20140803 to ewov2004-317-570 complaint etc-re gwmwater - re 2305224 creditcollect 369335-suplement 9

8/12/2019 20140803 to EWOV2004-317-570 COMPLAINT Etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 Creditcollect 369335-Suplement 9

1/6

Page 1

Page 1 3-8-2014 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.INDEPENDENTConsultant (Constitutionalist)

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD

A 1stedition limited special numbered book on Data DVDISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI seriesby making a reservation, by fax0011-61-3-94577209 or [email protected] alsowww.schorel-hlavka.com

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria [email protected]

5Cc: Chairman Peter Vogel (And other members of the Board of Directors) GWMWater

[email protected] Ref: 2305224Credit Collect [email protected] 369335

Ref; 20140803-to EWOV 2004/317 COMPLAINT etc-Re GWMWater - Re 2305224 creditcollect 36933510Supplement 9

Sir,As I understand it GWMWater like other so called service providers often require to explain

to government authorities why they desire an increase in charges, this so the government canpursue that those service providers are not unduly charging customers, etc.15I will refer to this issue further below, however, if GWMWater is shown to be dishonest and toconceal relevant details and seeking to defraud then I view its honest to provide details toGovernment authorities to increase its charges may also become questionable.I raised the issue that GWMWater in the past had in its correspondence referred to me as GSchorel instead of G. H. Schorel-Hlavka and GWMWater claimed that it does so on the basis that20the title is in my name as such. However, as I showed in previous correspondence theircorrespondence to me referred to G. H. Schorel-Hlavka. This to my knowledge they didnt deny.Yet, when they engaged Credit collect (a debt collection agency) I understand they concealed the

truth from them. Because a debt collection agency relies upon proper disclosure by those who engage them I have provided credit collect with copies of my writings so as to perhaps achieve that25it will in any communication with any company insist they are provided with all relevant detailsand not merely have denied relevant details so they may be sent on some wild goose chase.Many senior citizens, invalids and others may not be able to expose the kind of deception I viewGWMWater engages in and hence I view it is essential that I expose this to the EWOV.After I became married and my surname became Schorel-Hlavka (being the only person in the30entire world who has such a surname) I duly informed the Australian Taxation office about this.Likewise my driver license was corrects to this surname. The same regarding my banking details.As such I use the surname Schorel-Hlavkaongoing. Indeed as I pointed out GWMWater itselfreferred in its correspondence to this prior to the account being transferred to my son Richard

Schorel. And I will show this in the following images also.35Meaning that the change to G Schorel by GWMWater was for no other purpose to try to avoid ithaving unilaterally change the account from R. S. Schorel to G. Schorel as a change to G. H.Schorel-Hlavka would have been too obvious, and now seeks to deceive the EWOV as to why itdid so. After all if its argument was genuine, this I dispute, that it changed the account back tome then why didnt GWMWater refer it back to G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, as the account used to be40in that name? In my view it deceptive conduct was to try to a void to alert me to this so to saysleight of hand and once I exoposed it they try nevertheless to fabricate some excuse to theEWOV to seek to justify their conduct. I view the EWOV cannot tolerate this kind of conduct to

be deceived by GWMWater.45
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/mailto:[email protected]


2/6

Page 2




I understand that in the case of MORIATY v LONDON, CHATMAM & DOVER RYQueensBench 1870 L.R. 5 Q.B. 314;39 L.T.Q.B. 109;22 L.T. 163;34 J.P. 692;18 W.R. 625 in which the

plaintiff sued a railway company for personal injuries sustained and this plaintiff has gone aboutsuborning false evidence and it was held by the Court that even so the plaintiff would have had agenuine and justify to case to sue normally, by the plaintiff conduct to suborn false evidence5

this was seen by the Court that this conduct amounted to an admission that he had no case.

Likewise, this legal principle should be held against GWMWater that by using false andmisleading claims it underlines it has no case.

