Based on psychological data compiled by Dr. Raymond DiGiuseppe, a professor at St. John's University, Empire State Building gunman Jeffrey Johnson, 58, shouldn't have had enough aggression to shoot his former coworker.

"It's very rare to find people at this age, you know, becoming aggressive at all," DiGiuseppe told Business Insider.

DiGiuseppe and colleagues developed what they call the anger disorder scale. And according to that scale, anger and aggression levels drop on a "slow but steady basis" from the age of 18 up to 65.

Police believe Johnson opened fire yesterday outside the Empire State Building, killing a former coworker before being shot to death by police.

For this to have happened at Johnson's age, DiGiuseppe said Johnson would have had to experience the three R's of aggression — revenge, resentment, and rumination.

Johnson was laid off from Hazan Import Corporation about a year before yesterday's shooting, and psychologically speaking, he must have been very focused on the revenge and resentment that comes with that, DiGiuseppe said.

"This was not an accidental shooting," DiGiuseppe said. "He went right up to this guy."

Despite yesterday's shooting, society is actually less angry now than it has been in the past.

"Aggression is really down," DiGiuseppe said. "People are kind of less aggressive now than they were in the past. This is really an anomaly."

Here are pictures of the chaos yesterday morning. Warning, some are graphic >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Legal experts continue to crawl through the massive cache of Mitt Romney's Bain fund documents that Gawker published on Thursday.

And one law professor, Victor Fleischer of the University of Colorado, believes he has found a tax-avoidance trick used by the funds that is illegal.

As expected, the Bain funds appear to have employed pretty much every sophisticated tax-dodging scheme in the book, including:

• creating "blocker" corporations that allow the funds to avoid business taxes,
• entering into credit-default swaps that allow the funds to avoid dividend taxes, and, of course,
• taking advantage of the ludicrous "carried interest" tax loophole that allows private-equity and hedge-fund managers to treat their performance fees as capital gains instead of ordinary income and thus pay a tiny fraction of the taxes on them that normal professionals would pay

All of these tricks rely on legal technicalities and sophisticated techniques to avoid taxes.  For practical purposes, none of them are available to average taxpayers, because they require considerable sophistication and expense to set up and maintain. But they're common in the fund-management industry. And, for now, they are considered legal.

One of the tax-avoidance tricks that Romney's funds employ, however, is not legal, according to Fleischer.

This trick involves treating not just "performance-based fees" but management fees as capital gains rather than ordinary income.

Private-equity firms, like other fund management firms, generally charge two kinds of fees on each fund:

• Performance-based fees, which pay the firm ~20% of any gains
• Management fees, which assess an annual ~2% fee on all invested capital

Both of these fees are standard professional fees, so they both should be taxed at ordinary income rates.

In one of the most outrageous loopholes in the tax code, however, the fund-management industry has bamboozled (or simply bribed) Congress into treating "performance-based" fees as capital gains rather than income. So, unlike lawyers, doctors, architects, mechanics, and hundreds of other service professionals, fund managers get the privilege of having their fees accrue tax-free in their funds. And, if they structure the funds well enough, they can avoid ever having to pay ordinary income taxes on their fees. This is likely the primary means by which Mitt Romney has managed to pay such a low tax rate for so long.

But Bain went further than claiming the common "carried interest" treatment on its performance fees, says Fleischer.

In a much more controversial move, Bain also claimed capital gains treatment for its management fees. This allowed the funds (and Romney) to avoid paying ordinary income taxes on all of its fees, not just its performance fees.

How did Bain claim that its management fees were capital gains?

By "waiving" its management fees in some years in exchange for receiving a priority payment of "profit" in future years.

In other words, instead of taking a $20,000 cash payment for each $1 million under management in a particular year, Bain opted to take the $20,000 payment in a later year, as the first portion of any profit distributed from one of the fund's investments.

The theoretical basis for this tax treatment is presumably the same as the one used to justify the regular "carried interest" exemption, which is that by keeping its fees in the funds, the Bain partners are subjecting them to some risk: If the particular investment ends up losing money, the partners won't get paid.

