Kerzner more or less demands authoritative domination over the subject of identity. When she asserts someone is behind an account, there is no questioning allowed— and none ever happens because the framework of victimization that she operates within treats any questions of that sort as improper. One might even say that such questions, if Per's stance as a trained moderator by Kerzner is any indication, would be considered abuse.

This creates a hothouse environment where Kerzner's assertions can't be challenged. Therefore, every account she claims to be her 'stalker' is uncritically accepted as the gospel truth. Critical thinking does not accept gospels, it proposes hypotheses and tests them, so we will put the proposition that the majority of these accounts are Emily Schooley to the test.

We do know, however, that Kerzner  allegedly had a forensic report prepared about the 'stalker' alts she claims Schooley took out. Schooley, however, claims that this report was thrown out by the judge in question. Without a public court record, testing either allegation is difficult, but we do know that Schooley hasn't been convicted of any cyberstalking charges. 

My hypothesis is that if Kezner's evidence were as conclusive as she claimed it was to me, these 'stalker' accounts wouldn't exist.  While Canadian law does not have a single standalone offense for cyberstalking, most cases are prosecuted under criminal harassment (section 264 of the criminal code.)  

Online behavior that includes messages, posts, tracking and threats can all fall under this. Those indicted under these charges would face a criminal record, potential jail time of up to ten years, fines or probation and, in some cases, conditional discharges.

For those found guilty, courts almost always impose protective conditions, such as:

1. No-Contact Orders, which prohibit direct or indirect communication with the victim. This includes texts, e-mail, social media, or third parties.
2. Stay Away Orders, which require the culprit to maintain a minimum mandated distance from the victim's home and person.
3. Internet/Communications Restrictions, where the courts place restrictions on social media usage, messaging apps, and sometimes broader internet usage depending on the severity of the offense.
4. Weapon Ownership Prohibitions, which is pretty self-explanatory.
5. Probation Conditions, such as mandatory counseling or therapy, regular check-ins with a probation officer, and good behavior requirements.

Schooley does not appear to have suffered any of these conditions imposed on her— at least the ones restricting her online usage, especially since Kerzner has made such a production about 'stalker chan' operating online.

This brings up questions that simply can't be ignored, such as:

1. If Liana Kerzner has proven Emily Schooley is, indeed, the accounts listed below, why do the majority of those accounts still exist?
2. If Liana Kerzner has been able to conclusively prove authorship and provenance,  why is she still allowing anonymous messages to be sent through an unsecured form that could be easily secured? The ability to require valid and registered e-mail addresses would greatly enhance her case against someone against whom she has (allegedly) proven a case. If Schooley was indicted of any of the charges above, wouldn't a trackable and provable instance of re-incidence allow her to escalate the severity of legal remedies, potentially even putting her 'stalker' behind bars as a repeated offender? Or, at the very least, erase her online presence under a court-mandated blackout? Especially since Kerzner claims she has been receiving death threats that she has attributed to her 'stalkers.'
3. If Kerzner is so sure that both Schooley and us are behind the 'stalking' and the death threats, why is Kerzner's lawyer more interested in silence than punitive measures? Dangerous stalkers are not to be mollified by legal documents, as is often the case. Bourrie himself said that anonymity on the internet is a myth, therefore if Kerzner is cognizant of a real threat, why deploy half measures against it?

In light of this, Kerzner's claim that she has positively identified all of the following accounts as Emily Schooley stands on shaky grounds.

However, while we cannot fully deploy the tools of a forensic linguist, there are some basic premises that can be used to filter out likelihood of authorship. Primarily, the hypotheses advanced by forensic linguist and Vassar scholar Donald Wayne Foster ( Author Unknown .) Foster gained prominence in literary detection in Shakespearean studies, and then gained notoriety for his involvement in criminal and investigative cases. While controversial, Foster advanced many methodologies that were refined by his later peers, such as ​Tim Grant— who founded the  Centre for Forensic Linguistics at Aston University.

It is generally accepted that people can, to a meaningful degree, alter how they write, especially in short or informal communications like texts and on mediums such as social media posts. Nevertheless, complete and consistent disguise is difficult to sustain and it becomes impossible to do so over an extended amount of time. Writers often, in the long term, exhibit underlying tendencies they are not consciously controlling. These stylistic and linguistic markers do shift over time as the person changes and evolves (or devolves) as a writer, but such changes are never instantaneous.

With that in mind, let us take a look at some of these accounts.

Annaleigh Farrier is an account that emerged at some point in the spring of 2025. There isn't anything  extremely offensive in her output, compared to some of the following candidates. Her largest offense seems to have been that of parody, as Aileyn made the case that it was part of a 'hate campaign':

The IP address in question is not a VPN, and it lands in Mexico, and in Aileyn's city.

