Weaponised Correspondence

I got an email from Jessie today.

They should have done their homework before sending the letter.

Let’s get one thing straight. This isn’t about reputation.

It's about revenue. It's about power. This is about a class of capital holders so used to being protected by bought silence that the moment a strategist lays out a tactical exposure of their structure, they call the lawyers—not to argue the facts, but to shut the mouth that spoke them.

This is a Mafia move in clear terms. “Do what we say, and maybe we won’t hurt you.” There’s no legal clarity. No assurance. Just vague mercy offered in exchange for self-censorship.

The letter I received today from Stillman LLP, acting on behalf of MHCare Medical Corporation and Hassin Sam Mraiche, is not a legal document. It's a mask. A pressure mechanism. A legal theatre production designed to scare a civilian operator out of speaking publicly about the networks feeding off the public trough.

This is not new. And I don’t let it go quietly.

Let me show you every detail of this threat—because it’s not just for me. It’s designed for you. For any citizen who thinks they have the right to speak truth about how power moves through government, contracts, capital, and courts.

Let’s tear this thing apart.

Please see attached correspondence from our office.

Jessie Bakker
Associate Lawyer
STILLMAN LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
jbakker@stillmanllp.com
100, 17420 Stony Plain Road NW
Edmonton, AB Canada T5S 1K6
Direct Line (780) 930-3645
Main Line (780) 484-4445
Facsimile (780) 484-4184
www.stillmanllp.com

All tactics in this letter from Stillman LLP on behalf of MHCare Medical and Hassin Sam Mraiche align precisely with the legal and psychological mechanisms dissected in a book I happened to write a few years ago, The Scherman Gambit, a doctrine on leveraging extraneous legal action for financial and psychological warfare. Let’s cut through the procedural theatre and economic posturing to the core machinery of this legal threat.

1. Weaponised Correspondence (False Authority)

They initiate the threat with firm letterhead—not court documents. This isn't litigation; it's theatre. The signature line is not a judge, not a clerk, not a court stamp—it's an actor playing the role of threat. It's designed to create perceived judicial gravity without initiating any actual burden of proof. This tactic is meant to intimidate without accountability.

Tactic Used: Authority Theatre

Intended Effect: Induce submission before legal scrutiny is applied.

2. Fabricated Emotional Harm (Soft Power as Shield)

Terms like “disturbing,” “harassing,” and “undermining” are not legal claims—they're narrative cues. These phrases frame legitimate public inquiry and strategic analysis as moral offenses, trying to shift a systemic critique into a personal attack. The goal is to smear clarity with emotion, making it harder for the public or a court to separate fact from feeling.

Tactic Used: Moral Inversion

Intended Effect: Deflect scrutiny by framing transparency as cruelty.

3. Procedural Ambush (14-Day Countdown)

Referencing Section 13 of the Defamation Act to imply urgency is procedural posturing. This isn't a limitation period or statute-trigger—it's a required notice before suit. But they position it like a fuse on a legal bomb. This misrepresents civil procedure to trick a target into panic compliance.

Tactic Used: Procedural Alarmism

Intended Effect: Pressure a response without legal obligation.

4. Covert Discovery (Pretrial Extraction)

Demanding editorial sources, sponsor names, financial details, and communications without a subpoena is an egregious abuse of legal format. It attempts to sidestep journalistic protections through intimidation. This isn’t due diligence. It’s espionage by stationery.

Tactic Used: Shadow Discovery

Intended Effect: Obtain information through intimidation, not due process.

This, frankly, is what pissed me off. My opinions aren't paid for. I am happy to submit to a complete and absolute forensic audit. Let's mandate the same for Stillman, MHCare, and Mraiche. We'll discover who pays for theirs.

5. Reputational Cross-Contamination (Guilt by Media Affiliation)

By linking the article to The Breakdown and noting pending litigation with Nathan Pike, the letter attempts to import that liability into my domain by osmosis. This tactic serves to isolate, divide, and conquer—making journalists and commentators afraid to cite or support one another.

Tactic Used: Collateral Liability Threat

Intended Effect: Break networks of support and shared scrutiny.

