On September 19th, 2025, Dr. Mark Bourrie sent the following e-mail to us. However, we did not check that particular e-mail until after the publication of the first video. This is something that can be verified by the read-receipt on the e-mail in question. Attached with the e-mail came the following Without Prejudice document:
In the letter, Bourrie on behalf of the Kerzners (the original title of the PDF indicated it had been revised by Steven Kerzner) makes the following allegations:
"You have accused my client of unprofessional and unethical conduct in her peer counselling business. This has harmed her business, leaving you open to both specific and general damages"
As I have already demonstrated in the Client Confidentiality Violations section in the previous page, I have not accused Liana Kerzner of anything she hasn't already done, and nothing which I have not already demonstrated she has done. No-one has harmed Liana Kerzner's business except Liana Kerzner, by virtue of conduct that does not befit the role of any caretaker, counselor, or person otherwise entrusted with the delicate subject that is the mental health of a client.
As someone who has lived with someone with a mental health illness for twenty years, I find her behavior and cavalier attitude towards the mental health history, suffering and trauma of others particularly offensive because it shows how little regard she has for anyone who has displeased her, and is therefore not a person suitable to be trusted.
We also hold it is deeply unethical to broadcast anonymous messages she has received over radio and then imply it is us who sent them without evidence.
"Further, you have directly contacted at least one consumer of Liana’s online content with libelous false accusations."
If this refers to the incident involving Kerzner’s public lecture, the record reflects that Asher contacted the organization only after the lecture had concluded, in order to raise concerns about Kerzner’s suitability based on his experiences.
This is not materially different from actions taken by Kerzner herself in other contexts, including her efforts to have Emily Schooley’s subsidy from Women in Film and Television suspended based on her stated concerns about risk.
The materials presented throughout this website set out the basis for Asher’s concerns, including the impact of Kerzner’s conduct on his mental well-being and, in his view, that of others. Those concerns are supported by documents that have been presented in this site.
Once again, we do not accept the characterization of these communications as improper, nor as false or libelous.
"Specifically, we demand that all your defamation of Liana Kerzner stop immediately. This includes spoken defamation as well as all online defamation, whether posted in your name or under pseudonyms. You must also remove all defamatory information that you have posted online, whether Liana is specifically named or is identifiable through details you have posted."
We do not accept this demand. We will not remove material for which we have provided supporting documentation, as set out in these materials. The content in question is evidence-based and, in our view, does not meet the legal standard for defamation or libel.
Notably, this position is inconsistent with the stance previously advanced on Kerzner’s behalf—namely, that individuals are not identifiable unless explicitly named. Here, however, it is asserted that identification can occur through contextual details alone.
So, if that standard is to be applied, it must be applied consistently.
By that same reasoning, we are identifiable through the details included in Kerzner’s own statements, notwithstanding the absence of explicit naming.
Further, the materials we have presented set out a documented basis for our concerns, including instances where Kerzner’s statements about us are inaccurate, derogatory, or inconsistent with the underlying record, and where mental health framing is used in a manner that raises concerns about stigmatization and reputational harm.
In light of the proof we are advancing, we do not accept the characterization of our materials as defamatory and decline to remove them.
"By ‘defamatory’ we mean any and all accusations concerning Mrs Kerzner that have not been proven in a court of law."
We do not accept the applicability of Canadian defamation standards to our speech. We are citizens of the United States, where defamation law is constrained by strong constitutional protections under the First Amendment. Under U.S. Law, defamation is defined as:
A false statement of fact about a person that is communicated to a third party and harms that person’s reputation.
The statements at issue here do not meet that standard. They are supported by documentation provided throughout this site, much of which consists of Kerzner’s own statements, as well as records that demonstrate inconsistencies and contradictions within those statements
We therefore refuse the characterization of our statements as false.
Further, any judgment obtained in a foreign jurisdiction would be subject to recognition and enforcement standards in the United States, including constitutional considerations. Those standards are not automatic and require independent scrutiny.
The demand to remove material that is supported by documented evidence raises serious concerns. We will not remove such material. We remain prepared to substantiate the provenance and accuracy of the materials presented, including the underlying records and documentation.
