ALIA’s Preemptive Strike
Institutional Overreach in the Face of Constitutional Accountability
On May 27, 2025, the Alberta Lawyers Indemnity Association (ALIA) initiated File No. 2025 0870 in response to a private settlement offer I sent to Stillman LLP's counsel, Jessie Bakker. This action, taken without a formal claim or legal obligation, raises significant concerns about ALIA's role and the broader implications for legal regulatory frameworks in Canada.
You're going to get a series about legal frameworks and constitutional law over the next few weeks. Sorry :)
If you've been following along, On May 23 I received a threat letter from Stillman LLP, on behalf of Sam Mraiche, demanding I delete articles, and if I don't, they'll take me to court... but they won't, if I just give them financial and communications information... about Nate Pike.
My response... Fuck you.
These latest articles are my conversation and process with Stillman and their supportive institutions, to resolve the matter.
The email chain is amazing...
Background:
I am the Plaintiff in a pending federal constitutional action against Stillman LLP, its partners, Hassin Sam Mraiche, the Law Society of Alberta, and ALIA. This action arises from documented Charter violations under sections 2(b) and 7.
Despite multiple attempts to engage ALIA and the Law Society of Alberta regarding threats made against me by Stillman LLP, including formal complaints and direct communications, there was no response. It was only upon sending a private settlement offer that they chose to act—not by addressing my concerns, but by initiating a claims file to protect Stillman LLP.
The Contradiction:
ALIA's response explicitly states: "We have received your emails making a claim against Stillman LLP." This is perplexing, given that the Law Society of Alberta has formally declared it "does not have jurisdiction over law firms, only individual lawyers."
This contradiction begs the question: How can ALIA provide indemnity coverage for an entity (Stillman LLP) that its regulator claims has no legal standing for regulatory purposes?
Jurisdictional Overreach:
ALIA's actions suggest a significant overreach of their jurisdiction:
- Unauthorized Intervention: ALIA created a claims file based on being courtesy-copied on private settlement negotiations—without legal authority or obligation to respond.
- Entity Coverage Contradiction: ALIA explicitly cites "claim against Stillman LLP" as justification for the file, despite firms allegedly being unregulated entities.
- Role Inversion: Gregory Bentz is designated as "Claimant." In this action by ALIA, is Bentz an individual, a lawyer, a beneficial owner of Stillman LLP, the author of the threat letter to me, or is he representing the firm Stillman LLP collectively? What roles has ALIA determined for the parties in providing indemnity?
- Pre-litigation Coordination: ALIA positioned itself as an institutional respondent before any formal legal process commenced.
Implications:
These actions suggest systematic coordination between regulator, insurer, and law firm to pre-empt constitutional accountability. This undermines the federal court process and creates an institutional shield against Charter enforcement.
Questions Requiring Clarification:
- On what jurisdictional basis can ALIA provide coverage for Stillman LLP when law societies disclaim authority over firms?
- Is ALIA treating Bentz as a proxy for firm-wide indemnity, and if so, under what legal framework?
- Will parallel files be created for other named Stillman partners, or has ALIA made selective coverage decisions?
- What communications occurred between ALIA, the Law Society, and Stillman prior to this intervention?
- Does ALIA's policy permit indemnification for alleged Charter violations and abuse of process?
- Is pre-litigation insurance coordination standard protocol, or evidence of institutional alignment?
Conclusion:
ALIA's preemptive actions in this matter raise serious concerns about the integrity of legal regulatory frameworks in Canada. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada must address these jurisdictional contradictions to uphold the legal profession's integrity and protect the constitutional rights of Canadian citizens.
Believe me, I am aware of the futility of this... the same people that threatened me sit as advisors, operators, and controlling parties for Stillman, the Law Society of Alberta, ALIA, and the courts that control the outcomes of these processes. They golf together, drink together, and make money, together. I have no expectation of success. But I will document and explore every detail. And they have never met someone who responds to threats from a bully quite like I do.
The worst part for them... I love this.
My letter this morning:
All documents, communications, and records of all transactions are contained in two archives, one public, and one private. The public archive has all legally appropriate material, including all matters connected to the initial threat from Stillman. The private archive has my core materials, and content relevant to the future development of the case, in trust.
You are welcome to read and follow along. you could even ask to get added to the email chain if you're really curious :) Getting to assess the reactions and language in responses, when all parties can view them...
I am not a lawyer. But I can see why it's fun.
This is what I’m working on. Tell me what you think, I enjoy the conversation! Subscribe and follow the work in real time.
Thanks!
B
ALIA ignored my report, my complaint, my claim. But from a private settlement email, they opened a case file to protect Stillman LLP—before any suit was filed. That’s not insurance. That’s institutional coordination.
PS -
This is not an insurance claim.
This is the blueprint of how institutional power activates in unison—law firms, regulators, and professional insurers—all moving as one body to suppress dissent before it enters a courtroom.
On May 27, the Alberta Lawyers Indemnity Association (ALIA) did not respond to my notice of threat, my formal complaint, or my Charter violation disclosure.
They opened a case file. Not against Stillman LLP. Not on behalf of the citizen threatened.
But for Gregory Bentz—the lawyer who issued the threat to me—and the law firm he signed for.
That file now exists. It’s titled, numbered, and active. Its origin? My settlement offer.
Its purpose? Not risk assessment. Not claims mitigation.
But pre-emptive coordination. Coverage activation before litigation. Weaponised indemnity.
ALIA positioned itself not as a passive insurer—but as a strategic defence vector for Stillman LLP, a named defendant in a federal constitutional lawsuit for abuse of process and Charter suppression.
Here’s what the public doesn’t see:
ALIA doesn’t insure law firms. But it created a file because a law firm was threatened.
ALIA doesn't regulate conduct. But it moved when regulation meant protecting its subscribers.
ALIA didn't move to defend rights—it moved to protect revenue.
And that move confirms the very allegation at the heart of Canada v. Stillman:
That Canada’s legal institutions do not serve justice—they serve each other.