GWMWater info@gwmwater.org.au 5 Cc: creditcollect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.

au Ref 369335

13-7-2013 Ref: 2305224

Sir/Madam, 10 A common problem with people working for a Government or private organisation is that they generally can continue to harass a person at expenses of others, being it taxpayers/ratepayers, shareholders, etc. In my view courts should be more inclined to award cost against the employee causing unrealistic harm upon a person rather then the company or government organisation paying for it. This may then reduce a lot of problems, including 15 litigation.
.

As was made clear, in the past, by me was that while I had 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock, as my principle place of residence and was entitled to reduction of rates due to having a pension card entitlement, GWMWater to my recollection failed to provide such a discount, and despite 20 my previous request failed to refund the overpayments. Further, as I also made known that GWMWater is not providing " drinkwater" suitable for human consumption and therefore it fails to provide a service for which it can bill. Not that it is conceded it can bill rightfully! 25 The very purpose for people to be connected with a residential block to the water supply system is so they can draw drink water from this system. As I indicated in previous correspondence, GWMWater itself on the billing shows that water is not suitable as drink water.
QUOTE 23-122012 CORRESPONDENCE The bill I now receive in the incorrect surname as “Schorel” instead of my surname “Schorel-Hlavka” contains the 30 following:

“Untreated water supply not suitable for drinking or food preparations without further treatment ” (The red colour is on the bill in black) END QUOTE 23-122012 CORRESPONDENCE
35

I noted that the bill shows
QUOTE Urban Water account END QUOTE

40 As I did set out before urban water is deemed to be suitable for drinking water. Just imagine that the entire City of Melbourne and suburbs, is denies drinking water. There would be a huge outcry. I cannot see, if this matter were to end up in a court, that the judicial officer would accept to be charged for water which is unsuitable for human consumption. the judicial officer would be bound to accept that if he/she would not accept this kind of water then neither could it be 45 accepted for "urban water" to be provided to others that are not suitable as drinking water.
5

p1 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPIONDENCE As the Framers of the Constitution stated; HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) 5 QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE
10 HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution , END QUOTE . 15 Now, if GWMWater want to claim that access to drinkwater is not ordinary the right of a citizen then GWMWater obviously lacks to understand what are basic human rights. END QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

As the States are created (from the former colonies) within s106 of the (federal) constitution then 20 the States and so any organisation acting within delegated powers of the state (being it a council or GWMWater) must comply with the legal principles of this constitution. The judiciary right to adjudicate is embedded in this constitutional also as Chapter III courts, and, hence, I view, cannot deny this rights to have access to drinkwater as a basic entitlement.
25 QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

END QUOTE 17-2-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

The Commonwealth is as I understand it a signature to the United Nations Charter and I invite 30 you to show where in the charter is shows that basic human rights such as drinkwater can be denied to a person? While your company may desire to make money out of water services, that is something that on a business principle is obviously acceptable, however as long as this is done without a adverse result to customers, such as a denial to an essential service such as drinkwater. In my view it is not just irresponsible but criminal to deny urban people of ordinary drinkwater 35 access. It goes directly against the basics of human rights. In my view, GWMWater should have requested the Victorian Government to ensure that suitable drinkwater is made available for all citizens, and if this means using the desalination plant so be it, as the huge cost for it to be mothballed with the result a large percentage of Victorians are left
5

p2 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

without ordinary access to drinkwater cannot be justified. The fact that those denied ordinary access to drinkwater then have to spend huge amounts of monies to purchase drinkwater, while still billed by GWMWater for services, I view cannot be permitted to continue. 5 I now quote from my 21-3-2013 correspondence
QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE (spelling errors left as was) QUOTE Jessica, hereby I authorise you to transfer the water account 00-0045-0550-01-5 of my property at 10-12 Anderson 10 Avenue Berriwillock into the name of my son Richard S.B.M. Scvhorel (sic) born 30 November 1973 who resides at my property. . Please do not forward to me copies of his bills as that caused previously misconceptions. he will be the account holder and deals with the water account (bills) as they arise. 15 . A copy of this email will also be forwarded to my son Richard Schorel at the same time it is forwarded to you. . Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka 20 . 8.4.2009 END QUOTE As you may be aware when a person moves into a Ministery of Housing residence the tenant as such is responsible 25 for the water bill, not the Ministery of Housing. . GWMWater, accepted my email, it requested me to place in writing earlier, and it refers to: * authorise to transfer the water account ...in the name of my son Richard
30

