Page 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater 5 info@gwmwater.org.au Cc: creditcollect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335 10 Sir, There is an ongoing dispute between GWMWater and myself and it is time this is terminated. Perhaps you may wish to write it off or whatever but it has gone on for too long. . In 1987 I commenced to purchase a property Lot 10 and 12 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock. Each lot had a water meter and supply. I requested than the water supply and so its meter to be removed from Lot 12, and this than eventuated, albeit this is the Lot upon which the residential house is located, whereas Lot 120 had nothing but large sheds on it without any need for water supply. A large water tank provides for water to the house. Some years ago, one of my sons (Richard Schorel) wanted to move into the property with 2 of my granddaughters, and I accepted this provided he would pay all incoming bills (including water bills) relating to the usage. He was never a tenant as such nor was required in any way to pay rent. GWMWater started to send out bills to both myself and my son and I discovered we both were paying the same bill. I assumed it was sent to me because Richard had failed to pay. Being at the time the account holder I held that it was then appropriate for GWMWater to forward me the bill to get it paid. Richard however complained that he should be the account holder and wanted his privacy and didnt want this to be interfered with by GWMWater forwarding copies of water bills to me, and GWMWater then in its correspondence advised to transfer the account into Richards name. As such this was accomplished. Years later I discovered to be subjected to demands by GWMWater for alleged unpaid charged against Richard. Later GWMWater changed the account to my name but without my authority. I accepted to pay any further water usage, and you may find from the records this was about zero.GWMWater then involved creditcollect to try to get me to pay the bills but I explained to them also, and forwarded copies to them, that I held not to be obligated to pay Richards overdue accounts. Later GWMWater reduced some of the monies it claimed but less than 10% of the total. It also then charged me or purportedly me for a $60 charge for legal advice. Obviously this was a blatant breach of my undertaking to pay for water usage. 19-12-2013

Ref: 2305224

15

20

25

30

35

I also started to campaign about the failure of GWMWater to provide suitable drink water, as after all what is the sense of having purportedly drink water pipelines to a property where the 40 water is not suitable for human consumption. In the last few days I received the following:

19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 1

Page 2

. The problem remains that unsuspected people who are to use water from a tap, including small children and visitors, may not be aware of the warning and no warnings are provided on
19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 2

10

15

20

25

30

35

Page 3 properties themselves where the water meter is provided and hence I view GWMWater is and remains negligence in its DUTY OF CARE. . It is not my duty to provide signage as it is GWMWater who provides the unsuitable for human consumption water. I have no need for being supplied not for human consumption water and so view GWMWater is charging for the supply of a connection, water supply, etc, by false/misleading/deceptive conduct. After I purchased the property commencing 1987 I then began to pursue that water usage should be charged ass I became aware neighbours leaving the tap running unchecked, while I hardly ever used any water, yet we all were charged the same. However, in the end that added charges to a water account undermined totally what I pursued to achieve and that was a fair charge for usage. The usage now is generally nullified by the other cost charged for. Recently, I attended to friends property at Cobram, they recently purchased and was given the understanding they had no water charges. Moment, GWMWater has been going on about entitled to charge property holders for water connection, etc, and now it seems that the same legislation it relies upon actually doesnt at all binds all property holders but seems to be merely the making of what GWMwater seeks to make out of it. . I have personally no need for water supply certainly not water not fit for human consumption to the property, (known as 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock) and if in case of fire there is a need for water, well we are paying a fire levy on our rates that the Fire Brigade is to have access to water. Generally it takes it from the town centre. I did not request to transfer the account back into my name, and the unilateral decision by GWMWater to do so may also be a legal issue, as well as that it had/has no right to disclose outstanding charges of Richard, as this was precisely he didnt want to eventuate and for which GWMWater at the time agreed to transfer the account in Richards name. While I have been given the understanding that GWMWater has no legal position to transfer an account into the name of a person not being the property holder, this too seems to be questionable as people who rent from the Ministry of Housing are billed in their own name and not that the Ministry of Housing is billed, being the delegated entity of the government properties I understand that my son Richard is currently enjoying a stay at one of Her Majesty accommodations, however prior to that I provided GWMWater with his residential address in Horsham. As such I sought to cooperate but found GWMWater to be totally ignorant to reality. I have been yet again been issued with an account as to alleged outstanding chargers and quite frankly this has to stop. I request that my payments made of recent times are all refunded and that the account is simply held as a write off, in view that no legal authority existed for GWMWater to unilaterally alter the account from Richards name to mine.

