{"id":"court_ctb_572_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":572,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"|                     | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DMSION |","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"|                     | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DMSION |                        | FILED<br>' ZDll JUL t q A IO: 3 O                                              |\n|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Inre:               |                                                                                | CHAPTER 11             | CL~K, U.S. BAN!{RUPTCY COURT<br>!STRICT OF CON~/Ecnr·ur<br>BRIDGEPORT oJVJSJQU |\n| HO WAN KWOK,        |                                                                                | Case No. 22-50073(JAM) |                                                                                |\n|                     | Debtor.                                                                        |                        |                                                                                |\n| Samuel Dan Nunberg, |                                                                                |                        |                                                                                |\n| v.                  | Plaintiffs,                                                                    | Adv. Proc. No.         | -----                                                                          |\n| Ho Wan Kwok,        |                                                                                |                        |                                                                                |\n|                     | Defendant.                                                                     |                        |                                                                                |\n\n# **COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DISCHARGEABILITY**\n\nSamuel Dan Nunberg **(\"Plaintiff\"),** appearing prose, in support of this Complaint against Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Guo Wengui (the **\"Defendant\"** or **\"Debtor\")** hereby, alleges and states as follows:\n\n# **PARTIES**\n\n1. Plaintiff Samuel Dan Nunberg is a natural person, a citizen of the State of New York, and an active member of the District of Columbia and New York State Bar. Mr. Nun berg is a creditor listed on the Debtor's list of top creditors filed in the Debtor's Bankruptcy Case (defined below).\n\n2. Defendant, Ho Wan Kwok a/k/a Guo Wengui a/k/a Miles Kwok, is a Chinese national, and the debtor in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the **\"Bankruptcy Case\").** Upon information and belief, the Defendant possesses passports from numerous countries, including those from Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, and the Republic of Malta, and uses a number of aliases, including Guo Wen Gui, Guo Haoyun and Miles Kwok, among others. The Defendant purports to presently reside in Connecticut, and, upon information and belief, at all times relevant to Plaintiffs and their claims, the Defendant resided in New York City.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334.\n\n4. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(1).\n\n5. Venue of this action is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a).\n\n6. The bases for the relief requested in this Complaint are 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007 and 7001.\n\n7. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on their claims against the Debtor and does not consent to trial in this Court.\n\n### **RELEVANT BACKGROUND**\n\n#### I. **The State Court Litigation and Plaintiff's Claims.**\n\n8. In 2020, Plaintiff commenced a civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (the **\"State Court\"),** Index No. 150141/2020 (the **\"State Court Litigation\"},** against the Debtor, asserting two causes of action arising from the injuries intentionally caused by the Debtor -- one for defamation per se (slander per se) and the other for defamation (slander) (together, the **\"Plaintiff's Claims\").**\n\n9. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's complaint in the State Court Litigation setting forth the Plaintiff's Claims (the **\"State Court Complaint\")** is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As alleged therein, the Debtor has undertaken an intentional and malicious campaign of lies\n\nagainst the Plaintiff (and others who oppose the Debtor) in an effort to intimidate and harm the Plaintiff, causing him injury. *See, e.g.,* State Court Complaint, fl 13-68.\n\n10. The State Court Complaint is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation of the State Court Complaint as if said allegation is fully set forth herein. As set forth in the State Court Complaint, the Debtor's intentional malicious conduct against the Plaintiff include, but are not limited to, the following events.\n\n# *(a) Defamation* - *Slander Per Se Against Plaintiff Mr. Nunberg (State Court Complaint* **,r,r 46-58)**\n\n11. The Debtor has sought to harm and damage Plaintiff Samuel Nunberg personal and professional reputation by falsely accusing Plaintiff Samuel Nunberg of committing federal crimes that were punishable by both monetary fines and even imprisonment.\n\n12. On January 19, 2019, the Debtor posted a publicly available video on Y outube.com account, **\"•X:ll\",** stating: \"Sam Nunberg helped Bruno Wu, made arrangement with Elliott Broidy, made arrangement with the Justice Department, helped Jho Low lobby, and helped\n\nsmoothing the thing over. So on this issue, even their attorney-client relationship cannot be\n\nprotected. *It is already a criminal matter.\"*\n\n13. These false statements by the Debtor made deliberately for the purpose of wrongfully damaging Plaintiff's reputation by intentionally falsely claiming that Plaintiff Samuel Nunberg violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq.,* unregistered lobbying on behalf of a foreign agent is a crime punishable by up to \\$10,000 fine and five years in prison.\n\n14. The Debtor's statement that \"even their attorney-client relationship cannot be protected[,] *It is already a criminal matter,\"* is a direct false allegation of criminality as well as an allegation that Nunberg used his professional status as an attorney to cover up the alleged crime, which is a statement which the Debtor intended to harm Plaintiff's personal and professional reputation.\n\n15. The Debtor made these statements with malicious intent on a publicly available internet platform with a worldwide, public audience without any privilege or authorization to make such false statements.\n\n# **(b)** *Defamation -Slander Per Se Against Plaintiff Mr. Nunberg (State Court Complaint* **,r,r 59-68)**\n\n16. The Debtor has sought to harm and damage Plaintiff's personal and professional reputation by falsely accusing Plaintiff with the intent to induce contempt and an unsavory opinion of Plaintiff in his personal and professional communities and affairs.\n\n17. On January 19, 2019, the Debtor posted a publicly available video on Youtube.com account, **\"Jll X :ft** \", stating: ''Why did Sam Nunberg go to a Jewish (club/synagogue) to spew big lies, saying he saved 60,000 Jews. This is totally ridiculous. If you ever have any common sense, how could he have saved 60,000 people? Jewish people would remember every person that gave them a loaf of bread.\"\n\n18. The Debtor's false statement was made with the clear intent to disparage Plaintiff, a descendent of Holocaust survivors and strong supporter oflsrael, by falsely claiming Plaintiff of making false statements to his fellow Jewish brethren that he \"saved 60,000 Jews.