Connect with us

Features

Part 8 of the story of the Winnipeg con man: He promises to help an old childhood friend set up a Real Estate Investment Trust

By BERNIE BELLAN This is the eighth 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 seven parts of this story are all available to read under the FEATURES category on this website.

Here is part 8 of my story:

To this point, while I’ve given accounts of different individuals who may have spent a great deal of time working on projects that Devlin had promised he would back financially and, while I don’t want to diminish the value of the time they all lost involving themselves in what turned out to be Devlin’s total delusion, none of them could say that they actually lost money as a result of having become involved with Devlin.

Sure, Rick spent what he says were hundreds of hours planning the expansion of his publication – based on Devlin having told him he would back him, and Dan Winthrop spent what he says were years trying to bring his aviation idea to fruition. In neither case though can they say that they put up real money to advance their ideas. Bob Anderson says he was only paid $1,000 for all the work he ended up doing for Devlin, but he admits that he has only himself to blame for having spent so much time without being compensated.

Avi did end up spending time on the phone with Devlin but again, he can’t make much of a case that it cost him financially.

Such was not the case with Jonathan Soloway. In fact, Jonathan was one of the last people to whom I spoke directly who had been a victim of Fred Devlin and that was only after Rick had cajoled him into believing that I was honestly interested in helping him – by exposing Devlin as a total fraud. I’ve already noted that Jonathan’s particular case was so well documented by him having kept copies of every email and every document that Devlin had ever sent him that I told Jonathan I thought he had a really solid case in a civil action if he were to file one – not only against Devlin, but Devlin’s wife and Devlin s parents as well.

He told me that he couldn’t possibly afford a lawyer to represent him, so I said to him that I might be able to help him with that. I told him that I knew a number of very good lawyers in Winnipeg who are experienced civil litigators and that, if he wanted, I would reach out to one or more of them to see whether they might be interested in representing Jonathan in a lawsuit against Fred.

I emailed one lawyer whom I regard quite highly and gave him a brief summary of the case that I thought Jonathan could have against Fred. That lawyer responded the same day, saying that he was currently on vacation, but that he would get back to me when he returned to work.

It was a while before I heard from that lawyer so, in the meantime I thought I would contact some other lawyers whom I thought would also be well suited to handle a lawsuit for Jonathan against Fred. One lawyer with whom I had a very amiable conversation said he couldn’t possibly take on the case because he knew the Devlin family too well. Another lawyer said he was in the process of retiring from practice and regardless, cases of this sort are so complex that it was far outside of his field of practice.

Eventually though, I heard back from the first lawyer I had contacted. He said that he had turned the matter over to the head of civil litigation in his firm and that I could expect to hear from him.

Normally, a lawyer would not discuss a matter of this sort with anyone except his or her client, but there was an extenuating circumstance in this case: I had agreed to put up a retainer for the firm if they agreed there was a solid case to be had against Fred Devlin.

When I was first writing this part of the story I didn’t know what the status of Jonathan Soloway’s putative lawsuit was. I had heard back a few times from the lawyer I had first contacted to ask whether his firm might be interested in mounting a lawsuit on behalf of Jonathan, but each time the answer was that he would have to put it to the firm as a whole to decide whether it would be worthwhile to take on the case. I had explained to the lawyer I had contacted that, if the firm thought it was a bona fide case, I was prepared to put up the retainer that is normal for a law firm to require before proceeding with a case of this sort. My thinking was that, if the firm did file a law suit and it proved successful, then I would get a percentage of the resulting award.

Jonathan had sent a detailed package of documents to the lawyer I had contacted which gave an itemized accounting of how he had been defrauded by Fred Devlin.

Here is what he had sent, on February 28, 2026:

Please find attached a PDF detailing the full employment timeline and the hours I invested in my executive role in connection with ….and the …. Group matter.

This document sets out:

• A chronological summary of my work contributions

• The estimated total hours invested at a senior executive level

• REIT structuring, financial modelling, compensation framework development, and strategic planning

• Representations made to me regarding compensation and ownership interests

• Written communications and text messages wherein Mr. … represented that …. Group would assume responsibility for my outstanding debts and that I was to refrain from paying them personally

• Statements made to me indicating that an executive in my position could not be in bankruptcy

In addition to the attached summary PDF, I am in possession of:

• Signed agreements relating to compensation and ownership

• Supporting PDF documentation

• Screenshots of text message exchanges

• Compensation modelling documentation

• Materials reflecting equity and ownership representations

Please advise how you would prefer the full evidentiary package organized and delivered for review. I am prepared to provide a consolidated, indexed digital binder or hard-copy materials as required.=

I look forward to your guidance regarding next steps.  

Jonathan did hear back from the head of the law firm around the middle of March (and I was cc’d on that email). In it he was told that the matter was now in the hands of the head of litigation for the firm.

On April 1, 2026, Jonathan received the following email from the head of litigation:

It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding your matter.

As a preliminary matter, I addressed the suggestion that this matter might form the basis of a broader claim involving multiple affected individuals. Based on the information currently available, there is no evidentiary foundation to support such an approach. Your circumstances appear to be more consistent with an individual claim arising from alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation. A broader proceeding would require evidence from multiple individuals demonstrating a pattern of conduct involving financial loss, which is not presently before me.

As for your case, I have conducted a preliminary review of the documents you provided. Below is my understanding of the facts and our discussion. Please let me know if I have misunderstood or omitted anything:

Sometime around August 2024, you entered into discussions with Mr. … and what you describe as the “…Group of Companies Worldwide Holdings Group.” Based on representations made to you, you travelled to Winnipeg for meetings, participated in discussions regarding the development of a REIT, and entered into an employment agreement.

Under the employment agreement (Note: the full employment agreement can be found beginning on page 68.) you were to receive compensation of $250,000 annually commencing June 1, 2025, as well as additional compensation on termination. You also advised that the agreement contemplated you holding a 49.5% interest in a proposed company.

You then engaged in executive-level planning and related work in reliance on those representations. You estimate that you spent approximately 1,850 hours performing work in preparation for the establishment of the REIT. 

You now believe that those representations were false. You have not received any compensation for your work, including salary or other payments.

As discussed, the role of counsel at this stage is twofold. First, to determine whether you have a viable legal claim, including identifying the appropriate causes of action. Second, to assess the nature and quantum of damages that may be recoverable. To complete that assessment, it will be necessary to review the employment agreement and all supporting documentation, including evidence of the representations made to you, your reliance on those representations, and the losses you have sustained. Depending on the terms of the agreement and available evidence, your claim may proceed either in contract or tort (e.g. negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, quantum meruit, and other causes of action). I suspect you do have one or more actionable causes of action. Damages are less clear. Enforcement even more tenuous.

Based on the information currently available, there is some uncertainty as to whether Mr. … has sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment. You indicated that there may be a possibility of recovery through discussions with his family in the event of a successful claim. However, that outcome is uncertain and should be considered when evaluating the cost-benefit of litigation.

As a next step, I recommend that you retain our firm to conduct this initial analysis and assessment. Subject to clearing conflicts, this would require execution of our engagement documentation and payment of an initial retainer of $5,000. You indicated that Bernie, associated with the Jewish Post and News, may be prepared to fund your legal fees and asked that I contact him to confirm. I will do so. For clarity, you have authorized me to discuss your matter and our conversation with Bernie. I have copied Bernie on this report.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this further, I remain available.

(I should note that the reference to my association with The Jewish Post and News was wrong. The Jewish Post & News no longer exists but hey, lawyers can make mistakes.)

Jonathan didn’t send me all the documents he had sent to the lawyer whom I had first contacted, but he did send me the 
“Master Employment Agreement,” which Devlin signed, and which spells out in great detail everything that Fred Devlin was promising to Jonathan Soloway.

In terms of chronology, Jonathan’s experience with Devlin was quite recent – going back only a little more than a year. When I talked to Jonathan I began by reviewing what I had already learned about Devlin. I wanted Jonathan to be aware that I knew quite a bit about Devlin, but I was quite interested in speaking to someone who had actually lost money as a result of Devlin having ensnared him in his delusion, not just someone who had only spent time working on a plan that was delusional.

I said to Jonathan that Devlin has left “no prints’ on the internet. A search for his name or the Xanadu Group of Companies would turn up nothing because, as I explained to Jonathan, what I had found out was that nothing Devlin had boasted as having done or as owning when he spoke with so many other individuals was “real.”

Since writing this, however, I’ve now become aware that someone was able to retrieve the original article I had written about the person I’ve been calling Fred Devlin and has reposted that article under a different website. The person who reposted that article used something called the “Wayback Machine.” Don’t ask me what that is. All that I know is an article I had first posted on February 22, 2026, then removed two days later, is back on the internet.