For two reasons, though, this justification is weak.

First, for normal Americans, investment capital is eligible for capital-gains treatment only after it has been assessed with ordinary income taxes. A doctor who makes $1 million for rendering medical services would pay his ~35% tax rate, and then whatever he has left over would be available as investment capital. If the doctor put this capital at risk, he would then be entitled to capital-gains treatment. Thanks to the "carried interest" loophole, however, fund managers can put the whole $1 million of fees at risk simply by keeping it in their funds. Thus, they can let all of their fee-income compound tax free and never pay ordinary income taxes on it. Over decades, this generates vast wealth above and beyond what they would have earned if they had had to pay ordinary income taxes before they invested like everyone else.

Second, as Fleischer explains, Bain had extraordinary flexibility in choosing which investments to take its guaranteed share of "future profits" out of, in addition to when.

Basically, all Bain had to do to ensure that it would get its management fees was to choose one investment in each fund that would appreciate in value at some point in the future.  And given that Bain also had lots of control over the "carrying values" of these investments, it had superior knowledge of which investments would be the most likely to gain value. Thus, Fleischer argues, although there might have technically been some modest risk that Bain would never get paid its fees, this risk was extremely low.

Fleischer says this trick, treating management fees as capital gains, is "not legal." He also believes it would not stand up in court.

To be fair, it appears that, legally, this particular tax-avoidance scheme is still in the "not yet settled" phase as opposed to the "established law" phase. At some point, if the IRS concludes that the capital gains treatment is bogus, it will likely challenge it in court. And Bain and other private-equity firms will defend it. And, years later, a judge or jury will issue a ruling that can be used to set future precedent. Or, alternatively, the IRS and/or Congress could issue a clarification that either explicitly allows this treatment or explicitly disavows it.

But what appears clear is that this aggressive interpretation and use of tax law has likely saved Bain and Mitt Romney millions of dollars in taxes over the years.

Read Fleischer's post here >

SEE ALSO: Many Romney Supporters Appear To Be Delusional About A Key Reason For His 13% Tax Rate

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian punk band Pussy Riot says two of its members have managed to escape the country, The Guardian is reporting.

Three members of the five-woman feminist band were arrested after an anti-Putin protest at Russia's main cathedral back in February.

An international uproar ensued when they were found guilty of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" earlier this month.

On Sunday, Pussy Riot tweeted that two activists had left Russia and were "recruiting foreign feminists to prepare new protest actions," The Guardian reported.

DON'T MISS: Pictures Of The Chaos After The Empire State Building Shooting >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The jury for the Apple-Samsung infringement suit, a collection of people ranging from a bike shop employee to a video compression expert, took only 21 hours to award Apple $1.05 billion, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The very first vote taken immediately after proceedings concluded was already a 7-2 vote in favor of Apple. The decision was a major win for Tim Cook, with the case ending in Apple's favor a year to the day that he took over as Apple CEO.

Check out the video below as All Things D's Mike Isaac talks about the court proceedings.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Lobbying in Washington D.C. is often seen as a shadowy world full of backdoor deals and nefarious promises.

But OpenSecrets.org, a research group that tracks spending in U.S. politics, has broken down the data about who's paying what to get in good with Congress. 

The group compiled data about lobbying firms' revenues spanning from 1998 through 2012.

We used those numbers to rank which firms have hauled in the most money in that 14-year time span.

From American Indian tribes to Boston University, check out who is paying which firm to get the right results.

Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck raked in $142,820,000.

2012 lobbying income: $11,400,000

Top three clients and how much they paid:

• Coalition to Reform the Foreign Investment In Real Property Tax Act of 1980: $380,000

• Apollo Advisors: $340,000

• Caesar's Entertainment Operating Co.: $300,000

Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck was founded in 1968 by three University of Colorado graduates. Today, the firm is home to 510 employees, 260 of whom are attorneys and policy consultants.

Data from OpenSecrets.org

Hogan & Hartson earned $154,753,907.

2009 lobbying income: $18,160,000*

Top three clients and how much they paid:

• Nissan North America: $2,300,000

• Anschutz Corp: $520,000

• TPG: $510,000

Hogan & Hartson merged with Lovells in 2009, The Washington Post reported at the time. That merger made the newly created company one of the world's biggest law firms.

*Most recent data available

Data from OpenSecrets.org

Quinn Gillespie & Associates pulled in $160,508,500.

2012 lobbying income: $4,030,000

Top three clients and how much they paid:

• Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica SA: $280,000

• HEB Grocery: $240,000

• Qualcomm Inc: $240,000

QGA really tries to work with both sides of the aisle, claiming it's "the first bipartisan firm" to handle both government relations and strategic communications. The firm was founded in 2000 by Democrat Jack Quinn and Republican Ed Gillespie.

Data from OpenSecrets.org

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

The gunman and two others are dead following an early morning shootout at a supermarket in New Jersey, The Associated Press reported this morning.

Police were called to the Pathmark in Old Bridge around 4 a.m.

Authorities have not publicly said what caused the shooting, NBC News reported this morning.

The gunman was wearing body armor at the time of the shooting, ABC News is reporting

The store was set to open at 6 a.m. so several employees were inside at the time of the shootout.

We'll bring you more details as they become available.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Pentagon warned a former Navy SEAL that he faces legal action and loss of the profit for writing a book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, according to a letter released Thursday night.

The letter, addressed to Mark Owen, the pseudonym for Matt Bissonnette, alleges that he broke two non-disclosure agreements. He signed the agreements after leaving the Navy in April 2012 and in 2007, and they prevent him from releasing classified information.

It was sent to Bissonnette by Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's top lawyer.

"I write to formally advise you of your material breach and violation of your agreements, and to inform you that the (Pentagon) is considering pursuing against you, and all those acting in concert with you, all remedies legally available to us in light of this situation," Johnson wrote in the letter, which was sent in care of the publisher, Penguin Putnam.

The book, No Easy Day, gives a first-hand account of the May 2011 raid that killed bin Laden, the terror mastermind. Bissonnette did not submit the book to the Pentagon for pre-publication review as required by the military, according to the Pentagon.

Dutton, the publisher, has maintained that the book does not disclose secret information. It goes on sale Tuesday.

It's unclear how far the military is willing to go in punishing a member of the team that killed bin Laden after a decade on the run. Two officials have told USA TODAY that prosecution is unlikely.

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The commanding officer in charge of two cops accused of beating a woman during a traffic stop, and the officers themselves, have been removed from their duties while the incident is investigated.

"I have serious concerns about this incident and I believe the commanding officer of Foothill Area was severely deficient in his response," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in a statement, according to ABC News. "Proper steps were not taken, including appropriate notifications and the removal of the involved officers from the field."

The two unnamed officers allegedly slammed Michelle Jordan, a 34-year-old nurse, on the ground twice last week and then fist-bumped about it. A nearby restaurant's surveillance cameras caught the incident on tape.

Jordan's attorney called the LAPD's personnel move a step in the right direction but said it wasn't enough.

"It falls short of a resolution for our client, who has suffered physically and emotionally at the hands of these officers, and it falls short of providing a resolution of this problem that still plagues the LAPD," attorney S.J. Nazif told ABC News.

In a move to reform the LAPD, Beck told ABC News he has ordered that video of the incident be played at all roll calls.

DON'T MISS: 3 Dead, Including Gunman, In New Jersey Supermarket Shooting >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Apple Inc. lost a patent lawsuit in Japan as a Tokyo judge ruled that Samsung Electronics Co. smartphones and a tablet computer didn’t infringe on an Apple invention for synchronizing music and video data with servers.

Apple was ordered by Tokyo District Judge Tamotsu Shoji today to pay costs of the lawsuit after his verdict, the latest decision in a global dispute between the technology giants over patents used in mobile devices. Samsung shares rose, erasing earlier losses.

“It’s hard to believe the products belong to the range of technologies of the claimant,” Shoji said in dismissing Apple’s case.