Liana Kerzner, telling everyone to stop looking while she looks. Just like she tells everybody not to engage, while she engages. Not to name-call, while she name calls, not to—

Well.  My duty as a concerned citizen discharged, we can continue examining this account.

Farrier's 'hate' seems to have been limited to making skeets that vaguely sound like something Kerzner would have said, but passed through a very on-the-nose filter. The writing is amateurish and a lot of the phrasing bears inescapable markers of using ChatGPT— and no, it is not the em-dashes. Several of us who went through graduate school and other training are accustomed to using em-dashes and it is not a reliable marker. The abuse of antithesis, certain turns of phrases, the avoidance of asymmetry and similar other markers are far more reliable in establishing LLM authorship. Her user icon and her user banner were clearly generated through ChatGPT or similar services. They did not look human-drawn.

I did not keep tabs on this account as much because, unlike the other accounts that Kerzner and Aileyn have allowed to stand without reporting, this account bore no actual accusations about Liana Kerzner. In fact, this account did not specify it was Liana Kerzner, or that it was a parody account. Its profile said something along the lines of "I am Annaleigh Farrier, host of the It's Not Normal TV show" followed by some other quip. 

There were no 'receipts' incriminating Kerzner and there was nothing that identified the account as parodying Kerzner at all. An ex-member of Kerzner's community brought her skeets to my awareness and shared some screenshots with me. From when I perused her posting, these images are representative of her content:

Looking at these posts, the reasons behind the account's suspension (for that is what you see if you go to the bluesky address) are mystifying. At best, this account could be said to have been mocking a very specific type of figure, one that fits Kerzner's description if you are familiar with her modus operandi, but there are no overt threats, no over denunciations, and no direct naming of Liana Kerzner. By the standards of what we will soon see, the account is completely inoffensive and —in my opinion as a writer— rather underwhelming in its premise. That Aileyn had to take Liana's hand and pet her hair and soothe her over this account in particular is rather astonishing.

Outside of the unusual issue of its suspension, there is not much else to speak about this account.  It also has the notable spot of being the writing voice that stands out the most. 

However, it is likely that the author used ChatGPT or another similar LLM to generate their skeets. In several skeets that referenced dullness or boredom, it used the adjective 'beige' which is a default GPT trope, which I pointed out to a friend (which is where the screenshot was excerpted).  Its attempt at absurdism in the 'obscurity' thread falls along predictable patterns.  LLMs operate solely as stochastic, probabilistic systems that guess the next token. Let's examine a truly surrealist avant-garde sentence, like one might find in Eugene Ionesco Story number 2 :

"I look out the chair while eating my pillow. I open the wall, I walk with my ears. I have ten eyes to walk with and two fingers to look with. I put my head on the floor to sit down, I put my bottom on the ceiling."

Such a sentence is very difficult to skillfully recreate on an LLM by itself, without some heavy editing afterwards. You'll notice that LLMs, despite being instructed to be surrealistic, must hew to their probabilistic matrix and very quickly return to coherence. There are other telltalle markers, even in such a short excerpt:

it follows The "Adjective-Noun" Recipe. LLM has a specific pattern of pairing words that are geared for contrast— it's attempting surrealism through high-concept vocabulary but it misses one of the key points of surrealism. Human surrealism often targets physical logic, like using a chair as a window, or using eyes to see. LLM-generated surrealism cannot truly conceptualize the absurd, so it fixates on generating a statistically-approximated 'vibe' of surrealism.  Human surrealism often has a specific, biting intent— in Ionesco's case, the mocking of linguistic rules, conformity and the social norms of the bourgeoisie. LLMs are incapable of that conceptualization and instead serve up a 'word soup' that may appear artistic, but it is just window dressing. 

To grant Aileyn's accusations more attention than they deserve: If my intent were to create a parody of Liana Kerzner —which, in any case, is protected speech  regardless of what Aileyn's unqualified opinion might suggest— I hold that I am capable of writing better material than what an LLM can dispense. 

For example, I will demonstrate what a human-generated absurdist turn on the obscurity skeet would have been like, by writing one myself:

"I was recently accused of incoherence and obscurity. To that hater, all I have to say is that when the wind is in the west and the midnight hour has percolated its last usufruct through my mother's goiter pads, we shall taste joy because I know a hole in the ground."

Now we turn to the other accounts:

These accounts are separate from Farrier because, unlike her insignificant (in terms of conflict) account, these accounts all have something in common: accusations against Liana Kerzner and/or Steven Kerzner from the safety of  presumed anonymity.

Jimmy Linguini was an account that Liana Kerzner pointed out to me as being authored by Emily Schooley. Its first tweets happened in July 23rd, 2021, and they were focused on allegations of the Kerzners mishandling money that had been raised through a crowdfund in order to bring back the MuchMusic era, but updated.

Linguini would regularly post with links to articles such as this.

The account was also wont to engage with the Kerzners and their supporters/backers, especially when the issue of crowdfund funds was raised. There were also tweets that alleged that the Kerzners would weaponize lawyers and/or police against their critics:

Linguini's activity ceased on April 22nd, 2023. His first — and only — article was published in 2021.

An account that had more longevity was  Ed The Suck , a parody account directed at Steven Kerzner and his character, Ed. First appearing on March 8th, 2019. One of his first actions was to link to an archived instance of the Ralph Retort on the internet archive which claimed the Kerzners were guilty of psychological abuse.

I will not be reproducing the link here because, in my opinion, the Ralph Retort and the individuals behind it possess zero journalistic integrity, morals, and are the perfect advocates— for whatever the opposing position to theirs may be. Far from providing factual information and evidence that may forward any important claim, their articles are awash with sensationalism, hearsay and gossip with nary any documented evidence to be seen. Whatever truth there may be in their reports of the Kerzners, sifting the proven from unproven, hearsay from documentation on their website is an almost Heculean task. Few publications could be more counter-productive to their aims than the Ralph Retort. They have done more damage to their own cause than an enemy would be capable of.

Far more illuminating is the links archived of Steven Joel Kerzner's blog, in which he (to borrow Liana's words) is fighting Liana's fights for her, writing a blog post dismissing Schooley's claims as 'nonsense' and that

"​The chorus of usual suspects have been using the opportunity provided to present further demonstration of their character and why we don’t associate with them. I fully expect that this rebuttal of the nonsense charges will be met with more nonsense from the same source and her pals and maybe see more excerpts of my e-mails published which clearly say the opposite of what is being alleged."

Felicitously, the evidence compiled  in this website does, indeed, say what is being alleged, and provided with a luxury of context that can always be expanded at near infinitum should the accusation of 'cherry-picking' or 'out of context' be floated by the Kerzners— who may not realize that what has been excerpted was done in a manner that I deemed sufficient enough to prove the point, but it does not mean that I am in possession of incomplete records.

Ed The Suck does not significantly improve the bar that was set by Linguini. The gross majority of his tweets are derogatory posts about the Kerzner with elevated rhetoric and gratuitous jabs at Liana's appearance. His rhetoric is very similar to Jimmy Linguini's, and Linguini referenced Ed The Suck as a source of information, and at one point even interacting with him— in an absolutely minimal capacity.

Both accounts intersect briefly— although Jimmy Linguini mentions Ed The Suck, Ed The Suck never reciprocates in public on Twitter. It's very strange for accounts with a professed level of camaraderie. Jimmy Linguini's 'article' on the Kerzners is underwhelming, to say the least. His 'research' consists on a relatively small number of links. Several of them are links by Ed The Suck and by another 'stalker' account, but the only linked creditable account in his links belongs to that of Walter 'SID' Schultz on Reddit:

Schultz owns the website Red Flags in Fandom, a project over which he was interviewed on Mike Dodd's podcast This Week In Geek. I had heard rumbles about the Kerzners' history with events such as FutureCon— it was at a FutureCon that the events when Kerzner and Schooley's relationship suffered a massive falling out, after all. Schultz was responding to a thread started by ShudderBugged on Reddit, where the author warned people to stay away from the Kerzners' now-defunct NewMusicNation initiative, a TikTok relaunch of MuchMusic. ShudderBugged issued a medium post under the name Socking It To You, and the writing style is nearly identical to the material put forth by Linguini  and Ed The Suck: vague allegations and speculation without proffering any primary evidence, and smattering of links to other accounts.

One section that does bring me pause is the following except from the Socking It To You medium post:

Between Bourrie's intimidation tactics and Kerzner ratcheting up the stalker narrative, implying it is us who have been sending her death threats, this paragraph rings unsettlingly true. ​ However, even if I had read this back when it was published, I would have found myself doubting its veracity regardless because there is no evidence being offered.

In fact, to my knowledge, Bossfightgame is the first exhaustive collection of evidence that confirms certain allegations about the Kerzners. And this is something that will need to be addressed shortly.

Ed The Suck's website is, in and of itself, an exercise in hostility as design principle. The inflammatory rhetoric and almost caricaturesque voice present in Linguini lives on here, and the salacious nature of their insulting article header images project a puerile, unserious attitude. It is almost as if the person running the website sought to make it his life mission to create a place only a small number of people would read through undeterred, by virtue of ignoring every marker that screamed 'tabloid' at them.

And I think this is by design.

Ed The Suck reached his nadir on May 1st, 2021, and then proceeded to diminish and went somewhere. Although, chronologically, he would go inactive before Linguini, his tenure was longer.

And yet, in comparing the output of Linguini and Ed The Suck, one could be forgiven for thinking that one was reading an unbroken series of posts by a single authorial voice. 

I, at least, believe that to be the case.

Two more notable 'stalker' accounts now enter the narrative— all of which have been identified as Emily Schooley by Liana Kerzner as well at various points.

Trans Truth Teller on Twitter (Tired Trans Babe on Bluesky) entered the fray on April 5th, 2023, following the same methodology as every other account before her, just as Kerzner responds with the same modus operandi as every other instance, once again deploying the 'they're doing it for attention' line:

Despite having a strong inkling of who Trans Truth Teller really is, I do appreciate them pointing out Kerzner's penchant for making long videos when she feels she needs to defend herself. Of course, this is something that Kerzner considers completely  abominable in others, such as when she mocked my video Who Is Harassing Liana Kerzner to her Discord server for being 56 minutes long and  having chapter markers .

Unbelievable as it may be that I need to point this out to someone with an alleged background in communications, chapter marks are considered a common courtesy and a best practice for most types of long-form videos, as it allows a viewer to revisit specific sections without tedious timeline scrubbing. Dropping a long video without chapter markers would be akin to publishing a lengthy novel without an index of chapters, or a game without a save game ability. Having produced neither, it may be understandable why the concept could be alien to Kerzner. While none of those features are absolutely necessary in their respective mediums, the greater the length, the greater the inconvenience that exists when they are missing.

Kerzner, also, mischaracterizes the nature of the content of the video. This is not surprising at this point, nor the fact that the majority of her audience ignores what it is actually in it.

Trans Truth Teller also touts a blog that somehow manages to outdo the unseriousness of Jimmy Linguini, and outpace the tabloid atmosphere of Ed The Suck. The Tumblr Liana Kerzner Is A Narcissist Abuser is nothing more than a rehash of the previous formats, although this time it is clad in the guise of a trans woman who was —allegedly— outed and harassed by Kerzner. The account emerged just as the worst of the backlash from Hogwarts Legacy was going on, which is the event during which Kerzne was labeled as a transphobe by several trans individuals on Twitter:

There is not much to truly review in this account that is new. It also contains accusations, many of which are lacking solid evidence, although some of my screenshots and Asher have ended there— we have demanded that they be removed multiple times, which only resulted in the account owner blocking us.

Like the previous blogger, TTT also likes to resort to jabs about Liana's age and appearance, especially when contrasted with Emily Schooley. Once again, such activities does nothing but weaken whatever case they were purporting to build.

One notable thing is that that this account features alleged communications (anonymous) from others who claim they have been wronged by the Kerzners, all anonymous or of unverified provenance. One of the links relates to a blog describing the events of Futurecon 2010— the event where the Kerzner/Schooley rift occurred:

I am not qualified to make any assessments about the nature of allegations leveraged against Schooley nor Dennehy, as I am honestly not familiar with either of them outside of word of mouth— and, that being Liana's word-of-mouth, it is safe to assume that I have not been told anything truthful about those individuals except for their names. Our own opinions of Schooley have been formed through our interactions with her, and they are not favorable, but we are nevertheless not qualified to make a judgement on whether either allegation is true.

The one thing I think I can make, is an observation on the similiarities between some of the events at FutureCon and PAX. Both Schooley and 'D' claim that they were, allegedly, screamed at in public by Liana. Subsequently, both individuals also underwent an effort to ostracize them. Both individuals, also, were threatened with legal action by Kerzner.

Another communication featured in that blog is submitted by an account named 'Charlene69':

Charlene's account was allegedly submitted in May of 2024. However, as of September of 2025, Charlene was responding to the blog, suggesting people should join a class action suit against Liana.

'Charlene's story was not familiar to me. When Asher spoke to Liana about 'Stalker Chan,' Asher showed her a video featuring one 'Carrie Moon' titled How to Spot a Crowdfunding Scam: Ed the Sock & Liana K's Fundraising Schemes. Discussing the video, Asher asked Liana if she had any inklings as to the actress in the video, with him suggesting that it could be Schooley, except that she shape of her mouth was wrong.

As we will see in Asher's Telegram archives, Kerzner claimed to have no idea who the woman with a very distinctive voice was. 

