Tick-borne germs increasingly widespread in Canada: study

FERGUS FALLS – The jury in a human smuggling trial was presented with phone, banking and other information Thursday that the prosecution says shows two accused men carried out plans to sneak people across the Canada-U.S. border between Manitoba and Minnesota.

Steve Shand and Harshkumar Patel are charged with participating in several smuggling operations in December 2021 and January 2022.

One of the alleged trips saw a family of four from India freeze to death in a blizzard on Jan. 19, 2022, the day Shand was arrested in a van just south of the border.

A cellular analyst with the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified about records tracking two phones — allegedly Shand’s — that travelled on multiple occasions from his hometown in Florida to Minnesota then to an area near the border.

FBI special agent Nicole Lopez said during those trips there were many calls to and from phones the prosecution says belonged to Patel.

Under cross-examination by Shand’s lawyer, Lopez said cell records, which are based on towers used, offer a general location and cannot offer pinpoint accuracy.

Shand’s lawyer also said the evidence doesn’t prove Shand was using the phone.

“You don’t know who actually possessed the cellphone at any given time, correct?” Aaron Morrison asked.

“Correct,” Lopez replied.

The trial in Fergus Falls, Minn., also heard Thursday from two forensic pathologists, who testified the family found dead in a Manitoba field near the border, a couple and their two children, died from hypothermia.

One pathologist said the autopsies had to be done after a few days because the bodies were too frozen.

Shand’s lawyers have said he was a taxi driver who had previously picked up and driven people for the co-accused and didn’t realize he was doing anything wrong until the day of his arrest.

Patel’s lawyers have said their client has been misidentified as part of an international smuggling ring.

Prosecutors spent some time Thursday establishing links between Patel and similar names on various documents.

The phone alleged to be Patel’s is listed under Dirty Harry on the phone allegedly belonging to Shand. Phone company records show one of the phones alleged to be Patel’s was registered to a Haresh Patel.

A special agent with Homeland Security testified the phone number attributed to Dirty Harry is identical to one used four years ago by Harshkumar Patel on a government document. The Dirty Harry number was also used to open a bank account in 2018 under the name Haresh Patel, said special agent Manuel Jimenez.

Jimenez also presented bank records that show large sums of money were deposited, around the time of the 2022 border crossings, in an account allegedly held by Shand in his hometown in Florida.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 21, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

“Barbenheimer” was a phenomenon impossible to manufacture. But, more than a year later, that hasn’t stopped people from trying to make “Glicked” — or even “Babyratu” — happen.

The counterprogramming of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” in July 2023 hit a nerve culturally and had the receipts to back it up. Unlike so many things that begin as memes, it transcended its online beginnings. Instead of an either-or, the two movies ultimately complemented and boosted one another at the box office.

And ever since, moviegoers, marketers and meme makers have been trying to recreate that moment, searching the movie release schedule for odd mashups and sending candidates off into the social media void. Most attempts have fizzled (sorry, “Saw Patrol” ).

This weekend is perhaps the closest approximation yet as the Broadway musical adaptation “Wicked” opens Friday against the chest-thumping sword-and-sandals epic “Gladiator II.” Two big studio releases (Universal and Paramount), with one-name titles, opposite tones and aesthetics and big blockbuster energy — it was already halfway there before the name game began: “Wickiator,” “Wadiator,” “Gladwick” and even the eyebrow raising “Gladicked” have all been suggested.

“’Glicked’ rolls off the tongue a little bit more,” actor Fred Hechinger said at the New York screening of “Gladiator II” this week. “I think we should all band around ‘Glicked.’ It gets too confusing if you have four or five different names for it.”

As with “Barbenheimer,” as reductive as it might seem, “Glicked” also has the male/female divide that make the fan art extra silly. One is pink and bright and awash in sparkles, tulle, Broadway bangers and brand tie-ins; The other is all sweat and sand, blood and bulging muscles.

Both films topped Fandango’s most anticipated holiday movie survey, where 65% of respondents said that they were interested in the “Glicked” double feature. Theaters big and small are also pulling out the stops with movie-themed tie-ins. B&B Theaters will have Roman guards tearing tickets at some locations and Maximus popcorn tubs. Marcus Theaters is doing Oz photo ops and friendship bracelet-making. Alamo Drafthouse is leaning into the singalong aspect (beware, though, not all theaters are embracing this) and the punny drinks like “Defying Gravi-Tea.”