Apple and Samsung are battling over the smartphone market, estimated by Bloomberg Industries to be worth $219 billion last year, with patent disputes being litigated on four continents. Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict in the U.S. on Aug. 24, with a jury finding that Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung infringed six of seven patents for mobile devices. The two companies are also bound by commercial deals involving components supply.

Apple, the maker of iPhones, sued Samsung, the world’s biggest maker of mobile phones, in Tokyo last year, claiming the Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab and Galaxy S II infringed the patent on synchronization, and sought 100 million yen ($1.3 million) in damages, according to court documents. The Galaxy series of products in Japan is offered by NTT DoCoMo Inc., the country’s biggest mobile-phone company.

Samsung Shares

Samsung welcomed the decision, the company said in a statement. Carolyn Wu, a spokeswoman for Apple, declined to comment.

The Tokyo court also ruled out today an injunction request by Apple to bar Samsung from offering 8 models of Galaxy products in Japan, said Kenichi Hasegawa, a Tokyo-based spokesman for Samsung.

Shares of the South Korean company rose as much as 1.6 percent after the ruling, reversing an earlier decline, and closed 1.5 percent higher at 1.233 million won in Seoul. Apple shares fell as much as 2.1 percent in German trading before changing hands at 528.9 euros.

Samsung doesn’t provide sales figures for Japan. The company generated about 12 percent of its revenue from Asia, excluding South Korea and China, in the quarter ended June 30, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Cupertino, California-based Apple got 5.7 percent of its sales in Japan during the same period, according to the data.“This will likely turn the tide in favor of Samsung,” said Kim Hyung Sik, Seoul-based analyst at Taurus Investment Securities Co. “Samsung had this win in a country that’s strong at intellectual property. The mood is turning positive for Samsung.”

iPad, iPhone Bans

Samsung’s method of synchronizing multimedia content between mobile devices and computers installed with its Kies software doesn’t infringe a patent held by Apple, the Japanese court said in a statement.

The software distinguishes a file by its name and size, contrary to Apple’s claim it uses other information such as the length of content to recognize which files need synchronizing, according to the statement.

NTT DoCoMo will keep making efforts to prevent patent disputes, Naoko Minobe, a spokeswoman for the Tokyo-based carrier, said by phone today.

U.S., Korea Rulings

Both companies were barred from selling some phones and tablet computers in South Korea on Aug. 24 when a Seoul Central District Court ruled they infringed each other’s patents.

Apple was ordered to stop selling the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2 in South Korea, while Samsung must stop selling 12 products including the Galaxy S, Galaxy S II and Galaxy Tab. Apple was also ordered to pay Samsung 40 million won ($35,000) and the South Korean company must pay its U.S. rival 25 million won for the patent infringments.

In the U.S., where Samsung had been barred from selling the Galaxy 10.1 tablet, Apple sought to extend the ban to eight models of Samsung smartphones following the jury verdict. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, has scheduled a Dec. 6 hearing on Apple’s request.

In Australia, a preliminary ban on Galaxy 10.1 tablet sales was overturned by the highest court in December. A judge last month began hearing Samsung’s claim that Apple products infringe its patents on wireless transmission. That trial also includes Apple’s claim that Samsung phones and tablets infringe its patents on touch-screen technology.

Samsung retained its position as the world’s biggest seller of smartphones in the second quarter, holding about 35 percent of the market, Strategy Analytics said in July. Apple had the second slot with about 18 percent, according to the market researcher.

The Japan case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Japan. Case No. Heisei 23 (WA)27941. Tokyo District Court.

—With assistance from Takashi Amano in Tokyo, Jun Yang in Seoul, Edmond Lococo in Beijing and Shunichi Ozasa in Tokyo. Editors: Joe Schneider, Michael Tighe

To contact the reporters on this story: Mariko Yasu in Tokyo at myasu@bloomberg.net; Naoko Fujimura in Tokyo at nfujimura@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Tighe at mtighe4@bloomberg.net

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Johnson & Johnson said Thursday it would pay $181 million to end claims by 36 states over its marketing of the blockbuster antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

But what exactly is J&J accused of? In the U.S., it's perfectly fine for doctors to prescribe medicine for uses not approved by the FDA – but it's illegal for drug companies to tout their wares for off-label uses.

