1

Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office 23-3-2018

5 C/o Daniel McCredden, Principal Solicitor
matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au

Sir/Madam,
10 as you may recall in Re: Parvakis v Schorel-Hlavka (ex MCV No.C11666860)
Her Honour Gaynor made known that anyone could institute proceedings. In that case the issue
was that I had not filed a candidate’s expense form, this even so I had no expenses and there was
a dispute with Banyule City Council.

15 You may be aware that the Victorian Ombudsman on 21 March 2018 handed down a report
regarding the misuse/abuse of public monies. It appears to me that about 21 or more Members of
Parliament now exposed to have used public monies for their Victorian State election campaign
Failed to disclose such monies in their candidate election expenses. Further that they conspired to
defraud Consolidated Revenue Funds in the process. I understand that former Mr Landers was
20 involved in this also.
At the time Parvakis pursued the proceedings in her own name and nevertheless the Victorian
Government Solicitor’s Office funded the litigation and provided lawyers for this also. It is my
view that on that basis the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office likewise should provide the
same services for me to lay charges against all those involved in defrauding the Consolidated
25 Revenue funds and to conspire to defraud the Consolidated Revenue Funds as well as to conceal
relevant details on their candidate election expenditure.
It ought to be noted that I did file a formal complaint with the Victorian Ombudsman on 17 May
2017 which included the relevant authority in which it was made clear that public monies cannot
be used for election purposes of which I provided Mr Daniel Andrews also a copy thereof.
30
Will the Victorian Ombudsman recommend that those violating electoral laws misusing
public monies are charged?
The document can be downloaded from:
35 https://www.scribd.com/document/348615829/20170517-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-Re-SUBMISSION-to-
Ombudsman-Victoria-Re-Victorian-Election-Issues

We should apply this mantra by Mr Daniel Andrews Leader of the Opposition to himself and others (including
premier Denis Napthine) and ensure that before the week is out appropriate independent investigations are
40 conducted in these matters so that Mr Daniel Andrews statements
QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
“If decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the abuse of the
public purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have waited” and “It is not a strategy about
representation; it is a strategy about apologising for rorting. That is what it is.”
45 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
Must be applied as he pursued then let he and others be used as examples.
No excuses about what he may have expected as to the holding of a by-election in Frankston but “accountability” for
what I view his “rorting’ of public monies.

50 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS

23-3-2018
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: See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 2
This is transparent, and it is central to the reason why the people of this great state have such low
regard for us as parliamentarians and politicians.
END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS

5 It ought to be obvious that where I had written about Ethics Orientation for State Officials
Misuse of Public Funds http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php on 4-6-2014 to the then
Premier Mr Napthine with a copy to Mr Daniel Andrewes which was about 5 months prior to the
Victorian 2014 State election and provided thereafter further copies of this Authority then Mr
Daniel Andrews knew or ought to have known that he couldn’t use public monies for electoral
10 purposes.
END QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION Daniel
Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
QUOTE 20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC -Re Geoff Shaw saga-etc
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
15 QUOTE

Ethics Orientation for State Officials

Misuse of Public Funds

Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes

The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the
20 principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An
expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest
rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public
official possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or
25 impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds
may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are
neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no
30 personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the
employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the
services of the employee for public purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure
35 is not merely incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of
value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and
use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.

Examples of Misuse of Public Funds

40 1. In People v. Dillon, a city commissioner used official government discounts to
purchase items for himself and others. This was a misuse of public funds, even though
those receiving the discount paid for the items with personal funds.

2. In People v. Sperl, a county marshal furnished a deputy marshal and a county vehicle
to transport a political candidate, his staff and family.

45 3. In People v. Battin, a county supervisor used his county compensated staff to work on
his political campaign for Lieutenant Governor.

4. In People v. Harby, a city official used a city car, entrusted to him for use in
connection with official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great
Falls, Montana and back.

23-3-2018
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: See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 3
Violations of the laws prohibiting misuse of public funds may subject the violator to criminal and
civil sanctions.
These penalties may include imprisonment for up to four years and a bar from holding office.
END QUOTE
5
Wed have that the Victorian Government under the leadership of Premier Denis Napthine provided
reportedly $1.5 million to a friend for meat works. And I understand that Premier Denis Napthine may
have agreed to fund cost for having Gay Waterhouse a horse trainer to attend to Warnabool races. Such
expenditures are not in my view that of ordinary services of a Department and therefore should be subject
10 to special Appropriation Bills to be authorised by the Parliament. Failure of this the public monies cannot
be used for this.
END QUOTE 20140615-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Bruce Atkinson MLC -Re Geoff Shaw saga-etc
END QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION Daniel
Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
15
It is a very serious matter to rob electors of a fair and proper election and by this so to say steal
an election victory as it undermine DEMOCRACY. In the circumstances I view it appropriate for
the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office to provide the same manner of support as it did at
the time with Parvakis, which may also then show that it not merely targeted me for my
20 exposure of politician’s wrongdoings but will likewise do so with politicians themselves.

In my view as the issue related to the ALP and not the State Government then the spending of a
reported $1 million to seek to prevent an Ombudsman inquiry ought to be held an attempt to
pervert the course of justice and a further misuse and abuse of public funding. It is irrelevant that
25 Mr Daniel Andrews then was Premier as it related to a non-government issue.
.Thiscorrespondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to set out all issues or
contain all relevant details and neither refers to matters in any order of importance.

30 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Our name is our motto!
35

23-3-2018
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: See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati