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,

jewishpostandnews.ca

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.”

In a recent post, Donald Trump took aim at Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Joe Kent, calling them “low IQ” and “losers,” and asking — between Carlson and Kent — “who is dumber?”

It was vintage Trump: blunt, theatrical, and calibrated to dominate a news cycle with a single line. He has long relied on that instinct — to compress a dispute into something sharp enough to stick. But beneath the spectacle sits a more serious issue.

The problem is not intelligence. Many of these figures are clearly relatively smart. The problem is that they — along with a growing chorus of voices on the political left such as Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, and Mehdi Hasan — continue to advance a claim that collapses under minimal scrutiny. Strip away the stylistic differences, the accents, and the partisan framing, and the argument is identical: “Israel controls the United States,” or in its updated form, “Benjamin Netanyahu controls Donald Trump.”

That claim has resurfaced repeatedly over the years, sometimes dressed in more sophisticated language, sometimes stated outright. What makes its latest iteration notable is not merely its persistence, but where it is now being voiced.

This weekend, Kamala Harris, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Detroit, said that Donald Trump had been “pulled into this war” by Benjamin Netanyahu. That phrasing carries a clear implication: that the president of the United States — the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world — is not acting independently but is being maneuvered into conflict by a foreign (Jewish) leader.

When this idea circulates on the fringes, it is dismissed. When amplified by pundits chasing attention, it’s often ignored. But when it’s echoed, even cautiously, by a former vice president and major presidential candidate, it crosses a different threshold. At that point, the claim can no longer be dismissed as noise. It has been normalized.

This is not a new idea. It is one of the oldest political accusations in circulation, and it is remarkably easy to test against reality. Only last week, Trump effectively dictated that Israel must accept a temporary ceasefire with Hezbollah — an outcome widely opposed within Israel, where many believe the campaign should be completed and remain skeptical that the Lebanese state will ever disarm Hezbollah. If Israel were directing American policy, that outcome would not occur.

Historically, the “Israel controls America” claim has appeared in different ideological forms but with identical substance. On the far-right, figures such as David Duke have advanced it explicitly. On the far-left, figures like Cynthia McKinney have repackaged it in political language. The wording changes, but the core allegation remains the same: that American power is not sovereign, but subject to external — specifically Jewish — control, echoing Henry Ford and his “International Jew” conspiracy theories of the 1920s and 1930s.

The argument collapses as soon as one examines scale and structure. The United States is a $27 trillion economy with unmatched global reach across military, financial, technological, and diplomatic domains. It maintains a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and leads a network of alliances that spans continents. Israel’s economy, by contrast, is approximately $700 billion. Its military is highly capable, but it is not a global force. It does not control sea lanes, command multinational coalitions, or set the terms of global finance. The disparity is not marginal; it is foundational.

This asymmetry is not unique. The United States maintains deep strategic relationships with many smaller allies such as South Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. In fact, the United States fought a war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, sustaining approximately 150 American combat fatalities in the process. Yet, almost no one claims Kuwait controls Washington, or that Saudi Arabia dictates US foreign policy. Only one small ally is routinely described in those terms.

The historical record reinforces the absurdity of this Israel “controls” America trope.

In 1956, despite repeated attacks on Israel from the Sinai and Egypt-controlled Gaza, Dwight D. Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai following the Suez Crisis; Israel complied. In 1982, Ronald Reagan pressured Israel to halt operations in Beirut, facilitating the evacuation of Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership to Tunisia. In 1991, George H. W. Bush asked Israel not to respond to Iraqi Scud missile attacks to help preserve the US-led coalition; Israel absorbed 39 Scud strikes, 13 deaths, and stood down.

In 2015, Barack Obama advanced the Iran nuclear deal despite sustained Israeli opposition. Under Joe Biden, Israeli operations in Rafah were delayed for months under US pressure despite Israeli hostages being held there and its centrality to Hamas’ military infrastructure.

More recently, on June 24, 2025, as a Trump-negotiated ceasefire was taking effect, Iran launched multiple ballistic missiles at Beersheba, killing four Israelis. Israel prepared a large retaliatory strike. Trump intervened and effectively ordered Israel to turn its planes around.

This is what an unequal alliance looks like: coordination, pressure, and at times outright constraint. It is not a relationship where the far smaller country exercises “control.”

So why does the claim persist? Not because it is analytically persuasive — but because it is emotionally effective. Political narratives built on grievance often prefer simple explanations to complex realities.

It is easier to attribute outcomes to hidden manipulation than to acknowledge the interplay of strategic interests, risks, and constraints that define foreign policy decision-making.

There is also a deeper historical layer. For centuries, European political culture absorbed and transmitted variations of the same vile accusation: that Jews operate behind the scenes, exercising covert and pernicious influence over institutions and leaders.

So, when modern commentators repackage that idea — whether in the language of “influence,” “lobbying,” or outright “control” — it does not enter a neutral environment. It lands on fertile soil, reinforcing a long-established and familiar narrative.

Since World War II, the claim hasn’t changed — only its migration from the margins into the mainstream. And once it crosses that threshold, it stops being rhetoric and starts shaping behavior.

As it did in Germany after World War I, if a significant number of people come to believe that their government has been captured, that their leaders are not acting independently but are controlled by a nefarious external force, the range of conclusions and actions they will justify or rationalize expands dramatically. History offers no shortage of examples of where that logic can lead.

Trump attempted to reduce this to a punchline. But this is not a matter of tone. It is a warning sign. And this time, it is coming from closer to the political center than it has in a very long time.

Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and Jewish history. He serves on the board of Herut North America.

In today’s global climate, Israel is a country many are expected to avoid. Turn on the international media — from CNN, to European and Indian broadcasters — and one narrative dominates: Israel as aggressor and pariah, Israel as a place defined by war, or worse, apartheid. Add to this the open hostility of regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, and a growing hostility among Western leaders, such as Italian Prime Minister Meloni suspending defense cooperation.

The message is clear: Stay away from Israel.

And yet, in the midst of missile fire, media hostility, and geopolitical pressure — they came anyway.

A group of Indian workers, recruited through an Indian manpower agency, chose not to be deterred. Their arrival in Israel a few days ago is more than a labor story. It is a quiet but powerful act of defiance against a global narrative increasingly detached from reality. When I received photos of the team from the Israel-Jordan border, proudly waving the Indian and Israeli flags, my heart was happy.

Their journey was anything but straightforward.

After receiving their visas, these men and women left their jobs in India, stepping into uncertainty. Then came the cancelled flights, closed routes, and more than a month of waiting as airlines suspended operations to Israel. Many may have reconsidered at this juncture.

They did not.

Instead, they flew to Amman, waited again, and then endured long hours of land travel and layered security checks on both sides of the Jordanian-Israeli border before finally entering Israel.

Since the October 7 attacks, Israel has faced an acute labor shortage, especially in sectors such as construction, caregiving, and general services, which were once filled by Palestinian workers. India, with its vast labor pool and long history of global migration, is uniquely positioned to help fill this gap. Following Prime Minister Modi’s historic visit in February, just before the Iran-Israel/US conflict escalated, Israel and India strengthened ties through key Memoranda of Understanding in defense, technology, agriculture, research, and labor.

One visible outcome is the arrival of Indian workers who choose to come to Israel, to see and experience the country for themselves despite the weight of propaganda, fear, and misinformation.

They also came after weeks of watching missile barrages over Israeli cities on their television screens. They came despite a steady stream of coverage portraying Israel as unsafe, unstable, and morally suspect. They came knowing that public opinion in parts of India, influenced by global narratives, has grown more critical of Israel.

I recently interviewed an Indian caregiver documenting life under Iranian missile fire — daily fear, resilience, and routine. Her videos have gone viral in India. Alongside support, she also faces hostility from those echoing distorted narratives, but equally sparks curiosity and a deeper desire to understand Israel.

Together with others working to strengthen Israel-India relations, I recently shared a reel on Instagram about Indian workers arriving via Jordan. The response has been overwhelming from both sides: messages from India expressing support and genuine interest in a country often misunderstood, and Israelis warmly welcoming the new arrivals.

What we are seeing is the rise of a people-to-people alliance. One that is less visible, less celebrated, but potentially more enduring. An alliance that is built on shared values: resilience, pragmatism, and the instinct to move forward despite adversity.

At a time when parts of the international community are distancing themselves from Israel, the arrival of these workers offers another perspective on alliance.

If Israel is wise, it will recognize this as an opportunity to invest in these relationships, amplify these voices, and allow a narrative to emerge not from above, but from those who have seen the country firsthand.

At a moment when the nation is misrepresented, and misunderstood, the decision of these workers from India to come to work in Israel carries meaning beyond economics.

In difficult times, we know who stands with us.

Paushali Lass is an Indian-German intercultural and geopolitical consultant, who focuses on building bridges between Israel, India, and Germany.