Your Law Domain

Although we all have an understanding of what law is, and generally why it’s appropriate that it should be in place to serve and regulate our conduct in society, we seldom think of what law actually means in an everyday context. What is law for the average Joe in the street? How does law impact on our lives from day to day? Indeed, is the law a distant concept with which we find it hard to relate? In this article we will look at some of the fundamental ways law operates in society, in addition to the nature of the law as we know it.

For some people, they feel as though the law is there merely to protect their interests, and that they have no need for daily interaction. However, they assume that if the day comes where their behaviour is called into question, the law will operate, the course of justice will be run, and the will of the people will be fulfilled. This is perhaps a nave interpretation of the function of law, and indeed the way it operates in our lives throughout the day. For instance, at the top level we have the constitution, establishing parameters within which the government can and cannot act to protect the citizens of our nation. That has an overwhelming effect on the way in which our government and indeed our country is run, which has a knock on effect on everything we do throughout the day and how we do it. Even at a local level, the law interacts with the services we are provided, the jobs we work and pretty much everything to do with the lives we lead. A distant concept? I don’t think so.

The law does not just operate in criminal spheres, nor is it confined to merely constitutional matters and the distribution of power. Law is a significantly more sophisticated tool in the orchestration of the day-to-day organisation of society, through regulating not only personal conduct but also the way we act in business situations. Take for example the everyday task of boarding a train. The law regulates many aspects of this feat: (1) the criminal law and the constitution permits us to board public transport. (2) The constitution permits us to make contract with another. (3) The laws of contract permit us to form a contract for transport with the train company, and ensure that that contract is fulfilled. (4) The laws of contract and tort allow us to board without fear of injury, or with remedy should the worst happen. Finally the law of ownership and currency allows us to hand over money in consideration for this service, which is of value to the other contracting party. In fact, the law regulates just about everything we do, and is vital in doing so to ensure the smooth running of community and every aspect of our lives.

The law is not some abstract notion that can and will protect us when we need to rely on it. The law is an integral part of democratic life, and something which regulates our conduct, and in essence allows us to act according to our own desires within reason. Some may think the law is too restrictive in certain areas, but it works. The law serves its function as regulating our behaviour very well, and if it doesn’t? We can change it.

The fact is, law has been an important part of society since it began, with implied legal and social orders and boundaries that could not be crossed. Today, it is a sophisticated network of guidelines and regulations which is adapted to shape the way we live our lives from one day to the next. There is no doubt that the law is important to the citizen, and plays a profound impact on the lives of the people on a daily basis.

PPPPP

653

After being told no for the last 200 years, the House of Representatives have okayed a bill that would allow a House of Representatives position to be created for the residents of the District of Columbia. This is a complete shock to some, who analyze the situation and state that technically the District of Columbia is not a state and has no right to a representative in the house.

Along with adding a member of the house for the D.C. area, Utah has been given a fourth seat. Now the bill is passed along to the Senate to have a final approval but with the District of Columbia not being a true state, many are expecting the bill to be squashed. Some may not have realized but 200 years ago it was determined that the District of Columbia would be banned from a seat in the House since it was not a state.

Utah was declined an additional seat in the house after falling shy of the required residents to acquire a fourth seat after the last census. However, since they are in the process of adding additional seats and Utah is so very close to the requirements it is expected that by the next election they should have the required number of residents to justify the additional seat.

This is a major milestone in the House of Representatives, which has sat at 435 seats since 1960; it has been over 45 years since additional seats were added to the house. Opponents of the new bill have all been quick to point out that while it’s wonderful that the House is looking to grow, the Constitution clearly states that the members of the House are chosen by the people of the states, which since the District of Columbia is not a state, causes a major snafu in the plans of the Democratic majority House.

The House is slated to keep the 437 seats even after the 2010 census, which is when Utah is slated to be expanding to a 4th district. While this is the first time this measure has actually passed the House, it is not the first time it has been discussed, nor debated. Back in 1978, it was mentioned that the District of Columbia should be given a vote in the House of Representatives; however, the amendment was discarded after it was unable to be ratified by a quorum three-fourth majority of the states.

Once again, the measure was attempted in 1993; however, this attempt was focused around moving the District of Columbia into statehood and transforming the District into a full-fledged state of the United States. This proposal was also rejected, so this is a major victory that has been attempted several times previously. Whether it will pass through the Senate, and ultimately receive legal effect, is still left to be determined.

