Features

Both sides

Introduction: We were sent this short story by John Ginsburg, who is a Winnipeg writer. Given the constant stream of stories about students and professors being intimidated by forces championing political correctness, especially when it comes to anything having to do with Israel, we thought it timely to publish the story here.
June 2021 Mackenzie King College Walking east, past the Theatre building, the view was genuinely inspiring, especially in the bright morning sunshine.

To the right, the contemplative, Ivy-covered Arts Building and the century-old chapel. Straight ahead, the gleaming river and the lush green landscape beyond. To the south, the arching Unity Bridge. But the route to the classroom for Media Studies 32.455, Professor Latchman’s course, was somewhat less scenic. One had to walk around to the opposite side of the Theatre building, in through the small service entrance, and then down concrete stairs to the basement, arriving at a low-ceilinged, damp and windowless room. Such were the current circumstances of the Department of Media Studies, pursuing the noble heights of academic inquiry from the gloomy depths of a former workshop. Its old haunts, on the opposite side of the university, were being renovated from top to bottom.

The condensed, two-and-a-half-month course was entering its final few weeks. With the resumption of in-person lectures, the bright, doubly-vaccinated students had initially been swept in by a wave of camaraderie and intellectual enthusiasm. Reality, however, had soon intervened, an unrelenting schedule of jam-packed three-hour lectures, demanding term papers and nerve-wracking oral presentations. The dim subterranean venue only added to the hard-pressed feeling among the students.
Latchman’s course was entitled Political Correctness and Cancel Culture in the Media and the Arts. It was a senior-level honours course, requiring three term papers and two in-class presentations of each of its twenty-five earnest young scholars. They were a diverse lot, of all kinds of ethnicities and backgrounds. There they sat, in their sculpted, multi-coloured hair, with their necks, arms and legs artistically muralled with tattoos; their noses, lips, eyebrows, ears and navels sporting gaudy piercings; their epigrammed apparel and trendy jewellery on full display. At the front of the class, standing at the lectern, their middle-aged, conservatively-dressed professor was unfazed. The individual expressions of diversity and identity neither made him feel old nor out of place. It was simply the times. One moment might call for ethnic, racial and sexual identities to be completely ignored, while the next moment called for them to be pushed loudly to the front, singled out and magnified. However, for Professor Howard Latchman, it wasn’t a particularly difficult academic world to navigate.

Latchman was a full professor at Mackenzie King College, accomplished in his field, enjoying his twenty-sixth year as a faculty member. He was of medium height and build, with thin, greying hair. He had a warm and friendly manner and had always been well-regarded by his students. His annual student evaluations highlighted his high academic standards, as well as his accessibility and fairness. On the negative side, students found him rather boring at times, and his methods somewhat plodding. His non-academic interests were completely unknown to his students and would have come as an amusing surprise. From his teenage years right up to the present, Latchman had been a drummer in a number of rock and roll bands, most recently with The Heads, playing sixties and seventies songs in nearby towns and bars. Not to mention his tennis playing; he was good enough to compete in senior-level tournaments, once reaching the provincial quarter-finals.
Latchman was Jewish, but entirely secular. This was a constant sore point with his two older siblings, alienating him from them more and more over the years. Brought up in the same conventional Jewish home, he’d been expected to tow the line. Fortunately they lived halfway across the country, so their meetings were infrequent.

He was divorced, with two children in their late twenties. His area of specialty was Journalism. From a doctoral thesis on corporate bias in the western news media, his work had naturally evolved. With social media now dominating the flow of information, his methods of study had radically changed. But the same issues remained at the core: misinformation and the control of information; by large corporations and by special interest groups.
For the June 14 class, student presentations were scheduled for the entire lecture time. Each student had twenty minutes to speak, on a recent case of cancel culture, followed by ten to fifteen minutes of questions and comments from the rest of the class.
With only a few weeks remaining in the spring-session course, Latchman knew most of the twenty-five students by name and by appearance. The first speaker of the day was a Black woman named Letanya Wynn. She was a prominent figure in the class, very bright and always highly engaged, taking every opportunity to aggressively speak out, offering her own point of view on whatever was being discussed. She was very slight in stature, with closely-cropped orange and yellow hair, wearing massive hoop earrings and bright red lipstick. Latchman took a quick glance at the text message she had sent him, containing the title and summary of her talk. ‘Good morning everyone’ he said. ‘Our first speaker is Letanya Wynn. She is going to be telling us about a cartoon that was recently published, in a Seattle online magazine. A textbook case of cancel culture. We will follow the same format as previous presentations. At the conclusion of the presentation, we will entertain comments and questions. Ms. Wynn!’

Letanya Wynn made her way, a little awkwardly, from the back of the class up to the sixty-inch monitor at the front, where she inserted the small USB drive she’d been carrying. She selected the only file on the drive, a jpg file. It was a copy of a cartoon, recently published in The North West Record, a Seattle-based publication. The cartoon shows two men having sex, one Black and the other white, with their naughty parts concealed behind a chair in the centre foreground. The Black man is positioned behind the white man, who is bent over. A shirt is draped over the chair, displaying a large BLM logo. In the background, a grim-faced, white uniformed cop has entered the room, standing in a doorway. He is pointing a gun at the two men, with a talking bubble that says ”You’re supposed to be two metres apart, not two feet.” The caption underneath the cartoon says ”Basic Length Measurements”. This satirical take on the coronavirus pandemic and the BlackLivesMatter movement had been greeted with an immediate social outcry online. Its creator, a Black male cartoonist, was fired as a result, by his publisher, who was also a Black male.
Letanya Wynn’s presentation was focused and articulate, extremely well done. Latchman wasn’t surprised that she strongly supported the cartoonist’s firing, arguing that the themes represented in the cartoon were demeaning to Black people and personally offensive to her. But he was surprised by the subdued class response. Maybe it was because it was so early in the morning, he thought. Maybe non-Black students felt they didn’t belong in the conversation. Whatever the reason, only two students commented on the presentation, both Black men. They both disagreed with Letanya Wynn, instead finding the cartoon to be a clever work of satire, and seeing the cartoonist’s firing as an extreme overreaction.
Thinking further about the minimal class reaction, Latchman wondered if, compared to other recent topics, the class didn’t find the cartoon to be especially shocking or controversial. In any case, he was very impressed by the presentation. Twenty out of twenty, he thought. A great presentation.
Latchman glanced at his phone and quickly re-read the details for the second talk of the morning. It would probably be less engaging than the first talk, he thought. Less contentious.

‘Class, I would next like to introduce Mark Mazur. He is going to talk about the recent Facebook controversy. I’m sure we’ve all heard about it. Certain posts were not published at first, but then appeared later, after a reaction against the company. Mr. Mazur!’
The second speaker was evidently Jewish, and religious, wearing a kipa. He was tall and very thin, with a neatly trimmed beard and a friendly face. After being introduced, he stood up from his chair near the front of the room and walked over to the lectern, where he placed his notes. He was soft-spoken, with an easy and confident manner. ‘Good morning’ he said to the class, with a smile. ‘When I read about this recent Facebook controversy, I naturally read some of the posts that had not appeared for so-called ”technical reasons”. They were published a few days later, after people had complained that Facebook had shown an anti-Palestinian bias, by deliberately blocking the posts. Of course, this is not the first time that Facebook has faced these kinds of accusations, sometimes because they do allow certain posts. For example, when they published all the lies and distortions from Trump’s supporters, during the election campaign and after.’
‘There are three main questions here. First of all, is it just a coincidence that many of those posts – I didn’t try to read more than ten or so – promoted a completely one-sided picture of the recent war between Israel and Hamas? Secondly, does Facebook have the legal right, and perhaps the moral responsibility, to not publish whatever it deems to be inappropriate? Are Palestinian-run websites held to the same moral standards? Do we insist they publish pro-Israeli posts, balancing these with opposite points of view? Or do we think they should be free to decide which posts to publish and in what numbers? Thirdly, and what is most relevant to this course, is why did Facebook backtrack? Why did the policy change, with the posts being published after all? Was it political correctness, catering to an offended group, rather than just sticking to an otherwise reasonable and clearly defensible editorial stance?’
‘I’m Jewish, so some people might try to diminish what I have to say because of a perceived bias. Of course, such an ad hominem assumption of bias could be made against detractors as well. In any event, let me first summarize what I consider to be a truthful, balanced view of the war. To begin, the loss of life and the destruction of property, the traumatization of people, especially children, on both sides, is absolutely horrible. These are the terrible costs and results of war. However we measure the consequences, it is obvious there cannot only be a picture from one side. Hamas sent literally thousands of missiles into Israel, killing people and destroying property. The effects were greatly reduced because the Israelis were able to shoot down most of those bombs before they landed. Hamas fired those missiles with the intention of killing whomever they happened to kill, destroying whatever property they happened to strike. They were aimed more or less randomly. Consequences in return, to the population of Gaza, were horrendous. There were – ‘

At that moment, one of the other students interrupted, a woman wearing a hijab, sitting near the front of the class. She stood up, looking directly at the speaker. Speaking with an Arabic accent, her tone was fierce and accusatory. She was essentially shouting. ‘You are killing children’ she said to the speaker. ‘You are destroying hospitals. You are killing innocent people.’
Professor Latchman was somewhat caught off guard, but he quickly moved to stop the woman’s outburst. Having spoken to the woman on a few previous occasions, he knew her name was Jamila Fayad, and that she was an immigrant from Syria, having settled in the area a few years before, with her parents and siblings. She was one of four religious Muslims in the class, three female and one male. The others were seated side-by-side in the row behind her. In a class that consisted mostly of people of color, they hadn’t particularly stood out during the previous weeks of the course. As occurred to Latchman in this moment, this was likely because the course topics had centred almost completely around anti-Black racism and issues involving sexual identity.

