Liana Kerzner’s Song of Sparklemuffin Cancellation: Asher Wolfstein’s Initial Response (As Well As To Jessica Bryce Routhier)

This was posted on July 25, 2025 on an incarnation of one of my several blog manifestations this last almost year-and-a-half. Originally, it was a segment of another blog post, one that was extra extra long. In the interest of clarity and focus, I have reproduced it here. The archive blog post with additional context (what led up to this) can be found here: /liana-kerzner-redlianak-jessica-bryce-routhier-poppy-diabolique-transgirltherapist-and-mental-health-stigma/, and here: /liana-kerzner-redlianaks-exchange-with-asher-wolfstein-september-2024/. This is “part 3.”

Preface (2026)

As stated in the above note, this is part 3 of a “series” of posts (here, again, are 1 and 2). The responses below were originally posted on BlueSky under my permanently suspended account. I argue it was a highly biased and unfair suspension, obviously. The entire archive of that account is available (and improving in format and ease of access) at my ‘Social Timeline’ I host myself now at /micro/.

The responses are to two situations.

• One is what turned out to be a confrontation on Twitter between myself and Jessica Bryce Routhier (Poppy Diabolique of the L’Enfant Diabolique system, 9.9).
• The second is the very public YouTube video published by Liana Kerzner regarding her decision (it’s in the title) to cancel BOSSFIGHT: Song of Sparklemuffin, a game project between her and my husband Maus, where she placed the onus entirely on my mental health struggles and alleged long-term unmanaged instability.

There is zero doubt that was what was expressed in the video, sans explicit direct reference.

Check the transcript yourself if you have doubts.

A Precise Recounting Of What Liana Kerzner Said

As previously written (a lot has been previously written), this is dramatic and succinct, but it’s a bit vague. Since I criticize Liana for not accepting the responsibility for her vagueness, and because it’s become clear to me that Dr. Bourrie, MJ Ph.D JD, Steven and Liana Kerzner’s counsel (I have no idea why Steven is involved; I have absolutely nothing to do with him, unless… he is involved somehow), also necessitates clarification:

Liana Kerzner claimed that the entire project got torpedoed because the spouse of a key team member (me, factually, though not directly or explicitly referenced) had mental health issues that happened “in the home.” She decided this crossed some kind of moral Rubicon, and that this “wasn’t her story to tell”—except, of course, she told it anyway.¹

How To State A Value Judgment Without Making A Value Judgment… I Guess

According to Kerzner, my alleged inability to be a better person led to a “very public shot” at a trans woman (Jessica), using a “transphobic narrative” that she claimed I knew was making the rounds on Kiwi Farms, which then exploded into a “very ugly fight” between her, Maus, and me.

I use the term ‘better person,’ because,

“… crossed moral boundaries …”

sounds, to me, like a value judgment (moral judgment).

Dr. Mark Bourrie (Founder of Free Press,² “Canada’s leading media and current events publication”), in his infinite wisdom, disagrees:

The “transphobic narrative” I employed consisted of one word, “manipulative,” which she refused to repeat because… ‘my theory’ (I have them too, with just as many qualifications) is that omitting it makes it sound worse, of course.

The Consequences of Failing To Meet Liana Kerzner’s Social Standards

The relationship with the team member (again, my husband Maus, not directly or explicitly referenced) became so radioactive that she was forced to cancel the project, which, near the end, she states is the only way to to cut my “tie to [her],” which, if you ask me, is the real reason the plug got pulled, and not exactly a story that needs to include any of my details.

So, in summary: whether or not my name was on the memo, the facts of what she says occurred, which she told the stakeholders, were:

If I hadn’t failed to meet her standards for mental health and social performance—despite not being on the payroll, not being involved, and plainly existing as someone with mental health conditions in the same room—the game would still be alive and kicking.

I am objectively not inserting anything or removing anything here. I’m restating exactly what was expressed, only from the opposite direction.

In all of this, I’m illustrating the logical negative space, which is what must be true for her statement to also be true. I’m also using language that Liana Kerzner herself later used to describe the situation, as well as the story that isn’t hers to tell, as she depicted my alleged instability (purely her opinion) in the ensuing year.

Dr. Bourrie seems to agree with this, this time:

He’s right!

I argue that the main, non-partial reason was that I refused to comply with her process in becoming a better person.

“See, here’s the thing” that people who make “professional disclosures” in this specific style seem to never take into account in their mad dash to scapegoat:

You can’t include all these unnecessary details without making them absolutely necessary, especially when put forth in a line of argument and narrative such as the one found in the video.

My actions—whether I was named or not; and I am speaking here about the objective facts, not about whether she chose to name me—are portrayed as paramount to the cancellation. That means they cannot later be dismissed as a mere side note, as something that was not really relevant, or as simply supplementary context.

This was the event that the entire cancellation decision (directly implied in the title, Why I’m ending development on Song of Sparklemuffin, additional emphasis mine) was predicated on, according to Liana Kerzner in the video itself, which led to an untenable relationship with a team member she was relying on for completion of the project. That team member was apparently the most important one, and indeed, effectively, the only one. Who could that be other than the collaborating team member listed quite publicly (along with my first name) on the Kickstarter page?

That event, whose precipitating causes are described, was the refusal by an individual who remained inert and uninvolved throughout the entire affair to meet and comply with her social standards. My family, for example, does not share these social standards and they get along fine.

These are standards she insists are never up for debate with her, despite producing three YouTube videos a week for a community that is explicitly encouraged³ to discuss these very topics.

This is as if, to paraphrase Giancarlo Vanzzini, and to his rare credit, I believe on Kiwi Farms, your employer called your homemaker wife to tell her to shape up socially and stop bothering people, or else they’ll fire her husband.

It is extraordinarily inappropriate, and yet, her community and supporters (who are encouraged not to read any of this, like a cult) don’t seem to think that’s “in her nature or character.”

And granted, I didn’t either, until, of course, it happened to me, and my disbelief, in the face of things I did read and encounter (not all of which is true) is my fault. If, like Giancarlo, you’re expecting me to “eat crow” beyond that, you’ll be disappointed, but I do acknowledge this shortcoming.

What Liana Kerzner Doesn’t Tell You Will Hurt You

However, unlike I did with Liana, which she made a point of acknowledging, Liana never told me who she was. And this is a perfect illustration of,

What Liana Kerzner doesn’t tell you will hurt you.

Even if I was inclined to produce self-indulgent ‘get ready with me for my spiritual journey’ ‘healing’ videos full of meaningless lessons I’m not actually learning, I can’t make an overly emotive Maya Angelou video about the whole thing.

Though it wasn’t that particularly vivid example, Liana Kerzner was able to do this on her radio show soon after the cancellation video, because I did tell her who I was, in person, at PAX.

And, when I did, she expressed resonance and approval.

But now that I know everything I do, I do feel an extra urgency to express the truth about it.

In short,

You don’t “get to” have your cake and eat it too. I firmly, and confidently, argue that the video isn’t “a comment on,” or a side note, or commentary, or an “observation,” or a “misremembering,” or, even, a relevant “trauma response” that’s somehow my fault.

With something this important, a responsible professional communicator looks up all that voluminous documentation that Dr. Bourrie repeatedly reminds us exists, or, if you ask me, threatens us with, to get it right. It’s what her entire video and cancellation hinge on, regardless of later sidesteps in comments or otherwise.

And she hasn’t denied it, but doubled down on this, claiming my behavior was entirely relevant, and in places less private than she imagines, that I was directly involved in development.

Liana Kerzner Actively Lied About My Involvement

In my careful opinion, it is unreasonable to expect me to chalk all of this up to a “misremembering,” as I’m sure will be requested, when it was a drawn out process she was allegedly fully invested and involved in, talking to all parties continuously, at length, particularly when she remembers specific, allegedly negative things about our relationships at other times with near-accuracy.

She has made multiple statements to multiple parties, and en masse, indicating that I was an integral part of, or, at the least, actively influential, in the development process, and specifically identified us (by name) in at least one of those statements.⁴

I suppose it is now my turn to remind Dr. Mark Bourrie that, yes, indeed, screenshots and records do exist, and I am in possession of a staggering collection.

When The Truth Must Be Acknowledged, That Is, When It Benefits Liana, It Is

When it comes time to settle, though, Dr. Mark Bourrie privately takes the time to assert the facts in a letter without prejudice:

And, surprise, if this is news to anyone reading, I already disclosed this very thing on my now-deleted Twitter, like, I believe, a month or more ago, which will also be going right back up on my ‘Social Timeline’ in due time. I venture that you should actually read what I write, and that doing so isn’t a violation of Liana’s boundaries.