To return to my conversation with Jonathan Soloway – I went on: “It didn’t take me too long to realize this guy is nuts, and that’s why I left it alone after I talked to his mother” – until I received that January 16 email.

“But,” I continued, “now that I realize that he’s a very dangerous nut, it’s a different story. “What I’d like to know is whether his parents have been involved with this? Because it’s one thing if his mother or if both his parents are paying for Fred and his wife’s car or house, whatever it is, but do they realize that, according to what I’ve been told by more than one person, their son likes to go to the Fairmont Hotel for breakfast – carrying a briefcase, and that he sort of holds court there – pretending to be a very important businessman?”

Jonathan concurred: “He walks in there like a big ‘macher’ (a Yiddish expression for someone important), like everybody knows him there. He sits down for breakfast there. But the thing I really, I find so incredible is, his wife, she has to be completely complicit here because what else does he do during the day?”

I said that’s something I’d like to find out too, adding that I had been told his wife has been present at many of Fred’s so-called “business meetings.” What has her role been in enabling Fred to carry on with his delusional behaviour, I wondered?

Jonathan said: “He thinks he’s… some sort of like, how do I say? He thinks he’s some sort of divine intervention from God that he will help you. That’s how he comes across. And he’s put on this planet to help people.

“…so if you’re someone who is destitute and you’ve got problems, then you’re someone he loves to help.

“And how he finds these people in itself is a question. I guess, being on social media and seeing who are friends of friends and maybe tapping into them.”

I said to Jonathan “I’m not going to try and find every last person that Fred Devlin has contacted because the stories are all of a pattern. He finds someone – I guess mostly through social media, finds out something about them, tells them he’d like to help them – and pretty soon he has them believing he’s some fabulously rich businessman who will help them financially.”

Jonathan then asked me about my own background: “So are you the Western Jewish News?” (That was another Jewish newspaper that my late brother and I, along with another partner, bought in 1987 – mostly to get rid of it to eliminate the competition for the paper we owned, which was The Jewish Post.)

“No,” I explained to Jonathan,”I used to be the owner of the Jewish Post & News – which used to be called the Jewish Post.”

I added that my brother, who had been the editor of the paper, died suddenly in 2009, and I took over as editor and publisher until I gave the paper away in 2024 to a non-profit Jewish service organization called the Gwen Secter Centre. I told Jonathan that I still work with the print newspaper somewhat, but I focus my attention more on my website, which is called jewishpostandnews.ca.

Jonathan said that he hadn’t paid much attention to Winnipeg’s Jewish community since he left Winnipeg in the 1990s, but he knew that his mother was a subscriber to the Jewish newspaper. I told him that I knew her name.

I also told Jonathan that I had done investigative journalism in my time, but I had never come across as crazy a story as the Fred Devlin story. I said that I knew Fred suffers from a delusional psychosis and that I wanted to do whatever I could to stop him from harming more people. That’s why, I said to Jonathan, I wanted to learn a lot more about what had happened between Fred and him because, after talking to Rick, I thought that Jonathan had the most convincing case that could lead to a successful lawsuit against Fred and his family.

Jonathan said “the one thing they’ve got to do with Fred is take away his phone – or just take him away, period. I think they got to put him in a straitjacket.”

I said, “that doesn’t happen – unfortunately, but I’m going to try and keep other people from being victimized by him.” And that’s why I wanted to help Jonathan find a lawyer who would file a lawsuit for Jonathan.

“If you can sue Fred then I can report on any of the allegations the lawyer would include in your lawsuit,” I said to him. And my simply reporting those allegations would prevent another lawyer from suing me for defamation, I added – something that I had been threatened with when I first posted something to my website about Fred – and his family.

That’s why I wanted to learn as many of the details of what had gone down between Jonathan and Fred, I explained.

I added: “And if it causes his parents great embarrassment, so be it. They should have put a stop to this years ago. And they didn’t.”

Jonathan said: “I think at the beginning, if I understand it correctly, he (Fred) did very well in business financially. But then, he lost a lot of money… it was some investor he had.

“And then, I think that’s when his parents stepped in and started to help him. All I know is he was involved with (name of business omitted). That’s all I know.”

