To EWOV2004-317-570 COMPLAINT Etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 Creditcollect 369335-Suplement 10

Page 1
Page 1 24-8-2014 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INDEPENDENT Consultant (Constitutionalist)
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
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

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria 24-8-2014
ewovinfo@ewov.com.au
5
Cc: Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater
info@gwmwater.org.au Ref: 2305224
Credit Collect creditcollect@creditcollect.com.au Ref 369335

Ref; 20140824-to EWOV 2004/317 COMPLAINT etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 creditcollect 369335 10
Supplement 10
Sir,
first of all I like to thank Mr Jonathan Surtees, Lead Conciliator regarding his 14 August 2014
correspondence. However, as it appears toomit some issues I will seek to compliment some details for
consideration. 15

In recent weeks a woman happen to mention to me that her adult son had been travelling into the coutry
and had been refilling his water bottle at petrol stations and then had fallen so severely ill that at one stage
she thought he was dying.
It reminded me on that in April 1992 my sister and our 86 year uncle arrived in Berruiwillock, and the 20
next day our uncle had died. First I asked if it could have been jet lag but the medical reported ruled this
out. I now question if his death may have related to the untreated water that is supplied to Berriwillock. I
have made a submuission to a Federal authority that in my view where it can be established that due to the
failure of staff and/or directors of a water supplier a person dies from unrtreated water then there should
be a min imum period of 10 years imprisonment . We cannot have that water suppliers can flaunt the Safe 25
Water Act 2003 and other legal requirements while hypocritically issueing infringement notices upon
customers. Finers against water suppliers will likely be charged back against inn ocent customers and so
fininf staff and/or boardmembers themselves may have a better effect.
I view that what should be done is a comprehensive investigation as to illnesses and deaths of
people if they may be associated with drinking untreated water. It may resolve some unexplained 30
deaths, even regarding people who visited country areas where untreated water is supplied.
.
I will give an example how things may be different then assumed originally.

With the Titanic it was always assumed that an iceberg cause so severe damages that it cause the 35
Titanic to sink, however it is since established that poor quality of rivets actually resulted to the
Titanic sinking.
http://www.makeithappenblog.net/planning/check-your-rivets/
QUOTE
Using ship parts and sample steel from the underwater wreckage of the Titanic, a team of metallurgists 40
and naval architects tested the integrity of these materials. Initial test revealed that the steel used for
the hull passed the standards of that era. The investigating team narrowed their focus to the rivets
that were used to hold together the steel hull. Titanic needed 3,000,000 rivets to piece together the outer
hull made of three centimeter-thick steel plates. Investigators found out that the rivets were not made
of pure steel. The rivets were formed by means of melting metal slugs with steel, thereby, weakening 45
the integrity of the rivets.

Page 2
A 1
st
Had the rivets were not compromised, the hull could have withstand 14,000 pounds of impact. The
naval engineers replicated the rivets used in the Titanic. After producing the replica of the rivets, the
investigators tested them and they snapped just after applying 7,000 pounds of pressure.
END QUOTE
The wreckage of MH17 seems to show that as like with the Titanic the rivet system failure that 5
may actually have caused more harm then realised so far.
The question is if this, as I view likely, is with all Boeings in particular with Boeing 777 then
need those countersank rivets to be replaced? Consider the huge associated cost of doing so!
Then again, consider how not a missile itself may have caused MH17 to go down but the
weakness in the panels and rivets of MH17. 10
The document dealing with this and other issues (including images to prove it) can be
downloaded from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/237549083/20140823-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Ukraine-President-Petro-Poroshenko-
Ukraine-Constitution-False-Ukraine-Jets-Allegations-Titanic-Rivet-Defect-P
The above link is to my investigation that may expose that not a missile but the weakness in 15
rivets and panels may have been the real cause of MH17 crashing, and the may eventuate, if not
already did so, with other planes, due to the weakness in rivets and plates.
As such, unexplained deaths or other deaths may have been overlooked as to any connection with
untreated water and I view it is essential that a comprehensive and throughout investigation is
conducted in that regard. 20
A person already suffering ill health may have had untreated water as so to say the final
straw that broke the camels back.
I am slowly unearthing past newsletters from GWMWater and it is clear it provided a pipeline to
Berriwillock, but somehow seemed not to bother about treating the water supply. This even so
Wonthaggi Desalination Plant is costing taxpayers a lot of money being mothballed. As such it is 25
not a lack of treated water but a deliberate refusal by GWMWater to supply treated water!
In my view this is a criminal conduct where this defies not just the Safe Water Act 2003 but also
other water related legislative provisions.

$613m for desalination plant, no water ordered - The Age 30
www.theage.com.au Victoria
QUOTE
by Henrietta Cook - Mar 27, 2014 - A full desalinated water order for 2014-15 would
cost Melbourne families an extra $114 ... Conservatives battle to take control of the
Victorian . 35
END QUOTE

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/613m-for-desalination-plant-no-water-ordered-20140327-35k7c.html
QUOTE
$613m for desalination plant, no water ordered 40
Victoria Date March 27, 2014

Henrietta Cook
State Political Reporter at The Age
Victorians will pay $613 million for the desalination plant this year, despite not a drop of water ever being 45
ordered from the plant.

Page 3
A 1
st
Water Minister Peter Walsh said a recent refinancing of the desaliniation plant would save Victorian families
$187 million on their water bills.
He announced on Thursday that for the third consecutive year, he would not order any water from the
Wonthaggi plant, which was built under the former Brumby Labor government.
Total contract costs, without ordering water, still stand at $18.3 billion over 27 years but this is a $1.2 billion 5
improvement on the deal Labor signed a deal they tried to hide from Melbourne households."
He said Melbourne's water supplies were at 74 per cent and there was no need to order any water from the
plant.
A full desalinated water order for 2014-15 would cost Melbourne families an extra $114 million and would be a
waste of money given the healthy dam levels. 10
The multi-billion dollar desalination plant was commissioned by the Labor government in 2007 and has been
criticised for being too expensive.
Mr Walsh said changes to the previous contract, including new electricty arrangements and the withholding of
payments because the project was late, had saved Victorians $1.2 billion.
In 2013-14 the plant cost taxpayers about $632 million. 15
END QUOTE

While GWMwater claimed Water quality improvements reality is that as the 2004 bill
showed the untreated water marking, as did bills prior to this also. Meaning a compensation 20
must be backdated for as long GWMWater and its predecessor Grampians Water failed to
provide drinking water fit for human consumption. Not to do so means that water suppliers can
deliberately defy legal provisions and get away with it. By this undermine also government
policies, as well as unduly leaves the health, wellbeing and lives at risk.
25

Page 4
A 1
st
As no safe drink water is provided then clearly no service can be deemed to have been provided
that property owners are entitled upon. It is not if people might be conned into accepting
untreated water but that the legislation was clearly put in place which makes it mandatory to
provide Safe Drink Water!
5

In my view the payment of $50.00 should be calculated per day at the very least as to do
otherwise would have water suppliers ignoring it for time to come knowing that a mere
$50.00 for decades is nothing. In addition, also compensation for pain and suffering, as 10
well as for the time I have been spending trying to resolve this matter, such as compiling
numerous details for correspondences while GWMWater failed to do so.

Page 5
A 1
st
As a person owning a property within the GWMWater service area I am (and so many others)
wrongly denied supply to treated water suitable for human consumption as I am entitled upon
by legislative provisions and my view is that GWMWater should be caused to pay compensation
for this. As set out below on one hand it pursues me to pay bills even those incurred by my son
on his account, on arguments what is the law, yet when it comes to itself failing to comply with 5
legal provisions then it applies so to say DOUBLE STANDARDS. As such everyone else they
seek to hold account table to as how they perceived to be or pretend to be the application of law
but they themselves can flaunt the law, even if it means people falling severely ill or even dying.
That I view cannot be tolerated and hence I view a minimum term of 10 years imprisonment
without parole must be applied as to drive home that if they deem it fit to risk peoples health and 10
wellbeing even their lives then they shall face the legal consequences.
The Safe Drink Water Act 2003 was enacted not against customers or would be customers but to
protect the community against unscrupulous water providers who refused to provide safe drink
water for human consumption. Despite this it is my view that GWMWater has so to say thumb its
nose on the legislation and made clear it couldnt care less what legislation might be in place as it 15
will use legislation only to suit itself and not bothered by Government principles, and/or the law
where it doesnt suit its profit margin, etc.
In my view not only should GWMWater not have had any legal right to charge any water related
bills where in defiance of legislative provisions it failed to provide Safe Drinkwater fit for
human consumption as required by law, but it should also refund all monies obtained during the 20
period it provided untreated water as well as pay compensation for failing to comply with legal
provisions to provide Safe Drink Water as per Safe Drink Water Act 2003 and other legal
provisions.