Here's what J&J is accused of, according to a complaint filed by Hawaii, which is one of the 36 settling states. The complaint is courtesy of Courthouse News Service:

• The complaint says the FDA has only approved of Risperdal for various forms of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and autism.
• J&J is accused of aggressively promoting Risperdal for unapproved uses, such as treating dementia in the elderly, anger management, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression.
• These marketing tactics allegedly included rewarding doctors who prescribed the drug for off-label uses with lucrative consulting gigs.
• J&J is also accused of deploying a special "Eldercare" sales force just to peddle the drug for treating dementia in the elderly – something the FDA never approved it for.

For its part, J&J says it's not admitting any wrongdoing and just struck the deal with the 36 states to ensure a "prompt" resolution of the case.

DON'T MISS: The FTC Will Either Sue Google Soon Or Force It To Settle Claims It's Killing Competition >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

During a routine inventory check at the St-Louis-de-Blandford warehouse in Canada, officials from the Federation of Quebec Maple Syrup Producers noticed a maple syrup barrel was empty. Then another, then another. In the end, empty barrels representing 10 million pounds of syrup, worth an estimated $30 million, were discovered, the bandits apparently siphoning the sweet, sticky solution into other containers, reports AFP.

The discovery, which was initially kept secret, occurred at a temporary warehouse where the now-stolen syrup was supposed to be held for just a short period of time, reports the Globe and Mail. The warehouse is controlled by the Federation, which represents about 10,000 maple syrup producers.

Quebec, called the "Saudi Arabia of syrup" by some, produces between 70 and 80% of the world's maple syrup, most of it exported to the United States. In addition, because of a weak harvest in the U.S. in 2012, Quebec was expected to fill-in for the decreased supply. Now, they must figure out how to replace their own supply. 

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Sylvain Charlebois, a researcher of food policy at the University of Guelph, commented on the impact of such a heist on the federation.

“If they’re not concerned, they should be... This is such a fragile industry, and any loss on the supply side could be devastating.”

Aside from the loss of product, many worry that the stolen syrup will be sold on the black market at a much lower price, creating stiff competition for producers who actually had to pay to create the substance. 

There was a bright spot in this sequence of events though. Maple syrup inventories are fully insured, meaning the loss will not fall directly on the producers, reports the Ottawa Citizen. 

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

It's been there forever, but now they have someone to blame.

Black fungus has long decorated the homes and buildings in Kentucky and now researchers are saying the "sooty-looking black gunk" called Baudoinia thrives on ethanol, which can evaporate during fermentation, making it the fault of the area's pride and joy — its whiskey distilleries — The New York Times reported Wednesday. 

Now that the cause of their discomfort has been identified, a group of Louisville residents filed a class-action lawsuit against several distillers in the area, claiming the black fungus has taken over their homes and cars.

"The group claims that the whiskey fungus clung to metal, vinyl, concrete and wood and has marred their property and lowered its value," 14News reported in June, the time the suit was initially filed.

The distilleries named in the suit are Brown-Forman — responsible for Jack Daniels — Diageo, Heaven Hill, Buffalo Trace, and Jim Beam, The Huffington Post reported Friday.

Brown-Forman, Diageo, and Heaven Hill issued a joint statement saying they are "sympathetic to the concerns of the plaintiffs" but the fungus is a naturally occurring phenomenon and the companies "do not believe that they have caused any harm" to the people who filed the suit, the Times reported.

Buffalo Trace and Jim Bean chose not to comment.

The plaintiffs' Louisville, Ky.-based lawyer plans to file a similar lawsuit in Scotland in September.

DON'T MISS: The FTC Will Either Sue Google Soon Or Force It To Settle Claims It's Killing Competition >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Vetting potential employees isn't uncommon, and with the help of social media, it isn't difficult.

But there's a growing danger that employers might go as far as requesting Facebook user names and passwords from job applicants and employees.

California joined the short list of states that forbid that practice on Wednesday, banning prospective and current employers from asking for your social media passwords, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported.