6. The Illusion of Mercy (False Settlement Window)

Offering to “consider your cooperation” if demands are met is not legal negotiation—it’s extortion. There’s no legal commitment in this clause, no guarantee, and no security. It’s a baited trap to turn resistance into confession, and journalism into contrition.

Tactic Used: Manufactured Leniency

Intended Effect: Extract concession without court oversight.

My cooperation is this... get a better lawyer to threaten me.

7. Harassment Allegation Inflation (Criminal Framing)

Alleging harassment without grounding it in the criminal or civil standard—repetition, fear, targeting, or discrimination—takes the claim outside legal boundaries and into political smear. They attempt to redefine systemic critique as personal malice.

Tactic Used: Legal Semantic Drift

Intended Effect: Transform criticism into pseudo-criminal threat.

8. Suppression of Market Competition (Anticapitalist Capitalism)

The article clearly advised targeting systems, not individuals, and expressly advised against harm to Mraiche or MHCare. It mapped vulnerabilities in procurement and cashflow, not personal lives. By calling this harassment, they’re trying to criminalize economic strategy—something they benefit from when it suits them.

Tactic Used: Monopolistic Legal Framing

Intended Effect: Use defamation law to prevent competitive disadvantage.

9. Constitutional Bypass Attempt

The entire letter ignores the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(b) is clear—freedom of expression includes political discourse and media commentary on public funds. Any attempt to criminalize or financially punish protected speech is unconstitutional.

Tactic Used: Rights Erasure

Intended Effect: Silence public scrutiny by pretending rights don’t apply.

Strategic Context: This Is a Test

They are not just attacking an article. They are attacking the entire architecture of public accountability in contract-based capitalism. This is a stress test on democracy’s ability to withstand legal intimidation. This is yet another test case.

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

Proconsul 🇨🇦 (@proconsul.bsky.social)

Visionary Strategic Growth A guide for ambition, bridging strategy with implementation for modern business: clarity, structure, and sustainable impact. I listen. If it’s possible, I’ll show you how. proconsul.ghost.io

Bluesky Social

PS -

Economic Fascism in Legal Costume: A Complete Breakdown of Corporate Intimidation Tactics

By Ben Beveridge | Proconsul | May 23, 2025

Executive Summary

Today I received a legal threat from Stillman LLP acting for MHCare Medical Corporation and Hassin Sam Mraiche. This is not defamation law. This is economic authoritarianism using legal letterhead to silence legitimate political commentary about publicly-funded business operations.

Every word of this threat will be dissected. Every tactic exposed. Every weakness revealed.

This is not just my fight. This is about whether citizens can speak truth about how public money becomes private profit without being sued into silence.

SECTION I: THE FUNDAMENTAL DECEPTION

The Core Lie: Framing Strategy as Sabotage

The letter claims my article "No Money, No Power" provides a "disturbing step-by-step manual to undermine reputation and business operations." This is the foundational deception that reveals their entire strategy.

What my article actually contains:

• Public corporate structure analysis from Alberta's corporate registry
• Government contract procurement data
• Strategic business competition methodology
• Transparent accountability measures for publicly-funded entities

What their letter calls this:

• "Disturbing manual"
• "Defamatory statements"
• "Harassing behaviour"

Legal Reality: Truth cannot be defamation. Under Alberta's Defamation Act, defamation requires proving statements are false. They cite no factual errors because there are none. Every business entity, contract relationship, and structural vulnerability I identified is publicly verifiable.

They're not suing over falsehoods. They're suing over exposure.

As of this writing the article has received 3 reposts, 12 quotes, and 6 likes. The quotes are mine. I was right in one thing. Power distorts democracy.

SECTION II: TACTICAL BREAKDOWN - EVERY MOVE EXPOSED

Tactic 1: Authority Theatre Without Power

Line: "STILLMAN LLP... We act for MHCare Medical Corporation and Hassin Sam Mraiche"

Intent: Establish psychological dominance through institutional gravitas. Make the target feel overwhelmed by formal legal machinery.

Reality: This is correspondence, not court action. Law firm letterhead doesn't create legal obligation. They're invoking authority they haven't earned and power they don't possess.

