Features
Bygone Winnipeg: A fictitous story based on true events: University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine 1932-1944
By DAVID TOPPER Call me a witness. I was there and heard almost everything that’s relevant to this story.
Yet, thinking deeper, I guess you could call me a spy – well, at least, some may say that, for there was an element of skulduggery in my employment situation. It was all because of my father, who changed my name when I was born. Of course, we’re all born with a surname, but―
Wait. Let’s first go back to my grandfather, Moshe Levinstein, who was born in Russia, and who as a young man experienced a small pogrom – small in terms of later ones – which was enough to convince him to emigrate as fast as he could. Several people were killed, a house was burned down, and there was a rape – that ‘small’ event drove him to leave Russia, forever. He never looked back, even when Winnipeg, Canada turned out not to be quite the paradise he expected. Because he quickly found that anti-Semitism was endemic.
My father, Solomon Levinstein, while growing up, saw the struggle his parents went through being Jews in a Christian country (with the English majority Protestant, and the minority French Catholic), and he wanted to protect me as best he could when I was born. He wanted me to fit into the social fabric more than he ever could. And since I turned out to be a girl, there were even more barriers on my horizon – ‘closed doors,’ he called it. He told us that he was thinking about all this when I was still in my mother’s womb. You see, he liked to ‘plan ahead,’ which was another of his favourite phrases.
Oh, speaking of being in the womb: my grandmother died when my mother was eight months pregnant with me, and so I was supposed to be named some variation of Minnie Levinstein, as is the Jewish tradition. But since my father was obsessed with my fitting in better than he did, and he also wanted me to get through some otherwise ‘closed doors’ – I was named Mildred Evans. He said Evans and ‘Levins’ rhyme, and so do Millie and Minnie. It was also a nice Aryan-sounding name, “as the Germans would say,” he said.
Mind you, while growing up as Mildred Evans, I nonetheless didn’t hide my Jewishness. Indeed, I often went to synagogue on Saturday/Sabbath. But then, I also often went to church on Sunday and―
Um, I guess I need to explain that. You see, my best friend was Mary O’Brian, which tells you that she was probably Irish Catholic, which she was. Now, here’s my perspective in all of this. I was very precocious and very smart and I read a lot. I liked languages. On weekends I enjoyed Hebrew in the Synagogue and Latin in the Church. Two ancient languages, one dead except for the Christian Mass, and the other kept alive in prayer and Torah study. Plus, you must remember that Latin was still taught in schools at this time; it was part of a Liberal Arts education in the first half of the 20th century. Many universities required High School Latin for entrance to their freshman classes. As well, to me, the Mass was like an opera, with singing and those glorious organ pipes vibrating and echoing throughout the church. Mary and I, by-the-by, went to the beautiful Cathedral in St. Boniface, with the astonishing and huge Rose window. You see, there were no organs in any synagogue. And so, it was not so strange for this Jew to enjoy the Catholic Mass as a musical event. Think of Bach, a devout Lutheran, who wrote his wonderful Mass in B-minor.
Anyway, to me the Mass was a show, and it was free – well not completely free, since the church always passed around a collection basket near the end of the service – a sort of pay-what-may type thing, you could say. I remember that Mary, when I took her to her first synagogue service, was surprised that there was no collection at the end, especially since after the service there was an oneg in the social hall, with food galore. But I digress.
The service of the Mass, to me, was not entirely unfamiliar, since there were many prayers and texts that borrowed passages from what they called The Old Testament: many of the sayings of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. “But what about the stuff on Jesus?” you may be asking, eh? Well, you see, I read a lot of history, as I told Mary – and I must say she was shocked when I first told her this; although eventually she (well, sort of) agreed with me – well, I told her that Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew named Yeshua, and he always was; ‘Jesus’ was the later Latinized name. He had some differences with the Jewish hierarchy at the time, along with problems with the Romans who occupied the Holy Land, so much so that they (the Romans) crucified him. It was after his death that Christianity was born, due in large part to the preaching and writing of a Jew name Saul, whose name was later Latinized to ‘Paul’ after he had a vision of the resurrected Yeshua/Jesus. Saul/Paul made a strong case for rejecting many Jewish practices (such as circumcision), so much so that his sect broke free from its Jewish root. They became known as ‘Christians,’ since Paul preached that Yeshua was the real messiah (or ‘anointed one’), which in Greek is ‘Kristos,’ later Latinized to ‘Christus.’
Mary laughed when I said that therefore you might call the birth of Christianity a Jewish conspiracy. “Oh Millie,” she said. “You’re so smart it sometimes scares me. What is going to happen to you?”
Good question.
So, what did happen to me? Well it helped being smart, that’s for sure. Very smart, indeed. But not pushy. No, not pushy or impudent in any way. Not at all. You see, I was (and still am) happy with less – a lot less than I probably could have had. Yes, I lived (and still live) parsimoniously.
Well, I got a university education with excellent grades (as you might expect) but I didn’t go any further, although I could have, and was encouraged to do so. But I saw the university system as a barrier to women. And I was not inclined to fight the system. As I said, I was satisfied with less. While still a student at the University of Manitoba, I got part-time secretarial jobs, since I was a fabulous typist and proof reader. Even before I graduated, I was offered a full-time position as a secretary in the English Department, since their long-time-serving woman was thinking of retiring. And in the end, after graduation, I got the job.
It was the best decision of my life, looking back on it. You see, in this job I could go home at 5pm to my modest house not far from the university and forget about the job until the next morning. In the warmer weather I could walk to and fro; although in the dead of winter I took the short bus ride. After all, it was Winnipeg. And at home I could read whatever I wanted. Play the piano. Do my art work: drawing (pencil and/or pen & ink) and painting (only watercolour). Listen to the radio. And I read as much as I wanted: lots of books, magazines, and newspapers. I got the New York Times Sunday edition in the mail every week; it was a bit late, of course, but there were so many articles of interest that it was a source of almost endless reading throughout the week. For example, I recently came across this quote from the famous Albert Einstein in an article about him: “Perhaps it is due to anti-Semitism that we can preserve ourselves as a race; at least, this is what I believe.” I’ve been thinking a lot lately about this, especially in light of what I am going to tell you later. Incidentally, when I was a student, there were no Jewish professors on the faculty. Even as late as the mid-1940s, there were still only four Jewish professors.
In contrast to my life, my boss’s home life was filled with lectures to prepare, and even on weekends there were papers to mark, exams to compose and later to mark. And so it went. He often told me I was fortunate to be able to start a book and just read it at my leisure, right through if I wished. He confided in me that he seldom had time to read half of what he wanted to. I believe he liked talking to me, since I was smart. He often asked my advice regarding even the content of the texts that I was typing for him. We got along swimmingly, as you might surmise. We had a very good rela―
Okay, before you start fantasizing further, let me stop you. There was nothing beyond our professional relationship. Nothing at all. Throughout the university, in all my jobs – nothing. No flirting, never. I had no affairs in those years in various secretarial positions, if that’s what you’re thinking. And here’s why: I am not attractive. I knew this in High School, and was satisfied with it. Remember, I like a simple life, and I discovered that this unattractive state makes life uncomplicated – or, at least, less complicated than it otherwise might be. I could see among my classmates in school that the (let’s call them) ‘attractive’ girls had a life that was a roller-coaster ride. Up, happy, being gleeful; down, way down, when a guy dumped them. Yes, I saw some girls get really down; had to take pills; some even admitted to hospital. I thought: who needs this crap? I don’t want those ups and downs; I want a straight ride, flat. “Yes, just flat,” as I told Mary. She laughed, “Well that’s not the only thing that’s flat for you, huh”? We both had a good laugh at that. Remember we were best friends, and each could take a joke.
So, I tell you: my so-called ‘unattractiveness’ was a gift. Which I took and ran with, you might say. Today, you see: I wear no make-up, have a simple straight hair-do extending below my ears but not touching my shoulders, wear loose and non-flashy blouses, have only skirts far below my knees, and I wear sensible shoes – namely, flats (oh, that word again). All this ensured that my relationships with the men under whom I worked at the university would remain strictly professional. Let’s put it this way. I always had a good night’s solo sleep, if you know what I mean.
Of course, this is not to say that I never had an intimate relationship with anyone, but rather that it was not with any of my bosses – and I will leave it at that, for this has gone far beyond the original topic. But – and I emphasize this – all this is not a digression, for I very much want you to know about me and my life at the University of Manitoba, so as to put this story into context and to show how and why what I am going to tell you should not only be believed, but also taken seriously.