I wanted to turn the conversation to finding out what exactly was the nature of the business deal Jonathan and Fred were supposed to have had. I had been told by Rick that it had something to do with real estate, so I asked Jonathan if his background was in real estate?

I don’t want to describe in specific terms what Jonathan’s business background was because anyone reading this who might have known him would know exactly who it is who I’m writing about and, just as I had promised everyone else whom I interviewed, I wanted to give them anonymity.

Suffice to say that Jonathan had held an extremely important position within the construction industry in Toronto for over 25 years. “At one point in my life, I was travelling about 200,000 miles a year,” he noted.

He continued, “So I travelled all over the world for almost 11 years. And I was invited by the federal government to be part of the Team Canada trade mission to China and Hong Kong.

“I left my job after 25 years. And I didn’t really know what to do. So I became a consultant. I was … group consultants for a while. And I did a couple of jobs here and there. And it was never really paying the bills properly, whatever it was.

“And I decided then to go get my real estate license because real estate here was extremely huge. It was a crazy real estate market we had here for about 18 years. And by the time I got my real estate license, that’s when everything turned.

“I went into real estate at the very worst time. I mean, the past two years, I’ve hardly made any money. I’ve been extremely struggling for that matter.

“And that’s where I stand today.”

But when did his involvement with Fred Devlin start, I wondered?

Jonathan explained: We went to school together as kids, like five, six, whatever it is. I mean, I knew him… I mean – Jewish geography when Winnipeg was small. Everybody knew everybody. I mean, I grew up with the YMHA… where almost all Jewish kids went… I knew his parents, too. I mean, I spent some time at their house. I was a childhood friend of his, but… I kind of fell out of his life for about 40 years. He reached out to me one day on Facebook out of nowhere, and we rekindled the friendship that we had missed for well over 35 years.”

I asked Jonathan: “Do you remember when that was, how long ago it was?”

He answered: I don’t remember exactly, but I’m going to say it was sometime around a year ago. I’m trying to think here…It would have been like February of last year – but wait, I might be wrong. It might have been the year before.”

I said: “But, whenever it was, it’s been quite recently.”

Jonathan: “Right. I was in Winnipeg in September of 2024. So I came back to Winnipeg to see Fred and I stayed with my mother. I was there for three days. That was the first meeting I had with Fred it, was September of 2024. So I would have met him on Facebook several months before that, in 2024.”

I said: “Okay, so just tell me what happened then.’

Before he launched into his story of what happened between him and Fred, Jonathan said he had to tell something about himself. Again – to keep his identity hidden I won’t divulge the detail of what happened, but suffice to say, he lost quite a bit of money in a failed investment. Some things happened in his personal life – aside from losing quite a bit of money in an investment, but I won’t describe that either.

In short, Jonathan’s life was falling apart. He “didn’t have a car,” he was living at his brother’s and, as he had noted earlier, the real estate business in Toronto had gone bad.

And then Fred showed up in his life. ‘When I met Fred, you know, he was like ‘the saviour. Like he’s done with everybody, he told me, he was going to help me.

“And he knew I came from the construction industry, and he wanted to set up a real estate REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) with all his properties that he had in Winnipeg, in Cleveland, and in Toronto, and I thought that this was a great idea. He told me all about Xanadu, and about his airplanes…, that he owns Air Canada, that he owns the World Bank, that he owns, like, all this pie-in-the-sky stuff, whatever it was. It was just crazy.

“And… I believed him, mostly because he was a childhood friend of mine and I knew him. I had no reason for him to be telling me a lie, I guess is what I’m trying to say.

“Now, it didn’t cost me any money to hear his other stories, and even though I knew the other stories weren’t true, the way he put together this idea for a REIT – well, he knew all the ins and outs and he was very convincing… and we talked about putting this together, and blah, blah, blah…

“But, first and foremost, one of the things that was very strange is that every time things were going to get together, it just never got together. Like, Fred always had some sort of something, saying: ‘Jonathan, I can’t do that this week, because I’m going to Israel tomorrow, or I can’t, you know – or I’ve got to go to the hospital, or whatever that might be, he had an excuse for everything. It doesn’t matter,

“There was always a reason that it wasn’t going to happen. So fast forward to 2025 – we made a plan that I would come into town (Winnipeg) in May of 2025, and that by the time I left, that we would have a contract put in place, because the intention was, he said for sure that we’re going to put this together, and we’ll have this together on the first of September…Originally,” he said, “he wanted to try to raise capital for all this, with all the people that he knew.