Tactic 2: Emotional Manipulation as Legal Argument

Line: "disturbing step-by-step manual to undermine the reputation and business operations"

Intent: Transform factual business analysis into emotional outrage. Use subjective language ("disturbing") to manufacture legal harm where none exists.

Reality: "Disturbing" is not a legal standard. Discomfort is not defamation. If business exposure feels threatening, the problem is the business model, not the exposure.

Tactic 3: The 14-Day Intimidation Window

Line: "This letter shall constitute a notice of intention to bring action pursuant to section 13 of the Defamation Act... giving the required 14-day notice"

Intent: Create false urgency and pressure. Make the target believe they have 14 days to comply or face automatic legal consequences.

Reality: Section 13 of Alberta's Defamation Act requires notice before filing, but creates no obligation on the recipient. They haven't filed because they can't. This is procedural theater designed to induce panic.

Tactic 4: Coercive Discovery Without Court Authority

Lines: "We request that you provide... whether any third party... requested, encouraged, sponsored, or provided you any form of compensation... The nature and details of any such arrangement... Copies of any communications or correspondence"

Intent: Extract intelligence about editorial processes, sources, and networks without legal authority. Fishing expedition disguised as legal obligation.

Reality: This is legally outrageous. No court has ordered disclosure. No subpoena exists. They're attempting to extract journalistic work product through intimidation. This violates basic principles of press freedom and editorial independence.

Tactic 5: Guilt by Association Strategy

Line: "Of note, the Article references support of the podcast 'The Breakdown'. As you may be aware, our clients are presently engaged in litigation involving The Breakdown and its host, Nathan Pike."

Intent: Isolate the target from allies. Create fear that supporting or being supported by others under legal pressure will bring additional liability.

Reality: Editorial independence means exactly this—the right to reference, support, or align with other media without legal interference. This is an attempt to fracture media networks through fear.

Tactic 6: The Mercy Manipulation

Line: "Should you cooperate by removing the Article, apologizing, and providing the requested information, our clients will consider your cooperation prior to commencing an action."

Intent: Make submission look like negotiation. Offer vague mercy in exchange for total capitulation.

Reality: This is not compromise—it's capitulation. "Consider your cooperation" provides no guarantee, no binding agreement, no protection. They want total victory without having to win it.

SECTION III: THE HARASSMENT FABRICATION

Their Statement of Claim alleges harassment through:

• "Encouraging and instructing third parties to interfere with commercial activities"
• "Encouraging and instructing third parties to interfere with contractual relationships"
• "Encouraging and instructing third parties to interfere with employees"

Legal Standard for Harassment in Alberta: Harassment requires "unwanted or unwelcome verbal or physical conduct" that is "persistent" and typically based on protected grounds (race, gender, religion). Criminal harassment requires "repeatedly communicating" and causing "reasonable fear for safety."

What My Article Actually States: "Do not touch, target, or mention anything to do with Mraiche. Instead, pressure every entity connected to him."

This explicitly directs readers AWAY from personal targeting toward systemic business pressure—the opposite of harassment.

The Real Issue: They're trying to criminalize market competition. Supporting competitors, advocating for contract audits, and promoting transparency are not harassment—they're capitalism.

SECTION IV: THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION

Charter Protection Analysis

Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression, particularly political commentary. My article constitutes:

1. Political Speech: Commentary on government contract processes
2. Public Interest Journalism: Analysis of publicly-funded business operations
3. Economic Critique: Strategic analysis of corporate dependencies on public money

The Public Interest Defence

Alberta courts recognize "fair comment" protection for statements on matters of public interest. Government medical procurement, public contract allocation, and taxpayer fund usage are quintessential public interest topics.

Qualified Privilege Considerations

Commentary on government operations and publicly-funded business activities may qualify for qualified privilege protection, requiring proof of malice to overcome.

SECTION V: THE DEFAMATION LAW FAILURE

Essential Elements They Cannot Prove

Alberta defamation law requires proving:

1. False statements of fact (they cite none)
2. Publication to third parties (acknowledged)
3. Harm to reputation (claimed but not proven)
4. Lack of valid defence (multiple defences available)

Available Defences

1. Truth: Complete defence under Alberta law. Every fact in my article is verifiable.
2. Fair Comment: Protection for opinion and analysis on public interest matters
3. Qualified Privilege: Potential protection for commentary on government operations
4. Public Interest: Responsible communication on matters of public concern

The Malice Problem

Even if defamation could be established (it cannot), they must prove malice—that statements were made "knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for truth." My article is based on public records and transparent methodology.