The rest of the list isn't long, really. Only Illinois and Maryland protect you from employers and potential employers who want to take a peek at your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Last week California also passed a bill forbidding universities to ask for access to accounts of students and applicants, Law Blog reported. Delaware is apparently the only other state with such a law.

Meanwhile, more than 15 states are considering legislation to protect workers' social media privacy, the Law Blog reported. Until then, there isn't anything to stop your employer from being a little too nosy.

DON'T MISS: Judge Rejects Facebook Settlement Of Suit Over Its 'Sponsored Stories' Feature >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich just won a $6.5 billion legal battle against former friend and business partner Boris Berezovsky in the biggest personal court case in British history.

The months-long court case stemmed from a longstanding dispute in which Berezovsky claimed Abramovich had intimidated him into selling shares of Sibneft (later bought by Gazprom), the Russian oil giant the two had invested in during the 1990s.

Berezovsky sought $6.5 billion in damages in the case filed in London's High Court last October.

But the British judge on Friday found Berezovsky to be an "unreliable witness" and dismissed his claims in their entirety, according to the BBC.

Abramovich, the billionaire of the Chelsea football club, must be pleased—the ruling absolves him from paying billions of dollars to his former business partner, although Berezovsky could still file an appeal.

Life is pretty sweet for Abramovich. He was orphaned as a child, but today is worth an estimated $12.1 billion and leads a fabulous life, from his gorgeous girlfriend and palatial home to his massive security staff and celebrity-studded parties.

Abramovich is the owner of Chelsea Football Club, one of the top soccer teams in the world.

Source: The Independent

He just won a $6.5 billion court battle against "frenemy" Boris Berezovsky. It was over a decades-old business deal involving a Russian oil company.

Source: The Guardian

Abramovich has a security staff of 40 people, which reportedly costs him $2 million a year.

Source: The Daily Mail

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Tiffany York's stepfather rushed across the courtroom and had to be tackled by security.

"You killed (expletive) my kid!" He yelled, while another family member shouted, "An eye for an eye!"

The drama came after Georgia prosecutors announced they were seeking the death penalty for the three Army soldiers who allegedly shot and killed a colleague and his 17 year-old girlfriend. Michael Roark and Tiffany York, the grief-stricken and irate step-daughter of Wesley Thomas, were slayed execution style in the woods and found days later on the side of a road.

The Seattle Times reports that prosecutor Ted Durden put forward the death penalty in light the recent discovery that Isaac Aguigui, one of the soldiers charged with murder, had recruited fellow soldiers Christopher Salmon, Anthony Peden, Michael Burnette and eventual victim Roark into an anarchist militia hell-bent on bringing down the government.

The group also allegedly conspired to assassinate president Obama. Durden said the charges have nothing to do with the militia, but that the soldiers' plot to commit treasonous acts factored into his decision to pursue the death penalty.

Now: See what it takes to fire the guns on this U.S. Destroyer >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Mayer Brown's former chief information officer allegedly went to elaborate lengths to steal from the law firm so he could buy a Cadillac, an RV, a van, and a mobile home, The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports.

David Tresch, 51, initially began working as a server operations manager at Mayer Brown in 2004 and quickly moved up the ranks to become CIO in July 2011.

But he was fired just this summer after the firm discovered he started defrauding the company as soon as he started working there, prosecutors say.

Tresch is accused of approving $7.8 million in payments to an outside tech support vendor that wasn't actually doing any work for the law firm, Law Blog reported.

In exchange, the vendor allegedly deposited roughly a million in Tresch's own accounts.

When his colleages questioned him about the shady payments for work that didn't happen, Tresch asked if he was going to jail, according to court documents.

DON'T MISS: Here's Why The Lawyer Who Led News Corp.'s Internal Hacking Probe Was Arrested >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Dirty Harry might have offended a few lawyers last night.

In his (supposedly) unscripted speech at the Republican National convention, Clint Eastwood made public his opinion of lawyers as he spoke to an empty chair that represented Barack Obama.

"See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to be president, anyway," Eastwood said, taking a swipe at Obama's Harvard Law education in front of the Republican crowd. 

