Features
Part 6 of my story of the delusional Winnipeg con man: The lawyer who worked with the con man for years
Bob Anderson and the non disclosure agreements Devlin insisted on people signing
By BERNIE BELLAN This is the sixth 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 other five parts have been posted here at: Part 1: “The delusional Winnipeg con man who actually believed his own elaborate con and led one victim in Africa to consider committing suicide”; Part 2: “Meeting the con man for the first time in 2021; Part 3: “An explosive email arrives in my inbox on January 16.”; Part 4: Someone in LA figures out who everyone else was that was conned; and Part 5: The plan to buy jets in Israel and convert them to planes that could fight forest fires
As I was piecing together this rather incredible story, I was repeatedly told that one of the things Devlin would insist upon when he began communicating with someone – supposedly for the purpose of backing them in one sort of investment or another, was that they sign a non disclosure agreement.
One name kept coming up: Bob Anderson. Anderson, I was told, was the person who would send out these nondisclosure agreements. In two instances, I was also told, Bob Anderson sent out cease and desist letters to individuals, one of whom, Jonathan Soloway, had entered into what he thought was a legitimate business relationship with Devlin, but who was so angered and frustrated over Devlin’s constant delaying providing the funds which he had promised would be forthcoming that he went so far as to contact Devlin’s parents. Apparently that angered Devlin to the point where he asked Bob Anderson to send a cease and desist letter to Jonathan. The other letter, as Bob was to tell me during a phone conversation, was sent to a psychiatrist in a hospital where Devlin was being treated.
It was in my talking to Rick that I learned about Bob Anderson and the integral role he had played in leading the many individuals who fell victim to Fred Devlin to believe that Devlin was absolutely on the up and up. Because Rick was the one individual who was the first to come to know all the other players in this story, I relied upon Rick to be the intermediary between me and each of the individuals to whom I eventually spoke – either over the phone or, as was the case, through emails with one particularly unfortunate individual in Africa who told me he was contemplating suicide over what Devlin had done to him.
But, as Rick explained to me when he first broached the name Bob Anderson to me, it was Bob Anderson who had aided Devlin in his duplicity. Rick added that he doubted Anderson would be willing to speak with me because, Rick thought, Bob would be too embarrassed to own up to his role in this whole sordid story.
In time though, Rick got back to me to say that Anderson had agreed to talk to me after all. I was somewhat surprised when I heard that – and wondered what had led to his change of heart?
Now, I have to admit that, although I’ve had a long career in publishing, I wouldn’t have thought of myself as a well known journalist. Sure, I’ve Googled my name a couple of times (who hasn’t?) and what comes up are a number of stories with which I’ve been associated over the years. I’m most proud of work I did over 20 years ago to expose an investment fund in Manitoba known as the Crocus Fund. It really had nothing to do with the Jewish community per se, but, each year for many years The Jewish Post & News would publish an annual investment guide. It was in 2002 that I wrote an exposé of the Crocus Fund which, I suggested in my article, was in very deep financial trouble.
For that, I was threatened with a lawsuit (to which I referred earlier in this story). But, in 2004 the Crocus Fund was placed into receivership and further, I went on to become the representative plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Crocus Fund shareholders against a number of defendants. That lawsuit eventually garnered over $12 million in damages for Crocus Fund shareholders. I’m quite proud of the role I played, both in exposing the house of cards upon which the Crocus Fund was built, and in being able to help bring some degree of compensation to Crocus Fund shareholders. So, when you Google my name, as perhaps Bob Anderson might have done, you’re going to come across some references to my role in the whole Crocus Fund affair.
I mention all this as a preamble to what is about to follow, which is an account of my phone conversation with Bob Anderson. In what now ensues I try to retain as much of the flavour of our actual conversation as possible. Thus, there seem to be sudden leaps in Anderson’s train of thought, but that’s not all that unusual. After all, there’s a well known president whose speaking style is so incoherent that even he is aware of that, but tries to pretend that it’s deliberate by describing it as “the weave.” To a certain extent Anderson weaved in and out of thoughts, too.
Bob Anderson phoned me one day in February 2026, to say that he was willing to talk to me. I told him that I was going to record the conversation, to which he responded: “I just want to tell you it’s an honor and a pleasure to talk to you about what I read about you. You have led a meritorious life, self-sacrificing, particularly for the Jewish community, and it sounds like you’re the ultimate voice of reason that they need more people like you. And I just want to take my hat off to you and the service you’ve offered and bestowed upon your community up there, and I just am proud to be talking to you.”
Well, talk about exaggeration! I’m not sure there are many who would go so far as to describe what I’ve accomplished over the course of my career in quite such laudatory terms – and I honestly wondered whether I was being set up for what would turn into nothing more than a round of total B.S.
So, I responded: “Well, thank you for that. Okay, this isn’t about me. But let me start by asking you, When did you first meet Fred Devlin?”
Anderson: “It was about 20 years ago.”
Me: “Do you want to tell me the circumstances?”
Anderson: “Sure. Okay, well, I mean, I don’t have to tell you that, but I met him about 20 years ago up in Winnipeg. I met him in person.” (Why would he say he didn’t have to tell me that, I wondered? Why not?)
He went on: “It was the first time I had contact with him. And I’ll try to give you a little short story, .. I’m not actively practicing law, but that was back when I was actively practicing law, and I was engaged by a group up in Canada who had a real bleeding heart for Bolivia, and they wanted to buy a bank … Like, put it in the foundation.” (I still don’t know what he was talking about, but as is often the case when you’re interviewing someone, you don’t want to disrupt their train of thought, so you just let them wander on – strange as what they may have just said sounds.) “It was a bank that was struggling in Bolivia.” (I have to admit that the first thought that came to mind when he mentioned a bank in Bolivia was “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” Anyone who’s seen that movie would understand what I’m talking about.)
Anderson continued: “So I went all the way up to Canada, and Mr. Devlin – Fred Devlin was a prospective investor they wanted me to talk to as I was their kind of international tax counsel for the project.” (Again, who were the “they” Anderson was referring to, I wondered?) “And I met him in person. We had about a 15- to 20-minute meeting, and he was very well-dressed, very well-spoken.
“He was very well-groomed, had a good sense of humor, and, you know, we seemed to kind of have common ground on spiritual… Even though he’s Jewish, I’m Christian. We had, you know, the fact that he felt family… His priorities in life were similar to mine, you know, God, family, and country kind of thing. So we just kind of hit it off personally.
“He seemed like a real nice guy, and then I just kind of lost contact. I mean, we didn’t have any contact for many years. You want to go to the next step?”
Me: “Before we do that – when you met him, what did he present himself as? What did he claim to be?”
Anderson: “He was just, you know, it’s funny. In fact, I’m just trying to think. He was just a businessman, a successful business real estate investor. Real estate. Business real estate.”
Me: “Did he mention at that time the Xanadu group of companies?”
Anderson: “Not at that time. No, sir. No, sir…He kept bragging, kind of bragging. Well, not bragging, but he was… The number one thing in his resumé was his relationship with Izzy Asper…And then we had a hiatus of several years.”
I then told Anderson that, of all the people with whom I had spoken, his relationship with Devlin went back the longest (20 years). I said to him: “I’ve been trying to understand when did Fred completely flip? And apparently it happened sometime when he was around 30 that he started developing these delusions.
“Apparently he was quite capable before then. I believe he had a position with the…” (and I’m deliberately omitting where Devlin was employed because if I get too specific a lawyer might say that I didn’t sufficiently disguise Devlin’s true identity.) “And he did get his Master’s in Business Administration at the University of Manitoba.
“So that all checks. So, you know, for me, the curious part is when someone develops a delusion, a psychosis, when did it happen? And according to his mother, she corroborated that it happened sometime when he was around 30 and he’s 60 now. So you would have met him when he was in his 40s.
“And I think what’s happened, my observation is that it’s gotten worse in more recent times, his delusions. But I want you to continue. You said there was a period of time then when you didn’t have any contact with him, right?”
Anderson: “Right.”
Me: “So when were you in contact again?’
Anderson: “Well, just to put a finishing on the Bolivia story, I went ahead and did that project with the Canadians.” (The way Anderson said “the Canadians,” you’d think he’s talking about a really shady group, like say, “the Chechens.”) “But, you know, Fred ended up not wanting to invest.”
Now, at this point Anderson’s language got really twisted, but I want to retain the flavour of it: “I had a little suspicion of being capable of investing and then it was a nice opportunity for somebody who had a heart for the living people, you know, like an altruistic, a neo-mercenary kind of a heart, which he presented himself as representing. But anyway, he had no involvement in that project, lost contact with him for, it could have been 10 years, I mean, it’s just been a lot of years. I mean, it could have been, it could have easily been 10 years, 15 years.
“And then he just kind of, he got in contact with me about, I think it was for the explicit purpose of doing an NCND, a non-disclosure agreement.” (I wasn’t sure what Anderson meant by “NCND.” I knew a nondisclosure agreement is commonly referred to as an NDA, but I had to look up NCND. The closest I could come to that term is what is known as an NCNDA: a Non-Circumvention, Non-Disclosure Agreement. Here’s the definition of an NCNDA: “a specific type of contract used in international trade or business deals where one party wants to ensure that the other party does not bypass them (“circumvent” them) to do business directly with their contacts or intermediaries, while also keeping shared information confidential.”)
“I don’t know why he, I guess he probably figured I would do it for him for free or something. He kind of preyed upon, as I look back on it, he kind of, I guess, you know, felt like I might do it for him on a friendship basis or something like that.
“And I did do it and he loved it. I mean, it’s a great agreement. It’s really tight, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, it’s only a couple of pages, but it’s a very tight NCND.
“And then from that though, the reason I’m making a point of that, most of my, like, quote-unquote, representing him, not as an attorney, but just as a quote-unquote advisor, most of it was sending this NCND out to all these people. Like every so often he’d send an NCND here to protect me and, you know, protect him. So I would send a cover letter and an NCND and that’s most of the contact, that’s like 99%, 90%, 90% of the contact I had with people on his behalf was sending out this NCND for them to sign and execute.
“I don’t know why…, I guess he probably figured I would do it for him for free or something. He kind of preyed upon, as I look back on it, he kind of, you know, felt like I might do it for him on a friendship basis or something like that.
“And I did do it and he loved it. I mean, it’s a great agreement. You know, it’s really tight, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, it’s only a couple of pages, but it’s a very tight NCND.
At this point I have to step back – and give my head a shake – something I did metaphorically throughout my researching material for this story. Here was a lawyer – talking about creating very “tight” non-disclosure agreements or, as he referred to them, as “NCND’s” – and he’s clearly very proud of the work he did for Devlin.
But, what the hell was it all for, I wondered? And didn’t he ever stop to think – just why was he sending out those NDAs or NCND’s or whatever the heck he wanted to call them? What was it in whatever agreements that various parties were signing with Devlin that Anderson was requiring of the recipients of whatever it was he was sending to them that had to remain so absolutely confidential that no one could even talk about what was in those agreements with anyone else?
Since my conversation with Anderson though, I have seen actual agreements between Devlin and some of the individuals who were to become part of his vast delusion. I admit those agreements are very impressive. They spell out in precise detail the respective obligations of Devlin and the person with whom he was entering into an agreement. They are very detailed contracts – and clearly reflect the knowledge and experience of someone who had an extensive business background.
Which makes me wonder all the more – when did someone of such obvious talent and experience go completely off the rails? My own brief encounter with Devlin eight years ago didn’t offer me the kind of insight into his approach that others must have witnessed – where they would have been dazzled by his extreme self-confidence, composure, and apparent vast business experience. In time, as I was to speak to others who were taken in by Devlin – and some of them mentioned names of some very prominent individuals who had also come into contact with Devlin and who had also spoken quite highly of him, I began to realize that his delusion was so intricate – and he so totally believed in what he was telling people, that it was possible to get a better understanding how he was able to completely fool so many people into thinking he was the real deal.
I must also disclose that I have attempted to contact some of the people whose names have been mentioned to me as also having been part of Devlin’s network – and who hold very prominent positions in the business world. In one instance, I did get a response from one of those individuals.
I had written a similar email to several different people, in which I asked about the extent of their relationships with Fred Devlin.
I would send emails to head offices of companies or organizations, explaining who I was and why I was trying to contact specific individuals. In one instance, I did receive a response.In the following email, I’ve left out the real name of the person who is the subject of this story. I’ve also omitted the name of the person I was trying to contact”
Hi,
I’m writing a story about someone by the name of …. …. is totally delusional and has defrauded many different people all over the world.
I’m told that …. had some contact with … at some point. I’d like to speak to … about the nature of their contact with …
I can be reached at ….
Thank you.
Bernie Bellan
Publisher,
Here is the response I received:
Hi Bernie,
Thanks for reaching out.
This is a troubling email! I’m afraid I don’t know Mr. …. very well. …oversees the development of … helps to facilitate investment into … markets it nationally and internationally. Mr. …reached out to … in order to inquire about opportunities at … so we gave him some information and connected him with a couple of folks to continue his conversations, same as we would for any company or individual considering investing in operations at ….. It’s been several months since we last spoke.
I wish you the best with your project!
….
I thanked …for responding to me:
Hi ….,
Thanks for getting back to me. I wonder what became of the contacts you gave …. His pattern of behaviour has been to insinuate himself into someone’s life by making him seem to be someone of great importance and wealth, and then once he has someone’s interest – to broach the idea that he would be willing to invest in a particular project that someone may be trying to advance. He would also try to obtain contacts from whoever it was that he was discussing a project idea with.
The problem is he is absolutely delusional. He has no money and all his talk of putting up investment dollars has always been total nonsense.
I hope that whoever it was that you might have put in touch with … didn’t get too far into it with him. He’s deceived people all over the world into thinking that he’s someone of great wealth.
While the story is fascinating, it’s also very sad once you know how many people have been deceived by ….. Right now I’m working closely with someone who’s been trying to get a police investigation of …. launched, but it’s been a bureaucratic nightmare as different police forces claim that it’s not in their jurisdiction and they keep passing the buck.
I’ve also put that same individual in touch with one of Winnipeg’s leading law firms. Their head of civil litigation says that there’s a solid case to be made against …., but the problem is he’s absolutely penniless so what’s the point of seeing him?. I believe he’s being supported by his very wealthy parents, but the lawyer says that they can’t be held liable for their son’s behaviour.
And, as I wrote to you, it’s all so crazy that I decided to write a story about it. But even as I’ve been writing it I’v’e been finding out more and more about …, including just recently when I was told that he had contacted you and ….from ….
You were good enough to respond to me.
…. hasn’t.
Thanks at least for responding.
-Bernie
And so, even though I began this story by asking how so many people could have been taken in by what was clear to me almost from the moment I met Devlin, was his total delusion that he was a hugely wealthy businessman and owner of a vast network of companies, as time wore on – and I spoke to more individuals who had fallen prey to his charming blarney, I began to understand how each individual was unaware there were other individuals who had become part of Devlin’s delusion. (And that is why those nondisclosure agreements or whatever Anderson called them played such a crucial role in keeping each individual who was to be victimized by Devlin ignorant of others who were in similar situations.)
It occurred to me as I was writing this story that the fact Devlin was so insistent on anyone with whom he was supposedly entering into some sort of business arrangement sign a nondisclosure agreement perhaps meant that somewhere in that twisted mind of his he had a sense that what he was doing was actually a total fraud. Or, perhaps his past business experience would come to the fore and he would put into practice lessons he had learned years before without actually realizing that he was exhibiting totally delusional behaviour. I don’t think I’ll ever know if either of those suppositions is correct.
I asked Bob to describe what he would send to the various individuals to whom he sent nondisclosure agreements. How would he explain why he wanted them to sign NDAs (or whatever he called them)?
He said that he’d send “a cover letter out explaining the request to sign the agreement…So I’d send, you know, just, hello, how are you, please see the attached agreement. That was the extent of these letters I’d sent out.”
Me: “Any idea approximately how many of these letters you sent out?”
Bob: “10 to 15.”
That at least gave me some idea of the scope of Devlin’s network – and how many more people might have been approached by him within the past few years of whom I wasn’t aware. Remember, Bob had said that he had first met Devlin 20 years ago and then had lost contact with him for 10-15 years. It was only after they reconnected that Devlin asked Bob to start sending out those NDAs, which must mean it was likely only within the past 5-10 years that his delusion took hold completely. Also, each of the individuals with whom I spoke, other than Dan Winthrop, told me they had come into contact with Devlin only in the past five years. Dan Winthrop, you may remember reading, said that he met Devlin 16 or 18 years ago – he wasn’t sure.
All this makes me wonder what was going on in Devlin’s life in the more distant past. I know that he had been hospitalized on several occasions – in the psych ward, in different hospitals, based on accounts given to me by different individuals. And, I know that when I met him he claimed that he had stepped back from running his vast network of companies and was at that point interested in pursuing his philanthropic work.
But, something must have happened that led Devlin to become so active in establishing contact with different individuals in recent years – always with the intention – or so he would tell them, of investing in different businesses or, as proved to one of the most damaging lies he told – of helping that individual in Africa to whom I referred earlier (Charlie) establish a charitable foundation.
Since no one in Devlin’s family has ever been willing to talk about Devlin – beyond saying that he’s “not well,” it’s very hard to know what else he might have been up to in all the years since he had attained a very senior business position. Was he for a very long time attempting to inveigle himself into people’s lives under the premise that he was a wealthy businessman who wanted to invest in their businesses or help bring a project to fruition?
I can’t really answer that. But it is apparent that within the past five years Fred Devlin was quite active in contacting various individuals and spinning his incredibly deluded fantasy.
To return to Bob Anderson’s story, which takes an interesting twist. He had explained that he had sent out a large number of NDAs on behalf of Devlin and then, he said: “I lost contact with him again.”
But, Bob continued: “Shortly after that, we got real hot and heavy, I mean, you know, he wanted me to come up to Winnipeg and he wanted to be the family counsellor and all this stuff – to the point where he had plane reservations and I was about to step on a plane to go up there and see him.
“Then all of a sudden I got this call, you know, he was in the hospital, he was sick or something like that, which I don’t really buy the story now. I think he just couldn’t afford a plane ticket or something like that. And then several years after that, I think he had this relapse, probably one of these relapses into the hospital, probably for the mental side, you know.
“I think he might have said he hurt himself. And then several years after that, he got back in touch with me again and wanted me to write some more of these letters, which I did. And then I lost contact after a couple years after that and then he resurfaced a couple years ago.
“And then for the past couple years on and off, he’s been requesting the same type of thing. And then in the process, offering me all these opportunities and, you know, all these potential contract agreements and going to make me rich. And he always wanted to give me a piece of the equity.“
Now, if you’re confused by the apparent contradictions in Bob’s story, then join the club. What period of time was he talking about, I wondered? At one point he claimed that he “had lost contact with him again,” but then he says “Shortly after that, we got real hot and heavy.” So, how long was it that he didn’t have contact with Fred?
It doesn’t really matter because this entire story is about one huge delusion: Devlin’s unshakable belief that he was an extremely wealthy and successful businessman. Trying to figure out the chronology of events that occurred – such as when did Bob Anderson actually have contact with Devlin is almost impossible since Bob’s narrative is all over the place.
I asked him though, what were the “opportunities” that he said Devlin offered him?
Here’s what he answered: ‘Let me pull up his letterhead. Let’s see, I’m pulling it up here. Okay. He said I was going to become Chief Global and Senior Advisor. And he gave me this address called Boulevard Grand, Duchesne, Charlotte, Luxembourg City.”
Me: “The headquarters for his global group of companies – right?”
Bob: “Right, right.”
Me: “Man, his delusions are fascinating, but you can just imagine the imagination that went into them.”
Bob: “No kidding, no kidding.”
Me: “So did he ever offer to pay you for any of the work you were doing?”
Bob: “Oh, yeah. Oh, and as a matter of fact, he paid me a thousand dollars or something a couple times, but I think that ended up coming from his father. I think he borrowed it from his father or maybe his wife or maybe even his mother or his father himself. It might have even been one of his brothers. I’ve had sporadic contact with most of his family.”
That payment provided a crucial piece of evidence that Devlin’s family was well aware what he was doing – and, in fact, was complicit in his behaviour. Based on that, when I was later to talk to Jonathan (whose name I mentioned early in this story as someone who had lost quite a bit of money as a direct result of Devlin having convinced him to stop paying his debts; I’ll explain all that in another chapter), I told Jonathan that he should sue Devlin, his wife, and his parents. In fact, I told Jonathan that I knew of several Winnipeg lawyers who might be willing to take on a lawsuit of that sort. I did contact a very well known lawyer and, as of the time of writing and, as I’ll explain, the law firm was willing to take on the case to sue Devlin on behalf of Jonathan, but the lawyer who was going to handle the case said there were no legal grounds for extending the lawsuit to Devlin’s wife or his parents.
Bob, however, noted that getting that $1,000 payment from Devlin wasn’t easy, but he was sure the cheque was signed either by Devlin’s wife or his father; he couldn’t recall.
I said to him that “the point of my trying to find out about the source of his funds is Rick has been pretty adamant that without the support of his parents, he wouldn’t have been able to carry on whatever he’s been doing.”
Bob: “It was just amazing. I’m sure the company line he gave to all the other people he talked to, to Rick and Jonathan and everybody else was that he had some impediment where he couldn’t transfer all of his millions of dollars into North America. I mean, I kept saying, ‘If you’re the richest guy in the world,’ which is what he claimed at one point, ‘why can’t you send $100 or $200?’ And he said, ‘well, I just don’t have any cash. I can’t get cash.’ “
I said to Bob that what he just told me led me to react the same way I had reacted when I had heard everyone else’s story of their dealings with Fred Devlin: “It sounds like this guy just wanders in and out of reality. And when he’s in his delusional state, he starts contacting people. I’m not sure how much thinking was going into it. His delusion simply takes over.”
Rick, though, had mentioned that Bob had sent a couple of “cease and desist” letters, as well as NDAs. I wanted to ask Bob about those cease and desist letters. I said to him: “I was told Fred had sent out cease and desist letters. Did you author those letters, as well?”
Bob: ‘Well, when he was in the hospital, he claimed they were keeping him against his will. He would dictate a letter and I would just send it out on his behalf. I’d say on behalf of Fred Devlin. I made it very clear that I was just parroting what he had told me to say. I don’t think it ever did any good at all, it sounded so desperate, I really kind of felt sorry for him.”
As I noted earlier, Bob explained that he had sent two cease and desist letters. One was to a psychiatrist in a hospital where Fred was being treated. The other, however, was to Jonathan Soloway – the fellow in Ontario who actually lost a lot of money as a result of Devlin’s promises to Jonathan that he would be paid a huge salary if he entered into a contractual relationship with Devlin to develop a Real Estate Investment Trust. Jonathan did not take kindly to Devlin’s failure to fulfill his obligations and subsequently began to send threatening letters to Devlin saying that he was going to sue him for breach of contract. That’s when Devlin asked Bob to send Jonathan a cease and desist letter.
Bob now admits he is deeply embarrassed over having sent that letter, saying he’s since “apologized” to Jonathan. Bob says: “And here Fred had me send this letter to him like he was being preyed upon by Jonathan. It was just the opposite.”
At that point in my conversation with Bob, he went off on a totally different tangent, telling me he had “a deep interest in outer space and rockets.” What? Where was this going, I wondered?
He began to describe his particular interest in “outer space entrepreneurship.”
Now, before you lose interest, I have to disclose that in another conversation that I had – previous to my conversation with Bob, I was told that Devlin’s past experience in the aviation industry had played a prominent role in his having networked with someone else – this time an Israeli fellow by the name of Avi, who now lives in the US. That will be the subject of a later chapter, but suffice to know that Devlin was able to convince many intelligent people that he wanted to enter into an arrangement whereby he would bring jets from Israel to be converted into water bombers in Canada.
And that’s where Bob Anderson picks up the story: “I got an email from a lady named Dalit Galon (not her real name) and she’s in Canada, but she’s like a public relations representative for Israeli aerospace. I looked her up – you know, on AI, she’s a legitimate person. And Fred’s big project was going to be to convert 67 planes from Israel in Canada into flame retardant sprayers.”
I said to Bob that I had heard that story from someone named Avi. I asked Bob whether he knew Avi? He said he didn’t.
Bob continued with his story about Devlin and his having contacted people involved in the Israeli aerospace industry: “I have correspondence, I don’t think he could have faked these emails. I have correspondence from him to these people, and these people replying to him.”
I said to him: “Yeah, I can see how people can get enmeshed in this kind of web. It’s not conspiracy, it’s just delusion.”
Of course though, nothing ever came of Devlin’s grand plan to bring jets over from Israel to Canada. Bob eventually came to the realization that there was nothing of substance in any of Devlin’s supposed plan: “The main thing really that came through to me is, the thing he wanted to do most – was just talk. We got to talk, we got to talk, and we get on the phone, he’s taking my time to talk for half an hour, and then he said, ‘Well, I got to go, we’ll continue next week.’ He never comes to any conclusion.”
I responded: “Well, that’s the pattern of someone who’s delusional. Okay, so was there a certain point where you just realized that this is all just fakery, and that he is delusional? Or was it just gradually, over time, you came to that conclusion?”
Bob: “I’d get to a point and say, ‘Fred, we’ve got to have some money here, a retainer or something, I just can’t deal with talking and spending my time’, and I’d kind of cut him off. He’d come back in six months and say, ‘well, I think I’ve got it all worked out, including the money.’
“And I kept thinking maybe – like Elon Musk will make these crazy things. To me, putting a civilization on Mars is about as crazy as what Fred would talk about. Although, of course, Fred claims he’s richer than Elon, he knows Elon.”
And then Bob was brought back into reality by Rick: “That’s where I got the face slap,” he says. “You know, he (Rick) shook me up. He was the first person that said, ‘Look, you know, this ain’t right. This ain’t so. I’ve got all these other people (who had been victimized by Devlin).
“But he was the first person that really shook me into reality. And I just felt like a dog for, you know, just going along with this thing. And then that’s when I apologized to Jonathan and I apologized to Rick.
“And I just felt like a dog. And, you know, I blame it on me for being gullible. You know, I don’t hold any grudges. I shouldn’t have been that gullible. You know, I’m no spring chicken. I’m 76 years old, but I still should not have been that gullible.”
I said to Bob: “But you see, as I wrote to Rick last night, I really wanted to speak to you because you were coming at it from a different perspective. You weren’t being asked to invest. You were sort of facilitating Bart’s delusions to a certain extent.”
Bob: “Yeah. Unfortunately. Yeah.”
And then Bob asked me something that left me confused for a moment. He said: “Let me ask you: Did you get the museum open?”
Me: “What museum?”
Bob: “I read an article that you were going to convert a synagogue.”
I realized then what it was to which he was referring. It was a story I had written some years back about a plan by a Winnipeg doctor to partially convert Winnipeg’s oldest synagogue building into a partial museum. I was quite impressed that Bob had actually read that story. It told me he wasn’t just buttering me up when he was laying it on so thick at the beginning of our conversation about what an honour it was to speak to someone who had done so much for the Jewish community of Winnipeg. Of course, that’s nonsense. I’m just a former newspaper publisher. But it did tell me that Bob had actually read at least one article I had written.
I explained to him that I didn’t know what the status of that museum project was, but it did remind me that I should follow it up with that Winnipeg doctor. I said to Bob: “As far as I know, they’re just doing feasibility studies now. Honestly, I don’t believe that project will go anywhere. But unlike Fred Devlin’s ideas, it does have some basis in reality.”
Bob said: “You come across with a stellar resumé and life’s work, and you’ve done a lot of great things. I just want to commend you, sir, and it was a pleasure to talk to you.”
I responded: “Okay, thanks very much, Bob.”
He said: “Take care. Yes, sir. Let me know if you need anything.”
I signed off, saying: “I certainly will. Thank you very much for calling. Have a good day.”
Coming next: A patient in a psych ward meets Fred Devlin in the psych ward
Features
What Constitutes Genocide, and is Israel Guilty?
By HENRY SREBRNIK Genocide is a grave and exceptional violation of international law, defined and prohibited by the Genocide Convention of 1948. But maybe Raphael Lemkin did us no favour in coining the word during the Holocaust. It is now used by antisemites against Israel.
Raphael Lemkin was a Polish-Jewish jurist who escaped from Europe when the Nazis occupied Poland. He moved to Washington, DC, in the summer of 1942, and went on to document Nazi atrocities in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. In this text, he introduced the word “genocide,” the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, ethnicity or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing).
But it’s not that cut and dried. Even before the antisemites accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, as a way of ridding themselves of any residual guilt about the destruction of European Jewry, the word had become little more than a term used by states and “human rights” groups who for one reason or another want to punish their adversaries.
Most of the time they really are talking about “ethnic cleansing,” pogroms, massacres and war crimes. By such criteria, every participant in World War II committed “genocide.” The mass killings of civilians in Hiroshima and Dresden in 1945 would today qualify. But these were acts against even far worse perpetrators of what we now call genocide, designed to speedily end the war.
What about the American war in Vietnam, and of course the almost numberless conflicts across Africa? The wars that dismembered Yugoslavia involved terrible massacres, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, but did they really meet the criterion for genocide? The numbers killed needn’t be huge. About 8,000 Bosniak Muslims were murdered in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb militias in 1995 during the Bosnian war. In the Western Hemisphere it would — and lately does — refer to the cultural and also physical extinction of pre-contact peoples from the Arctic down to Patagonia.
Are ideological attempts to kill groups of identifiable people within a state — the Holodomor in Ukraine, but also elsewhere in Stalin’s USSR — genocide? What about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Should we call this an “auto-genocide,” since it was perpetrated by the nation’s own mad Maoist regime? Was China’s Cultural Revolution a genocide? Millions probably died. Rwanda is an interesting case — obviously a mass murder by one class-cum-ethnic group against another, a giant pogrom involving intertwined peoples, but where the victims have now turned the tables.
Actually, there have been very few ideologically intentional attempts to destroy a powerless and helpless people, in whole or in part. Only a few qualify by that definition, the Holocaust being an obvious one, as well as the Turkish mass murders of Armenians in World War I. The allegations that Israel committed this crime do not meet the established definition and standards of genocide, are unsupported by established facts, nor do they stand up to common sense scrutiny.
A finding of genocide requires evidence of acts that are intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Israel has neither intended to, nor destroyed, Palestinians as a group in Gaza. Israel’s accusers allege genocide mostly because of the supposed number of civilians killed in Gaza. Such claims are rife with flaws. Genocide is not a quantitative crime; there is no specific number of civilian casualties that constitutes genocide.
Israel set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing, including the death of its own civilians. What kind of genocide is it when the population of Gaza is larger today than it was three years ago? And how could it be that Israel is trying to kill innocents when the ratio of civilian-to-combatant casualties is lower than that of other urban wars fought in even less-difficult conditions?
Dave Rich, an Associate Research Fellow at the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism, writes extensively about the intersection of anti-Israel activism, far-left politics, and modern antisemitism. He observes that people respond to the genocide charge through facts and data: Israel’s supporters take the charge of genocide on its face, as an evidence-based allegation of a crime, and try to construct the case for the defence. But there is no defence, because the charge is not made on that basis, or for that purpose, he states.
The term “genocide,” he notes in “From Be’eri to Bondi: Global Antisemitism After October 7, published in Fathom, October 2026, has shed its legal meaning and become a political label, whose antithesis is “resistance.” These two terms represent two states of being: in a colonial setting, either you are engaging in genocide or you are resisting it. There is no middle ground. “Israel is condemned as genocidal, not by observation, but through logical deduction: Israel is colonial, therefore by definition it is genocidal. It cannot be otherwise. And Gaza represents resistance against the entire Western colonial and capitalist power structure.”
Maia Zelkha, editor-in-chief of Yad Mizrah, a Sephardi and Mizrahi cultural magazine, also contends that the left employs the word “genocide” as an ideological weapon. “Before Israel had even launched its ground invasion of Gaza, and before there was any evidentiary record of Israel’s military campaign,” she writes, in her article “Genocide and Its Jurors,” in Quillette, Sept. 24, 2026, many leftist groups “were already describing Israel’s response as genocide.”