25
There can be absolutely no doubt that GWMWater is well aware and has been for a long time
that the water it supplied is untreated water not fit for human consumption as I have set out in
previous correspondences also. As such, this is not where GWMWater was unaware of its failure
to comply with legal provisions but where it deliberately is doing so. And as my correspondence
also outline it involves even top management of GWMWater in this dispute and so cannot be 30
blamed on being some so to say low ranking employee who didnt understand legal
requirements.

Page 6
A 1
st

To recap some details:

On 16 August 2004 a request made to have my son Richard as a nominee for the property at
10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock. Problems eventuated in that GWMwater (GWMW) would 5
sent Richard a bill while also a copy to me. Ending up that both Richard as well as myself ended
up paying the same bill, etc. the result being that Richard received bills showing an overpay as
GWMWater having received payment from Richard didnt refund my monies, to which I
understood at the time there were no monies owning. The matter was resolved in 2008 by
transfer of the account from G. H. Schorel-Hlavka to R. S. Schorel. As such, I would no 10
longer receive copies of the bills, which Richard had opposed in the past, as it would be an
account in his name, nothing to do with me.
As such the nomination that had originally been in place but caused complications was replaced
by a transfer. As such, it must be clear that as like when one owns a car one can nominate
a person to drive the vehicle but that doesnt alter ownership, but when one transfer the 15
vehicle then the person to whom the transfer is executed become the new owner. It wouldnt
have made sense to change a nomination to transfer if it was the same. Clearly by the
transfer it was the intention to make R S Schorel the sole person liable for the account that
was transferred into his name.
20
The mere fact that I agreed to pay water usage (2011) but paid at times the entire charge for that
period nevertheless doesnt alter the fact that it was and remained to be R S Schorel bill.
.
While GWMWater pursues that the property is registered in G Schorel (actually is was
registered in Gerrit Hendrik Schorel) but as nits own billing showed that it used to issue bills 25
such as in 2007 in the name of G H Schorel-Hlavka. This was altered once the account was
transferred to R S Schorel.

Clearly GWMWater took it upon itself to alter the account from R S Schorel to G Schorel even
so Richard (R S Schorel) had not agreed to this and no contracts was made with me. Obviously 30
had GWMWater altered the account name to G H Schorel-Hlavka then it would have been too
obvious they had done so hence to change to G Schorel as to try to avoid detection.
.
While there was an argument by GWMWater that where there is no water used then Richard
obviously was not residing there, this cannot be quite correct because there is an about 20,000 35
litre water tank on the property, serving the house in rain periods and/or when conserved for later
usage.. As such, Richard may not need to use water from any pipeline where there is ample of
tank water available.

QUOTE 40
WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
GWMWater 24-6-2008
11 MCLachlan St
(PO BOX 481)
Horsham Victoria 3402, Fax 5381 9881 45
Ph 1300 659 961, 1800 188 586
Email; info@gwmwater.org.au
. Ref; 04-0045-05550-01-5 unwanted services & cost
10 AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
. 50
Sir/Madam,
I had no feed back as to GWMWater arrangements, if any, with my son Richard

Page 7
A 1
st
Schorel but instead now have received a demand of $158.00 due and payable by 18 July
2008, which bill I do not regard of having any legal validity as such, of some I refer to
below.
However, under the extortion I will after forwarding this correspondence transfer $200.00
not as an acknowledgement of monies due and owing but under the terrorism conduct to 5
cause interest payments to be applied also in what I view unconstitutional and so illegal
manner, the monies are to seek to defuse a conflict but with a demand that all monies are
refunded to me. It cannot now20 be argued that I might seek to delay any payment under
any kind of excuse but that I might not really have the finances to pay a bill, as this
certainly is not and was neither the case RATHER THAT I DISPUTE ANY 10
LIABILITY OF ANY CHARGES AND MAINTAIN THIS.
END QUOTE

Due to both my wife and myself having fallen ill there has been insufficient time to locate and
record all past account details (While I obviously have been writing and so compiling other 15
correspondences, as referred to in this correspondence also, it is different than to relocate in a
room of paperwork past records such as past paid bills and/or GWMWater newspapers.), but at
the time of the account being transferred to my son R S Schorel to my knowledge no
outstanding bills existed. Neither had GWMWater at that time refunded to me the payment of the
same bill which afterwards I discovered already had been paid by R S Schorel. While 20
GWMWater has seemingly maintained to use the same account number throughout, even when it
unilaterally placed the debt of R S Schorel to G Schorel and not to G. H. Schorel-Hlavka as
was prior to the transfer, I do not accept it correct to have continued to use the same account
number, as considering Richard from time to time used the Berriwillock property, as reported by
a neighbour, than it is to me not relevant if he uses tank water or the untreated water nor 25
does this indicate when he is or isnt at the Berriwillock property. Nor did to my knowledge
GWMWater have any consent from R S Schorel, or for that matter myself, to transfer the
account into the name of G Schorel.