Despite my ongoing campaign to expose GWMWater for failing to provide suitable drink water 40 to its customers, GWMWater seems to appear to me to take a position to stand above the law. It clearly acknowledges in its statement reproduced above that as shown below again: QUOTE

END QUOTE 45 QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 3

Page 4 domestic and stock use, in relation to water, means use for (a) household purposes; or END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B

QUOTE

END QUOTE 10 QUOTE

END QUOTE It must be kept in mind that for many years I carted for up to 5 of my children on the property 15 and then as I recall it was never advised about the water not being suitable for human consumption! In my view this was a serious breach of DUTY OF CARE by GWMWater. My late father actually was working for the Rotterdam Drinkwater (The Netherlands) and pointed out how critical it was that water coming through the taps in households must be fit for human consumption. In my view the ability of GWMWater to obtain suitable drink water cannot 20 be claimed not to exist where we have the Wontaggi Desalination Plant idle, but nevertheless at considerable cost to taxpayers. As such, it appears to me that it might be rather that GWMWater is in breach of legislative requirements not willing to obtain suitable drink water for human consumption, which may perhaps be because of the cost associated with it. Here we are providing suitable drink water for human consumption to 3rd world countries at our 25 expenses but we cannot bother to do the same for our own. In my view, as long as GWMWater fails to provide suitable drink water for human consumption then it cannot acting in breach of law, while at the same time seek to rely upon enforcing other parts of law that it may elect to rely upon. What we have is that customers are forced to pay charges and on top of that then incur additional charges to obtain suitable drink water. In my 30 view this is totally unacceptable and GWMWater seems to me not being credible to provide drink water and should not be in the business of water supply. Where is any agreement GWMWater entered into with the State Government was it that GWMWater was to be exempt from compliance to legislation it would not want to comply with? Indeed, considering that GWMWater itself acknowledges to be does not meet accepted 35 Victorian Government standards then it acknowledges by this implied or otherwise, that it fails to comply with what is required? To me GWMWater is insulting the people living in country areas that while their monies is what they are after it cannot care less about the health of those same customers.
19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 4

Page 5 QUOTE 6-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE GWMWater info@gwmwater.org.au

6-8-2013 Ref: 2305224

Cc: creditcollect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335 10 Sir/Madam, I received a correspondence recently referring to the Tenancy Act, and it should be clarified that my son Richard never was a tenant. he moved in as a de facto owner, hence he was to pay all incoming bills regarding the property, including rates, which he neither did, and as the nomination for GWMWater wasnt working instead the account was transferred to him. 15 English is not my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the English language but to me you can for example nominate a person as a driver for insurance purposes, this doesnt give the person ownership of a vehicle. You can transfer a vehicle to another person which ordinarily gives them ownership of the vehicle. 20 As you may recall I wrote in the past:
.QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE Well that may be your choice, but I can assure you I am going to campaign for the human rights of people living in the GWMWater service area, as well as others denied the same right of access to suitable drink water! GWMWater may not consider the human value relevant, and merely interested to make a buck from struggling farmers, and others, disregarding their human rights, but I can assure you I am not a person going to drop this issue.
.

25

30 .END QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE GWMWater 35 info@gwmwater.org.au

Page 5

17-2-2013

19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 6

Ref: 2305224 Cc: creditcollect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335 5 Sir/Madam, further to my 23-12-2012 correspondence I noted that as yet you failed to respond appropriately, that is to me, as to refunding to me the monies which GWMWater overcharged for numerous years. Obviously, I also seek interest for the falsely claimed and obtained monies by GWMWater, and to consider that the many of the bills that were on account of and addresse to 10 and forwarded to Richard Schorel and later to myself refer to:

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further treatment
.

END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

15 As I understand it, we have such a thing as a Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and that has been in existence for some years now.
.

With GWMWater seeking to rely upon legislative provisions then consider also that you are 20 bound by the correct interpretation of the legislation. Hence, any discrimination is unlawful. So where the legislation QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B 25
domestic and stock use, in relation to water, means use for (a) household purposes; or (b) watering of animals kept as pets; or (c) watering of cattle or other stock; or (ca) in the case of the curtilage of a house and any outbuilding, watering an area not exceeding 12 hectares for fire prevention purposes with water obtained from a spring or soak or water from a dam; or (d) irrigation of a kitchen garden but does not include use for dairies, piggeries, feed lots, poultry or any other intensive or commercial use;

