the-customer-nz

UPDATED: SPARK BUSINESSMAIL OUTAGE . . . SIX DAYS & COUNTING. Hey, CEO Jolie Hodson: How Would You Like It If the Shoe Was On the Other Foot?

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 10:06:25 GMT

SPAR K BUSINESSMAIL OUTAGE: SIX DAYS & COUNTING.
Some CEOs Turn Contempt for Their Customers Into A National Sport

To my fellow long-suffering Spark BusinessMail customers:

Along with the massive and probably many irreversible damages to your own operations and life accruing from the, as at Monday, April 27, full six-day outage of your Spark BusinessMail accounts , your resultant inability even to launch your Outlook program since there's no functioning servers for it to connect to, your desperation has achieved nothing other than to have provided considerable entertainment for Spark's Filipino call centre staff, know this:

You are not alone in your industrial-scale frustration.

However, none of us are any further ahead for it.

While CEO Jolie Hodson and her "leadership team" are either happily unaware (since the Spark website has shown "no outages" since last Friday, contrary to an easy Google search, Reddit avalanches and Facebook frenzies) or are just displaying the quintessential complete contempt that Hodson's culture makes a practice of showing to its customer base . . . we don't know.

What we DO know is that THIS is an utter joke:

AI Overview

Jolie Hodson MNZM is the CEO and Executive Director of Spark New Zealand, appointed in July 2019. She leads the company's strategy, focusing on digital infrastructure, technology, and customer service . Hodson has held various leadership roles at Spark, including customer director and chief executive of Spark Digital .

And what we also know is that this is NOT A JOKE:

GOOGLE SEARCH ( 10pm on Monday, April 27 ) :

These are results for is spark business mail still out for some people ?

AI Overview

Yes, as of late April 2026, some users are reporting that Spark Business Mail is currently down or experiencing issues.

Ongoing Issues: Users have reported issues with Business Mail not syncing since approximately 10:15 am or 11:00 am on April 23, 2026 .
Reports suggest that some users are still not able to access their accounts or receive emails .

What we also know, is that if Hodson and her crew were made to suffer the (a) incompetence , and (b) contempt to which her customers are subject , they'd switch suppliers pretty damn fast. I won't use the term "service provider" because no service is currently being provided.

Nor has it been for the past six days, and by the time anyone reads this article (I'm publishing just shy of midnight on April 27 i.e. the SIXTH DAY OF NO ACCESS TO EMAILS OR EVEN TO WEBMAIL), it will be seven.

A FULL WEEK WITH NO ACCESS TO OUR EMAILS - and for some of us, even to our Outlook per se (from where some of us reference phone numbers regularly).

SPARK HOLDING ITS BUSINESSMAIL CUSTOMERS' EMAIL ACCOUNTS HOSTAGE

But they have us by the proverbial short and curlies . . . we can't even leave Spark . They're literally holding our entire email accounts, history and contact address books hostage (I have seven email addresses and inboxes; unfortunately every single one of them is with Spark BusinessMail) . Because some of us can't launch our Outlook programs (i.e. there's no active server to connect to), in order to be able to access even our stored emails or to be able to urgently move to another email host.

You'd almost think incompetence and contempt of such an industrial scale had to be intentional.

Let's hope tomorrow that the BusinessMail phone number answers (the one they don't publish on the Spark website), because all other published numbers aren't really other numbers at all . . . they all route to the general "customer service" line - where there is no customer service at all.

This is a developing story . . . or it would be if there were any developments.

But whatever i can root out on behalf of myself and my long-suffering fellow Spark "BusinessMail" customers, I'll combine with a more detailed commentary on the utter contempt I've experienced in the past six days since I've been fully email-less, and I'll upload here for y'all tomorrow.

Shame on YOU, "CEO" Jolie Hodson.

APRIL 28 UPDATE AS PROMISED (UNLIKE SPARK'S 'PROMISES'):

So this morning, the Spark BusinessMail crowd are back after their relaxing long weekend . . . while we, without email access and without any truthful account of the outage on Spark's website and with only a Filipino call centre to get laughed at by, are back from a very stressful and frustrating and anything BUT relaxing weekend.

I now have access to a shitty and difficult-to-operate webmail system, but at least I can see what's come in for the past nearly a friggin' WEEK.

Just saying, CEO Hodson. In the unlikely event anyone who cares is reading this commentary, let me now tell you what I've sweated through to get this far:

Last Thursday after the Spark BusinessMail network went down in so many places around New Zealand, I'd called the Spark "customer service" line (where all your other published numbers route to) and after "only" an hour (Reddit comments showed this was the norm), I got hold of someone here (name of "Glen") onshore in NZ, who told me "all hands were on deck" and it should be up and running again soon.

It's noteworthy that, while I was on the 0800 line to "Glen", my Outlook suddenly wouldn't even launch. While prefacing his response with the disclaimer that he wasn't an IT guy, he said that "logic alone" would have it that the two issues must be connected, given the timing. (My subsequent call to a local IT expert confirmed that, notwithstanding the Outlook program - as even an IT novice like me knows is a separate program - his own read concurred with the same "obviously related" logic applied by "Glen".)

It appeared to be further confirmed by the continued inability to connect even to Spark BusinessMail's webmail servers.

The outage had become a very real impediment by early afternoon the next day i.e. Friday. I called Spark around 2pm and used the phone prompts to request a call-back.

That call-back finally came at 7.45pm . . . from a totally casual, largely uninterested Filipino call centre guy called Mike.

Mike said he wasn't aware of any outages . . . that is, the ones that were all over Reddit, Facebook, Geekzone etc from hundreds of Spark BusinessMail customers at numerous locations all around the country.

(This is the short version of a very frustrating conversation.) "Mike" said he would "send an email to the SMX team".

That, in Mike's mind, seemed to mean the problem was fixed.

Except that sending an email to some three-letter internal team told me nothing about when I'd have access to my emails again, and much less when. Or what communication, and by what means, I could expect at what point in between. Bear in mind, this was two full days into an email outage and on the eve of a long weekend.

I asked if they would have a tech team on deck fixing this broad-scale problem over the weekend. The answer seemed to equate to, of course not, it's a long weekend. What he could offer, however, was another "call-back" by someone called "Josie-Lynn" or "Josilynn" or "Jocelyn" (or whatever, at this stage I really didn't care) that he'd include on the email to the SMX team. He asked me what time I'd like her to call the following day i.e. Saturday. I answered that, at a time when he could guarantee she would actually call, since I didn't know the details of her shift nor the timezone difference. We agreed on 12 midday, and he confirmed that it was a solid arrangement that would be kept.

The next day arrives - and with it 12 midday. But with midday, unfortunately, no call from Josi-Joce-whatever. That call eventually came at 3.45pm. Thankfully I was by my landline i.e. the number they had for the call-back.

Josi-Joci-whatever had absolutely no idea what the call-back was about, but offered to "send an email to the SMX team" . . . the same one and with the same content that "Mike" had apparently emailed the night before. At this point, anyone in my position would surely forgive me for becoming Pissed Off Maximus.

To quell my frustration, she offered me a "Case Number". In the unlikely event that anyone-who-cares-from-Spark is reading this, said Case Number is: CASE-476296.

And that was where she would have preferred to leave it. Except that when I told her I had other email addresses, all with Spark BusinessMail, and that these should be included in the "ticket", and I had started to spell these out to her, she decided the easiest way out of what she couldn't be bothered doing (taking down the other email addresses affected) was to pull the oldest and most transparent trick in the call centre playbook: "Are you there, Jordan? I can't hear you. Hello?"

Needless to say I was having no problem hearing her, and I'll put $50 on the fact that she wasn't having any problem hearing me, either. But she was determined to play deaf, so there was nothing for it other than to hang up.

Of course, she never called back . . . which is what would happen in the case of a genuine technical problem on a call. Not like she didn't have my number.

So that had been Saturday late afternoon. Google searches kept confirming Spark BusinessMail outages for various chunks of their "customer" base throughout the long weekend - as you'll see above. And so, as of this morning, no phone call had been received, to my apparent "urgent" CASE-476296 .

However, Josi-Joci-whatever had done ONE useful thing on Saturday. She had given me the direct number to the Spark BusinessMail department that Spark sees fit NOT to publish on its website . . . you know, pesky customers calling it and all that. The number - for anyone out there with a still-unresolved situation, is: 0800 800 735. But if you need to call it in the event of an outage, just hope that outage is between 9 and 5 Monday to Friday . . . because it won't answer outside of those hours.

The only concession I could get out of the bloke who answered that phone this morning was that "the way some of our staff handled it wasn't great" . . . YA FRIGGIN' RECKON, COREY???

I suggested he send the link to this article up the food chain to see if anybody could give a shit about the customer's experience of the whole debacle. I don't know if he will. My read on it (although an email from anyone-who-cares, correcting my impression, would be open-mindedly received) is that anyone up the chain was, in fact, most unlikely to give a shit.

And even now I'm relegated to trying to operate through their shitty BusinessMail webmail interface . . . because - unlike Spark's Glen and the local IT guy - Spark BusinessMail's Corey is adamant that the outage and the uncannily coincidental and still unresolved Outlook incident are completely unrelated.

So I'm up for more downtime and expense in having to lug my PC off to a local computer shop.

But . . . I'm sure they all had a great long weekend.

The NZ Veterinary Sector's Best-Kept & Most Dangerous Secret: That There ARE Competing Options in the Specialist Space

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 06:13:18 GMT

Does Your Vet REALLY Only Have One Option When Your Pet Needs Specialist Care? The Answer Might Surprise You . . . Along With What That Perceived Monopoly Has Been Costing New Zealand's Pets.

For most of New Zealand's history as a country with a serious pet-owning culture — and make no mistake, with 64 percent of New Zealand households owning at least one pet, many with several, we are absolutely that — the answer to the question of where a complex or specialist veterinary case gets referred has been, in effect, one word: Massey.

New Zealand's only veterinary teaching hospital. The only domestic institution with the specialist staff, the equipment, and the mandate to handle the cases that your local vet isn't equipped to manage. The end of the referral road. The place you sent your pet and hoped for the best, because there was, quite literally, nowhere else.

That picture is changing. Not fast enough, and not completely — but it is changing. And every New Zealand pet owner needs to know it.

Across Auckland and Wellington in particular, the past decade has seen a quiet but significant growth in private veterinary specialist services. Internal medicine specialists. Veterinary oncologists. Soft tissue surgeons. Cardiologists. Neurologists.

Increasingly, these disciplines — once the exclusive domain of Massey's Companion Animal Hospital in Palmerston North — are available through private specialist practices in New Zealand's main centres.

For a pet owner in Auckland or Wellington facing a complex diagnosis, this matters enormously. It means that when your vet says "your pet needs specialist care", the next question you are now entitled to ask is: "What are ALL of our options?" — not just "When can we get an appointment at Massey?"

Purely By Way of Example of the Growing Number of Alternatives & Much-Needed Competition
(No Specific Endorsement Implied)

In Auckland, pet owners now have access to Veterinary Specialists Aotearoa (VSA) — operating across multiple Auckland locations and Christchurch, offering internal medicine, oncology, surgery, cardiology, imaging and 24-hour emergency care.

The Animal Referral Centre (ARC) provides internal medicine, specialist surgery, dermatology, oncology, neurology and emergency care at Auckland and Wellington clinics.

In Wellington, a feline specialist operates independently.

In Christchurch, a specialist surgical referral centre exists. VSA now offers phone and Zoom consultations to veterinarians across all of New Zealand — meaning geographic isolation is no longer the insurmountable barrier it once was.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand itself maintains a Find A Specialist register - a useful starting point for pet owners seeking specialist options. (It should be noted, however, that database sits within a captured regulatory architecture whose complaint dismissal record ensures there exists, effectively, almost nil accountability for their registrants. Thus, in the view of the author, names on this source necessitate every ounce of research a pet owner can reasonably perform before blindly entrusting your pet into their care.)

Important Note: References to any specific business are not in any way an endorsement of these organisations, their services or their staff. Their inclusions in this article are purely for the purpose of making the point that, increasingly, options exist outside the traditional Massey monopoly . . . and hopefully, with the correspondingly increased likelihood that your pet - unlike that of this author - will not be catastrophically sedated for the convenience of lazy, negligent and incompetent ICU staff , abused, tortured, misappropriated for use in student “educational” activities and filming on cell phones , before then being presented back for shock urgent “euthanasia” under the false pretences of a sudden “neurological decline ” (when being admitted 15 hours earlier for a simple rehydration procedure).

That said, a significant percentage of the specialists within non-Massey options will still be Massey graduates. So again, the diligent pet owner will perform the most responsible degree of prior research of which they are capable – before handing over their beloved pet and their credit card (which sometimes sees its negative balance added to by into the five figures).

While the Massey pipeline is unavoidable given that institution’s historic monopoly on domestic veterinary education, choosing a separate entity entirely does ensure the pet owner of an unrelated clinical culture, different supervisory structures, and at least some degree of internal accountability framework (one would hope). At the very least , if a practitioner had a record for harming pets and - by extension - their owners, at some point commercial reality would necessitate their removal from that practice.

Also, avoiding a teaching environment means the pet is not being submitted to an institution that requires a certain amount of pets for utilisation in student educational practices , dramatically lessening the chances of a pet being subjected to clinically and ethically irresponsible, undisclosed research and educational activities without owner consent – which, in the case of the author’s pet, had a fatal (albeit unnecessarily so) outcome .

A Massey graduate practicing in a well-run private specialist facility operates in a completely different professional environment to one operating within Massey's own institutional walls — where, as has now been documented in forensic detail , unsupervised junior staff have been left to both engineer life and death outcomes .

The issue of choice matters for reasons that go well beyond geography, travel stress for your animal, or convenience.

It matters because monopolies — even well-intentioned ones — are dangerous.

In any industry, the absence of competition produces, at best, complacency. At worst, this author has experienced not once but twice in her own deeply personal and devastating history with New Zealand's only veterinary “teaching” “hospital”, it produces something far more serious: arrogance , unaccountability, and a culture in which standards are not merely allowed to slip – they are allowed to collapse entirely, behind closed doors , with no competitive pressure and no meaningful consequence . And also a culture that bullies pet owners into submission and silence, through whatever means possible .

The most recent of those two experiences – the unnecessary, fraudulent, and institutionally protected killing of her beloved vibrant little 15-year-old papillon, Harry Kelly , at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025 — is now the subject of processes including a formal police complaint under the Crimes Act 1961 (for records falsification ), an MPI Animal Welfare Inspectorate investigation, and a Law Society complaint against the CEO of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand for his role in facilitating the continued cover-up of this monumental collapse in veterinary ethics.

The full and confronting detail of what was found at Massey's Companion Animal Hospital — unsupervised junior staff making life and death decisions without qualified oversight , massive overdosing with contraindicated drugs administered without owner consent or clinical justification, records falsified , and a co-ordinated institutional cover-up managed by external legal counsel at taxpayer expense — is laid out in an ongoing series of investigative exposes here: The Killing of Harry Kelly.

Read it. Then ask yourself whether the absence of a competitive alternative to Massey for specialist veterinary care in this country has served New Zealand's pets and their owners well.

The Problem Isn't Just the Lack of Competition.
It's the Capture of the Bodies That Are Supposed to Ensure Accountability.

If a growing private specialist sector represents one part of the answer to New Zealand's veterinary accountability deficit, it is emphatically not the whole answer.

Because the deeper and more structurally dangerous problem isn't just that Massey has operated without meaningful competition. It's that the bodies mandated to hold Massey — and New Zealand's veterinary profession more broadly — to account, have been so thoroughly and so structurally compromised by their relationships with the very institution they're supposed to regulate, that the concept of independent oversight has become, in practice, largely fictitious.

Consider the architecture.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand — the statutory body established under the Veterinarians Act 2005 to protect the public by ensuring veterinary standards are upheld — has among its seven Council members, the Academic Program Director of Massey University's own undergraduate veterinary program. The same body that receives and adjudicates complaints about Massey's veterinary program has, sitting at its own table, a senior Massey academic whose entire professional identity is bound up in the institution being complained about.

That's not a conflict of interest. That's structural capture .

And it doesn't stop there. Not by a long shot.

The VCNZ's own Professional Advisor on policy and standards holds — or has held — a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at Massey's School of Veterinary Science.

The VCNZ CEO, a registered lawyer , is the subject of a formal and active complaint to the New Zealand Law Society for his handling — or more accurately, his deliberate non-handling — of a complaint against Massey, having received a private briefing from Massey's Dean characterising the complaint as "wholly unfounded" before making a promise of assistance to the complainant that he never kept and never intended to keep. That is, assistance by way of compelling Massey to disclose the names of the veterinary staff involved with Harry Kelly's case . . . since the VCNZ neatly ensures that an institution or practice can't be complained about, only individual practitioners. And since Massey has carefully redacted all names from the deceased's records (or those that it has so far been forced under the various Acts to release), no complaints can be laid. (It should also be noted, that Massey has simply ignored many Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests , albeit these are considered the holy grail of information accessibility to the public in New Zealand.)

When 'Accreditation' Is More A Con than A Guarantee of Anything

I'll write extensively about this in upcoming articles - both here on The Customer & The Constituent and on IIIVE.org i.e. the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics . But for now, a briefer commentary, purely for the purposes of the implications of this (in the view of this author) pay-to-play marketing exercise.

Upstream from the above sits the national and international "accreditation" structure.

The VCNZ is itself a member of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council — the body that accredits Massey's veterinary program. The current Chair of the VCNZ is a Massey University graduate. The body that accredits Massey, with the regulator that polices Massey sitting inside it, chaired by a product of the institution both are supposed to hold to account.

This is not a system with conflicts of interest. This is a system that is the conflict of interest.

Atop of all that, at the international level, is - again, according to the investigations to date of this author - a truly farcical structure of turn-a-blind-eye, just-keep-your-fees-paid, multi-year, rubber stamping.

Any pet owner or other reader who wants to get the flavour of this old boys and old girls network in operation, should follow the Correspondence trails in the Harry Kelly Case Study page of IIIVE.org .

What This Means in Practice . . . And How Often It Happens

The uncomfortable reality is this:

The average New Zealand pet owner who experiences veterinary negligence, malpractice, or misconduct ( or worse ) has almost no realistic prospect of a successful complaint outcome through the existing regulatory architecture. Their complaint, is, in fact, unlikely to even make it to a hearing.

The numbers tell their own story. According to a peer-reviewed study published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, of the 1,218 complaints and notifications received by the VCNZ between 1992 and 2016, 818 — 67.2% — were not even investigated or were dismissed outright . A mere 18 complaints — just 1.5% of the total — were upheld on the basis of technical competency concerns.

Read that again. Eighteen complaints upheld in 24 years.

The study — co-authored, with considerable irony, by J.F. Weston of Massey University's School of Veterinary Science, the same Dr Jenny Weston who currently sits on the VCNZ Council — explicitly acknowledges its own limitation:

"These data should not be interpreted as an accurate indicator of the prevalence of misconduct in practice, as the proportion of dissatisfied clients who did not raise a notification or complaint is unknown."

In other words, Weston's own published research concedes that the true scale of veterinary misconduct in New Zealand is unknowable — because most pet owners never complain at all. The 67.2% dismissal rate and the 1.5% uphold rate therefore represent not the ceiling of the problem, but its floor.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The Academic Program Director of the only veterinary school in New Zealand co-authored the peer-reviewed study documenting her own regulator's 67.2% complaint dismissal rate — while sitting on the council that produces that dismissal rate.

The VCNZ CEO whose Law Society complaint is currently active was her colleague at that same council throughout. And the VCNZ's Professional Advisor on policy and standards held a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at the very institution whose complaints this council was supposed to be independently adjudicating.

That isn't irony. That's the whole story in three people.

The Pet Owners Who Never Knew

What the data doesn't show — because it can't — is how many New Zealand pet owners experienced something that warranted a complaint but never made one.

Because they didn't know they could.

Because they were too grief-stricken to fight.

Because the process was too opaque, too intimidating, or too clearly tilted against them to seem worth the effort.

Because they were, as one pet owner described her own experience, "sent around in circles" until they gave up.

But the largest category of all — dwarfing even the pet owners who knew they had grounds to complain but didn't pursue it — is the category that no statistic will ever capture: the pet owners who never knew .

Who left a veterinary facility believing what they had been told.

Who accepted the diagnosis, the prognosis, the explanation for why their pet didn't make it.

Who had no invoice to forensically examine months later .

Who had no background in investigative journalism .

Who had no reason to question what the vet had written in a clinical summary they never thought to request — or wouldn't have known how to interpret if they had.

Who simply went home, grieved, and tried to move on. Even when things hadn't seemed at all right.

Not because nothing went wrong. But because they had no way of knowing that it had. Or what had.

This author came within a hair's breadth of being in that category. It wasn't professional training alone that saved me from living in very unblissful ignorance . . . it was the chance discovery of an invoice I strategically had not been given at the time of payment, and - with the feeling that nothing had ever been right about Massey's whole story - my forensic instinct to read the line items of that invoice and uncover the real story behind the cover-up that had actually played out . And that had cost my beloved little dog his life - with all the extraordinary cruelties that had been inflicted upon him leading up to it and in the service of the despicable end-goal of that cover-up .

Most pet owners don't get that chance. Or don't take it. Or don't know to take it.

So, how often does this happen? Undoubtedly, far more often than the official complaint statistics will ever reflect.

And in a regulatory environment as captured as New Zealand's veterinary oversight currently is, that gap between what happens and what gets recorded is not a flaw in the system. It's the system working exactly as those who benefit from it have designed it to work.

Bad News for Massey Staff: That Institutional Shield You Thought Would Always Protect You? It Has a Crack Right Down the Middle

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 09:34:21 GMT

Reader Feedback:
‘Imagine If These Massey "Vets" Had Become Doctors’ . . . And Some VERY Bad News for those ‘Vets’ (And Those Who Aren’t Licensed, Too)

NOTE TO READERS:

While my articles are usually extremely laser-focused and weave their various componentry together tightly, moving through various evidentiary content swiftly, this one is going to be a little different. It's going to wander around a bit . . . but there's a reason for it. It's a journey I've been on at my end, and I want to bring you along with my own thought processes and developments. So do bear with me. The threads will all come back together at the end.

__________________________________________

'(I knew) a human doctor of medicine who also used to be a vet . . . and when I hear stories like this, I think, "Imagine if these people (had) become doctors, rather than vets . . ." '

- Excerpt from reader's feedback email

This particularly thought-provoking comment pulled from one reader’s larger email represents a piece of logic I pointed out in one of the early articles in this ongoing series – The Killing of Harry Kelly – about the heinous Massey University "Companion Animal Hospital" and its staff's torture, abuse and fraudulently coerced killing of my precious, vibrant and deeply loved little papillon, Harry .

That is, literally, if what was done to this animal species patient had been an act (or, more accurately, a series of acts) committed in a hospital for humans, it would without question be the subject of a murder inquiry if discovered.

(Readers following my ongoing investigation will know that Harry was entrusted into this facility’s "care" on the night of Sunday, November 30 last year for a simple rehydration procedure after the late November heat had finally gotten to both him and to me during a horrible two weeks in a small sleeper van . . . a situation he and I had been forced into when an insurance repair job on my property went badly pear-shaped. Readers coming in cold to this series of articles, can find the full collection here .)

So this reader’s particularly thought-provoking observation – excerpted from his more extensive feedback email – really hit home for me . . . before continuing on, as it very relevantly did, with observations about institutional accountability, and the accountability of the individuals that operate within them. Or rather, lack thereof, in both contexts.

The reader – actually someone I've interviewed previously – wrote, as his observations relate to the veterinary sector:

"It didn't surprise me that they don't have any formal complaints procedure. That's one way to keep (their) mistakes under wraps. I think vets have it too easy, obviously the patient can't complain for themselves and we too often put blind faith in them . . . I've heard too many stories of people who have questions about the treatment of their animals but no one who can answer them. As in, the vets won't criticise each other, probably for fear of future employment prospects being quashed if they do so."

The reader who wrote that is Graeme Axford. And when it comes to calling out and taking to task powerful government agencies and other institutions funded by the public purse – including those gone completely rogue (which I would argue is an apt and deserved description of Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka "Companion Animal Hospital") – Axford has written the book on it. Literally. Now, in fact, he's written his second and even more enlightening book on it .

And his targets aren't impressed.

On the note of not impressed, let me share with readers who else isn't impressed . . . if I'm right that some "reader feedback" from three “brave” anonymous senders this past week or so originated from the keyboards of Massey staff / insiders (one, in my view, couldn't have originated from any other source, and the other two bear the telltale hallmarks of the low-grade intellect I have previously observed regarding a concerningly large percentage of the staff I’ve dealt with there and which is evident in both their now revealed and subsequent behaviours).

All were also childishly insulting. All were cryptic. One was from “Hugh Janus” – a recognised internet prank name (say it aloud). All had in common, the evasion of any substance. And I firmly believe that all originated out of the fear generated within Massey’s staff circles by my most recent article, which has accepted the otherwise- collusive Veterinary Council’s Deputy Registrar Liam Shields’ offer to secure the names of the personnel that Massey has redacted from Harry’s records and also the other names that I seek . . . albeit Shields’s offer is three months late and definitely not made with any degree of enthusiasm.

One (or rather, two, because these reader “feedback” emails came from the same unnamed person, the second as a frantically added PS) arrived in at 9.56pm on Sunday, March 29 . . . just minutes after I had published the above-mentioned article i.e. Yes, Please, VCNZ's Liam Shields, I WILL Have the Names You Have Been Obligated to Extract from Massey for the PAST THREE MONTHS .

His/her/its frantic "PS" addition arrived in at 10.01pm.

Classic monitoring, panicked response, and transparent gaslighting and intimidation strategy behaviour in full flight.

And all appeared very, very rattled by that most recent article . . . obvious also by the fact that the only other reader feedback I’ve had up to that point had been either emails of support or emails regarding other (very) bad experiences at this Massey facility.

I’ll write more about these in a forthcoming article. Stay tuned.

So why were these Massey insiders (again, as I believe they so obviously are i.e. with one hinting at knowledge they had regarding the roles of two specific staff members) so rattled?

Because up until now, they've been coddled by Massey's in-house and external legal counsel into a false sense of institutionally-protected legal security.

What none of them, I believe, has ever realised is the inherent errancy lurking inconveniently behind their assumptions.

Those inherently errant assumptions being that:

(a) Massey and its access to the public purse will prevent any private pet owner client from ever going up against them in the courts, and

(b) even if any pet owner did, they (Massey staff), as individuals, are completely insulated by the institution of which they are "just an employee".

I have news for them. None of it good. For them, at least.

News that – if they're reading this as I publish it, as Massey and its external legal counsel seem always to be (and goodness knows what that's doing to Massey's budget, which would be far more productively invested in educating their own veterinary staff, most especially in their obligations around ethics) – will flag very clearly to them that they're in for an uncomfortable time up ahead.

The news is this:

They can – and, in fact, they WILL – be held accountable, at the individual level.

Here is how. And here is why it is not only possible, but how the mechanisms are already established in New Zealand law.

Personal & Individual Accountability: Misfeasance in Public Office

Misfeasance in public office is a tort established in New Zealand common law – confirmed in Garrett v Attorney-General (1997) – that holds individuals exercising public functions personally liable in their own name, not their employer's.

It applies where a person exercising a public function, acting in that capacity, either deliberately acts unlawfully, or acts with reckless indifference as to whether their conduct is lawful and whether it will cause harm to the party or parties affected.

I n plain terms: It's the legal mechanism that removes the institutional shield and places personal liability on the individual who made the decision.

Now, some of those reading this will be thinking: "I'm not a public official. I'm just a vet / clinic staff / support staff. I work at a university. That doesn't apply to me."

More bad news for more Massey staff.

Massey University is a Crown-funded institution operating under the Education and Training Act 2020. Its Veterinary Teaching Hospital exercises statutory functions under legislation governing veterinary education and practice in New Zealand.

The staff who work within it - including those who administer drugs, make clinical decisions, authorise procedures, and manage records (big shout-out there to Practice Manager Pauline Nijman ) - are exercising public functions in the legal sense that matters. Not because of their job title. Because of the nature of the function they are performing and the institution within which they perform it.

The elements that must be shown are straightforward: A person exercising a public function. Who knew of their obligation to the person (and/or animal) they were dealing with. Who proceeded regardless, in a manner likely to cause harm.

Unlike ordinary negligence – where damages are limited to what was actually lost – misfeasance in public office can attract exemplary damages. Damages designed not merely to compensate the victim, but to punish the wrongdoer and deter others. This is what gives the tort its real teeth.

Now consider who, in the Massey situation, might meet the above test.

Hmm . . . let us consider the question carefully, and with the benefit of the extensive legal and forensic detail with which I have thus far documented so many of the elements of the Killing of Harry Kelly matter . And that I will continue on with my detailed coverage of (much to the likely terror and certainly chagrin of the afore-mentioned brave anonymous keyboard warriors).

For Those Who Like A Cliffhanger Ending

Actually no . . . let me end this article in true cliffhanger style.

Let me let those that know damn well they meet those criteria sweat for another few days before I rub their nose in what I’ve got to rub their noses in, and what I absolutely WILL be rubbing their noses in, in a court of law.

That day will be a day none of them - in all their unspeakably cruel and low-intellect arrogance - ever thought they’d face.

A day that, even if the notion had crossed their mind, of their malpractice and misfeasance ever being exposed, they assumed they’d be fully protected from by Massey’s publicly-funded, big-budget, top-shelf legal counsel-provided institutional shield.

I wish I was a fly on the wall tonight as I hit Publish on this latest upload so I can see their respective faces when they realise that their assumed legal shield has a crack right down the middle of it . And, in due course (one of Massey’s favorite terms), I’m about to drive right through it.

Oh, and my own PS:

To the anon’s and any others tempted to shore up their efforts. You don’t threaten me. And you don’t intimidate me. Well, you try, I suppose. But as you can see, you have quite the opposite effect of deterring me or shutting me down.

Because exposing what you’re doing to our pets is far too important to me and to many others to ever let that (shutting me down or shutting me up, that is) happen.

FAR. TOO. IMPORTANT.

And unlike you, I have the courage of my convictions to put my name to what I write.

Yes, Please, VCNZ's Liam Shields, I WILL Have the Names You Have Been Obligated to Extract from Massey for the PAST THREE MONTHS

Sun, 29 Mar 2026 01:32:51 GMT

The story of how unspeakably cruel, unaccountable, intentionally unnamed staff at Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital' repeatedly overdosed, abused, tortured, covertly converted private property (my pet) to a University "educational" resource to produce twisted student films on cell phones , while plotting to deceive me, Jordan Kelly, into believing a false sudden "neurological event/decline" diagnosis to coerce me into signing papers for my beloved little papillon, Harry's, immediate "euthanasia" , has now reached all corners of the globe and every shore and region of New Zealand.

So too has the corrupt relationship between the national industry "regulator" (so-called), the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, and Massey University, as the two interlinked organisations have scrambled to rely on the same old tactics and strategies that have worked seamlessly for them for decades . . . to see them arrogantly and summarily dismiss complaints from pet owners - one after the other, after the other, after the other.

Neither organisation nor the broader cast of characters involved in this sordid ordeal bargained on coming up against Harry's owner, however. None of them bargained on this owner's love and dedication to her beloved little Harry. None of them bargained on this pet owner's unwavering tenacity and investigative chops. And certainly none of them bargained on the entire series of articles this owner has now produced (and is yet to produce) - both across this public ation and in the newly-launched International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics.

But most of all, none of them bargained for the international, and full-scale national, deep-dive readership I'm sure, by now, they've heard through their various channels, they're receiving.

Daily. Increasingly. Obsessively.

Those readers - the ones that aren't monitoring institutions, regulators and veterinary sector participants, but rather are my fellow pet parents - care deeply about what happened to Harry (because they've expressed it in submissions through this website), and they most certainly care about their own pets and educating themselves to ensure against any fate even approaching Harry's, from befalling them.

It's for me, for them, and for Harry, that I hereby publish my response to the belated, buried, and begrudging Veterinary Council of New Zealand's (VCNZ) offer to source the names of those involved in the matter, from the recalcitrant Massey University.

If this matter were continued under cover of darkness, as both the VCNZ, and the " leadership " and staff of its veterinary teaching facility (the facility they have the gall to misname "Companion Animal Hospital") would vehemently prefer it was, it would get no further than the 1.5% ( not a typo, that's one point five percent) of complaints that ever make it through the VCNZ "process" to any form of resolution (which probably isn't much, anyway).

So in the interests of shining light into dark and seedy corners of New Zealand's veterinary sector, here's my March 29 letter to Liam Shields, the VCNZ's Deputy Registrar, in response to his March 19 cover letter that accompanied the Privacy Act information disclosure he and his CEO, Iain McLachlan, gave up only through legal obligation . . . and that, as you will read is, even so, both redacted and incomplete.