"There is a lot of mythology about the anonymity of the Internet. It is, in fact, possible to find the authors of Internet posts and to enforce my clients’ legal rights, and we are prepared to do so."
We welcome this statement. We have consistently maintained—as the record reflects—that we have not sent anonymous messages to or about Kerzner, nor have we made any threats. We have communicated under our own names and identities and have done so openly, supported by the documentation provided.
In that context, it is unclear why more direct and technically straightforward measures to identify the source of anonymous threats have not been prioritized. For example, securing submission systems to reduce or eliminate anonymity and create a verifiable audit trail is a commonly available approach.
We also note the apparent emphasis on attributing these anonymous communications to us, rather than undertaking measures that would reliably identify their actual source.
We categorically deny any involvement in anonymous threats. The materials we have presented are consistent with that position and are provided under our own names. We stand behind them.
Refusing to acknowledge Bourrie's accusation that publishing a document with his public business address was an invasion of privacy, Asher sent the following e-mail asking about his request:
Bourrie's dismissive response was "Nothing. We are working on other things."
Whereupon Asher stated that Bourrie, allegedly someone contacting us to reach a resolution to a client dispute, was not giving us any reason to contact him again .
Bourrie's response, which was the height of unprofessionalism, was as follows, with his reply included:
Mark Bourrie directly misgenders Asher , following a tweet Asher had made to no-one in particular explaining that he experiences dysphoria. Considering Bourrie addressed both of us as 'misters' in his correspondence, and that Steven Kerzner was CC'ed in these communications, that Bourrie would suddenly get my husband's gender wrong is puzzling.
Unless you subscribe to the theory that Bourrie was intentionally trying to upset Asher. The insulting and dismissive nature of his communication certainly seems to indicate something of the like is at work. If this theory is true, then it would reflect poorly on Bourrie for misgendering an individual he thought was trans in order to push them off-balance. That is transphobia— it doesn't matter if the recipient of the message wasn't a transgender individual, but the chain of events shows that Bourrie most likely assumed Asher was trans. Bourrie was monitoring Asher's twitter communication at them, so he would have seen his post.
Remember that Liana Kerzner said the following:
Kerzner's claims here are now in need of direct addressing:
"You sent a message to my radio show's contact form that was identical to the one you sent to my lawyer..."
Asher did not send a message to Kerzner's radio show contact. Asher had, however, already written the material that comprised what would become the body of the letter long before Bourrie entered the picture, which is easily proven by Asher's website archive. Asher also published the letter that was sent to Bourrie on his website and on twitter— so it is very likely that Cseke yet again copy-pasted from Asher's website or social media feed and sent the message to Kerzner in his constant effort to triangulate, as has been observed before.
For someone complaining about people going 'after her livelihood', Kerzner has zero compunctions in indulging in speculations that could prove inimical to my employment— or, rather, they would, were I still employed in the medical field and being subject to HIPAA. Kerzner, apparently, has suffered some damage to her memory that makes her forget the fact that the medical company I was with closed down, which was the primary reason for the longest delay in development.
My current employment does not require me to handle confidential information, and what information is handled occurs on its own, separate and highly secured dedicated network. But Kerzner needs to weave the James Bond fantasy of someone hacking into our system in order to ... send her a nastygram, instead of grabbing a hearty hold of Occam's Razor and realizing that someone copying and pasting from a website is an infinitely smaller amount of investment, risk and effort.
"You don't get to choose not to deal with my lawyer because he's not nice enough to you."
As there is currently no legal proceeding or formal legal relationship in place, and the communications received to date have been on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, we are not obligated to engage with Mr. Bourrie at this time.
He does not have authority to compel any action absent a court determination.
We have chosen not to continue engaging with him due to concerns regarding the tone and content of his communications, which we consider to be inappropriate and extremely unprofessional.
Characterizing our position as a request for ‘niceness’ misrepresents our stated concerns and underlying reasons. Our decision reflects a broader concern about the nature of the communications received, which we believe not to be in good-faith dialogue
"He doxed my lawyer to try to get me to destroy evidence that proves he's lying..."
Kerzner’s characterization of the situation is inconsistent with the reasons previously provided.
As someone who has stated she reviewed the letter, she should be aware that Asher requested removal of the episode due to discomfort arising from her subsequent conduct, which he considers incompatible with the portrayal of mental health advocacy in that content.
He further considers his continued inclusion to be exploitative and has made multiple requests for removal on that basis.
Rather than addressing these stated concerns, Kerzner has suggested alternative motives, including that Asher wanted the material removed due to him being caught lying on the episode, allegedly.
This does not reflect the reasons communicated and mischaracterizes his position.
As explained previously, referencing a lawyer’s registered business address in correspondence does not, in itself, constitute doxing.
By contrast, the disclosure of individuals’ private trauma, mental health history, and associated social media accounts—particularly in relation to former clients— is a gross violation of privacy and meets commonly understood definitions of doxing.
We ignored Bourrie's inappropriate message and threats, and highlighted his misgendering on social media. Following it, we received the following —quite frankly— baffling missive from Bourrie on October 7th, 2025:
"I would like to apologize for misgendering you in earlier correspondence. This was done in error, not with malice."
We do not consider Bourrie’s apology to be sincere or credible in light of the surrounding circumstances. Steven Kerzner was copied on all prior communications, including the message dated September 29, 2025, in which the misgendering occurred. In addition, available metadata indicates that Steven Kerzner revised the initial correspondence.
Despite these opportunities, no correction was made at the time by either party. The apology in the letter by Bourrie was only issued eight days later, and only after Asher brought public attention to the issue.
"We don’t know what standards you are applying to being sufficiently ‘anonymized’ but do assert that Mrs. Kerzner took reasonable steps she truly believed protected you both from identification..."
We have already addressed these points in the introductory section to the claims. Regardless of the standards applied to determine ‘anonymization,’ or Ms. Kerzner’s stated intentions, intent is not determinative in this context. The central issue is the effect and consequences of her actions, which we maintain were sufficient to permit identification and resulted in harm.
Her subsequent statements and characterizations following the cancellation video—including statements we believe are contradicted by the documentation provided—further raise concerns. In several instances, the record suggests that Ms. Kerzner presented events and conversations in a manner inconsistent with her own prior participation.
Taken together, these discrepancies support our position that the narrative has been reframed in a way that is harmful to our reputation and, in our view, may have been done with disregard for accuracy, and malice.
"Mrs. Kerzner did not act maliciously and did not wish to become embroiled in a dispute with you."
We do not accept this characterization. Based on the evidence presented throughout this material, there are reasonable grounds to question the assertion that Kerzner did not intend to become involved in a dispute.
The documented pattern of interactions suggests a recurring dynamic in which conflicts arise and are sustained in a manner that, in our view, operates to her benefit while adversely affecting the individuals involved, including through the reframing or displacement of their accounts.
"Mrs. Kerzner believed her statements to be truthful, as they were taken directly from statements made to her by Mr. Romero and yourself. If any of her statements were not factual, that stems from false statements she received from you and Mr. Romero, digital opies(sic) of which exist as proof."
Kerzner is referring to private conversations that took place in the context of a personal relationship, including discussions relating to Asher’s mental health. These conversations occurred alongside Kerzner's own complaints about her husband's mental health challenges and crises.
While I acknowledge my own responsibility for how we managed certain situations, including periods of emotional distress, I do not accept the characterization that any inaccuracies in Kerzner’s statements are solely attributable to Asher or myself.
Notwithstanding this, Kerzner has continued to present these events in a manner that assigns primary or exclusive responsibility to Asher, without acknowledging her own role in the delays and related issues. This includes the omission of her own responses to circumstances involving Mr. Kerzner’s mental health, as well as other similar factors reflected in the record.
In our view, this one-sided framing remains incomplete and misleading. Moreover, attributing responsibility in this manner—particularly where it centers on an individual’s mental health—reinforces stigmatizing and harmful narratives. These concerns remain unresolved, and will continue to do so unless and until Liana Kerzner meaningfully acknowledges her own role and responsibility in the circumstances described.
Kerzner is referring to private conversations that took place in the context of a personal relationship, including discussions relating to Asher’s mental health. These conversations occurred alongside Kerzner's own complaints about her husband's mental health challenges and crises.
While I acknowledge my own responsibility for how we managed certain situations, including periods of emotional distress, I do not accept the characterization that any inaccuracies in Kerzner’s statements are solely attributable to Asher or myself.
Notwithstanding this, Kerzner has continued to present these events in a manner that assigns primary or exclusive responsibility to Asher, without acknowledging her own role in the delays and related issues. This includes the omission of her own responses to circumstances involving Mr. Kerzner’s mental health, as well as other similar factors reflected in the record.
In our view, this one-sided framing remains incomplete and misleading. Moreover, attributing responsibility in this manner—particularly where it centers on an individual’s mental health—reinforces stigmatizing and harmful narratives. These concerns remain unresolved, and will continue to do so unless and until Liana Kerzner meaningfully acknowledges her own role and responsibility in the circumstances described.
Your Defamation of Mrs. Kerzner
"Whereas Mrs. Kerzner has taken steps to avoid mentioning you or Mr. Romero by name, the both of you have clearly named Mrs. Kerzner in your online social media accounts, blog posts and videos in which you accuse her of a list of false transgressions. These actions constitute defamation under American and Canadian law, actionable in a Canadian court."
We do not accept the assertion that our statements constitute defamation under American or Canadian law. As outlined in the materials provided, our statements are grounded in documented evidence and reflect events based on that record. Truthful statements, or those reasonably supported by evidence, do not meet the legal standard for defamation.
Notably, Ms. Kerzner herself has acknowledged the principle that statements supported by truth are not defamatory. The extensive documentation presented here supports the accuracy of our position and directly contradicts the characterization of our statements as ‘false transgressions.’
Further, the record reflects multiple instances in which Ms. Kerzner has made statements about us that we believe are inaccurate and unsupported. These statements raise more substantial concerns in relation to defamation than the statements attributed to us. We reserve all rights in this regard.
We do not accept the assertion that our statements constitute defamation under American or Canadian law. As outlined in the materials provided, our statements are grounded in documented evidence and reflect events based on that record. Truthful statements, or those reasonably supported by evidence, do not meet the legal standard for defamation.
Notably, Ms. Kerzner herself has acknowledged the principle that statements supported by truth are not defamatory. The extensive documentation presented here supports the accuracy of our position and directly contradicts the characterization of our statements as ‘false transgressions.’
Further, the record reflects multiple instances in which Ms. Kerzner has made statements about us that we believe are inaccurate and unsupported. These statements raise more substantial concerns in relation to defamation than the statements attributed to us. We reserve all rights in this regard.
"Mr. Romero has contacted organizations which have employed Mrs. Kerzner’s services to communicate derogatory statements. This constitutes defamation. Whether these statements were transmitted before or after Mrs. Kerzner’s services were provided is immaterial."
This assertion is false. I, Pablo Romero, have not contacted any organization that employed Ms. Kerzner’s services for the purpose alleged. If this claim is to be maintained, then the burden rests with Bourrie to produce evidence capable of substantiating it.
Unless such communication can be forensically linked to my known professional email accounts or otherwise reliably attributed to me, there is no basis for asserting that I was the source.
I am fully prepared to cooperate with any legitimate evidentiary review necessary to test this allegation, provided that such review is conducted at Bourrie’s expense. I do so because I am confident that this claim is unfounded.
"A review of your ‘evidence’ for the accusations against Mrs. Kerzner reveals that they do not rise to the level necessary to prove your assertions. Cherry-picked fragments from online conversations or comments and short clips from long-form videos presented in a false context do not constitute proof of the wrongdoing you have accused Mrs. Kerzner of committing. The law takes a holistic look at commentary."
We welcome the acknowledgment that the law considers the totality of the evidence. That is precisely the approach reflected in the materials presented here. This website documents a substantial evidentiary record, including, but not limited to, materials drawn from Kerzner’s pay-to-access Discord server:
1,073 transcripts of Kerzner’s YouTube episodes, along with the full set of It’s Not Therapy episodes:
as well as records of her Threads, Facebook, and other social media communications, in addition to the preserved record of private communications between Kerzner and myself, and Kerzner and Asher.
These materials reflect a comprehensive and pattern-based review. The content presented on this website constitutes a representative selection of that broader record, provided with context to illustrate the basis for our conclusions.