30

END QUOTE Water Act 1989-Vic-89-80a099B 35 Clearly the legislation provides for Domestic and stock usewhich includes household purposes, whereas the bills provided to Richard as well as to myself provides for:
QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further 40 treatment
END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

I therefore seek further and better particulars regarding the qualification of what constitutes drink water household usage domestic usage, etc. 45 Why indeed can the legislation purportedly applying to all Victoria have a different application in different parts of Victoria? After all, in Melbourne my water bills do not disclose
QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

Page 6

Page 7

Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparation without further treatment 5
END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

10

Therefore, it appears to me that there is a discrimination going on between city residents and those in the country. And this while the Wanthaggi desalination plant is not used to supply suitable drink water. it is beyond me why GWMWater has not sourced water from this idle desalination plant to ensure it wouldnt discriminate against citizens in country area;s. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the legislation you selectively seeks to rely upon while blatantly disregarding others.

What was/is the strategy of GWMWater to provide suitable drinking water to all Victorians that 15 are served by it? Why indeed, should Victorians have to purchase drink water from other sources and incur a huge cost in addition to what GWMWater already is charging?
.

There are such a things the National Groundwater Action Plan - Victorian Projects, 20 Environment Protection Act 1970 70-8056a172 and Sustainable Water Strategies to name a view, and my wifes late husband Mr Jaroslav Hlavka M.I.E. Aust CP ENG extensively wrote about how groundwater could be in a sufficient manner used for supplying all Victorians with drink water, this while he was employed with Melbourne Water (as it then was called).. 25 As for concession issues, let make it very clear I took the Department of Human Services to the Supreme Court of Victoria when it unlawfully had obtained a warrant to arrest my 2 year old daughter and defeated them in court. In fact the trail judge made clear the warrant was unlawful, as it sought to undermine earlier Supreme Court of Victoria court orders. As such, the Department of Human Services all along was aware I was entitled to concessions because it 30 provided the concession card to me in the first place, in 1986! and it was on the Berriwillock address, until 28 March 2001, being then my principle residential address. And as far as I recall it GWMWater was at the time notified about the concession card, but seemingly ignored to take appropriate action about it. I do not run the office in GWMWater and so do not hold me accountable for its errors and failures, as I have no ordinary access to its files anyhow to check 35 up what it has or hasnt on the files documented. Safe to say that GWMWater to my understanding overcharged me for year after year and where GWMWater seems to charge interest on overdue monies then likewise a customer wrongly overcharges is entitled on compounding interest. and those overdue monies are coming rightfully to me and not to be confused with Richards contract with GWMWater and any overdue payments by him to 40 GWMWater. Neither do I agree with the reference of the section of the Water Act that somehow the bills (Richards Account Holders Bills) can be put against me, as the section doesnt pursue it as such, rather that you are taking it out of context. 45 I will try to use a simplified example:
By Victorian laws one must wear a seatbelt when one is driving a motor vehicle, albeit when reversing one can have the seatbelt unbuckled, as it can interfere with ability to reverse when trying to turn around. . So, you sit in your driveway and your partner ask you to more the vehicle 2 metres, so your partner can freely move along it. You do so. A police officer then comes to you and issue an infringement notice on the basis Page 7 19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

50

Page 8 you were moving the vehicle without wearing your seatbelt and that is unlawful. You make clear that you are on private property in your own driveway and so it doesnt apply. What do you expect from the police officer, to withdraw the Infringement Notice because he has it wrong? Well you may so but why not then apply the same reasoning to the alleged water bills?
.

Do not hesitate to provide me with copies of documentation you seek to rely upon as to why you hold that GWMWater can provide water to Victorians unsuitable for human consumption whereas other Victorians in, for example, Melbourne have suitable drinkwater provided to them. Again do not ignore the Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, which I 10 understand the Supreme Court of Victoria held was applicable to Victorian legislative provisions. You may provide any extensive material both in print and on a CD/DVD so I can peruse it all, and we can take it from there. Recently I published articles as to how the Infringement Act 2006 is misconceived. The 15 Infringement Act 2006 refers to lodging but it also relies upon the Magistrates Court Act 1989 which refers to filing. the difference is that a document submitted to the registry is lodged and doesnt become filed until the court accepts it for filing. At times the court refuses to accept documents for filing even so it was lodged. What I am trying to point out is that since 2006 numerous court cases were conducted regarding Infringement Notices and somehow all those 20 lawyers seemed to have assumed that lodging in the Infringement Court was as if it was filed. Reality is, that nothing was seemingly ever filed in the Infringement Court and so as it operates as part of a Chapter III of the constitution court (Kable) then clearly all litigation failing to be also an open court are invalid.
.