March 29, 2026

To: VCNZ Deputy Registrar, Liam Shields

Dear Mr Shields

Thank you for your letter of March 19, 2026 and the accompanying Privacy Act disclosure.

On your offer to assist with the provision of names and position titles:

In response to your offer to source the names and position titles of all involved parties, I accept – with the requirement that this be a complete and unredacted list, not a partial or selective one .

Specifically, and as a matter of primary urgency, I require the unredacted names and professional roles of every individual at Massey University who had any involvement whatsoever with Harry Kelly – including but not limited to:

Every clinician, intern, student, and support staff member involved in his "care", “treatment”, handling and any and all associated decision-making processes, during the period of November 30 and December 1, 2025.

The above category of requirement must include the licensed veterinarians that (a) the rotating intern, "Dr" Stephanie Rigg ( who misrepresented herself to me as a seasoned, senior veterinarian ), should have been supervised by, and (b) the licensed practitioner that was or should have been responsible for the intaking staff member (who I am advised by another aggrieved client of the facility - but whom is too frightened to speak out themselves because of Dean Jon Huxley's legal threat to me for doing so ) also bears the name of "Stephanie".

It should be noted that I was almost certain at the time that she (the very young "Stephanie" i.e. her name was not known to me at the time) was lying when she assured me she was a graduated and fully qualified veterinarian in her own right. Given what I know now about the lack of experience and ethics with which the Companion Animal "Hospital" is staffed, I am even closer to being fully convinced that she was not a qualified vet, but rather, still a student. As I had commented in my published article , 'Massey Vet Teaching Hospital: Where Empathy Goes to Die' , this staff member looked barely old enough to have been out of high school, was clearly out of her depth, and not only had no authority over the two ICU attendants (who were engaged in social conversation and refusing any attention to Harry as he stood up in his cage screaming in terror with his legs dangerously, especially for a blind dog, outstretched through the grid of the cage door ), and despite my pleas, refused to exercise any authority over these ICU staff. In retrospect, it would seem now that this very young woman was not in a position of qualified authority to do so.

Clearly, Practice Manager Pauline Nijman has at least conjoint responsibility for staffing rosters, but there must also be - in a veterinary teaching establishment - present, direct reporting chains in place at all times. If this was not the case during Harry's admission and time in the "ICU" facility, then the two licensed practitioners bearing ultimate responsibility for this failure (including its obvious systemic nature) would be Jon Huxley, the Dean of the Veterinary School , and Jenny Weston, the Dean of Massey's Veterinary Teaching Program .

I place particular emphasis on this point purely because - given the Veterinary Council's already-demonstrated protectionism towards, and degree of collusion with, Massey University, its leadership and its staff - I firmly believe that you will take the opportunity to disingenuously optimise every possible technicality to avoid accountability for as many staff as you can.

Every individual involved in the selection or administration of any drug or substance to Harry Kelly during that period, whether authorised, and whether documented / recorded, or otherwise .

The "undocumented" and "unrecorded" element of this requirement is especially important, given Massey's continued refusal to release the Controlled Drugs Register and, in fact, its outright breach of the complete Official Information Act request of which this was a key part.

To be noted, and as I made clear to Massey, I have asked for this critical document due to the demonstrable difference in Harry's condition showing between the multiple covert student videos taken of him on cell phones that morning (in outright contempt for my firm verbal and written instructions to Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, and on forms, that Harry should NEVER be used as a training tool ) and when he was presented to me some six hours later with the ( what I now know to be just an intern's ) demand that he be "euthanased" (and the fact that the "Clinical Summary" records his last (unnecessary contraindicated sedative over)dose as having been at 9am (i.e. 1.5 hours prior to the student activity for which he was obviously further catastrophically sedated and permanently disconnected from his critical IV fluids).

Every individual involved in, present during, or who authorised or participated in any filming or recording of Harry Kelly during his time in the Massey facility.

Every individual involved in making, documenting, or communicating the bogus “neurological” diagnosis (that has been clearly demonstrated to have been bogus ) used to coerce his “euthanasia ”. (So as to avoid my inadvertently creating a opportunisable loophole either for you or for Massey, you should include the alternative term that will have been used in the official narrative no doubt framed for your benefit and for his, by the compromised Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley i.e. "recommended" "euthanasia".)

Every individual involved in the decision to push for the “euthanasia” of Harry Kelly, and in the carrying out of that “euthanasia”.

Every individual involved in the handling of Harry Kelly's body following his death ( achieved by way of abuse, scheme and deception ) on December 1, 2025.

Every individual involved in the creation of, adding to, alteration of, falsification or scrubbing of Harry Kelly's clinical and financial records , specifically including but not limited to:

· The Clinical Summary ( the broader contents and claims of which, it should be noted, are inconsistent with (a) the facts, (b) prior records, and (c) logic (including between one part thereof and another, and have clearly been altered and added to posthumously) – in which a false neurological diagnosis narrative was constructed to justify the coerced "euthanasia" . (To be noted, this is not the only false inclusion in this "Summary" document .)

· The Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) – in which the recorded time of death (false in its own right) was subsequently manually overwritten with 0:00, in a deliberate act of forensic scrubbing to eliminate the timestamp from any future audit or investigation.

· The Euthanasia Authorisation form – pre-typed before my arrival at the facility and prior to any decision I was prepared to make , bearing timestamps inconsistent with the Patient Change Log.

· Billing Record 636969 – in which a billable quantity was manually inflated from 1.6 to 4.0 units at 16:56 on December 1, 2025 – two minutes after the falsified time of death – and further manipulated through to approximately 19:20 on the same date.

· The simultaneous triggering of both "Deceased" and "Discharge" status entries in the clinical records management system – mutually exclusive administrative statuses whose concurrent activation constitutes a documented administrative collision revealing the fraudulent closure of a live patient's file i.e. in a frenzied rush to avoid the new incoming night shift staff from questioning or investigating the day's events.

· The manual "data scrub" of December 3, 2025 – performed two days after Harry Kelly's death by an individual with high-level system access, deliberately overwriting forensic evidence to obstruct any future audit, investigation or legal proceedings.

All of the above conduct is the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N and engages Sections 258 (altering a document with intent to deceive), 260 (falsifying registers) and 219 (theft by conversion) of the Crimes Act 1961 (updated as part of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003).

I note that Privacy Act 2020 Principle 11(e) permits this disclosure in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process, and that Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint . I further note that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) - an accrediting organisation of Massey - has confirmed in writing that veterinarians are expected to provide their names to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern. This is an obligation that applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice.

On the Apparent Glitch In Your Correspondence

I note that the Privacy Act disclosure includes email correspondence between Massey University and the VCNZ — specifically, a private email from Massey's Dean of Veterinary Science, Jon Huxley, to VCNZ leadership, characterising my complaint as "wholly unfounded" before any investigation has been conducted, and ending with a friendly invitation for you to contact him for his, i.e. the apparently official, version.

Your letter makes no reference whatsoever to the VCNZ's response to receiving that email, either at the time of receipt or in the period since. Quite frankly, it would be a naive individual who would believe that you and/or your CEO, Iain McLachlan, and/or your point of direct connectivity between the two organisations, Seton Butler, didn't respond to - and, far more likely, enter into communication with - Dean Jon Huxley as a result of receiving that email ( signed " Jon " ) from him.

I require a full account of the actions the VCNZ took upon receiving Dean Huxley's private communication, who else received it, and all subsequent communications and related discussions and decisions - which, I suspect, included the two anonymous parties with whom you and your VCNZ colleague, Jamie Shanks, discussed me and the matter, but refuse to disclose any details thereof.

On the Redacted Microsoft Teams Message

I challenge your refusal to disclose the content of, and the parties to or discussed during, the Microsoft Teams message/s between yourself and Jamie Shanks.

You have redacted the names of two individuals on the basis of section 53(b)(i).

However, given that at the time of that communication you had not assisted me with the provision of names (and still have not) nor in any other way helped me with submitting a complaint (and still have not) - and therefore had no complaint formally before you (and still have not) - I require to know: who were you discussing me with, in what capacity, for what purpose, and on whose instruction?

I would appreciate the full name, role, purpose and nature of the communications involving those undisclosed individuals and the undisclosed content of the associated discussions.

I am considering a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner regarding your refusal to disclose what is likely a communication or communications central to the likely compromised and collusive nature in which you intend to avoid, refuse, frame, conduct or dismiss my forthcoming complaints.

On the Internal Contradiction In Your Letter Regarding Conflicts of Interest

Your letter contains a direct contradiction.

In your paragraph 11 you state that Professor Jenny Weston "has no involvement with CAC (Complaints Assessment Committee) investigations and decision-making."

Yet, in your paragraph 12 you state that "the Council are legally required to review all CAC decisions".

Professor Weston sits on the Council. Therefore Professor Weston is involved in reviewing CAC decisions - including any decision relating to my complaint about Massey University i.e. the institution whose veterinary academic program she directs.

Just saying, Mr Shields.

On Your Suggestion That I Contact Massey University for Assistance

Am I to interpret this as outright contempt, or gaslighting, or both, Mr Shields?

I do not believe that, at this stage, you are ignorant of Massey’s refusal to provide the names of the parties required for me to lay complaints with the Veterinary Council.

I do not believe that, since you have been copied in on two months of repeated, multi-angled, fervent requests to Massey , which - as you know, and as you know I know - is obligated legally, morally, and by international “best practice” standards to provide these (and not to have blacked them all out, in the first instance, from the subset of records I have managed to extract), as well as in accordance with New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020 and the Official Information Act 1982 . . . the instruments of our country's law through which I have so far unsuccessfully sought their release.

I also do not believe you are ignorant of all the associated coverage on this website that details every minute aspect of this situation and its current status, Mr Shields. And if you are, it is to your shame, Mr Shields, given the gravity of the matter, including each and every individual, reported aspect thereof.

Further, I do not believe I need to explain to the Deputy Registrar of the VCNZ why directing a complainant back to the demonstrably obstructive source entity of their complaint for assistance is entirely inconsistent with VCNZ's stated mandate of "having timely and transparent processes" and "upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals".

On Massey University's Ongoing OIA Non-Compliance

Additionally, Mr Shields - since you are now, belatedly, offering - yes, there is something else you could absolutely assist me with.

As you know and further to the above, the Official Information Act 1982 is the cornerstone legislation governing the mandated release of information held by publicly-funded institutions in New Zealand.

It is an errant institution, contemptuous indeed of New Zealand law, that thumbs its nose at its OIA obligations . . . which, as you know, and as stressed above, is exactly what Massey University has done. I am still waiting for any communication regarding my OIA request that was due on March 13, 2026.

Given your close relationship with Massey, and your no doubt desire to assist me proceed in a timely manner with the laying of multiple complaints - in keeping with the VCNZ's own stated objectives of "upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals", "having timely and transparent processes", and its vision for "Aotearoa to have the world's most trusted veterinary profession" - I would expect you to be most amenable to urging Massey to act in a manner conducive to those objectives.

As a reminder of the information I await from Massey - all directly relevant to the content of the complaints that need to be formulated for your organisation - the outstanding OIA items include but are certainly not limited to ( the below is excerpted from the OIA request also published here , as you’re of course, already aware):

1. Identity of Clinicians: The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the "care", treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period, and also in the period following his death on December 1, 2025, including all staff involved in the handling of his body.

2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Seton Butler) : All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Seton Butler's dual role as a Massey University Adjunct Lecturer and his professional advisory role at the VCNZ - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly. (**I DO BELIEVE THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR OWN PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE PACKAGE TO ME, BUT WERE NOT.**)

3. Instructional Content Authorisation : All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of "instructional content" or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, and including while his body was in Massey's possession.

4. Pet Farewells Communications: All communications with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.

5. Post-Mortem Activity : Disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem was performed on Harry Kelly.

6. Controlled Drugs Register: All entries in the Controlled Drugs Register pursuant to the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as they relate to the dispensing, administration, or recording of any controlled or prescription substance administered to Harry Kelly during November 30 and December 1, 2025, or to his remains.

7. Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail : The unredacted Field-Level Audit Log and all associated system access logs identifying every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, "updated" or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of Massey's response.

8. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Jenny Weston) : All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Dr Jenny Weston's dual role as Massey University Academic Program Director and her ex officio VCNZ membership - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

9. ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly: The release in full of all video footage taken of Harry Kelly during his ICU admission on November 30 and December 1, 2025, and any taken after his death. Massey's previous refusal to release the footage in full is not considered adequate compliance and is not accepted.

In Conclusion, Mr Shields

I remain deeply concerned about the VCNZ's refusal to perform its mandated role, and about the appalling complaint uphold rate documented in the VCNZ's own published research - co-authored previously by Professor Weston herself - which recorded that, over a 24-year period, 67.2% of complaints were either not investigated at all or were dismissed outright, with a mere 1.5% upheld, and only then, on technical competency grounds .

Combined with the unashamed reticence you have shown with regard to facilitating this egregious complaint (and regarding which your March 19 email directs me to your website to fill out a form regarding), I intend to hold the Veterinary Council of New Zealand publicly accountable for a transparent process in this particular case.

When a veterinary "hospital" and its staff overdose , abuse, torture, conduct twisted student activities upon while in a state of the pharmacological collapse they have induced him into, intentionally engineer his most unnecessary death , and coerce me under false diagnosis to not only consenting to my dog's traumatic killing but having to equally traumatically participate in it , I tend to take the matter rather personally .

As quite a large proportion of pet owners, in fact, would.

Between The Customer & The Constituent NZ and the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics , this case is being read by a New Zealand audience spanning from Invercargill to Northland, and internationally across the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, the United States, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia and South Africa.

Regulatory bodies in several of those jurisdictions have been formally notified and are actively monitoring developments.

This will be your opportunity to demonstrate that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is capable of executing its regulatory duties in an ethical, honest and responsible manner.

Or not.

I look forward to receiving the complete list of names and position titles so that I can proceed with formal complaints against each relevant individual.

One Last Point of Note, Regarding VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer

In closing, I note that your Chief Executive Officer, Mr Iain McLachlan, has had so little concern - other than what appears very much to be to protect Massey University, its veterinary facility and its personnel from accountability - that he has ignored the multiple communications on which he has been cc'd for months regarding this matter, and the many provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians in New Zealand ("administered" by your own organisation) that Massey's veterinary "teaching hospital" is in clear and in arguable breach of ( per my January 17 article on The Customer & The Constituent and the Open Letter to him that I published alongside it ).

He initially endeavoured to avoid having to respond to my request for the (albeit incomplete and redacted) information you have now provided when I initially asked for it under the Official Information Act and chose to decline that request, apparently hoping I wouldn't know I had a right to it under the Privacy Act.

Now, in a statement of open contempt, he has flicked off to you the responsibility for "dealing" with me, which you are hoping to conclude by way of directing me to fill out a form on your website.

And so, I would ask, if a matter of such gravity as is represented by the Harry Kelly case, is not worthy of your Chief Executive's attention, just how bad does a set of circumstances have to be, and how obviously systemic does it have to appear within an organisation (New Zealand's only veterinary "teaching" facility, no less) before it is considered one of serious concern to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand?

Or is the answer to that reflected by the fact that only an inconceivable 1.5% of all complaints (notwithstanding those that are never made) to your Council are upheld . . . and only then, on grounds of "technical competency" . . . with no concern for any complaints where a compromise in ethics has played an obvious part?

If none of this is of any concern to Mr Iain McLachlan, as the head of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, it begs the question, what does Mr McLachlan do all day? Perhaps he spends his time drafting the Standards, aims and goals that your very actions and decisions are actively designed to ensure are never actually achieved.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ
Executive Director, International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE)

Massey's Dean Jon Huxley Assures Collusive Veterinary Council: Nothing to See Here, Boys

Sun, 22 Mar 2026 11:21:41 GMT

Actually, Huxley, Notwithstanding That Their Loyalty to You and to Massey Prevents It, It's the VCNZ's JOB to 'Be Drawn Into It'. That's How They Get to See That It's Anything BUT A 'Wholly Unfounded Complaint'. It's Also More than Just A 'Complaint'. As You Have Long Since Known.

I need to shatter an illusion that most pet owners live under. I wish I didn't have to. But you need to know the truth.

The thought that a vet to whom they have entrusted their pet's health, wellbeing, and physical treatment (whatever the case may be) could harm their pet – let alone intentionally – is a thought a pet owner doesn't want to think. And if they did ever entertain that thought, the average pet owner would be of the assumption that there would be somewhere they could go to report, complain about, or achieve some degree of accountability regarding, the offending veterinarian's conduct.