The suggestion that the evidence consists of ‘cherry-picked fragments’ is not supported. The materials relied upon are drawn from complete logs and communications and are presented, in our view, with the relevant context necessary to understand the events described.
We reject the characterization that the evidence fails to meet an appropriate standard when assessed in its totality.
"I am therefore again advising you to immediately remove all social media posts, blog posts, videos or material in other mediums in which Mrs. Kerzner’s name is mentioned in your accusations."
No.
"In your online activity you give what you describe as examples of Mrs. Kerzner engaged in what you claim is mental health stigma. It would be unwieldy to parse every one of these many claims, but each one is false, often relying on false implications or connect-the-dots ‘evidence’ stitched together to reach a planned conclusion."
We reject this characterization in the strongest possible terms. The assertion that these examples are ‘false’ or based on ‘stitched together’ implications misrepresents both the nature of the evidence and the manner in which it has been presented.
It is a basic feature of evidentiary analysis that patterns, context, and causal relationships are established by examining multiple data points collectively. What may appear isolated or incidental in isolation can, when viewed in full context, demonstrate consistent and meaningful connections. The record presented here does precisely that.
The documented pattern shows repeated instances in which Ms. Kerzner invokes mental health framing—including diagnostic language and dismissive characterizations—in a manner that portrays critics in a negative and discrediting light. Far from being baseless conjectures, these are conclusions drawn from the cumulative record.
It is therefore concerning that this body of evidence by Bourrie is being dismissed wholesale without engagement. Moreover, characterizing this method of analysis as illegitimate, described in terms often associated with conspiracy theories, risks reinforcing the very stigmatizing narratives at issue—particularly where it frames the individual presenting the evidence as irrational or conspiratorial, rather than addressing the substance of the record itself.
"Mrs. Kerzner has consistently used her forums to speak against mental health stigma, often recruiting experts in the field to break down stigmas. Your claims are designed solely to harm Mrs. Kerzner and are defamatory under the laws of the United States and Canada. An action could be brought against you in Canada and judgment enforced in the United States."
We reject the assertion that our claims are ‘designed solely to harm.’ This is an unfounded statement that improperly ascribes intent without evidence. Our statements are grounded in documented evidence and reflect our experiences as well as our understanding of events as supported by the record.
Characterizing our motives in this manner does not engage with the evidence presented and instead attempts to reframe the discussion away from the underlying conduct at issue. Disagreement with our conclusions does not transform them into defamatory statements, nor does it justify attributing bad faith intent without substantiation.
To the extent that such assertions are maintained, we invite the identification of any specific statement that is alleged to be false along with the factual basis for that position—especially consider the extensive evidence that we have provided on this website.
We remain prepared to defend the accuracy and evidentiary basis of our statements and reserve all rights in relation to any mischaracterizations of our conduct or motives.
"Mentioning that the game was partially derailed due to the mental health issues of an unnamed person’s partner did not “fuck (you) over” as names were left anonymous and there were no means to identify you. Stating that mental health issues were a factor in the game’s cancellation is not stigmatizing mental illness as Mrs. Kerzner was stating the facts as she knew them and making no value judgment. People leave projects (and jobs) all the time because of mental health issues. Unless you see that as a moral failing or weakness, it is difficult to understand why you see this as stigmatizing. It is a common experience for neurodivergent people."
This characterization is incomplete and materially misleading. If the reference to mental health issues was truly intended as a neutral statement of fact, it is notable that no comparable disclosure was made regarding Ms. Kerzner’s own circumstances—specifically, the mental health challenges within her household and the associated delays, including those affecting completion of the game scripts (Kerzner's responsibility), as reflected in the record.
The selective nature of this disclosure is very telling.
Presenting one individual’s mental health as a contributing factor to project failure (a project in which they were not involved), while omitting other relevant and documented factors, creates a distorted narrative. It is this imbalance—not the mere acknowledgment of mental health—that gives rise to the stigmatizing effect.
We also note that the framing offered here adopts a dismissive and reductive tone, including generalized assertions about neurodivergence that are both misplaced and unresponsive to the substance of the concerns raised. Such framing does not engage with the evidence and instead minimizes the issue by recasting it as a matter of perception rather than substance.
