Corruption in the Philippines
Home
Chronological
Problematical
Search

[Editor's Note: This letter contains quotes within quotes within quotes. I usually color the various quotes so the author's word can be easily distinguished from the quoted words. In this particular case, it was difficult to distinguish all the sources. Material that appears to come from an earlier message from Little is in purple. Material that appears to come from an earlier message from Hamilton are in blue.]

Dear Wally and Glenn,

I am responding to both your e-mails in this one post although I have already sent a response to Glenn. I will include excerpts from both Wally, Glenn and Roger Wanassan.

WALLY LITTLE: Now to bro. McDonald, who wrote:---"To Whom it May Concern: On Sunday, June 11, 2000 an e-mail from the pen of Wallace Little was sent apparently to thousands of people entitled `Dishonesty In the Philippines'. Long ago (just as many others have done) I ceased trying to answer bro. Little, realizing it was all an exercise in futility. I will not attempt to review that e-mail line by line..."

whl here:--Of course not. He cannot.

WALLY LITTLE; He continued:---"...but I will prove that bro. Little 1) makes arguments and reaches conclusions which do not follow his arguments, that 2) he is a careless reader, `seeing things' in articles or correspondence which are not there at all, and that 3) he rushes into print with material that he has not fully substantiated. First, notice an excerpt from bro. Wallace relative to the present distress in Mindanao relating to the Muslim - Philippine Government conflict. `Note:---All the fighting has
been in Mindanao, and most of that in the southern portion of that island. So to begin with, anyone asking for help for troubles caused by that fighting is automatically a self-proclaimed crook.'..."

whl here:---Bro. McDonald, I apologize for being unclear. But within my context providing the crook's locations, my point is correct of those NOT living in that general area appealing for money, and explained about some there doing so with trickery.

JIM McDONALD: Your "context" was of those in the southern part of Mindanao which included General Santos City. You stated there was fighting there and then said that anyone asking for help for troubles caused by that fighting is automaticaly a self-proclaimed crook". My charge is correct: You make arguments and reach conclusions which do not follow your arguments.

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...Bro. Little acknowledges that there is trouble in Mindanao caused by fighting between Muslim and Phlippine Government forces which is a `turn around' from statements made by Glen Hamilton last year in which he denied there was any problems there either with Communist or Muslim rebels..."

whl here:---Read Glenn's reply.

[Editor's Note: I could not find a note by Glenn stating there were no problems from the rebels. Here is the closest that I could get: 5/24/1999 , 6/1999 , 6/7/1999 ]

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...But, although bro. Little acknowledges that there is trouble there, he then says that anyone who asks for help caused by that fighting is automatically a `self-proclaimed crook'. How does that conclusion follow? It does not follow! There may be some who used the problem for their own personal advantage, but is there no real need? And if there is need should not brethren try to help fill the need the victims in this conflict are suffering? What brother Little has done is to discourage help being given to anyone no matter their need, and this is a violation of the Sacred Scriptures..."

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...According to information I have received, Jim Puterbaugh called Virgil Villanueva and asked him if he needed help when this conflict began. We were told that Virgil answered in the affirmation and bro. Puterbaugh sent said relief to him. Confirmation that help was sent from Jim Puterbaugh to people in the critical area of South Cotobato has come from at least two other independent sources. Question: is `Virgil Villanueva' a `self-proclaimed crook'? Is Jim Puterbaugh a `foolish American' for sending help to him?..."

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...one of bro. Little's closest friends, recognizes the need in Mindanao in areas that include General Santos City, and he has already sent help to several places. Bro. Little says that anyone asking for help is a `self-proclaimed crook'. Since (my friend-whl) is helping some of that region, is he helping `crooks'?..."

whl here:---Bro. McDonald should read my comments as carefully as he insisted I should read his. He came down hard on what he sees as my inconsistency. Now consider: Inconsistency prove, what? Error? No, it proves inconsistency...if that exists. He belabors his non-existent point, which I've already answered.

JIM McDONALD: You wrote "words", Wally, but you did not answer. I charged that you made statements then drew conclusions from those statements which did not follow. Here is what you wrote: "Note:---All the fighting has been in Mindanao, and most of that in the southern portion of that island. So to begin with, anyone asking for help for troubles caused by that fighting is automatically a self-proclaimed crook.'..." You said ANYONE, Wally. That certainly includes those from General Santos City. My statement stands: You make statements then draw conclusions from those statements which do not follow.