“Rather than it being in competition, I think they’re in conversation,” “Gladiator II” star Paul Mescal said. “This industry needs a shot in the arm. Those films gave it last year. We hope to do it this year.”

And the hope is that audiences will flock to theaters to be part of this moment as well. It’s a sorely needed influx of could-be blockbusters into a marketplace that’s still at an 11% deficit from last year and down 27.2% from 2019, according to data from Comscore.

“Competition is good for the marketplace. It’s good for consumers,” said Michael O’Leary, the president and CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners. “Having two great movies coming out at the same time is simply a multiplier effect.”

“Glicked” is currently tracking for a combined North American debut in the $165 million range, with “Wicked” forecast to earn around $100 million (up from the $80 million estimates a few weeks ago) and “Gladiator II” pegged for the $65 million range.

“Barbenheimer” shattered its projections last July. Going into that weekend, “Barbie” had been pegged for $90 million and “Oppenheimer” around $40 million. Ultimately, they brought in a combined $244 million in that first outing, and nearly $2.4 billion by the end of their runs.

It’s possible “Glicked” will exceed expectations, too. And it has the advantage of another behemoth coming close behind: “Moana 2,” which opens just five days later on the Wednesday before the Thanksgiving holiday. “Glickedana” triple feature anyone?

“These are 10 important days,” O’Leary said. “It’s going to show the moviegoing audience that there’s a lot of compelling stuff out there for them to see.”

There are infinite caveats to the imperfect comparison to “Barbenheimer,” as well. “Wicked” is a “Part One.” Musicals carry their own baggage with moviegoers, even those based on wildly successful productions (ahem, “Cats”). “Gladiator II” got a head start and opened internationally last weekend. In fact, in the U.K. it played alongside “Paddington in Peru,” where that double was pegged “Gladdington.” “Gladiator” reviews, while positive, are a little more divided than the others. And neither directors Ridley Scott nor Jon M. Chu has the built-in box office cache that Christopher Nolan’s name alone carries at the moment.

The new films also cost more than “Barbie” ($145 million) and “Oppenheimer” ($100 million). According to reports, “Gladiator II” had a $250 million price tag; “Wicked” reportedly cost $150 million to produce (and that does not include the cost of the second film, due next year).

The narrative, though, has shifted away from “who will win the weekend.” Earlier this year, Chu told The Associated Press that he loves that this is a moment where “we can root for all movies all the time.”

Close behind are a bevy of Christmas releases with double feature potential, but those feel a little more niche. There’s the remake of “Nosferatu,” the Nicole Kidman kink pic “Babygirl” and the Bob Dylan biopic “A Complete Unknown.” The internet can’t even seem to decide on its angle for that batch of contenders, and none exactly screams blockbuster. Sometimes the joy is just in the game, however. Some are sticking with the one-name mashup (“Babyratu”); others are suggesting that the fact that two of the movies feature real-life exes (Timothée Chalamet and Lily-Rose Depp) is enough reason for a double feature. And getting people talking is half the battle.

When in doubt, or lacking a catchy name, there’s always the default: “This is my Barbenheimer.”

___

Associated Press journalist John Carucci and Film Writer Jake Coyle contributed reporting.

NEW YORK (AP) — Bitcoin topped $98,000 for the first time Thursday, extending a streak of record after record highs since the U.S. presidential election. The cryptocurrency has rocketed more than 40% in just two weeks.

Now, bitcoin is at the doorstep of $100,000, just two years after dropping below $17,000 following the collapse of crypto exchange FTX. The recent, dramatic rally arrives as industry players expect the incoming Trump administration to bring a more “crypto-friendly” approach toward regulating the digital currency.

Bitcoin traded as high as $98,349 early Thursday, according to CoinDesk, and was slightly below that level at 1:25 p.m. ET.

As with everything in the volatile cryptoverse, the future is impossible to know. And while some are bullish, other experts continue to warn of investment risks.

Here’s what you need to know.

Back up. What is cryptocurrency again?

Cryptocurrency has been around for a while now. But, chances are, you’ve heard about it more and more over the last few years.

In basic terms, cryptocurrency is digital money. This kind of currency is designed to work through an online network without a central authority — meaning it’s typically not backed by any government or banking institution — and transactions get recorded with technology called a blockchain.