These elements reinforce our assertions that the narrative presented relies on selective disclosure and characterization in a manner that is both misleading and harmful.
"As neither you nor Mr. Romero were ever clients of Mrs. Kerzner’s peer-counselling service, none of the statements she may have made with reference to your mental-health condition constitute revealing confidential client information."
As previously demonstrated, our references are grounded in documented instances already presented in earlier materials, including video and social media posts. Bourrie, perhaps, misapprehends the fact that alongside our complaints of Kerzner betraying our confidentiality, we have also alerted others to actions that extend outside of us.
Specifically, Kerzner has discussed individuals identified as former clients within her Discord server, including Song Eretson. In the case of Song Eretson, Kerzner made statements that mocked, downplayed and cast doubt on her reported abusive circumstances, with participation from other members, including Aileyn. These interactions are reflected in the materials we have provided.
It is possible that Bourrie has not been provided with the full scope of these communications and is relying on Ms. Kerzner’s representations. To the extent that is the case, the record we have presented raises serious questions about the completeness and accuracy of those representations.
Taken together, the documented pattern of conduct suggests that these types of disclosures and characterizations may not be isolated to a single instance or platform. We rely on the evidence presented in support of that position
"My client understands that you are an intelligent, experienced online broadcaster. She knows your participation in the episode of It’s Not Therapy was undertaken by you with full knowledge of the nature of the show, what the topic would be, that the show would be shared via radio and podcast and would remain posted online indefinitely. There exists no record of you objecting to the conduct of the podcast nor its distribution since it was posted well over a year ago. Therefore, any claims by you that you didn’t consent to the show’s recording and distribution are not supported by evidence.
If you are now stating that you made false statements about your condition on that podcast episode, please confirm this and we will remove the episode, as the makers of the podcast do not want to traffic in false information."
Bourrie misrepresents Asher’s position, which has been consistently and clearly set out in the documented record.
Asher’s objections have never been based on a lack of awareness of the podcast’s nature or distribution. As reflected in the record, his concerns arise from subsequent conduct and the context in which the episode continues to be presented. The framing offered here disregards those facts and substitutes a position he has not taken.
The suggestion that Asher is now asserting he made false statements about his condition is unfounded, improper and galling. It is not supported by any statement in the record and introduces an insinuation that is, in itself, denigrating.
We decline to engage further with assertions that misstate his position and rely on unsupported insinuations.
"Regarding your claims that Mrs. Kerzner reveals private client information on her Discord server, this is both false and absurd. There are quite a few of Mrs. Kerzner’s peer-counselling clients on the Discord server so a) it would be foolish of her to be seen revealing anyone’s information to other clients and b) seeing private client information on the server would lead the clients on the server to question Liana as to their own information security and/or cease to use her peer-counselling services. That these things have not occurred is proof that the accusation is false."
Bourrie’s argument relies on a flawed premise—namely, that the absence of a particular outcome is sufficient to disprove documented conduct. This reasoning does not engage with the evidence presented and instead substitutes assumption for analysis. It also overlooks the more complex dynamics already addressed in prior sections
As demonstrated in the preceding materials, there are documented instances in which Ms. Kerzner has disclosed or discussed information relating to individuals identified as former clients within her Discord server. One example includes her treatment of Song Eretson’s account of her mother’s alleged abuse, which, as reflected in the record, was discussed in a manner that was dismissive, mocking and inappropriate by Kerzner, and occurred in view of other members, including clients, some of whom even participated.
We have also set out a broader pattern within that environment which, in our view, reflects a stratified social dynamic reminiscent of a cult-like mentality. Specifically, the record suggests a distinction between members in good standing and those who are marginalized or excluded. Individuals such as Aileyn and Bobby are shown, in the documented exchanges, to participate in criticism of those who fall out of favor, including in discussions where personal details are raised.
This dynamic is further reflected in moderation interactions involving individuals such as Per and Aileyn, both within the Discord server and on Ms. Kerzner’s YouTube channel, where responses to dissenting participants appear, based on the record, to prioritize conformity and discourage challenge.