\"\n\n19. The Debtor made these statements with malicious intent on a publicly available internet platform with a worldwide, public audience without any privilege or authorization to make such false statements.\n\n# II. **The Commencement of the Bankruptcy Case.**\n\n17. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the **\"Bankruptcy Code\")** commencing this bankruptcy case.\n\n18. The Debtor's list of largest unsecured creditors identifies the Plaintiff as one of the largest non-insider creditors in this case. (ECF Nos. 4, 20).\n\n19. Plaintiff also filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Case, docketed May 20, 2022. *See* Claims Registry, Proof of Claim No. 5. The Plaintiff's Claims are personal injury claims that are expressly excluded from matters in which bankruptcy courts may enter final judgments or that may be estimated by bankruptcy courts for distribution purposes, nor do bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to try such claims. *See* 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2){B), (0), 28 U.S.C. § 157(b )(5). Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on their claims against the Debtor and does not consent to trial in this Court.\n\n# **COUNTI-DECLARATORYJUDGMENT Nondischargeability of the Defamation** - **Slander** *Per Se* **Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.** § **S23(a)(6)**\n\n20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n21. Individual debtors are not entitled to a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code from any debt \"for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity.\" 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).\n\n22. The first cause of action in the State Court Complaint sets forth the Plaintiff's claim against the Debtor for the intentional tort of Defamation - Slander *Per Se* (the **\"Defamation-Slander** *Per Se* **Claim\").** State Court Complaint ff 46-58. As set forth above and in the State Court Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Debtor intentionally and with malice repeatedly defamed Plaintiffs seeking to cause them injury. As set forth above and in the State\n\nCourt Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Debtor intentionally and with malice made statements that claimed Plaintiff (i) violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611 *et seq,* unregistered lobbying on behalf of a foreign agent is a crime punishable by up to \\$10,000 fine and five years in prison, and (ii) that Plaintiff Nunberg used his professional status as an attorney to cover up the alleged crime.\n\n23. The Debtor knew those statements are false and made those statements with the intent of maliciously damaging Plaintiff and his reputations and business, professional and public affairs with the further intent to induce others not to do business with him. The Debtor had neither the authorization nor the privilege to make such false statements. Damages to the Plaintiff are presumed for their Defamation-Slander *Per Se* Claim.\n\n24. The Debtor's conduct resulting in the Defamation-Slander *Per Se* Claim constitutes willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the State Court Litigation to be liable on the Defamation-Slander *Per Se* Claim, the Debtor's liability (including actual, presumed, and punitive damages, as well as interest, fees and costs) for the Defamation-Slander *Per Se* Claim is nondischargeable.\n\n# **COUNT** II-**DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Nondischargeability of the Defamation-Slander Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.** § **S23(a)(6)**\n\n25. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each paragraph above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n26. Individual debtors are not entitled to a discharge under the Bankruptcy Code from any debt \"for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity.\" 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).