* Please do not forward to me copies of his bills * he will be the account holder
35

* A copy of this email will also be forwarded to my son Richard Therefore, the understanding was and Richard received a copy of this,. so he knew the terms and the associate legal liabilities of being transferred onto his name, as such also, that I would no longer be the account holder, and did not desire copies of his account (so his bills).

40

.

Now let us see what you wrote at b): QUOTE GWMWater was notified by yourself via email on 8 April 2009 that you did not want to receive duplicate accounts whilst Richard Schorel was nom inated to pay the account, however this does not transfer the legal 45 responsibility to pay as Richard is not the registered owner of the property. Please refer to the attached email. END QUOTE I urge you to read what was written in the email, and not what you desire, albeit wrongly, to construe from it. Prior to the 8 April 2009 email, Richard was the nominated person to pay the water bills, but GWMWater indicated 50 to me during a telephone conversation that for it not to forward copies to me, as the account holder, I required to provide a written request to transfer the account into Richards name, by this he would be the account holder, and I would no longer be sent copies, as it would be between GWMWater and Richard. Accordingly, I provided the required request (As was indicated by GWMWater what the request should consist of) and for this, held that no longer was I the account holder, and all legal obligations were transferred to Richard. 55 Indeed, GWMWater no further forwarded to me any bills, at to the account now in Richards name (untill late 2001 to puirsue alleged overdue amounts and added charges) and you can check that the bills since then were not in the name of Richard as nominated person, but in the name of Richard being the account holder. I did not request not to be send copies of bills of my account, as I no longer had any account once it was transferred to Richard. What I asked was not to send me copies of Richards account. 60 It was also upon this understanding (law of contract) that Richard and GWMWater accepted this request, to transfer the account into Richard’s name.
5

p3 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

END QUOTE 21-3-2013 CORRESPONDENCE

IT MUST THEREFORE BE VERY CLEAR THAT AS THE " NOMINATION" DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE GWMWater WAS FORWARDING US BOTH A BILL, AND WE BOTH ENDING UP PAYIING THE SAME BILL, THE SOLUTION WAS TO " TRANSFER" THE 5 ACCOUNT TO MY SON RICHARD SO HE BECAME THE " ACCOUNT HOLDER" AND UPON THIS EMAIL HAVING BEEN FORWARDED GWMWater THEN PROCEEDED WITH RICHARD TO TRANSFER THE ACCOUNT INTO HIS NAME. As to my knowledge the account was not transferred to my name as all seemed to have happened 10 is someone in the office leaving "Schorel" but altering the name of "Richard" to "G" and changing the address, this even so my lawful surname is "Schorel-Hlavka". the proper usage would be to refer to me as "Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.". This doesn't mean that I concede with a transfer of the account into my name, as no such arrangements have been made neither to my knowledge are pending.
15

I now refer to my correspondence of 5-10-2011;
QUOTE 5-10-2011 CORRESPONDENCE (spelling errors left as was) WITHOUT PREJUDICE GWMWater C/o ZoeHinkley 5-10-2011 10 McLachlan Street Horsham, Victoria 3402 Email: info@gwmwater.org.au . Zoe, thank you for your 23 September 2011 correspondence and due to my 78-year old wife Olga being sick I have been unable myself to travel to Berriwillock (an about 700 kilometres round trip) and unable to raise my son Richard otherwise. I understand Richard and the grandchildren have been often in Horsham as his mother has been residing there for more then a decade. At the time she was known as Ingrid Schorel but remarried a few years ago. As I made known in the past my son Richard needed a residence for himself and his two daughters (our grandchildren) and it was agreed that he would not pay any rent but he would pay all incoming charges of the property (so usage). As you may be aware from the records there was some confusion at the time where GWMWater was then forwarding me bills and I paid it and Richard also was paying the same and then he insisted that accounts be on his name so he would pay them, and this was I understood accepted by GWMWater and so arranged where Richard completed relevant documents for this. In the circumstances I advise you (so GWMWater) that as from today’s correspondence new charges regarding the use of water can now be directed to me but those charges must relate to new charges as to future usage and not past alleged or otherwise charges that are or may be related to Richard. END QUOTE 5-10-2011 CORRESPONDENCE.