In this context, the absence of objection from participants does not meaningfully address the underlying concern. The evidence presented supports our position that such disclosures and discussions have occurred, and that the surrounding environment may discourages or inhibit direct challenge from those within it. In fact, we may go so far as to argue that the environment Kerzner has created encourages this behavior.
It encouraged Asher —something he regrets now, but he is also not the only former member of Kerzner's community who has come to that realization.
"The recordings were mentioned, again without naming either of you, as corroboration for Mrs. Kerzner’s belief that the unnamed person with mental-health issues was unstable."
The suggestion that these references were non-identifying is not persuasive. The position that such descriptions could apply to ‘anyone’ is inconsistent with the level of detail provided and does not reflect how the material would reasonably be understood by an audience familiar with the context.
Notably, Bourrie’s own wording acknowledges that the recordings were used to support Kerzner’s characterization of an unnamed individual as ‘unstable.’
This framing relies on mental health as a discrediting factor, which is central to the concerns we have raised regarding stigma.
Further, this position appears inconsistent with Bourrie’s earlier demand that we remove material in which Kerzner was not explicitly named but could be identified through contextual details.
If identification through context is sufficient in one instance, it cannot be dismissed in another without explanation.
This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the position advanced and reinforces our concern that the applicable standard is being applied selectively
"Mrs. Kerzner has never accused you of being a paedophile or perpetrator of sexual violence. In fact, Mrs. Kerzner has tweets wherein she actively defended you against such accusations, which had arisen in response to a blog post you had made concerning a childhood experience you had with another child (which it seems you have deleted, but screen-captures exist). Mrs. Kerzner referenced recently that Kiwi Farms had accused you of being a paedophile, not that she agreed - and again, in that post, she did not mention your name. It’s within your posts that you call attention to the statements being about you."
This characterization omits critical context. The statement in question was made within a conversation in which Annie Gallagher (the 'Virtuous Pedophile') directly referenced Mr. Asher. In that context, Kerzner responded in a manner that portrayed Mr. Asher as deceitful and expressed doubt regarding his previously stated position about why Kiwi Farms users had labeled him a pedophile
As set out in the materials, including Telegram exchanges, Mr. Asher did not express the ‘confusion’ attributed to him. The record further reflects that Ms. Kerzner was aware of the sequence of events that led to those accusations.
In that context, the manner, placement, and timing of Kerzner’s statements are significant. While she may not have explicitly repeated the allegation, the framing adopted engages with and amplifies the underlying narrative by casting doubt on Asher’s credibility and honesty.
Accordingly, we do not accept the suggestion that these statements were neutral or non-contributory. In our view, the record supports the conclusion that they functioned to reinforce a narrative that was already harmful to Asher’s reputation.
"Mr. Romero’s claim that Mrs. Kerzner ‘poisoned’ his mind against you is false, as anything Mrs. Kerzner said about you to Mr. Romero was based solely on information shared by Mr. Romero."
This assertion relies on words being put in my mouth. I did not state that Ms. Kerzner ‘poisoned’ my mind, and the use of quotation marks to attribute that wording to me is inaccurate.
What I actually stated is that I came to view Asher in a manner similar to Kerzner’s perspective, including parallels in how she described her husband. I have stated that my relationship with Kerzner may have worked to mutually encourage lack of communication and disconnection with our spouses, and using each other as venting feedback loops that only got worse and worse.
I have already acknowledged that this shift in perception was a lapse in judgment for which I take full responsibility for my part of the relationship.
Substituting my position with language I did not use materially misrepresents both the substance and context of my statement.
I do not accept a characterization that depends on attributing statements to me that I never made.
"Mentioning that two unnamed people lived in a two-room apartment was not an attempt to suggest you have financial difficulties, but to explain that the close-quarters situation led her to believe that the situation which delayed the game work would not soon change."
Kerzner did not reference the apartment in connection with the game’s cancellation or any explanation relating to delays. Rather, she raised it in a separate context, specifically in a statement made on September 28, 2025, in which she wrote:
"This accusation comes from a person who lives in a small apartment with someone who is, themselves, a kiwi farms account holder." —Liana Kerzner, Bluesky 9/28/25
That statement was made in response to our position that Kerzner delayed acting on credible information regarding a transphobic KiwiFarms user within her community. This is an allegation for which we have provided proof in the previous segment.