He was met with a mix of applause and whistles.

Apparently he forgot Mitt Romney got a joint degree from Harvard's Law and Business Schools.

Even Eastwood's timing couldn't be better. The convention's next speaker—this time we think scripted—was Florida's Republican senator Marco Rubio, another lawyer, The Blog of Legal Times pointed out.

Lawyers actually are not that few and far between. Obama, the 44th president, is the 25th lawyer to hold the post, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

DON'T MISS: Barack Obama Tells Law Student He Knows How 'Tough It Is Out There' In Response To Question About Student Loan Debt >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A Texas man is suing the maker of VirilisPro, claiming the male enhancement drug turned a sexual encounter into a nightmare.

Adrian Carter, 29, took the pill early in the morning last year and later on, during sex, he had "significant pain and observed a large quantity of blood squirting out of his penis onto the sheets, walls and mirror," ABC News reported Thursday, citing Carter's lawsuit.

Carter rushed to the emergency room where doctors had to "deglove" his penis, meaning the skin was removed to repair his urethra, the New York Daily News reported Friday.

"It was pretty horrific to view the pictures," attorney Melissa Moore told ABC News. "I know it sounds unusual. ... He was young and healthy and on no other meds at the time he took the supplement."

Following the surgery, doctors warned Carter he might never be able to father kids or have an erection again, Courthouse News Served reported Tuesday.

However, some experts aren't buying Carter's story, saying he was "overly dramatic" when describing his symptoms.

Grady Memorial Hospital's chief of urology Dr. Jeff Carney told ABC News that Carter's allegations are "the most absurd thing I have heard of in my life."

Carter probably injured his penis under different circumstances but was too embarrassed to tell doctors the truth, Carney said.

Carter is seeking punitive damages as well as medical expenses.

VirilisPro claims to be the "ultimate male enhancer" and brags it's made from "only natural ingredients to prevent harmful side effects."

The company did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request to comment.

DON'T MISS: Jim Beam And Jack Daniels' Distilleries Sued Over Black Fungus >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Next year marks the 40-year-anniversary of the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

A study by Theodore J. Joyce and Ruoding Tan at City University of New York and Yuxiu Zhang at Yale explored what would happen if the famous ruling were overturned. 

Roe v. Wade were overturned, legal analysts have determined that abortion would probably be ruled illegal in 31 states. This would increase the average distance an American would have to travel to an abortion clinic to 157 miles. 

The researchers were also interested in the topic because there is a significant possibility Roe v. Wade could be reversed: 

Since Roe, many states have passed laws that reflect a widespread antipathy towards abortion on demand. These include financing restrictions, parental consent for minors, mandated counseling andwaiting periods, required ultrasounds as well as unnecessary building codes and licensingrequirements for providers. More recent legislative actions have sought a declaration that lifebegins at conception or when a fetal heartbeat is heard. Many analysts believe that the SupremeCourt is but one vote away from overturning Roe.

Overturning the ruling would also result in an increase in the U.S. population, the researchers said: 

Under this scenario abortion rates would fall by 14.9 percent nationally, resulting in at most, 178,800 additional births or 4.2 percent of the U.S. total in 2008.

Here's a map showing which states would be projected to ban abortion and the average distance for residents to an abortion clinic: 

DON'T MISS: How Americans Became Delirious And Made Politics All About Sex >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Unlike many criminally insane people, psychopaths are more likely to hurt strangers than their own kin, according to a new study in the Frontiers of Psychology.

Canadian researchers looked at 289 violent psychopaths –  people who are antisocial and selfish – and analyzed whether they were related to their victims.

While people who have non-psychotic mental illnesses often lash out at their family members, the study found psychopaths more frequently attack non-relatives.

The evidence "suggests that psychopaths are executing a well-functioning, if unscrupulous strategy that historically increased reproductive success at the expense of others," the study found.

Ever wonder if you were a psychopath? Read on to see 20 signs that you might be >

DON'T MISS: James Holmes Might Have Tried To Contact His Psychiatrist 9 Minutes Before The 'Dark Knight Rises' Shooting >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »