{"id":"court_sdny_304_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":304,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-04-24","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) U.S. Department of Justice** Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 304 Filed 04/24/24 Page 1 of 5","summary_zh":"审前动议（motion in limine）信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #304（原申请密封提交，后于 2024-04-24 归档）。检方请求法院在审判期间对陪审员实行“匿名 + 半隔离”（由法警护送出入法庭）保护措施，理由是本案涉及跨国敲诈勒索指控、广泛的审前媒体报道，以及郭文贵支持者/新中国联邦相关人士针对批评者的恐吓性言论（文件引用了相关对话记录作为佐证）。","summary_en":"Motion-in-limine letter — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #304 (originally submitted for sealed filing, docketed 2024-04-24). The government asks the court to implement an anonymous and semi-sequestered jury (escorted by U.S. Marshals) for trial, citing the transnational racketeering charges, extensive pretrial publicity, and intimidating statements attributed to Guo supporters/New Federal State of China-affiliated individuals toward critics, quoting excerpts from a cited conversation as support.","body_en":"Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278*\n\nApril 9, 2024\n\n## **BY EMAIL – SEALED FILING REQUESTED**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n### **Re:** *United States v. Kwok, et al.***, S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter containing a motion in limine seeking an anonymous and semi-sequestered (that is, escorted by the U.S. Marshals into and out of the courthouse) jury during the trial, in light of the safety and obstruction considerations discussed below. In order to avoid the risk of tainting the jury pool with respect to these applications, the Government respectfully requests that this letter and any related order be maintained under seal until after the trial.\n\n#### **I. The Court Should Implement Jury-Related Protective Measures**\n\n### **A. Applicable Law**\n\nA trial judge bears \"the responsibility of providing for the protection of the jurors, witnesses, and counsel,\" and is afforded broad discretion in carrying out that responsibility. *United States v. Barnes*, 604 F.2d 121, 137 (2d Cir. 1979). The law thus \"permit[s] the trial judge appropriate leeway to assure that the trial he is to conduct will be conducted fairly and impartially, with a minimum of intrusion into the lives of the prospective jurors.\" *Id.* at 142.\n\nThe Second Circuit has long recognized that anonymous juries and full or partial sequestration can be necessary and appropriate to ensure an impartial jury and otherwise protect the integrity of a trial. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. Pica*, 692 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2012); *United States v. Vario*, 943 F.2d 236, 239 (2d Cir. 1991); *Barnes*, 604 F.2d at 133-43. \"A district court may order the empaneling of an anonymous jury 'upon (a) concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, and (b) taking reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected.\"' *United States v. Kadir*, 718 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting *Pica*, 692 F.2d at 88).\n\nIn assessing whether there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection, the district court may consider a range of factors, including whether the case has drawn extensive pretrial publicity that presents a risk of jury interference or involves allegations of dangerous or obstructive conduct that could put jurors' safety at risk. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. Paccione*, 949 F.2d 1183,\n\n1193 (2d Cir. 1991) (finding anonymity and semi-sequestration appropriate where the \"case had been front-page news\" and \"the trial could be expected to be the subject of extensive publicity, exposing the jurors to inappropriate contacts that could compromise the trial\"); *Vario*, 943 F.2d at 240 (observing that \"[p]re-trial publicity may militate in favor of an anonymous jury because it can enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and thus expose them to intimidation by defendants' friends or enemies, or harassment by the public\") (internal quotations and citations omitted)); *Barnes*, 604 F.2d at 141 (\"in a case that generated as much pretrial publicity as this one did and in which allegations of dangerous and unscrupulous conduct abounded,\" anonymous and sequestered jury was appropriate); *United States v. Scala*, 405 F. Supp. 2d 450, 452-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (considering the possibility that jurors, \"absent anonymity, would fear reprisals\").\n\nIf a district court determines that an anonymous jury is appropriate, \"the court must take 'reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure protection of his fundamental rights.\"' *Kadir*, 718 F.3d at 120 (quoting *United States v. Thai*, 29 F.3d 785, 801 (2d Cir. 1994)). \"This can be done by giving the jurors a plausible and nonprejudicial reason for not disclosing their identities and the court's conduct of a voir dire designed to uncover bias.\" *Id.* (omitting internal quotations marks and citations). So long as these precautions are taken, \"the use of an anonymous jury does not infringe a defendant's constitutional rights.\" *United States v. Aulicino*, 44 F.3d 1102, 1116 (2d Cir. 1995).\n\nWithin these parameters, \"the trial court is accorded broad discretion to determine whether to empanel an anonymous jury.\" *United States v. Wong*, 40 F.3d 1347, 1376 (2d Cir. 1994).\n\n#### **B. Discussion**\n\nApplication of these standards here weigh in favor of implementing protective measures for the jury. An anonymous jury—wherein counsel and the defendants know the jurors' identities, but jurors are referred to by number in open court—is appropriate. So too is semi-sequestration in which jurors meet at a location outside the courthouse and are escorted into court by the U.S. Marshals Service. The Court should exercise its discretion to implement these limited protective measures to secure jurors' safety and avoid obstructive conduct by the defendants' followers.\n\n*First*, there is no doubt that the charges in this case are serious, involving a transnational racketeering conspiracy in which Kwok has manipulated and defrauded thousands of followers out of more than a billion dollars, and used his organization to harass and threaten those who dare to criticize or oppose him. *See United States v. Kelly*, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD), 2020 WL 8482693, at \\*2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2020) (\"[T]he defendant has both the incentive and the means to influence jurors. He is charged with leading a criminal enterprise that paid out large sums over the past two decades to bribe witnesses and cover up his misconduct, and he faces a significant prison term if convicted. It is also clear that he has supporters who are willing and able to commit crimes and exert influence on his behalf . . . .\" (citations omitted)); *Ashburn*, 2014 WL 5800280, at \\*11 (\"a defendant with former leadership status in a criminal organization has the standing and potential ability to influence and exercise control over its members to a more significant extent\") (internal quotations and citations omitted); *United States v. Herron,* 2 F. Supp. 3d 391, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), *aff'd*, 762 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2019) (despite the defendant's pretrial detention, his \"alleged role as the leader of a criminal enterprise enables him to corrupt the judicial process through his associates, and . . . some followers may feel compelled to act on his behalf even without any direction from [the] [d]efendant\"); *United States v. Napout*, 963 F.3d 163, 188–90 (2d Cir. 2020) (affirming the use of an anonymous and semi-sequestered in a high-profile international fraud case involving corruption at FIFA, in which the defendants were charged with honest services fraud). Nor is it the case jury-protective measures are somehow inappropriate in a case principally charging fraud offenses. *See, e.g.