Jon Kelly, BBC News Magazine – Hemp, once a major US crop, has been banned for years because of its close association with cannabis. But several states now want to resume hemp farming, and two states voted this month in favour of legalisation of cannabis. Could change be in the air?

There’s an all-American plant that weaves its way throughout the nation’s history.

The sails of Columbus’ ships were made from it. So was the first US flag. It was used in the paper on which the Declaration of Independence was printed.

Today, however, industrial hemp is effectively banned by the federal government, damned by association with cannabis, its intoxicating cousin.

While hemp cannot be grown in the US, it can be imported and used to manufacture paper, textiles, rope, fuel, food and plastics.

Its advocates say it is a hugely versatile crop which is already popular with US consumers – a 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service estimated that the annual US retail hemp market could exceed $300m (£188m) in value.

Hemp’s problem is that, like marijuana, it contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive chemical, albeit in much smaller doses than its better-known relative.

While the US federal Drugs Enforcement Administration (DEA) adopts a zero-tolerance policy towards THC, hemp advocates say one would have to smoke a telegraph pole-sized joint of hemp to get high from it.

But advocates of its legal cultivation believe the winds of change are blowing.

States such as Oregon, North Dakota, Vermont, Montana and West Virginia have backed its legal cultivation.

In Congress, an unlikely coalition of lawmakers ranging from right-wing Republicans to liberal Democrats are pushing for reform.

And votes in Colorado and Washington state to legalise, regulate and tax marijuana could, supporters believe, open the door of the drug’s less potent relative.

After all, within living memory, fields of hemp abounded in Kentucky and the Midwest.

Continue reading this story Here

After his Fiji 2103 Budget speech, the Prime Minster COMMODORE JOSAIA VOREQE  BAINIMARAMA, OStJ,MSD,jssc,psc, addressed the Nation on National Television with an impassioned speech about the values of honesty and integrity, pointing out the damage that theft and corruption is doing to Fiji as a Nation.

Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is clearly suffering from severe memory loss, since he appears to forgotten that it was he, and his henchmen that facilitated theft of pensioners funds, that it was he who made it possible for the most fragile members of our society to be cheated and propelled into poverty.

The current pensioners of Fiji have been denied access to the courts, yet Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama OStJ,MSD,jssc,psc procrastinates about new legal aid facilities that both William Roberts Marshall QC and Greg Bullard have indicated will not lead to an impartial Court of Justice (see our recent article and the following link)

Final Petition of William R Marshall_rvse

Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama OStJ,MSD,jssc,psc and his Military Council may have a number of achievements they can be proud of, but their abysmal treatment of Fiji Pensioners who were members of the FNPF is not among them.

To Whom It May Concern, (It concerns every pensioner and every and every citizen of Fiji )

The following is a summary of my legal observations of the justice/legal regulatory regimes in Fiji. These observations are derived from my own legal research and not by virtue of my position as Fiji’s shortest serving ad-hoc resident magistrate/ Head of the Legal Practitioners Unit.

Judicial Oversight: 
The judiciary of Fiji is regulated by the Administration of Justice Decree 2009. Section 16 states:

Judicial Service Commission
 16.-(1) This section establishes a Judicial Service Commission consisting of:
 (a) The Chief Justice, who is to be its chairperson;
 (b) The President of the Court of Appeal;
 (c) A Legal Practitioner with not less than 15 years post-admission practice, to be appointed by the President on the advice of the Attorney-General;
 (d) A person, not being a legal practitioner, appointed by the President on the advice of the Attorney-General.

 (2) The quorum of the Judicial Service Commission shall consist of the Chairperson and one other member.

 (3) In addition to the functions conferred on it elsewhere in this Decree, the Judicial Service Commission may investigate complaints about judges and judicial officers of courts subordinate to the High Court and may take disciplinary action against them.

(4) For the purposes of taking disciplinary action under subsection (3) above, the Judicial Service Commission may make such Rules as it deems fit for the performance its functions.

(5) The members of the Judicial Service Commission are entitled to such allowances as may be fixed by law.

(6) The Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission shall be the Chief Registrar, or any other person performing the functions of that Office.Firstly note section (s) 16 subsection (ss)(3), above. The effect of this section is that any judge or judicial officer s, subordinate to a high court judge can be subject of any complaint. and dismissed by the Judicial Services Commission, a quorum of which is the Chief Justice and one other member.

This work of legal trickery ensures that the judiciary of Fiji can never be independent whist this decree exists. All judicial officers are beholden to the Chief Justice. In New South Wales, by way of comparison, all judicial officers are subject to parliamentary oversight, not judicial oversight. Whilst the Judicial Commission has the power to investigate complaints, it is Parliament alone that has the power to dismiss, not the Chief Justice with a presidential “rubber stamp”.

The existence of this situation is a cause to the high volume of complaints that are received by the Legal Practitioners Unit. In my short time in office, prior to my dismissal (for reasons unknown) I was unable to ascertain the percentage of complaints that are attributable to the lack of legal profession/judicial independence. 
How can judicial officers in Fiji exercise their functions without “fear or favour”? They simply cannot.