Around the same time, Asher brought Liana's attention to tweets that, we believed, were impersonating a woman by the name of 'Charlene Zacks.' Liana told Asher that she didn't think the account was actually Charlene's, and she described Charlene Zacks as 'an eccentric individual' and mentioned that, when she worked with them, people complained thinking that they were working with a homeless person. Liana dismissed Charlene as 'harmless' and denied any possibility that the account may be truly hers.  

Charlene Zacks faded from memory, and the mystery of "Carrie Moon" remained unsolved. It wasn't until I was documenting TTT's tumblr for the sakes of this report that I came across Charlene69's alleged story again, and I decided to look into the real Charlene Zacks. 

Although Zacks keeps a minimal TikTok account that hasn't been active in years, she still posts semi-regularly to Facebook. I noticed two public posts made years ago that immediately caught my attention.

The first post was a direct link to the Vimeo video with 'Carrie Moon' speaking for the 'Serson Report,' which was a webshow that addressed several issues. The blog has been dormant since 2021 and all videos have been taken offline. Outside of the Carrie Moon video, there are two episodes listed in the show's IMDB page that directly deal with the Kerzners and crowdfunding issues. The other two episodes have been archived here, and here. Tom Serson's social media accounts seem to have vanished altogether.

Curious about Zacks' relationship to this episode, I looked through the demo reel she had posted, and the identity of 'Carrie Moon' was immediately settled. I have placed all the context necessary here:

This discovery brings up an interesting problem. We are supposed to believe that Liana was not able to identify a woman who was a regular cast member in two of her husband's shows. It is especially unbelievable because Zacks is a distinct character and not an easy one to forget.

Asher and I had not identified her in the Carrie Moon video because we hadn't looked into Zacks, due to Kerzner's assertions that the account in question was an impersonator. Otherwise, we would have immediately recognized her. 

Why did Kerzner lie to Asher? It is not possible for Kerzner to maintain the conclusion that Zacks was not involved after seeing that video.

And especially not with the implications that she was participating in  interacting with the person she claims is stalking her . Kerzner has used the excuse that our public protestations have 'riled up her stalker' to justify public chastisement and, arguably, also the involvement of her lawyer. This is with us not interacting nor speaking to any of those people, except to criticize them, and demand they take down our screenshots and protesting its usage to demonstrate we do not condone them being used on their sites, as a matter of record. Yet Zacks was dismissed immediately from consideration and has never been named, even though she very likely was the real Charlene Zacks writing her account to the blog.

It was certainly the real Charlene Zacks acting in the Serson Report video.

Charlene's second Facebook post, of course, is a link to the blog allegedly run by Trans Truth Teller — Emily Schooley, according to Liana.

And this piece of evidence tells us one thing.

In my opinion, Trans Truth Teller is indeed penned by the same author as Jimmy Linguini, Ed The Suck, and others penned by the same author, none of them could be Emily Schooley​.  I seriously doubt that Liana Kerzner was in contact with Schooley —allegedly her sworn enemy— during the 'Very Ugly Fight,' and it is simply impossible that Kerzner ever shared the screenshots of the Gail Simone incident with Schooley, and I doubt that Kerzner had told Schooley that Simone 'went nuts' on her (as she said to her Discord serve), since they were enemies and long enmeshed in their war of attrition by that point. 

There was no visible public friction between Simone and Kerzner on social media after Simone broke contact —it is not in Simone's style to hold private grudges and grievances in the style of Kerzner— and Kerzner has enough self-awareness to know that trying to move public sentiment against Simone would be professional suicide.  

So, then,  who is Trans Truth Teller , that they had immediate access to Kerzner during the 'Very Ugly Fight' and were aware of what was happening down to the minute? 

My theory —due to the immediacy of actions— is that it had to be someone close to her. Someone who may have tried to hedge off what they saw as a potential future in which I might approach Gail Simone, perhaps, and this individual sought to precondition Simone to sour on anyone approaching her about Liana out of fear of being enmeshed in drama. But, also, it is ​someone who tends to be impulsive or jump at the bit, perhaps even without consulting Liana. The tweet at Simone was deleted pretty quickly. If Kerzner is also aware of who this person is and what they are doing, and vetting it, then se may have asked for the tweet to be deleted promptly due to the complications it could cause.
 
Based on the linguistic markers, there is a high probability that the authors of  Sockingittoyou, Liana-K-Truth, Liana Is An Abusive Narcissist and Ed The Suck are but one and the same. They are someone who reaches instantly for denigrating physical humor, especially when commenting on appearance, and tends to be very vulgar and inappropriate.  I believe that it is likely that such an individual may be found in Kerzner's close circles. 

But that arises another question, and one that needs to be answered satisfactorily for this theory to hold water.

Why would anyone arrange for their own 'stalking?'