Many have argued that the District should be allowed a seat in the House, since the residents of the District pay taxes and fight in the wars of this country just like residents of any other state. The debate and battle rages on, and it will be a rather interesting experience to see if the District is able to win their bid to a permanent seat in the House.

PPPPP

550

The UK is one of the few developed countries in the world without a written constitution. Despite this, its economy is prospering as it strengthens its position as one of the richest nations in the world. On top of that, it is pivotally located within the European federal framework in spite of its comparatively small geographic land mass and population. This raises an obvious question as to the mechanisms of governance: if there isn’t a constitution, how has the UK survived in this form, and how can it continue to prosper in a modern era without any distinct definitively specified legal order?

The United Kingdom is unlike most other nations in the world in that it has not suffered any major constitutional change since the Middle Ages. Since that time, it has been predominantly governed by a monarch in conjunction with his or her parliament. That said, it has proven to be of continuing success throughout the ages without the strict written form that many countries have adopted. From this has sprung an unprecedented flexibility, and the UK has effectively developed its own (non-binding) constitutional conventions to keep the country running smoothly. Additionally, the bi-cameral (or dual chamber) parliament plus the necessary monarchical ratification serves to provide a comprehensive set of checks and balances which would otherwise be provided through a written constitution.

The statement that the UK is lacking a constitution is misleading. Of course there is no written document, but the UK has a rich and diverse legal tapestry that works fluidly and has so for centuries. This fluidity has allowed for adaptation when necessary, and has allowed the UK to flourish and develop where others didn’t have the chance. Behind the scenes is an equally strict and wrought-iron code of conduct, which can partially be derived from codes of practices, Acts of Parliament and other ‘bits and pieces’. Although there may not be a constitution present in the sense of a single definitive document, the UK most certainly operates on the foundation of a constitution that keeps the country running smoothly on a daily basis.

A major aspect of the UK constitution is the thorough legislative process required for legal enactment. Any bill must firstly be proposed to the House of Commons, an elected body of representatives empowered with the power of legislative initiative. The first chamber proposes legislation and debates the provisions in depth, before agreeing on a final draft to pass to the second chamber, known as the House of Lords. The House of Lords are largely un-elected, with ‘membership’ passed down from generation to generation, or new members proposed by the House of Commons. They then have the right of veto, and an ability to refer back to the first chamber their proposed changes to any bills. This ensures no rushed legislation passes, and in theory should cover all eventualities. After passing both Houses, it is referred to the monarch, who has a personal responsibility to ensure any legislation is in accordance with the will of the people, and is morally justified. Although the monarch hasn’t used her power of veto since the 17th century, it is still an important constitutional safeguard in the UK.

The UK constitution might not seem obvious initially, but there is most certainly an intricate web of governance and practice lying underneath its blank exterior. It has been described as the most successful constitution in the world, and this is bolstered by its perpetual success and lack of problems since its early evolution.

PPPPP

590

The European Convention on Human Rights has seen vast changes to the legal framework of countries across Europe. By imposing fundamental freedoms and liberties in an indefeasible form, it has created a host of legal problems and issues for courts to tackle in an attempt to improve human rights. Distinct from the US, which already retains fundamental freedoms through its definitive constitution, much of Europe in particular the UK doesn’t have the same codified provisions for its citizens. This has now been revolutionised by the ratification of the European Convention (ECHR), which sets out certain primary standards that must be attained in relation to each individual citizen. In this article, we will look at the advantages of the ECHR, and the wide-ranging impact it has had on the various constitutions around Europe.

The European Convention on Human Rights was established as an international treaty to afford a uniform standard of human rights treatment across Europe. Covering basic freedoms like the right to life through to trickier issues such as the right to liberty and the right to marry, ECHR has had an astonishing impact on Europe both legally and politically. In passing legislation, European governments have to as a matter of law legislate in accordance with the provisions contained within the ECHR. This means parliaments of signatory countries are being bound by their predecessors to legislate in a particular way, which has ruled out a number of would-be pledges and meant the reversal of certain national laws.