Further, to set the stage: I got along well with my fellow all-female secretaries and other staff at the university. My plainness was interpreted as a sort of prissiness, which is not true, but they didn’t know that. As Mildred Evans, I was asked what church I went to, and I told them St. Boniface Cathedral, since I did go to it when my friend Mary and I were kids, so strictly speaking my answer was no lie. Although I know their question had a different meaning. (Incidentally, Mary is now married and living in Toronto, raising her four kids.) They then asked why I go all the way to the other city to attend church and I told them it was about the music and the organ. They understood, and asked no more.
Also, due to my modest behaviour, they questioned why I was not a nun, and it led to them jokingly calling me Sister Millie. I said there was no such St. Mildred, although this may not be true, but then what do Protestants know about saints? – since Luther, Calvin, and the others eschewed them, along with the Virgin Mary, from their theology. And speaking of joking: being ‘Sister Millie’ among these Protestants, I was in an opportune position to reprimand them when they occasionally told anti-Semitic jokes or made similar remarks. And I did. As an art-lover, I also took the occasions to lecture them on the destruction of so much art by the Protestants during the Reformation: defacing and burning paintings, smashing statues, destroying stained-glass windows, and more. They knew none of this; it was a shock to them. They were not taught such things in Sunday-school, they said.
And that brings me to the reason for telling you all this in the first place. For, as I began, I said I was a witness, or even a spy. But for what? Well, for what may be called the backroom conversations. The secret disc―
Wait, I’m getting ahead. Uh, let’s start here: After many years with the English Department, I was promoted to being secretary for the new Dean of Medicine, Dr. Warren Matthews. It began for me at end of term in late May 1932. Although the Dean’s term began in September, he occasionally came around during the summer months to bring things (books, files, and such) so that his office was ready in the fall. He got to know me a bit and seemed very pleased and comfortable with me. His wife, Eleanor, even came with him one summer day – I believe, to check me out. She was nicely dressed, looking very Anglo-Saxonish prim and proper, if there is such a thing. When she saw me, she first looked me straight in my eyes and, while she was saying some pleasantries, she panned down my body to my feet and back up to my face, and ended with a self-assured smile on her face. I passed, since I was clearly no threat to her sexuality, whatever there was of it.
I spent the summer getting adjusted to the new office, going through the files and sometimes reorganizing them my way, and changing some things around in the physical space of the office. For one thing, I preferred keeping my office door to the university closed, but with a COME IN sign, when I was there. I didn’t like the constant background noise and chatter, as well as obtrusive eyes walking past an open door. That summer, I also had lots of typing to do both for the new Dean and for others in the Department of Medicine.
By the fall, when the Dean came in for the new term, we could get right to work. And we did. We quickly developed a good working relationship. He was obviously comfortable with me, for he shortly said that I should just call him ‘Warren.’ Interestingly, he liked me keeping my door closed, since he preferred keeping his door open. He said he was a bit claustrophobic, plus he liked to hear my typing – it had a musical rhythm that he found restful. Importantly, this meant that I was privy to confidential remarks by the Dean and those who ran the administration of the university when they were in his office. In short, I was able to eavesdrop. And eavesdrop I did! And that’s why I’m telling you this.
But this spying came later. The reason I am telling you this is because of an event that took place not long after he got settled into his new office. I can still remember the day. It was first thing in the morning, and after the “how are you” etc., he told me to look at the records of students admitted to the Medical School in terms of their ethnic origin, particularly noting how many of them were Jews. “We already have too many Jews, Millie,” he said. It was a jolt, and although I’m sure I showed no visible signs of my reaction, internally I was shaken. So much so that I almost blew my cover. Yes, even as Mildred Evans, Sister Millie, it―
Well, it’s hard to explain. I was tempted, of course, to ask why, … but, of course, I didn’t. “I’ll get to it right away, Warren,” was the best thing I could say at the time, and I turned away walking toward a filing cabinet, as any loyal Anglo-Saxon secretary would do, but with shaking hands that I hid from my boss.