“Who Says Stuff Like That?”

Here’s a ‘side note’ (that’s not really a side note) of my own. And, I’ve already pointed this out. I’ve already pointed out so many things, starting more than a year ago. In the transcript of the cancellation video, you’ll see Liana Kerzner state the following:

“… I’m not looking for a debate on whether I’m in the right in my opinions here. …”

This is a phrase Liana likes to use (“I’m not looking for a debate”) when she wants to end the conflict unilaterally and then assume the posture that doing so somehow limits the other party’s actions. I argue that this is a clear conclusion to reach from observing her larger behavior.

It doesn’t.

But what I find very odd is the last paragraph of the last letter without prejudice (not published in full here) sent to me by Dr. Mark Bourrie:

I have previously written (in currently unavailable Twitter posts that will be made available in the future) how the abrupt change in narrator is jarring.

Is Dr. Bourrie saying this?

If so, it’s nonsensical for a lawyer, a professional in resolving conflicts in the sole interests of their clients, to say this. Any lawyer worth their salt should want all the information they can get. Even Dr. Bourrie would agree, I presume, since he fished for information, in my layman’s opinion, via intimidating demands such as this, in order, I believe, to force me into rushing to counsel (which I’m unable to do so at the moment, despite trying).

So, what’s the deal?

The deal, as I’ve speculated previously, is that Liana wrote this, Steven may have revised it, and Dr. Bourrie edited it to be ‘legal,’ poorly, mind you, and that slipped.

Dr. Mark Bourrie, the Credential-Laundering Instrument of Institutional Intimidation (In My Sole Layman’s Opinion)

And that would mean, in my sole layman’s opinion, as previously written, that Dr. Bourrie is acting, by virtue of the statement, less as a lawyer, and more as an extension of Liana’s will, an instrument of institutional intimidation (MJ, Ph.D, and JD aren’t anything to sniff at) against someone who can’t even currently afford counsel (despite trying).

And what does that say?

And, now, the regularly scheduled archival information (not 2026):

24 October 2024

(3l7bvzvgvqb2p) This video (Why I’m ending development on Song of Sparklemuffin) is about the unfortunate cancellation of a good project with which my husband @merrystarchild.bsky.social was involved. They are the “team member” mentioned, and I am the presumed catalyst for its cancellation. I consider Liana a dear friend I respect [ED: I no longer consider this.], and I would rather (3l7bw352i4v2x) not have any of this, but I guess this is where we are right now. This video came as a surprise to both me and my husband. I had finished apologizing to Liana over the last three days for any hurt or upset I caused her.

I will address this statement in more detail over time, but I can say (3l7bw3o3n3f2l) right now that what Liana says about me is only from her perspective. Most of what she says in this video about me is not accurate. It does not reflect the larger reality. Opposite to what she said, I actively tried to “comply” with the proposed process. [ED: Emphases are my additions now, not then.] One could read an implication where (3l7bw6oqnj22i) my husband spoke of cruelty due to my noncompliance, but this is inaccurate on two counts. My husband didn’t lodge an accusation but expressed an observation, the accuracy of which was denied. I have expressed my opinions on the ‘nature’ of non-hurtful people elsewhere.

…/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l6su6qwfor2k (other post)

(3l7bwaz77t42a) I am also not “unstable,” but far from it, with my health improving significantly after ECT. I do not have significant issues with impulse control. I did not “use” a narrative from anywhere. I don’t need to; I have no problems producing my own opinions and perspective, and anyone who knows me can attest to this. [ED: By now, this should be very clear to everyone, I would hope.]

(3l7bwbvfxhs2a) The mentioned narrative is transphobic and perpetuates mental health stigma, but since I wasn’t “using” that narrative, I did not do that, in my opinion. It wouldn’t make sense for me to do so on multiple fronts: I have been on the receiving end of this narrative, and (3l7bwcncjcw2b) perpetuating stigma only weakens my position as someone openly mentally ill. Being committed to self-interest, I would not knowingly do that. I maintain that I am not responsible for others’ mental states, conditions, situations, or struggles and that I can only be (3l7bwdr233v2l) understanding of them. [ED: Liana publicly agrees with this position, repeatedly, and fronts it as sound mental health advice.] I am still unaware of what dangerous situation I could’ve contributed to. [ED: And still to this day, I am unaware, because it’s vague as all fuck.] All of these are minor points.

The larger point is that the project’s success didn’t hinge on me at all. I wasn’t even involved. I told my husband during the aftermath of (3l7bwfdx2ib2x) the “very public shot” that I was willing to offer help in writing and puzzle design for free. I ended up being unable to provide that support. Liana has placed the entire cancellation on me. [ED: See above.] The only responsibility for the cancellation she claims [was hers] was that she didn’t “deal with the bad behavior” (3l7bwggvhvc27) when it occurred. She was being too nice, something no one can blame anyone for. [ED: This is sarcasm. I tend not to mark it.]

Comments on the video, and those that follow, praise Liana on her integrity, transparency, honesty, and the well-placed trust others have. These are comments Liana has addressed elsewhere as ones she is proud (3l7bwhnsxhr2i) to receive.

This cancellation statement has a lot of issues with accuracy. It was engineered (she consulted a PR professional) to place the true blame for the cancellation on me, an unstable mentally ill person on a downward spiral, unable to control my impulses to deliberately hurt people (3l7bwi2qfuq27) (alluded to in another video) who perpetuates mental health stigma in, apparently, the wrong place at the wrong time to the wrong person.

In reality, I am a relatively stable person (for example, I’ve been with my husband for 20 years) who is more mentally healthy than ever, thanks to ECT. (3l7bwihj53r2x) I struggle sometimes, as does everyone, but I am dedicated to creativity, intelligent discourse, and unique individuals, including the person I criticized.

October 24, 2024 at 2:50 PM – @hugonotderrick.b… (Giancarlo Vanzzini)

In response to @asher.wolfste.in on October 24, 2024 at 2:40 PM …/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l7bw352i4v2x

…/hugonotderrick.bsky.social/post/3l7bwnsh5ne2x:

over the last three days

You hadn’t watched this video in the two weeks its been out?

October 24, 2024 at 2:55 PM – @asherwolfstein.b…

[ED: This was not a response on good terms to a Kiwi Farmer, though it seems Giancarlo thought it was because he’s a pathetic Kiwi Farmer. It was information I thought was relevant so I provided it.]

In response to @hugonotderrick.bsky.social on October 24, 2024 at 2:50 PM …e/hugonotderrick.bsky.social/post/3l7bwnsh5ne2x

…/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l7bwwdv5an2a

For approximately three days before the video was posted, I apologized to Liana and tried to give her ample opportunity to say [what] she wanted or needed, and she did. I planned to reengage and continue the discussion after the weekend when I saw this video the next day. The conversation did not continue.

25 October 2024

…/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l7f7awuq5v2x

I have never campaigned against anyone. If you can’t deal with opposing opinions, maybe you shouldn’t be in the business of opinions. Criticism isn’t harassment. Neither transgenderism, identity, reputation, nor mental health conditions were used as counterarguments. I cannot cross boundaries (3l7f7do477u2y) that weren’t clearly set, and I’m not responsible for someone enforcing their own boundaries with their behavior. I am not to be silenced through the weaponization of ‘politeness.’

[ED: I am now confident that any one of the individuals in Jessica’s online social circles, even Jessica herself, would write such a statement as the last sentence. Observe, when I write it, it takes on a mysterious context that I’ve attempted to place my finger on and which has summarily been scoffed at, being of course, my accidental identity.]

(3l7f7fachxt25) I do not invade people’s private spaces. I do not incite mobs. I do not make friends fall in line. I do not spread rumors. I do not interact positively with obvious trolls, nor participate in their campaigns. I do not go on vendettas or participate in them. Simply put, I do not harass people.

October 25, 2024 at 10:47 PM – @asherwolfstein.b…

In response to @asher.wolfste.in on October 25, 2024 at 10:04 PM …/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l7f7fachxt25

…/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l7fbqzfcxs2a

This is my “abhorrent behavior” towards @ladydiabolique.bsky.social (and @galaxybunny.bsky.social) on Twitter. I am also likely believed to have exhibited “abhorrent behavior” towards @redlianak.bsky.social in private, but I’ll address that at a later time.

I leave it up for you to decide.

[ED: Here I list the same general screenshots as another post to show my encounter with Jessica on Twitter. I will spare the reader these except for the last one.]

(3l7fcsi32xz25) In review, I must note something here. Poppy is a self-expressed trans individual. “Man” was not meant to be a transphobic expression. I have only known Poppy as the woman she is and don’t care otherwise. “Man.” was meant as an interjection, like “Man, anyone can do it!” or “Man, that’s bad.”

(3l7fctgvswg2x) I understand if that (the “Man.” or “Man!” interjection) was lost,⁵ and I could’ve possibly expressed myself better, but it wasn’t a thought that crossed my mind since Poppy is nothing but a woman in my eyes. It didn’t even cross my mind.

(3l7fcznbbix2l) The result: Poppy, a licensed therapist, put me on display as a “splitting” borderline to her followers to, in my opinion, and interpretation, delegitimize my argument and opinion (in her presumed expert opinion) as quickly as possible and make sure everyone saw how “abhorrent” I was being.

(3l7fdaumfw527) I was then told by a mutual friend (to whom both of us ran): “It’s not delegitimizing when you actually ARE going too far. ‘Manipulative’ is … thrown at BPD people unfairly and you of all people know that. So you’re in pot calling the kettle black territory here. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong.”

(3l7fdgsoczl2a) This mutual friend [ED: I’m talking about Liana Kerzner] also convinced Poppy to remove the last post, but, well, you can see it above. That was very considerate, and I felt better about being dismissed twice in rapid succession, once by a close friend whose feelings I had hurt. So, I apologized to this friend. It did not go well.

(3l7fdi7c67b25) This is the end of my TED talk. I encourage you to draw your own conclusions, because you will, and there’s nothing I would ever want to do to stop that. Thank you.

October 25, 2024 at 11:56 PM – @asherwolfstein.b…

…/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l7ffmi6xac25

I’d like to note, and “you” here is Poppy:

1. suggesting I’m “berating” you and stating that you’re “uncomfortable” was a “boundary” you made (where?) that I crossed, can be interpreted as you behaving like a victim. I have clearly ‘wronged’ you by crossing a boundary. (3l7ffnszbxz2a) This action resonates further, finding a place in the moral condemnation [ED: She did not express a value judgment, though, remember? This is sarcasm, not agreement. See above.] expressed by Liana in her video about the cancellation of Song of Sparklemuffin, which has nothing to do with me or you. It is unnecessary to state you are a victim to be considered a victim. Being a victim is the (3l7ffolvubn2c) result of an action and also in responsive behavior. It is not something you can deny when you’re acting like one. It doesn’t have to be said.

2. I made the case for manipulativeness by pointing out where in your short responses my “BPD” (as you seem to enjoy anthropomorphizing it, I was (3l7ffqbev3i2f) trying to match) was picking up on rhetorical techniques to try to outmaneuver what I was saying in response to what I was saying. Not having clear definitions, clear points, and clear arguments on purpose is manipulation. When they’re always changing or unsteady, especially in response to (3l7ffsyhgeo2b) challenges that make them look bad, it’s manipulative. I know how to spot this easily. On top of that, though, the fact you “made a boundary” (‘uncomfortable,’ I’ve gathered, is code for ‘boundary’) and then immediately chastised me for “crossing” it (it’s your boundary, but you came back) on (3l7fftqz7cc2a) a public forum indicates the boundary was supposed to silence me. I was supposed to be polite and shut up. And when I didn’t you came back to declare I crossed a boundary and was berating you, turning you into a victim. This is also a form of manipulation. Boundaries are meant to protect (3l7ffunt6h72i) people from abusers by helping them reclaim their sense of responsibility and self from the abusers who have taken it or shoved themselves into it. I’m pretty sure of this, as it’s been hammered into me repeatedly for the last 23 years. You stated you were uncomfortable. I expected you to (3l7ffvaiyas25) leave the conversation. I had no expectation that you’d come back, but I expressed what I wanted to say anyway, on a public forum. You ‘punished’ me for you coming back. Just block me (as you’ve done). When I expressed that I don’t have to buy into this (as Liana has expressed recently) [ED: I’m referencing another video at the time.] you (3l7ffw7flli2y) took that as a failure and claimed I was essentially acting insane at you (the victim) so that nobody would take me seriously.⁶

3. This interaction led Liana to accuse me of perpetuating mental health stigma. Let that sink in. Even now, I wonder why I was accused of this, but (3l7ffxbd5ui2y) I think I have an idea.

4. I talked about you ‘berating’ people. I meant your YouTube channel, your “disk horse,” your public persona, your opinions, and such. Nothing in your personal life. I don’t know your personal life. And you do, because how could your videos concerning ‘drama,’ (3l7ffyco2za27) for example, such as your own in regards to your actions and other people criticizing you (which I am not interested in), not possibly be interpreted this way? You berate people with weird memes for political reasons all the time!

5. I did not take offense at you disengaging. I took offense at (3l7ffz6ciqh2i) your manipulative use of language, and your manipulative use of boundaries. I said what I wanted to say on a public forum after you disengaged, not expecting you to come back. I was suddenly immoral (according to Liana) when you decided to come back claiming I crossed a boundary. It was (3l7fg2crgrk2l) you’re [sic] boundary, something I repeated. I’m not responsible for the enforcement of anyone’s boundaries. I’m really surprised you don’t seem to know this.
   
   I mean, how many people are supposed to blocked or banned from queer, gay, furry, niche, or whatever other fandom spaces for their opinions?

6. Stating things like I’m “splitting,” or that I took “offense,” or that I was claiming you were manipulative for “disengaging,” is (3l7fg33mmtq2f) very controlling and purposeful language. You know none of these things. I did not take offense at you disengaging. I did not claim that you disengaging, or saying I was “gish galloping,” was manipulative. It’s in the Tweets exactly where I said it started: “how does this relate…” (3l7fg46c6t52c) And, finally, I wasn’t splitting. But a therapist said I was!

[ED: To date, there has been no response, acknowledgment, or reciprocal explanation to these statements.]

That’s it. Take that however you want. I don’t care how many words it is, or anything like that. I don’t care about your past. I don’t care about your trolls (other than I got dragged into the muck by association (3l7fg4euunj2x) as well as our mutual friend). I don’t care about you being furry, polyamorous, transgender, or anything. I am also weird! I don’t care about any narrative or ‘docs’ (haven’t even seen them). All I care about is the ideas you talk about and the “shit” you say, if even that.

October 26, 2024 at 9:05

[ED: Again, this was not a response on good terms to a Kiwi Farmer, though it seems Giancarlo thought it was because he’s a pathetic Kiwi Farmer. It was information I thought was relevant so I provided it.]

In response to @hugonotderrick.bsky.social on October 26, 2024 at 8:13 AM …/hugonotderrick.bsky.social/post/3l7gber6zzs2b

…/asher.wolfste.in/post/3l7gec5iolx2c

“Splitting,” otherwise known as black-and-white thinking, thinking in extremes, and more specifically in the Borderline sense, an idealization or devaluation of another person or situation rather than seeing the nuances or the gradient “shades of gray.”

Liana and Poppy discuss it here:

(3l7gekr6wu22a) It’s an emotional and often unbalanced response that can happen in seconds in Borderlines which characterizes it as irrational and maladaptive. Devaluation will often involve lashing out in various ways, even if it’s as mild as “shit talking” about someone.

This video, at 1:40, mentions it too:

(3l7genwh67627) If I was splitting, it would taint everything I was saying to Poppy as irrational extreme nonsense, which it wasn’t. Why would I offer to have her explain her position if she was all “bad”? She’s not. No one is.

Everything that follows was written today, in 2026, not on the archive date:

Footnotes

1. ↩︎
2. ↩︎
3. ↩︎
4. ↩︎
5. ↩︎
6. ↩︎

Post-Footnotes

ED: When Michael refers to me expressing how “I’ve been criticized” over my relationship with Pablo, I do not remember saying that. What I remember saying is that oftentimes people don’t realize I’m the hard ass and that there have been people who’ve taken offense at my approach and have then criticized our relationship, much like he then does. The rest of it, particularly the “failed straight,” thing is… I have no idea what he’s talking about beyond his bigoted overlay on how he assumes ‘everyone’ operates.

The mechanism might seem a bit familiar.

Also, we ended up filing a police report on Louis Michael Cseke, not the other way around. And, when we were done, the police officer was ready to go knock on his door and request our books, one of which was Associated Student Bodies, gay furry erotica, by the way. Suddenly, within hours, the books showed up, and the officer amazingly didn’t have to do that. The officer asked us if we had any interest in contacting Louis Michael Cseke, and we said no, and we kept to that.

We had nothing to do with him, didn’t talk about him, didn’t contact anyone in relation to him, didn’t do anything for about 5-6 years, UNTIL Cseke showed back up, rearing his ugly face, or signature writing, on Liana Kerzner’s videos talking about ‘our embarrassing failures’ (not a direct quote).

Suddenly, he was back, and now we have to deal with him again, since HE initiated it. I do not like this person. I think he’s a truly dangerous person. And yet, his potential activities are being actively pinned on me by Liana Kerzner despite us telling her it isn’t us, it’s probably him, and we provided the best evidence we can as private citizens.

This individual, Louis Michael Cseke, lives in the same city we do: Fort Collins, Colorado, or somewhere nearby. We have every reason to believe, based on the records, that he is still located here, despite an account on BlueSky that we believe was his (now suspended) which suggested otherwise.

What this translates to is very important:

When public IP addresses (on the provider’s end) are linked to these anonymous messages, that no one is mistaken aren’t meant to be anonymous (even Dr. Bourrie), they will come back as being in the same city as us, even the same provider, which is unusual in these kinds of cases involving the Internet, but not impossible.

Thus, it’s an almost perfect set-up, so to speak, despite Pablo and I informing others, including presumably Liana Kerzner (since she commented on the contents of the video explaining it) that, it as easy as Michael walking to the library right next to our residence (one I’ve stepped foot in about 3 times over the last 10+ years) and using a terminal there to give the impression it’s us.

This doesn’t appear to concern Liana when suggesting, in a truly bizarre, self-indulgent tirade where she positions herself as one of our greatest benefactors, that it’s us.

Fortunately, libraries keep records and often have video surveillance, especially in this neighborhood.

Again, Liana Kerzner of It’s Not Therapy is a mental health advocate and queer ally who preaches “safety,” with boundaries galore.

As those in this group might say, “sit with that, and reflect.”

These are slightly out of order, because, it’s just plain confusing all around, but I do my best.

My response to this is further below, but suffice to say, I didn’t want to fix anything; neither of us has ever worked for a law firm; and there wasn’t anything to clear up other than I wanted my property back. All of those are things Michael clearly wanted, desires we repeatedly made clear we did not share, as the reader can observe in the screenshots below.

I am green. This is important at the end, I’m the green text.

Note the last message from me, the guy who’s allegedly unhinged, antisocial, and lacking acceptable impulse control.

That was it.

That’s what this entire thing was really about on my end.

I just wanted my books back.

I didn’t want to be friends, I didn’t want to smooth anything out, I didn’t want to have a relationship, I didn’t want to discuss any agendas, or my thoughts, or what was going on. I just wanted my books and Michael. couldn’t. handle. that. for some ‘strange’ reason.

What follows is after I had confronted a moderator on Ayn Rand International who was acting like a 12-year-old, calling me a cuck, little boy, and booting me out after I disagreed with his interpretation of Atlas Shrugged, and he essentially replied, “Have you ever even read Atlas Shrugged, bro?”

To which I honestly answered, “Yes, have you?” as I remember it.

There wasn’t an issue with my ‘views.’ I wasn’t against anything, except the toxic behavior, as, well, heh…

“Ayn Fand” shows up out of the blue after I make my own group and proceeds to paint my activities in a very different, obnoxious light, saying I was acting on arguments I never made.

I would never make these laughable arguments, frankly. In fact, they sound like the type of arguments Liana’s community throws around, and even ones that Liana herself mocks while also relying on them. This whole situation will be in the Facebook archives on my ‘Social Timeline’ at /micro/ as things progress, which, they will.

Liana Kerzner was witness to this and promptly joined our new Facebook group titled Ayn Rand Universal and participated, despite this game review from years earlier. I only discovered this review after our friendship ended, and it is another illustration of how Liana, unlike what she says I did, didn’t tell me who she was. I had to find out the hard way.

And yet, somehow, *I’m* held at fault for her not believing me the first time when I told her everything she needed to know about me regarding things like this, in person, at PAX. This is a period she demonstrates a clear memory of when she recounts a conversation we had in front of a cafe on the boardwalk in Seattle (after we got burritos, hers vegan, with witnesses) in her video about red flags in friendships, while also still managing to interpret my point incorrectly, something she admonishes her viewers for doing in her comments sections. Repeatedly.

By the way, it was these images that were quickly and summarily wiped from my BlueSky shortly before it was permanently suspended. Prior to the temporary suspension, and then the later permanent one, I was publishing that I was highly concerned for my safety and in distress as a vulnerable person.

It’s important for me to point out that, in accordance with what they profess about mutual aid, safety, and care, Saige, Jessica, Audrey, Liana, Annie, or any other member of Liana’s community, or social circles, did not step in, check, publicize it, or seem to care.

In fact, quite the opposite:

Granted, one might argue I do exactly the same, so I’m “just as bad.” This is most likely what a shallow and Looney Tunes-obsessed person like Michael sees as a hypocritical judgment, so I’m going to clear it up for everyone once and for all:

I do not subscribe to the moral landscape, framework, and values that most people do. This doesn’t mean I think morality doesn’t exist. Oh, it does! I’m philosophically obsessed with morality, but it’s not based on altruism. The results will often appear to be like most others’, but, as it does, when things like this come up, it dramatically diverges. If you disagree, okay.

I’m personally not judging Audrey et al for not caring in the way they think they should. That’s not my judgment. My judgment is that they don’t care in the way I think they should, which isn’t the way they think they should, and also in line with how they argue. I cannot be a hypocrite over something I don’t believe in.

In instances like this, I express judgments that hold everyone according to their own stated moral standards.

I’m judging Audrey on her moral inconsistency; she likes to hold others, definitely me, to an all-pervasive altruism that’s concerned about everyone else’s benefit, and yet…

They fail to do this consistently.

I don’t, because I don’t subscribe to this. Again, how can I fail at something I don’t subscribe to?

How can I be hypocritical when I don’t hold others who do not profess it to the same standard?

It’s an illogical contradiction and thus, meaningless.

The standard I hold everyone to, including myself, is philosophical and values-driven consistency, which I take extreme care to uphold. If you profess an ethic, especially when you hold me against it, I will hold you against your own ethic when you violate it. Your ethics and my holding you to your word have nothing to do with my ethics.

I succeed in my morality all the time. They don’t achieve the very goals they espouse, and that’s what I’m pointing out. If they were consistent and just told people they didn’t give a shit about some people (like I do) for reasons (like I do), I’d have WAY less of a problem, because everyone would know what to expect instead of ending up hapless victims.

But they don’t.

And, a personal message to Michael (and anyone else thinking they’ll be ‘the one’ to best it all): please, don’t waste everyone’s time, including yours, trying to get all of this taken down by some sysadmin somewhere in the deep crevices of the far Internet. 1) I don’t expect that to be effective, and 2) it will just go right back up, within hours, ’cause the time for weeks-prolonged DFEs has passed. In fact, the whole process is automated. That is, the jig is up, the truth is coming out, the game, as they say, is over. Liana cancelled it! Despite lacking sufficient resources for appropriate counsel, we do not lack the resources to investigate the situation further, in grave detail, including through other parties. So we are. As well, everything here is already backed up in multiple places, and with multiple people, with instructions on what to do if anything were to happen. There is no “Game Plus” mode, and you’re not the main character. This is real life, with real stakes, as has always been the case, and I take it very seriously. Everyone else should probably start doing the same.

Transcripts Of Above Screenshots

> This is a phone screenshot that features the following text:

12:44

Title of long message: *sigh* Our office? You both work for a la...

*sigh* Our office? You both work for a law office?? Asher previously told me he was unemployed. Now count me as officially paranoid.haha...Look, [sic] once again, as long as you remain cryptic like this, then the only place I feel remotely safe is the police department. In light of all this weirdness, especially the Mr.Ceske [sic] stuff, this just feels like a Tom Ripley situation. Like I fear weeks ago. [sic] Ok, so until I know what your agenda is: I just don't feel reasonably safe. For my part, I tried to extend the olive branch here, and I put all my cards out on the table. But to no avail. Just too many trust issues now. If you can find a way to clear this up, you can still text my personal number here and I will entertain it. But....I [sic] don't see how at this point :/ (emoticon) Short of being transparent yourself, and telling me what the heaven is going on, this situation seems permanently unfixable. But not for a lack of effort on my part, I did what I could! *in my best Daffy Duck voice* Anyhow, moving on- I will have someone look for your things. If they find the books, they will drop them off tomorrow during the day at 2221 S Timberline Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80525. Included will be a note that your belongings are to be left for Asher Wolfstein. Will have to tell them that name is an alias. But I will mention Pablo if that helps, and that you work for the above law firm. And at this point, I will have to make my report - based upon everything that has transpired. More likely than not, the police will jsut return your belongings if they are found. My experience is that the FOCO PD are a cool lot :) (emoticon) So I'm sure they will give your stuff back. Well, sorry we couldn't clear this up. Did what I could. Anyhow....guess [sic] this is good bye. Good luck guys with Novelty factor and the Gorehound stuff. All that I ask is check yourself on the gossip I keep hearing. Since I'm not talking about you guys and I walked

> from the Gorehound weeks ago, there is no reason or [sic] this nuttiness. Say you are wrong about me, or what you think abotu me, or worse, what if someone is messing with you. Taking matters into your own hands like this could be considered defamation or a liability issue. Short of making amends, consider this MY cease and desist ;) (emoticon) I would imagine by 3pm tomorrow if anything is found, it will be with the police. Well, to quote Clerks 2, I got nothing. Cheers Gentlemen. *peace sign*

This is the transcript of the next set of screen shots. The (Green Text) is me, Asher Wolfstein.