On Oct. 8, just a day after Hamas’s massacre and kidnappings, thousands of demonstrators gathered in New York’s Times Square in an “All Out for Palestine” rally to support “Palestinian resistance.” Within days, other organizations were issuing statements describing Israel’s unfolding military response as genocide, situated within a pre-existing theory of Israel as a colonial project that had produced genocidal dehumanisation. Prominent academics, human-rights organisations, activists, journalists, and public intellectuals described Israel’s conduct as genocidal.
Although the conviction that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians is not new, it has garnered ever more strength since the beginning of this war. In March 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, published a report alleging that the Israeli war in Gaza constituted a genocide. In December of the same year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did the same. Then in July 2025 came both Physicians for Human Rights and B’Tselem, followed almost immediately by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. A resolution from the latter organization requires a two-thirds vote of its members, academics in the field of genocide studies, to pass. One would be hard-pressed to find a more reputable source for the libel.
On Sept. 16, 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza; other prominent left-wing organisations and scholars have reached the same conclusion. And finally, on Oct. 9, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to South African judge Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, who led the 2025 UN commission that found Israel guilty of genocide against the Palestinians while completely ignoring many of the world’s worst human rights abusers, including, of course, Hamas. Pillay’s commission found that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes. Yet it accused Israel of genocide. This is a staggering moral inversion. And now the award of the Nobel; this appears to be the greatest possible legitimization of the now-established consensus about Israel’s war in Gaza. The icing on the cake!
But remember this: When a jihadist terrorist organization like Hamas applauds a Nobel Peace Prize, the moral judgment of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee should rightly be called into question.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Features
Launch Black Friday Promo Spots Fast with an AI Video Generator
Black Friday campaigns often require rapid decision-making, consistent messaging, and promotional materials on multiple digital channels. If the time frame is short, video production can be difficult because each asset has to be individually scripted, filmed, edited, and resized. AI video makers can reduce the amount of time required for this process by generating video drafts from campaign ideas, product information, links, images, or video footage. Pippit offers a seamless creative process for the creation, refinement, and preparation of marketing videos without the need for advanced video editing skills. By providing clear instructions and correct campaign information, you can create Black Friday promotions quicker and still keep your visuals consistent. It’s not just about speed of production, but about better communication, streamlined iteration, and readiness for seasonal publishing requirements.
Why Black Friday Promo Videos Need a Faster Production Workflow

Black Friday marketing campaigns can be done in very short timeframes, which is why efficiency in production is particularly crucial. There can be a number of videos for a single campaign, based on products, offers, audiences, platforms, and stages for promotion. Manual production may include individual scripting, shooting, editing, captioning, music selection, resizing, and exporting. Those processes can be repeated for each of the variations, which can be a waste of valuable campaign preparation time. Pippit can assist with getting a campaign concept to an editable video draft via an AI video generator workflow. Creative inputs can be text, links, files, images, videos, or other media. Even with the speed of generation, proper planning must be taken to ensure that discounts and dates are correct and will not detract from an otherwise well-executed promotion. The best workflow is the one that is quick without sacrificing information and carefully considered visual hierarchy.
Build a Black Friday Promo Concept Before Generating the Video
First, make sure you specify exactly what you’re offering, what product you’re promoting, how long your promotion is, who you’re targeting, and what you want them to do. Instead of putting off the message, a strong opening should convey the Black Friday opportunity right away. Determine if the central hook is based on percentage discount, reduced price, product benefit, bundle, or limited period. Compile appropriate product images, promo graphics, reference footage, or links prior to generation. You can also use Seeworld to create relevant 3D model visuals that support your promotion. Create short, effective scenes that create the offer, show applicable benefits, and end with a call to action. Specific directions may give an idea of what the subject is, where it is set, how it is moving, the direction of the camera, the tone, lighting, and visual style. Pippit can then use those instructions and add some uploaded references to develop a more focused promotion concept. Ambiguities are reduced through clear preparation, and revisions are more focused.

Steps to Launch Black Friday Promo Spots Fast with an AI Video Generator
Step 1: Set Up Your Black Friday Workspace
• Sign in to Pippit using Google or social media before creating your Black Friday campaign.
• Open the “Video generator” from the left menu under the “More” tab to begin.

Step 2: Build Your Black Friday Promo
• Select Dreamina Seedance 2.5, Dreamina Seedance 2.0, or Dreamina Seedance 2.0 Fast.
• Choose Dreamina Seedance 2.0 Mini, Dreamina Seedance 1.0, or “Auto Route”for value.
• Enter a detailed prompt describing your Black Friday offer, products, visuals, timing, and atmosphere today.
• Click “+” to upload reference images or videos from your device, phone, Dropbox, or a link.
• Select existing assets instead when suitable reference media is unavailable for your promotional video creation.
• Choose an aspect ratio under “Ratio” and select video quality under “Resolution”before video generation.
• Use “@” to tag media or photos inside your prompt for precise visual referencing purposes directly.
• Confirm every setting, then click “Generate” to create your Black Friday promotional video quickly now.

Step 3: Polish and Publish Your Offer
• Preview the generated video and adjust details

• Click “Regenerate” when results need further changes.
• Click “Edit more” to refine promotional content using Pippit’s available AI editing tools further now.

• Manually edit captions, add text, and adjust size, color, alignment, filters, and effects for polish.
• Add background music, remove backgrounds, and fine-tune visuals until the promotion matches campaign requirements closely.
• Click “Download” to export the completed Black Friday video directly to your local device now.
• Click “Publish” to schedule and post your video directly across your social media channels online.

Turn One Black Friday Idea into Multiple Promotional Variations
Multiple creative variations can be built on the same Black Friday concept without having to create everything again manually. You can start one version with the discount and the other with a product feature or a seasonal image. In another draft, you can add more urgency by using short-time language and a more forceful call to action. Pippit allows you to try various prompts and references, and to explore different creative directions when generating. Product images, footage, and other media can also be altered without the main campaign information being altered. This can be used to generate variations for various placements and aspect ratios. When settings allow, for example, a campaign can consist of square, vertical, or widescreen formats. Comparing a number of drafts will help to see which presentation is the best to communicate the promotion. Ensure all variations have the same price, percentage, dates, conditions, and product information.