Latchman, seated at the front of the room right beside the speaker, stood up and made a restraining gesture to the woman with his right hand. It was abundantly clear to him that the situation could easily escalate if he didn’t quickly take control. ‘Please. I must ask you to stop, Ms. Fayad. Please sit down’ he said, in a firm, resolute tone, addressing the woman as he did all of his students, using her last name. ‘You will have an opportunity to comment once the speaker has finished. Please allow the speaker to make his presentation. We have all agreed that there will be no comments until these presentations have been completed. And please, remember not to attack people personally. We can strongly disagree with what someone says, but let us challenge what has been said. No personal attacks or insinuations. That is very important. Okay. Mr. Mazur, please continue.’
‘Thank you, Professor Latchman’ said the young speaker, apparently unrattled by the outburst. ‘Justifying war and conflict and killing might be called a fool’s job’ he continued. ‘Yet, if people are not provided with an accurate historical picture of conflict, it can make the situation worse and lead to further violence and injustice. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Our country and other western countries have declared this to be the case. Their only goal in relation to Israel is quote, to drive the Jews into the sea. The idea of a peace treaty or peaceful co-existence is not even a possibility. The claims made about land can – ‘
Again Jamila Fayad stood up, confronting the speaker in the same defiant, angry way. ‘You must end the occupation’ she said. ‘You must give back our land. You are killing our people. We have the right to fight for the liberation.

Anticipating this second outburst, Latchman had already decided on his response, and he acted swiftly. He stood up and again addressed the woman. ‘That is enough’ he said, speaking somewhat forcefully while trying to retain his composure. ‘This presentation is over for now. Thank you, Mr. Mazur. I am sorry for the interruption. Class, we are going to take a fifteen minute break now, before the next talk. Would everyone please leave the room, except for Ms. Fayad. If you wouldn’t mind, Ms. Fayad, I would like to have a word with you before we continue.’
In his head, Latchman was rapidly composing a short speech he would deliver to Jamila Fayad, some careful form of admonishment. How she had attacked the speaker personally. How she hadn’t let him speak. How she had been rude and disrespectful. How she had denied him the same basic freedom of speech she would want for herself. But he never had the opportunity, as Jamila Fayad filed out of the room along with everyone else. For fifteen minutes, Latchman stood waiting for her to return, but she never did. When the students returned fifteen minutes later, she was not among them.

This was certainly not the first time a student had filed a formal complaint about some aspect of Media Studies 32.455. One of Latchman’s colleagues had faced a similar situation a few years before, when a Black student had objected to a class discussion on rap music. The professor had played a selection of songs in class, all laced with profanity and the N-word, which the student had found humiliating and demeaning. The professor had to appear before the Academic Standards Committee to answer for the material. He volunteered to meet with the student-complainant, and successfully diffused the matter. Most student-complaints never reached that stage. Though they were always taken seriously, such complaints were usually answered by no more than a polite note from the Dean’s office, thanking the student for the submission and emphasizing that it had been taken very seriously. The university was always striving to improve in its awareness of and sensitivity to student concerns, et cetera. It was virtually unheard of for any remedial or punitive action to result from such a complaint. So, when Howard Latchman was asked to meet with the Dean of Arts the following week, after a formal complaint had been filed by Jamila Fayad, he wasn’t particularly troubled by the matter.
On the day of his meeting with the Dean of Arts, Latchman came prepared, bearing a printed copy of the course outline for 32.455, as well as a detailed summary of the incident surrounding Mark Mazur’s presentation the previous week.

Like many faculty members at Mackenzie King College, Howard Latchman was mostly oblivious to administrative matters. He tried to have as little to do with meetings and committees and procedures as he could possibly get away with. For most of his years on the faculty, he would not even have been able to name the President of the university, or any of its senior administration. His focus was his teaching and his other academic work. As a full professor in his late fifties, he’d paid his dues, and he now purposefully managed his time with a minimum of aggravation and a minimum of futility. When he was escorted into his meeting with the Dean of Arts, by the administrative assistant, he was meeting the Dean for the first time.
Walking into the Dean’s inner office, carrying his documents, he was greeted by an exuberant, friendly-looking woman. ‘Hello, Professor Latchman’ she said. ‘I’m Amira Zuhar.’
Latchman only vaguely remembered the Dean’s recent hiring. People who had paid more attention would have remembered that she’d been highly touted at the time. She was a devout Muslim and well-known social activist. She’d been hired directly from the faculty ranks at the University of Toronto, with an impressive publication record in Political Studies, and with absolutely no prior administrative experience. Forty years of age, she was a shining example of Mackenzie King College’s commitment to diversity and inclusiveness at every level.
Dean Zuhar was wearing a beige hijab. She had a dazzling smile, immediately disarming Latchman. She motioned for him to sit down on one of the black leather chairs beside her oak desk, offering him water or coffee or tea, all of which he politely refused.
All of a sudden, Latchman’s situation seemed much more perilous. A hijab-wearing Dean was to pronounce on the complaint; on the confrontation between a hijab-wearing student and a male, Jewish student; a confrontation in which he, Latchman, himself Jewish, was deemed by the female student to be at fault. This might not go so well, Latchman thought to himself, nervously glancing around the spacious, well-appointed office. He decided he would wait for a moment before offering his documents to the Dean.

‘Professor Latchman’ the Dean began, flashing a quick smile, a smile Latchman was suddenly rather wary of. ‘Thank you for dropping by today. Jamila Fayad’s complaint… I’ve sent you a copy of what she’s written. I have spoken at some length with her.’ The Dean spoke evenly and quietly, maintaining direct eye-contact with Latchman. ‘Jamila says you silenced her. You stopped her from talking, from countering the pro-Israeli statements. She says you took the side of the Jewish student. Because you are Jewish. She says she can’t return to your class anymore, because you don’t give the same freedoms to all of your students.’
Latchman shuffled in his seat uneasily before offering a response. ‘Ms. Fayad stood up and interrupted the class presentation’ he said to the Dean. ‘She accused the speaker of killing children, of destroying homes. Accused him. He was not involved in the war. He’s not an Israeli; he’s a Canadian. She kept accusing him. It was horrible. She said things like ”You are killing children”; targeting her accusations directly at him. I politely asked her to stop, but she wouldn’t. She continued her personal attack. I had to stop the presentation entirely. It was embarrassing to expose my entire class to that kind of thing. I’ve prepared a detailed summary of the – ‘
The Dean cut Latchman off in mid-sentence. ‘As to the interruption and as to her point of view, she is obviously a passionate defender of the Palestinian cause. And she felt it was necessary to counter a one-sided justification of the actions of the Israelis. Her use of the personal pronoun ”you” probably has as much to do with second-language issues as anything else.’

Latchman was incensed at the Dean’s complete misreading of the incident. He struggled to remain composed. ‘No’ he said, his voice rising. ‘Her usage of ”you” cannot in any way be attributed to second-language issues. She very deliberately pointed to him, and targeted the accusations at him. There was no doubt about it at all. She is a bright student. She obviously knows the difference between ”you” and ”the Israeli army”. There were twenty-four witnesses to the incident, other than me. How many of them have you bothered to interview?’ His tone had quickly progressed to one of anger and impatience. ‘I’m guessing very few, if any. I guess I should have expected you to take her side, but what you are saying is patently ridiculous and simply wrong. All of those statements about the way things proceeded, and the accusations made about my reaction, they are all false. In fact, they’re libelous. She should examine her own behaviour. The ”Jewish student”, as she calls him, did everything he could to be even-handed, respectful and non-accusatory. The whole point was to address the political correctness involved in the matter. In Facebook’s reversing its decision to not allow certain posts that were clearly pro-Palestinian. Was it political correctness that pressured the company to reverse its position? The presenting student was admirably respectful and sensitive to the Gaza side of the conflict. He didn’t even get to fully express his thoughts on the matter. She jumped on him and fired off some very hostile, personal accusations at him.’
Dean Zuhar responded in a much sterner tone than before. ‘Professor Latchman’ she said, ‘I am very much disturbed by your implying my taking sides here. That is certainly not the case. I understand and I very much appreciate the sensitive nature of this classroom topic. Especially for both Jewish and Muslim students. But Professor Latchman, we can’t have students accusing our faculty of silencing their views. We can’t have our students saying it is impossible for them to continue their attendance in class; impossible because of their humiliation and their perceived mistreatment at the hands of their professors. This goes well beyond reasonable classroom behaviour and course management. I’m afraid I’m going to have to suspend you from any further involvement in this course. Your department chair, Professor Guilfoyle, will appoint a replacement to finish the remaining few weeks of lectures. I have spoken to him this morning. For the present, there are no further consequences to you with respect to this incident. However, there will be a full internal inquiry into the matter. I have asked Professor Nkosa, the chair of the Academic Standards Committee, to conduct a thorough review of the matter, including your role. Thank you for coming in this morning.’ Saying this, Dean Zuhar stood up to see Latchman out.

Latchman was stunned. It took him a moment to begin breathing evenly again. Getting to his feet, he was fuming mad. ‘Are you serious?’ he said to the Dean. ‘This is a travesty. There were twenty-four witnesses to the event. Did you talk to them? Does the truth matter? Do you -‘
Dean Zuhar cut him short. ‘Professor Latchman’ she said, firmly. ‘I’m very sorry. I have to interrupt you. I know you must find this very upsetting. I’m going to wish you a good day. This is a most unfortunate incident. Again, thanks for coming in.’
It was all Latchman could do, to simply walk out of the room, without lashing out at the Dean of Arts. He stormed out of the office, out of the building and onto the nearly empty quad outside, shaking his head in disbelief.
THE END

Post Views: 1,132

Features

I’m 15. Here’s why Kinew’s social media ban needs work

By NOAH STRAUSS I’m 15 years old, and last Saturday night at an NDP fundraising gala, Premier Wab Kinew announced his intentions to ban social media and AI chatbots for kids. His brief announcement made no clear ruling on the age of his ban. As someone who uses social media daily to communicate with friends, I have some thoughts on whether this is actually a good idea— and how it could work.
If Kinew wants his ban on social media to be effective, he should target kids born in 2014 and younger, placing the ban on kids who have not yet had the time to build their lives around it.
Looking at what other countries have done is a useful starting point. Australia banned social media last year to users under the age of 16. France, also, is currently in the process of passing laws through its National Assembly to ban it for kids under 15. Closer to home, the Liberal Party of Canada recently passed a motion at its convention that would seek to adopt legislation that would ban social media for kids under 16, signalling how controlling social media is becoming a mainstream idea.
Social media isn’t all bad. Yes, it causes developmental issues in teens, and it causes anxiety, but so many of us rely on it every day to communicate, share ideas and spread messages. For someone like me, losing it overnight would cause a massive disruption to my daily life. That is exactly why a blanket ban on all social media for minors would miss the point.
At the age of 12, most kids have not spent too much of their lives on social media before their lives are built around it. Britain has implemented a similar year-based ban, banning those born in 2009 and younger from ever purchasing cigarettes. Banning people before they have a chance to be exposed ensures they cannot get addicted. The same logic applies to social media: If kids never get a chance to become dependent on it, the ban won’t uproot their lives. Implementing a ban for kids born in 2014 and younger will ensure they cannot use social media during their developmental stages, just as Kinew intends.
Beyond the social impacts, there is also a political problem behind the ban. In time, kids who have had social media banned by Wab Kinew will head to the polls. How does this look for the man who took it away from them? It will be hard for Kinew to win over a generation of voters whose first political memory is him restricting their online lives.
Kinew succeeded in at least one category, and that is the blame game. He rightfully made sure that the people of Manitoba should know that this is not the fault of our parents, but it is the fault of the technology companies, whose one goal is to make their products successful through making them addictive to the user.
Good intentions are a start, but if Kinew is serious about protecting kids, the details of his ban matter just as much as the principle behind it.

Post Views: 62

Features

Part 10 of the story of the delusional Winnipeg con man: The con man asks to meet with me and ends up being thoroughly grilled about the cons he’s pulled

By BERNIE BELLAN This is the tenth -and final part of a story about a delusional Winnipegger who believes he is someone of great wealth and has spent the better part of 30 years contacting people all over the world telling them that he wants to invest in their businesses or projects. The first nine parts of this story are all available to read under the FEATURES category on this website.

Here is the final part of my story:

On April 9, 2026 I finally had a chance to meet with Fred Devlin again. The day before, I was totally surprised when I saw a message from him saying he wanted to talk to me – and gave his phone number (which is the same phone number I had for him from years ago).

I called him – and he was quite pleasant, although he said he was suffering from pneumonia. After just a couple of minutes, however, he said his wife had just walked in and he couldn’t talk.

The next day he messaged me and asked whether we could meet. I said “yes” and we agreed to meet at either the Fairmont Hotel or Hy’s. He said he would let me know. It ended up being Hy’s.

When I walked in Fred was standing beside the bar. He looked remarkably the same from the last time I had seen him, although a little dissheveled. There were no apparent signs of his having had pneumonia.

He asked the server if we could have a private table somewhere and she told us that we could go upstairs to the dining room, which was empty. We sat down and I placed my iPhone on the table, as did Fred. I told him that I wanted to record our conversation so that everything he might say would be on the record. He agreed and also said he was going to record it himself – presumably to make sure that I wouldn’t alter anything.

In every instance where he refers to the name of his company or supposed group of companies, I’ve omitted the actual name – even though in the rest of my story I refer to his group of companies as the Xanadu group. In a couple of instances he referred to real people during our conversation, but since they are not mentioned anywhere else in this story and play no part in the story I’ve told, I decided to retain their real names.

I want to explain what follows is not easy reading. Fred Devlin clearly suffers from a psychotic delusion and my intent is not to make light of his illness. There are many people who suffer from various psychoses and many of them are capable of committing great harm to others if their psychoses aren’t treated – or, even if they are treated, the treatments fail.

What makes Fred Devlin’s story so unusual, however, is the harm he was able to inflict and is apparently still inflicting on so many others by his believing the story he had somehow developed to explain his life. Even as I was talking to him I could see that his calm, measured tone could seem quite convincing to most people with whom he would connect. I deliberately went after him as hard as I could though, to see whether I could break his composure by asking him questions quickly and not giving him the opportunity to start rambling on about his group of companies, his charitable endeavours and, most important, his vast wealth.

By the end of our conversation he was shaking and kept saying the was tired. I honestly felt sorry for him, but I wanted to get him on the record contradicting his story fully in so many ways so that no one reading this would doubt for a moment that Fred Devlin is fully psychotic and can be quite dangerous when he tries to envelop trusting individuals in his web of deceit, regardless whether he himself is unaware just how deceitful he really is.

One more note: As is the case with most conversations, speakers often interrupt one another, thoughts don’t get fully expressed – and even though the transcription program I used is quite accurate, a lot of what Fred Devlin said was indecipherable. I’ve tried to do justice to what was said, but I’ve left out a lot of the pauses and words that made no sense.

Here is how the conversation went:

Devlin: Now do you want me to just talk or you ask questions – or do you have questions?

Me: Well, of course I have questions, but if you want to start off by saying something, go right ahead.

Devlin: It’s gonna take a series of interviews to cover my life, but I’m gonna give you everything. I’m gonna give you evidence.  I will show you that everything I always say is true. I started my life at… started in Israel when I was 10. My father went to teach at the Weizmann Institute. We went through Europe and then to Israel. We were in Greece on the way to Israel, and there was the (raid on Entebbe).  Okay. We got to Israel, ran into by chance Benjamin Netanyahu, who had lost his brother. And we gave our condolences and that was the first meeting I had with Benjamin Netanyahu. We lived there. I went to school there. I was infatuated with the soldiers and the guns and the bullets and… a soldier, a friend – Michael Perl….  I don’t know if you know Michael Perl – but his brother gave us all these empty shells. I went to a sporting goods store, bought a gun, a starting pistol. I converted it into a gun and I guarded my campus in Israel, and that was what I was meant to be. So my life is about guarding Israel, the … Foundation worldwide, which is just a name, it’s actually a numbered company based outta Luxembourg and the … group of companies Worldwide Holdings  are also a numbered company under … Investment Corporation, which you can look up at the Manitoba Companies office on Broadway.

Me: Let, let me stop you there. First of all, I’m not so sure about the whole story about meeting Netanyahu, but regardless, the … group of companies has no presence on the internet.  I don’t believe there is any such thing as the ….Group of Companies. Do you have any proof that there is something (by that name)?

Devlin: Of course, I will have lawyers write to you.

Me: Never mind lawyers. What can you show in terms of documentation?

Devlin: I can show you the websites. It’s just a name, okay.

Me: And what are the companies in the … group of companies?  

Devlin: There’s 3,360.

Me: Okay. Can you name any of them?

Devlin: Of course, but I’m not going to name…

Me: Name one.

Devlin: I’m not gonna name one. It’s private.

Me: You’re not gonna name one?

Devlin: Not today, no.

Me: Why?

Devlin: ’cause they are secret. They’re secret companies. Okay. I want no one knowing my business. I haven’t been in a publication since May, 1990.  

Me: How many companies now is it (in the group of companies)?

Devlin: 3,300… 3,306.

Me: When I spoke to you in 2021, it was 300.

Devlin: I was being honest. Okay.