Kerzner did not seem to find the idea worthy of questioning it when she ascribed it to Schooley:

 Speaking purely on the theoretical subject of organizing one's own harassment mobs, or the appearance thereof anyways, there are quite a few advantages to it from a strategic point of view. I am not suggesting that Kerzner is indeed engaged in this any more than she would seriously suggest Schooley does.

Having a bespoke 'harassment campaign' allows for the manipulation of narrative. Receiving harassment messages and being stalked often results in an upswell of support.  One of the oldest strategies in the book is to create a shared narrative with an emotional investment, in which a clearly-delineated set of two bands are presented to be facing off against each other. This framing is set to bypass critical thinking and appeal to the tribalist part of our nature— our sense of group identity, which is why it is often so successful in the field of politics and the different moral panics that are used to scapegoat populations.

Creating a framework that portrays one particular party as a moral opponent is a useful way in which opposition and criticism can be stifled, especially in the hands of individuals with access to larger audiences than their critics, or with access to a wider reach in communication.

Even more conveniently, it is a manner in which someone can gain an instant level of appeal and likability, and perhaps even a certain level of indulgence and tolerance. This is a principle demonstrated by Kerzner herself, when she stated the following: 

Many events outlined in personal accounts of Kerzner are now familiar to me— and to the reader after perusing the majority of this website. And yet, I have to account for a strange effect: the more I saw an accusation against Liana or Steven that echoed one leveraged by one of the 'stalker' accounts, the less likely I was to believe it.  Kerzner's litigiousness, her aggressive re-writing of past events into self-serving narratives, the branding of critics as 'stalkers,' these are all things I had seen pointed out in the past

The thing is that I also saw the 'stalkers' repeat those accusations... and perhaps more often, and more vociferously, than anyone else, combined with plenty of digs at Liana's appearance (curiously enough, I cannot recall a single instance in which Steven's appearance was mocked, with the notable exception of the Ralph Retort, but to my knowledge Ethan Ralph was never classified as a 'stalker.')

I now realize that what happened to me was what most likely happens to a large number of Kerzner's audience: by being the most visible, obnoxious and noticeable voices in the choir of Kerzner's critics, these accounts essentially subsume the entirety of the criticism sphere. By incorporating legitimate third party grievances into their own exaggerated discourse, they become psychic poison and taint those grievances by association.  They no longer become legitimate complaints or grievances worthy of consideration, but accusations from the repertoire of trolls and 'stalkers' and, therefore, do not need to be taken seriously.

And so it was, until I saw Liana Kerzner verbally abuse my husband in their dispute. At which point, part of that illusion was shattered. Throughout the sixteen months that followed, I have seen the Liana Kerzner that was described in most (not all) other people's accounts emerge, while her public remains blissfully unaware behind the smoke screen. I had a reason to pay attention, because now I didn't trust Liana and didn't take her words on faith.

And wouldn't you know it? In the first month after Asher started to respond, Trans Truth Teller said to him 'It's not your fault Liana turned on you.' This is the same account that accused him of being a child molester alongside Vanzzini, and would take jabs at Asher when Asher fought with trolls.  Asher's rebuff of TTT, as well as mine, fractured the expected narrative that we would 'side with the stalkers.'

So, as you can see, arranging for your own harassment could be quite advantageous, with the proper skill set. All that is usually needed —outside of endurance— is a knowledge of the culture of communities to be targeted, and a decent understanding of communications and how messaging and marketing work. 

It also would explain why Kerzner would seek to dissuade people from looking too closely at Zacks' involvement, even as satellite collaborator. Close scrutiny has a way of exposing structural weaknesses. It certainly compelled us to take a much closer look at everything.

Of course, one must look at the situation from the realm of different possibilities. It is possible that these accounts are all separate individuals 'stalking' Liana (nothing of what they are doing actually fits the definition of stalking), one individual or a collective deliberately trying to emotionally torture Liana and keep her off balance.

However, it is worth observing that every one of these accounts has a very distinctive life cycle: each one is active for a relatively small number of years, flare up around circumstances when the Kerzners are particularly embattled — such as backer unrest around the fulfilling of a crowdfunding, or a cancelled project — but do so with either old inconclusive information, or  new but  still inconclusive information. The result is that, by association, any controversies the Kerzners are embroiled in become easy to dismiss by the incompetent displays these accounts put on. 

I find the chance that these are all real individuals a distinct possibility— but an extremely unlikely one due to the evidence I have listed. Far more persuasive may be the reaction that will be observed with all of this new information coming to light. If these individuals truly are interested in exposing all of the ethically unsound behavior Kerzner has engaged, and in exposing her untruths with actual proof, then this site —carefully sourced and documented in a way that they have never attempted before— should be a touchstone.