Technically speaking, there is. It's called the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ). However, in reality, and in the actual, real-world experience , there actually isn't. Unfortunately, my being in a position of knowledge to write about it for the sake of my fellow pet parents, is something I wish I wasn't.

But here I am. And before any more of you find yourselves here too, let me roll out the reality in New Zealand, using the unfortunate "case study" of my precious little Harry .

Just briefly, one of the VCNZ's core mandates – aside from the licensing of veterinarians in New Zealand - is to ensure that those that hold the licences they have granted, actually uphold the required standards and, assumedly, the honorability of the profession.

Here are a few choice claims from the Councll's website (you'll want to hold on to these as you read through today's article):

"Our vision is for New Zealand to have the world's most trusted veterinary profession."

Yeah, right. I'd hate to see the least trusted. So will those readers who have been following this ongoing series of articles about Harry Kelly .

The above "vision" is going to be the one you'll – unfortunately – not only find the most dubious, but also the most laughable (not that any of the abuse, torture or killing of my precious little boy was in any way funny, notwithstanding Massey staff's mocking supply to me of their special "cameo" photos of his horrific suffering during their multiple cruel and twisted student videos; evil bastards who shouldn't be anywhere near animals of any description, a fact of which I'm quite certain the "Practice Manager", Pauline Nijman, is acutely aware a nd was almost certainly well aware when she must have approved the multiple atrocities that were covertly performed upon my pet with their clearly intended lethal outcome. )

But back to the VCNZ. You're going to see just how this outfit's actions contradict its stated intentions . . . and how it colludes directly with those ensuring that, in fact, Massey produces some of the most dangerous veterinary graduates in the world . . . and, worryingly, exports the graduates steeped in the culture that did what they did to Harry and enjoyed it, into a number of other countries.

Continuing on quoting from the VCNZ website:

"What we do

"The Veterinarians Act charges us with protecting the public interest by ensuring vets are competent to practise. We do this by:

Registering vets who are properly trained and qualified
Setting and monitoring the standards vets must meet
Promoting high standards of veterinary education and conduct
Accrediting and monitoring training institutions for vets
Issuing vets with annual practising certificates
Dealing with concerns about vets' performance, professional conduct or health and taking action where necessary
Advising and making recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture and Massey University on things related to vets, veterinary education and veterinary science."

Let me now go through all of the above – in my view, completely bogus claims (with the exception of "issuing vets with annual practising certificates") – and disprove the VCNZ's performance in every single one of these regards.

In my experience, this organisation is one of the most bought-out, despicable, compromised industry "regulatory", "watchdog" and "complaints" bodies in New Zealand. Quite an achievement to be sure, since we have more than a few. In my very direct experience and observation, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is about as far from being qualified, motivated, or structured to achieve any degree of neutrality or effectiveness in carrying out any of these mandates, as it could get.

Regular readers by now, all know how Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital" (aka Veterinary Teaching "Hospital") ICU staff catastrophically and repeatedly (some 750% overdoses just 26 minutes apart) overdosed my utterly treasured and beloved little 3.8kg blind papillon, Harry, with not only a completely unnecessary ( because he cried for me after I left him for an overnight rehydration procedure) with a contraindicated (for the kidney condition they knew full well that he had) convenience sedative (potentiated further with another), which was then repeated (rather than acted on as an emergency) by the day shift staff , who drugged him up further for usage in a series of student-filmed videos in his state of pharmaceutically-induced collapse , removing him from his by then life-essential rehydrating IV fluids, before calling me back to the facility and – in a lengthy and coercive session with (what turned out to be just) an intern – delivering a false diagnosis of his having suffered some sudden and inexplicable "neurological decline" and demanding that I sign a form for his immediate "euthanasia" .

It also involves some horrifying scenes and practices by the "vet" (the one that turned out to be the "rotating intern" and who fronted the entire fraud in a solo mission i.e. " Dr" Stephanie Rigg , whose identity I have had to seek out for myself, with Massey blacking out the names and titles of all staff in the "Clinical Summary" they released, and refusing all legal obligations to disclose them.) And thereafter the fact that Massey managed to lose any track of what happened to Harry and his ashes .

(It utterly nauseates and infuriates me to use the words "remains" or "ashes" in conjunction with Harry. Harry shouldn't even be dead. He should, and would, be sleeping peacefully in his little office cot here beside me here tonight, if not for the utter evil perpetrated upon he and I by this dangerous institution and the equally dangerous staff they allow to do as they please with their private, richly paying and unsuspecting clients' pets – including overdosing, filming, abusing, manhandling, torturing and then killing them under the guise of false and engineered "diagnoses" and "prognoses".)

My regular readers will also recall that when I returned to my home two weeks later (Harry and I had been living in a small camper van when an insurance repair project had gone pear-shaped at my property and were both heat-affected and sleep-deprived) that – always knowing that something had been very off with the whole story, somehow – I studied the invoice that they had failed to hand me when I paid on that fateful day. Readers will also know that – notwithstanding the hell I've been through trying to extract Harry's "records" from Massey, which I only have a small and falsified subset of thus far – I've been progressively putting the real and truly awful picture together of exactly what they had done to Harry in those 15 horror story hours between the time I left him for a simple procedure and was subsequently called back to find an unrecognisable little Harry and an at-moments smirking, full-on pressure-cooker Rigg (the intern, NOT the senior vet she presented herself as) demanding I allow her to "euthanase" him - right away, without delay, that afternoon.

But new readers – of which there are tens and sometimes into the hundreds, every day, from all over the world, according to The Customer & The Constituent's analytics - won't know any of that, if you're landing on this latest article of coverage, first. So, for the purposes of your background briefing, the full set of articles is here on the Expose: Killing Harry Kelly summary of links page .

Three & A Half Months of Trying to Rouse the VCNZ Management from Its Collusive Slumber

I first alerted the three key operatives within the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, back on January 6, having gotten nowhere with Massey except for a legal threat if I continued to speak out, and the near-complete stonewalling of all communications . . . with (in terms of my attempts to secure Harry's records to start putting the picture together retrospectively) either nil response, evasive responses, or ongoing breaches of my Privacy Act 2020 requests (in New Zealand, we have legal access to any records held about us or our children or pets, through the information-release provisions of the Act, and these are viewed by the New Zealand public, public servants, and most competent legal practitioners as the serious legal obligations that they indeed are. That is, unless you're Massey University or the Veterinary Council of New Zealand).

New readers can acquaint themselves with the fact that, contrary to any accepted legal obligation, public service, or institutional standard in this country, Massey has not only thumbed its nose at most of my (very necessary and legitimate) information requirements, but – worse still – when advised by a senior investigator at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to upscale the compelling of the information releases – that is, to use the even more legally serious Official Information Act 1982 – Massey thumbed its nose not even just partly, but in totality, at my requirements . They simply let their legally obligated date pass, at first belatedly stating that they would provide the information, and then not actually doing so at all .

The Seedy Goings-On In the Background . . .

Now for my readers existing and new alike, let me acquaint you with what was going on in the background at Massey and at the collusive VCNZ's management team, the entire time.

For context, I had first begun alerting the VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer, Iain McLachlan (a registered lawyer, hold onto that for a bit later), its Deputy Registrar Liam Shields, and its Professional Advisor on Policy and Standards Seton Butler, way back on January 6. So as not to interrupt the flow of this article, I'll publish evidence of that at the end of this piece.

You'll see from the various evidentiary emails I've included below today's revelations, that it was abundantly clear to these three senior parties – each of whom is at the helm of responsibly for, let us remember, "Setting and monitoring the standards vets must meet; Promoting high standards of veterinary education and conduct; Dealing with concerns about vets' performance, professional conduct or health and taking action where necessary; and Accrediting and monitoring training institutions for vets" – that the gravity, severity and multiplicity of the multi-faceted situation at Massey was exactly that i.e. grave, serious and spanning multiple areas of misconduct, malpractice and malfeasance.

Not even arguably. Quite clearly and overtly.

From the emails and experts I've included, you'll also see how – after waiting for more than six weeks with no substantive response – I then wrote and published an Open Letter to McLachlan, in his position as the VCNZ's CEO . He ignored that, along with all my emails. I also published a lengthy and detailed article in which I itemised and laid out all the clauses within his organisation's own Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians - or the already numerous of these that I was aware of at the time. Of course, with my subsequent and continuing findings, there are many more. But McLachlan also saw fit to ignore my publication of the multiple breaches of his own agency's Code. (At some point, I should, and will, update this list and this article, with all the additional breaches relating to what has since been discovered.)

On February 19, 2026, I wrote to VCNZ McLachlan seeking again his very specific assistance to extract the names and position titles of the licenced staff involved in the whole affair, because – without them – a complainant cannot lodge a complaint in the first place. To be clear (and because the average pet owner would not know this), you can't lodge a complaint against an institution or a veterinary clinic. The system has been neatly set up such that the only way to lodge a complaint is against the individual veterinarian. And what the vet clinic in question – especially those with dodgy staff, records and practices – will often or even typically do (as Massey does), is not tell a client the name of the veterinarian but just have them introduce themselves by their first or informal names. If you've read my coverage leading up to the most recent few articles, you'll see that the only name I had been given for the (what turned out to be just an) "intern" (ironically, the woman who killed my dog) was "Steffi". Believe me, I did NOT use that name for her out of any affection . . . I used it because that's how Massey protect their own i.e. by not disclosing their identities. I guess there's always been a reason for it. Pity pet owners don't put two and two together.

But back to McLachlan. So I wrote to him asking, very specifically now, for his assistance in compelling Massey to release the names . . . so that I could go forward and lay the complaint that, for more than six weeks, McLachlan, Shields and Butler, could all clearly see more than warranted it:

"Dear Mr McLachlan

"I am writing to formally notify the VCNZ that Massey University is actively obstructing my statutory right to file a
professional conduct complaint. I am also asking you to refrain from becoming complicit in support of their illegal
efforts to do so.

"In addition to having cc’d you on almost every email I have sent to Massey on this matter for the past two or more
months (none of which have drawn any concern from you), I yesterday specifically emailed you (attached) to ask
for you assistance to obtain the number, roles and identities of the staff implicated / involved in the abuse, false
diagnosis, and coerced termination, of my dog, Harry Kelly, and indeed the entire matter (as documented in
evidence-supported, granular detail by me and of which you are well aware) and for your related assistance to
submit complaints against each.

"I have had nil response from you.

"As you are aware, your standard complaints process requires the naming of specific practitioners. Massey
University has redacted all clinicians’ identities from Harry Kelly’s records. Their instruction in their January 30
legal threat to 'use the VCNZ channel' while simultaneously withholding the identities required to open that
channel is a bad-faith manoevre to grant their staff immunity from your oversight.

"Action Required: I formally request that the VCNZ exercise its statutory power to demand the unredacted clinical records from Massey University so that a proper regulatory investigation can proceed. ."

Let's be clear about two things:

If what I had disclosed and was progressively providing them with evidence of didn't even warrant a response from them, what would they consider worthy of their attention?
It was absolutely within the power of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to compel Massey to release the names of the staff involved in the complaint that I was trying to lay, but could not, without. Absolutely, fully within their remit.

Any pet owner would be, and should be, utterly dumbfounded in trying to understand their complete lack of interest, absence of any response . . . and refusal to act on their publicised and legal obligations.

But look no further than the following three reasons.

Let's start with this friendly email, signed " Jon " (as in Dean Jon Huxley, Massey University's "Head of Veterinary Science / School"), to the three above-named VCNZ individuals on January 30 . . . the same day he issued me with a legal threat if I continued to speak out about the matter .

From: "Jon Huxley" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/30/2026 3:16:00 AM

To: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "liam@vetcouncil.org.nz" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "Seton Butler" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz
>Cc

:Subject: Jordan Kelly - Allegations regarding VTH care

Kia ora koutou,

I am writing regarding recent correspondence from Ms Jordan Kelly, in which she has made a number of serious allegations about the care provided by the Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Tāwharau ora – School of Veterinary Science at Massey University.

The School categorically refutes all of the allegations she has raised. Earlier this afternoon I advised Ms Kelly directly that, should she wish to pursue her concerns, the appropriate pathway is through the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, as the statutory body responsible for regulating the veterinary profession. She has now been formally directed to engage with VCNZ if she wishes to take the matter further.

Given the nature of her communications and the pattern of escalation, the Veterinary Teaching Hospital has declined to provide any future veterinary services to Ms Kelly. The matter has also been referred to the University’s legal counsel, to ensure our position is clear and appropriately documented should further action become necessary.

I appreciate that you will have received her messages, and I am sorry that you have been drawn into what is, at its
heart, a wholly unfounded complaint. Should you wish to discuss the matter, or require any clarification about the
circumstances, please feel free to get in touch with me directly.

Ngā mihi,
Jon
Jon Huxley
Head of School
Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science
Massey University │ Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North │ 4100 │ New Zealand │www.massey.ac.nz/school-vetscience/
Pronouns: He / Him

(NB: For my response to Huxley's "wholly unfounded" claim (in which I point out his absence of pharmacological knowledge and his equal absence of any understanding of "informed consent", and that, unless I would wish a THIRD pet to come to a grizzly end at his "school", there is no way in hell any pet of mine will ever enter that godforsaken and wicked place ever again, see here) . With reference to Huxley's strategic but laughably insulting use of "care" as a substitute for more accurate descriptors i.e. intentional catastrophic overdosing ; physical, pharmacological, psychological and emotional abuse; intention to induce unnecessary death; unauthorised student filming in a collapsing state ; withdrawal of treatment admitted for and fully charged and paid for ; false diagnosing; misrepresentation and coerced and wrongly-termed "euthanasia" ; disgusting and cruel execution thereof; multiple records falsifications ; and illegal withholding of full clinical records and associated diagnostics, and breaches of the Privacy Act information-release and Official Information Act obligations . . . where do I start? Perhaps. for simplicity's sake, just with the multiple breaches of his mate's, VCNZ CEO Iain McLachlan's own Code of Conduct for Professional Veterinarians .)

With regard to Huxley's email, and just in case there's any lack of clarity among readers with regard to the warm and friendly little piece of correspondence you've just read:

You have just read an email from the head of the facility about which I am still trying to lay a multipllcity of complaints, each of which is as serious as it gets (and that have been recognised as such by, for example, the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Inspectorate, with a planned investigation) to the head of the regulatory organisation that is legally obliged to at least look into what the hell is going on at his facility.

The boys' club in action: Hey mates, nothing to see here. I've organised for our lawyers to shut her up. No worries. See you at the next industry do.

But – as you'll readily see from the examples and excerpts of my multiple prior, and fully ignored, communications to the Three VCNZ Amigos – Huxley's email wasn't necessary, anyway. The VCNZ boys had nil intention of doing anything Massey wouldn't want them to do.

It's All One Organisation, In Reality

Which leads directly to the other two reasons they won't do anything: Namely, VCNZ Council Member and Academic Program Director of Massey University's undergraduate veterinary program, Jenny Weston, and Professional Advisor on Policy and Standards and Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science, Seton Butler.

Weston sits on the very VCNZ Council that receives and adjudicates complaints about Massey's veterinary program - while simultaneously serving as the Academic Program Director of that same program. Meantime, Butler draws a salary from the VCNZ as its Professional Advisor on policy and standards while holding - or having very recently held (it's unclear) - a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science.

But back to "Jon's" (that is, Jon Huxley, but it's all first names basis with the boys over at the VCNZ) January 30 nothing to see here, but give me a call if you want any official narrative email to McLachlan, Shields and Butler.

I hadn't known until quite some time in, that Butler wears / wore / whatever his two interesting hats: Professional Advisor at VCNZ and Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science.

And, since January 6, I'd been cc'ing him on the same emails that McLachlan, the VCNZ CEO had been in receipt of, and that McLachlan could, therefore, readily see I'd cc'd to Butler i.e. an individual with a clear and present conflict of interest. And until I was advised by an external party of this "one foot in each camp" status of Butler, Butler had benefited from every single (and there were many) emails of which McLachlan had been in receipt. And McLachlan had never advised me of that convenient little fact.

That convenient little fact has since turned into a most inconvenient little fact for McLachlan, with my having lodged a formal complaint to the Law Society of New Zealand . . . who have formally advised of the acceptance of that complaint, which will now be working its way through their system. My complaint is two-fold i.e. that McLachlan has acted in a manner so as to bring ill-repute to his profession as a lawyer by knowingly allowing me to correspond with conflicted parties under his jurisdiction, and for direct evasion of his legally obligated duty to assist me in the laying of complaints to his organisation against his licensed members.