One area where this has caused problems is in abortion. The perpetual morality debate aside, abortion has been held to contravene the right to life provision in certain European countries. Although there is still great scope for challenge, this could potentially cause problems in the coming years as more and more cases of this nature are brought before the European court. Another major problem area is that of same sex marriages. The universal right to marry means that any provision stopping same sex marriage anywhere in Europe could potentially be struck down as illegal, requiring nations to actively realign their current provisions to avoid any discrimination. For this reason, the UK, amongst others, have taken proactive measures to permit same-sex marriages to avoid the embarrassment of a public ruling against them. This obviously raises problems of national power and freedom: nations are now utterly bound by the principles of European ‘liberty’, whether they like it or not.

Thankfully this social and legal upheaval is working towards a more liberty-orientated Europe. It is certainly taking time, and given the fact that the ECHR is over half a century old, its impacts are becoming more and more apparent as time wears on and as courts are presented with modern challenges located within the context of the original ECHR provisions. Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights is being regularly updated and amended to provide a steadfast constitution for the citizen whilst retaining the flexibility to adapt to contemporary situations. Although the ECHR and the provisions contained within it have met stiff opposition throughout their lifetime, most would now agree that the level of individual certainty provided by these fundamental freedoms is making for a better quality of life and reducing the scope for discrimination and prejudice across Europe.

PPPPP

552

For her traumatic wounds to heal, the victim of abuse requires closure – one final interaction with her tormentor in which he, hopefully, acknowledges his misbehaviour and even tenders an apology. Fat chance. Few abusers – especially if they are narcissistic – are amenable to such weakling pleasantries. More often, the abused are left to wallow in a poisonous stew of misery, self-pity, and self-recrimination.

Depending on the severity, duration, and nature of the abuse, there are three forms of effective closure.

Conceptual Closure

This most common variant involves a frank dissection of the abusive relationship. The parties meet to analyze what went wrong, to allocate blame and guilt, to derive lessons, and to part ways cathartically cleansed. In such an exchange, a compassionate offender (quite the oxymoron, admittedly) offers his prey the chance to rid herself of cumulating resentment.

He also disabuses her of the notion that she, in any way, was guilty or responsible for her maltreatment, that it was all her fault, that she deserved to be punished, and that she could have saved the relationship (malignant optimism). With this burden gone, the victim is ready to resume her life and to seek companionship and love elsewhere.

Retributive Closure

When the abuse has been “gratuitous” (sadistic), repeated, and protracted, conceptual closure is not enough. Retribution is called for, an element of vengeance, of restorative justice and a restored balance. Recuperation hinges on punishing the delinquent and merciless party. The penal intervention of the Law is often therapeutic to the abused.

Regrettably, the victim’s understandable emotions often lead to abusive (and illegal) acts. Many of the tormented stalk their erstwhile abusers and take the law into their own hands. Abuse tends to breed abuse all around, in both prey and predator.

Dissociative Closure

Absent the other two forms of closure, victims of egregious and prolonged mistreatment tend to repress their painful memories. In extremis, they dissociate. The Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) – formerly known as “Multiple Personality Disorder” – is thought to be such a reaction. The harrowing experiences are “sliced off”, tucked away, and attributed to “another personality”.

Sometimes, the victim “assimilates” his or her tormentor, and even openly and consciously identifies with him. This is the narcissistic defence. In his own anguished mind, the victim becomes omnipotent and, therefore, invulnerable. He or she develops a False Self. The True Self is, thus, shielded from further harm and injury.

According to psychodynamic theories of psychopathology, repressed content rendered unconscious is the cause of all manner of mental health disorders. The victim thus pays a hefty price for avoiding and evading his or her predicament.

As NJ divorce attorneys, we are trained to be advocates in the process known as “adversarial. Many of us self-selected into the legal profession partly because our underlying personality and temperament traits are geared toward advocacy. Similarly, lawyers “the good ones” are typically quite inquisitive. Their questioning techniques, however, often take on the tone of cross-examination.

We can all stand to improve the way we practice the non-adversarial, settlement-oriented part of our profession by paying attention to the way we employ the principles of advocacy and inquiry.

Advocacy is stating ones views. Examples of advocacy include: sharing how youre feeling; describing what youre thinking; stating a judgment; pushing for a particular course of action, decision or outcome; and making demands.

Inquiry is asking a genuine question. By asking real questions, information is truly sought. Rhetorical or leading questions are a kind of advocacy in disguise. Weve all observed journalists and other questioners with not-so-hidden agendas pose inquiries such as, “Isnt it true that your administrations domestic fiscal policy has done a disservice to the elderly?” Another loaded style of pseudo question-asking might go something like, “Some people (not me, of course) might say that you handled yourself rather poorly in the first two debates. How would you respond to such criticism?”