25 You see lawyers often assume things and for years ago along with this as if it is the law. This is why lawyers do not declare the law, but they give their opinion and no more. If 100 cases are to be decided by the court and each party has legal representation (and that involved 200 sets of lawyers) then 50% of them will be found to be wrong. If the same was to be applied to doctors that 50% of their patients would die in operations they would likely be called charlatans. 30 So, GWMWater charged $60.00 for legal advice, and did this lawyer really consider at all some of the points I referred to? I doubt it! In the Colosimo case more then 20 years were involved in the litigation and the message was clear that Mr Colosimo had to purge his contempt, etc. Well, Mr Colosimo, placed under administration then decided to get rid of his barrister and have me representing him as a Professional Advocate. I provided my services (as always) FREE OF 35 CHARGE. And I proved that all those lawyers involved (including the judges) had it all wrong from onset, and the administration orders were set aside and the contempt proceedings were no more. Actually, I discovered that despite 6 contempt hearings the transcript proved the judges had failed to formally charge him. Even that not a single lawyer seemed to be aware of is a legal requirement before you can seek to punish a person. 40 Actually, even so I am retired, there are still lawyers requesting me to represent them as I did with James a solicitor and barrister for 22 years, in Legal Service Commissioner v Harold James Johnson. While I do not propose to accept such requests, nevertheless it may underline that legal practitioners value my knowledge and understanding in constitutional and other legal matters. 45 Therefore, as I alluded upon before, where GWMWater provides me with the relevant material why it should be accepted as to providing water not suitable for human consumption within the framework of the Water Act 1989 and other information it deems may explain matters, including any contractual arrangements it may have with the Government of the State of Victoria, then I 50 have every intention to consider it all and respond upon it. Again, do refrain from harassing us (my wife and myself) about overdue bills incurred on account of Richard, as I requested so often in the past. GWMWater may unilaterally change the
19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com Page 8

Page 9 name of the account holder but that doesnt make it lawful! Richard became the account holder as it was transferred to him. I am not aware that since then there was any formal transfer of the account to my person to which I agreed with!

5 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to deal with all relevant issues and neither refers to matters in any order of priority. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

10

(Our name is our motto!)

END QUOTE 6-8-2013 CORRESPONDENCE Here you are sending out correspondences about the appointment of a new board member Kate Vinot, but what can she achieved where the other board members so far miserably failed in ensuring that people who are customers with GWMWater are all provided with the same suitable for human consumption drink water. People do not need more or a revolving door system of board members at huge cost when in the end they cannot provide any suitable for human consumption drink water to customers. All the so called experiences by any board member has a zero meaning, if they continue to fail to provide suitable drink water for human consumption. If GWMWater desires to remove the water meter and supply to my property because of its real account holder (Richard Schorel) failing to pay the bills then so be it, as I do not take any responsibility for it. I have no need for non-suitable water for human consumption and neither would want to be held accountable that someone may drink from the water and fall ill. Hence, I seek you to prevent this kind of water to be supplied. Failing GWMWater to do so then it is to be held responsible for any harm that may flow from it. I do not accept that as a customer for water supply in Melbourne under the provisions of the Water Act 1989 I can somehow have the right of being provided with drink water suitable for human consumption and yet somehow under the same act not in Berriwillock, not any of other residents there or in the area. As I understand it, we have such a thing as a Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and that has been in existence for some years now. I am just wondering if GWMWater were to pursue to litigate against me and by this others are alerted to GWMWater failure to comply with the State Governments water standards, what class action then may follow, where those who suffered ill health by inadvertently having been drinking this water not suitable for human consumption then may seek to sue for damages. After all, I view GWMWater has not shown any action to ensure drink water suitable for human consumption will be provided and as such I view continues to fail in its DUTY OF CARE. Perhaps GWMWater may have to consider to have a special drink water line to supply just drink water suitable for human consumption, and another recycle water pipe line for those who may require such for supply other water (recycled or otherwise) for farming, etc.

15

20

25

30

35

40 For the above I urge you to write of the alleged debt, and to make sure my name and so my credit rating is not harmed as GWMWater may then find itself legally accountable/liable for such further harm it may have caused. And again my monies paid are refunded, as clearly GWMWater made absolutely no attempt, despite my good intentions, to seek to adequately resolve the matter. Awaiting your response, 45 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
Page 9

19-12-2012 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist) INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0 PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com