Do They Think I Am Stupid, Naive, or Both?

Now . . . in the meantime . . . and for readers wondering how I got hold of the "Jon" nothing to see here, boys, email:

In conjunction with lodging the Law Society complaint against McLachlan, I lodged a Privacy Act (information-release) requirement to McLachlan. I asked for all communications related to me, my dog Harry, the case, between the VCNZ amigos and Massey, and between Seton and Massey, and Weston and VCNZ, and with any other party, internal or external. Actually, I initially asked for the information under the Official Information Act, whereby McLachlan had written back to me telling me the VCNZ wasn't subject to that Act. I had countered by then requiring the same information under the Privacy Act 2020.

On the eve (after-hours, just for a serving of added contempt) of the final day of the 20-working-day legal requirement, I finally heard from Liam Shields. What they served me up was almost entirely just my own emails that I had sent to them.

But they did serve up the Huxley email. Did they do it out of honesty and transparency?

In my view? Of course not. They did it for two reasons:

(1) McLachlan has an active, serious Law Society complaint against him. If he needs, ultimately, to throw Huxley under the bus, to save his skin he'll do it . . . albeit, with his degree of "loyalty" to Massey, it certainly isn't his natural preference.

And (2) they know where this is all ultimately heading: to the courts. They know that, with the "discovery" process, they'll need to release it anyway . . . when their withholding of it now, will look a whole lot worse for them, then.

But here's the thing: In handing over Huxley's email, they've created an obvious gap in the communications trail. Because there's no reply. Not even an acknowledgement of Huxley's invitation to give him a call for "clarification" of "the circumstances".

I doubt I have any readers who would be willing to believe that no such subsequent communication was had. Which would mean that, in addition to everything else they should be being held accountable for, McLachlan, Shields and co. are in breach of their Privacy Act obligations. I'd also be utterly naive to believe they haven't withheld a whole lot more. And I"m not naive.

If, however, McLachlan himself is so naiive, or so arrogant, or both, that he thinks I either wouldn’t have noticed the absence of any emails or notation of phone calls or text messages in response to Huxley’s invitation to call him for the official version of my “wholly unfounded allegations” . . . then McLachlan is as deluded as was Huxley, when he assumed without question that his January 30 Buddle Findlay “legal action” threat would have me trembling in foetal position under my desk.

Two other things of note:

Shields disclosed that there had been a meeting held about me but he wouldn't disclose anything about it, because "this information is withheld on the basis that it is identifiable information about a person, and that disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual". So let's just investigate that for a moment. They didn't have a complaint on their books from me because they wouldn't help me get the names of the associated Massey staff so that I could lay a complaint. So with whom, and with regard to what, were they in communication about me? And, regardless, since they are a supposedly neutral industry policing (so to speak) body, why can't I know what they're discussing about me and with whom?

In the manner of prize gaslighters, Shields' final paragraph (see it at the end of this article) tells me, "I understand that you have been in contact with Massey and they can assist you in the first instance." (Shields was cc'd for two months on emails, and would absolutely have read all my coverage on this publication, that laid out that NO, Massey was NOT "assisting" me with information about anything. Very much the polar opposite, as he was acutely aware. He was in receipt of two prior months' emails about the very fact that Massey won't release the names and have redacted all trace of them from the already-incomplete records that have been the minimal amount of material I have managed to date to extract from them. Although – in his next paragraph (in my view, for the benefit of McLachlan's Law Society situation) – he added, "However, we can request this information on your behalf, if helpful" . . . which is exactly what I had written to them, TWICE, a full month earlier asking them to do. A belated and not exactly warm invitation, and most certainly, not one I would trust him to act on, or fully or ethically, either. Neither he nor his CEO have done anything but convey complete untrustworthiness.

Before I leave you with a taste of some of the correspondence additional to "Jon's" friendly wee email to Iain and the boys over at the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, let me acquaint you with some sobering facts, just in case you're tempted to hang onto any hope that somehow, somewhere, some way, there is any accountability for errant vets in New Zealand. And, when reading these, consider that Massey graduates, who are clearly well-steeped in the Massey culture by the time they "graduate", are exported to multiple countries around the world, but most especially into the unsuspecting Singaporean and Malaysian markets.

According to a peer-reviewed study published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, of the 1,218 complaints and notifications received by the VCNZ between 1992 and 2016, 818 - that is, 67.2 percent - were not investigated or were dismissed outright. A mere 18 complaints — just 1.5% percent of the total — were upheld on the basis of technical competency concerns. Eighteen complaints upheld in 24 years. Tell you anything, much?

The study's authors were careful to note that even these figures almost certainly understate the true scale of the problem:

In other words, the 67.2 percent dismissal rate and the 1.5 percent uphold rate represent not the ceiling of the problem - but its floor.

Here's the best part: A co-author of this peer-reviewed study documenting the VCNZ's own complaint dismissal record? One J.F. Weston - of Massey University's School of Veterinary Science. The same Dr Jenny Weston who currently sits on the VCNZ Council. Who co-authored the study proving her own regulator dismisses two-thirds of all complaints. While sitting on that regulator's council. The study is published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal , 2019, Volume 67, Issue 3, pages 117-125.

Source for your reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30786825/

It would be funny if it weren't funny.

Isn't There Some Accountability Somewhere . . . Maybe Internationally ?

Now, Readers. I know what's going through your mind. Because it was going through my mind for the longest time while all this was playing out: But isn't there some upper-level, perhaps international, body that the VCNZ or Massey is accountable to?

Dealing with the Massey situation, yes, there are. Three of them. And at least two of those are as collusive as the Veterinary Council is with Massey.

These bodies are the accrediting authorities to which Massey is responsible for maintaining a series of very clear Standards that – just like the VCNZ's farcical Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians – in turn, these accrediting agencies are responsible for ensuring complete and uninterrupted compliance with.

Except they don't. Not at all. If you're interested in just how many such "Standards", and how badly, Massey and its "Companion Animal Hospital" aka "Veterinary Teaching Hospital" are in direct and serious breach of . . . and just how much the heads of those accrediting agencies are determined to ignore it . . . you can read my detailed communications to the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council's Chief Executive Officer, Kate Simkovic, and the American Veterinary Medical Association's Associate Director of Education and Research, Dr Samantha Morello and their smart-assed dismissals and subsequent complete ignorance - which readers can view in the Correspondence section of the Harry Kelly Case Study page (much as it puts a dagger through my heart to be referring to my precious little Harry as a "case study") at the newly-formed International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) i.e. www.iiive.org - which now exists in Harry's honour.

READERS:

I have laid out all my attempts for a response or some show of assistance, or even acknowledgement, prior to the immediately below email, in chronological order. I want readers to clearly see that I have been endeavouring to draw this to the attention of the senior management of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand since January 6 this year i.e. one month and five days (but who's counting) since "Dr" Stephanie Rigg, the "rotating intern", took it upon herself to front the ruse to ensure that the objective she and her colleagues had to see Harry die, and also to die in utter agony, was achieved.

However, I want to run the immediately below email first, despite it being my most recent, because I want to show readers exactly what VCNZ CEO has wilfully ignored for the past, now approaching, three months:

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 2/19/2026 3:38:34 PM
To: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz, t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz, a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz,
s.reti@ministers.govt.nz, n.willis@ministers.govt.nz, "'Enquiries'" <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject: URGENT: Guidance on Formal Complaints & Disclosure of Redacted Identities - Massey University
Companion Animal Hospital

Dear Iain

You were cc’d on many of my recent, progressive correspondences regarding the collapse of clinical and ethical
standards at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital.

I am writing to you now for specific guidance on how to progress a series of formal complaints against the various
involved parties – and with the urgency this situation clearly demands.

Currently, I am faced with a significant barrier to justice: Massey University has redacted all names and
professional titles from the Clinical Summary provided to me.

I do not have the identities, nor the professional / role titles, nor do I even have a confirmed count of the
parties involved in the numerous atrocities documented in my extensive coverage of the broader matter -
from the 750% overdose to the intentional withdrawal of care for cruel “instructional” and selfie-style content
filming, to the coerced “euthanasia” to destroy the actual bodily evidence (i.e. my dog), and now (as you will see
from the latest coverage), the evidence tampering / withholding / obstruction.

As the VCNZ is the body responsible for professional standards and licensing, I am asking for your assistance in
sourcing these identities. I cannot effectively file against individuals who are being shielded by institutional
redactions designed to obstruct accountability.

I have today formally briefed the Ministers of Education, Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Science, and Finance
(see below). While my full report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is pending, I wish to move immediately
on formal VCNZ complaints.

Please advise on the process for filing under these circumstances and how the Council intends to compel the
disclosure of the clinicians involved.

The full Ministerial Briefing (with coverage and evidence links) are below.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Overview of Core Issues

1. Intentional Withdrawal of Care: The withholding of any emergency care and even the intentional cessation of life-essential rehydrating fluids to facilitate the filming of at least eight teaching videos - using the patient as a "live prop" during a severe and potentially fatal in-progress pharmacological collapse.

2. Catastrophic (Possibly Intentional) 750% Overdose: The administration of a catastrophic pharmacological overdose followed by a total failure to monitor the patient during the "golden window" of potential reversal.

3. Breach of Informed Consent: The unauthorised conversion of a private patient into a teaching asset and the failure to disclose the use of non-essential and contraindicated drugs.

4. Coerced Termination: The misrepresentation of a reversible, overdose-induced state as a "terminal neurological failure" to coerce a euthanasia decision - effectively liquidating both the patient and the evidence.

5. Evidence Tampering: The illegal (contrary to Privacy Act obligations) destruction and withholding of key information, the calculated omission of automated ICU data logs, and the delivery of redacted files in degraded, redacted, or locked formats to obstruct accountability.

6. Financial Fraud: Phantom billing, including but not limited to invoicing for monitoring equipment that was intentionally disconnected, and billing for ICU “care” and monitoring, postmortem.

7. Misuse of Public Funds for Institutional and Individual Self-Preservation: Utilising Crown-funded legal counsel and senior management time to silence an aggrieved client and conceal a systemic ethical collapse, rather than providing the accountability required by the university's charter.

NOTE : With reference to the above plea to the VCNZ for assistance (that they are actually obligated to provide) and the CEO's extraordinarily belated undertaking below, no communication nor any assistance ever resulted .

From: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: 2/20/2026 2:41:15 AM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Cc: "Liam Shields" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Guidance on Formal Complaints & Disclosure of Redacted Identities - Massey University
Companion Animal Hospital

Hi Jordan

I have copied in my colleague Liam here. He and his team will do their best to assist you and will be in touch as
soon as they can.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/6/2026 10:54:14 AM
To: "'Pauline Nijman'" <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>, "'Vet Clinic'" <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>, "'Jan Thomas'" <J.B.Thomas@massey.ac.nz>, "'Paul Gillespie'"
<P.Gillespie@massey.ac.nz>, "'Jon Huxley'" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>, privacy.officer@massey.ac.nz
Cc: kevin.bryant@nzva.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, iain@vetcouncil.org.nz
Subject: RE: Vet Records Request Remains Unacknowledged: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/7/2026 2:05:34 PM
To: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Identification of Systemic Custodial Risks at Massey University (Harry Kelly Case)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/9/2026 5:54:11 AM
To: p.gillespie@massey.ac.nz, j.b.thomas@massey.ac.nz, r.geor@massey.ac.nz, j.huxley@massey.ac.nz,
p.a.nijman@massey.ac.nz, privacy@massey.ac.nz, oia@massey.ac.nz, vethospital@massey.ac.nz
Cc: iain@vetcouncil.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz, seton@vetcouncil.org.nz
Subject: Formal Notification: International Regulatory Escalation & Disclosure of Clinical Breaches (Harry Kelly
Case)

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2026 12:56 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; Pauline Nijman <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>; Vet Clinic <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>; Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: Iain McLachlan <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; Seton Butler <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT SUPPLEMENT TO DATA REQUEST: CCTV PRESERVATION & MEDICATION TIMINGS - HARRY KELLY

From: "Privacy" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/25/2026 9:53:27 PM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>, "Privacy"
<Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: " Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "Seton Butler"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/27/2026 4:17:02 AM
To: "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, enquiries@privacy.org.nz, editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: URGENT: VISUAL EVIDENCE OF CRUELTY AND ILL-TREATMENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01
2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Ms Mullan

I have now accessed the download link provided, and I have viewed the videos titled “circling” and “testing of
vestibulo-ocular reflexes”.

Regarding the reflex video, I am profoundly disturbed by what I have witnessed.

The footage captures a cruelly harsh, vice-like grip – with each finger of the harshly gripping hand complete with
fingernails clearly driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp – as his eyes are forced open for the camera.

The sheer terror in Harry’s eyes as he is manhandled and paraded around for display makes for appalling
watching.

It is clear from this recording that Harry was being utilised as a teaching model for the benefit of an audience,
rather than being treated as a private, fee-paying patient in crisis and deserving of dignity and harm minimisation.

If this clenching, fingernails-included restraint represents the standard of care for a “premier” teaching hospital, it is
a matter of grave concern.

Furthermore, the video titled “circling” shows Harry moving at significant speed. This physical vitality directly
contradicts the institutional narrative of a vegetative or collapsed patient.

Further still, this occasional behaviour (when disoriented, as he would have been when separated from me and
being blind) – i.e., circling in disorientation – was a known clinical baseline for Harry following the onset of his
vestibular syndrome on Easter Sunday, 2024. To characterise this familiar, chronic state as a sudden, terminal
neurological collapse is a significant clinical misrepresentation.

These recordings only heighten the necessity of my unrestricted access to the full, unedited record of the EIGHT
videos you have admitted to taking. The two videos provided represent only a fraction of Harry’s time in the
ICU. As I have stated multiple times now, an institution as highly resourced as Massey University is well-equipped
to easily apply standard pixelation technology to address the privacy concerns you purport to be the reason for
withholding this majority proportion of the footage.

I continue to demand the immediate release of the remaining six videos, along with the original metadata for all
eight recordings, to ensure a transparent and independent review of Harry’s “care”.

The 3:18 PM deadline today remains unchanged with reinforced non-negotiability after viewing these two videos –
and especially the vice-like gripping for “vestibular testing” of my clearly terrified little dog.

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/27/2026 3:47:35 PM
To: "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: FW: Formal Complaint - Interference with Privacy (Principle 6) - Massey University - Refusal to Provide
Complete Video Records

Please find below a copy of the formal complaint filed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner this afternoon following Massey University’s final refusal to provide the digital records for Harry Kelly (Ref: Kelly 01 2026).
_________________________
NOTICE OF FINAL REFUSAL BY MASSEY UNIVERSITY: On January 27, 2026 at 12.14pm, Massey University issued a final refusal to provide the digital video files requested, explicitly citing Section 53(b)(i) and Section 56(2)(c) of the Privacy Act 2020. This communication confirms that all internal avenues for resolution have been exhausted.

Dear Commissioner:

1. Background

This complaint concerns Massey University’s persistent refusal to provide the full digital record of eight (8) videos taken of my dog, Harry, while he was a patient in the University's 'Companion Animal Hospital' on the night of November 30 and the morning and afternoon of December 1, 2025.

Following a formal request for these records, the university released only two (2) videos. After weeks of delay, they claimed "privacy concerns" for third parties as the basis for withholding the remaining 75% of the footage.

2. Evidence of Cruel Handling and Unexplained Physical Trauma

Upon reviewing the two released videos – specifically the recording titled “testing of vestibulo-ocular reflexes” – I have witnessed overtly cruel and unnecessary manhandling of a small, blind, distressed patient.

The footage documents a vice-like grip, with a strong hand (with woman’s fingernails) driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp as his eyes are forced open for the camera and he is moved around, apparently on display.

Furthermore, detailed observation of "goodbye photos" – taken a few minutes before the lethal injection – reveals blood-coloured skin staining under the fur on Harry’s muzzle. This likely indicates that Harry had been bleeding from the nose – an occurrence entirely unrelated to his primary reason for admission (rehydration) and one that is absent from the clinical records provided.

The withholding of the remaining six videos prevents a necessary investigation into when and how this bleeding and the associated physical distress occurred, as well as also preventing all other elements of the investigation clearly needed for the numerous other clinical and professional failures I have identified.

3. Objective Contradiction of the Clinical Record

The second video provided – titled “circling” – documents Harry moving easily and at speed (normal baseline behaviour for him, as a blind dog with a head tilt, when under stress-induced disorientation).