Me: Alright. So, the … group of companies has 3,300 companies. You won’t name one. You won’t provide any proof that there is (even one company).

Devlin: I’ll provide you with okay. But not today.

Me: Alright. And it’s headquartered in Luxembourg, correct?

Devlin: Okay

Me: And David Simkin is what?

Devlin: My CEO.

Me: Okay. Does he exist?

Devlin: Of course.

Me: Where does he live?

Devlin: Luxembourg. Okay. But he traveled.

Me: No one has ever been able to establish that there is anyone by that name.

Devlin: Because he’s Mossad.

Me: Because he’s Mossad?

Devlin: Correct. And that’s not his real name.  

Me: Oh, it’s not his real name. Okay. Alright, let’s go on.

I am sort of curious to know about your business career. I did read that you were in real estate and then you became the executive director of the Winnipeg Airport ….

Devlin: No, I first started Winnport. I founded Winnport.

Me: You founded Winnport?

Devlin; Yes. Yeah. Here, I’ll show you.  

Me: Okay. And what year was that?

Devlin: About 1992 to 1994.

Me: And you have some proof for that.

Devlin: Of course.

Me: Of course. (According to Wikipedia, Winnport was established in 1998 by Lynn Bishop. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Winnport: “Winnport Logistics, a Winnipeg-based air cargo consortium, was established in 1998. The company launched Canada’s first scheduled widebody cargo operations during that year, aiming to connect Winnipeg to Asian markets, before eventually ceasing operations in 2002”.)

Me: And then you became executive director of the Airport Area Business Improvement Zone?

Devlin: No. Of the Winnipeg Development Corporation biz, not the Winnipeg…. Never with the Airport Area Business Improvement Zone. (I found that answer particularly strange because the 1998 article I referenced earlier specifically stated that Devlin had been the recently appointed executive director of the Airport Area Business Improvement Zone. Why he would he have chosen to talk about Winnport, with which he may have had some involvement, but certainly not in the years he said he was involved, and not the Airport Area Business Improvement Zone – raises new questions – both about Devlin’s resumé – and his memory.) 

Devlin: Yes, I was. And I had it (Winnport) spun off. I’ll tell you the story, but easy for you to look at. (And at that point he pulled out what I immediately recognized as his album of photos that he had first shown me in 2021.)

Me: Are you gonna show me more pictures?

Devlin: Yep. I’m show you.

Me: Okay. I don’t care. I’ve seen your pictures Fred, and you know what? I don’t care about your pictures.

Devlin: You know what, then don’t be rude… 

Me; Alright. When was that? You say that was 1992.

Devlin: It’s ’94 or so.

Me: Okay. Alright. Look, I don’t doubt that you had some sort of business career. I wrote that (in my original story that I posted to the internet in February 2026), so the question is: ‘What happened?’ (At that point a waiter came over with our soups and the conversation paused.) 

Me: Okay, let’s go on. So how long were you with Winnport then? 

Devlin: About a year, and then that was…there’s a story behind that. There’s a lot more to the story. Alright, so can I tell you the story?

 Me: The Winnport story? Yeah. Tell me the story.

Devlin: When I was running my company, … Investment Corporation, which I founded in 1987 and still operating, which owns all the … Foundation worldwide. In a … group of companies. It’s in the Companies office. It’s current and operating.  

Me: Go on.

Devlin: In May of 1990 I was featured in Manitoba Business Magazine.

Me: Yes, I have that article.

(At this point the man I’ve been calling Devlin launched into a very descriptive, but often incoherent account of part of his earlier business career. As I’ve noted previously, I have no doubt that Devlin was very bright – and successful – until something happened. So, when he weaves names of real people into his stories, there might be more than a semblance of the truth in what he’s saying. The problem is he seems to get key dates wrong – as when he talks about Winnport – and when he claims to have been the person to have started that company.

Still, it’s somewhat sad to think how much potential he had – as he explains in the following account. If only he had never veered completely off the rails and started insinuating himself into so many people’s lives, causing so mach damage along the way.)

Devlin: Yeah, (but) you don’t have the full magazine, which has much more information. (It) talks about me becoming an up and coming… and Izzy Asper saw the article and summoned me…it was a billionaire summoning a millionaire and it was the only time in my life I was intimidated a little bit. We became partners, friends, mentor, and he financed me for the acquisition of land where Centerport is. I still control land at the airport and I started Winnport. I founded it. It was my business plan, my concept, although it was talked about by others. I mapped it out on a plane coming back from Amsterdam, Holland  ’cause I mapped out a logistics plan that is now Centerport. So, I was sitting on a Saturday going through the career section at our place on Wellington. I saw a career commercial development officer wanted by the Winnipeg International Airport and Izzy Asper and I had already bought the land, so I figured I’d go as an insider.  I got the job the next day ’cause I had a presentation, which included every element of what they were trying to do. I worked technically for someone named Warren Thompson, but I really worked with Lynn Bishop, who was the general manager of the airport and eventually president of the Bombers. I talked to Lynn yesterday, I believe so. I still keep in touch with a great guy. Okay. I realized that I had a conflict of interest owning land and being the insider in the airport. So I realized I had to spin off a company. So we spun off Winnport, which I named. I actually spelled it W-I-N-P-O-R-T. Lynn Bishop on a flight back from, I believe, Chattanooga, Tennessee. No, uh, Huntsville, Alabama, where we were looking at CargoX airplanes from Luxembourg, which I own now in control. Go look it up and you’ll see nothing about me. Every company I own does not come back to me. My business is silent.

(A few days after meeting Fred Devlin, I did manage to get a hold of Lynn Bishop, who was the original founder of Winnport – in 1998, when Fred would have been around 32. Lynn told me that Fred Devlin did work for the company for a very brief time, but they had to let him go because his behaviour was so erratic. That jives with my thinking that it was sometime when Fred was in his early thirties that he became quite delusional.)

Me: Why? Why is that?

Devlin: Two reasons. I don’t want anyone knowing my business.  If I’m to buy land or buy something, the price goes up if they comes from …. So we use shell companies to buy and make offers with legal. That’s one. The other is reputation. God forbid Air Canada has a crash. And it connects to …, then my reputation is real.

Me: So Air Canada is one of the companies you own?

 Devlin: I’m not gonna say.

Me: you’re not gonna say?

Devlin: I will tell you next meeting. I will give you a paper with some holdings. I know Michael Rousseau very well, who was vice president of Finance for Air Canada.(He was actually its CEO until recently. when he resigned over his not knowing how to speak French.) I deal with him. He’s been fired. We’re bringing in a new CEO and president. I own part of Boeing, okay.  

Me: Let’s move on. What did you do after Winnport?

Devlin: After I left Winnport, I was not happy. I sold it to Cargojet or behind the scenes, and we have shares in Cargo, which is the largest Canadian cargo companies, so Winnport became very successful domestically. I’m doing the project again to introduce runs by CargoX currently, which will be Winnport again and Cargojet. (As has been noted, Winnport ceased operations after 2002.)  And I will make Winnport as I expected it to be. Then I left Winnport and I became executive director…(of what, Devlin didn’t say). Didn’t take a salary or I gave my salary to charity to stay involved with the airport area and Winnport.

Me. And what did you do then?

Devlin: I did nothing. I was executive director of the Airport Area Business Development Corporation. (The chronology is so confusing. Devlin just claimed he left Winnport and became executive director of the Airport Area Business Development Corporation, but Winnport wasn’t established until 1998 and that 1998 magazine article said Devlin was the recently appointed executive director of the Airport Area Business Development Corporation, which would have preceded his becoming involved with Winnport but, In the final analysis, it doesn’t really matter what the sequence of his various positions he hleld was – if he, in fact, actually held the positions he said he held. Still, it seems evident that Fred had an upward career trajectory until he developed his psychosis. I haven’t been able to establish what he was doing when he apparently developed that psychosis when he must have been in his thirties.)

Me: And you didn’t take a salary?

Devlin: I took a salary, but I gave it to charity.

Me: Is there a record – of your having been with Winnport?

Devlin: I can get that for you.

Me: Okay. So you were already in your thirties by then, I’m guessing?

Devlin: Yeah.

Me: Okay. Alright. I wanna move forward though because as you know, I’ve been writing about you. I wanna talk about your relationship….

Devlin: You are slandering me.  

Me: I want to talk about your relationship with Jonathan Soloway.

Devlin: Alright.

Me: I have copies of written agreements between you and Jonathan Soloway.

Devlin: You don’t have everything.

Me: I have signed agreements between you and Jonathan Soloway.

Devlin: No, I never signed an agreement with him.

Me: I have your signature on those documents.  

Devlin: Never signed it.

Me: Are they forged?

Devlin: Were they forged? I don’t know what Jonathan did with them.

Me: Okay, so you are saying that those agreements are invalid.