In any discussion or conference we are engaged in, we can be high or low on advocacy. The same can be said for inquiry. Regardless of whether our advocacy and inquiry levels are high or low at a given instance, we can come across positively or negatively, depending upon our style, intent and often habit.

For instance, if we are operating from a high advocacy, low inquiry perspective, we come across quite positively if we are truly explaining our point of view. Cramming our viewpoint down the other partys throat, conversely, is a destructive tendency. It should be mentioned that high advocacy/low inquiry results in one way communication, even if both people are engaged in it. It can be useful for giving information, but doesn’t enhance understanding of diverse perspectives or build commitment to a specific course of action. Advocacy that imposes the proponents views on others usually creates either compliance or resistance.

On the other hand, If we are geared up in the inquiry department, but toning down the advocacy, we can conduct meaningful, non-threatening information gathering interviews, or we can find ourselves falling into interrogation mode; a natural tendency for many NJ divorce lawyers. High inquiry/low advocacy results in one way communication in a different sense in that the inquirer refrains from stating his or her views or beliefs. While it can be quite useful for finding out information, it can create difficulties when the inquirer has a hidden agenda, or is really using the questioning process as a device to get the other person to “discover” what the inquirer already thinks is right, or both.

There are certainly times when keeping both advocacy and inquiry levels to minimum is the way to proceed. This is what were doing well when we are observing or listening attentively. The flip side in this realm is withdrawal. Weve all observed this in four-way settlement conferences when a sore topic is being discussed, with one spouse preaching from the soapbox while the other checks out mentally and glazes over. Low inquiry/low advocacy also flows in one direction: Participants watch, but contribute relatively little. This approach is ideally employed when being a tacit observer is useful, but it can create difficulties when participants withhold their views on key issues.

Finally, in the context of energetic sessions when we are high in both advocacy and inquiry departments, mutual learning or appreciation of each others viewpoints is the objective. High advocacy/high inquiry fosters two way communication and learning. I state my views and I inquire into yours; I invite you to state your views and inquire into mine. We must be careful, particularly in the context of settlement talks, not to over-work the process. When excessive communications generate too much information density, participants become worn-out, irritable and confused or overwhelmed. Positive energy is a great thing, but its also important to keep dialogues down to a manageable pace. Participants need time for things to sink-in. Managing the pace of high advocacy, high inquiry discussion is also indispensable when taking into account the differences between introverted and extraverted (not a spelling error, but rather the Jungian term) personality types. While extraverts often relish high pace, high energy dialogue, introverts often find them quite distracting, if not frankly annoying.

Balancing advocacy with inquiry is necessary. Taken alone, however, the balancing process is not enough to promote a positive meeting of the minds. In order for this to occur, the quality of advocacy and inquiry is also vital. For example, “Thats a really moronic comment. How long did it take you to come up with that one?” is both a statement and a question, but it doesnt encourage negotiated problem solving. Ideally, our use of advocacy should involve providing information to others and explaining exactly how we moved from observing or collecting this information to our view of the situation. Competent use of inquiry entails honestly seeking others views, probing how they arrived at them, and encouraging them to challenge our perspective. Balancing high quality advocacy with high quality inquiry makes significant breakthroughs possible.

A DOZEN PRACTICE TIPS

If we assume that we are obviously right and that our job is to get others to realize what we already know, we will be unable to promote either agreement on a specific issue or ultimate settlement. Accordingly, we are well advised to:

1) Assume from the onset that we may be missing things that others see, and seeing things that others miss. If we begin with this assumption, the result is that we will listen more intelligently and inquire more genuinely without downplaying our own views.

2) Assume that others are acting in ways that make sense to them and that they are motivated to act with integrity. (This advice applies, regardless of whether you believe another to be Demon Seed or the reincarnation of Mother Theresa of Calcutta.)

3) Attempt to understand what leads to behavior that we find problematic. Are others caught-up in dilemmas? Are we contributing to any problems?

4) Help others to understand or appreciate our viewpoints and how we think about them by giving examples of the underlying data we select. Go on to state the meaning that we find in the examples, and explaining the steps in our thinking to others.

5) Describe our understanding of the others reasoning.

6) If we notice negative consequences to what others may be doing, identify the consequences without attributing any intent on their part to create those consequences. Distinguish between intent and impact; between motive and outcome.

