Hi Keith

Thank you for posting my comment and I note your claim I've made a number of factual errors however, it appears you fell short of actually pointing them out.

Fact: Albert Schram was charged in 2018 for false pretence for allegedly falsifying academic credentials when applying for the Vice Chancellor posting with University of Technology.

Fact: He applied to the National Court to vary his bail conditions to allow him to travel to Italy to purportedly obtain his original document and return to prove his innocence

Fact He never returned.

Fact in dispute - it was a ruse to flee the country to avoid prosecution and avoid the process to clear his name.
Evidence to support this fact is the moment he left PNG and arrived in Singapore he published an lengthy article announcing he had left the country and now felt safe to tell his side of the story.

"Now that I have safely left Papua New Guinea, I feel free to write about what happened and was not reported in the national media." - source PNG Attitude https://www.pngattitude.com/2018/05/schram-tells-my-wrongful-dismissal-malicious-prosecution.html.

I take note of a purported certified copy of Mr Schram's PHD. In 2018 I was also troubled by why police would be wasting their time arresting a foreign national over his credentials. I received a response from then Pro Chancellor Sam Koim who explained Schurm had claimed to have a number of academic credentials in his application for the Vice Chancellor position when its alleged he didn't So it may not be an issue that Mr. Schrum does not have a PHD but whether he lied about having other credentials, when he may not have.

I note that you published Schram's account of the purported comments by National Court Judge when granting him permission to leave however there doesn't seem to be any such judgement published on paclii.

Schrum would have filed an sworn affidavit that he would return to PNG - this appears to be false testimony and perjury, breaching a court order and bail conditions are criminal offences.

I take issue with your statement that "Given the circumstances of his arrest and detention, in which justice took a back seat, there was little surprise that Dr Schram chose not to return to PNG to face trial."

Justice is dispensed by the Courts not Police - Mr Schram appears to have only taken issue with his arrest by Police and nothing about being denied justice or injustice by our justice system.

In November 2014 11 Police officers picked me up at Ela Beach Restaurant and charged me with attempted murder of then Police Minister who was my political opponent. I was refused bail by Police so I applied and was granted bail by the District Court hower the Station Commander refused to release me. It was only after my lawyer threatened him with contempt of court I was released at 12am.

The charges were clearly politically motivated in an effort to silence me from exposing corruption. At any point I could have fled the country and if I was guilty it would have probably be advisable to do so, but I wasn't and had no intention of fleeing anywhere but allow the process clear my name in a court of law. The charges were later dismissed by the District Court for lack of evidence.

Mr Schram only had to allow the process to clear his name unfortunately he instead opted to commit further crimes to flee the country.

I've read the articles you provided however none of them actually provided any real compelling evidence to justify his actions of breaking the law by fleeing PNG or his innocence of the charges

If he claims the charges were malicious prosecution he could have filed National Court proceedings staying the charges in the District Court. The National Court would have considered the evidence that the purportedly submitted to Police and if it had found in his favour would have issued a permanent injunction against Police and the matter would have ended there. However, the National Court will only grant a permanent injunction if a person has compelling evidence to sustain malicious prosecution. He instead opted to mislead the National Court in an effort flee PNG.

Like I said innocent people don't typically lie run or hide when it comes to proving their innocence. Being charged for false pretence is hardly a hangable offence and reason to flee.

You stated that as Justice Minister, given the criticism of Dr Schram's prosecution from eminent people around the globe, you would urge me to familiarise myself with the corruption that underpinned PNG's mistreatment of an innocent man. "(Some of the hundreds of media stories on this matter are listed below.)"

My response:
I'm less interested in the criticism of eminent people around the globe or hundreds of media stories and prefer to focus on the facts and the evidence offered to sustain them.

You stated in an article - "In a shock development in Papua New Guinea’s Schram case, the former vice-chancellor of the PNG University of Technology has said he will not return to Papua New Guinea “until major changes occur in the country”.

Was it really a shock that a day after leaving he announces the will not return? - I believe this was always his plan.

Thanks for the quote! I have no special knowledge about this case, nor do I know Mrs Blacklock well (we met a few times) but at first sight it seems too clumsy for criminal intent.

The intensity of infighting at PNG Power in the past, of which Mrs Blacklock was also a victim, is well known, and has widely been covered in the press.

In my tweet, I am just connecting the dots: unbelievable or easily refutable allegations, intense infighting in a public agency, and a professional who depends on a salary.

Unlike some PNG politicians who mysteriously are financially independent, during her career in Australia and PNG Mrs Blacklock has been trying to make an honest living, and has no interest in ruining her reputation and become unemployable.

Draw your own conclusions, and let's see if the case will eventually be thrown out, as was mine, as reported here:

http://bit.ly/casedismisseddralbert)