Devlin: They’re invalid and I can tell you what I offered Jonathan and I helped save his life, and was the only person who reached out to him after I hadn’t talked to him in 45 years.  He flew to Winnipeg to meet with me at 529 (Wellington). I befriended him. I tried my best to help him. He had lost his life savings in a bitcoin scam or some type of scam on the internet. He had nothing. He had no car. He was living at his brother’s place. He lost his marriage. And the custody of his daughter, I believe, and his life was in ruins and I was the only one to step up to offer to help him.  I offered him, I’m setting up a real estate investment trust in the fall with Nikki Bello (who, I was able to learn, is a Winnipeg Chartered Professional Accountant), if she’s interested still. And probably Lauren. (I have no idea who that is and I didn’t ask Devlin who Lauren is.)

Me: Did you tell him to stop making payments on all his debts?

Devlin: No.

Me: You deny that?

Devlin: No, I said to him, “Don’t pay if they’re not gonna come after you.”

Me: And you didn’t offer him a salary of $250,000 a year?

Devlin: I, no…. being paid on the first 50. (In talking to Jonathan, he explained that 50 would have meant 50% of the Real Estate Investment Trust he was supposed to be setting up with Devlin.) Would you like to know what it is?

Me: Sure.

Devlin: I offered him 49% of the company outta my goodwill of the shares. Jonathan was confused. He thought he was getting a job. I said, “No, you’re getting a partnership.”

 Me: So if I were to show you the agreement (promising to pay Jonathan $250,000 a year) with your signature on it, would you say that is a false document?

Devlin: I’d have to see it.

Me: Well, I can open it up for you if you want.

Devlin: Jonathan turned on me because I was in the hospital. I disappeared for five weeks with a brain injury and I couldn’t help him pay off his debt.  I talked to his creditors. I got his debt reduced. I did my very best for Jonathan.

Me: Alright, so you say that you didn’t offer him a salary of $250,000.

Devlin: Yes, I did.

Me: You did?

Devlin: But once we were operational and there was cash flow from the REIT. I wouldn’t take a salary. Nikki wouldn’t take a salary. She took shares and then I promised him a $250,000 salary as long as we had cash flow.  

Me: But these agreements are quite recently signed and don’t say anything about having to wait for a cash flow before he would get paid.

Devlin: Nothing happened. There was no money there.

Me: It’s all part of a pattern Fred of you stringing people along with promises of a big payday and then, when they start asking “Where’s the money?”, you say there is no money there – right?

Devlin: That’s your belief. It’s not true.

Me: Have you ever put up money for a project?

Devlin: Many times. All the time.

Me: And can you substantiate that?  

Devlin: Yeah. I can show you an airline project where I’m doing in Nigeria.

Me: Did you not offer Rick financial help with his publication?

Devlin: Never. No. Okay. I offered him a million dollars potentially to buy him out from 420 magazine and to have him run as CEO or in some position once we started 420 was a deadline (again – totally incoherent).  I’m still willing to meet my commitments to him, but he slandered me and set up a group of people because he’s mentally ill. Has Asperger’s, I believe, or autism and rage management and A-D-H-D-.I disappeared in the hospital the next day without being able to tell anyone. I was in for five weeks. I couldn’t communicate.  I had blinding brain injury, headaches, and vertigo. Couldn’t use my phone.

Me: How many times have you been in the hospital… committed for psychiatric reasons?

Devlin: Never. Never.

Me: Did you send a cease and desist letter to a psychiatrist?

Devlin: No.

Me: You didn’t’?

Devlin: Not that I recall.

 Me: You didn’t have Bob Anderson send a cease and desist letter?

Devlin: Yes, I did.

Me: To a psychiatrist?

Devlin: Yes, I did. Okay.

Me; Why was that?

Devlin: I’m not gonna talk about it right now. Okay. Next time.

Me: So you were in the hospital for psychiatric visits.

Devlin: No. Okay.

Me: Did you meet a fellow named Jack in a psychiatric wing of a hospital?  

Devlin: I went in to be undercover and I met him and he was my roommate.

Me: Did you tell him that you owned the hospital?

Devlin: Yes.

Me: Why?

Devlin: Because I do.

Me: That would be the Health Sciences Center?

Devlin: No, the Victoria Hospital.

Me: You own Victoria Hospital?

Devlin: . Through Internet means I control the hospital.  

Me: Okay. This is all very interesting. You are actually confirming everything that has been told to me. Okay. I wanna talk about Charlie.

Did you offer to finance a charitable foundation for him in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?  

Devlin: No.

Me: You never did?

Devlin: No.

Me: Even though he’s got letters, texts, and emails to show that you did.

Devlin: If he says so I’ve got the texts, I’ll have to read ’em.

Me: Have you been threatening Charlie?

Devlin: No.

Me: Have you not been telling him that you’re gonna ruin his life?

Devlin: Legally? Yes. For slandering me on Facebook, I’m gonna sue him to the grave.  

Me: Did you tell him that you would take his farm? (I asked Charlie whether he ever had a farm. He said he didn’t.)

Devlin: Yeah.

Me: His pharmacy? (Again, Charlie was bewildered over the suggestion he had either a farm or a pharmacy which, he says, he’s never had. He said he did own a piece of land in his community – which he sold to finance the charitable foundation Devlin told him his …group of companies would finance.)

Devlin: I paid for his books, his computers, everything and the value that he has. And I said I would take it all.

Me: Why?

Devlin: Because he slandered me on Facebook after I put him through school partially, and I was a mentor to him. I spent hundreds of hours, which are documented. You can see.  I’ll be happy to turn over all my emails and texts to you. Okay. He has not told you the truth.

Me; Alright, there are a whole slew of other people who I’ve talked to who told me that you would make promises to them. One of them was Dan Winthrop.

Devlin: I made no promises to Dan. I’m helping with a project with Israeli aircraft. Okay.

Me: And this has been going on for over 18 years?

Devlin: Correct.

Me: And you had a fellow in Las Vegas – Avi… I can’t remember his last name – who was going to facilitate your bringing over jets from Israel and convert them to some sort of use?  Did Avi not try and set up a meeting between you and various officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Devlin: Our deal was once I hired him and pay him a million dollars a year. Plus 3.33% of the funds he raises. He’s earning about 120, I believe, as the director of…(Avi actually works in an area that is too sensitive to Israel’s security to reveal.)

He was not happy. He expressed an interest in working for me, so I did my best to get him a position. I became ill and was unable to fulfill it. But I am planning on fulfilling it.

Me: Okay, one more story of promises unfulfilled.

Devlin: Not my fault. I was in the hospital, very ill.

Me: Alright. I wanna get back to Jonathan Solaway though, because since you deny that you have had any written agreements with him, I wanna show you the written agreements and then have you comment on them.  

Devlin: I don’t want to do this. Getting tired. I’m sick. I do next session.

Me: You’re getting tired now?

Devlin: Yes. Very tired. But I will talk to you next interview about that.

At that point someone walked by our table and Devlin turned to him, saying: “Hi, how are you?… I’m good. How are you?… Good… Oh, you’re the delivery boy today. You do everything. A jack of all trades.  . Things are going well. Yeah. How about you? I haven’t seen you in a while. Been away and it’s been a while… I’ve been here. You been here? Was able to sneak in. You enjoy it? I am. Yeah. It’s good. Yeah. Good. Brock Wright. Brock Wright. Can you get me his number? ’cause we’re fixing the healthcare system.” (From 2000 to 2017, Brock Wright served as Vice President and Chief Medical Officer for what was then the new Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and, for five years during that period, also served as the Chief Operating Officer at Health Sciences Centre.)  The person Devlin was talking to said : “I will try to, yeah. . Next time I see him, I’ll, I’ll grab it for you.”  (I chose to include this little snippet to illustrate how good Fred could be at posing as someone important – and turning on the charm.)

I resumed my questioning: “Okay. Alright. If you don’t want to see the material that I have…

Devlin: Not, not this time, I’m too tired to look it up.

Me: Okay. Well let’s go back to asking some some more questions about other people who I’ve spoken to. One of them was a lawyer by the name of Bob Anderson.

Devlin: He’s not a lawyer. He lost his license for, well he was a lawyer in Virginia. Go look him up on the internet. I hired him after he was slandered and I tried to take down the information on him.  We’ve been friends for 20 years. They came to me and approached me in Bolivia to buy banks and he came to the Forks area hotel. We became best friends and he did free work for me for many years for my foundation. And that’s it.

Me: How did you get in touch with Rick? Was it through Jack?  

Devlin: Okay.

Me: And you met Jack in a psychiatric ward?

Devlin: I met him in the hospital – okay.

Me: Well, he says it was a psychiatric ward.

Devlin: Whatever he says. I won’t argue.

Me: So you deny that you were a patient in the psychiatric ward.

Devlin: No, I was not a patient.

Me: No, you were checking out the system ’cause you were the owner of the hospital.  Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Devlin: You can do what you want with it. I’m telling you.

Me: You say you own Victoria Hospital?

Devlin: No, through options on the hospital with the Manitoba government.

Me: Oh really? Okay. You think that if I were to print this conversation now that this is going to make you look somehow as a bonafide, legitimate businessman?

Devlin: Not the way you are putting it. I’m just going to answer.

Me: I’m just asking you the questions and you’re giving me the answers… and I’m doing it on the record.

