The $40 billion Michael Jackson wrongful death suit finds the pop star’s family asserting that sports & entertainment conglomerate AEG wantonly pumped the singer full of Propofol, though the incentive to empoison a performer to whom tens of millions of dollars had been advanced remains starkly unspecified.  Regardless, the case hinges on the actions of Dr. Conrad Murray, who was on AEG’s payroll to the tune of $150,000/month and was subsequently convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the Gloved One’s untimely demise.  Murray’s judgment was compromised, contend the Jacksons, due to massive personal debts, most notably unpaid child support for eight illegitimate offspring sired with seven different women.  (This places Murray in the Pantheon somewhere between Shawn Kemp and Evander Holyfield and in sharp contrast to Jackson himself, who seems to have falsified the biological link to two of his children.)  The lawsuit contends that AEG executives, precluded by HIPPA privacy rules from knowing anything about Murray’s “dangerous” treatments, should have nonetheless magically interceded.   Tito and Janet, however, do admit to failed interventions during Michael’s years at Neverland, having well recognized his struggles with addiction and aberrant behavior (recall:  gruesome reconstructive surgeries and alleged episodes of child molestation).  While MJ’s bankruptcy undercuts the $40 billion valuation, it is the aspect of pedophilia that renders him a less than sympathetic figure.

As is does for Elmo, a.k.a. Kevin Clash, who reputedly had a penchant for teens.  And while the statute of limitations sadly ran out for one known victim, an obscure provision in the Violence Against Women Act (renewed earlier this year over vehement Republican opposition) has attorney James Marsh turning kiddie porn restitution –prosecuted years after the precipitating offense — into a booming industry.  Many courts have ruled that mere “possessors” of child pornography are subject to joint and several liability (one perpetrator must pay all the damages and then sue to collect portions from others) even though images were acquired well after the brunt of the harm had occurred.  Yet the majority of defendants have overturned this point on appeal.  Regrettably, these cases are all too prevalent; they have wended through every Federal District Court in the land, though with inconsistent results.  George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley: “The interpretation of proximate cause in these restitution judgments is so broad as to be practically indefinable.” Adds Douglas Berman, a criminal law professor at Ohio State University, “I’m not sure [this particular] law provides [a] solution.”   What does, according to Sol Hirschberg of the William Morris Agency, is copyright law.  “Images are being sold and traded without any recompense to these girls.  I can get them every penny that some lawyer with a 1/3 contingency fee can.  And I only charge 10%!”