My reference to Jim Puterbaugh providing help for some in the General Santos City area was not merely to show your inconsistency, Wally, but to show that by your blanket statement: "...anyone asking for help for troubles caused by that fighting is automaticaly a self-proclaimed crook..." you placed Jim Puterbaugh and Virgil Villanueva (your friends) in the catagory as being "self-proclaimed" crooks. You said "anyone", Wally. Jim Puterbaugh (who offered help) and Virgil Villanueva (who accepted his help) would be included as "anyone". You unwittingly charged two of your friends with being crooks.


WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...Bro. Little charges several Filipino brethren whom he names as `crooks', but he offers no proof,..."

whl here:---As a starter, contact Larry Haverstock for a copy of the video he made when Rody Gumpad admitted sin . On more: For five years, I offered it, but had only a single request. So I've given all to a brother constructing a website exposing corruption in the Philippines. It will be available by clicking on its address. When that "Corruption" website is ready, I'll advise all. Any can go there and get proof by the bushel of Gumpad's and others' dishonesty. For any who do not, I can rightly conclude they don't care.

Meanwhile, bro. McDonald: Tell us of those you sent to check rumors of dishonesty by some you trusted to redistribute benevolence you and Ron Halbrook brought in 1998 . I'd like to know why one "preacher" you trusted for this now has a much improved house, including air conditioning while at the same time, he sent an elderly sister to me for benevolence.

JIM McDONALD: Why don't you give us the names of those of whom you speak, Wally, instead of refering to some unnamed person? Glenn charged that the benevolence of 1998 was called the "Great Motorcycle Benevolence" and said that "almost all" of the preachers who received the benevolence bought motorcycles with money given to them. Glenn was asked to supply the names of those preachers who bought motorcycles with that money. He gave (but not to me) the names of one or two falling far
short of "almost all". Even in the cases of the one or two men he charged, all the "proof" that was offered was just the rumors he had heard.

[Editor's Note: There are two notes with the charge of motorcycle purchases: 6/7/1999 and 6/1999 .]

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...but he offers no proof, aside from Rody Gumpad (whom he charges with asking $500 to make a trip from Tuguegarao to Manila to carry his wife to a doctor. Brethren who have been in contact with me relative to this need of Rody's understood that Rody was not asking $500 just to make the trip but for Tessie's medical
attention as well)...

whl here:---OK, let Rody hang himself (message as forwarded):

"From: Rody C. Gumpad <Rody@cgn.csi.com.ph>...
"Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 6:31 PM
"Subject: Tessie's health; June 9/2000

"Brother...Tessie's health is getting bad. She is still on bed and has a very high blood pressure(170 over 110)! She complains
hard/difficult breathing and no feeling on her arms! I think I need to bring her to Manila Doctors before too late. I did not yet get my support for this month. We exhausted what we have in the past lectures and the enrollment of our children. School classes is now going on. Prices of petroleum products has been just raised again last night to a very high percentage but I believe $500. to $600.00 can still be enough for bringing Tessie to Manila. The Doctors said that we need to stay in Manila 3 to 4 days for the tests/general check-up/medical treatment. Brother...told me before that he will try to help for this. I am sending him messages but NEVER heard from him. Brother..., kindly bring this matter to the attention of the good brethren in your Congregation and maybe they can do something, please. This is URGENT and May I hear from you, please. Thank you very much in advance. Sincerely yours in Christ, Rody Gumpad."

whl here with questions. ONE:---Bro. Gumpad is already probably the richest Filipino "preacher," and he wants more? (Eccl 5:10). Since the Bible benevolence pattern is personal and family resources first, why did not Rody sell his $15,000.00 vehicle (purchased with funds given to him in the US in 1999, for benevolence in his area), some of his rice land, or his nine-bedroom, five-bathroom house for the money he needs? Beyond that, the bus trip from Tuguegarao to Manila costs far less than $500.00
to $600.00. While there, Philippine culture dictates he can stay with relatives or friends. If none of these are available, there is always the cultural and Christian hospitality of brethren.

TWO:---What of US law prohibiting any in the United States on a tourist visa from earning money? Gumpad's respect for our laws is the same as for his---none---as when he cheated on his land-purchase taxes in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Philippines (Haverstock's 1996 Video).

