I’m looking at court records for Wanker Wang’s 1997 guilty plea to two felonies – assault with a deadly weapon and sexual battery. Wanker was supposed to pay a fine of $10,200 and pay the victim Helen Na $21, 858.78.
Here’s the last proceeding on this case (YA034228) on May 10, 2007: "Order for restitution is signed and filed this date. A certified copy is provided to the judgment creditor’s attorney. An abstract of judgment is issued by the courtroom clerk and provided to the judgment creditor’s attorney. Proceedings terminated."
What does that mean?
Inkyo Volt Hwang pled guilty to two felonies — 245(A)(1) and 243.4(C).
An attorney writes:
Okay, this statute indicates that Wanker would have fallen under its language if he had touched her breast, vagina, or anus for "sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse,"
"(c) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose, is guilty of sexual battery. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000); or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000)."
So Wanker’s maximum exposure would have been four years. But what I find interesting is that under (c) he did his touching under some sort of false pretense or misrepresentation. Since penetration is not discussed under this statute he is not a convicted rapist, but some sort of lesser sexual offender. BTW did he hit her with a pistol?
Jack writes: "In the counts you put up the reason for it was the "the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act", it’s his M.O."
An attorney says: "It appears Luke, that Wanker took his sweet time in paying his restitution to Helen Na. While I do not practice in California it looks like the restitution to Na was turned into the equivalent of a civil judgment which was then satisfied by payment. However, I would call Na’s attorney the "judgment creditor’s attorney" and confirm my interpretation of this language. The alternative is that Wanker never paid the $21,000 and it was converted to a civil judgment for purposes of collection. However since it says "Proceedings terminated" I suspect he paid up."
Now that Wanker has paid off his 1997 rape, he can afford another one.
A source calls: "There’s one good thing in all of this. It’s not like you’re a good friend of mine, but I can sleep at night assured that you will never end up with a severed head in Pakhistan because of journalistic searching. Any story that takes you more than a mile from home is off-limits."
Another source says: "Wanker Wang always came off as a misogynist and part of the new breed of the opportunistic confrontational internet loudmouth. He’s a self-promoter. I’ve met him. I didn’t derive that he was a rapist."
It makes sense to me. Wanker was often all over me, even though I’d push him away. He’d often kiss me and fondle me against my consent. I now feel so cheap and tawdry.
Source: "There’s a fine line in our business between rape and good hard pornography. His past history as a rapist made him uniquely qualified to shoot hard content."
I once asked David Sturman how he could hire as a director a convicted sex offender. He replied, "Come on Luke. You know sex offenders make the best pornographers."
Source: "It’s like we take in an alcoholic and give him a drink. As long as he drinks in moderation, we say great, but the second he drinks too much, we all get aghast. Same thing. Take in a rapist… That we all feign such moral indignation. ‘We don’t want a rapist around these girls.’ But we want a Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion around these girls? It’s no longer a rape because we’re filming it?"