“And then he decided at the very last minute, that he’ll use his own properties, which was what I always thought was going to happen, because when you’re setting up a REIT, you need these properties, but these properties, he already had. There was no reason to go search for other investors to begin with. Long and short story is, one of the first real problems I had with Fred was, we finally did a contract, and I had a legal contract written up, and it was signed on the 31st of May,” but Fred never fulfilled any of the terms of the contract.

“When I was in Winnipeg, he had mentioned to me, like, Jonathan, you know, look, there’s no reason for you to try to get a part-time job right through the summer, whatever it is, you know, I’ll make sure that you’re looked after financially, and I’ll get you paid, and whatever… And, you know, he promised me all these things, but when I got home, sure enough, he wasn’t paying me. He wasn’t going to pay me anything, and he said that he thought I had money in my bank account, but I didn’t have enough.

“He made all these excuses, saying ‘I can’t pay you right now.’ Then, every discussion I had with Fred was really very thorough. The discussions would last, like, an hour on the phone.

“You know, he was, how do I say… what’s the word I’m trying to say, I guess, if I could say it the best way, he was very grandiose…In many ways he always had an incredible story to tell you – and one that sounded really real. But, around the end of September, around Rosh Hashanah, Fred tells me that he hurt his head, and he’s got to go to the hospital, and while he’s in the hospital, he tells me that what he’s going to do is ‘If I can survive until the 3rd of January of 2026, then everything’s going to be refunded, you’re going to have all this money, because you’re an owner in this company, and blah, blah, blah.

“And I said, ‘Well, Fred, I have all this debt. I’ve got to service this debt. I don’t have a way to wait until January, otherwise I’ve got to get a job or do whatever it is. So, from the hospital, I get an email from him, I mean, a text from him, that he’s going to have Xanadu Group take over my debt, and that I’m never going to have to worry about my debt anymore. And he sent me several text messages about this, saying give me all your debt right now, and let me see what I can do. He was going to take this one thing off my back, and the company was going to look after it, and that would be that.

“And that was the best thing I’d ever heard. And fast forward until the end of October, like two months later, now I’m told that the company told him he can’t pay off my debt, but he’ll help me negotiate some sort of deal with my vendors, he’ll get on the phone with them if I have to as well, for me as well, too. So, we made a couple of calls to one or two of my creditors, he was on the phone and talked like he was like some sort of lawyer or whatever it is, but then I realized right then and there that, you know, all these kind of promises that Fred had promised to save me and to look after me, it just never worked.

“It was just a lie, the whole thing – all the promises, the contracts – they were all crap.. And I’ll say something about Rick now. Several months before I got so deeply involved with Fred, Rick reached out to me on Facebook.

“I didn’t know who he was and he just said to me, ‘I see you’re a mutual friend of Fred Devlin’s and Fred’s going to be doing some work with me as well too in California, and I have this magazine and so on.

“I never paid much attention to what Rick wrote. I just said, ‘Well that’s nice, that’s great, ‘and I even said to Fred, ‘I met a friend of yours, Rick, and I didn’t know anything about this. Fred didn’t say anything. All he said was ‘Yeah, I’m going to be doing some stuff with him,’ but what I didn’t know is that how Fred got extremely angry at Rick, that he had told told me he was going to do something with Fred.

“I didn’t realize until afterward that Fred didn’t like that I was talking to someone else he was supposedly doing a deal with.’ “(Now I understood better why Bob Anderson kept sending nondisclosure agreements to different individuals. It makes one wonder though, even though Fred was clearly delusional, somewhere in the back of his twisted mind he knew what he was doing was all one great big con. Does he wander in and out of reality, I wonder – and starts to remember the crazy things he’s told different people? Who knows?

I never had the opportunity to speak to any of the psychiatrists who must have treated him over the years. My hope is that someday, someone close to Fred is going to tell the truth about his psychosis – and why those close to him allowed him to carry on his delusional behaviour for so many years. Even as I write this, I keep receiving messages from different individuals saying Fred just contacted them recently – and threatened them if they didn’t continue to fulfill their arrangements.)