JIM McDONALD: For all of Wally's words, notice again what I wrote: "Brethren who have been in contact with me relative to this need of Rody's understood that Rody was not asking $500 just to make the trip but for Tessie's medical attention as well)..." Wally "understood" that Rody was asking for $500 just to make the trip to Manila. Brethren who received from Rody his request for the help understood it to make the trip and PAY FOR THE NECESSARY medical examination. All that Wally says about Rody's supposed corruption does not set aside the fact that he charged Rody with trying to get $500 just to make a trip from Tuguegarao to Manila. Everyone (except Wally) understood Rody's request for $500 to INCLUDE the necessary medical attention Tessie needed. Again I repeat: Wally "sees" things that are not present at all.

[Editor's Note: The reader should know that medical care in the Philippines is free, except for surgery and medicine. Click here for an example. Hypertension is not treated by surgery and I doubt the medicines used in its treatment are that expensive.]

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...Bro. Little offered nothing to substantiate his charge they were `crooks'. Bro. Little sent out his e-mail with that accusation, yet those whom he names as `crooks' cannot defend themselves to those whom bro. Little sent those accusations, nor can they know who their accusers were!...."

whl here:---They are their own accusers. As I wrote, the evidence is being placed on a website, available to all interested enough to go to it. View Larry Haverstock's view 1996 video of the confrontation between Rody Gumpad and nine honest Filipinos.

[Editor's Note: See the chain of letters starting in May 1996 ]

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...Bro. Little would cry `Foul' were I to identify by name several of the associates in his school and say these men are `crooks' without specifying and providing the proof why they were what I charged them with being. He would be correct. It is also `foul' for bro. Little to charge men as being `crooks' without providing the proof of his charges..."

whl here:---Wrong. I would ask for evidence, and when presented, evaluated it. But again, for more than five years, only one man has ever asked for proof, I am weary of making the offer. From now on, I'll simply refer all to the aforementioned website.

WALLY LITTLE: McDonald continued:---"...Hardly an e-mail comes from bro. Little's desk but that he charges someone with lying. Consider the following from an e-mail written to Dennis Reed in February 6, 2000. Now please read the two paragraphs Wally says charges him and others with him of: `keeping holy days, animal sacrifice, Sabbath-keeping, mechanical instruments of music in worship, etc. are still in effect'. Bro. Little is too careless in his reading and too free with charges of `liars;' `crooks', etc. A casual reading of the article shows that neither bro. Little nor any with him were charged with teaching `keeping holy days, animal sacrifice, Sabbath-keeping, mechanical instruments of music in worship, etc. are still in effect.'..."

[Editor's Note: Jim is right that charges of lying are too freely issued. This website is full of people making unsubstantiated charges. I started to list them, but it became too long. Let it be known that McDonald's friends are some of the worse offenders. Examples: Del Los Reyes , Gumpad, Halbrook, Mitchell, Malone, and even McDonald]

whl here:---Yes, "read" it-ALL of it-but with more than "a casual reading." Consider especially the highlighted portions (below):

WALLY LITTLE: The entire two paragraphs from McDonald's article:---"There is much discussion in this region---as throughout the Philippines---about false doctrines relating to divorce and remarriage, and whether the Bible contains `old' and `new' testaments or just `one covenant' regarding salvation. Many questions are being studied regarding grace, faith, and the proper basis of fellowship. Do Bible concepts of grace, faith, and fellowship include BRETHREN PROMOTING ERROR ON INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC, INSTITUTIONAL LIBERALISM, PREMILLENNIALISM, THE ONE-CUP DOCTRINE, THE NO-LOCATED PREACHER DOCTRINE (`MUTUAL EDIFICATION'), DIVORCE-REMARRIAGE THEORIES, AND THE ONE-COVENANT THEORY? We showed that the Bible answers with a resounding, `NO.' but these questions are stirring throughout the islands.

Two brethren widely known and appreciated for their good work in the Philippines in past years are at the heart of this controversy. THE FALSE TEACHING DONE BY JIM PUTERBAUGH APPROVING EATING BLOOD, ON DIVORCE-REMARRIAGE, AND REGARDING THE `ONE COVENANT' HAS INTERSECTED WITH FALSE CONCEPTS OF GRACE, FAITH, AND FELLOWSHIP. Wallace Little has promoted and defended much of this teaching (see his exchanges with J. T. Smith, Gospel Truths, May 1997 and May 1998). These errors hold the potential of doing great damage to the cause of Christ in the Philippines, as elsewhere. Because these themes have received sufficient attention in
gospel papers in recent years, we will not review them in detail here. In the context of the Philippines, suffice it to say that we do not believe Filipino brethren by and large will embrace these errors, though the danger is real and some damage has occurred. Everywhere these questions are bring discussed, we urge patient study and urge that brethren focus on what the text of Scripture teaches rather than upon personal ties and friendships (1 Cor 4:6)."

