante la comisión que por ello nombre el Obispo Presidente, los libros, archivos y enseres correspondientes a la secretaria a su cargo.”

3. Provea evidencia de las violaciones alegadas (pruebas, testigos). Es nuestro

entendimiento que ustedes tienen las pruebas que ustedes están solicitando en la forma de boletas, hojas de tabulación y resultados de almohadilla de toque. Segundo, todos los miembros del Comité de Elecciones (Pastores: Abel V. Torres, Herminio Leal, Elías N. Duarte, José Guadalupe Zuñiga y Jesse Guerra, Sr.) son testigos. Estos ministros sin duda testificaran cuando sean llamados. En adición a lo anterior, en una carta-e el 24 de Marzo, 2007 (miren lo conectado) del Obispo anterior del Oeste de Texas Abel V. Torres al Obispo Presidente

5

Sánchez (el Pastor Torres siendo designado por el Obispo Presidente Sánchez de ser parte del Comité de Elecciones) declara que los candidatos Obispos Daniel Salomón y Juan Fortino como también otros candidatos recibieron mas votos de pastores y fueron subsecuentemente descalificados por la Mesa Calificadora. Además, el somete que los candidatos que recibieron nada mas dos o tres votos fueron eventualmente seleccionados por razones no substanciadas.

Si hubo razones justificadas para estos y otros quienes tuvieron la cantidad mas cerca de grande de votos todavía fueron descalificados, entonces debe haber documentación propia que enseñe causa buena para la descalificación de los candidatos. Sometemos y el idioma del Documento C.I.D. (Capacidad, Idoneidad y Derecho) escrita por el Obispo Ismael Martín del Campo escrita nada mas en Español concuerda: “la descalificación no se puede juzgar en las opiniones personales, gustos o disgustos de la Mesa Calificadora”. Debe haber evidencia creíble o prueba para la descalificación de cualesquier que haya recibido más de tres votos. El Documento C.I.D. declara lo siguiente: “…no se puede seccionar o aprobar candidatos de manera arbitraria o discrecional…”

Arbitrario [adjectivo]- no decidido por reglas o leyes sino por la opinión propia de la persona. Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) Discreciónario [adjectivo]- dejado a discreción: ejercitado a su propia discreción, específicamente: relacionando a la función de hacer política de un oficial publico. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

Pueden proveer clarificación en como los candidatos que la Mesa Calificadora selecciono y aprobó con menos votos pastorales, tenían mas capacidad, tenían mas idoneidad, y tenían mas derecho que los otros que fueron descalificados aun cuando tenian mas votos? En otras palabras, uno no puede decir: “En mi opinión o en nuestro juicio.” Ellos necesitan proveer evidencia creíble de su decisión de descalificar al candidato (Articulo 5 Cláusula V). Esta Mesa Calificadora últimamente predomino e ignoro la voz y voto convencional pastoral que ha rendido su respuesta hacia nosotros y otros y sin duda ha causado documentos de indagación y solicitudes como la nuestra. En haciendo así, esta Mesa Calificadora sin duda tiene en los archivos la documentación personal y résumés de cada candidato para probar del por que cada candidato fue descalificado especialmente aquellos candidatos que tenían mas votos pastorales que otros. Estos documentos y résumés son muy importantes de tener en los archivos para casos como estos. Además, siempre se nos ha dicho por nuestros líderes organizacionales de siempre tener documentos o pruebas documentales para sustanciar cualesquier caso. En cuanto a la referencia en su carta que "nadie hablo o objeto" durante el procedimiento electoral, los pastores estaban enseñando la reverencia, respeto y estima que tenían para la Mesa Calificadora. Nadie hablo por que todos creían y confiaban en ustedes. Fue después de estos procedimientos que la Comisión de Elecciones (computadores de votos) comenzó a compartir la injusticia que se había cometido durante y al proceso electoral. Como sucedió entonces puede suceder ahora en un ámbito más grande. Nuestro

