Iowa Damage Disclosure: Fill & Download for Free

Original Question: Do you believe the New York Times op ed that Trump is amoral?We had two choices for President in 2016. They were both amoral.Trump was a New York developer. He had to work with contractors run by the mob. By all accounts, he was a poor employer and paid low wages and sometimes even avoided paying contractors (probably none of the mob variety. It’s one thing to be amoral and another thing to be really stupid). Mafia Dominates Building Trade in N.Y., Study FindsTrump was into his 3rd wife, every one marked by affairs. Does that surprise anyone? Not really. It seems to be baked in the cake for wealthy billionaires.Trump was a successful reality TV star. What’s that? Well, there are others like the Khardashians, the various Housewives of Beverly Hills, Snooki and more. It doesn’t seem that morality is a high premium in reality TV. Trump fits right in.Trump is amoral? America knew all that before he ran for president. He still won despite the mainstream media working overtime coming up with one shocking disclosure after the next.Why did he win? Because his opponent was Hillary Clinton.America got the exact same Hillary Clinton that savaged every women that accused her husband of rape and threw a 20 year old intern seduced by her husband in the White House into the trash can. Me too? Hah.Hillary Clinton told the family members of her hand picked Ambassador to Libya and his security staff killed in Benghazi that their deaths were the result of a protest about movie trailer instead of what was known immediately to be a terrorist attack. So she intentionally lied to these Gold Star family members at the ceremony meeting their caskets. What was the reason? Political expediency. The maker of the movie trailer who had nothing to do with Benghazi had his life ruined after getting out of detention and dropped off the planet trying to avoid getting killed or worse.This Secretary of State treated classified information like information to be written on the back of cocktail napkins. And then she defied a subpoena from Congress and destroyed about a dozen laptops, tablets, smartphones and her personal server like most of us do when we change devices. Don’t you routinely take a hammer to your phones and bleach bit your hard drive before turning them in for recycling. I didn’t think so, and especially not after a subpoena. The 12 juiciest bits from the FBI's Clinton reportThis same Secretary of State managed to raise well over a hundred million dollars, much from foreign governments and foreign entities while she was involved in approving projects and deals and landed her husband a ten fold increase in speaking fees while she was running state. What’s going on there? Her husband has been out of the White House for 10 years and now his speaking fees are going up? Usually it’s the other way around. If the Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s time a state wasn’t pay for play, then why now are the donations drying up and they are having to lay off people left and right. Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State//https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/So is Trump amoral? Hell yes. But Trump didn’t much pretend otherwise. That’s why mainstream news media stories of one lie after another, or this tax issue or that one, or something called the emoluments clause (yes America is very concerned about that as we go to our new manufacturing jobs in Iowa and Ohio) shady business deal gone wrong (Imagine that, shady business deals in New Jersey casinos? Shocking, absolutely shocking) don’t seem to dent Trump. This is not a man ever purported to be a choirboy.Could America have a better person in the White House. Of course. But when you have two choices, those are the two choices.The more dangerous amorality is Hillary Clinton’s. Under the guise of hurt wife, she destroyed her husband’s accusers and lovers. The damage is much greater when someone that many perceive to be moral behaves amorally. Because it’s believed and many people pay the price.But most Americans are not innocents. The problem for Democrats and progressives is not that Trump is amoral. It drives them crazy that this former lifelong Democrat is now on the other team.People looking for morality at the highest levels of politics, are looking for Santa Claus.How many competing Politifact Lies of the Year did Obama use to pass Obamacare? 7 Key Promises Obamacare Broke Are those Syrian kids are still waiting next to his Red Line in the Sand? Just how flexible did Obama tend to be to Putin after his re-election? Did that include a look the other way when he invaded Ukraine?