whl here:---Draw your own conclusions. Did they imply I believed and taught those things from Moses Law still applied today? I told bro. Halbrook face-to-face in the presence of his elders at W. Columbia, TX in 1993 the charge was untrue, and likewise bro. McDonald in Marshall, TX, in July 1996. Also, I've written both these, denying the charge, and at least twice on the phone with Ron Halbrook, told him the same thing. So should they not have exercised caution before authoring those two paragraphs? In the absence of a shred of evidence and in the face of my constant and frequent denial, to publish such accusations, by implication, is lying.

JIM McDONALD: Bro. Little asks: "Did they imply I believed and taught those things from Moses's Law still applied today?" Answer: No, we did not. Again we repeat: "Bro. Little does not read well." Go back and read what Wally charged us with saying. Then read what actually was written. The two are not the same at all.

WALLACE LITTLE: I read a bit better than bro. McDonald charged. He should be as careful. He added some accusations against bro. Glenn Hamilton. Glenn has already answered them well.

JIM McDONALD: The charges I made against Glenn Hamilton were equally against Wallace Little for you both are equally guilty of "rushing into print" with those things you have not fully substantiated. The case regarding Gregorio de los Reyes INVOLVED you as well as Glenn, for you were one of the instruments through which Glenn's accusations against Gregorio was spread and if indeed it can be proven that Glenn "rushes into print" with those things he has not fully substantiated, then it is equally true that you are guilty of the same. You circulated the matter, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for proving the charges to be true as well as Glenn. The following exchange is from Glenn Hamilton and his response to the issues he raised concerning Gregorio de los Reyes.

GLENN HAMILTON: "Dear brethren, At the request of Wallace Little, I will answer those portions of Jim McDonald's letter that seem to be addressed to me. I will point out that Jim did not come to me with these matters first (in accordance with Matthew 18:15-20), nor did he even copy this current letter to me, which would have saved him some needless embarrassment."

JIM MCDONALD: Glenn says I should have gone to him first before my article was published citing Matthew 18:15-20. Surely Glenn is a better Bible student than that. Matthew deals with personal, private matters which was not the case with the matter concerning Gregorio. Glenn had published it far and wide through bro. Little as well as other independent sources. However, Glenn operates on a "double standard". He indicates I should have gone to him first with what I wrote before it was given to others. I have e-mails, letters and have received telephone calls from all over the United States, Glenn, in which you have made slanderous charges against me and yet you did not come to me first with those matters. "Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?"

GLENN HAMILTON: "McDonald wrote:---"...Bro. Little acknowledges that there is trouble in Mindanao caused by fighting between Muslim and Phlippine Government forces which is a `turn around' from statements made by Glen (sic-Glenn) Hamilton last year in which he denied there was any problems there either with Communist or Muslim rebels..." Glenn's comment:---Of course, everyone knows there is trouble this year in Mindanao. Last year there was a truce signed in April 1999. I was writing in May and June to stop the Lord's people from wasting money to help with a situation that had already ended at that time. If someone is interested, I'll be happy to send newspaper articles to show that there was peace in Mindanao at the time last year when you were raising money."

JIM McDONALD: There may have been a peace TREATY signed in Apil 1999, but there was NO peace. And, I can provide equal number of newspaper clippings which show of massacres and rebel efforts during the time you said there was no problem.

GLENN HAMILTON: "McDonald continued:---"(He) summarized some reports of mine from 1999 as follows:...
"1. Gregorio delos Reyes had ceased to preach for the church in Sampaguita, Solana, Cagayan Valley.
"2. Gregorio delos Reyes took a secular job as a private chauffeur for Rody C. Gumpad.
"3. Gregorio delos Reyes continued to receive over $1,000 in support from US brethren although he was no longer preaching. "4. Gregorio delos Reyes made a death threat against Glen Hamilton.
"5. The desk Sargent to whom Glen reported a death threat he has received by mail (before he was "`hreatened' by Gregorio) said that Rody Gumpad was a `Crook and extortioner'; that Rody came to America and used `the names of his members to raise big money, but only spends it on himself.' Glenn's comments:---As his evidence that my information was wrong, Jim offers the "sworn affidavit" of Greggorio de los Reyes. Who would accept the word of the one accused and who has every reason to lie?