This is a phone screenshot that features the following text:

12:43

2 people >

... it wasn't you. I still don't have or remember the password, and if you changed it, the disregard. [sic] But if that was an authorized change, and another admin stole control of that, then you will have to figure out how to recover it. I don't have access to it anymore, but I also don't have the desire to fix it in light of all the drama around that place. I included a screenshot from my android phone. P.S. Hit me up anytime guys. Will be in Fort Collins probably next week. Have to at least your books back to Asher. Hopefully we can remain friends in light of yesterday's quarrel. Off to get aspirin and coffee. Chat with you soon gents! Cheers :-)

Wed, Feb 13, 12:28 PM

(Green Text): Hey, Mike, thanks for the heads up. Sorry for the delayed reply. I came down yesterday morning with what Pablo has. Ah well! When do you think you'll be in Fort Collins again? It would be great to meet over a drink/sushi (we're good fans of that), and since I'm assuming you're done with them, return the books. Let me or Pablo know okay?

12:43

Thu, Feb 14, 6:10 PM

(blanked out phone number of Louis Michael Cseke)
No worries. First week of March. Had bouts of stomach thing too : ( Thought it was from drinking too much but was checked out, and it was the flu. And this, after getting a shot. But, yeah...when [sic] we get back, we can take a ride on a sushi boat.haha... [sic] Drink some good saki. Thx again for the books. Very educational. Will text you when I return. Cheers.

Yesterday 4:32 PM
Pablo Romero
Hey Mike, sorry for the short notice but I need to get those books back from you, we have someone who is interested in showing them in a Chris McKinley exhibit at a private event for rare, collectible comics enthusiasts and I need to have them tonight to prepare them.

(Green Text)
Any way that could be arranged Mike?

Yesterday 7:54 PM
(Green Text) Mike?

(blanked out phone number)
Gentlemen. Why are you both tagteam spamming my personal device with no les [sic] than 7+ hyperbolic attempts to contact me, over the course only [sic] a few hours. I'm not anybody's personal pager. Explain.

(Green Text) So, is there any way that could be arranged Mr. Cseke?

(blanked out phone number)
Ok. What's this about?

(Green Text) I would like my books returned.

(blanked out phone number)
Explain the "Mr.Cseke." [sic]

Pablo Romero
That part is self-evident. Now, when shall we pick up the books?

---

The text on a screenshot of a phone reads:

12:44

2 People >

... me officially paranoid.haha...Look, [sic] once again, as long as you remain cryptic like this, then the only place I feel remotely safe is the police department. In light of all this weir... >

Today 12:17 AM
Pablo Romero
We have no intentions other than one.  This is our only agenda, nothing more nothing less [sic]: Asher wants his book. I'm sure this can be worked out in a reasonable matter, since the police aren't really couriers. That address is now a law firm, it is the address and front desk for the office of Novelty Factor LLC, the company that Asher and I co-own, and we receive our packages at that virtual office and drop off services. Other businesses, including lawyer offices, also share that address.  This is not an LLC matter, but it is a neutral place.  Mail goes to the same, but #471 not Ste 400 (that's for in person dropoffs).

If you wish to serve a cease-and-desist, that is the address to which you can also deliver it and we will have it reviewed.

(blanked phone number)
I don't "wish anything", [sic] other than for peace. The wink ;) (emoticon) was my Jokey Smurf-way of saying, don't bother writing me if you plan to talk shit. Obviously something is going on that triggered you both. Without exactly knowing what is going on, anyone in my position would proceed with caution. Put yourself in my shoes, you tried to scam me with a lie about some rare comic exhibit only to turn around and make some cryptic accusation against me being dishonest with the Mr.Cseke text. I can only assume that. And that's the problem. For some spooky personal reason you are keeping me in the dark. If this was only about a book, you would've kept it civil. That saying, "you will get more with honey, than you will with vinegar." But you can't fuck with somebody and then expect them to want to have anything to do with you. You owe me nothing and I owe you nothing (cont.)

So, you can either (A) clear this up so I can feel safe enough to meet up with you on your own terms or (B) I can leave those books with the police lost and found with your ...with your names on it.

I mean, if talking shit landed you this karma of tying my hands like this, here's a thought- don't talk shit and thus stuff [sic] doesn't happen. Asher is engaging in anti-social unstable and [sic] you Pablo are enabling it. And I don't want any part of that anymore. Be nice, and be friends, or don't, but accept my desire to move on.

If this conflict still remains unresolved by tomorrow, then I will probably block this number but I will keep my promise and ask one of my girlfriends in Fort Collins to look for those books and have them drop them off at that police lost and found.

Gotta go. Sleep on it and let me know what you decide. Nothing personal. - Mike

Pablo Romero
I thought we were making ourselves very clear.  Put yourself for a moment in Asher's shoes.  He's not comfortable himself talking to you about anything while you retain his possessions that he lent you in good faith.  Those are his books.  You owe him those books, he didn't give them to you.  We have no idea what you're talking about otherwise, and we don't really care, we just want the books.

If you don't like the addresses we gave you, then you can return the books to me at my day work, during business hours from 8 to 5 only one (blanked out) take any packages addressed to me.

... addressed to me.

(blanked out phone number)
Now I lose my temper.You [sic] now EXACTLY what Im [sic] talking about-The Mr.Csekee [sic] shit.If [sic] ya "didn't care" you wouldn't have tried to mess with my head with cryptic nonsense in the 1st place.Fine [sic] then,let's [sic] play this YOUR way: Asher's self-confessed multiple stays at MountainCrest [sic] and his ...and his borderline personality disorder doesnt [sic] put him in a credible position to judge me,or [sic] anyone for tha tmatter.And [sic] at least he has that as an excuse.You're [sic] smart an dstable and you should now better!The [sic] only thing worse than Asher's unhinged personality disorder BS is you enabling it for your own selfish ends.You [sic] are both taking advantage of each other,and [sic] yet abusively controlling the other.*facepalm*There [sic] is NO room for me to "step into" either of "your shoes" when you two are the psychological equivalent of Siamese twins.lol.No [sic] wonder you're both void of empathy.It's [sic] like Nicholas Cage remade"Leaving [sic] Las Vegas"where [sic] instead he dies of sex addiction,and [sic] he plays both parts!

Remember...Asher [sic] told me he has been criticized by others for being in ..being in some weird controlling abusive relationship with you. And it is clear your deep level of co-dependency with Asher is like some terminal illness in its own spiritual way. Like some moral tapeworm. You are way taking advantage of that mentally ill man, poor Asher! And I'm not your strawman or Asher's scapegoat for both of your sins and failures. What ever you see in me, is certainly in you two as well.You [sic] are projecting onto me, and I'm done. So, you both want to play dumb and don't want to clear this up? Is that your final answer???

Just forget about it. Look,

Pablo Romero
First of all, your name is Luis Michael Cseke. That is a fact of public record. We are using your last name because we have no interest in having any relationship with you whatsoever, nor any interest in whatever fictions you build around yourself. That Book [sic] is of great emotional significance to Asher. We want our property back, which is in your possession, and we are demanding its return.  Stating ...Stating your last name is not defamation, it is not a threat, it is a severing of any other relationship except the most basic one. You are Mr. Cseke to us, and after you return our property, we will never hear from you again no you [sic] from us.

We don't care about you, we don't care about whatever business you've got going in that theater of your mind where apparently the only way in which you can relate to other people and other situations is to build a parallel to some movie you have seen. All we want is the book back.

We have provided you with several Alternatives. [sic] I will provide one other alternative, you can mail it to our business address, which is as ...which is as follows:

Asher Wolfstein
1281 East Magnolia Street Unit D
#117, Fort Collins Colorado, 80524

Screenshot:

7:00

(Cut off title:) Hmmm...those arne't my buttons. Bette...

