[Governance] JOSH SOKOL - CEASE AND DESIST CONTACT WITH CHRIS GATFORD
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Wed Feb 26 00:01:46 UTC 2014
As far as I am aware Chris may not have submitted the conference call
as evidence since he is expecting the NSW Police to seek a confession
from me in the first instance, which I can confirm was the purpose of
their call on Sunday.
All I have made NSW Police aware of is Chris' (or possibly the Police
interpretation of Chris' complaint) is the indirect reference to
"Internet Security" is OWASP. For the record Chris has referred to
OWASP as "Internet Security" in past Police complaints.
As far as the NSW Police are concerned, if Josh has restated the claim
made by Chris Gatford then that all that is required to correlate his
version of events. It is up to Chris if he desires to submit the
conference call recording or not. I suspect that he won't because his
agenda is to cause me damage thought the repetition of hearsay, in
this case from Josh Sokol and his complaint is not genuine.
As I told Josh from the onset, I don't want to be recorded and this is
the specific reason why.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Josh Sokol <josh.sokol at owasp.org> wrote:
> Evidence to Christian's first objection:
> Christian is now directly contradicting what he stated on an e-mail to the
> governance list two days ago:
> "The root cause of this entire issue is that had Dinis Cruz provided me with
> complaint by Andre Ludwig i.e.
> http://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-board/2010-June/008481.html and
> elected to investigate Chris Gatford of the OWASP Sydney Chapter as the
> "unverified sources" then this entire issue would have been resolved without
> the long term damage to my career and standing within the security community
> in which Chris Gatford has subsequently formed relationship with at the
> exclusion OWASP i.e. RUXCON, AusCERT, AISA, etc."
> ("Re: [Governance] Termination - Request for Artifact(s)" - Sun, Feb 23,
> 2014 at 6:39 PM)
> Regarding Christian's Second Objection:
> Now we have an indirect reference to me being "Internet Security"? OK, I am
> a lot of things, but I am clearly not "Internet Security". This isn't
> evidence. This is ridiculous.
> Regarding Christian's Third Objection:
> Chris Gatford is actually the one who said that Christian attempted to pull
> down his pants. I was merely restating what I was told. And not only was
> Christian consulted on this, he provided a response to me and Tobias.
> Again, contradicting himself.
> "You can see from the above that a reasonable person won't conclude
> that his claim that I attempted to "pull down his pants" is just
> another example of hearsay and rumour in which to divert the OWASP
> Board attention from the evidence related to his direct involvement in
> the Google Hacking Inquiry.
> Please keep this in mind next time you approach him."
> ("Re: Chris Gatford - False Claim of Assault" - Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:18
> Once again, I will state that this is Christian making assumptions about
> what was discussed in my interview with Chris Gatford. As he was not there,
> and has not heard the recording, this is false speculation. I have asked
> that he have the police contact me directly and have received no such
> response. I have asked for clarification and evidence regarding the claim
> of "Code of Ethics violations" that Christian has made against me and have
> received none. In addition, I would like to point out that this is
> Christian's attempt to seek vengeance upon me for my failed attempt to seek
> peace between him and the OWASP Foundation. Assuming that no evidence is
> presented (it can't because it doesn't exist), and no crime has been
> committed, I would like for this to be added to the official record for
> consideration when judging Christian's contributions to the OWASP
> Foundation. It is yet another example of Christian's attempts to damage the
> OWASP Foundation as indicated by him in a tweet to Jim Manico on 4/23/2013
> 10:23 AM. "@manico Then I'll just continue to damage @owasp but then again
> it does damage itself so well already" This attack on my integrity is
> baseless and unfounded and should be summarily dismissed.
More information about the Governance