This physical vitality stands in direct, objective contradiction to the contemporaneous clinical notes and the Hospital's recommendation for euthanasia, which characterised Harry as being in a supposedly rapidly progressing, non-recoverable vegetative state.

I contend that the university is withholding the balance of the footage because it likely contains further visual proof that the clinical justifications provided for the termination of Harry’s life were inaccurate and false.

4. Inadequacy of the "Privacy" Justification

Massey University is a premier, highly resourced teaching institution. The technology required to pixelate or blur the faces of third parties is standard and readily available.

Their refusal to utilise this technology to fulfill a Principle 6 request – while instead offering "supervised viewing" (which prevents independent forensic analysis) – constitutes a wilful obstruction of my right to access the full record.

5. Secondary Victimisation and Constructive Denial of Access

The University’s restrictive offer of on-site, in-person-only, supervised viewing is inherently coercive and constitutes a profound act of secondary victimisation.

It would require me to return to the literal scene of the crime – the site where I was deceived and actively coerced into consenting to the unnecessary termination of Harry’s life (over whom I was immensely protective and with whom it was well-known that I was extremely closely bonded as my only “family” member).

On that day, I was made to physically restrain my own dog for the lethal injection under the false clinical pretence that his struggle was merely a "last hurrah” (in the directly quoted words of the Massey vet), when detailed posthumous analysis of the records has subsequently revealed that he was fighting through a haze of undisclosed heavy sedation to respond to me.

To compel a deeply traumatised and grieving owner to return to the environment of such a traumatic and ethically compromised event in order to exercise a basic right to information is both cruel and untenable.

Furthermore, as neither I nor the required independent experts reside in proximity to Palmerston North, this condition represents an insurmountable logistical barrier. This in-person, on-site requirement serves as a constructive denial of access and a direct obstruction of the primary reason for my request: to allow for independent, expert forensic analysis of the records in the pursuit of justice.

Conclusion

I am requesting that the Privacy Commissioner compel Massey University to release the remaining six videos in their original digital format, with third-party faces pixelated (and NOT “clipped” or “edited”) as required, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings.

The withholding of these records appears to be a strategic move to avoid accountability for documented mistreatment and clinical misrepresentation.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
9 Coradine Street
Masterton 5810
Ph: 06 657 0170

NOTE: The above videos have been continually refused by Massey. A Senior Investigator from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner advised me to alternatively compel them under the Official Information Act. However, Massey ignored my "OIA". (For international readers, this is almost unheard of for a New Zealand publicly funded institution. New Zealand's Official Information Act is considered the"holy grail" of information release obligations. NOT optional.) Meantime, the below questions were also fully ignored, and needless to say, no acknowledgement of them, nor any of my other correspondence, was ever forthcoming from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/29/2026 1:11:31 PM
To: "'Frances Mullan'" <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Harry Kelly - Personal Information Access & Institutional Policy Disclosure Request (Privacy Act / OIA)

Ms Mullan:

The link should be maintained in place with all materials accessible, in order to provide ready access (and avoid any possible transfer issues) to other parties investigating, or yet to investigate, the case.

In the meantime, I have further information requirements, as follows.

Request for Descriptive Itemisation Regarding Recorded Materials & Withheld Materials (Official Information Act / Privacy Act)

This inquiry is prompted by the significant discrepancies between the clinical logs provided and the footage released thus far, as well with regard to my explicit, documented instructions (both verbally and in writing, and on more than one occasion) to Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, that Harry was not to be used as a training tool.

Please provide the following:

1. Digital Metadata and Recording Personnel (To be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)

For the two videos released, I require the original metadata and a detailed identification of the procedure being performed or the situation being observed, along with the roles, function, and reasons for participation of all personnel involved:

Timestamps: The precise date and time that each recording commenced and concluded.

The Recorder: The institutional category of the person recording the footage (e.g., Attending Vet, Resident, Student, Nurse, or Instructor).

Monitoring: Who was responsible for monitoring Harry’s vital signs and sedation depth at the specific moment the recording was being taken?

2. Descriptive Audit of the Six Withheld Videos

Regarding the six withheld videos, provide an individual descriptive summary for each separately. (That is, to be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)

Clinical Activity: What specific clinical manoeuvre or handling is being performed?

Participants’ Role Identifications: The Institutional Role, Function, and Specific Reason for Participation for every individual present, visible, or audible in the room.

Instructional Context: Does the footage depict instructional speech? Is Harry being used to demonstrate a physical trait or response to a group?

Clinical Justification: What was the medical necessity for the objective of the procedure and the recording thereof, and of the handling depicted, and how does it correspond to the agreed-upon rehydration protocol?

3. Correlation of Sedation and Instructional Activity

Administration Logs: Provide the exact dosage, route, and timestamp for every sedative or analgesic administered within the four-hour window of each of the eight recordings.

"Top-Up” Sedation: Was any additional sedative administered shortly before or during the arrival of a student group or the commencement of student-led "handling"?

Apparent Manufactured Decline: Provide the clinical justification for why Harry’s sedation depth increased significantly between the video’d "circling" event and the time of his being presented to me, rendering him semi-comatose.

4. Standards of Care

For the following three points/questions are also provided for the assistance of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) in the detailed investigation of this case (which the Council will shortly be formally asked to perform):

a. “Handling" vs "Observation" Distinction: If a student is merely present in the room, that constitutes observation. However, the moment a student lays hands on a sedated patient to perform manoeuvres – such as the severe head-restraint and eye forcing-open seen in the released footage – they are performing a clinical manoeuvre. Under VCNZ requirements, any manual interaction with a patient for educational purposes is a "teaching procedure". If it required the
patient to be sedated to facilitate that touch, it falls squarely under the requirement for explicit, recorded consent .

b. "Clinical Notes" Requirement: The VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct mandates that explicit consent for a student to perform a procedure under sedation "must be recorded in the clinical notes". As the provided clinical notes for Harry are entirely silent on these manoeuvres and the participation of students, please identify the specific document or entry that satisfies this professional obligation. Failure to produce this record constitutes a documented violation of the VCNZ Code.

c. Definition of a "Procedure": A medical "procedure" is any act performed on a patient for a diagnostic, a therapeutic, or an educational purpose.

If these manoeuvres were "diagnostic", they should have been performed by a qualified veterinarian and the findings recorded in the logs.

If they were "educational", they required my explicit, prior consent. The University cannot have it both ways; if the handling was not recorded as a diagnosis and was not consented to as education, it stands as unauthorised handling of my property.

5. Digital Security, Non-Massey Devices, and Ethical Exploitation

Massey has previously claimed that the 75% of unreleased footage cannot be provided because pixelation of the participants' faces is not possible or too difficult.

By your own admission in previous correspondence, these recordings were captured on a cell phone.

This admission suggests a catastrophic breach of the Privacy Act 2020, the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, basic clinical standards and basic, well-accepted digitised information security protocols.

Allowing Harry to be recorded on non-secure, personal devices that are not under the University's direct data control amounts to having permitted my private property (Harry) to be treated as "content" rather than clinical data.

Therefore, I require immediate clarification on the following:

Inventory of Non-Massey Devices: Were any other recordings (video or photographic) made or permitted of any other time or aspect of Harry’s stay – regardless of whether they were for "official" hospital use, and that are stored on non-Massey devices?

"Exploitation" Audit: Please state for the record how Massey University monitors and prevents the unauthorised digital exploitation of patients by personnel using personal hardware. If students and staff are permitted to record what they want on their own phones, how does the University track, secure, or delete that data once those individuals leave the premises?

Chain of Custody and Data Breach: Who owns the cell phone(s) used to record (a) the released, (b) the still-withheld, and (c) any as-yet to be admitted-to, videos (per further disclosure required above)? How was the security of this personal information (my property) guaranteed once it left the clinic floor, and where is the audit trail confirming that these original files have been deleted from those private devices?

Breach of Digital Ethics: Does Massey University policy specifically permit the recording of sedated patients on unencrypted, private mobile devices for student study or "observation" notes? If so, please provide the policy document that justifies this practice under the Privacy Act 2020.

Disclosure re Points of Distribution: Have any recordings of Harry been shared, uploaded, or transmitted to any private cloud storage or social messaging platforms (e.g., but not limited to, WhatsApp, iCloud, or Google Photos) by the individuals who recorded them? Are they downloadable from the Massey data storage facility? If so, to whom, and why, and with what specific limitations? And are any such limitations enforced?

Legislative Facta

The following legislative facta are provided for both the edification of Massey executives, clinical staff, and ethics committee members, and also so that, Ms Mullan, you can address your adherence to them in your reply to the email I am sending you today:

Breach of the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC): While this primarily applies to humans, the VCNZ and Massey’s own ethics should mirror these standards.

Using a cell phone fails the Storage and Security rule, which requires that information be protected by such security safeguards as it is reasonable in the circumstances to take against loss or unauthorised access.

Institutional Negligence: Failure to provide professional recording equipment for clinical/educational purposes indicates a failure of the Consumer Guarantees Act standard of "reasonable care and skill". A professional veterinary hospital utilising a student’s or a staff member's private phone as a recording device constitutes a failure of institutional infrastructure and a breach of professional standards.

Breach of "Bailment" via Digital Misappropriation: As the "bailee" (the party holding my property), Massey had a duty to protect Harry. By allowing unauthorised digital copies of him to be made on private devices, the University has "misappropriated" the likeness and clinical state of my property for its own purposes. This is a direct violation of the terms of bailment under which Harry was admitted for medical care.

Legal Framework and the Limitation of General Consent

To be noted: Any general acknowledgment of Massey’s "teaching status" does not constitute Informed Consent for specific deviations from a clinical treatment plan, nor does it override my explicit instructions that Harry NOT be used as a training tool. It is also to be noted, that on more than one occasion – including in writing and on intake forms (or similar documentation) – I specifically forbade the use of Harry as a teaching tool. One (but not the only) reason for this was my
observation of the inexperience and inaccuracy (e.g. inadequate listening skills and compromised note-taking ability) of some of the vet staff I had encountered there, and the “specimen” vs sentient being attitude of other personnel towards Harry and also particularly towards my previous pet (who died at your facility).

Meantime, this request is issued with reference to:

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 : Regarding the delivery of services as per the agreed-upon clinical consent and the requirement of “reasonable care and skill”.

Animal Welfare Act 1999 : Regarding the ethical justification for sedation and the avoidance of unnecessary distress.

VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct: Regarding the requirement for explicit consent for student-led procedures under sedation.

Property Law (Bailment): Regarding the unauthorised use of private property for institutional gain .

Breach of Duty and Strict Liability

Deviation from Terms: A bailee is bound by the terms of the bailment, whether express or implied. If a bailee uses a chattel in a way not authorised by the owner, they are liable for any loss or damage.

Conversion: Using bailed property for personal or institutional gain without permission is typically considered "conversion" – a tort that occurs when a bailee acts in a manner inconsistent with the owner's title.

As I did not authorise the sedation of Harry – and had specifically forbidden his use as a 'training tool' – any administration of sedatives constitutes a fundamental deviation from the terms of bailment . Under the principles of strict liability, Massey is liable for the unauthorised “use”' of my property and the subsequent clinical decline that occurred while the terms of our agreement were being breached.

I await your timely provision of the required information, with the appropriately detailed response to all the questions laid out herein.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/29/2026 5:22:00 PM

To: "'Frances Mullan'" <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>, "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, enquiries@privacy.org . nz

Subject: RE: Harry Kelly - FINAL NOTICE regarding Non-Compliant Disclosure & Demand for Primary Clinical Records

Ms Mullan:

I have been formally advised that Massey University has failed to act in accordance with my specific request for Harry’s personal information.

The "Clinical Summary" provided is a subjective narrative produced after the fact. It is not a clinical record. Under the Privacy Act 2020, I am entitled to the raw, contemporaneous, and complete data held by the hospital. I require the immediate disclosure of the following Primary Records:

Medication Administration Records (MAR): The original, timestamped logs showing the exact dose, time, and administrator for all medications, specifically the Gabapentin and any other sedatives.

Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: The hourly raw data charts recording vital signs (HR, RR, Temp) and "mental status" notes.

Raw Laboratory Data: The original machine-generated result printouts for all bloodwork and diagnostics, not the transcribed summaries.

Contemporaneous Progress Notes: The original, unedited notes made by clinical staff at the bedside during Harry’s admission.

Audit Trails: The digital metadata for the clinical file showing when entries were made, by whom, and if any retrospective edits were performed.

To be absolutely clear, and for the avoidance of this request again being passed off with a high-level summary rather than the provision of the actual data I am requesting:

I require the granular digital metadata for the clinical file, including View Logs (who accessed the file and when), Field-Level Deltas (the "before and after" values for every modification), and precise system timestamps to verify the contemporaneity of all entries and edits.

To tell you what you already know, Ms Mullan:

A "Summary" (i.e. your provided “Clinical Summary”, is a subjective curation of facts (or claimed facts); I am demanding the facts themselves.

As you and your veterinary school personnel and your legal team would well know, the 101-page “Clinical Summary” and the “Change logs” you provided to date are secondary, processed narratives and metadata. They are not the primary clinical records.

My request specifically encompasses the missing Medication Administration Records (MAR), the original ICU Flow Sheets containing hourly vital sign data, and the raw, machine-generated laboratory printouts. The absence of these primary documents means Massey University remains in breach of its disclosure obligations.

Which is also something you are all well aware of, but obviously had hoped that I would not become aware of, I wish to express my further disgust at the Massey institution for yet again attempting to take advantage of a pet parent’s lack of specific clinical and related administrative knowledge for the obvious purposes of obscuration.

One would have thought the fact that this imbalance in the clinic/institution vs per owner relationship – having already resulted in the fraudulent diagnosis and coerced, otherwise unnecessary “euthanasia” of my dog as a cover-up for your multiple instances of malpractice – would have been enough lying and dishonesty to be recorded against you by one pet owner.

Seemingly not. My intelligence has not appreciated being insulted yet again.

Please confirm by the Close of Business tomorrow that these raw records (in their entirety) are being prepared for urgent release, in order to avoid the need for me to file a second formal complaint with the Privacy Commissioner.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 20 February 2026 4:04 pm
To: 'e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz' <e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz>; 't.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz'
<t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz>; 'a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz' <a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz>; 's.reti@ministers.govt.nz'
<s.reti@ministers.govt.nz>; 'n.willis@ministers.govt.nz' <n.willis@ministers.govt.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE: Regulatory Obstruction & Conflict of Interest (Harry Kelly Case)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR MINISTERIAL ATTENTION:

This communication identifies a systemic regulatory failure involving the VCNZ and Massey University. Massey has redacted clinicians’ names from the ‘Clinical Summary’ (supplied under the Privacy Act 2020) to physically prevent the filing of statutory VCNZ complaints, while the VCNZ’s own Professional Advisor maintains an active teaching role at the University, and also while the University is in active engagement with external lawyers in attempt of my suppression and also regarding likely required future legal defence.

Dear Mr McLachlan

I am writing to formally notify the VCNZ that Massey University is actively obstructing my statutory right to file a professional conduct complaint. I am also asking you to refrain from becoming complicit in support of their illegal efforts to do so.

In addition to having cc’d you on almost every email I have sent to Massey on this matter for the past two or more months (none of which have drawn any concern from you), I yesterday specifically emailed you (attached) to ask for your assistance to obtain the number, roles and identities of the staff implicated / involved in the abuse, false diagnosis, and coerced termination, of my dog, Harry Kelly, and indeed the entire matter (as documented in evidence-supported, granular detail by me and of which you are well aware) and for your related assistance to submit complaints against each.

I have had nil response from you.

As you are aware, your standard complaints process requires the naming of specific practitioners. Massey University has redacted all clinicians’ identities from Harry Kelly’s records. Their instruction in their January 30 legal threat to "use the VCNZ channel" while simultaneously withholding the identities required to open that channel is a bad-faith manoevre to grant their staff immunity from your oversight.

Action Required:

I formally request that the VCNZ exercise its statutory power to demand the unredacted clinical records from Massey University so that a proper regulatory investigation can proceed.

Conflict of Interest

I request an immediate formal statement of position on the clear Conflict of Interest regarding your Professional Advisor, Mr Seton Butler.

As a current Adjunct Lecturer at Massey, his involvement in any advice regarding this case constitutes a "Perceived Conflict" that threatens the integrity of your office, and of Massey University’s governance standards. Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows for the disclosure of information necessary to "uphold or enforce the law“.There is no legal shield for clinician anonymity when the purpose is to subvert a statutory regulatory process.