Hmmm...those [sic] aren't my buttons. Better ones to push are the fact that I am a rape child, conceived by a horrible man when he attacked and ruined my mum. Or, that he blew his brains out before I had the chance, robbing me of any financial future. Making fun of my crooked teeth, that actually stings a bit. But the method acting stuff...nah, [sic] I already disclosed everything to Asher when he admitted to me that Wolfstein isn't his last name and I joked back and told him I go under an alias too.haha..And [sic] we both had a good laugh :) (emoticon) You and I also went over this when we did the podcast. You even remarked about my shenanigans when we first met regarding my wonderfully lame Mario Mattei character. So....if [sic] you are telling me you somehow missed that, or you just conveniently compartmentalized it, you are either playing dumb.....or, [sic] just, dumb. But what truly insulted me about this, is that you both suddenly decided to disrespect me for it out of the blue. And you were trying to draw blood. Unfortunately, you still haven't told me why. So I give up and I don't care anymore what your beef is. And yet, since we are on the subject, all of that is still infintiely more honest than Bill Shitlinger.lolololol...Yet, [sic] you guys can't seem to find the balls to confront that truly offensive artistic atrocity on your watch. But you confront me over my benign shenanigans when they don't even remotely compare to Dustin Clusterfuck's conservatard [sic] mistrel show? [sic] Seriously, don't bullshit a bullshitter Keith O'Neil. Or is it Maus Merrymeth? Or should I file a grievance with your buddy Lucifur SpankosMeSomeHos? X>D *cue ALF laugh* Oh, I kill me!! But seriously, man...you [sic] two guys need to take your meds, I mean, take your hypocrisy and your double standard, and just shove it. I don't need your shit...Ok, [sic] party's over. As far as "your stuff goes", [sic] I going [sic] on record saying that I reuly am not in ...not in possession of your property. So stop accusing me of that. I will reach out to a friend tomorrow that might be able to help out Asher. Not so sure why you are both scared of the Fort Collins police. They are good folk. I'm sure they will return your belongings. So, I will instruct my friend to turn over anything she finds to the Timberline police lost and found. While you are at it, you might want to look for your conscience and your sense of decency. You lost that along the way too. I will also be sure to leave them my 'real' name since you are so obsessed with that. *hint* It ain't "Luis," senor ;) (emoticon) Adios, Pablo.*in [sic] my bad thick Mexican accent* Alright, closing time. I let you two oddball failtrolls fuck with me long enough. Time to block you two and your schizophrenic nonsense you keep projecting onto me. Seriously guys, don't make me have the police explain it to you. I will if you reach out to me again. And you two keep reaching out to me again and again and again, for months now, like some lost puppy. It's not the other way around. But don't think I am not grateful for the attention or the experience. Fuck you both, fuck you very much :) ~Sincerely, Michael

(Green Text) I really don't understand why it's so hard to return a couple books.

Wow.

So, to clear one potential misunderstanding up: “all of that is still infinitely more honest than Bill Shitlinger.lolololol…Yet, [sic] you guys can’t seem to find the balls to confront that truly offensive artistic atrocity on your watch. But you confront me over my benign shenanigans when they don’t even remotely compare to Dustin Clusterfuck’s conservatard [sic] mistrel show?” this is referring to an individual associated with The Gorehound’s Playground, at the time being a video rental store with a private theater in the back, who was creating pseudo-promotional videos as part of an independent filmmaker’s group that were mocking Trump and the conservatives that support Trump.

Michael, here, is whining that we didn’t “confront” Dustin over his “truly offensive” (the place is called “Gorehounds” dude) character Bill Shitlinger who aggressively mocked Trump and MAGA conservatives. Trump!

So, yeah, why would we do that? And why is a grown-ass man crying, “I’m not as bad as Dustin…” I used to do that with my older brother Asa when I was a very small child, and he made it very clear how completely irrelevant that was.

This is the transcript of the next set of screenshots featuring the very short-lived comments that were left on one of my posts on Facebook as I wrote above:

A screenshot of a phone containing the following text:

11:59

Asher Wolfstein
Thursday at 11:18 AM (globe icon)

(Comment)
Ayn Fand
Snowflake. It's true. You really did create your own crybaby snowflake group to troll us when our group refused to humor your sociopathic immaturity.
1h like reply

(Comment)
Ayn Fand
Asher (blurred out, but it read Holley) your unstable mind robs you of common sense and conscience to know any better. Bottom line, sociopath. It's our group. What part of that do you not comprehend?????? [sic] We don't have to open it to you the way you prefer anymore than you have to open your mother's basement to your fellow homeless brethren you don't fancy. This is not a first Amendment [sic] issue or oppression issue the way you imply, and you know it. We just don't like you for more reasons than your narcissism will allow you to see. It is your instability of mind and your anti-social behavior that offends us. Not your views. Instead of trying to defame our group and share private messages, for ...for the purpose of inciting harassment, which itself violates Facebook community privacy standards on both counts, how about you (A) get a life, (B) enjoy your your [sic] own group you made, and (C) leave us the fuck out of it. Your public rant was unnecessary and was meant decidedly a dishonest [sic] scam to harass and defame those you do not like. Ours is a closed group. We did not have this fight on your page or in a public venue to justify this retaliatory behavior. As irony would have it, you are precisely the kind of distraction and parasite destroying civilization that Rand had in mind when she wrote her critiques. You are just another angry passive-aggressive sociopathic straight beta cuck who can't get laid with a woman and can't hold a job. You whore yourself out to gay men for 'money-attention-worse' to survive your self-inflicted crazy-making. Then try to destructively worm yourself into societal institutions hoping to rob others of work and ...hoping to rob others of work and goods they earned with hard work that you did not. All on the basis your delusional angry entitlement privilege syndrome -- fueled by your childish arrested development. Rand had your kind pegged. No wonder you feel the need to troll our group. She hit a "nerve." Just like you looked into us, yes, we can look into you Mr. Holley. Internet is double-edged that way, cuck. So you married and fuck an immigrant man so you don't have to work and be homeless, and the guilt and violation is killing you on the inside and so you want to make everyone else's life a living hell. I get it-- misery enjoys company. Sorry we are not miserable and you are alone cuck.

Whew.

Well, I want to point out a vital thing before I get further into this: while it is not in these original screenshots, the post that he, because I personally believe this is Michael, is replying to does not contain the things the commenter talks about. What it contained was screenshots of a Facebook chat conversation that someone else initiated (one of the moderators of the Ayn Rand International group) just to call me a “little boy” and “cuck,” to which I replied, “LOL” because it was so ridiculous.

ED: It’s February 20th, 2026, and I’m happy to say that I have recovered the screenshot shared in the post, and at some point, I’ll recover the post itself! This is what “Ayn Fand” (Louis MIchael Cseke) was replying to:

There was no implied appeal to the First Amendment, nor to their having to let me in or do anything, or anything else. There was no retaliatory screed beyond a comment on the screenshots I included in the original post (the exchange I just mentioned). The group Maus and I formed, Ayn Rand Universal (which Liana participated in), was not formed to shit-talk or troll any other group, and that didn’t occur. Stuart Hayashi, Stewart Margolis, and Liana Kerzner can verify this, if needed.

All of this will go up on my site as I continue to organize it once and for all, to verify everything I just wrote, because, as I’ve mentioned many times, I still have all the records. I have records concerning my entire life dating back 25+ years amounting to 20+ TB of data. I have written about this before; this should not be a surprise.

I have an archive of (just about) every online chat I’ve ever engaged in. Ever. Of friends, family, acquaintances, online contacts, lovers, and enemies, not just Liana’s, or Michael’s, or whatever other person who claims I’m “obsessed” with them, simply because I retain personal records on them. And, as I’ve written, there’s a very good reason for this: for my safety, as will become clear in time (and which I’ve already made clear elsewhere).

With that in mind, let’s turn back to the words of Michael, and who I suspect is Michael, for a moment, because I think they’re very intriguing. I will keep the quotes and observations short, since this post has grown very long:

Relevant Analysis and Commentary

I want to make this clear: this entire conversation, the way Michael communicated with us, the things he brought up, and how the whole thing played out, is exceptional in our lives. I’ve been the victim of a long, interpersonal, and psychologically intimate scam by a conman lasting two years, and have had many debates and arguments, as you can probably imagine.

This has been a stark exception.

These are not messages that keep confronting us from any reasonable individual we’ve encountered (and my bar is loooow). These aren’t things we keep hearing over and over from many people, until the last almost year-and-a-half.