\n\n27. The second cause of action in the State Court Complaint sets forth the Plaintiff's claim against the Debtor for the intentional tort of Defamation-slander (the **\"Defamation-Slander Claim\").** State Court Complaint fl 59-68. As set forth above and in the State Court Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Debtor intentionally and with malice repeatedly defamed Plaintiff seeking to cause his injury by falsely claiming that Plaintiff made false statements to a religious institution which represents the Plaintiff's Jewish faith.\n\n28. The Debtor knew those statements are false and made those statements with the intent of maliciously damaging Plaintiff and his reputations with the intent to induce contempt and an unsavory opinion of Plaintiff in his personal and professional communities and affairs. The Debtor had neither the authorization nor the privilege to make such false statements. Plaintiff has suffered harm as a result of the Debtor's conduct, in a monetary amount to be determined at trial, but no less than \\$1 million.\n\n29. The Debtor's conduct resulting in the Defamation-Slander Claim constitutes willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, in the event that the Debtor is determined in the State Court Litigation to be liable on the Defamation-Slander Claim, the Debtor's liability (including actual, presumed, and punitive damages, as well as interest, fees and costs) for the Defamation-Slander Claim is nondischargeable.\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\nWHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant judgment as follows:\n\n(a) Declaring the liability of Debtor to Plaintiff for the Defamation-Slander *Per Se*  Claim, as determined by the State Court in the State Court Litigation, to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(6);\n\n7\n\n(b) Declaring the liability of Debtor to Plaintiff for the Defamation-Slander Claim, as\n\ndetermined by the State Court in the State Court Litigation, to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11\n\nU.S.C § 523(a)(6); and\n\n( c) Granting such other and further relief to Plaintiff as may be just and proper.\n\nDated: July 18, 2022 West Palm Beach, Florida\n\n> ls/Samuel Dan Nunberg Samuel Dan Nunberg 600 S Dixie Hwy Suite 455 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (646) 318-0115 snunberg@winstonashe.com","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）　已归档\n2022年7月19日 上午10:30\n\n关于：　第11章　美国破产法院康涅狄格区布里奇波特分部书记官\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　案件编号：22-50073(JAM)\n债务人。\nSamuel Dan Nunberg（塞缪尔·丹·农伯格），\n原告，\nv.　对抗性程序编号：-----\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），\n被告。\n确定不可免责性起诉状\n\nSamuel Dan Nunberg（塞缪尔·丹·农伯格）（“原告”）以亲自代表（pro se）身份出庭，为支持针对 Ho Wan Kwok 又名 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）（“被告”或“债务人”）的本起诉状，特此指控并陈述如下：\n\n当事人\n\n1. 原告 Samuel Dan Nunberg 是一名自然人、New York（纽约州）公民，并且是 District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）及纽约州律师协会的执业律师。农伯格先生是债务人在破产案件（定义见下文）中提交的债务人最大债权人名单上列明的债权人。\n\n2. 被告 Ho Wan Kwok 又名 Guo Wengui 又名 Miles Kwok，为中国国籍公民，是上述标题所示破产案件（“破产案件”）中的债务人。根据已知信息及合理相信，被告持有包括中国香港、阿拉伯联合酋长国和马耳他共和国在内的多个国家或地区的护照，并使用多个别名，包括 Guo Wen Gui、Guo Haoyun（郭浩云）以及 Miles Kwok 等。被告声称目前居住在康涅狄格州，并且根据已知信息及合理相信，在与原告及其主张相关的所有时间内，被告均居住在纽约市。\n\n管辖权与审理地\n\n3. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院对各方当事人及本程序享有管辖权。\n\n4. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I)，本案属于核心程序。\n\n5. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a)，本案在本地区的审理地是适当的。\n\n6. 本起诉状所请求救济的依据为 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 以及《联邦破产程序规则》第 4007 条和第 7001 条。\n\n7. 原告要求就其针对债务人的主张由陪审团审理，且不同意由本法院进行审理。\n\n相关背景\n\nI. 州法院诉讼与原告的主张。\n\n8. 2020年，原告在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）（“州法院”）针对债务人提起民事诉讼，案卷号为 Index No. 150141/2020（“州法院诉讼”），主张因债务人故意造成的损害而产生的两项诉由——一项为本身诽谤（口头本身诽谤 / slander per se），另一项为诽谤（口头诽谤 / slander）（合称“原告的主张”）。\n\n9. 载明原告主张的原告在州法院诉讼中的起诉状（“州法院起诉状”）的真实正确副本作为附件 A 附于本诉状后。