7) When choosing to disclose our emotions, we must endeavor to do so without implying that the other person is primarily responsible for creating our emotional reactions. Remember also Eleanor Roosevelts observation that no one can make us feel inferior without our permission.
Find out how others see the situation by asking them to give examples of the information they selected from which they necessarily drew the inferences which lead to their conclusions. Ask them to explain the steps in their thinking.

9) Ask for help in finding out what we may be missing by encouraging others to identify possible gaps or errors in our thinking.

10) When we have difficulty with how others are acting, ask them to explain what has prompted them to act as they have done, in a tone that suggests they may have a reasonable answer.

11) Inquire into others feelings and emotions, but dont ask, “Whats your problem?” or “Why do you get so worked up?” Say, instead, “You appear to be sad about something, am I right? Do you feel comfortable talking about it?”

12) Ask for help in exploring whether we are unknowingly contributing to the problem. Quite often, well-intended action on our part is problematic for others.

These tips have been extraordinarily helpful to many, both in their work and private lives. I hope that you will find them helpful.

Taxation law is a complex and in-depth area of concern for the small business owner. With potential pecuniary and criminal consequences, it is of paramount importance to ensure as a business owner, you are familiar with the tax consequences in your jurisdictions, and the ways in which you can minimise your liability. Whilst one of the most legally important things to understand as a small business owner, taxation law also provides an excellent opportunity for saving money and increasing profitability within a small business environment. In this article, we will look at some of the main and most common tax implications of running a small business, and some of the most effective ways of ensuring you pay less tax through your small business operation.

Tax regimes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the implications of running a small business also vary, both in terms of the legal and financial requirements. Having said that, there are a number of common elements that transcend jurisdiction and appear in numerous guises across various systems that can be of use to the small business owner. One of the first things to consider as a small business owner is to establish a limited liability company. The primary reason for this is that limited liability companies usually provide a more relaxed tax regime as compared to income tax liability. A sole proprietor operating out-with the parameters of a corporate entity is liable to account for profits as income, which can lead to a greater tax liability and potential individual state contributions. As a corporate entity, the owner can pay himself via share dividends, which carry a lower tax liability and thus minimising his overall liability to tax. This is significantly better than paying oneself a wage, which bears the tax liability from both ends, i.e. the company is liable to taxation as is the employee.

Another essential for the small business owner is what is known as capital allowance. By means of capital allowance, business owners can offset the acquisition cost of assets on a graduated scale in accordance with the specific principles of the regime in question. This is in effect a deductible expense, which ultimately minimises yearly tax liability. There is a particular benefit in that many regimes allow an accelerated relief for business assets. This can be exploited to an extent by acquiring assets through the business, for example a car, which can also be used for personal purposes. Rather than buying a car from personal income, buying it through the company allows you to offset the amount of the expense quickly against your business profits, which ultimately reduce your liability to tax.

Before embarking on any tax reducing strategies, it is important to ensure you are acquainted with the specific laws of your jurisdiction to avoid running into trouble with the authorities. In some of Europe, for example, there is a requirement to declare any specific tax minimising strategies to the government to allow for rectification of loopholes. It is important to ensure you are acquainted with the specific laws to avoid potential criminal liability as a consequence of ignorance. By familiarising yourself with the laws in your jurisdiction, you can avoid the potential pitfalls and create a tax planning strategy that provides the most cost effective solution for you and your small business.

PPPPP
557

Why This Lawyer Says You Should Buy Car Insurance From An Independent Broker

I don’t sell car insurance, but as a lawyer practicing in the field of personal injury I frequently see people suffer because they have the wrong insurance coverage. Often, this happens because they purchased directly from an insurance company instead of an independent broker.

Many of my clients who have been seriously hurt in a car accident were struck by someone who had no insurance or only the minimum liability insurance coverage, which is $25,000 in New York and much less in many other states. Unfortunately, many of my clients were sold insurance policies with liability limits of $100,000 or $300,000, but were not sold matching uninsured and underinsured coverage.

Just this week, yet another new client had this problem. My client was a pedestrian crossing the street when she was struck by a car which fled the scene. The driver was caught shortly after leaving the accident, but the owner of the car only has the New York State minimum liability insurance of $25,000 and my client has serious injuries consisting of many broken bones including a fractured arm, leg and skull.