Bitcoin is the largest and oldest cryptocurrency, although other assets like ethereum, tether and dogecoin have also gained popularity over the years. Some investors see cryptocurrency as a “digital alternative” to traditional money — but it can be very volatile, with its price reliant on larger market conditions.

Why is bitcoin soaring?

A lot of the recent action has to do with the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.

Crypto industry players have welcomed Trump’s victory, in hopes that he would be able to push through legislative and regulatory changes that they’ve long lobbied for — which, generally speaking, aim for an increased sense of legitimacy without too much red tape.

Trump, who was once a crypto skeptic, recently pledged to make the U.S. “the crypto capital of the planet” and create a “strategic reserve” of bitcoin. His campaign accepted donations in cryptocurrency and he courted fans at a bitcoin conference in July. He also launched World Liberty Financial, a new venture with family members to trade cryptocurrencies.

How of this will actually pan out — and whether or not Trump will successfully act quickly on these promises — has yet to be seen.

“This is not necessarily a short-term story, it’s likely a much longer-term story,” Citi macro strategist David Glass told The Associated Press last week. “And there is the question of how quickly can U.S. crypto policy make a serious impact on (wider adoption).”

Adam Morgan McCarthy, a research analyst at Kaiko, thinks the industry is craving “just some sort of clarity.” Much of the approach to regulating crypto in the past has been “enforcement based,” he notes, which has been helpful in weeding out some bad actors — but legislation might fill in other key gaps.

Gary Gensler, who as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission under President Joe Biden has led a U.S. government’s crackdown on the crypto industry, penalized a number of crypto companies for violating securities laws. Gensler announced Thursday that he would step down as SEC chair on Jan. 20, Inauguration Day.

Despite crypto’s recent excitement around Trump, McCarthy said that 2024 has already been a “hugely consequential year for regulation in the U.S.” — pointing to January’s approval of spot bitcoin ETFs, for example, which mark a new way to invest in the asset.

Spot ETFs have been the dominant driver of bitcoin for some time now — but, like much of the crypto’s recent momentum, saw record inflows postelection. According to Kaiko, bitcoin ETFs recorded $6 billion in trade volume for the week of the election alone.

In April, bitcoin also saw its fourth “halving” — a preprogrammed event that impacts production by cutting the reward for mining, or the creation of new bitcoin, in half. In theory, if demand remains strong, some analysts say this “supply shock” can also help propel the price long term. Others note it may be too early to tell.

What are the risks?

History shows you can lose money in crypto as quickly as you’ve made it. Long-term price behavior relies on larger market conditions. Trading continues at all hours, every day.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, bitcoin stood at just over $5,000. Its price climbed to nearly $69,000 by November 2021, during high demand for technology assets, but later crashed during an aggressive series of Federal Reserve rate hikes. And in late 2022 collapse of FTX significantly undermined confidence in crypto overall, with bitcoin falling below $17,000.

Investors began returning in large numbers as inflation started to cool — and gains skyrocketed on the anticipation and then early success of spot ETFs. But experts still stress caution, especially for small-pocketed investors. And lighter regulation from the coming Trump administration could mean less guardrails.

While its been a big month for crypto — and particularly bitcoin, which McCarthy notes has set record highs for ten of the last 21 days — there’s always risk for “correction,” or seeing prices fluctuate back down some. Some assets may also have more restrictions than others.

“I would say, keep it simple. And don’t take on more risk than you can afford to,” McCarthy said — adding that there isn’t a “magic eight ball” to know for certain what comes next.

What about the climate impact?

Assets like bitcoin are produced through a process called “mining,” which consumes a lot of energy. Operations relying on pollutive sources have drawn particular concern over the years.

Recent research published by the United Nations University and Earth’s Future journal found that the carbon footprint of 2020-2021 bitcoin mining across 76 nations was equivalent to the emissions from burning 84 billion pounds of coal or running 190 natural gas-fired power plants. Coal satisfied the bulk of bitcoin’s electricity demands (45%), followed by natural gas (21%) and hydropower (16%).

Environmental impacts of bitcoin mining boil largely down to the energy source used. Industry analysts have maintained that clean energy has increased in use in recent years, coinciding with rising calls for climate protections