However, what is most likely to occur, and which will prove my hypothesis, is that these websites will not acknowledge this evidence. Or, what is also very possible, is that only the most innocuous bits of evidence will be used— sourced in such a way that will strip it of any impactful context, and therefore  providing the impression that it should be as easily dismissed as the other information that they host. Incompetence, at this juncture, would be incredibly telling when we have, essentially, provided an exemplary amount of documentation, detail and causal links, and that incompetence or silence will speak volumes. As will the silence of a certain den of scum and villainy on the internet— which raises the question of who it is that they are trying to protect.

I expect this, because that is what has been happening to Asher: radio silence, with only Kerzner's voice dominating the airwaves and commandeering the narrative. It is strange that, for someone who is so hounded all the time by terrible people, that there is so much silence with everything that has been revealed up to this point— such as Asher's Telegram history proving that Kerzner shared LianaKares client details, (including conversations, mental health and family history) with Asher and, therefore, probably with others as well.

The conditions under which Kerzner acquires 'stalkers', in her own words, are actually fairly symptomatic of a certain kind of avoidant behavior. If you analyze how Kerzner deals with opposition, direct criticism, an even dissent, her every action seems to be geared towards the indefinite prolongation of grievances and ill will. If you take our situation as an example which confirms a pattern that others have already pointed out exists, we can summarize Kerzner's actions in the following repeatable steps:

1. Moral Wound: There often seems to be an inciting 'moral wound' of sorts, in which a disagreement happens and one party states an observation in regards to Kerzner's behavior that offends her deeply to the point of disproportionate response. Kerzner's behavior is never to inquire  why the other party perceives her actions to have a certain quality or intent— it is to immediately and categorically deny that even the perception of such is possible and, even worse, that standing by that perception in evidence of her behavior is tantamount to a moral failing. Kerzner terminates the friendship or partnership rather than acknowledge the grievance and the basis for which it may have been issued.
2. Distancing And Re-Authoring: Kerzner,​ if she is in a superior social position to the individual , will often make a video or a statement regarding the event in question. From our own experience, we can determine that the statement will contain a mixture of isolated facts, but presented in a misleading fashion that provides a different context and implications. Everything will be geared towards making the aggrieved party appear in the worst possible light, whereas Kerzner will usually place herself in a victim-adjacent position in which her only faults is being too decent a person, too understanding, too willing to give chances and opportunities... and any of her flaws, faults, or delays, are always redirected towards the other party's responsibilities. If she is not in a superior social position (for example: Gail Simone), Kerzner will often then be much more discreet out of self-preservation and will, instead, speak directly to her followers in smaller, controlled environments and avoid the public denunciation.
   
3. Blanketing: Wasting very little time, usually, Kerzner goes on the narrative attack. With her edited version of the story in hand, it will be portrayed in different ways, and different media. It will be alluded to and obliquely discussed on her Youtube and her Radio show, explicitly discussed in her Discord server and Patreon, and addressed in varying degrees of directness on her social media. Her audience and followers will, then, repeat the official version of the story, which ensures the next step.
4. Reaction And Denunciation : The targets will then usually react with a pushback. This is a normal reaction for anyone who is being falsely represented to a larger audience. They often speak up in public, since that is the venue to which Kerzner took the complaints —which she will justify as something she had to do— and oftentimes may address Kerzner directly. The move to the public is a power move by Kerzner, as she has an audience she can command, and a certain amount of that public opinion that can sway in her favor. Kerzner, however, will not acknowledge the actual substance of their grievances. There is no acknowledgement of the content of the  grievances, but they will instead be re-interpreted by Kerzner and presented to her public as what the person is 'actually angry about,' often reducing the complaint to something petty, ridiculous, or 'unhinged.' A good example is "They are mad at me because I established boundaries," "They're mad because I won't talk to them," "They're mad because I didn't give them headpats" or "they are mad because they made a mistake and don't want to admit it" (all of these are things Kerzner has said.)
   
5. Escalation and Condemnation: In the face of pushback, Kerzner then will usually redouble her references to the individual and event, placing contextual clues in her videos while claiming plausible deniability due to 'preserving the person's anonymity.' We have already demonstrated that this anonymity is pro forma, and that a significant number of Kerzner's audience is keyed into the identity of the individuals in question. This is the point at which the biggest breakdowns happen. The target will push back in many different ways, and Kerzner will never address the person directly in a one-to-one communication in public. She cuts all channels and, instead, for every pushback and accusation, Kerzner will turn to the audience and speak to them, never the aggrieved party. The reactivity of the target will indicate the level of condemnation. By this point, Kerzner has shared the target's private information to her followers and friends, which will most likely make their way back to the target. At this point, a level of social ostracism— on or off-line— is in place regarding the person's reputation.
   
