[Governance] JOSH SOKOL - CEASE AND DESIST CONTACT WITH CHRIS GATFORD
christian.heinrich at cmlh.id.au
Wed Feb 26 02:08:36 UTC 2014
No, Josh Sokol has sought the predetermined outcome from the onset to
extend my period of revocation indefinitely.
He has been told time after time to call me on the telephone, which he
refuses because it can't be recorded to be used against me later on
and neither did he list the contentious issues for my comment or
clarification prior to representing them to the OWASP Board. Neither
would he allow Justin Derry to represent me on my behalf.
As far as Josh may or may not have said, this doesn't matter to the
NSW Police are seeking the minimal amount of evidence in which to
convict me and if that evidence come from the OWASP recorded
conference call then there is nothing I can do about this. Right or
wrong, that's for the court to decide.
Like I told Dinis at HITB Amsterdam 2010 "I don't want my innocence
proven with an inquiry because it will come at too high and personal
and professional cost" but this is a lesson the OWASP Board doesn't
learn time and time again. Josh has simply been used by Chris Gatford
just as Andre Ludwig, Dinis Cruz and Brad Causey have been used in the
In fact, I would have had a much better outcome with Tom Brennan than
Josh Sokol because he at least knows the background, public relations,
intent of police investigations and trust me there no bias between Tom
Brennan and I because we distrust each other.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Tobias <tobias.gondrom at owasp.org> wrote:
> just to be clear: I am already fully aware of all relevant
> communications that have been sent or received by Josh with regard to
> this situation. That is my duty as board member and supporting Josh in
> this fact finding mission. Furthermore, Josh has been in constant
> dialogue with me about the best steps to allow building a bridge for
> peace with you and I fully supported all of Josh's steps, questions and
> And let me reiterate: your accusations are just false and some of them
> outright fabrications or lies.
> At this moment I see no need for further comments, so I can wait until
> you can address Martin's questions or until you conjure up any other
> false accusations.
More information about the Governance