*, *Napout*, 963 F.3d at 188–90.\n\n*Second*, and importantly, Kwok has engaged in extensive obstructive conduct. *See United States v. Blackshear*, 313 F. App'x 338, 343 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (affirming decision to empanel anonymous jury where defendant had \"consistently attempted to obstruct justice,\" including by \"intimidating witnesses,\" even where \"none of [defendant's] prior incidents involved jurors\"). The Court is well aware of the dangers posed by Kwok's obstructive conduct and the general contempt he and his organization have shown for court orders. *See* Dkt 51 (order detaining Kwok); Dkt. 255 (March 31, 2024 Government Letter) at 8-11 (describing the defendants' obstructive conduct, including intimidation, harassment, and in some cases physical harm to critics and opponents). The serious concerns of obstruction, intimidation, and harassment addressed in the Government's March 13, 2024 letter as to potential victim witnesses also apply to jurors, who are likely to confront a mob of the defendants' loyal followers upon entering and leaving the courthouse.[1](#page-2-0)\n\n*Third*, this case has garnered substantial media attention in New York City, nationally, and internationally, in part due to Kwok's relationships with prominent U.S. political figures. *See Kadir*, 718 F.3d at 121 (2d Cir. 2013) (\"extensive media coverage\" is a \"significant\" factor in the decision to empanel an anonymous jury); *Wong*, 40 F.3d at 1377 (\"The prospect of publicity militates in favor of jury anonymity to prevent exposure of the jurors to intimidation or harassment.\"); *Vario*, 943 F.2d at 240 (\"Pre-trial publicity may militate in favor of an anonymous jury.\"). Notably, in addition to significant reporting and coverage by traditional media, this case will almost certainly be \"reported on\" by Kwok's own media entities, such as GETTR and G News, which he uses as his own personal propaganda machines.\n\nIndeed, even months after Kwok's arrest, Kwok's media channels have continued to broadcast dangerous threats amid propaganda and misinformation. For example, on October 14, 2023, the current leader of the defendants' organization, Qidong Xia, has publicly expressed his intention to exact reprisals on individuals who \"have hurt the Whistleblower Movement, the New Federal State of China ['NFSC'].\" As shown in the English translation of the video screenshotted below, one week after the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, Qidong compared the NFSC's determination to exact revenge against its critics to that of Israel, and stated the NFSC would \"liquidate\" those individuals—if not now, then eventually.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The defendants' organization is almost certain to protest around the courthouse. In addition to various individual critics and their families, the organization has protested the Securities and Exchange Commission and several law firms.\n\n![](_page_3_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n- **Qidong**: Just like those fake and deceitful thieves, even though they are having fun today, they will definitely be liquidated [exposed and criticized] in the future.\n- **Nicole**: Hmm.\n- **Qidong**: Don't say that the local law, the nation [legal department], um…may not be able to find them, the New Federal State of China will definitely not forgive them in the future.