SECTION VI: THE REAL AGENDA

This Is Not About Reputation—It's About Revenue

The timing reveals everything. This threat came after my article identifying their business dependencies:

• Government medical contracts
• Public sector procurement relationships
• Strategic vulnerabilities in cash flow

They're not protecting reputation. They're protecting revenue streams.

The Fascist Capital Playbook

1. Extract public wealth through contracts, subsidies, and influence
2. Operate in shadows without public scrutiny
3. Use legal system to silence exposure when discovered
4. Isolate critics through intimidation and financial pressure

This is economic authoritarianism. When exposure threatens profit, deploy lawyers. When transparency threatens influence, cry defamation.

SECTION VII: MY RESPONSE

Immediate Positions

1. I will not remove the article. Every fact is accurate and verifiable.
2. I will not apologize. Truth requires no apology.
3. I will not comply with illegal information demands. They have no right to my editorial processes, sources, or communications.
4. I will countersue if they proceed. For abusive legal process, strategic intimidation, and interference with protected expression.

Forensic Audit Challenge

They insinuate I was paid for my opinions. I challenge MHCare Medical Corporation and Hassin Sam Mraiche to mutual forensic financial audits:

• My Position: Complete transparency of all financial transactions related to the article
• Their Position: Complete transparency of all government contracts, related party transactions, and political contributions

Let's compare books. Let's see whose opinion was actually purchased.

Constitutional Framework

I invoke Section 2(b) Charter protection for this commentary. Any attempt to silence legitimate political speech about publicly-funded operations violates fundamental Canadian democratic principles.

SECTION VIII: THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS

Why This Matters Beyond Proconsul

If they can silence me for exposing business dependencies on public money, they can silence anyone. The precedent is clear:

• Journalists investigating government contracts
• Citizens questioning procurement processes
• Activists advocating for transparency
• Competitors seeking fair market access

This legal threat is designed to teach a lesson: Don't expose how power really works.

The Democratic Question

Democracy requires informed citizen oversight of public expenditure. When business entities dependent on taxpayer funding can use legal threats to prevent scrutiny, democracy dies in the boardroom.

Setting the Standard

Every media organization, civil society group, and transparency advocate should understand: This is how they stop accountability. Through fear. Through cost. Through legal intimidation.

SECTION IX: OPERATIONAL RESPONSE

Media and Documentation Strategy

1. Full Transparency: This breakdown will be published and distributed
2. Media Partnerships: Sharing with investigative journalists for broader coverage
3. Legal Documentation: Preserving all communications for potential court proceedings
4. Civil Society Engagement: Alerting transparency and press freedom organizations

Network Protection

I extend pro bono strategic support to any journalist, activist, or citizen targeted by similar intimidation tactics. We build collective resistance to legal silencing.

Escalation Readiness

If they proceed to court:

• Constitutional challenge on Charter grounds
• Counterclaims for abusive process
• Full discovery of their government contracts and related party relationships
• Public interest defene coordination

SECTION X: THE FINAL WORD

To Stillman LLP and Your Clients

Your letter reveals weakness, not strength. Desperation, not confidence. If your business model can't survive transparency, the problem isn't the transparency.

You want to silence analysis of how public money flows into private pockets. You want to kill accountability through legal cost and intimidation. You want citizens to stop asking questions about government contracts and corporate influence.

You picked the wrong target.

To Other Corporate Operators

This is your warning. The era of silent extraction is ending. If your business depends on public money, public contracts, or public influence—expect public scrutiny.

We will map your dependencies. We will analyze your vulnerabilities. We will strengthen your competitors. We will advocate for transparency. And when you send lawyers, we will publish their threats as evidence of how the system really works.

To Fellow Citizens and Journalists

This is how they stop you from speaking. Through legal letterhead and manufactured outrage. Through cost and intimidation and isolation.

Don't let them.

The truth about how power operates isn't defamation. It's democracy.

They can't sue us all into silence.