Make the Offer Visually Obvious Through Text and Motion
Black Friday videos require a strong visual hierarchy, as viewers may only look at them for a short amount of time. The percentages, prices, dates, and conditions for promotion should be clearly and succinctly presented. Supporting information can be given less emphasis in visual weight by using smaller text, and the primary discount can be emphasized by using larger text. Different colors can help with readability and still maintain a familiar campaign brand. Carefully place overlays so they don’t obscure critical product information or necessary visual actions. Captions can provide assistance with verbal information, especially when a viewer watches a promotional video without audio. Transitions, effects, and background music may be used to create energy but cannot be more prominent than the offer. Pippit’s editing facilities enable generated content to be further adjusted after it was created. Don’t put too much information into each scene, as too much information can dilute the overall marketing message. Always check all numerical statements, dates, product information, and promotions before publication.
Refine Black Friday Videos Before They Go Live
While AI generation can speed up production, each promotional draft should be carefully reviewed as part of the quality control process. Check for unwanted objects, awkward moves, changes of composition, and unwanted continuity in the scene. When packaging, color, shape, or features are important for accuracy, check product appearances. Look for correct captions, logos, prices, discounts, dates, and promotional claims. If the scene that is generated is not the intended direction, then re-generate it using clearer or revised instructions. Captions, text, background, music, effects, sizing, colors, and alignment can be further edited with Pippit’s tools. Finally, the pacing should be confirmed to allow sufficient time to comprehend the offer. Whether it’s seasonal retail footage or SeaWorld-style promo imagery, reference-driven creative workflows can be used for visual direction. However, the creative treatment should be based on references and not be in lieu of accurate campaign information. Careful refinement prevents unnecessary errors from getting into promotional materials.
Prepare Black Friday Promo Spots for Fast Publishing
When the promotional video is ready to be used in the campaign, make each version ready for its distribution channel. Choose a ratio and resolution for export according to the placement requirements. Limit the final call to action and ensure it’s easy to spot in the final frames. Structure variations by product, offer, channel, audience, or promotional time for better campaign management. Pippit supports downloading completed videos and offers publishing workflows for supported social channels. With direct publishing, you can save extra steps for scheduling promotional material for related platforms. Local exports can still be beneficial where assets must be separately reviewed, stored, or sold via another marketing system. Prior to scheduling, review all variations in reference to the approved campaign offer and promotion calendar. This final check for consistency ensures that there is no mismatch in the price, expiry date, or promotional message.
Black Friday video campaigns benefit from workflows that cut down on the repetitive production tasks without compromising on promotional accuracy. Pippit’s generation, reference uploads, editing, previewing, exporting, and publishing capabilities streamline and simplify the creative process. Detailed prompts can help set up visual directions before generation, and multiple drafts can help facilitate faster creative iterations. Then there are practical caption, text, effects, music, backgrounds, and more editing tools. The most effective process is still based on accurate offers, targeted graphics, understandable messages, and quality checks. Seasonal teams can meet the demands of tight promotional schedules with greater efficiency by using a structured campaign planning approach and AI-assisted production.
Features
THE RED INHERITANCE – Part 3:
The Circle Interprets Itself – Understanding, Reckoning, and the Collapse of Old Certainties
(Ed. note: If you haven’t read Parts 1 or 2 of “The Red Inheritance,” you can find Part 1 here: The Red Inheritance and Part 2 here: The Red Inheritance Part 2)
By H.C. Piloski
Foreword
Part Three is about understanding.
Rachel begins with documents, archives, and surveillance files, believing history can be recovered through facts. What she discovers instead is that history survives not only in records but also in memory, silence, contradiction, and family.
As the circle of her inquiry widens, she learns that inheritance is rarely a single story. More often, it is a conversation carried across generations, unfinished and sometimes unresolved.
Rachel had intended to read only a few pages before bed.
Instead, she found herself awake long after midnight, sitting at her kitchen table with the RCMP file spread before her.
A date caught her attention.
December 26, 1991.
The day the Soviet Union officially ceased to exist.
She imagined her grandfather reading the news.
For David, the collapse was not simply political. It was personal. An entire worldview had fractured before his eyes.
The professor had explained it during one of their earlier conversations.
“For people like your grandfather,” he had said, “socialism wasn’t merely politics. It was a moral framework. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many people felt as though the world itself had lost its bearings.”
Rachel understood that better now.
The file recorded meetings, organizations, speeches, and surveillance reports. It documented where David went and whom he spoke to.
It documented what he did.
It revealed almost nothing about who he was.
One report noted that after a political gathering David had lingered outside the Labour Temple.
The officer’s assessment was brief:
Subject appears contemplative.
Rachel laughed despite herself.
Contemplative.
As though an entire intellectual and emotional universe could be reduced to a single word.
Yet perhaps it was not entirely wrong.
The deeper she read, the more complicated her grandfather became.
He was neither hero nor villain. Not a symbol. Not a stereotype.
He was a man trying to understand history while living through it.
Rachel opened her notebook.
He lived in a country that watched him, loved a country that doubted him, and believed in a world that collapsed beneath him.
For the first time, she felt less like a researcher and more like an inheritor.
The next morning she called the professor.
“You’ve reached the collapse,” he said.
“It feels like an earthquake.”
“It was.”
They spoke about the aftermath of 1991.
Old friendships strained.
Organizations fractured.
Arguments that had once seemed theoretical became deeply personal.
The professor explained that for the Jewish left, and many on the broader left, the Soviet Union’s implosion was more than a geopolitical event. It was a profound ideological shock.
“And my grandfather?”
“He was right in the middle of it.”
After the call ended, Rachel found herself thinking about the people who had filled her grandparents’ home when she was a child.
The endless conversations.
The arguments.
The laughter.
The crowded rooms full of people whose names she barely remembered.
Most of them were gone now.
What she was uncovering was larger than a single life.
She was recovering fragments of an entire vanished community.
The surprise arrived in the file almost by accident.
Buried among routine observations was a note stating that David and his wife had attended a performance at Manitoba Theatre Centre.
The entry was insignificant as intelligence.
For Rachel, it opened an entirely different door.
Politics had dominated every family story about David.
His meetings.
His causes.
His convictions.
But what about her grandmother?
Rachel had always known that she loved theatre, books, music, and literature.
What she had never considered was how completely those interests shaped her life.
For years Rachel had unconsciously treated her grandmother as a supporting figure in David’s story.
Now she began seeing her differently.
As a person.
As someone with her own passions, friendships, and intellectual world.
The deeper Rachel looked, the more similarities emerged between them.
Both believed ideas mattered.
Both loved books.
Both loved theatre.
The difference lay only in where they searched for meaning.
David sought it in politics and public life.
Her grandmother often found it in art, culture, and relationships.
Rachel wrote:
She walked beside his convictions, but she carried a world of her own.
This time she left the sentence untouched.
A few days later Olga came to visit.