Devlin: I’m giving you a courtesy before I sue your ass for a hundred million dollars.

Me: Is that right? On what grounds?

Devlin: Defamation. You didn’t approach me to ever get my side of the story.  You went with a group of people – Rick, who’s a crazy man, and he stirred up all these people, dug up every single person I knew because I was too open with them and slandered me and made up stories and approached you. I don’t know the total chain of events, but I will shortly.

Me: Okay, but you say that even though there are documents with your signature on them, especially the ones signed between you and and Jonathan Soloway, they’re not legitimate documents. Is that what you’re saying?

Devlin: They’re not. Jonathan knew very well that he was getting no salary till it was operational.

Me: Even though your signature’s on your document and promises…

Devlin: We tried to put together a document. It was null and void. Jonathan knew that – when was it made null and void immediately, within 10 minutes of it being signed.  

Me: Why was that?

Devlin: Because Jonathan put in fake clauses saying that I owe him $250,000. But the other clause says he’s not gonna get paid till there’s generation of revenue. I have witnesses. Nikki Bello.

Me: Is that in the document?

Devlln: I believe so. I’d have to review it if.

Me: Jonathan is in big (financial) trouble and you deny that you told him to stop making payments on his debt?

Devlin: I said to him, these were my words: ‘If they’re not gonna come after you, it’s better to conserve your cash and not pay creditors.” I’ve had much experience with people who have worked for me with creditors.

Me: Did you not tell him that you were gonna take care of his debts?

Devlin: I did.

Me: You did?

Devlin: Yeah.

Me: Did you?

Devlin: Not yet. I got ill and I was unable to work, and now I’m happy to take care of his debts, but after he slandered me, I’m no longer willing to do it.  

Me: Isn’t that a breach of contract then?

Devlin: There was no contract. It was friendly. It was a friendly promise to do my best to help him. Okay?

Me: But when I say there is a contract with your signature on it…

Devlin: I, I’d have to see it.

Me; Well, if I showed it to you, is it gonna make any difference?  

Devlin: Could. It depends on what it says. I have to go through my documents and I’ll tell you next interview. (At that point Devlin said something incomprehensible, but then suggested that Jonathan doesn’t have a case that any lawyer would take on, saying “No one will take the case.”)

Me: There was a lawyer who was quite willing to take the case, but the problem is – you’re penniless – so there’s no point in suing you.

Let’s talk about your finances. How much money do you have?

Devlin: Look, that’s not your business, but I have a lot of money.  

Me: Okay, you don’t think there’s a lawyer who’s quite willing to take the case (of a lawsuit against Devlin)?

Devlin: Go for it.

Me: But I asked the lawyer: Can Fred’s parents and his wife be included in a lawsuit?

Devlin: Yeah. And what did they say?

Me: He said, “no,” unless we can prove that somehow they were materially involved in all your affairs. By the way, how do you pay for all these meals at Hy’s and at the Fairmont?

Devlin: With my Interac card. Why?

Me: I’m just wondering who is supporting you? Is it your parents?

Devlin: Nobody supports me. No, no.

Me: It’s income from where? From the … group of companies, right?

Devlin: Correct.  

Me: The …group of companies? And David Simkin is the CEO, right?

Devlin: Okay. I get my money from him.

Me: Would I ever be able to talk to David Simkin?

Devlin: No.

Me: Because he’s Mossad, correct?

Devlin: Right. And that’s not his real name. Ari Duran, my chief of Global Intelligence and Security based in Tel Aviv, who’s worked for me for over 20 years – he’s also Mossad. Everyone who works in my senior executives are Mossad or IDF.

Me: Are you accompanied by Mossad agents?

Devlin: Most of the time. I won’t answer that.

Me: Are you ever accompanied by Mossad agents?

Devlin: Correct.

Me: What does that mean?

Devlin: They guard my family in Winnipeg, in Cleveland – for 20 years.

Me: Do you live at …? (At that point I recited the address where Fred and his wife are presumed to live)?

Devlin: That’s our safe house. We have 1909 Wellington Crescent, and we’re moving to Number One Wellington in September.

Me: Did you live at 277 Wellington Crescent ever?

Devlin: Yes.

Me: All right. Who paid for the apartment?

Devlin: I did.

Me: You did? You paid how?

Devlin: My company paid for it.

Me: Okay. To be accurate, your house is owned by someone else entirely, with a mortgage on it, right?

Devlin: We have the option to buy it. His name is Michael (name omitted). Yeah. And his number is 3 3 3 3 3 3. (Of all the baffling things Devlin said during this conversation, that number was the weirdest. I have no idea what he meant by saying that.)

Me: We did a search for the title on that house. It’s only valued at $439,000. But you say that’s a safe house?  

Devlin: Correct.

Me: So, where is your primary residence?

Devlin: I won’t answer that – for security reasons.

Me: Oh, for security reasons. Do you know how ludicrous this all sounds?

Devlin: I don’t care. I’m sure it does, but it’s true.

Me: And do you think that if you sued me for defamation and I were to have this played in court that you wouldn’t be laughed out of court? Fred, are you under psychiatric care right now?

Devlin: No.

Me; Have you ever been under psychiatric care?

Devlin: I was once under psychiatric care, but for a fact that I have a sleep disorder and I couldn’t sleep, and they had to give me medication through psychiatry to make me sleep. I don’t sleep 24 hours a day. I have a rare sleep disorder.  I never sleep and without the aid of medication, so that was the only time.

Me: Okay. So when I approached your mother years ago after I had met you and asked her: “What’s the story with …?” And she said, “… is not well, please go easy on him.,” what do you think she meant, Fred?  

Devlin: I wasn’t well physically and she wanted you to leave me alone.

Me: Well, was it because you weren’t well physically or weren’t well psychologically?

Devlin: No, it was physically.

Me: Have you ever been hospitalized for a psychiatric disorder?

 Devlin: I’m not gonna answer that. Alright. My health is out of court.

Me: Well, you just said that you don’t have any psychiatric disorder.

Devlin: I have letters from the Cleveland Clinic. Each year for my corporation, I have to get a healthcare letter. I have no… besides pneumonia. Now I’m in perfect physical and mental health. Okay. And I have letters from doctors in Cleveland and in Winnipeg. Okay.

Me: Who do you have working for you in Winnipeg?

Devlin: I won’t answer that…many people.

Me: Is (name omitted) one of the people?

Devlin: She did some free work for me, but I’m planning on hiring her as CEO of … Foundation, Winnipeg office.  

Me: Did you ever pay her anything?

Devlin: Not yet.

Me: Why not?

Devlin: ’cause we had no agreements in place for me to pay her. She was volunteering for the foundation.

Me: Or is it not the case that you have no money and it’s all a delusion, Fred?

Devlin: Okay, Bernie, whatever you say, keep up with slander. You know what? This interview is over if you continue this line.

Me: Well, since you denied that you’ve had any agreement with Jonathan Soloway, that you had any agreement with Rick, that you had a plan to to bring jets from Israel over to Canada to convert them for some sort of…

 Devlin: We are, uh, proceeding with that project.

Me: And this project has been ongoing for almost 18 or 20 years?

Devlin: No, no, three years. Just three years with Dan. Three or four years with Dan – who I offered a company. I offered him, I sent, he went to Israel on his own money.  Yeah. And he didn’t expect anything to be offered. I wasn’t gonna go to Israel because I thought his ideas that he had for 20 years may not be solid. He went on his own way to meet Gli, who’s a tremendous person, director of … I believe I have her name.

Me: There’s a whole slew of people you’ve contacted over the years. According to what I was told by (name omitted), you’ve recently contacted the head of the Winnipeg, Airport Authority and the head of Centerport.

Devlin: Not recently, although I phoned Carly (Edmundson, the President and CEO of CentrePort) yesterday.

Me: The CEO of CenterPort? Okay, what was the nature of your communication with her and the head of the Winnipeg Airport Authority (Nick Hays)? You have plans, right?  You have projects. What kind of project is it you want to develop?

Devlin: Next interview. I’ll be happy. Okay.

Me: They don’t know about your past history. Because when I told Carly in an email that you’re totally delusional, she responded that came as a surprise, but she said all that she did is introduce you to some other people.

That’s your style, isn’t it Fred? You network with people. You find people, you use them to contact other people.

Devlin: Correct.

Me: So, you admit that’s what you do?

Devlin: Oh, that works. Yes. Yeah.

Me: Okay, so you network with people and then you find what their particular area of expertise is. You have some background in aviation, so that gives you…

Devlin: And real estate… and financial markets. 

Me: Yeah. Okay. So that gives you the semblance of having some experience.

Devlin: I have deep experience.

Me: Then you lull people into thinking that you’re actually credible – right?

Devlin: Oh my god, that’s slander.

Me: But isn’t that how you operate?

Devlin: No, I don’t.

Me: No? What do you do?  

Devlin: Not at all.

Me: What do you do then? How do you network with people?

Devlin: I try to find people I can help and do Tikkun Olam with, at every level. Tikkun Global. Yeah. And every person I touch, I try to help.

Me: Okay. What charitable foundations have you ever financed?