\n- **Nicole**: Hmm.\n- **Qidong**: Just the same like Israel, as long as you have bullied Israel, as long as you have touched, or as long as you carried out terrorist attacks on Israel, the Israeli government will never let it go.\n- **Nicole**: Hmm.\n- **Qidong**: The New Federal State of China will do the same. As long as you have hurt the Whistleblower Movement, the New Federal State of China, and our comrades in the past or today, even if you are not liquidated today, you will definitely be liquidated in the future. Even after the Chinese Communist Party is destroyed, we will definitely find these fake and deceitful thieves to settle accounts. Hmm.\n\n### **Nicole**: Hmm.\n\nAbsent protective measures from the Court, these types of threats and obstructive conduct pose serious risk to the safety of jurors (in addition to victim witnesses) and threaten the integrity of this criminal trial. *See, e.g.*, *Kelly*, 2020 WL 8482693, at \\*2 n.4 (\"[T]he prevalence of social\n\nmedia poses a special threat to the jurors' safety and impartiality, especially in light of posts seeking to intimidate, threaten and denigrate individuals perceived to be cooperating with the government's investigation or potential witnesses at trial.\") (quotations omitted).\n\nAccordingly, the Court should order an anonymous and semi-sequestered jury. Because the defendants and counsel will have the jurors' names, the impact on the defendants' rights of an anonymous jury is negligible. Similarly, semi-sequestration is nothing more than an orderly and safe way for the jury to navigate what are likely to be a number of protestors. And by providing a benign explanation for the employment of these procedures, as courts do in such circumstances, this Court can neuter any potential prejudice to the defendants from these limited and reasonable measures taken to protect the jury and preserve the integrity of the trial.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\n Micah F. Fergenson Ryan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\nCc: Defense Counsel (via email)","body_zh":"Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n[图片]\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York（美国联邦检察官 纽约南区）\n\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278\n\nApril 9, 2024\n\n通过电子邮件送达 – 请求封存归档\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案），S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n鉴于下文论述的安全及妨碍司法因素，政府恭敬提交本信函，其中包含一项预先排除证据动议（motion in limine），请求在审判期间采用匿名且半隔离（即由美国法警署护送进出法院）的陪审团。为避免就该等申请污染陪审团候选名单的风险，政府恭敬请求将本信函及任何相关命令在审判结束前予以封存。\n\nI. 法院应当实施与陪审团相关的保护措施\n\nA. 适用法律\n\n审判法官承担“为陪审员、证人和律师提供保护的责任”，并在履行该责任方面享有广泛的自由裁量权。见 United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 137 (2d Cir. 1979)。因此，法律“允许审判法官享有适当的余地，以确保其主持的审判能够公正、公平地进行，并尽量减少对潜在陪审员生活的侵扰”。同上，第 142 页。\n\n第二巡回法院长期以来一直承认，匿名陪审团以及完全或部分隔离措施对于确保陪审团的公正性及以其他方式保护审判的完整性而言，可能是必要且适当的。参见如 United States v. Pica, 692 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2012)；United States v. Vario, 943 F.2d 236, 239 (2d Cir. 1991)；Barnes, 604 F.2d at 133-43。“地区法院可以在‘(a) 认定有充分理由认为陪审团需要保护，以及 (b) 采取合理防范措施以尽量减少对被告的任何不利影响并确保其基本权利得到保护’的前提下，命令组建匿名陪审团。”United States v. Kadir, 718 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 2013)（援引 Pica, 692 F.2d at 88）。\n\n在评估是否有充分理由认为陪审团需要保护时，地区法院可考量一系列因素，包括本案是否引起广泛的审前宣传而带来干扰陪审团的风险，或者是否涉及可能危及陪审员安全的危险或妨碍行为指控。参见如 United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183,\n\n1193 (2d Cir. 1991)（认定在“案件已成为头版新闻”且“可以预见审判将成为广泛宣传的对象，使陪审员面临可能损害审判的不当接触”的情况下，采取匿名和半隔离是适当的）；Vario, 943 F.2d at 240（指出“审前宣传可能会支持采用匿名陪审团，因为这会增加陪审员姓名被公之于众的可能性，从而使他们面临被告的朋友或仇敌的恐吓，或来自公众的骚扰”）（省略内部引文和引用）；Barnes, 604 F.2d at 141（“在一个引起如此多审前宣传且充斥着危险和不择手段行为指控的案件中，”采用匿名和隔离陪审团是适当的）；United States v. Scala, 405 F. Supp. 2d 450, 452-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)（考量了陪审员“在没有匿名的情况下会害怕遭到报复”的可能性）。