Transparent & Accessible: NARSOL Board fields questions

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #8532 Reply
      Avatar
      NARSOL
      Admin

      NARSOL in Action’s teleconference call of 1/19 was well attended and very informative. Board of Directors members present were Brenda, Jon, Larry, Pet
      [See the full post at: Transparent & Accessible: NARSOL Board fields questions]

    • #8533 Reply
      Avatar
      William

      I was at the meeting last Thursday night and was able to comment at the end of the meeting; but I forgot to ask one question. I have a question for the Michigan decision. (Conviction 1991)Do I petition to be removed or petition to not have to verify anymore?

    • #8534 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      William, continue to follow the law as it is written in Michigan. The state is attempting to get the ruling reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has not made any changes in regards to the 6th Circuit Courts ruling as of yet.
      If the Supreme Court rejects Michigan’s request to be heard, then they will have to make the changes, but until they do, you absolutely must continue to follow the law and register as you had been doing.

    • #8535 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      You are still not eligible to petition for removal as that was never really an option in Michigan.
      We are hopeful that if the Supreme Court rejects Michigan’s request to be heard, the ruling will apply to all pre 2006 registrants in Michigan and there will be no need to petition for anything. You will likely receive a letter from the State Police informing you of the changes.

    • #8536 Reply
      Avatar
      Bill

      Fred,

      So the emergency stay request from Michigan’s AG Bill Schuette that was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t mean anything?

      Bill

    • #8537 Reply
      Avatar
      Bill

      By the way…thanks Fred for your time and your replies.

      Bill

    • #8538 Reply
      Fred
      Fred
      Admin

      To my knowledge the denial of the stay means something and they are supposed to change the law while waiting for the Supreme Court to decide if they will hear them or not, but the state is stalling and have not made any move to make changes. So the law is still the same.

      The fact that the Supreme Court rejected their request for a stay is a good sign that they are not interested in hearing this case.

      Even after the Supreme Court denies their writ (if they do) the law will still have to be changed and the state will likely drag their feet on it.

Viewing 6 reply threads
Reply To: Transparent & Accessible: NARSOL Board fields questions
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

  • *DO NOT POST LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">