I found that on the application form there was a line for ‘racial origin,’ and so I was able to do my job. I discovered that throughout the 1920s there were usually about 64 students per year admitted, with 18-25% being Jewish. Other ethnic groups also came – Ukrainian, Polish, German, and so forth, but in smaller percentages. Most, not surprisingly, were Anglo-Saxon – good English stock, according to Warren. When I presented my finding to him, I added another category, and I prefaced it by saying that I hoped he didn’t think I was being impudent in doing so. It was the number of women admitted, which was very low – often none, sometimes one or two. Warren smiled and said it was fine for me to be “conscious of my sex” and he blushed after he said it. I think hearing himself saying the word ‘sex’ out-loud to me, well, it jolted him – the way, on the previous day, his word ‘Jews’ jolted me.
Subsequently, my eavesdropping elicited more examples of anti-Semitism endemic to the faculty, as he chatted in his office with other administrators, keeping his door open. They all agreed. “Too many pushy Jews.” “Since they invariably get high grades in school, if we don’t put a lid on the enrolment, soon they will all be Jews.” “If we don’t do something now, well Jews will take over the faculty.” “First the Jews and then Ukrainians or Poles.” “At least the Frenchies have their own college in St. Boniface.” And so it went – a litany of bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice straight from the mouths of the administrative faculty to the ears of Mildred Evans. At most, a few made mild queries as to the efficacy of it, and the possibility of “aggressive Jewish lawyers” filing a legal case against the practice.
In the end there was a quota system initiated for all incoming classes, keeping the Jewish enrolment low. In 1936, for example, only nine got in. In later years even fewer. Out of 60 or more students, sometimes only four to six were Jewish. Of course, this meant that Anglo-Saxon students with far lower grades than Jewish students were admitted in place of them. And this was for a school to train physicians, dealing with life and death. “Just what we need – dumber doctors,” I told my Jewish friends. You see, I didn’t hide my clandestine information. I told anyone who would listen to me. Unfortunately, where it might make a difference, I got indifference, brought on by fear. Rabbis were afraid to do anything. They went along with the quota rule. “Don’t make waves, things could get worse,” was a standard response. Yes, they went along with the quota system. “Don’t look like a ‘pushy Jew,’ at least we get the ones that we get,” I was told. “Look, honey, be happy with four to six doctors a year,” I was told to my face by a rabbi’s wife. The same thing from the Jewish establishment. The B’nai Brith was afraid to do anything because it might backfire and only make matters worse. Similarly, for the Canadian Jewish Congress, which was reluctant to get involved in this Winnipeg issue. “What wimps,” I told my friends. I did the best I could. I didn’t blow my cover.
For me this thing came to a head in 1943, when the med school again turned down many Jewish and some other ‘ethnic’ students, so as to admit Anglo-Saxon students with (in this case) not only lower grades – but they also admitted some students who didn’t even pass their university exams and thus were required to go to summer school! To me, this was the last straw. The Jewish students’ Avakah Zionist Society got wind of this and began to bring all this out into the open. They eventually got the help of a Jewish lawyer and, yes, a fuss was raised and pressure was put on the Board of the University of Manitoba.
Finally, in 1944, after a dozen years of overt discrimination, the Medical School removed the racial and religious categories in their application. The quota rule finally ended. I celebrated with my Jewish friends. And, yes, Mildred “Prissy” Evans got a little tipsy.
Speaking of celebrating. In 1949, Dr. Warren Matthews was awarded an Honourary Doctor of Laws for his dedicated service to the University. I was invited to a private party for him, but I made up some excuse as to why I couldn’t make it. You see, I was afraid that if I did go, I would not be able to control myself, and proper Mildred Evans, aka Sister Millie, would perform the very unladylike act of making a scene by copiously spitting into the party’s punch bowl.
* * *
Features
U.S. Senate candidate from Michigan calls Israeli government ‘evil’ like Hamas
Abdul El-Sayed, doubled down on his criticism of the Netanyahu government and defended campaigning with controversial streamer Hasan Piker
By Jacob Kornbluh (Posted April 19, 2026) “This story was originally published in the Forward Click here to get the Forward’s free email newsletters delivered to your inbox.”
FoAbdul El-Sayed, a U.S. Senate candidate from Michigan, said in an interview aired Sunday that the Israeli government is as “evil” as Hamas, sharpening his criticism of Israel in the closely-watched Democratic primary.
“Killing tens of thousands of people makes you pretty damn evil,” El-Sayed told CNN congressional reporter Manu Raja on the network’s Inside Politics program. “It’s not how evil is this one versus that one — Hamas: Evil, Israeli government: Evil. We can say both.”