20

25

30

35

QUOTE 5-10-2011 CORRESPONDENCE (bold and colour added by writer) as from today’s correspondence new charges regarding the use of water can now be directed to me but 40 those charges must relate to new charges as to future usage and not past alleged or otherwise charges that are or may be related to Richard. END QUOTE 5-10-2011 CORRESPONDENCE

It should be clear that I referred to " new charges regarding the use of water " and " those 45 charges must relate to new charges as to future usage ", as such the undertaking was as to water usage and not as to charges relating to Richard as the account holder, being it service charges or otherwise. Nevertheless, despite this I made payments regarding incoming bills that showed new charges. It doesn't mean I was bound to pay them all as I had restricted myself to " water usage" and anyone 50 can pay a bill for anyone. In the most recent bill I noticed that my last payment was recorded, but also a $60.00 reduction for a solicitor cost against it reducing the total claimed charges by only the difference.. Despite that I only agreed to pay "water usage", which I understand was minimal of about 1 Gig litre, nevertheless, I paid new bills (including service cost) as to avoid escalating the issue, 55 however, GWMWater has continuously escalated problems, by ignoring facts, and by involving "creditcollect" a debt collecting agency (31 Grey Street, P.O.Box 1655, Traralgon, Vic 3844),
5

p4 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

that receives, as I understand it from Anthony (ph 0408538530 Re GWMWater), a percentage of monies it collect. And example of how the court did deal with a running account:
5

10

15

20

Way back in the early 1970's I was self-employed and my motor vehicle was essential for driving. I had problems with my motor, cutting out and the garage where I had a running petrol account, advised me that it could repair my vehicle. I left my vehicle for repair for a number of days, as while they had advised me they only needed it for a few hours, they kept then saying needing more time, etc. In the end I collected my vehicle on the Saturday morning and paid the petrol bill, which included the repair bill. I drove off and got stuck on the freeway again. I then came in contact with a garage owner from Fawkner who advised me he would repair my car and I could drive around for 3 weeks and if I was not satisfied I wouldn't have to pay the bill. so, I left the vehicle with him and after a few hours went back and he announced the vehicle was repaired and underlined that I was not required to pay the bill until I was fully satisfied with the vehicle's repair. I went back the next day and paid the bill. He then explained to me that the previous garage had somehow replaced the pulley on the motor where the belt was on, but this had nothing to do with the needed repair because all there was wrong was the needle and seat. In his view there was no need to change the pulley on the front of the motor as the belt was still and old one and showed little wear. I then went back to the first repaired and explained matters and indicated he had failed to repair my vehicle and so I would reduce the current petrol bill with the charge for the previous ill-fated repair. Well, he took me to court and the magistrate made known that because I had paid the bill at the time, even so it was the same account, I had no right to reduce the current running bill and should still pay the total bill. However, he refused to award further cost against me (as such the garage owner had to pay his own legal cost, etc, as such was by far out of pocket) as he held that the conduct of the repairer was inappropriate and in fact the magistrate indicated I had a right to sue the monies back, if I wanted to.

25

What the above example makes clear is that when there is a running account, then one cannot charge or deduct monies relating to something else. If the account remained with Richard, as it was actually not formally transferred to my name, then the charges of a lawyer was relevant to that account, however where GWMWater were to claim that the account is in my name, not that 30 this is conceded, then the $60.00 charge for a solicitor is inappropriate to be applied because it is not relevant to the "water usage" charges since my 5-10-2011 correspondence.
.