I look forward to your response within 24 hours given the gravity of the many components of this matter, as documented in the more than 30 items of coverage I have produced, available here – and with specific (but not limited to) centring on core issues as detailed and evidentially supported here, here, here and here.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

NOTE : With regard to VCNZ CEO's February 20 undertaking that his 2IC, "Liam and his team will be in touch as soon as they can to progress your complaint". that never happened. No communication was received, except for the 11th hour (i.e. March 19 and incomplete) response to my Privacy Act information-release request, in which Shields gaslightingly directed me, in the first instance straight back to Massey (!) for the redacted names that he has been, for two months, well aware they will not disclose. He's also well aware that Massey has gone as far as having breached its legal obligations under the Official Information Act, regarding this and the other information I have asked for under the Act. He also directed me to use his website's "notification" form if I wanted to lay a complaint. A far cry from McLachlan's already minimal and very belated response and undertaking (below) - which, as you will see from the cc'd parties, he made purely for the benefit of his reputation in front of the listed government Ministers. In my opinion, the breaking of this February 20 undertaking represented the absence of any genuine intention in the first place.

From: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: 2/20/2026 3:20:53 AM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Cc: "e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz" <e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz>, "t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz"
<t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz>, "a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz" <a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz>,
"s.reti@ministers.govt.nz" <s.reti@ministers.govt.nz>, "n.willis@ministers.govt.nz"
<n.willis@ministers.govt.nz>, "Liam Shields" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Regulatory Obstruction & Conflict of Interest (Harry Kelly Case)

Dear Jordan

I believe our emails must have crossed each other as I responded to you this afternoon. I have passed on your email
to our legal team and they will assist you with your complaint.

I can assure you that Dr Butler plays no role in the complaints process and will have no direct involvement in this
matter. All decisions in our complaints process are made by independent committees following robust conflict of
interest checks, which you will have the opportunity to comment on.

Liam and his team will be in touch as soon as they can to progress your complaint.

The following is a reminder to VCNZ CEO McLachlan of the multitude of serious, and now forensically-detailed evidence - across many my published articles for his attention:

Overview of Core Issues

1. Intentional Withdrawal of Care: The withholding of any emergency care and even the intentional cessation of life-essential rehydrating fluids to facilitate the filming of at least eight teaching videos - using the patient as a "live prop" during a severe and potentially fatal inprogress pharmacological collapse.

2. Catastrophic (Possibly Intentional) 750% Overdose: The administration of a catastrophic pharmacological overdose followed by a total failure to monitor the patient during the "golden window" of potential reversal.

3. Breach of Informed Consent: The unauthorised conversion of a private patient into a teaching asset and the failure to disclose the use of non-essential and contraindicated drugs.

4. Coerced Termination: The misrepresentation of a reversible, overdose-induced state as a"terminal neurological failure" to coerce a euthanasia decision - effectively liquidating both the patient and the evidence.

5. Evidence Tampering: The illegal (contrary to Privacy Act obligations) destruction and withholding of key information, the calculated omission of automated ICU data logs, and the delivery of redacted files in degraded, redacted, or locked formats to obstruct accountability.

6. Financial Fraud: Phantom billing, including but not limited to invoicing for monitoring equipment that was intentionally disconnected, and billing for ICU “care” and monitoring, postmortem.

7. Misuse of Public Funds for Institutional and Individual Self-Preservation: Utilising Crown-funded legal counsel and senior management time to silence an aggrieved client and conceal a systemic ethical collapse, rather than providing the accountability required by the university's charter.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 2/20/2026 4:54:54 PM
To: OIA@massey.ac.nz
Cc: iain@vetcouncil.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz , e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz,
t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz, a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz, s.reti@ministers.govt.nz,
n.willis@ministers.govt.nz, enquiries@privacy.org.nz, "'Info'" <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>
Subject: URGENT OIA/PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT: Conflict of Interest and Regulatory Obstruction

Further to my OIA request of February 13, 2026 regarding legal expenditure (which is now on Day 5 of the statutory clock), I am formally adding the following urgent items to my request. Note that two are reminders of still-unsatisfied information requests i.e. Items 4 and 5.

Given the discovery of new evidence regarding regulatory conflicts, I request the following under the Official Information Act 1982:

1. Identity of Clinicians: The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the “care”, treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period. Note: Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process. Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.

It may be noted that, at 3.41pm this afternoon, the VCNZ diverted my requests for assistance to a VCNZ staff member (after ignoring the totality of emails on which he has been cc’d on this matter for the past two months). There is still no indication that the names and titles will be provided, and it is, regardless, the legal obligation of Massey University directly, to provide these. Thus, I am filing this OIA to ensure the legal requirement for transparency is met while his staff “does their best to assist”.

This sub-matter, but critical matter, for the proper serving of justice, should be noted in the context of the following
further requests:

2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Seton Butler): All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Seton Butler's dual role as a Massey University Adjunct Lecturer and his professional advisory role at the VCNZ.

3. Instructional Content Authorisation: All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of "instructional content" or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part / operation / department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly’s admission.

4. Pet Farewells: As per previous unresponded-to requests, all communications (written, verbal, electronic,through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly.

5. Post-Mortem Activity: As per previous unresponded-to requests, disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly.

Urgency Requested: These items are inextricably linked to the “Legal Expenditure” request already in your system. The use of public funds to hire Buddle Findlay while simultaneously obstructing a regulatory process through redaction is a matter of immediate public interest.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

On 25 Feb 2026, at 10:16, editor@consumeraffairswriter.com wrote:

Dear Mr McLachlan

I am formally requesting all information held by the VCNZ regarding myself and the Harry Kelly matter.

Although I have not yet submitted a formal complaint - as I am still identifying the specific clinicians involved - I am concerned by the potential for there having been pre-investigation collusion, as well as collusion once my complaint has been formally submitted to you.

A key point of interest is as follows (although my investigations and concerns are not limited to):

Given that Dr Jenny Weston holds the concurrent roles of Dean of Veterinary Education at Massey and Statutory Council Member of the VCNZ, there exists a profound structural conflict of interest.

I request all correspondence (incoming, outgoing, or sent/received by third parties/staff acting on her behalf) where Dr Weston has discussed my case, my published investigation into the matter and any aspect thereof, or the "summarisation" of Harry's records with VCNZ staff or other Council members.

This request specifically also includes all forms of informal or verbal communication, including records of the occurrence of any such communications, including but not limited to:

File notes or summaries of telephone calls, in-person briefings, SMS/text messages, WhatsApp or other instant messaging platforms, and internal MS Teams chats. (Here I am seeking the literal record of any "informal advice" or "background context" provided by Dr Weston or her delegates that sits outside formal email channels.)

I am specifically seeking to identify if Dr Weston has used her "Ex Officio" status to provide "informal context" or "background briefings" that might prejudice the regulator’s eventual receipt and handling of my formal complaint regarding:

- The 750% pharmacological overdose and unauthorised filming of Harry;
- The cessation of his treatment and fluids protocol;
- The false diagnosis and the coerced termination of Harry.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Massey’s Vet ‘Hospital’ Staffed by Unsupervised Juniors Administering Drugs At Will, Committing Serious Animal Cruelty, Falsifying Diagnoses, Records & Coercing 'Euthanasia'

Sun, 15 Mar 2026 13:32:23 GMT

Editor’s Conclusion : Unsupervised. Unaccountable. Uninvestigated. And Still Accredited.

If what I am about to reveal in this – the latest and most damning of all my coverage and revelations regarding the torture, repeated catastrophic overdosing (to levels equating to severe poisoning), conversion for use in live experimentation and filming, and subsequent misrepresentation to me with a false diagnosis to facilitate coerced lethal injection permission – does not result in the immediate withdrawal by the three international agencies providing Massey’s veterinary facility accreditation . . . then the CEOs and boards of those agencies need to understand that knowingly maintaining accreditation in the face of documented, serious and notified breaches exposes each of them to personal liability for their own breaches of fiduciary duty.

Before I lay out my latest findings and Massey University’s latest serious misconduct and illegal actions, I want to make very clear who those heads of the three accrediting agencies are – because at this point, this matter goes far beyond the severe animal cruelty, multiple and serious breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians (issued by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand under the Veterinarians Act 2005) – and well into criminal territory. And to a degree that should concern any enterprise hiring a graduate of Massey’s veterinary “teaching” facility.

Those accrediting agencies are the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the American Veterinary Medical Association's Council on Education (AVMA COE), and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) in the UK.

The AVBC’s Chief Executive Officer Kate Simkovic finally, after two months of ignored correspondence, sent an email only after I had cc’d her on all my Formal Notifications of March 6 to the collection of South East Asian stakeholder universities and institutions importing Massey veterinarian program graduates (with what I firmly believe was her bogus claim that she had intended to acknowledge my correspondence two months previously but someone forgot to hit Send).

Simkovic's March 12 reply was, in effect, a complete and disingenuous dismissal of all the findings I put to her . . . and it should be noted that, in fact, said “reply” came from an unnamed administration staffer (so that, when I published it, it wouldn’t come up in an internet search showing her name). It ended with the equivalent of "no further correspondence will be entered into".

The AVMA’s Council on Education (COE) replied via Dr Samantha Morello, its Associate Director, Education & Research . However, the actual CEO (and its Executive Vice President) is a Dr Janet Donlin and its President is a Dr Michael Q. Bailey.

Morello (like her Australasian colleague, Simkovic) ignored all cc'd notifications and finally, on March 7, sent a smart-ass 93-word dismissal of my multiple items of cross-referenced breaches and detailed evidence thereof.

She said my citings didn’t “align specifically” with the AVMA's 'Accreditation Policies and Procedures' manual. She sent me a link to this 207-page document, which I duly read and, also on March 7, replied to with an even more greatly detailed, 4000-word itemisation and commentary, "specifically aligning" for her, Massey’s now many more breaches, and counting. (Readers interested in this correspondence "exchange" can view it at the Harry Kelly case study page on the new International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) website i.e. www.iiive.org. That reply email from me to Dr Morello remains unacknowledged as of March 16.

To be noted, the AVMA's 'Accreditation Policies and Procedures' manual states that Massey’s - as an accredited university's - annual fees paid to the AVMA for its accreditation and its financial hosting of AVMA staff, must be kept up to date at all times. It does not, however, disclose any specific amounts.

The RCVS has sent two skeletal acknowledgements of my correspondence through a departmental executive assistant. I was grateful for the additional response of, Ky Richardson, a senior solicitor within its Standards and Advice Team - Professional Conduct, who - among other insights - advised that " Chapter 11" should be referred to in the event of a veterinary surgeon "pressuring (a client) to make a particular decision i.e. a potential issue relating to informed consent."

"This Chapter," states the RCVS Code of Conduct, "is critical for ensuring legal compliance and building trust between veterinary professionals and clients."

To be clear, I cite these accrediting bodies upfront in this new series of revelations, because:

(a) Massey and its external legal counsel have shown themselves to have zero respect not only for the most fundamental of basic veterinary codes of conduct clauses or any aspect of veterinary ethics, but also

(b) Massey's "leadership" and veterinary personnel at all levels continue to demonstrate complete contempt for core New Zealand laws . . . from laws concerning the falsification of clinical records and associated fraudulent conduct, to the country’s hallowed Official Information Act 1982 requirements that every citizen believes they can count on. Apparently errantly, as they relate to Massey University.

Official Information Act 1982 :
Cornerstone of NZ’s Constitutional Framework for Public Sector Accountability . . . But Not for Massey

New Zealand's Official Information Act 1982 – known widely by almost every New Zealand citizen and referred to as the “OIA” – is a cornerstone of this country's constitutional framework.

Its guiding principle is immutable and understood by almost every New Zealand adult and certainly by every public servant / civil service employee:

Official information held by public bodies, including universities , must be made available unless there is (very) good reason to withhold it and in which case that reason must be clearly stated. Requests must be answered as soon as reasonably practicable and by no later than the 20th working day following the organisation receiving the requester’s correspondence. If an agency cannot meet that deadline (and it must have a legitimate reason for not being able to do so), it must notify the requester of the necessary period of extension within that same 20-working-day period.

The literally thousands of readers now following the atrocity that is “ The Killing of Harry Kelly ” case, and who have read my March 10 upload, WAITING, MASSEY: Are You Going to Comply with Your Legally Required Information-Release Obligations? , will have noted that Massey finally acknowledged my February 20 OIA on March 5 (that delay of acknowledgement being contemptuous in its own right in terms of normal expectations), and undertook to have the itemised information to me by the legally-required deadline of March 13.

But March 13 came and went. No response. No extension request. No partial release. No acknowledgement of any kind.

Thus, and to be very clear, Massey’s leadership, management, and Legal and Governance personnel have just committed a serious breach of the fundamental foundations of this country’s legal framework.

They haven’t done it unknowingly, either – and, considering also the new relevations I bring to you today in this update – I will lay out the only conclusion I or any other intelligent follower of this matter can realistically, even conservatively, arrive at.

That conclusion is this:

The various elements of information I have sought through the Official Information Act are so utterly damning, that Massey’s external legal advisors – as far as can be ascertained,such being high-profile New Zealand law firm, Buddle Findlay – have advised Massey “leadership” that, notwithstanding the apparent collusive posture of the three accrediting bodies, my publication of that information would be so explosive that the consequences would be publicly and legally catastrophic for Massey.

Every Client of Massey’s ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Will Want to Re-think Their Vets’ Referrals . . . with Urgency

And they certainly would be . . . based just on what I can, in today’s update, reveal to readers even without what Massey continues to withhold.

What I am about to reveal should be shocking to every current client of Massey’s “Companion Animal Hospital” , to every client whose pet any veterinarian might refer to Massey, to any referring vet or vet practice who can lay honest claim (which might actually not be many) to being unaware of what has been going on at Massey, to any accrediting body that was acting in genuine accordance with its mandate to apply its accreditation standards (which, as you’ve read has been demonstrated not to be the case), and to any importer of veterinary “training” services and/or veterinary program graduates into their own countries.

Above all, it should alarm this country’s own regulatory and disciplinary authority, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ). But it not only doesn’t alarm the VCNZ; the two bodies are essentially one and the same structure, in terms of the receiving and investigation of any complaint about Massey or Massey-related veterinarians — given that Massey is the only veterinary school in New Zealand and the sole domestic pipeline for the profession.

Not Just ‘Conflicts of Interest’ . . . Full. Agency. Capture.

In a classic illustration of "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" ', the Academic Program Director of Massey's undergraduate veterinary program, Dr Jenny Weston, is one of the seven members of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand itself - the governing body that receives and adjudicates all complaints about Massey's veterinary program. (She also co-authors papers with VCNZ CEO, Iain McLachlan.)

That goes way beyond a conflict of interest.

That’s full-scale, industrial-strength, structural, agency, and regulatory capture.

Even without this “one and the same” day-to-day interconnectivity, it would be an extraordinarily naïve individual who would believe that the VCNZ isn’t already in possession of the full knowledge of what has been going on at Massey’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka “Companion Animal Hospital”.

The VCNZ's CEO McLachlan has not only been in receipt of all my communications both to him and to Massey for the past three months, but so also has the second point of direct conflict of interest between his organisation and Massey . . . because, for most of that duration and unbeknownst to me, I was openly cc'ing my communications to McLachlan to the second direct point of conflicted interest i.e. Dr Seton Butler. Wait for it . . . Butler is on both the VCNZ payroll as its Professional Advisor on policy and standards, and on the Massey payroll - albeit whether it's a current or an immediate past appointment is unclear - as an Adjunct Lecturer at the School of Veterinary Science. Butler holds a BVSc from Massey University.

For perpetuating that active conflict by allowing me to keep cc’ing Butler without disclosing his conflicted position, and for his direct avoidance of any facilitation of my ability to put a complaint to the VCNZ , McLachlan (being a registered lawyer) now has an active complaint in motion against him with the New Zealand Law Society.

And the regulatory capture doesn't stop with the Massey / VCNZ incest, either.

The VCNZ itself is a member of the AVBC - the Australasian body that accredits Massey's veterinary program. The current Chair of the VCNZ, Dr Kylie Lawson, is herself a Massey University graduate.

The body that accredits Massey. With the regulator that polices Massey sitting inside it. And the regulator's own Chair a product of the institution both bodies are supposed to hold to account.

BEYOND DAMNING

Now to exactly why Buddle Findlay has advised Massey’s “leadership” – Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, “Dean” of the Veterinary “School” Jon Huxley, and “Dean” of Veterinary “Education”, Jenny Weston – to take the lesser evil of breaching New Zealand’s Official Information Act as opposed to responding to my OIA with the required information.