30

Account as G H Schorel-Hlavka

G H Schorel-Hlavka 25 Mar 2004 (Balance forward $ 0.00) $63.66
35
G H Schorel-Hlavka

G H Schorel-Hlavka 17 Dec 2004 (Balance forward $ 0.00) $ 103.85

G H Schorel-Hlavka 21 Jun 2007 (Balance $ 0.00) $ 54.85 40

Page 8
A 1
st
According to the copies of the bills (regarding R S Schorel) that were forwarded to me on
29-2-2012

R S Schorel 2/12/2009 Alleged outstanding balance $ 280.28 5

R S Schorel 12/03/2010 Alleged outstanding balance $ 370.97

10
25/05/2010 Receipt via Bpay $-20.00
5/06/2010 Receipt via Bpay $-10.00
$-30.00
===== 15

(includes 24/11/2011 $54.97 interest)
20

(includes 9/05/2011 $29.59 + 30/05/2011 $2.10 interest= $31.69)
25
(includes 31/08/2011 $17.43 interest)

G Schorel 14/12/2011 Alleged outstanding balance $1,074.54
30
Subsequently further alleged bills were forwarded all as G Schorel this even so I had
previous an account as G H Schorel-Hlavka

35
(Monies were paid on - -2012 $171.96)

G Schorel 20/07/2012 Alleged outstanding balance $ 1,075.86
(Monies were paid on 20-7-2012 $87.30)

Page 9
A 1
st
By way of 14 December 2012 correspondence creditcollect, Debt Recovery and Credit
Management Specialist contacted me as to an alleged debt to GWMWATYER of $1,003.56. At
a later time a person attended to my residence with documentation, upon which I explained
matters. I was asked if I knew my son Richard Schorel address to which I indicated that I was
unaware of this, other that at times he resided at 10 Anderson Avenue, Berriwillock. Considering 5
my attendance to the Berriwillock property in October 2013 I discovered that he seems to be
living there at times as the house was still containing his personal belongings. I understand he
also at times was staying at his mothers address in Horsham. In all fairness to creditcollect they
have since then not bothered me further, also because I had the con duct to keep them informed
about matters. As such, when I discovered his mothers latest address I provided GWMWater 10
(and by this creditcollect) with this. And when I was advised by a neighbour in Berriwillock that
Richard was back in the house I again notified GWMWater (and by this creditcollect) about this.
In my view I had done what I had indicated I would do to the representative of creditcollect.

It appears to me that at least as late as 5/06/2010 Richard was paying some monies via Bpay. 15
Yet, GWMWater never disclosed this to me and didnt have to where this related to Richards
account but as indicated above as per my 24-6-2008 correspondence GWMwater then already
was demanding monies from me, this even so the account was on R S Schorel.

As I previously indicated in my view creditcollect so far acted honourably in not so to say 20
pushing this matter, where I have made sure they were kept informed about matters. As I view it
they were hoodwinked by GWMWater as to purportedly an overdue account and obviously
creditcollect for this contacted me as to establish for themselves details. As I understand it
debt collectors often do not bother with this courtesy and so credit where credit deserves. It is so
to say the meat between the sandwiches. 25
However, GWMWater has clearly been aware of decades of my objections but deemed to take it
upon themselves to disregard this as well as relevant legislative provisions and this even so by
this it placed peoples health, wellbeing and lives at risk. This I view must not and cannot be
tolerated and the most severe penalties that may be applicable must in my view be applied.
30
As I indicated already, both my wife and are still down with ill health and it has prevented me to
go through countless of heavy boxes that have been stored way containing documents including
past paid bills and newsletters, etc, but the DELIBERATE failure by GWMWater to comply
with legislative provisions in my view must be taken into account when assessing all relevant
issues, including compensation. And I view the Victorian government also ought to investigate 35
what, if any, known ill health or even death may have been related to the untreated water
issue.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all
issues/details. 40
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!)

To EWOV2004-317-570 COMPLAINT Etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 Creditcollect 369335-Suplement 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

To EWOV2004-317-570 COMPLAINT Etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 Creditcollect 369335-Suplement 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

Page 1 24-8-2014 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

You might also like