6

7

pendiente es: Que pasara cunado la convención de pastores se den cuenta de estas impropiedades? Gracias por su acomodo en este caso. Es nuestro deseo profundo de manejar este dilema dentro de casa (Articulo 39) con el temor de Dios y con humildad sincera. Entonces, habiendo contestado las preguntas de su documento hacia nosotros, nosotros una vez mas recomendamos y solicitamos el establecimiento de la “Comisión de Honor y Justicia” en acuerdo con el Articulo 39 Cláusulas III y IV que viene de las violaciones arriba citadas. Entonces como hemos dicho en nuestra carta anterior, humildemente recomendamos y solicitamos que aquellos que fueron integrantes de la Mesa Calificadora como los miembros presentes de la Honorable Mesa Directiva no deberían ser integrados en esta comisión dado al posible conflicto de interés. Es nuestra opinión que hubo procedimientos inapropiados durante estas elecciones como cuidadosamente se ha declarado arriba. Siendo que nuestros documentos fueron enviados a toda la Honorable Mesa Directiva y el Cuerpo Episcopal, oro la misma oportunidad para que yo personalmente lea estas respuestas al cuerpo conjunto mas tarde hoy en nuestra reunión extraordinaria al ustedes discutir las elecciones del 2006 de la Honorable Mesa Directiva como su carta de convocación del 21 de Marzo, 2007 declara. Lamentamos que ustedes nos negaron nuestra solicitud de tener a los miembros salientes de la Honorable Mesa Directiva y todo el personal de elecciones de esta convención referida presente hoy (ellos estaban directamente o indirectamente envueltos en este proceso electoral) para hablar y contestar preguntas. Ahora no tenemos otro recurso más que hablar por nosotros mismos y tratar de encontrar contestaciones también. Finalmente, dada la naturaleza seria de esta discusión, pido que todas las demás preguntas nos sean dadas por escrito. Dios les bendiga! Sometido respetuosamente, Arturo L. Tafoya Obispo Supervisor Distrito de Arizona

" Así habló Jehová de los ejércitos, diciendo: Juzgad conforme a la verdad, y haced misericordia y piedad cada cual con su hermano;’ Zacarias 7:9

Cc: Miembros de la Honorable Mesa Directiva y Cuerpo Episcopal.

Apostolic Assembly Arizona District

July 15, 2007 Bishop General Secretary Edward Pacheco 10807 Laurel Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730-3866 909/987-3013 Dear Bishop Pacheco: Once again I greet you in Jesus’ name. As Arizona District Supervisor of the Apostolic Assembly I have some requests to ask of you. In your letter dated June 13, 2007 to all the Bishops, Elders and Pastors of the Apostolic Assembly you write in the third paragraph that “The General Board conducted an extensive investigation into the matter and has concluded that no violations to the Constitution occurred”. Could you please forward me a complete copy of this extensive investigation? Please include any and all statements of individuals, witnesses, evidence, the classification/name of this commission/committee, etc. to determine the aforementioned outcome. Your letter does not state the names or specifics of the investigating commission/committee performing this extensive investigation. Secondly, you Fed/Ex to me and the entire Episcopal Body a letter dated March 21, 2007. In this particular letter the signatures of the Honorable General Board and Qualifying Commission were there vouching for the correct course taken and asking me to present the Constitutional violations. On the day of the extra ordinary joint Episcopal and Honorable General Board meeting to discuss the 2006 elections (April 18, 2007), I sincerely felt humiliation and was mocked by the Honorable General Board. Power was abused to control what was to be said and what information was given out to the bishops before a vote was taken. You (general board) never gave me an opportunity to present the requested 2006 election violations before the entire joint body present there. Yet, a vote of confidence was taken in that meeting concerning the 2006 elections. In this same meeting you granted each Bishop five minuets to speak, I chose to use my five minuets to pass out the information you (the Honorable General Board) had requested of me stating the violations of the 2006 elections to each District Supervisor. I was (publicly) not allowed to disburse my document per the Bishop President and

Bishop Vice-President directive. However, I was informed by both that I could pass out this information after the meeting was adjourned. I could not believe the unfolding of events during said meeting in which my voice was silenced. As I humbly stated in my document dated April 18, 2007, I wanted to take care of business in house…, “it is (was) our utmost desire to handle this dilemma in house (Article 39) with the fear of the Lord and with sincere humility. And “our concern was what will take place once the convention of pastors becomes aware of these abnormalities”. Your reply on 5/20/07 was “the above paragraph reflects your (my) opinion”. Regretfully, our humble counsel was not taken seriously. Lastly, in an e-mail I sent to you on April 24, 2007, I asked you to please inform me of why I was not permitted to read my response to the bishops of your (Honorable General Board) questions to me. As of today, you have not responded to this inquiry. I am still awaiting this response. Please reply to the two inquiries at your earliest opportunity. God bless you! Your friend, Bishop Arthur L Tafoya Arizona District Bishop Supervisor Cc: Bishop President Daniel G. Sánchez Hard signed copy will follow