"His second piece of claimed evidence is a statement signed by 38 people he claims are members of Sampaguita. I have attended that congregation and it did not have 38 members at least not at the time in 1999 we are all concerned about. I do have a list of the members who were there in 1999 and a list of those who came and reported to me that Greg had stopped preaching there in October 1999. Yes he has since returned after I reported his situation, but that does not change what
happened.

"His third piece of supposed evidence is a statement by four friends of Greg who claimed they were present when Greg threatened to kill me. Since there were only three of us present and in a position to hear what Greg said, I find this statement comical. The four friends were across the parking lot (about 100 feet away) and at no time approached the car I was in. The only witness to what Greg said was Francisco Pagulayan (fgpagulayan@yahoo.com) and he has sworn to the police that Greg threatened to kill me someday."

JIM McDONALD: In the above three instances I offered evidence which was supplied by Gregorio in defense of himself. Glenn asks, "Who would accept the word of the one accused and who has every reason to lie?" I was not aware that the constitution of either the United States or the Philippine Islands forbade an accused one from offering evidence from either himself or others in his own defense; certainly the Scriptures allow us to offer evidence to defend ourselves. According to Glenn, since Gregorio is accused and "has reason to lie" he should not be allowed to offer evidence of his innocency. By the same reasoning since Gregorio accuses Glenn and says he lies, Glenn should not be allowed to offer evidence in his defense.

GLENN CONTINUES "Finally Jim offers his own testimony. He fails to inform his readers that just the week prior to his trip to Cagayan, Jim promised Roman "Roger" Wanasen (rmw-fcss@mozcom.com) that he would not see Rody Gumpad while in Cagayan. Rather he promised to go straight to the police on his own and investigate the matter so that he would not be fooled. Anyone who wants to verify that Jim indeed promised such to Roger can write to Roger at his e-mail. Roger has already rebuked Jim for his lying so I am sure he will be willing to discuss the matter with interested brethren. Jim provides his own proof of his lying to Roger by stating they went to the police with Rody. Now we get to the real embarrassment for Jim. I have asked Jim before to name the officer Rody brought them to since I did not believe Rody would risk bringing them to the right officer. Sure enough, Rody brought them to the wrong officer. The desk sergeant to whom I spoke was SPO3 Marcelo Cabildo as is plainly evident on the police blotter here on the desk before me. Jim and Earl (Jim's companion) were once again fooled by Rody and his tricks, but when will they stop covering up his evil ways? I still have copies of the police reports and the death threats here on my desk, does Jim deny there existence? He must since he says there is no proof."