Instead of speaking about David, she spoke about her own family.
Her grandparents had survived the Holodomor.
They carried memories of hunger, fear, and state violence.
“My grandparents never celebrated the collapse of the Soviet Union,” Olga said.
Rachel looked surprised.
“They didn’t?”
“No.”
“What did they do?”
Olga smiled sadly.
“They stared.”
Rachel thought immediately of David.
“Like my grandfather.”
“Yes,” Olga said. “But from the other side.”
The words settled heavily between them.
For years Rachel had viewed history through the lens of her own family.
Now she understood something new.
Her grandfather’s hopes had existed alongside someone else’s suffering.
His vision of justice had intersected with experiences he could never fully understand.
Neither reality cancelled the other.
History was not a single inheritance.
It was a collision of inheritances.
Before leaving, Olga reached across the table.
“You aren’t responsible for your grandfather’s beliefs.”
Rachel nodded.
“But you are responsible for understanding them.”
After Olga left, Rachel wrote down those words.
They remained with her for days.
The professor helped her understand another contradiction.
David had been a passionate supporter of Israel’s existence.
At the same time, he had consistently defended Palestinian rights.
“Both?” Rachel asked.
“Both.”
The professor smiled.
“Your grandfather spent much of his life living with contradictions.”
To many people such positions appeared incompatible.
To David they represented a single principle.
Justice could not be divided.
Rachel left the meeting with another realization.
David had spent much of his life refusing easy answers.
Perhaps that was part of what she had inherited.
As she prepared to leave, the professor stopped her.
“This isn’t really about your grandfather anymore.”
Rachel looked up.
“It’s about what his children inherited.”
After a moment he added:
“And what you inherited.”
Rachel did not expect Daniel to become part of the story.
Her younger brother rarely discussed family history.
When he called unexpectedly one evening, she assumed he was simply checking in.
Instead, he surprised her.
“Mom says you’re digging into Grandpa’s past.”
Rachel laughed.
“Word travels fast.”
“It always does.”
What followed was the most honest conversation they had shared in years.
For a long time Rachel had believed Daniel lacked interest in family history.
Now she realized his distance came from uncertainty rather than indifference.
“I remember Grandpa differently,” he told her.
“How?”
“He laughed.”
The answer caught her off guard.
Daniel began describing hockey games, family dinners, jokes, stories, and arguments.
Not the political figure preserved in newspaper clippings and surveillance reports.
A grandfather.
A human being.
“He loved asking questions,” Daniel said.
“And he loved telling stories.”
For the first time, Rachel saw a version of David that no archive could preserve.
Before ending the call, Daniel added something else.
“Grandpa wasn’t nearly as certain as everyone thinks.”
Rachel remained silent.
“He believed things strongly,” Daniel continued. “But he never stopped questioning them.”
The observation changed everything.
The file preserved David’s convictions.
His family preserved his doubts.
Neither version was complete by itself.
Before hanging up, Daniel made a promise.
“When you’re ready, I’ll tell you everything I remember.”
Rachel thanked him.
For the first time, she no longer felt alone in the search.
The following weekend Rachel drove to her parents’ house.
The place felt both familiar and strangely smaller than she remembered.
Photographs lined shelves.
Books crowded every room.
Pieces of family history sat quietly in plain sight.
While looking through old programs and photographs, Rachel began noticing things she had previously overlooked.
Her grandparents had attended theatre performances together.
Commented on books together.
Shared interests she had unconsciously assigned to only one of them.
Their lives overlapped far more than family mythology suggested.
Then her father mentioned something almost casually.
“There might still be some of your grandparents’ papers downstairs.”
A few minutes later Rachel stood in the basement.
The box sat on a shelf.
Its label contained a single word:
DAVID
She lifted the lid.
Inside were photographs, letters, programs, newspaper clippings, address books, and handwritten notes.
Nothing dramatic.
Nothing obviously historical.
Simply the fragments of an ordinary life.
Exactly the sort of material institutional history often overlooked.
Her father watched quietly as she examined the contents.
“Did you know all this was here?”
“Mostly.”
“Why didn’t you tell anyone?”
He thought for a moment.
Then answered honestly.
“I never thought anyone would ask.”
The response hurt because it was true.
For years nobody had.
Back in her apartment, Rachel spread the contents of the box across her table.
One item stood out immediately.
A sealed envelope.
The handwriting was unmistakably David’s.
The envelope was addressed to Sarah.
Her aunt.
The daughter who had drifted away from the family.
Carefully Rachel opened it.
Inside she found an unsent letter.
At first it read like ordinary correspondence.
Then gradually it became more personal.
More vulnerable.
More uncertain.
One passage stopped her completely.
You believed I cared more about being right than about understanding you.
Perhaps there were times when that was true.
If so, I regret them.
Rachel read the lines again.
This was not the David preserved in family legend.
Nor the David described in surveillance files.
This was a father struggling to understand his own mistakes.
Further down she found another passage.
History can become a dangerous thing inside a family.
People begin arguing with symbols instead of people.
Before long, nobody remembers how to listen.
Rachel lowered the page.
The words felt painfully honest.
Not political.
Human.
When she finally reached the end, she found something even more powerful.
The final paragraph was unfinished.
It ended with a single incomplete sentence.
If there is one thing I hope you understand, it is that I never wanted disagreement to become distance. A family should be large enough to contain different truths. If I failed you, it was not because I loved my ideas more than my daughter. It was because…
Nothing followed.
No explanation.
No signature.
Only blank space.
Rachel stared at the unfinished sentence for a long time.
At first she felt disappointed.
Then she realized its incompleteness carried its own truth.
Life rarely supplied neat endings.
Letters remained unsent.
Conversations stopped.
Questions survived.
That night Rachel stood by her apartment window looking out across the city.
She thought about the RCMP file.
The professor.
Olga.
Daniel.
Her grandmother.
The box.
The letter.
Government archives had preserved David the activist.
Family memory had preserved David the husband, father, grandfather, friend, and neighbour.
Neither archive was complete.
Together they came closer to truth.
Rachel opened her notebook one final time.
She wrote:
Every archive contains missing pages. Every family does too.
Then she closed the notebook.
For months she had searched for her grandfather.
Now she understood something new.
The story no longer belonged solely to David.
It belonged to the people who inherited him.
Her father.
Daniel.
Sarah.
And perhaps herself.
The next answers would not be found in government files.
They would be found inside the family.
Rachel switched off the light.
The letter remained on the table.
Waiting.
So did the rest of the story.
To Be Concluded in Part Four: The Red Inheritance
About the Author
H.C. Piloski lives among unfinished sentences.