Asamblea Apostólica Distrito de Arizona

15 de Julio, 2007 Obispo Secretario General Eduardo Pacheco 10807 Laurel Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730-3866 909/987-3013 Estimado Obispo Pacheco: Una vez más lo saludo en el nombre de Jesús. Como Supervisor del Distrito de Arizona de la Asamblea Apostólica, tengo algunas solicitudes que pedirle. En su carta con fecha del 13 de Junio, 2007 a todos los Obispos, Ancianos y Pastores de la Asamblea Apostólica usted escribe en el tercer párrafo “Que la Mesa Directiva General condujo una investigación extensiva en el caso y ha concluido que no ocurrieron violaciones a la Constitución.” ¿Me pudiera mandar una copia completa de esta investigación extensiva? Favor de incluir cualesquier y cada declaración de individuos, testigos, evidencia, la clasificación/nombre de esta comisión/comité, etc. para determinar la conclusión antes citada. Su carta no nombra nombres o especificaciones de la comisión/comité investigador llevando acabo esta investigación extensiva. En segundo lugar, usted me hizo Fed/Ex a un servidor y a todo el Cuerpo Episcopal una carta con fecha del 21 de Marzo, 2007. En esta carta particular las firmas de la Honorable Mesa Directiva General y la Comisión Calificadora estaban allí atestiguando del curso correcto llevado acabo y pidiéndome que presentara las violaciones Constitucionales. En el día de la reunión conjunta del Cuerpo Episcopal y la Honorable Mesa Directiva extraordinaria para discutir las elecciones del 2006 (18 de Abril, 2007), su servidor me sentí humillado y fui escarnecido por la Honorable Mesa Directiva. El poder fue abusado para controlar lo que se debiera decir y que información fuere dada a los Obispos antes de que el voto fuese tomado. Ustedes (Mesa Directiva) nunca me dieron una oportunidad para presentar las violaciones solicitadas de las elecciones del 2006 ante todo el cuerpo conjunto presente allí. Aun así, un voto de confianza fue tomado en esa reunión concerniente las elecciones del 2006. En esa misma reunión ustedes le dieron a cada Obispo cinco minutos para hablar, su servidor escogí utilizar mis cinco minutos en distribuir la información que ustedes (la Honorable Mesa Directiva) me habían solicitado declarando las violaciones de las elecciones del 2006 a cada Obispo Supervisor. No fui permitido (públicamente) en distribuir mi documento por directiva del Obispo Presidente y Obispo Vicepresidente. Sin embargo, fui informado por ambos que podría distribuir esta información después que la reunión terminara. No podía creer el desenvolvimiento de eventos durante dicha reunión en la cual mi voz fue callada. Como humildemente dije en mi documento con fecha del 18 de Abril, 2007, quería arreglar este asunto dentro de la casa..., “es nuestro (fue) deseo mas profundo de manejar este dilema dentro de la casa

(Articulo 39) con el temor de Dios y con humildad sincera.” Y “nuestro pendiente es ¿que se llevara acabo una vez que la convención de pastores se den cuenta de estas anomalías?” Su respuesta en 20/05/07 fue “el párrafo arriba refleja su (mía) opinión.” Lamentablemente, nuestro humilde consejo no fue tomado seriamente. Finalmente, en un correo electrónico que su servidor le envié el 24 de Abril, 2007, le solicite que por favor me informara porque su servidor no fue permitido leer mi respuesta a los obispo de sus (Honorable Mesa Directiva) preguntas hacia mi. Hasta hoy, usted no ha contestado a esta indagación. Sigo esperando su respuesta. Favor de contestar las dos indagaciones en su primera oportunidad. ¡Dios le bendiga! Su amigo, Obispo Arturo L Tafoya Obispo Supervisor del Distrito de Arizona Cc: Obispo Presidente Daniel G. Sánchez Copia dura firmada seguirá

Apostolic Assembly Arizona District

July 30, 2007 Bishop General Secretary Edward Pacheco 10807 Laurel Street Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730-3866 909/987-3013 Bishop Pacheco: Once again I greet you in Jesus’ name! I pray you and your family are well and full of good health. It’s now been over four (4) months (April 24th) since our first inquiry and now twelve (12) days (July 18th) since we inquired again. This is now my third request asking you to respond to my letters. As I stated in my letter that I personally read to the Honorable General Board on April 18th: “We regret you denying our request to have the outgoing Honorable Board Members and all the electoral staff of this referenced convention present today (they were directly or indirectly involved in this election process) to speak and answer questions. Now we have no other recourse but to speak for ourselves and try to find answers as well”. With all due respect please forward me a copy of the results of the “extensive investigation” that you mentioned in your June 13, 2007 letter to all Bishops, Elders and Pastors of the Apostolic Assembly along with the other requested information. I cover you and the entire Honorable General Board with prayer everyday and I know you do the same for us. I am very saddened for our church’s present condition. I will await your reply within three (3) days. Your servant, Bishop Arthur L Tafoya Arizona District Supervisor CC: Bishop President Daniel G. Sánchez Bishop General Treasurer Leobardo Maffey, Jr. Note: Hard signed copy will follow