如其中所指控，债务人针对原告（以及其他反对债务人的人）发起了一场蓄意且恶意的谎言攻击，企图恐吓和伤害原告，并对其造成损害。参见例如州法院起诉状第 13-68 段。\n\n10. 州法院起诉状通过引用整体并入本诉状。原告重申并重新指控州法院起诉状中的每一项指控，如同所述指控已完整载于本诉状中一样。如州法院起诉状所载，债务人针对原告的蓄意恶意行为包括但不限于以下事件。\n\n(a) 针对原告农伯格先生的诽谤——口头本身诽谤（州法院起诉状第 46-58 段）\n\n11. 债务人通过诬告原告 Samuel Nunberg 犯有可处以罚金甚至监禁的联邦罪行，企图损害原告 Samuel Nunberg 的个人及职业声誉。\n\n12. 2019年1月19日，债务人在 Youtube.com 账号“郭文贵”上发布了一段公开视频，称：“Sam Nunberg 帮了 Bruno Wu（吴征），跟 Elliott Broidy（埃利奥特·布罗伊迪）勾结，跟司法部勾结，帮 Jho Low（刘特佐）游说，帮着抹平这件事。所以在这一问题上，连他们的律师与客户保密特权都无法受到保护。这已经是刑事犯罪事件了。”\n\n13. 债务人故意发表这些虚假陈述，目的是通过蓄意虚假指控原告 Samuel Nunberg 违反了 Foreign Agent Registration Act（《外国代理人登记法》）（22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，作为外国代理人进行未登记的游说活动属于犯罪，最高可处以 $10,000 罚金及五年监禁），从而不正当地损害原告的声誉。\n\n14. 债务人关于“连他们的律师与客户保密特权都无法受到保护，这已经是刑事犯罪事件了”的陈述，是一项直接的涉嫌犯罪的虚假指控，同时也是指控农伯格利用其律师的专业身份掩盖所谓的犯罪，债务人发表该陈述旨在损害原告的个人及职业声誉。\n\n15. 债务人出于恶意在拥有全球公众受众的公开互联网平台上发表了这些陈述，且并未获得发表此类虚假陈述的任何特权或授权。\n\n(b) 针对原告农伯格先生的诽谤——口头本身诽谤（州法院起诉状第 59-68 段）\n\n16. 债务人通过诬告原告，企图损害原告的个人及职业声誉，意图在原告的个人及职业社交圈和事务中引发对原告的蔑视及不良评价。\n\n17. 2019年1月19日，债务人在 Youtube.com 账号“郭文贵”上发布了一段公开视频，称：“为什么 Sam Nunberg 去犹太人的（俱乐部/犹太会堂）大放厥词撒大谎，说他救了6万犹太人。这完全是荒谬透顶。要是你有一点常识，他怎么可能救了6万人？犹太人会记住每一个给过他们一块面包的人。”\n\n18. 债务人的虚假陈述带有明显的贬损原告的意图，原告是大屠杀幸存者的后代且坚定支持以色列，债务人诬称原告向其犹太同胞发表虚假陈述称其“救了6万犹太人”。\n\n19. 债务人出于恶意在拥有全球公众受众的公开互联网平台上发表了这些陈述，且并未获得发表此类虚假陈述的任何特权或授权。\n\nII. 破产案件的启动。\n\n17. 2022年2月15日，债务人根据《美国法典》第 11 编（“《破产法典》”）第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请，从而启动了本破产案件。\n\n18. 债务人的最大无担保债权人名单将原告列为本案中最大的非内部人债权人之一。（ECF Nos. 4, 20）。\n\n19. 原告还在破产案件中提交了债权证明，归档日期为 2022年5月20日。参见债权登记册，第 5 号债权证明。原告的主张属于人身伤害主张，明确排除在破产法院可作出终局判决或破产法院可出于分配目的进行估算的事项之外，破产法院亦无管辖权审理此类主张。参见 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B), (O)，28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5)。原告要求就其针对债务人的主张由陪审团审理，且不同意由本法院进行审理。\n\n第一项罪名/诉因——宣告性判决 根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 认定口头本身诽谤主张具有不可免责性\n\n20. 原告重申并重新指控上文各段，如同完整载于本诉状中一样。\n\n21. 根据《破产法典》，个人债务人因“债务人对另一实体或另一实体的财产造成的蓄意且恶意损害”而产生的任何债务均不得免责。11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)。\n\n22. 州法院起诉状中的第一项诉由载明了原告针对债务人提出的关于故意侵权行为——口头本身诽谤的主张（“口头本身诽谤主张”）。州法院起诉状第 46-58 段。如上文及通过引用并入本诉状的州法院起诉状所载，债务人蓄意且恶意地反复诽谤原告，企图对其造成损害。如上文及通过引用并入本诉状的州法院起诉状所载，债务人蓄意且恶意地发表陈述，声称原告 (i) 违反了《外国代理人登记法》（22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.，作为外国代理人进行未登记的游说活动属于犯罪，最高可处以 $10,000 罚金及五年监禁），以及 (ii) 原告农伯格利用其律师的专业身份掩盖所谓的犯罪。\n\n23. 债务人明知这些陈述是不实的，且发表这些陈述的意图在于恶意损害原告及其声誉以及商业、职业和公共事务，并进一步意图诱使他人不与其开展业务往来。债务人发表此类虚假陈述既无授权也无特权。原告因其口头本身诽谤主张而遭受的损害依法推定成立。\n\n24. 债务人导致口头本身诽谤主张的行为构成《破产法典》第 523(a)(6) 条含义内对原告的蓄意且恶意损害。因此，一旦在州法院诉讼中判定债务人对口头本身诽谤主张负有责任，债务人因口头本身诽谤主张所承担的责任（包括实际损害赔偿金、推定损害赔偿金和惩罚性损害赔偿金，以及利息、费用和诉讼支出）均不可免责。\n\n第二项罪名/诉因——宣告性判决 根据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) 认定口头诽谤主张具有不可免责性\n\n25. 原告重申并重新指控上文各段，如同完整载于本诉状中一样。\n\n26. 根据《破产法典》，个人债务人因“债务人对另一实体或另一实体的财产造成的蓄意且恶意损害”而产生的任何债务均不得免责。11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)。\n\n27. 州法院起诉状中的第二项诉由载明了原告针对债务人提出的关于故意侵权行为——口头诽谤的主张（“口头诽谤主张”）。州法院起诉状第 59-68 段。如上文及通过引用并入本诉状的州法院起诉状所载，债务人蓄意且恶意地反复诽谤原告，通过诬称原告向代表原告犹太信仰的宗教机构发表虚假陈述，企图对其造成损害。\n\n28. 债务人明知这些陈述是不实的，且发表这些陈述的意图在于恶意损害原告及其声誉，意图在原告的个人及职业社交圈和事务中引发对原告的蔑视及不良评价。债务人发表此类虚假陈述既无授权也无特权。由于债务人的行为，原告遭受了损害，具体金额待审判时确定，但不少于 $1,000,000。\n\n29. 债务人导致口头诽谤主张的行为构成《破产法典》第 523(a)(6) 条含义内对原告的蓄意且恶意损害。因此，一旦在州法院诉讼中判定债务人对口头诽谤主张负有责任，债务人因口头诽谤主张所承担的责任（包括实际损害赔偿金、推定损害赔偿金和惩罚性损害赔偿金，以及利息、费用和诉讼支出）均不可免责。\n\n请求的救济\n\n为此，原告谨请求法院作出如下判决：\n\n(a) 依据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)，宣告债务人如经州法院在州法院诉讼中判定成立的、因口头本身诽谤主张对原告所承担的责任具有不可免责性；\n\n(b) 依据 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)，宣告债务人如经州法院在州法院诉讼中判定成立的、因口头诽谤主张对原告所承担的责任具有不可免责性；\n\nU.S.C § 523(a)(6)；以及\n\n(c) 向原告批予法院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022年7月18日\n佛罗里达州西棕榈滩（West Palm Beach, Florida）\n\n/s/ Samuel Dan Nunberg（塞缪尔·丹·农伯格）\nSamuel Dan Nunberg\n600 S Dixie Hwy Suite 455\nWest Palm Beach, FL 33401\n(646) 318-0115\nsnunberg@winstonashe.com","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1975,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:09:48"}