My client owns a car with liability insurance limits of $300,000, but she purchased the insurance from GEICO whose salesperson didn’t sell her underinsured coverage. GEICO does not use independent insurance brokers, but sells insurance directly to consumers through in-house sales agents.

For a small fee, my client could have purchased underinsured coverage of $300,000 which would have allowed her to recover $300,000 for her injuries instead of $25,000. Ironically, she did not need the $300,000 liability coverage to protect her assets. However, since you cannot buy underinsured coverage higher than your liability coverage, I would have advised her to purchase $300,000 liability coverage for the sole purpose of being able to purchase $300,000 underinsured coverage.

I have had many clients in this situation who lost their jobs because of serious injuries and incurred substantial debt. If they had matching underinsured coverage, the additional money available to pay their claim would would be a big help to pay their bills and get their life back together.

Underinsured motorist coverage will pay you money from your own automobile insurance policy if you have been hurt in a car accident by someone who was negligent for causing your injury and who had less liability insurance coverage than you did. Uninsured motorist coverage will pay you when the other car did not have any insurance coverage or the identity of the other car is unknown.

Underinsured and uninsured coverage is inexpensive and usually available in limits that match your liability insurance coverage. It is not available in amounts greater than your liability insurance coverage.

Underinsured and uninsured coverage is so important that a couple of states now require coverage limits matching your liability insurance limits, unless you decline the coverage in writing. Several years ago, I suggested to several New York State senators that they enact a similar law in New York.

I have also seen many clients who were not sold the maximum medical payments insurance, which costs me only $2.01 per month on my car insurance policy. This is particularly important for people who do not have a good health insurance policy. It is also beneficial for passengers who do not have health insurance.

Why should you buy car insurance through an independent insurance broker? The courts have defined the reason. There have been several “malpractice” lawsuits against insurance companies for failure to offer underinsured and uninsured motorists coverage limits matching the liability limits. However, when the insurance company sells directly to consumers, these cases have gone in favor of the insurance companies. The courts found that when a consumer buys insurance directly from an insurance company, rather than an insurance broker, the consumer is only buying insurance and is not paying for advice.

When you buy auto insurance from an independent insurance broker who represents several different insurance companies, you get the advantage of an insurance professional who can evaluate your needs and advise you accordingly. Additionally, only an independent insurance broker can provide you with a choice of insurance companies and premiums, so you get the best coverage at the lowest price.

Whether you buy your car insurance directly from an insurance company or through an independent insurance broker, always make sure that you purchase matching uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage and the maximum medical payment benefits.

There are currently 13 states that have legalized gambling and they have over 450 casinos between those states, and they bring in 72 billion dollars a year.

From this money states get extra money for road repair, schools and many other things that a state needs money to fix and maintain.

In the last 10 years there have also been a large number of Indian casinos being granted licenses in states that do not have legalized gambling, which means the only place t gamble in those states is in the Indian Casino, and they do not pay taxes on that money.

Many states are waking up and realizing that there is a very profitable business out there that they are not getting any revenue from, and not only does it bring money into the state it also creates thousands of jobs for each casino that opens. So for a state with a high unemployment rate this means more people are working and less of the stats money needs to be spent on these people, again a win for the state and the people.

It also means more money for the state to feed kids a hot meal at lunch and the money to put new books in the classrooms and maybe to build more schools. This money is also used in some states to hire more police officers.

Legalized gambling besides bringing in more money to the government in taxes also brings money into the community gamblers will use services such as hotels, restaurants and other local attractions while they are in the area. This can bring a major boost to a small starving economy separate from that of the casino.

Another reason why many states are pushing to make gambling legal is to attempt to wipe out the illegal gambling business. Many people feel that if gambling is legalized there is no reason for people to go to sleazy and dangerous back room casinos.

These type of places are becoming harder and harder for the police to find and as soon as they do find them, they will either pack up and change locations or another will just take their place. Another bad thing about illegal casinos s that there is no one monitoring to make sure the casino is not cheating their players.
In many cases police have raided illegal casinos and found that all the table and card games are rigged for the casino to win, and if this is ever discovered the casinos operators have in the past committed murder to keep their secrets, and most people fear for their lives and refuse to cooperate with the police.

Legalized gambling is monitored to make sure both the player and the house are playing an honest game.
Do not let all of this make you think that gambling has no downside. A lot of this money has to go to treatment for people, who develop gambling addictions, and most cities with a casino do usually see a rise in crime in those areas, so more police officers are not just a luxury it is a necessity.