6. '​Stalking' and Victimization:  Having been exposed to the repeating pattern of Kerzner's allusions to the situation — now unrecognizable in her portrayal — and to the person on her different shows, the individual is caught in a loop of monitoring for new mentions, responding to what is essentially a prolonged and bizarre one-way dialogue with an alternate reality, and feeling increasingly frustrated at the continuous misrepresentations and the hijacking of the narrative.  At this point, after Kerzner has given the individual significant reasons to track what she says on her shows for fear of being referenced and misrepresented yet again, Kerzner will begin layering the 'Stalker' narrative, implying various degrees of mental instability and nefarious intents on the individual, while also portraying herself as the victim of unfair harassment — complete with a litany comprising of the various effects such activity has had on her health. There is never any acknowledgement of what effect her activities and her rhetoric have had on her target. By all intents and purposes, the individual has been erased in favor of the construct Kerzner has now presented to her audience, complete with motivations.  One might ask why would someone bother going through this process? The most observant of individuals, upon first running afoul of Kerzner in a manner that indicates much worse is coming, may come to a sudden realization or suspicion about the many different 'anonymous' accounts allegedly hounding Kerzner:  the realization that nothing is stopping an anonymous account from being created and speaking in their name.  If they denied the allegation, they would not be believed, weighed against Kerzner's assertions. After all, Schooley has denied being Trans Truth Teller multiple times, yet people believe Kerzner when she ties the two of them together. We certainly did.. 
   
7. Legal Threats : Should the individual persist, and be in any danger of demonstrating proof that is truly damaging to Kerzner, or may cause damage to her reputation by plainly stating what she has said and done, Kerzner will deploy Mark Bourrie as an intimidation vector, relying on Canada's lopsided plaintiff-friendly Defamation laws. 
   
8. Fading:In Canada’s common-law provinces, a defamation plaintiff does not have to prove falsity at the outset of a suit. Once the plaintiff shows the statement was published, referred to them, and would lower their reputation, the burden usually shifts to the defendant to establish a defense such as truth, fair comment, privilege, or responsible communication. It is, essentially, a legal system that is hostile to whistleblowers, those reporting abusive behavior, and other similar issues. Canadian defamation law, especially in the common-law provinces, has long been criticized for its chilling effect on people who speak about matters of public interest. The sheer financial burden of proving a defense can pressure defendants into settling or backing down even when they were justified.  This is where the majority of Kerzner's targets eventually end up. It is difficult to say how many stories like Adam Smith's there are, exactly, but a cursory search reveals a not inconsiderable sample of accounts linked to real individuals with verifiable identities who speak of the Kerzners being infamous for this practice. The individual, at this point, stops fighting.
   
9. Collection : After the individual fades from prominence, they are added to the list of the 'leagues of stalkers' that Kerzner seems to collect, and which she parades as justification for many things. It may be hinted that a new 'stalker' account, anonymous and launching jabs very similar to the other accounts, is 'really' the most recent stalker, just like Trans Truth Teller is 'really' Emily Schooley. Because Kerzner's accrued victimhood is leveraged in such a way that questioning her may be tantamount to abuse, her word is accepted as the new reality. The target can't do much about it, in the face of costly legal expenses, so they usually retreat to the background, feeling helpless and erased. 
   

What Kerzner could have done at any point, of any of the many different ruptures she's had (and she has had a staggering number, for a woman who claims she'd never known us to not be in conflict), and which would have minimized a great deal of the conflict and strife that she incessantly complains about, is a very simple thing:

She could have acknowledged the grievances, the content thereof, and acknowledge the person who brings them up.

Note that I did not say she should acquiesce or grant any concessions to the points made, but simply spoken truthfully in a simple act of intellectual honesty. No erasure of her opponents into a convenient caricature whose thoughts, feelings and motivations she omnisciently knows while her own, by decree, must remain as inscrutable and mysterious as the dark side of the moon to everyone. 

If she had done that, and if she had also not lied and presented a disfigured narrative for the benefit of her image, this website wouldn't exist. Asher and I would have walked away sixteen months ago and our friendship with Kerzner would have simply been archived as an error in judgement, and time wasted.

If Kerzner did that with every instance, much of what she portrays as her torment would have ceased a long time ago. But one gets the impression that Kerzner doth protest too much. She has built an identity and an image around being full of integrity and compassion, and endlessly harassed and maligned... and the former is bolstered by the continuance of the latter. 

It is simply too profitable a sufferance to abandon for the sake of accuracy and fairness to the large number of people she runs over, in that never-ending quest to convince the world she is something that she is not.