10Bill issued 21 June 2007

Bill issued 17 December 2004 Bill issued 25 March 200415

Therefore, it must be clear that prior to the account having been TRANSFERRED to my sonR S Schorelthe account was in the surname

Viewbankwas previously known as Rosanna East.20
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/mailto:[email protected]


3/6

Page 3




In my view the dishonesty by GWMWater is clear that it used the surname G Schorel as to try toavoid the detection it had unilaterally changed the account from R. S Schorel to purportedly tome but to avoid or trying to avoid this to be picked up they didnt change it to G. H. Schorel0-Hlavka but to G Schorel.Obviously as the account had been transferred to R S Schorel then I view GWMWater had no5

position to unilaterally transfer this account to whomever it desired. Hence their deceptiveconduct must be deplored.

There is more to this however, as the 2004 and 2007 bills indicates the untreatedwater sign.10

In 2006 GWMWater then provided customers with a plan for water pipe connection whichincluded Berriwillock. I have added the red arrows)

15

One then has to ask did GWMWater syphon off the monies i8t was collecting from customers tothat was to pay for the piping and for this didnt bother to lay the pipe system? Did it report backto the relevant authorities it didnt go ahead with laying the pipe system and as such it didn t20used monies for this purpose and continued to act in violation of the Safe Water Act 2003 to

provide safe drinking water? I doubt it did.


4/6

Page 4




If the government had approved increases in chargers so GWMWater lay the pipe system and yetGWMWater never did do so then surely this is an elaborate fraud?

If GWMWater had laid the pipe system then why would it nevertheless act in violation to thesafe Drink water Act 2003 to provide untreatedwater one has to ask?5

The following is from GWMWater No 4 2005-2006 newsletter regarding the Wimmera MalleePipeline. As such aware that despite the Safe Water Act 2003 is continues to provide unsafe

(untreated) drinkwater!

10information andIn its 2006-2007 No 4 newsletter it included about Myths surrounding water restrictions whichalso includes:

15


5/6

Page 5




5Moment By-Law, what does this stand for?GWMWagter can enforce water restrictions with By Lawpowers?Who decide those By-Laws?Is GWMWater now itself creating By-Lawsas if it is a legislative authority?

10And yet, while it seems it is willing to perhaps issue Infringement Notices against customers who

it holds are in breach in law itself couldnt so to say give a damn about the law such as the SafeDr ink Water Act2003!.

What a bunch of hypocrits!15

Where GWMWater then is itself in violation of the Water Act and the Safe Drink Water Act2003, and may be charging for cost of a pipeline but so to say keep in monies in the bank to earnitself a little profit on interest rather than being concerned as to comply to the letter of the lawand to avoid danger to humans where now it provides untreated water, then I view it must be20fined say $500.00 a day for failure to have provided the pipelines.This is not that I recognise the validity of the Bills issued in the name of G Schorel but that as alandholder I am entitled to Safe Drink Watersupply and this clearly has been denied so far and

as such I am entitled since the legislation was enacted in 2003 to then be compensated at the tuneof say $500 a day. After all why should a private organisation like Telstra have to compensate25customers for failure to provide service and not GWMWater when GWMWater is actuallydefying the rule of law? And itself is using By-Lawsas to fine customers.While GWMWater may argue that this would so to say amount to a hell of a lot of moniescalculated on a $500 a day fine and interest calculated daily (as after all it charges interest foroverdue bills, etc), well so to say What is good for the Gosse is good for the Gander.30


6/6

Page 6




We must never ignore the risk to the community by the conduct of GWMWater. The denial oflandholders rights to have Safe Drink Water provided to them and the additional cost it causedupon many to purchase drink water elsewhere.Banner:

5

As much as GWMWater pursued in its material that it can enforce the law then so to say letget it some of its own medicine of irresponsible and recklessly endangering the community byfailing to act in accordance of the Safe Dr ink Water Act 2003!

10This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all

issues/details.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL(Our name is our motto!)15

20140803 to ewov2004-317-570 complaint etc-re gwmwater - re 2305224 creditcollect 369335-suplement 9

Documents