Jonathan continued: “When this all happened I got a call from Rick around the exact same time where the lid was being pulled off on all this, and that’s when I really realized that I’d gone down this rabbit hole, I’d taken three flights I’d taken to Winnipeg, and I think back at some of the things that we went through, like you know – Fred wanted to come to Toronto, but he stayed with me – at my brother’s house with me. I thought if you’re a billionaire, what the hell would you want to stay in my house when you could stay in an expensive hotel – like everything just never added up, that he never had any money.”

Jonathan went on to say that he’s a big history buff and when Fred learned that about him, he told him that he wanted Jonathan to write a story about the history of the Middle East. (Devlin’s thought processes were so confusing for me to try and follow. Each time I looked back over the transcript of a conversation I had with someone who had some sort of connection to Fred Devlin I would see crazy twists in what Devlin would talk about. Devlin’s focus would easily turn to something else totally unrelated to where a conversation first started between him and a prospective business partner.)

I asked Jonathan whether Devlin had ever mentioned someone by the name of David Simkin? You may recall that when I, myself, first met Paul Devlin, he handed me a business card for his supposed group of companies with the name David Simkin given as the CEO on the card. I still haven’t been able to establish whether there was an actual individual by the name of David Simkin – although I suppose it’s a fairly common Jewish name but, as I mentioned at the outset of this story, if there ever was anyone named David Simkin who had some sort of connection to Fred Devlin, I’ve never been able to get in touch with him.

Jonathan said that Devlin had mentioned the name “David Simkin” to him many times, adding that he, too, had been told Simkin lived in Luxembourg, where he was CEO of the Xanadu Group of Companies. Devlin told Jonathan that Simkin had come back to Winnipeg and Devlin was trying to find a place “for him to live in.” (Strange, isn’t it? Devlin has to stay with Jonathan in Jonathan brother’s house when he comes to Toronto and the CEO of a worldwide group of companies headquartered in Luxembourg has come back to Winnipeg – and he doesn’t have a place where to live.)

I told Jonathan that David Simkin was all part of Devlin’s incredibly detailed delusion. I noted that, while his entire story was crazy, at least he was consistent in describing to different people how his group of companies was so vast, that it was headquartered in Luxembourg, and that its CEO was someone by the name of David Simkin. Where he deviated from his basic story, Rick told me, was in relating to people how many companies were in the Xanadu group of companies and how much wealth Devlin had. According to Rick, the number of companies Devlin told him were part of the Xanadu group was over 3,300 – not 300, and Devlin wasn’t just a billionaire, he was a trillionaire!

Now, while you may be giving your head a shake at the absurdity of all this, there were many times when Devlin would keep his none-stretchers in check. I only talked to a few of the individuals who were conned by him – and those were all individuals who were willing to admit they had been so badly deceived by Devlin. But there were many others, I was told, who had taken meetings with Devlin – and the names I was given were of very respected businesspeople, who didn’t dismiss Devlin as some sort of nutcase.

That tells me that, despite his psychosis, he had some awareness that he had to tailor whatever story he was telling someone to that particular individual. The fact that he did obtain an MBA and did have a successful business career – at least, according to that story in the Manitoba business magazine and the subsequent mention of him in another business publication would certainly lead one to understand that, even in his fantasy that he was a brilliantly successful businessman, some vestiges of his past business experience would allow him to mount a very sophisticated facade when the occasion required it.

That goes to explain the level of complexity of the deal that Jonathan agreed to enter into with Fred.

I asked Jonathan how it was that Fred contacted him? Jonathan had said that he hadn’t had any contact with Fred since grade school – which was over 40 years previous. I wondered whether Fred had found him on Facebook, for instance?

“Did he find you on Facebook?” I asked. “Was that it?”

Jonathan answered: “I believe so. I don’t remember exactly. I’m not a big social media person, so he probably did find me on Facebook.”

I explained why I had asked that question: “Well, the reason I ask is I’m so curious about how he networks with people. He seems really adept at getting in touch with people who have some substance to them, and he sort of relies on name-dropping to cement his reputation.”

I noted that “one of the people I spoke to had actually gone to the trouble of setting up a meeting between Fred and (Israeli Prime Minister) Netanyahu.”

I asked Jonathan whether he had hear that story himself?

“Yeah, yeah, yeah,” Jonathan responded. “When I heard that, I said, ‘that’s incredible.’ “

I said to Jonathan: “But, of course, it was all delusion.” I went on to say that Avi (who was the fellow who had arranged that meeting acknowledged that it was “a good thing Fred. didn’t show up.” Otherwise, Avi would have been deeply embarrassed at Bart having met with Netanyahu.