Even if a Court were to hold, not that I concede it will or should, that my 5 October 2011 correspondence reasonably could have been construed as paying all charges of service and water 35 usage as from that date, I still hold the view that it would not accept that solicitors cost relating to Richards unpaid bills then could have been deducted from the monies I had paid, and so increasing the alleged monies owning. In my view the motor vehicle example makes it clear that you cannot mix old charges and legal cost related to this with new charges. In my view, the conduct by GWMWater has been appalling, and by its conduct to reduce the 40 monies of solicitor cost against my $91.71 payment, it can be deemed to have violated my undertaking of 5 October 20011 and I am and neither can be held bound to pay any further bills (Being it water usage and/or any other cost) as such. if therefore the matter were to end up in the courts I would seek a refund of my monies, and so also the payment I made on 10 July 2013, the day Anthony attended to my premises to deliver some forms I could have filled in for automatic 45 deductions.
.

I anticipate that eventually this matter goes to court, and I would request the court to express its concerns that creditcollect maintained to pursue me, despite of having been made well aware of the circumstances and so should have so to say backed off, and its failure to do so ought to be 50 investigated by relevant authorities as to creditcollect being a suitable organisation to be involved in debt collection. Also I would seek the court to award cost against the very people who work for GWMWater, and pursued this relentless terrorism upon me and so upon my wife, who already suffering ill health can do well without it. Employees who take this kind of conduct ought to be held personally 55 responsible, as well as the company for allowing this kind of terrorism to not just eventuate but to continue this unrelenting, despite my past requests to stop this.
5

p5 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

.

On a previous occasion, I did advise GWMWater as to my sons recorded residential address, and as such it was for GWMWater to have sought him to settle his debt. Anthony did ask me if I had his current address and I advised him that to my knowledge he is now on the run. However, this 5 cannot excuse GWMWater to not pursue Richard when it could have done so. And, as creditcollect at the time had actually been provided a copy of the correspondence with Richards recorded residential address then it seems remarkable it now somehow would try to find him when ignoring to do so previously, despite having been provided with his recorded residential address.
10

.

Why would indeed GWMWater and for it creditcollect want to pursue Richard if this was my account? It clear is the so to say easy way out where GWMWater and for it credit collect seeks to pursue both Richard and myself for the same alleged outstanding charges. But GWMWater cannot have it both ways, at least that is my view. Where creditcollect on its behalf would pursue 15 Richard then this must be deemed an acknowledgement by creditcollect for GWMWater that Richard is the true account holder and is the person who still owns the debt.
QUOTE 14-2-2012 CORRESPONDENCE (some names have been replaced with x's) WITHOUT PREJUDICE GWMWater C/o ZoeHinkley 14-2-2012 10 McLachlan Street Horsham, Victoria 3402 Email: info@gwmwater.org.au .Ref: OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, etc Zoe, Further to my 5-10-2011 correspondence I received instead from GWMWater a copy of an account 2305224 in my son Richards name (R. S. Schorel) for a total amount of $1,074.54, albeit not disclosing what this constitute, etc. My wife Mrs Olga Hlavka-Schorel has suggested now that perhaps GWMWater may sell to her all rights and interest in the account with Richard for $300.00 whereby GWMWater undertake to close of the account of R. S. Schorel and to close off any water supply to 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock (with my consent) at its own cost and then where in future any normal water usage is required by me of the future joint property holders (as is contemplated) by my daughter Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx-Xxxxxxx and Xxxx Xxxx then the water can be restored for normal supply. This, as to avoid water being wasted while no need is for the usage of water in view that Richard appeared to have left the residence in a state that requires major extensive repairs before anyone can reside in it. As my wife indicated, where GWMWater were to involve debt collectors then it would get little monies from them and considering that she understands Richard had a criminal record relating to drugs and may be hiding due to drug related debts then any debt collection agency may have extreme difficulties to seek to collect any monies from him in his circumstances and any court litigation would likely cause GWMWater staff to incur loss of time to make depositions, etc, and so if GWMWater was to sell all and any rights regarding Richards account to my wife then it could complete the account, instead of further cost which may be of no avail, and then my wife could bequest the debt to Richard so he would become the owner of his own debt. By this GWMWater doesn’t either have to write of the alleged debt against Richard. It should be understood that my wife has no liability towards any debt Richard allegedly may have incurred and so her offer to settle the debt by having it sold to her is an attempt to try to stop escalating charges and any litigation which she views will likely be fruitless. END QUOTE 14-2-2012 CORRESPONDENCE
.