Devlin: In Africa, we financed USAID, Save the Children, World Vision… many.

 Me: And you have proof for all that? That’s what Charlie told me that you told him when you suckered him into believing you.

Devlin: I suckered him? Yes. What a joke.

Me: Do you know the guy is suicidal? Do you know that I sent him money?

Devlin: How much money did you send him?  

Me: I sent him 600 Canadian dollars,but he still owes a lot more. (I later sent Charlie another $800. I still keep in regular touch with him. Charlie still finds it difficult to believe that Fred Devlin was a total fraudster.)

Devlin: Good for you. I paid him more.

Me: You haven’t paid him a cent.

Devlin: I put him through school for $650.

Me: Oh you did, did you?

Devlin: Yes.

Me: And what kind of school was that?

Devlin: His certificate’s in business. (After I had this conversation with Fred I contacted Charlie to ask him whether Fred had ever given him money for anything. He sent me a screenshot of a text from Fred that was sent in 2023 in which Fred asks the director of a school Charlie was attending to give him an extension on paying his tuition, saying that he will “receive the necessary funds to pay for his school after I return from Israel on my peace mission in early December. I need to be in Winnipeg to direct these funds to him.” Of course, there never way any payment of any sort, according to Charlie.)

Me: But you’ve been sending him threatening messages.

Devlin: Because he threatened me on Facebook.  

Me: What did he say on Facebook?

Devlin: He started writing all about me and saying I was a liar and I was… he slandered me. (I’m sure that Devlin was referring to the article I had posted on my website in February which contained that very detailed email outlining the litany of Fred’s broken promises. Somehow he had it confused with Facebook.)

Me: But that wasn’t Charlie who wrote that email.

Devlin: Who wrote it?

Me: You don’t know?

Devlin: I’ll find out.

Me: You think Charlie was capable of having written that email? (Charlie’s native tongue is French, and although his English is quite good, it didn’t take me long to realize that he couldn’t have written that January 16 email. I quicky deduced that it was Rick, who is capable of writing very well.)

Devlin: No. Was it Rick?

Me: That’s right. So why don’t you sue Rick?  

Devlin: I am.

Me: You are? Where?

Devlin: I have a lawyer in Florida. I have lawyers in Toronto who can operate in Florida.

(And then I asked him about a lawyer in Winnipeg who’s his cousin – and is the lawyer who threatened to sue me for defamation. I asked Fred whether that person has ever acted for him? He said he has – for many of his over 3,300 companies.) 

Me: Can you name one of those companies?

Devlin: Yes. Worldview Capital.

Me: Which is what?

Devlin: Which is what the airport is. Worldview Capital owns the world’s only financial model that works, generates between 250003300000.0% for annum. Yeah. It’s worth $1.15 trillion. I’m going to be making a deal with their candidate. (Again, totally incoherent)

 Me: And (Fred’s cousin) acted for you in this, correct?

Devlin: Right.

Me: So if I ask (cousin’s name – omitted here) that, do you think he’ll substantiate that?

Devlin: He’ll tell you what I asked him. He won’t talk to you, he’s not talking to you.

Me: Oh, is that right?

Devlin: I’ve done this on my own – against my lawyer’s advice.

Me: Does (your cousin) know that you’re here, that you’re meeting with me?  

Devlin: No.

Me: What would he say if he knew you were meeting with me?

Devline: He’d be pissed off.

Me: Yeah. What about your wife? Does she know? Pissed off, right? She knows that I’ve contacted you though – right?

Devlin: Yeah.

Me: Has she taken the phone away from you when various people have called you?

Devlin: No. No.

Me: Okay. What’s your wife’s role in all this?  

Devlin: My wife has no role in all this. She facilitates, she works for another company.

Me: Has she sat in on meetings?

Devlin: No, she did not.

Me: Well, according to someone who asked me not to name them, she has.

Devlin: I’d have to look it up.

Me: Yeah, please do. I’ve spoken to…(and then, Devlin interrupted me.)

Devlin: I don’t care who you’ve spoken to, you’re not getting good information.

Me: Okay, do you want the real truth?  I’d love for this to go to court. I’d want it to go to court because maybe that could put a stop to you. That’s why, when people ask me why I got so involved in this story, I say to them it’s because I’m trying to stop you from hurting other people – because you’ve hurt a lot of people, okay?

Devlin: If you say so and you’re not aware of what you’re doing…You make an excellent argument based on the fallacy of your assumptions, Bernie. 

Me: I don’t know where to take this. You’re substantiating everything that’s been told me about you so far.

Devlin: I need more interviews. I’ll be happy to talk to you about everything but this, this should not go into an article.

Me: Would you be surprised to know that I’m writing a story about you?

Devlin: No, but we’re gonna co-publish that story with the truth.  

Me: Oh, really? Do you think I’m gonna give you final edit on the story?

Devlin: No, I don’t expect it.

Me: I’m not even gonna let you see it. I’m gonna let the people who are mentioned in it see it before I try to publish it.

Devlin: Try it and see what happens to you.

Me: Well, I’ve already got one publisher who’s quite interested.

Devlin: I’m sure It’s a very interesting story.  

Me: It’s been fascinating trying to flesh it out.

Devlin: How about if it’s true, Bernie? Did you ever contemplate everything I told you is true? Has that ever gone through your mind? And then think about what you’ve done.

Me: You mean the story that you’re telling? Is the story true in whole or in part?

Devlin: No, it’s true in whole.

Me: Every part of the story, every single part? Every part about you owning over 3,300 companies? Are you a trillionaire or a billionaire?

Devlin: I’m a trillionaire.

Me: You’re a trillionaire.

Devlin: Over and over.

Me: Are you richer than Elon Musk?

Devlin: Much richer than Elon.

Me: Okay. Then why do you dress like this?

Devlin: Like what?

Me: I mean you’re presentable, but it’s not what I’d expect from a trillionaire.

Devlin: I care about my parents. I…

Me: If you’re a trillionaire, where are the bodyguards? I can’t imagine a trillionaire not being surrounded by bodyguards

Devlin: They’re here. You don’t see them, but they’re here.

Me: I don’t see them. Are they Mossad?

Devlin: Yeah, they’re Mossad. We don’t want to have (his wife), for instance worry about bodyguards for my family. So it’s invisible. I don’t even know where they are.

Me: You don’t even know where they are?

Devlin: I can find out quickly by just tapping a button on my phone. That’s the truth. Okay. Now if I tell you what I’m worth, would that be helpful?

Me: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

Devlin: $9.33 trillion.

Me: 9.33 trillion? How do you think that sounds?

Devlin: Do you think that when I have world…., but I know every up and down in stocks, commodities, currencies, commodities. I just trade. Automatically outta Luxembourg and I trade on my desk in my office and make millions of dollars.  

Me: Fred, how do you think your parents would react if I were to send them a transcript of this conversation?

Devlin: They’d be very upset.

Me: Why?

Devlin: Because they don’t know everything about my business.

Me: Do they know that you have $9.33 trillion?

Devlin: No. You know, I’m very wealthy.

(I then asked Devlin about a cottage that he’s told people he owns, but I don’t want to get too specific about the name of the lake for the same reason I didn’t give Devlin’s actual address. Even though anyone who knows the real person I’ve been calling Fred Devlin in this story would recognize him from everything I’ve written about him, I highly doubt that anyone who doesn’t know his family would know whom I’ve been writing about – but if I were to reveal his actual address and where the family cottage is, it would be much easier to establish what Devlin’s real name is.) 

Me: What kind of car do you drive?

Devlin: I drive a Porsche GT, three BMW convertibles. They’re not in Winnipeg right now because of the potholes. I store them in Florida and Cleveland. I have 17 cars that I collect for investments.  

Me: I see. And where did you tell me you’re flying to this weekend?

Devlin: I expected I’m to fly to Toronto to meet with Irvin Shane, one of my lawyers. Then I’m flying to Cleveland to spend about a month with my family going over our legal strategy to undo everybody. And then, we’re suing, unless you convince me that you’re an honest reporter.

 Me: Oh. Do you think I’m afraid of a threat of a lawsuit from you, Fred? If I were to play this in court…

Devlin: Um, you know what, Bernie…

Me: I’m surprised that you haven’t been committed to an institution.

Devlin: Um, I don’t know. I don’t know exactly the legalities of that anymore. Bernie. Bernie, be careful. Why you, you’re walking on thin ice…slandering me… try to go after my mental health.

Me: We’ll see what happens. But you go after Rick’s mental health.

Devlin: He’s self-admittedly mentally ill.

Me: No, Rick admits that he’s got some problems.

Devlin: Mm-hmm. how about anger?

Me: Yeah, he admits that.

Devlin: Why didn’t he call me when I was in the hospital to see where I am instead of gathering up all these people against me?  

Me: What were you doing in the hospital?

Devlin: I had a concussion from a brain injury.

Me: And when was this?

Devlin: Uh, seven weeks ago maybe. Yeah.

Me: You were just in the hospital? You had a concussion from a brain injury?

Devlin: Correct. Do you wanna see the picture of my head?

Me: Where did you fall?