JIM McDONALD: Glenn says "He fails to inform his readers that just the week prior to his trip to Cagayan, Jim promised Roman 'Roger' Wanasen (rmw-fcss@mozcom.com) that he would not see Rody Gumpad while in Cagayan. Rather he promised to go straight to the police on his own and investigate the matter so that he would not be fooled." Glenn reports something that did not occur. Roger may have asked me not to see Rody when I was in Tuguegarao, but I made no promise to Roger that I would not see him. I told Roger that I would not allow Rody to be present when I talked with the police officer. I did not allow Rody to be present when I talked with the police officer. Glenn reports: "Anyone who wants to verify that Jim indeed promised such to Roger can write to Roger at his e-mail. Roger has already rebuked Jim for his lying so I am sure he will be willing to discuss the matter with interested brethren." Again, Glenn has reported something that did not occur. Roger has not communicated with me since April and in no communication he made with me after I met him in Manila has he rebuked me for lying. An e-mail from Roger Wanassan on August 10, 2000 confirms that Glenn reports things that are not correct. Read what Roger wrote: "When I learned from the brethren in Cagayan that you stay and meet with Rody, I made a harsh letter to rebuke you. And that what I say to Bro Glenn. I keep on praying whether or not to send to you my letter but one of my good friends asked me if I send already my letter to you and I said not yet. You know what he said? 'I am glad that you did not send because it would hurt him so much.' I don't want to see my brethren hurting, but sometimes we need to pain to gain understanding. Finally, I decided not to send it anymore but if you requested me to send it to you, I will be glad to do it." Glenn says Roger ALREADY had rebuked me for lying. Roger says he wrote a letter, but NEVER MAILED it. I don't know whether he told Glenn he had not mailed the letter or not; either way, Glenn reports a falsehood. Read again what Roger wrote:"Maybe you did not consider a rebuke on what I told you during our meeting. Just because I did it gently and respectfully does not mean it was not a rebuke. I even present to you written evidence. I told you face to face that you made a mistake on the distribution and you accept it, that's why you are here to rebuke them." Glenn says Roger rebuked me for LYING. Roger said he "rebuked" me for
making a "mistake on the distribution". "Lying" and "making a mistake on the distribution" are two different things all together. Glenn's witness, Roger, is not a very reliable one! Glenn mentions that I gave the wrong name of the officer he talked with, another example that Rody had "fooled" me. It is true that I was confused about the name of the officer bro. Mitchell and I talked with and I gave the name of another officer rather than that of SPO3 Marcelo Cabildo. But, I have since talked with a man who claimed to be SPO4 Marcelo Cabildo. I asked him if he would talk with both Glenn and myself together so that Glenn could see that he was the same police officer he talked with. He agreed that he would. He said that two Americans (whose
names he did not remember) did talk with him in March and that he would remember my face were he to see it again. I am willing to come to Tuguegarao on one of my next trips to the Philippines and go with you to the officer who claimed to be SPO4 Marcelo Cabildo. If he is not the same officer, then you have proven that Rody did "fool us". But if he is the same one you spoke with, brother Mitchell and I have already given testimony that said officer denied that he had called Rody "a crook and
swindler". Rather, he reported to us that those were your words. I did not deny that a death threat had been made against you, Glenn. I offered your charges against Gregorio, then the words of Gregorio in which he denied that your charges were true, giving notarized statements from brethren to sustain his statements. Then I wrote: " In the face of all this conflicting testimony WHAT OR WHOM SHALL ONE BELIEVE? .........There is one way in which the truth, at least in one point, can be obtained. Gregorio has supplied three names (two individuals, one congregation) who each supply $50 to him in monthly support. Since Glen and Wallace affirm that he has apparantly over $1,000 in monthly support, let them supply the names of those extra supporters. If Glen and Wallace will supply those names proving that Greg has lied in this regard, I will rebuke him for his lie and advise his present supporters that he is not worthy of their continued support. On the other hand, if Wallace and Glen cannot supply the names of those extra supporters, let them ask Greogorio's forgiveness for slandering him and publicly confess that they were guilty of making false charges against him. What can be fairer than this?"

Only Roger Wanassan was present with me in Manila when we discussed my going to Tuguegarao. I know what I said, Roger knows what he said and God knows what we both said. I am content to stand before my God with what I said to Roger. But for those who were not present it is a matter of "I said"; "You said" situation which cannot be sustained by witnesses. In the case of Gregorio, we have another impasse: Glenn makes his charges agaisnt Gregorio, offers the names of no witnesses save one; Gregorio denies Glenn's charges and offers affidavits with witnesses who reveal their identify to prove his words. So again I say: "In the face of such conflicting testimony WHAT OR WHOM SHALL ONE BELIEVE? "

Roger Wanassan, in his e-mail to me, tried to respond to this dilemma. Here is what he wrote, with my reply to him: "You (Roger W., jm) quote me ''But the test is still there. Where are the names of those supporting churches and/or individuals who supported Greg $1,000? Let Glenn and Wallace produce those names and I will do as I said I would do: I will rebuke Greg and urge his supporters to cease his support'. (RMW) Maybe the amount of the support was not correct (I don't know) but the real issue here Jim is that; Bro Greg stop preaching in Sampaguita, he only resume when Glenn made his report. This is a fact." My response to Roger was: "The real issue, Roger, is that I charged Glenn and Wally with rushing into print with things they had not confirmed. They have not produced the names of those supporters of Greg that they said supplied him with apparantly $1,000 in support. They have given false information. My proposition is sustained: THEY RUSH INTO PRINT WITH THINGS THEY HAVE NOT CONFIRMED."

Both of you are obligated to give the names of Gregorio de los Reyes supposed supporters since you claim he had $1,000 in monthly support. Supply those names and you will have proven that Gregorio is a liar. But if you cannot produce such names you will have proven what I have charged you with: you rush into print with charges which you have not substantiated. Neither of you chose to deal with this matter in your letter and yet here is the clearest possible test to determine who is telling the truth, Gregorio or you. Why not "prove" that Greogrio is the liar you affirm him to be by giving us the names and addresses of
churches and/or individuals who provided support to Gregorio amounting to $1,000? Will you do that? We shall see.

Sincerely,

Jim McDonald

[Editor's Note: Under the Old Testament, witnesses were interviewed separately to see if the details of their testimonies matched. Witnesses who conflicted themselves in details were not used in making judgment.]