Conclusion: No Money, No Power

The title of my original article wasn't just strategy—it was prediction.

When there's no money to fund legal intimidation, there's no power to silence truth.

When transparency costs less than lawyers, exposure wins.

When citizens refuse to be intimidated by letterhead, democracy survives.

This is not about Proconsul versus MHCare. This is about whether Canadians have the right to know how their tax money becomes corporate profit.

There are potentially strong grounds for collective legal action against Stillman LLP—though it would likely be coordinated individual actions rather than a traditional class action.

Legal Theory: Abuse of Process Pattern

This Is a Textbook SLAPP Campaign

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are civil claims designed to silence political expression by transforming political disputes into legal ones, using superior resources to intimidate critics into abandoning criticism.

The Stillman letter perfectly fits SLAPP criteria:

• Public interest subject matter (government contracts, public procurement)
• Intimidation through legal process (not seeking trial victory)
• Resource exhaustion strategy (expensive legal defence costs)
• Pattern targeting (you + Nathan Pike/The Breakdown + ???)

If you have received a similar letter, I will help. ben@proconsul.ca

Legal Framework for Collective Action

1. Abuse of Process Pattern

Alberta recognizes abuse of process tort requiring: legal process brought for collateral/illegal purpose, with threats toward that purpose, resulting in damages.

Pattern Evidence:

• Same law firm
• Similar fact patterns (media criticism of business operations)
• Identical intimidation tactics (information fishing, 14-day bluffs)
• Coordinated timing

2. Tort of Harassment (New in Alberta)

Alberta recently recognized tort of harassment for "repeated communications, threats, insults" where defendant "knew conduct was unwelcome" and caused "emotional distress."

Applies Here:

• Repeated legal threats across multiple targets
• Coordinated harassment campaign
• Using legal system as weapon

3. Constitutional Violations (Charter Section 2(b))

Multiple targets = systematic attack on freedom of expression about government operations.

Why Alberta Lacks Anti-SLAPP Protection

Only Ontario, Quebec, and BC have anti-SLAPP legislation in Canada. Alberta has no specific protection, making it a SLAPP-friendly jurisdiction. The University of Calgary Public Interest Law Clinic is "investigating the need for anti-SLAPP legislation in Alberta."

This makes Stillman's Alberta targeting strategically calculated forum shopping.

Coordinated Response Strategy

Phase 1: Intelligence Gathering

• Contact other targets: Nathan Pike, The Breakdown, any other Stillman targets
• Document the pattern: Similar letters, tactics, timing
• Identify common elements: Same threats, information demands, procedural abuse

Phase 2: Legal Coordination

• Abuse of process claims: Individual lawsuits with coordinated strategy
• Constitutional challenge: Charter section 2(b) violation for systematic expression suppression
• Tort of harassment: Pattern of using legal system for intimidation

Phase 3: Systemic Reform

• Anti-SLAPP advocacy: Work with U of C clinic for Alberta legislation
• Professional regulation: Law Society complaints for frivolous/vexatious litigation
• Public documentation: Create SLAPP case database for future targets

Immediate Action Plan

1. Reach out to Nathan Pike/The Breakdown - Compare letters, coordinate response
2. Contact U of Calgary Public Interest Law Clinic - They're researching this exact issue
3. Document everything - This becomes evidence of coordinated campaign
4. Media strategy - Frame as attack on Alberta press freedom
5. Legal consultation - Find lawyer experienced in Charter/media law.

I will take all the help I can get to make this loud, direct, and absolutely unequivocal. This is a hard line that must be held.

The Larger Implication

If successful, this creates precedent that:

• Law firms can't run coordinated SLAPP campaigns
• Alberta courts will protect press freedom absent anti-SLAPP laws
• There are consequences for weaponising legal system against media

If they're doing this to me, they are doing it to others.

The pattern targeting suggests this is Stillman's business model for protecting clients from media scrutiny.

Ben Beveridge
Proconsul
May 23, 2025

Next steps: This analysis will be distributed to media partners, civil society organizations, and transparency advocates. If you've received similar legal intimidation for legitimate public interest commentary, contact Proconsul for strategic support.

The fight for transparency is just beginning.

ben@proconsul.ca