But then Jonathan added a new story that, to that point, I hadn’t heard: “The other thing is, so Fred, apparently out of his own money, was working with a guy named Ari Deron, who was the former head of the Mossad in Israel.”

I said: “What? The former head of the what? The Mossad?”

Jonathan said: “Fred said he was the former head of cyber security for the Mossad.”

(I did a Google search to see whether there was ever anyone prominent in the Mossad by the name of Ari Doron. Here’s what I came up with : “Based on available records, there is no evidence of a high-profile former Mossad member named Ari Doron. The name appears to be primarily associated with a fictional character, Lt. Ari Doron, in the 2001 novel Martyrs’ Crossing by Amy Wilentz, who is an Israeli soldier, not a Mossad operative.”

I explained to Jonathan that I had spoken to someone by the name of Avi – who was the person who was going to set up the meeting between Fred and Netanyahu, but Avi never mentioned anything about a Mossad connection. It did occur to me, after hearing what Jonathan mentioned about the Mossad that, during one of my phone conversations with Rick, he had told me that Fred had told him that he was always accompanied by 20 bodyguards from the Mossad. Maybe I should have included that earlier in this story.

I asked Jonathan whether, when all was said and done, the REIT plan that Fred had contracted with Jonathan to establish, had cost Jonathan a lot of money?

His answer was: “No, I didn’t lose a lot of money with Fred. I lost a lot of time with Fred.”

I said: “You lost a lot of time. That’s the story with everyone. People wasted their time.”

Jonathan continued: “Immense amounts of time. Immense amounts of time. I mean, the quantified dollars, I mean, three flights to Winnipeg.

“As I said, I stayed with my mother. You know, a couple of drinks that we went out to that I paid, you know, that he didn’t. I didn’t lose hundreds of thousands of dollars with him, but I lost an immense amount of time here.

“And the contract that he wrote with me, he was going to pay me $250,000 a year. And if he didn’t exercise the contract in a certain amount of time over the two years, he’d have to pay me $1.5 million. Yeah.

“And this is what we wrote in the contract. And again, like I’ve had some employment lawyers here who told me that the contract’s pretty solid, but it means shit if he has no money.”

“What I do believe, and again, this is just my thought here is that his parents, his mother in particular, are aiding and abetting him here. She did agree that they paid for his house and she said, it’s a lower class house in Winnipeg.

“And one thing I’ve never understood is, Fred’s wife – where is she in this equation? People say that she’s complicit in what Fred has been doing…and I would have to think she is. The one thing I knew about Fred is he is completely inept when it comes to technology.

“Like, he didn’t know how to print anything, how to write anything, how to sign anything. Like it was just – very strange. I used to say ‘Fred, why don’t you even have an assistant that would do all these things? Like, when I had to sign the contract, I have to send it to his wife as a PDF document have her print it off, have him sign it and have her scan it back to me because he didn’t know how to do any of those things… the simplest things, but he didn’t know any of that.

“Yeah. It was very, very strange. He didn’t know anything to do with technology whatsoever.

“What really fascinates me about it all is what you said about his being totally delusional. When I think of Fred I think that he is living some sort of a life that he doesn’t even know he’s living in.”

But, as both Jonathan and I learned – to out chagrin, after having heard from the head of litigation of the law firm that had looked at Jonathan’s case, there was no point in suing someone who had no apparent assets – no matter how much it was evident that he was being supported by his parents – who have substantial assets.

As for the criminal investigation to which I referred in an earlier chapter, Jonathan hasn’t heard back from any police authority – neither the Winnipeg Police Service, nor the RCMP, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no interest on the part of any police service in pursuing a fraud investigation of Fred Devlin.

At a certain point, however, I was no longer simply writing about events – I was now an active participant in trying to bring some sort of justice for everyone who had been a victim of Fred Devlin’s delusions. I suppose some might consider the degree to which I’ve involved myself in a story that began with an email somewhat surprising, but it was when I began communicating with the person whose story will be told next that I was moved to go beyond simply writing about what Fred Devlin had done. I actually sent a fair bit of money to help one victim of Devlin’s elaborate con who, I was quite afraid, was on the verge of committing suicide.

Coming next: Charlie’s story and Fred’s promise to help fund a charitable foundation in Africa

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Conclusion

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News