\n\n如果地区法院认定匿名陪审团是适当的，“法院必须采取‘合理防范措施以尽量减少对被告的任何不利影响并确保其基本权利得到保护’。”Kadir, 718 F.3d at 120（援引 United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 801 (2d Cir. 1994)）。“这可以通过向陪审员提供不披露其身份的合理且无偏见的理由，以及由法院进行旨在发现偏见的陪审员预备审查（voir dire）来实现。”同上（省略内部引号和引用）。只要采取了这些防范措施，“使用匿名陪审团就不会侵犯被告的宪法权利。”United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102, 1116 (2d Cir. 1995)。\n\n在这些参数范围内，“审判法院在决定是否组建匿名陪审团方面享有广泛的自由裁量权。”United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1376 (2d Cir. 1994)。\n\nB. 论述\n\n将这些标准应用于本案，支持对陪审团实施保护措施。采用匿名陪审团——即辩护律师和被告知晓陪审员的身份，但在公开法庭上以编号称呼陪审员——是适当的。半隔离措施也是适当的，即陪审员在法院外部的某处集合，并由 United States Marshals Service（美国法警署）护送进入法院。法院应行使其自由裁量权，实施这些有限的保护措施，以确保陪审员的安全，并防止被告的追随者采取妨碍行为。\n\n第一，毫无疑问，本案的指控是严重的，涉及跨国勒索敲诈阴谋（racketeering conspiracy），其中 Kwok（郭文贵）操纵并诈骗了数千名追随者超过十亿美元，并利用其组织骚扰和威胁那些敢于批评或反对他的人。参见 United States v. Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD), 2020 WL 8482693, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2020)（“[该]被告既有动机也有手段去影响陪审员。他被指控领导一个犯罪企业，在过去的二十年里支付了大笔资金来贿赂证人和掩盖其不当行为，如果被定罪，他将面临漫长的刑期。同样显而易见的是，他拥有愿意且能够代表他犯罪并施加影响的支持者……”（引用省略））；Ashburn, 2014 WL 5800280, at *11（“在犯罪组织中拥有前领导地位的被告具有在更大程度上影响和控制其成员的威望和潜在能力”）（省略内部引号和引用）；United States v. Herron, 2 F. Supp. 3d 391, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), aff'd, 762 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2019)（尽管被告在审前被羁押，但他“被指控作为犯罪企业领导人的角色使其能够通过其同伙腐蚀司法程序，而且……即使没有任何来自[被]告的指示，一些追随者也可能感到不得不代表他采取行动”）；United States v. Napout, 963 F.3d 163, 188–90 (2d Cir. 2020)（在涉及国际足联腐败的备受瞩目的国际欺诈案件中维持使用匿名和半隔离陪审团，该案中被告被控诚实服务欺诈）。也绝不能说陪审团保护措施在主要指控欺诈罪行的案件中是不恰当的。参见如 Napout, 963 F.3d at 188–90。\n\n第二，重要的一点是，郭文贵曾从事广泛的妨碍行为。参见 United States v. Blackshear, 313 F. App'x 338, 343 (2d Cir. 2008)（简要裁定书）（维持组建匿名陪审团的决定，其中被告“一贯企图妨碍司法”，包括通过“恐吓证人”，即使“被告此前的事件均不涉及陪审员”）。法院非常清楚郭文贵的妨碍行为所带来的危险，以及他和他的组织对法院命令所表现出的普遍蔑视。参见 Dkt 51（羁押郭文贵的命令）；Dkt. 255（2024年3月31日政府信函）第 8-11 页（描述被告的妨碍行为，包括对批评者和反对者的恐吓、骚扰以及在某些情况下的人身伤害）。政府在2024年3月13日的信函中就潜在受害者证人所提到的关于妨碍、恐吓和骚扰的严重关切，同样适用于陪审员，因为陪审员在进出法院时很可能面临大批被告忠实追随者的围堵。[1]\n\n第三，本案在纽约市、全美乃至国际上均引起了媒体的大量关注，部分原因是郭文贵与美国知名政治人物的关系。参见 Kadir, 718 F.3d at 121 (2d Cir. 2013)（“广泛的媒体报道”是决定组建匿名陪审团的“重要”因素）；Wong, 40 F.3d at 1377（“宣传的前景有利于陪审团匿名，以防止陪审员遭受恐吓或骚扰。”）；Vario, 943 F.2d at 240（“审前宣传可能支持采用匿名陪审团。”）。值得注意的是，除了传统媒体的大量报道和关注外，本案几乎肯定会被郭文贵自己的媒体实体（例如 GETTR 和 G News）“报道”，他将这些媒体用作其个人的宣传机器。\n\n事实上，甚至在郭文贵被捕数月之后，郭文贵的媒体渠道仍继续在宣传和虚假信息中播放危险的威胁。例如，2023年10月14日，被告组织的现任领导人 Qidong Xia（夏奇东）公开表达了他要对那些“伤害了爆料革命、新中国联邦 [NFSC]”的个人实施报复的意图。如下文截图视频的英译文所示，在2023年10月7日哈马斯对以色列发动恐怖袭击一周后，夏奇东将新中国联邦向其批评者复仇的决心与以色列相提并论，并表示新中国联邦将对那些个人进行“清算”——如果不是现在，那也终将清算。\n\n1 被告的组织几乎肯定会在法院周围抗议。除了针对多名个别批评者及其家属外，该组织还针对 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）和数家律师事务所举行过抗议。\n\n[图片]\n\n- 夏奇东：就像那些伪类欺民贼，今天虽然在狂欢，未来一定会清算[曝光并批判]的。\n- Nicole（长岛哥/妮可）：嗯。\n- 夏奇东：不要说当地的法律、国家的[司法部门]，呃……可能找不到他们，新中国联邦未来绝不放过他们。\n- Nicole：嗯。\n- 夏奇东：就跟以色列一样，只要你欺负了以色列，只要你动了，或者只要你对以色列进行了恐怖袭击，以色列政府绝不放过。\n- Nicole：嗯。\n- 夏奇东：新中国联邦也是一样。过去、今天只要你伤害了爆料革命、新中国联邦、我们的战友，今天不清算你，未来一定会清算。哪怕把中共灭了之后，也一定会找这帮伪类欺民贼算账。嗯。\n\nNicole：嗯。\n\n若无本法院的保护措施，此类威胁和妨碍行为将对陪审员（以及受害者证人）的安全构成严重风险，并威胁到本次刑事审判的完整性。参见如 Kelly, 2020 WL 8482693, at *2 n.4（“[社交]媒体的普遍存在对陪审员的安全和公正性构成了特殊威胁，特别是考虑到那些企图恐吓、威胁和诋毁被认为配合政府调查的人员或审判潜在证人的帖文。”）（引用省略）。\n\n因此，法院应当裁定实行匿名且半隔离陪审团。由于被告及辩护律师将知悉陪审员的姓名，匿名陪审团对被告权利的影响微乎其微。同样，半隔离无非是一种有序且安全的方式，使陪审团能够应对很可能出现的大量抗议者。并且，正如法院在此类情形下通常所做的那样，通过对采用这些程序提供善意的解释，本法院可以消除由于采取这些旨在保护陪审团并维护审判公正性的有限且合理措施而可能对被告造成的任何潜在不利影响。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗根森）\nRyan B. Finkel（莱恩·B·芬克尔）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\n抄送：辩护律师（通过电子邮件）","key_entities":["Kwok","Torres","Je","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","GETTR","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":51,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":255,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1960,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:28:20"}