Furthermore, Liana, who was my online friend (and later real-life friend) through my husband, was not necessarily intimately aware of every detail, but she was aware of this, and I have records to demonstrate its veracity (my extensive Telegram chat).

For a moment, humor my keenness on adopting the position of a mental health YouTube influencer who is apt to point out “patterns,” and juxtapositions/parallels to their viewers:

I mean, I’m just as qualified, so…

this just feels like a Tom Ripley situation

*in my best Daffy Duck voice*

to quote Clerks 2, I got nothing.

was my Jokey Smurf-way of saying

empathy.It's [sic] like Nicholas Cage remade"Leaving [sic] Las Vegas"where [sic] instead he dies of sex addiction,and [sic] he plays both parts!

my wonderfully lame Mario Mattei character

*cue ALF laugh* Oh, I kill me!!

two oddball failtrolls

Note, in all the deflections from the issue Pablo was repeatedly returning to, being the return of my property, Michael references pop culture in analogy, quite vividly, to communicate his feelings and inner experience.

Ok, so until I know what your agenda is: I just don't feel reasonably safe.

Pablo makes it crystal clear what our agenda is, but Michael refuses to accept that he doesn’t know better and take us at face value. He repeatedly avoids the expressed grievance and instead deflects in various ways to draw out the information he is convinced exists: our secret agenda, all from my perspective. My ‘theory’ is that this is because it’s convenient not to in order to maintain his lack of “safety.” He can’t even mail us a package, because of “safety.”

This next part is interesting to me, as it’s a pattern I’ve noticed in several individuals:

Put yourself in my shoes, you tried to scam me with a lie about some rare comic exhibit only to turn around and make some cryptic accusation against me being dishonest with the Mr.Cseke text.

Well, 1) it wasn’t a lie and 2) we didn’t make any accusations. He admits this immediately, with a tone that resonates with other phrases I’ve encountered: I can only assume that. And that's the problem. But the intriguing part is 3) he asks us to put ourselves in his shoes.

Yet, when Pablo asks Michael to also put himself in my shoes, to explain our perspective in a way he might consider, the now-familiar defensive pattern is played out; part of his scoffing rejection reads:

other.*facepalm*There [sic] is NO room for me to "step into" either of "your shoes" when you two are the psychological equivalent of Siamese twins.lol.No [sic]

Emphasis mine.

Even after he wrote

"you will get more with honey, than you will with vinegar."

And later admonished us, writing

twins.lol.No [sic] wonder you're both void of empathy.It's

Emphasis mine.

And then, in the same set of ‘breaths’ asserted the following, while angry:

or, [sic] just, dumb.

you guys can't seem to find the balls

you [sic] two guys need to take your meds

you might want to look for your conscience and your sense of decency

your schizophrenic nonsense

Or, it may be that he’s very nervous, as I thought he had an anxiety disorder, so perhaps this is a trauma response. And that would require not… whatever this post is, but instead, care for the fear that’s behind it, no matter the ensuing abuse, like one might remind themselves that someone acting in a dysfunctional way, say, like someone with Borderline Personality Disorder might act (or, not act when they should), is also in pain and hurting rather than some narcissistic alien bogeyman to rebuke.

But, I’ve come to conclude, as I believe any rational person would when confronted with what I’ve experienced over the last two years, that this is purely anti-troll posturing to reinforce a moral theater that may sound ideal, but is never practiced. Seeing as how I don’t do guilt, and I don’t do fake posturing, then, there’s no reason, according to my observations, to go out of my way, to my own detriment, to treat anyone who engages in this better than they treat me.

There are some other elements in this exception of interaction we experienced that now, six or so years later, catch my eye:

Obviously something is going on that triggered you both.

If this was only about a book, you would've kept it civil.

if talking shit landed you this karma of tying my hands like this

Asher is engaging in anti-social unstable and [sic] you Pablo are enabling it

shit.If [sic] ya "didn't care" you wouldn't have tried to mess with my head

Asher's self-confessed multiple stays at MountainCrest [sic] and his borderline personality disorder doesnt [sic] put him in a credible position to judge me,or [sic] anyone for that matter.And [sic] at least he has that as an excuse.

better!The [sic] only thing worse than Asher's unhinged personality disorder BS is you enabling it for your own selfish ends.You [sic] are both taking advantage of each other,and [sic] yet abusively controlling the other.*facepalm*There

you two are the psychological equivalent of Siamese twins.lol.No [sic] wonder you're both void of empathy.It's

it is clear your deep level of co-dependency with Asher is like some terminal illness in its own spiritual way. Like some moral tapeworm.

well.You [sic] are projecting onto me, and I'm done.

you were trying to draw blood.

man...you [sic] two guys need to take your meds,

Not so sure why you are both scared of the Fort Collins police.

you might want to look for your conscience and your sense of decency. You lost that along the way too.

Time to block you two and your schizophrenic nonsense you keep projecting onto me.

Snowflake.

You really did create your own crybaby snowflake group to troll us when our group refused to humor your sociopathic immaturity.

Asher (blurred out, but it read Holley) your unstable mind robs you of common sense and conscience to know any better. Bottom line, sociopath.

We just don't like you for more reasons than your narcissism will allow you to see.

It is your instability of mind

Your public rant was unnecessary and was meant decidedly a dishonest [sic] scam to harass and defame

You are just another angry passive-aggressive sociopathic straight beta cuck who can't get laid with a woman and can't hold a job. You whore yourself out to gay men for 'money-attention-worse' to survive your self-inflicted crazy-making. Then try to destructively worm yourself into societal institutions hoping to rob others of work

All on the basis your delusional angry entitlement privilege syndrome -- fueled by your childish arrested development.

So you married and fuck an immigrant man so you don't have to work and be homeless, and the guilt and violation is killing you on the inside and so you want to make everyone else's life a living hell.

Emphasis mine.

Note the language here.

What I’ve bolded is a consistent mish-mash of describing and inserting motivations, actions, reasons, feelings, and entire psychological complexes concerning me. This is a man with no background in psychology, as far as I know, and is just like anyone else.

I’d never been confronted with this many inaccuracies and a barrage of arrogant assumptions stated as facts before, but I have since, even if over a more prolonged period of time.

The language even goes so far as to undermine my very identity by ignoring my long-established, consistent, sexual orientation (homosexual) and rationalizes my marriage of 21 years (since 2004) as an attempt to avoid homelessness. Unlike what Michael assumes, and Liana also seems to imply, Maus and I aren’t in danger of becoming homeless. We’re in danger of things, sure, and don’t have a lot, but that’s not a motivation, because we’re never in danger of that, thank Lucifur, and we see that as a blessing, not an opportunity to wave around pitiable survivor’s guilt.

But the major focus of this section is my sexual orientation. Much like Liana Kerzner, because the parallel is incredibly obvious, Michael can’t conceive of me as a gay man (who has slept with a woman, once) that isn’t seeking any validation or existential affirmations from a female-presenting individual who, presumably, would at least give me head pats and call me a good boy. Talk about projection!

And, actually, speaking of projection, you’ll notice that, like Jessica Bryce Routhier, all of that very direct, clear, precise language Pablo used, expressing our intent, needs, and boundaries (even asking for empathy), is summed up as projection.

Of what, goddammit?!?

I’m sure the purpose of this analysis is clear at this point. I hope it’s exceptionally clear, and that anyone reading this takes profound notice, and great care, because, as we continue:

For my part, I tried to extend the olive branch here, and I put all my cards out on the table. But to no avail.

this situation seems permanently unfixable.

Literally returning two books, without even having to be in contact with us, would fix the entire situation… and, surprise! It did.

But not for a lack of effort on my part, I did what I could!

Except return the books, which, is all we asked for.

You owe me nothing and I owe you nothing

And I could go on, and on, and I will elsewhere, oh, trust me, I will. How could I not? By now, it should be clear that I have dedicated my entire existence to the long-winded rant.

Here’s the gist, to shorten this up, because even I’m currently losing interest:

Michael speaks earlier that he has the books, read them (they’re very educational, being gay furry erotica, mind you), and will return them, but, by the end, we’re repeating his own statements, which transform into an “accusation,” and he magically doesn’t have them… did he really just give my books away without telling me?

Spoiler: No, they showed up, right on time. And they say no one will ever get any results. Also, by the way, there still isn’t any yelling outside.

Michael diagnoses me left and right, speaking of complexes, motivations, fears, and even an entire gender-based relational dynamic that doesn’t exist, while claiming projection.

Hmmmmm.

He claims he did all he could, while proactively avoiding anything he could actually do, aggressively trying to portray his avoidance as our problem.