Why is it legal?Because of: Tennessee Title 55, Chapter 3, Certificates of Title, Part 2 Wrecked, Damaged, Dismantled or Rebuilt Motor Vehicles, 55–3–211 Definitions, and 55–3–212 Disclosure…Total Loss of a vehicle is determined by each State’s Salvage or Total Loss Statutes. These laws are adopted by state legislatures. Insurance companies are bound by them. The issue of who is at fault and which party’s insurance is paying does not matter.The salvage laws use a formula based on the amount of damage and how that compares to the total value of the vehicle. Depending on your state, salvage statutes may kick in at a percent of damage to total value as low as 50% (Iowa) and as high as 100% (Texas).In Tennessee, the statute is 2010 Tennessee Code, Title 55 - Motor and Other Vehicles, Chapter 3 - Wrecked, Damaged, Dismantled or Rebuilt Motor Vehicles.(9) (A) "Salvage vehicle" means any passenger motor vehicle which has been wrecked, destroyed, or damaged to the extent that the total estimated or actual cost of parts and labor to rebuild or reconstruct the passenger motor vehicle to its pre-accident condition and for legal operation on the roads or highways exceeds seventy-five percent (75%) of the retail value of the passenger motor vehicle, as set forth in a current edition of any nationally recognized compilation (to include automated databases) of retail values; - See more at: 55-3-211. Part definitions.The part of the law that requires Tennessee insurance companies to comply is found here: 55-3-212. Disclosure of motor vehicle's previous titling as…The salvage laws are intended to clearly communicate to consumers that a vehicle was previously “salvaged”. Therefore, reducing incidents of vehicles being passed off as not having previous significant damage.These laws can create difficult decisions for value vehicle owners as in the example provided by this question.What are your choices?When an insurance company determines the vehicle is a “total loss”, they generally will provide you with two options:Repair Option - You Keep the Car: Company determines the Total Value of the car. They then calculate the car's current “Salvage Value”, subtracts that from the Total Value and offers you the difference. You keep the car and fix it if you choose. In some states it appears the vehicle would receive a salvage title even in this case depending on the age and/or mileage on the vehicle.Salvage Option - Insurance Company Takes the Car: Company determines and offers you the Total Value of the vehicle. In this scenario they keep and take title to the vehicle (salvage).The vehicle would then be considered “totaled” and receive a state “salvage title”.If you wish to exercise Option #1, (keep the car) It is worth communicating that with the claims adjuster and ask if there is any way they can justify writing the settlement higher for the repair and less for the salvage - and/or - working with a higher number on the total value of the vehicle.Regardless, determining the value of a vehicle is not an exact science. It is somewhat subjective. You may find that the adjuster willing to work with you on the numbers.If the adjuster is not willing and you think you have a strong case for a higher value, you may have the remedy in your state for arbitration or to sue the insurance company directly by hiring an attorney.You would run into this same scenario whether it was your company adjusting the loss (collision), or as in the case you describe, an at-fault third party’s carrier (liability).For more information on the State by State laws applicable to Total Loss Thresholds, Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer Attorney’s at Law have put together an excellent white paper on the subject. Their document called “AUTOMOBILE TOTAL LOSS THRESHOLDS IN ALL 50 STATES” provides a state by state breakdown of the rules in each state and provides the actual statutes that apply.Thanks for the A2A. Best of luck with this situation.

Should elected officials be allowed to gain access to the federal income tax returns of American taxpayers? When President Nixon tried to do this to get dirt on his political opponents he was deservedly condemned and Congress passed a law in 1976 to bar the practice. But now Democrats want to ignore that law to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns.Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code guarantees the confidentiality of all our tax returns – yours, mine and even President Trump’s.A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report notes that federal officials are prohibited from disclosing taxpayer returns and information without the taxpayer’s consent. Criminal penalties apply to unauthorized disclosures.Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>According to CRS, Congress passed this provision because of “revelations that President Nixon sought to use tax return information for improper purposes.”What improper purposes? Partisan politics.But while Democrats vilify Republican Nixon for using the power of government to go after opponents on his infamous enemies list, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., is being hailed a hero by his party for following in Nixon’s footsteps.Neal has written Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig demanding copies of the tax returns filed by President Trump and eight of his companies for the last six years.Trump lawyer William Consovoy has contested that demand, contending in an April 5 letter that Neal’s demand is illegal and “the IRS cannot legally divulge” the Trump tax returns.The court fight over whether Congress can get the Trump returns is complicated, as I will explain below. It’s virtually certain to wind up in the Supreme Court.If I had to bet on who will ultimately win the court fight I would put my money on Consovoy, a well-known and skilled Supreme Court litigator.Interestingly, in 1986 a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia supported the law keeping tax returns private, finding in the case of National Treasury Employees Union v. the Federal Labor Relations Authority that taxpayer privacy is “fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting.”The judge was right.Few people had heard of that judge in 1986, but you’ve likely heard her name in more recent years. She got a big promotion and is now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If she winds up hearing the case dealing with the fight over the Trump tax returns it will be interesting to see if she sticks with her position of 33 years ago, or adopts a different position to strike a blow against President Trump.The House Democratic majority that took control of the chamber in January is clearly more interested in investigating every aspect of President Trump’s life than legislating.Getting President Trump’s tax returns has become a crusade for many Democrats – especially now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded Trump and his campaign didn’t collude with Russia to get elected in 2016.Neal notes that an exception to the general rule of privacy for tax returns allows the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee – that’s him – to request tax returns or information about the returns.Democrats are claiming this exception gives Neal the absolute right to get the Trump returns, with no exceptions. But that’s a gross oversimplification.If tax return information requested by the Ways and Means chairman includes information that can identify the taxpayer, it can be provided only when the requesting committee is “in closed executive session.”Both the Congressional Research Service and Trump attorney Consovoy point out that the committee can exercise its power under this law only in the context of its constitutional oversight and investigative authority. This is a critical distinction.The committee’s power is “subject to the same legal limitations that generally attach to Congress’ use of other compulsory investigative tools,” CRS observes. It adds: “Notably, the inquiry must further a ‘legislative purpose’ and not otherwise breach relevant constitutional rights or privileges.”Consovoy cites numerous court decisions holding that legislative “investigations” like Neal’s must have a legitimate legislative purpose. Congress doesn’t have a “stand-alone” investigation power.In a 1957 case, Watkins v. U.S., the Supreme Court told the House Un-American Activities Committee that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure” and especially not the “private affairs” of individuals.Furthermore, according to the high court, Congress can’t use its investigation to act like a “law enforcement or trial agency” – or, as Consovoy put it in a follow-up letter to the Treasury Department Monday, like “a junior-varsity IRS, rerunning individual examinations or flyspecking the agency’s calculations.”The point is that the House committee has no power to conduct its own examination and audit of any individual taxpayer – be it the president or anyone else.Audits are a function of the executive branch, not the legislature. Congress can’t, as the Justice Department opined in 1981, intrude “on the Executive Branch’s function of executing the law.”Rep. Neal claims that his legislative purpose in demanding the president’s tax returns is to determine “the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President.”As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has the same authority under this statutory provision as Neal. But he’s not on board with Neal’s request, saying that it “doesn’t make sense when taken at face value, because you can’t take it at face value.”Consovoy points out several facts to debunk Neal’s claim that the congressman just wants to review IRS enforcement of “Federal tax laws against a President.” He notes that Neal:Hasn’t requested the tax returns of any other president.Is demanding tax returns from before Donald Trump became president.Has asked no questions of any kind about IRS policy and procedures when the agency is auditing presidential tax returns.Hasn’t even waited for the IRS to finish its “ongoing examinations (and any resulting appeals)” dealing with President Trump’s tax returns.Consovoy makes a strong case that there is no legitimate legislative purpose driving Neal’s demand, which means the demand to see the Trump tax returns is outside the constitutional authority and power of Congress.Rather, Consovoy writes, Neal’s “request is a transparent effort by one political party to harass an official from the other party because they dislike his politics and speech … and they want to use the information to damage him politically.”The Treasury Department must determine whether to comply with Neal’s demand. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has said his agency is consulting with the Justice Department “given the unprecedented nature of this request” to ensure the agency is complying with the law and to avoid “potentially weaponizing the IRS.”Neal, by the way – who chairs one of the most powerful committees in the U.S. House, with extensive power over the American economy, private industry, and taxpayers – has never disclosed any of his tax returns, although he claims he will eventually.Apparently, Neal believes the public’s need to know doesn’t extend to him.What will happen now with the Trump tax returns?We don’t have the ultimate answer, though Trump has a far stronger case than most of the media are portraying. But don’t expect to be reading through the president’s complex returns anytime soon on the Internet. There will be a long court battle ahead with important implications about the protections for the privacy of all tax returns – including your own.(The above was borrowed from an article that seemed to argue some pretty good merits to the legal case regarding Trumps returns and whether they should be made public.)