El-Sayed, 41, is a physician and the son of Egyptian immigrants. He is seeking to channel the energy of the 2024 Uncommitted movement, which protested the Biden administration’s support for Israel in the war against Hamas in Gaza. He is also hoping to build on the surprise success of the New York City mayoral campaign of Zohran Mamdani in taking on the Democratic establishment.
He is locked in a dead heat with state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and Rep. Haley Stevens. The primary is set for Aug. 4.
Earlier this month, El-Sayed faced backlash for appearing alongside streamer Hasan Piker, who has been accused of antisemitic rhetoric — including saying that Hamas “is a thousand times better” than Israel. McMorrow, who is married to a Jewish man, and Stevens, who is closely aligned with AIPAC, have both criticized El-Sayed.
In the CNN interview, El-Sayed defended his decision to campaign with Piker, framing it as an effort to reach voters who feel alienated from traditional politics. “My understanding of America is, it’s a place where we have freedom of speech,” he said.
The Michigan Senate race is shaping up as one of the starkest tests of the Democratic coalition and how the party navigates policy towards Israel in Congress amid the wars in Gaza and Iran. The state is home to the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the United States.
Last week, 40 Senate Democrats voted to block $295 million for the transfer of bulldozers, used by the Israeli military to demolish homes in the West Bank and Gaza; 36 of them also supported a measure to block the sale of 1,000-pound bombs to the Jewish state. It shattered a previous high of 27 Democrats who backed a similar pair of resolutions of disapproval to block some weapons transfers last year.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who is Jewish, was among those who voted for the measures. In remarks as they announced their votes, Democrats highlighted their opposition to the Israeli government’s policies in the occupied West Bank, the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the war with Iran.
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.”
Features
Israeli Government Report Ranks World’s 10 Most Influential Antisemites
Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism published this week its official ranking of the 10 most influential antisemitic figures in the world in 2025, and the No. 1 spot was given to social media influencer Dan Bilzerian, who is running for US Congress in Florida.
The Armenian-American entrepreneur and US military veteran is a prominent critic of Israel and Judaism who has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial. He has said he wants to “kill Israelis” and thinks Judaism is “terrible.” He recently claimed antisemitism is a “made-up term” and there is a “big Jewish supremacy problem” in the United States. He formally filed paperwork earlier this month to run as a Republican and unseat incumbent Jewish Rep. Randy Fine in Florida’s 6th Congressional District.
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is the world’s second most influential antisemite, according to Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, which highlighted her use of terms such as “genocide,” “siege,” and “mass starvation” in reference to Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip.
Third place was given to Egyptian comedian and former television host Bassem Youssef, followed by far-right American political commentator Candace Owens in fourth place and Palestinian-British journalist and editor Abdel Bari Atwan in fifth.
The list includes American imam Omar Suleiman, Denmark-based doctor Anastasia Maria Loupis – who has shared online conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel – far-right commentator and white nationalist Nick Fuentes, and conspiracist Ian Carroll.
Rounding out the top 10 is far-right podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who regularly promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish influence.
Israel said the 10 most “prominent influencers in the global antisemitic and anti-Zionist arena in 2025” were selected based on “both the severity of their actions/statements and the scope of their influence” related to their activities last year. “Each of them has expressed antisemitic views or promoted false information related to Jews, Israel, or both,” the ministry explained. The list does not include individuals with formal political or government positions.
Each individual was ranked based on their influence on social media, but also other factors such as their repeated appearances on news channels, “perceived influence on public opinion, and prominence in certain communities.” The ministry also took into consideration each person’s “level of impact and risk,” which includes how often they upload antisemitic and anti-Israeli posts on social media. The report was released ahead of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, known in Hebrew as Yom HaShoah.
In a separate section of the report dedicated to antisemitic and anti-Israel influencers in the US, Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs singled out YouTuber and children’s educator Ms. Rachel, who has “increasingly used her social media accounts to amplify pro-Palestinian messages and criticize Israel.”
“Her posts have been interpreted by pro-Israel organizations as one-sided and hostile to Israel, and organizations such as StopAntisemitism have accused her of spreading anti-Israel or pro-Hamas propaganda and called for an examination of her activities,” the ministry stated.