It wasn’t.

He flings around racist remarks, and paints having a mental illness as a near moral failure that strips me of all rights to make any moral judgments (wtf?) and all reasons to ever be found credible. And it is this attitude that has motivated doctors and other professionals to label me as “at-risk.” It is not bound to just this true lunatic (getting to that). THIS is mental health stigma, requiring no nuanced hand-wavey 30 minutes to expand it so broadly it’s meaningless, and I argue the parallels are undeniable.

And more.

But, the ‘cherry on top,’ as someone inclined as this might say, is this:

And I don't want any part of that anymore. Be nice, and be friends, or don't, but accept my desire to move on.

We never refused “to accept” his desire to move on. What we didn’t accept was what that expression masked: the fact that he physically and legally owed us our property (our direct, clearly stated grievance). Michael states this as if it somehow enforces a disconnect.

It doesn’t, and he had to face this reality.

The police supported the idea that it doesn’t, because even Borderline Personality Disorder-addled idiots have rights too, and they were ready to confront him (or, as he put it, “explain it to him”) on my behalf to get my property back. Yes, I showed the officer images of the book(s), including the first volume of Circles, another gay slice-of-life furry comic.

He thought that detail was humorous and extremely honest (how I roll), and took the situation seriously.

And my property returned to me.

I’m going to be generous for a second: continuing to attempt ‘shaming’ me will only hurt your case, because I’m not ashamed.

Because this is the enforceable reality:

Saying, “This conversation is over,” or “I have a right to walk away,” or “I am not looking for debate,” or “I don’t consent to this conflict,” is all fine and good for you. And it does establish clear intent concerning your personal boundaries, which should be respected, and I do.

But what it will never do, no matter how much someone might want it to, is obligate anyone beyond that to do or not do anything. And I know this and embrace it consistently. This will never change. Please do not expect or hope for this. I’m being fair here and telling you who I am. Believe me, the first time, or look completely foolish. You will be sorely disappointed.

If the grievance remains, they have a right, no matter how “unreasonable” or “unnecessary” you might find it, to go on about it, tell anyone they like, and be bothered over it for as long as they want.

Your “desire” is just that: a desire. It’s not an actual boundary, it’s not a moral instrument, it’s not a silencing technique, and it’s not enforceable, and it shouldn’t be.

What you imagine and feel in your head does not an objective reality make.

I had to learn this. I didn’t want to. But I did. And so will you, if you haven’t. It’s inevitable, because it’s true.

That’s the reality everyone involved in this situation is going to face, because the opportunity for any explicit course correction has passed.

I do not care anymore, and was proactively discouraged from caring, much to the perceived glee of those who make a habit of being “victims,” which is why I believe it went this way. I assert, as I have before, that this was by design, even if subconscious.

It’s not some nefarious twisty complicated plot of a mastermind, because I’m clearly the only mastermind around here (this is a joke), but rather, ingrained patterns of maladaptive behavior, in ‘my theory,’ which, I “get to” have too.

I am actually never implicitly asking for permission for anything I do. I always ask explicitly. So, if I don’t ask, you’re not “letting” me do anything. I never sought permission in the first place. So, please, stop acting like this is the case.

Again, Liana and I are equally qualified.

We were fully prepared to “let” him move on (something we don’t truly have any control over), and we did, once we retrieved our property and no longer had any grievance to cause us duress.

I’ve met a lot of mentally unwell, unstable people in my life in my 17 hospitalizations. Some of them were intimidating, even sometimes violent.

I implore you once again to listen to me when I say, as has my husband, that Louis Michael Cseke, a real-life person that I know in real-life, is an individual I would truly consider dangerous, unpredictable, and a pathologically chaotic force of destruction. I am not attempting to diagnose him, this is purely my experience over the last six years.

He doesn’t like any of us, and I confidently propose that he wants to see all of us, including the trolls like Giancarlo Vanzzini, absolutely destroy each other and ourselves. He hates foreigners, gays, and anyone he sees as beneath him.

In the chat you can see that he subtly mentioned making a police report, which I took as a threat, and we stayed up all night to get to the police first because, and this is key, I had no idea (and no one I’ve explained this to in god-awful depth has any idea), what the report would even consist of.

And so, I decided, it would probably be made up bullshit to manipulate the system because I’m not a naive idiot. I feel this suspicion was confirmed when Pablo found the ‘police report’ where Cseke made a lengthy statement to an officer about a situation he wasn’t even directly involved in, all slanted against a specific target: Killian Hardy.

This is why I say he’s dangerous.

And I have reason to believe… akshually, what I would consider extremely strong circumstantial evidence, to believe he has direct access to Liana Kerzner’s Discord server at this very moment.

ED: (February 7, 2026) I also now have fairly strong circumstantial evidence to conclude he also has direct access to a Discord server that Giancarlo (and Ellronn) are part of, or communicate directly with either of them to also severely triangulate. Giancarlo and his friends might believe Michael is their ‘friend,’ but, I am confident that, no, he is not. He is not anyone’s ‘friend.’ If you are gay, he hates you and thinks you’re beneath him, and not in the *crush your balls with a boot* daddy! 💦 way, Giancarlo Vanzzini. This isn’t the game you seem to think it is.

I was correct about @MoviePira_te being Giancarlo Vanzzini. I am certain I’m correct about Shaneequa being Giancarlo Vanzzini. I uncovered Giancarlo’s identity, which he confirmed by implication of his actions, a year before I finally revealed it (impulse control?) in a stunning display of investigative deduction for an uneducated and untrained private near-recluse. This isn’t my description. Liana was floored by my deductive investigation skills and praised me on Twitter for them, telling me I should do gigs for money despite now painting me as an incompetent “known commodity.”

I am not the danger.

Ignore my warnings about this person, now, at your own peril.

And, side note, when you talk like you talk, or hear anyone with any ‘mental health’ authority talk in ways that run parallel to how Louis speaks here, that should really make you pause, and think. And yes, that’s who you sound like.

You think you sound cute, or edgy, or cool, sassy, you got it down girl, show them assholes, but in actual reality, outside your head and clique, you sound like a scary, very real, and most likely sociopathic, bigot.

I will concede that I have also used this language at times, and probably will again, and that’s because it’s very satisfying (isn’t it?) and very human, and once in a while, true.

However, I have a full context as well: I actively avoid this language outside of satire, sarcastic and sardonic criticism, or when I’m returning awful treatment in kind (which, is fine by me). I also try to make it clear this is purely my opinion.

The times I have employed this language seriously are semi-isolated incidents, the most recent of which, that I can remember, is when I suggested that Liana Kerzner has a condition that isn’t CPTSD, and when I sneeringly “doxxed” Giancarlo (according to others) by posting his public social media profiles in connection with his ‘troll’ account after a year of online abuse (I am reticent to use this term, so when I finally do…) and being subjected to his ‘social correction.’ Since then I have taken the same pains to ‘socially correct’ Giancarlo by his own standards.

Others should take note, once again, that I’m not sitting around binding myself to standards no one who is trying to hurt me is going to hold themselves to, and I don’t see this as hypocrisy or a ‘necessary evil.’

I don’t see it as evil at all.

I see it as fair.

This is the beginning of what I finally have to say.

And I have A LOT more to say, because, I’ve been holding back.

There is no turn back. There is no stopping it. There is no shutting it down, just like I’ve been saying for months. I am very careful to not do anything I, or others with authority, would consider immoral, or, more importantly, illegal.

I am a victim with a grievance no matter what any one else, with the same qualifications as I, might ‘explain’ in my place.

The time for frantic DFEs has passed. All of that has passed.

I’m not trying to stop anyone from doing anything, and this doesn’t stop anyone from doing anything. It doesn’t remove autonomy. It doesn’t restrict free speech rights. It objectively doesn’t stop. jack. shit.

And I’m not looking for anyone to do anything.

AT THIS POINT I MUST REPEAT: I AM NOT LOOKING FOR ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING.

As I’ve stated ever since the “game over” rant, there’s nothing to be done. Nothing anyone does is going to change this course of events. Do whatever the fuck you want. Apologize, rage, threaten, file… whatever you feel you gotta do.

I’ve made my intents extraordinarily clear, repeatedly, ad nauseum, rant after rant after rant.

By Liana et al’s standards, all claims otherwise are lies, falsehoods, slander, libel, and defamation… right?

This is the final, outward resolution for me, the one I’ve been warning everyone to look for: the truth. As my husband said, the truth always outs, and he knows, because, that’s what’s always happened with me, and that’s what’s going to happen.

Good luck and stay safe.