Devlin: I was in the bathroom. It was dark. We normally have lights that light up. Motion detectors. I lost my orientation. Lost my balance and fell on my head. On the bed board. (But he had just stated that he fell in the bathroom.) Yeah. Cussed myself. Knocked myself out.

Me: Alright. But even while you were in a hospital – with a brain injury, you maintained contact with various people, right?  

Devlin: No. No.

Me: You didn’t phone people from the hospital?

Devlin: Not many. My phone was taken away.

Me: Who took it away?

Devlin: The doctor.

Me: Why?

Devlin: He didn’t want me making calls. He wanted me to rest.

Me: Which hospital were you in most recently?

Devlin: Victoria.

Me: And which ward were you in?

Devlin: I’m not gonna talk to you about my hospitalization ’cause you’re gonna twist it and write he’s got psychiatric problems.

Me: Isn’t it the case that were in the psychiatric ward of Victoria Hospital recently?

Devlin: I, I’m not gonna answer that. Do you have evidence that I was?

Me: I don’t, I’m just asking.

Devlin: Okay. Do I sound crazy, Bernie?

Me: Oh, you want me to answer that? Sure. You sound totally crazy, Fred.   And I feel sorry for you, I feel deeply sorry for you, but what happened is just that you harm so many people.

Devlin: I never harmed anybody. No.

Me: What about Charlie?

Devlin: Never harmed.

Me: He’s suicidal.

Devlin: That’s not my fault. No, no, no.

Me: So you didn’t promise to fund his charitable foundation and he went out and spent money on his own?  

Devlin: No. Never to start feeding (children). That’s not true.

Me: Poor African children, based on your promises to him?

Devlin: No, no, no. He asked me if I would send some money. ’cause he wants to feed the hungry. He brings porridge to them. Okay. To the hungry people.

Me: So did you send him money?

Devlin: No. No. Okay.

Me: Why not?

Devlin: Because I wasn’t involved at the time. I was planning on sending money…

Me: But you funded USAID and… which other charities? But you couldn’t send him a couple of thousand dollars. Why not?

Devlin: Was planning on it, but I, I got sick

Me: Did you ever pay Bob Anderson for any of the work he did?

Devlin: He never – I don’t owe him.

Me: Isn’t it true that either your father or your wife paid him?  

Devlin: No.

Me: Or maybe one of your brothers?

Devlin: No.

Me: Gave him a thousand dollars. That’s what he says.

Devlin: Could be.

Me: Because he said you kept refusing to pay him.

Devlin: Bullshit. He’s in the deepest of troubles.

Me: The confidentiality agreement thats you had him prepare, you had loads of people sign confidentiality agreements that Bob Anderson prepared, didn’t you?

Devlin: He didn’t.

Me: He prepared almost 15 non-disclosure agreements for people to sign. Why would you have people sign non-disclosure agreements? ‘

Devlin: Cause I don’t want to be gossiped about.

Me: Or is it the case you didn’t want other people to know about what you were doing?

Devlin: No.

Me: Because if other people knew about the nonsense you were spouting, absolutely they would’ve cut you off at the knees.

Devlin: Absolutely not. No. That was not my motive. No.

Me: So, when you approached Jonathan Soloway because he was an old childhood friend and you told him that you could help him by setting up this real estate investment trust and you sent him contracts, what was your motivation?  

Devlin: I didn’t send Jonathan contracts. No, I believe he sent them to me. (On that point Devlin was correct. I checked with Jonathan and he did say that he had the contracts prepared and sent to Devlin, adding that Devlin was incapable of producing the type of sophisticated agreements that Jonathan sent to him, but which show Devlin’s signature on them nonetheless.)

Me: Regardless, you signed the contract, but you say you didn’t sign the contract.

Devlin: Bernie. I didn’t say I didn’t sign it. I said, Jeff’s agreement that he sent me was bullshit.

Me: Okay, well, do I sound like I’m cross-examining you – because that’s what would happen if you went into court, Fred.

Devlin: I have zero problem. I’ve been in court many times.

Me: Would you be surprised to hear that different people are trying to initiate a police investigation of you now?

Devlin: There’s a police investigation of Rick…for threatening our lives, my mother’s and my life.

Me: Is that right? Where is that police investigation?  

Devlin: Rick twisted it to say I threatened him. What a joke.

Me: Would you be surprised to know that there was a file opened on you by York Regional Police in Ontario and it was sent to Winnipeg ?

Devlin: No. I don’t care. No.

Me: Do you care that there might be a police investigation of you?

Devlin: Doesn’t bother me.

Me: Doesn’t bother you at at all?

Devlin: No, I’ll be happy to speak to the police… and give them evidence.

Me: I’m not sure where it’s at. I just know that there was a file opened on you.

Devlin: I’m not going nowhere, but if it does go further, I’ll be happy to talk to the police.

Me: Okay, I think this is enough, Fred.  

Devlin: Um, are, are we gonna have another session? If you want,, I’d like the full truth to come out and then you can decide what to publish. I don’t feel you’ve given me justice.

April 26, 2026 This concludes my writing about Fred Devlin and his delusional cons. I was still receiving phone calls from Fred, however, asking when we could meet again – until I blocked him. And then I received a phone call from the man I’ve called Jack, who met Fred in the psych ward at Victoria Hospital. He was also totally incoherent, so I’ve blocked him too. I expect though that this story will still be ongoing. The man I’ve called Fred Devlin will likely continue to make contact with many more unsuspecting people and try to persuade them that he has a huge amount of money which he is willing to use to invest in various projects.

Further, I rather doubt any police force will proceed with an investigation. I’m sure whatever file ended up at Winnipeg Police Service has long been buried. But, since I decided to post these stories to my website – and I can reopen the story at any time, there may be more chapters to write.

If you’ve been reading these stories – either in whole or in part, you might like to know that I will compile them into one large pdf and make it accessible on this website at some point.

Post Views: 61

Features

BOOK REVIEW: “Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege”

Cover of "Fighting the Hate"; author Melanie Phillips

Reviewed by MURRAY BENDER “Thinking on your feet”—quickly defending a position in a coherent, persuasive manner—is a situation that many people find challenging and stressful. “If only I had said this.” or “Why didn’t I say that?” Hindsight is always 20-20.

Following the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023, it has become increasingly necessary for diaspora Jews to “think on their feet” as they unwittingly face a barrage of tough, sometimes hateful, questions about Jews and their Israeli homeland.

Why is Israel committing genocide in Gaza? Why doesn’t Israel return the land it has stolen from Palestinians? Why are Israeli settlers attacking Palestinian farmers? How is Israel different from apartheid South Africa? Why can’t I criticize Israel without being called antisemitic? Is it true that Jews control the world? The list of potential questions is nearly endless.

Engage or hide? This is the difficult choice that confronts Jews as they look to deal with anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli behaviour. Fortunately, author and journalist Melanie Phillips comes to the rescue with her practical and insightful book, Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege.

According to Phillips, the dilemma has no single answer. “People need to decide how to behave in accordance not just with the specific circumstances but also with their own attributes and limitations.”

Some regard engagement with their opponents as a sacred duty. “They believe it is a betrayal of the Jewish people not to uphold Israel’s case.” Ohers may be uncomfortable with such a direct approach, but “those who decide to keep their heads down and avoid any altercation may well find that this leaves them with a permanent sense of regret and even failure,” she says.

As a result, it’s probably a good idea to adopt some sort of balance. And that’s where Phillips’ 150-page handbook comes in.

She starts by providing context around the “crisis of legitimacy and acceptance” from which Jews are reeling post-October 7. On the basis of extensive conversations with Jews from across the U.S., Britain and Australia, the author found that many “were near stupefied by the terrifying hatred and irrationality that was unfolding around them.” Again and again, they asked: “What should we do? What can we do?”

In response, Phillips offers a pragmatic approach to help prepare for the inevitable conversations, including a number of key principles:

Get smart rather than emotional
Stop playing defence
Find common ground
Be positive and confident
Keep physically safe

Based on these overarching criteria, she provides an extensive list of quick and clever retorts to a range of different situations, emphasizing that “it’s our duty to our children and grandchildren to fight for truth and justice.”

So, the next time it is necessary to “think on their feet,” diaspora Jews will be able to respond quickly and confidently to those difficult questions about themselves and Israel. And they can thank Melanie Phillips for coming to the rescue.

Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege by Melanie Phillips is available online from Amazon and Indigo.

Post Views: 173

Jewish Post and News

Both sides

Features

Both sides

Features

I’m 15. Here’s why Kinew’s social media ban needs work

Features

Part 10 of the story of the delusional Winnipeg con man: The con man asks to meet with me and ends up being thoroughly grilled about the cons he’s pulled

Features

BOOK REVIEW: “Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege”

Recent Posts

Jewish Post and News

Both sides

You may like

Features

I’m 15. Here’s why Kinew’s social media ban needs work

Features

Part 10 of the story of the delusional Winnipeg con man: The con man asks to meet with me and ends up being thoroughly grilled about the cons he’s pulled

Features

BOOK REVIEW: “Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege”

Recent Posts