Regulation of the Legal Profession in Fiji 
The legal profession of Fiji is regulated under the Legal Practitioners Decree 2009. The power sits with the Chief Registrar, who in turn acts under the direction of the Chief Justice. This means that the legal profession and the judiciary are under the powers of the Chief Justice. The position of Chief Justice is clearly the most powerful position in Fiji.

The Head of the Legal Practitioners Unit cannot be independent as they are under the direction of the Chief Registrar and the Public Service Commission. This represents a complete lack of independence of legal profession oversight. 
When I raised this issue I was terminated and upon my attempted to return to work, prior to being notified of my termination, I was unlawfully arrested and detained at Nadi Airport and escorted onto the first plane back to Sydney. This was done under Orders of the High Court. 

In NSW the Legal Profession is oversighted by the Office of the Legal Services Commission. This is an independent body with powers to investigate and institute disciplinary proceedings. The Office of the LSC is answerable to Parliament alone. Not like Fiji, where the legal profession is regulated by the Chief Registrar who is answerable to, guess who, the Chief Justice.

In NSW, disciplinary proceedings against the legal profession are prosecuted by the OLSC and taken before members of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The members of the ADT are independent and not judicial officers per se.

In Fiji, the Chief Registrar is the prosecutor and the Independent Legal Services Commission (ILSC) is akin to the ADT. Sections 84-98 of this decree establish the ILSC. Section 85 states:

Appointment of Commissioner 
85.—(1) The Commissioner shall be appointed by the President, on the advice of the Attorney-General.

(2) The Commissioner must be a person who is qualified to be a judge under section 15 of the Administration of Justice Decree 2009. 
(3) In advising the President as to the person to be appointed as Commissioner pursuant to subsection (1), the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the person—
 (a) is familiar with the nature of the legal system and legal practice in Fiji; and
 (b) possesses appropriate qualities of independence, integrity and fairness.

(4) The President may appoint a person who is not a citizen of Fiji as the Commissioner. 
(5) The Commissioner may be appointed either on a part-time or full-time basis. 

Note section 85(3)(b) above. It is a prerequisite that the Commissioner be independent. In Fiji the Commissioner is also a high Court judge who is under the direction of, guess who, the Chief Justice. He cannot be deemed to be independent. Remember, justice should not only be done, it should be seen to be done. This very fact is an offence to the basic principles of justice.

All of the ILSC’s decisions will be appealable on the basis that the Commissioner is not independent. There may be some very large damages claims made if and when a new government is formed.

Conclusion 
The judiciary, the legal profession and the ILSC are all under the direct or indirect control of the Chief Justice. This is a dangerous precedent. Justice cannot be done in Fiji until this is remedied. How it came to be like this can only be answered by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice.

I will not provide details of the despicable treatment I received at the hands of the (acting) Chief Registrar, Mohammed Saneem. ( This is the same person who will not accept legal writs against the FNFP from pensioners who have been defrauded ) I will not give details of the evidence I gathered that would warrant the laying of criminal charges against Mr Saneem and Commissioner Madigan. I have alerted the relevant Fijian authorities of these matters. It is not a matter for me. My story will never be told. I gave an undertaking to that effect. 
I pray that JUSTICE may one day come to Fiji. 

Mr Greg Bullard
Former Head of the Legal Practitioners Unit
(8/10/12 to 9/11/12)
Fiji’s shortest ever serving Resident Magistrate

You just can’t make stuff up like this.

DEVELOPERS of the country’s first casino revealed that construction would begin once financial issues were sorted out.

One Hundred Sands director customer experience Greg Schillinger said financing the project had proven to be a mammoth task but negotiations were progressing.

“We’re in the midst of getting our financing organised and construction should begin within 30 days,” he said.

“People need to understand that there are some very complicated processes involved and that this is a complicated financial deal and there’s many more hoops to jump through than anticipated.

“We are hopeful that construction will begin soon but cannot give a definite date as when exactly that will happen.”

Tourism permanent secretary Elizabeth Powell said the ministry was aware that financing issues were holding back the start of construction.

“We are aware that they (One Hundred Sands) are sorting things out and look forward to the start of our first ever casino which is exciting for Fiji and will add another dimension to our tourism market,” she said.

Ms Powell said while the Tourism Ministry was optimistic that all would go well, they would be looking at further discussions with the developers should financing the operation continued to be an issue.

One Hundred Sands was granted a gaming licence in December last year and construction of the $290million project on Denarau, Nadi, was scheduled to begin after the groundbreaking ceremony in April this year.

SIX months ago it was published in the national media, that this company had its finance in place and various tests on the property were taking place. An obvious lie.

Well anyone can drive past the property and see that the only tests or work carried out is the dumping of a few truckloads of soil and rubble.

What a crock of shit. Prime Minister Frank has been sucked in again. In the name of all thats Holy Prime Minister Frank, please change your advisers, and do not give this company access to FNPF funds.

Give it some thought Frank, just a few minutes thinking and you will be able to work out that if the commercial banks ( who are flush with funds at the moment ) are not prepared to risk their money, in this project with this developer; you would have to be criminally insane to put more pensioners funds at risk.

If you really want to invest FNPF money in a Casino, lend it to James Packer Frank !!

The following article published overseas was sent to us by a Fijipensioners.com supporter in Africa.