20

25

30

35

40

45

It must be clear that the account was transferred to Richard, and so he was not merely a "nominee" but became the "account holder". It is in my view not relevant if GWMWater may now seek to claim that by law it is not entitled to engage in such kind of transfer of account, because people who are dealing with GWMWater 50 are entitled to take it that it will not deceive them and later will then make another position to what was agreed upon. GWMWater engaged in a conduct that I view would have been deceptive and misleading and in my view couldn't hen succeed any legal claim against me. Even if, not that I seek to concede the court would do so, the court were to hold that on basis of law (assuming for this consideration there is such a legal provision) the account could not have 55 been lawfully transferred to a person not being the registered property owner (Albeit this places in question the liability upon account holders who are not registered property owners but tenants of public (housing) owned properties and still are liable for water charges relating to the
5

p6 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

5

10

15

20

25

30

property), nevertheless the deceptive and misleading conduct by GWMWater to engage itself in a conduct as if there was a transfer of account to Mr Richard Schorel then GWMWater must accept legal liability for any charges incurred during the time the account was purportedly transferred to Mr Richard Schorel. Further, that GWMWater, its employees and creditcollect are deemed legally liable for the unlawful harassment and other conduct amounting to a form of terrorism to seek to force me to pay monies it claims is my account, where clearly from the avalanche of correspondence they knew of should have known that the account for all intent and purposes was transferred to Mr Richard Schorel and was not in any legitimate transferred to me. In my view the court could rightfully award a substantial amount of monies as damages against GWMWater, its employees and creditcollect for the harm and suffering they caused upon not just myself but also upon my wife by this. This also as to be a warning to others that they must not seek to hide behind some business entity but that they shall personally face the full force of the law to engage in a conduct that can be seen to amount as a form of terrorism, and it be a warning to others not to engage in such conduct as they too may face simular legal consequences. In my view it would be appropriate for a judicial officer to also award cost as to interest of overdue outstanding refunds, as businesses like GWMWater must understand that its ignorance to refund monies cannot be tolerated. Where Parliament held it fit and proper to provide for certain legislative provisions then the onus is upon the person seeking to enforce it to do so in an appropriate manner. Not as if this is some weapon to be used against anyone as this person/organisation may deem fit. This, as laws are enacted for the interest of the general community and not for the benefit of unscrupulous businesses conduct. It has been held that Parliament never intended to do wrong against the general community as it acts as agent for the general community. Hence, the State Government and any business entity acting for it under any form of delegated powers must conduct those business affairs beyond any question of integrity. To lay claim upon legal provisions to aids one case, as GWMWater appears to do, then it also is bound to act as the appropriate agent for the State Government, if it were to act as such. In this case, GWMWater is charging for and on behalf of the State Government monies that are purely State Government issues, but generally hidden in the water bills. It is beyond me that GWMWater never bothered to ensure an appropriate form existed, or was used, which would place beyond question who was or became the account holder, the duties and responsibilities attached with it, etc. such as if there were any outstanding debts, if the new account holder accepted liability for this or not.

35 It must be clear, that GWMWater took a unilateral conduct upon itself, to do as it likes, to alter records, irrespective no consent with those affected existed, and to add or subtract as it deems fit, rather then as it should have done, to seek a proper judicial determination to authorise in a lawful manner the changing of records, etc, where no agreement with the parties concerned could be reasonably be reached. It remains my I that the account holder is and remains to be my son Mr 40 Richard Schorel and GWMWater violation to now deduct from my payment (as that was the effect) the $60.00 regarding a solicitor by his has violated my willingness to pay for water usage, and no longer can rely upon this. Any payments made or being made are not because of the earlier 5-10-2011 undertaking. I urge you to reconsider your position and to immediately abandon any further acts of terrorism, as I view this conduct amounts to, by you 45 (GWMWater), employee(s) and/or agents. Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
®

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
5

p7 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com

(

Our name is our motto!)

5

p8 13-7-2013 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, See also Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com Fax 03 8692 2727 Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com