In that context, the reference to living arrangements was not explanatory, but instead functioned as a means of discrediting the source of the criticism, which is evident by the other discrediting insinuations that are present in that thread by Kerzner implying Asher is a KiwiFarmer. Bourrie’s characterization conflates distinct events and contexts and blurs the timeline.
By attributing the apartment reference to an unrelated explanation about project delays, it misrepresents both the purpose and the circumstances in which the statement was made.
This narrative relies on combining separate statements.
"Out of respect for your past friendship and for the sake of the mental and financial health of everyone caught up in this dispute, Mrs. Kerzner would like this to be settled without any further online rancour and hopes that you share that goal.
Please inform me when you have removed all the above-referenced social media posts, blog posts, video and other public-facing material and we can conclude our business.
It is time that people who hold themselves out as empathic and caring start de-escalating this online fight, repair the damage and move on to more productive activities that actually help people. Please do not reply with disputes about Mrs. Kerzner's statements. I am not looking for a debate but a way forward to ending this for all parties."
The resolution of this would have been easily achieved by Liana Kerzner a long time ago. All she needed to do was:
- Apologize and admit to the mis-representation of the situation regarding the development of the game.
- Apologize for the mischaracterization she has imputed upon my husband.
- Take full ownership for her part in the delays in a manner that is not ultimately self-aggrandizing or edifying, nor that it shifts responsibility unto others
- Refrain from toxic and predatory practices in the mental health influencer sphere
As there has been no such gestures from Kerzner, nor is there likely to be based on her history, this matter is not to be resolved in any manner that is likely to be amenable to Kerzner.
We have the right to speak about our experiences, and to reveal what we know that is pertinent to these situations, especially where it concerns behaviors that contribute to patterns of harm, stigma and ostracism for neurodivergent individuals.
This is a right we reserve, and which shall not be infringed as long as what we say is backed by evidence that attests to its veracity.
There have been no further communications from Mr. Bourrie. Based on the views of experts we have consulted, these letters appear to have been framed in an intimidatory manner, including the threat of litigation commonly associated with SLAPP tactics.
This concern is reinforced by statements made within Kerzner’s Discord server during periods in which responses to us, including potential legal action or silencing efforts, were being discussed:
Now that we have addressed every point raised in Mr. Bourrie’s correspondence, our position is clear. If Mr. Bourrie acknowledges that the allegations advanced on his clients’ behalf were based on inaccurate premises and caused unwarranted distress, we would consider that a constructive step.
If, however, those assertions are repeated despite the record presented, that will be evident on its own terms.
We are not in a position to make definitive claims about Mr. Bourrie’s prior professional conduct, only that his present professional behavior towards us has been deeply offensive. Public commentary exists regarding past disputes involving him (archive here) however, we do not adopt those accounts as fact and make no independent claim as to their accuracy.
What is directly relevant here is that Mr. Bourrie is representing individuals who, by Mrs. Kerzner’s own account and the materials presented, are connected to serious concerns regarding the handling and access to funds associated with a public crowdfunding campaign. These are not speculative concerns but are grounded in the record we have provided, assuming Mrs. Kerzner was truthful in her disclosure at the time.
Based on the materials presented, we believe the record points to a deeply concerning pattern. It reflects repeated efforts to challenge and, at times, suppress criticism from individuals with smaller platforms—particularly where that criticism is supported by documentation that is unfavorable to Kerzner.
What emerges across these events is not an isolated disagreement, but a consistent narrative in which responsibility for upheavals, cancellations, conflicts, and strain is placed on others, while contradictory evidence and context are minimized or omitted.
This pattern is visible across multiple incidents documented here.
The issue is not that anyone is beyond flaw—no one is. The concern is the apparent persistence of a narrative in which those flaws are displaced onto others, even where the record suggests a more complex and shared reality.
It is particularly troubling, in our view, where this pattern is accompanied by legal threats directed at individuals with far fewer resources to respond. I think that that dynamic speaks for itself.
We do not make these statements lightly, but they are grounded in the cumulative record we have presented.
We stand by this record—and we will not be deterred from it