First, foremost and most damning of all, if the required information were released is this:

Given that the “clinical records” I have thus far managed to extract from Massey’s clutches have had every single name struck through with large black boxes to hide the names and position titles of all personnel, I asked for the “unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the ‘care’, treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period and also in the period following his death on December 1, 2025, including all staff involved in the handling of his body.

This included “ all staff, contractors, visiting specialists, locums, or other persons engaged by or associated with Massey University in any capacity”.

I included the note that, additional to their Official Information Act obligations, “Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process.

I pointed out what they well knew because they planned it that way: “Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.”

I also advised Massey, “that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) – an organisation providing accreditation to Massey University – has confirmed in writing that, in the RCVS jurisdiction, veterinary surgeons are expected to provide their name to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern , and that this obligation applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice. Thus, Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is entirely inconsistent with the international professional standard applicable to its own registered staff.”

The REAL Reasons for the Non-Disclosure of Who ‘Treated’ Harry

And now to the actual reason for the Massey Legal and Governance department’s redactions:

I had until now, assumed that Massey’s primary reason for the refusal to follow all professional veterinary norms (which dictate that any paying client and pet owner should, at all times, have full knowledge of the name, position and overall identity of those veterinarians and staff who treat or who have treated their pet) was to prevent the lodging of a complaint against any of them with the Veterinary Council.

However, given my subsequent realisation that the VCNZ was, in its own right, either going to prevent that happening or almost certainly, if it “accepted” any complaint – with the senior-most levels of VCNZ and Massey’s veterinary establishment being essentially one and the same organisation – was going to ensure that that complaint returned a “nothing to see here” outcome . . . the continued refusal to disclose the identities of the relevant staff required further investigation.

And here is exactly what my deeper investigation turned up:

It now appears that Rigg was actually a "rotating intern", and certainly one who was acting without the mandatory qualified supervision at any time when she "treated" Harry.

Or if, in fact, "Dr" Stephanie Rigg was acting under "qualified" supervision when she overdosed Harry, when she organised for his conversion from patient to university "teaching" aid resource, when she organised for “her neurologist” (as she referred to her) to collude in the intentional misdiagnosis of Harry as having suffered a sudden “neurological” event or decline and requiring urgent “euthanasia”, and during her subsequent intensive two-hour, unaccompanied, lone and self-directed coercion of me to get me to sign the termination authority form . . . the criminality of that "supervision" needs to be investigated along with her own. Two obvious starting points would be the Practice "Manager", Pauline Nijman , and the two relevant "Deans" i.e. of the Veterinary "School", Jon Huxley (read about Huxley here and here ), and of Veterinary "Teaching", Jenny Weston (God help the pets she utilises to "teach', which included my Harry ).

At all times, including the instance of a previous consultation quite some months and possibly a year or more earlier, Rigg had presented herself to me as “the ICU day vet”. As in, a fully qualified - and even, by way of her self-description, a senior - vet. She is, however. listed on Massey’s website, “Stephanie Rigg – Companion Animal Rotating Intern” – albeit, upon clicking on the listing, her profile has now been removed from the site.

Rigg, in this junior "rotating intern" capacity, operated without any supervision whatsoever, including being totally alone with me during her protracted, heavy-handed "euthanasia" coercion based on her bogus "neurological" diagnosis.

She was the primary – or only – staff member whose account appears in Massey’s “Clinical Summary" and clearly takes the credit, alone, for her “advice” to me i.e. encouraging the immediate “euthanasia” of Harry, stating – in her own conceited and self-superior words, as indeed she had done verbally during her intensive, unsupervised coercion of me, that “I can’t fix him.”

(To be noted, Rigg - "Dr Death" - had been the one to endeavour to ensure that he indeed needed some form of “fixing” and also to ensure that I would, to the greatest degree to which she could deceive me, consider him “unfixable”. This, she knew, was essential for her to get me to submit to her intense pressure to sign “euthanasia” forms. That is, to remove Harry's presence as evidence of what had been done to him by the night shift ICU attendants and then intentionally perpetuated – along with his conversion as a live experimentation and filming subject for “teaching” staff and students – by herself, Rigg.)

Will Rigg Go On to Kill Outside of Massey? Auckland Now, According to the VCNZ Directory.
But Is that Organisation's Directory No More Reliable than Its 'Complaints' Process?

Rigg's VCNZ registration states Auckland - although whether she has in fact left Massey or not, or just failed to update earlier location details, or has updated them in a way that reveals nothing more than "Auckland" . . . is for Massey to know, and like everything else, for me to have to find out.

If indeed she has left the death cult and all-round horror show that spawned her, I wonder if the pet owners of whatever constitutes her new employer's client base are aware of her "training" and her resultant demonstrated modus operandi.

It's a worry . . . if this lethally dangerous individual is not under any form of supervision in a new and unsuspecting work environment and, unbeknownst to that new employer, she imports the Massey ICU culture into it.

Frankly, according to my - and Harry's - experience, " Dr" Stephanie Rigg shouldn't be anywhere near animals .

But, regardless of her actual whereabouts, Massey's catalogue of the unsupervised - or unqualified -doesn't end with her .

According to the geographic listings of veterinarians on the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s online directory – the (very) young intaking vet also named “Stephanie" according to information given to me by a fellow Massey client.– has no qualifications . . . or certainly no-one readily identifiable as her appears in the VCNZ directory.

Yet young “Stephanie” gave me her distinct and absolute assurance that she was a fully qualified veterinarian. NB: I am, and have always been, extraordinarily closely bonded with and protective of Harry and there is simply no way I would have left Harry in her “care” had I been truthfully advised that she was not a graduated vet. She appeared not only inexperienced but also well out of her depth, and certainly appeared to have no authority over, and in fact to be intimidated by, the openly negligent two female ICU attendants.

Leaving Harry there that night, as he stood up on his little hind legs, crying, and with his paws outstretched to me through the cage, with the two attendants blatantly ignoring him . . . was the second worse decision of my life. The one that takes first place is falling for Rigg’s subsequent bogus “neurological event/decline” diagnosis and being bullied into signing to end my precious little boy’s life. Yes, they and she had indeed engineered him into a horrendous state . . . but as I’ve pointed out in previous articles, such was his determination to reach me through what I wished I’d known then was actually his heavy sedation , that I fully believe our bond and a competent veterinary practice would have been able to pull him through.

As I work my way further through the items of Massey’s OIA breach and withheld information, readers will come to what appears to be the only obvious conclusion, which is that:

According to my now-repeated experiences, Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital appears to be staffed either exclusively or primarily by inexperienced and/or unsupervised juniors and students, who are left to run the facility as they please, to administer drugs in accordance with their own desires and purposes, to convert private clients' pets to University "teaching" resources, and to make life or death decisions for, those private fee-paying clients’ pets.

ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly

I also sought “the release in full of all video footage taken of Harry Kelly during his admission to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital ICU on November 30 and December 1, 2025 – and also any taken after his death.

I reminded Massey’s Legal and Governance department and Buddle Findlay that “this request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and I note that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has specifically and proactively advised me that this material is releasable under the Official Information Act and has recommended that I request it accordingly.

“Massey's previous refusal to release the footage in full – including the offer of still-frame extracts in substitution for the actual footage, and the requirement that I attend the premises to view footage rather than receive it electronically - is not considered adequate compliance with my request and is not accepted.”

I’ll take this opportunity to remind readers of the twisted and intense cruelty – and the volumes it speaks of Massey University’s culture – that saw staff mock me in my trauma and my grief by sending me those stills in the same circular format that I had used, for the information of my readers, in my display of Harry’s (unbeknownst to me at the time) drugged state while being abused and filmed by students.

To be clear, these twisted individuals - assumedly under some degree of direction from the Companion Animal "Hospital's" Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman (who shall we just say, never "appreciated my standards" ), put Harry's poor, dear, contorted little face or body from their "still" shots inside small circles in outright mockery both of me and of him.

For the record, I do indeed utterly dread seeing the full and protracted horrors to which the staff and students subjected my beloved, drugged, and poor little blind Harry( SEE THEiR “SANITISED” STILLS HERE ..)

Unspeakable cruelties – most especially for a blind animal – that included, by way of example, precariously holding him high up to the ceiling with one hand, digging fingernails into his scalp to pull his eyes open while a camera was aimed at close range into them, forcing him to stumble around in drugged circles for the camera, and filming him from above while he appeared to be propped up vertically but collapsing from the torso over backwards or sideways. You can get a feel for the subjected him to here , here and here .

But put myself through it I must. Harry was my dog (not that Rigg or Massey's "teaching" staff saw it that way), my precious little blind boy and the equivalent of no less than a child to me , and if he went through it physically and emotionally, then it is incumbent upon me to put myself through at least the emotional equivalent of what was done to him – as unspeakable, as inconceivable, and as fully evil as it all was.

And as traumatised as I have already been by these subhumans .

Instructional Content Authorisation

I also sought “all internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of ‘instructional content’ or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part, operation, or department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, (expanded from original request) and including while his body was in Massey’s possession.”

My purpose in requiring this was to determine whether any ethics committee approval or funding agreement existed that authorised his use as such – noting that:

(a) my own permission would also have been required (without which Massey staff were committing conversion of property under New Zealand common law, breaching their duty of care under Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and acting in fundamental breach of their contractual obligations to me as a fee-paying client ,

(b) repeatedly overdosing him with a contraindicated sedation cocktail for the purpose would certainly not have met any ethics standards if I had (as clearly I would NOT have) given any such authority, and

(c) disconnecting him from his hydrating IV line, by-then, his only hope of evacuating the accumulated Gabapentin poisoning from his kidneys, would certainly not have met any veterinary or ethics standards in any developed country anywhere.

Again, if instructional content was produced using Harry without my consent, that constitutes a serious breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and of the fundamental obligations of informed consent owed to any client of a veterinary facility.

And if no ethics approval existed for the use of a private fee-paying patient as a teaching subject, the absence of that approval is itself a matter for prosecution and legal action.

In either instance, Massey's abhorrent, "law unto themselves" actions constituted serious illegalities. Illegalities, and associated animal cruelty, that does not belong in any "veterinary teaching hospital" anywhere.

Missing IDEXX Vital Signs Monitoring Records Post-Overdosing & During and After Filming Utilisation of My Pet

I also drew the attention of Massey Legal and Governance’s Frances Mullan, Rachel Fergusson and Jodie Banner to their critical omission from my earlier Privacy Act request:

“In response to my request for Harry Kelly's full clinical records, I received machine-generated IDEXX diagnostic monitoring data and automated vital signs logs for November 30, 2025 – that is, ONLY November 30.”

Thus, I reiterated, I require “all machine-generated diagnostic monitoring data, IDEXX reports, and automated vital signs logs for Harry Kelly for December 1, 2025, including explicit confirmation of whether any such data was recorded and, if so, its current location within Massey's records management system.”

I duly pointed out what they would themselves be uncomfortably aware of: that “any confirmation that no such data exists will itself be treated as a significant finding requiring further explanation, given that Massey's own Clinical Summary records active patient monitoring during this period.

“The significance of this data omission, and the contrast between the November 30 data provided and the December 1 data withheld, is documented in detail at: https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/smoking-gun-finding-harry-was-a-marked-dog.

“ No equivalent data was provided for December 1, 2025 - the most critical period of Harry's admission, during which he is documented in Massey's own Clinical Summary as ‘obtunded’, ‘limp’, and (apparently) in a worsening ‘neurological’ state (he was, of course, actually massively over-sedated).”

Controlled Drugs Register

Directly related to all of the above, I required Massey to provide – as is my right – “all entries in the Controlled Drugs Register maintained by Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital pursuant to the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as they relate to the dispensing, administration, or recording of any controlled or prescription substance administered to Harry Kelly.”

Among the reasons, is that I do not for one moment, believe that Massey’s “Clinical Summary” is a complete record of all the drugs – and/or the number of times these were – forced into Harry.

Because Massey would not release six of the eight videos its students took of him (and I believe there were likely far more, given especially that these were apparently taken on cell phones), Massey sought to “satisfy” my legal request with their own selected “still” shot from each video. One, with a 10.41am timestamp, shows him being forced by staff to stumble around, heavily sedated, in circles, for their entertainment.

The point being, that while he was stumbling and clearly subjected to cruelty by the students and teachers involved, he was still – at that point in time – able to stand upright . . . albeit just . (PS to Readers: When contemplating the immense cruelty of being forced to do that in his heavily and grossly over-sedated state, consider also that Harry was blind, that he would have been stressed beyond measure being separated from me, and that he was in a completely foreign and terrifying environment).

The “Clinical Summary” states that the final administration of the contraindicated Gabapentin overdose was at 9am. Yet, when I arrived at approximately 3.30pm and he was handed over to me at around 4pm (amidst Rigg’s intense coercion to sign “euthanasia” forms i.e. she warmed me up with the "neurological" fairy tale first), he was alternating between almost coma-like limpness and unable to hold his upper body upright , with sudden bursts of vertical motion to reach my face to kiss me, and also to recoil in fear from Rigg and the sound of her voice.

I am in little to no doubt that Harry was administered even further, undocumented doses – each one a massive overdose in its own right, as each of the previous administrations had been – to ensure he appeared as suddenly and severely “neurologically declined” and unrecoverable as possible, when I arrived at the facility.

While Massey management and staff, and assumedly therefore also students, have demonstrated that the falsification of records is standard practice at this Companion Animal “Hospital”, I nonetheless still sought – and still seek (as I do all the information requirements listed herein) – the Controlled Drug Register, nonetheless.

Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail / Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)

I also sought “ the unredacted Field-Level Audit Log (Patient Change Log) and all associated system access logs identifying the names, position titles, and login credentials of every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, ‘updated’ or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of Massey's response to this request. This request specifically includes but is not limited to the metadata audit trail of the clinical records management system used by the Companion Animal Hospital.”

As those following this horror story will be well aware, I have filed a detailed police report against Massey management and staff related to the following Crimes Act 1961 Sections i.e. Section 258 (Altering a document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) - attracting jail time of up to 10 years.

There is no need to elaborate on why Buddle Findlay would have advised against the disclosure of the names of these staff.

Pet Farewells Communications

Next, “as per previous requests: all communications (written, verbal, electronic, through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.”

Harry was killed (followers of this series will understand perfectly why “euthanased” is not an accurate term and why I refuse to use it) by Massey on December 1. As of March 15 – i.e. the publication of this article – I am still trying to ascertain exactly what happened to Harry’s remains and his ashes.

(NB: I cannot tell you how intensely it PISSES ME OFF BEYOND ALL MEASURE to be referring to “Harry’s remains” and “Harry’s ashes”, when HARRY SHOULD STILL BE VERY MUCH ALIVE AND IN HIS BED BESIDE MY DESK AS I TYPE THIS, WERE IT NOT FOR “DR DEATH” STEPHANIE RIGG and whatever she had against him . . . albeit it's no secret what her Practice Manager had against me . The Practice Manager, that is, who had a responsibility to ensure that junior "rotating interns" operate with some degree of actual SUPERVISION. No, Pauline Nijman? Not even when they're coercing "euthanasia"? Not even when it's to cover up their overdosing, abuses, and conversion to "teaching" utility, of the owner's pet?)

Post-Mortem Activity

I further sought, “ as per previous requests: disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly."

In my fully unsuccessful communications with the utterly despicable pet cremation company that Massey recommended, “Pet Farewells” of Wellington and Hamilton i.e. in trying to determine what really happened to his ashes – given that someone told someone that I “didn’t want Harry back” - I was told (although it was later declared to be a slip of the tongue that I should disregard having heard) that Harry had been “picked up with all the other post-mortems”.

I have been supplied with a photo of what I’m told is Harry’s body wrapped inside the blanket I myself wrapped him in when I finally allowed “Dr Death” Rigg to take him from me on that fateful day . . . and it shows the blanket, assumedly with his precious little body in it, in the back of what I can only describe as a “yuck truck”.

There are buckets in the back of said yuck truck containing bags of what, to me, look like probable dissected bodies or body parts.

This is the final insult Massey, Rigg and staff delivered to me and to Harry, after everything else they had done both to me and to him. To say nothing of the tens of thousands of dollars I have channeled into their coffers, including related to Harry’s also beloved predecessor – who, it should be noted, didn’t make it out of there alive, either.

Conflicts of Interest & Expenditure on Buddle Findlay

I also required copies of all communications in any form between the at least two identified points of direct conflict between Massey’s leadership and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand i.e. the VCNZ’s Professional Advisor (on "policy and standards", if you please) Dr Seton Butler, who is also Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University’s School of Veterinary Science (and holds a BVSc from Massey) . . . and Dr Jenny Weston, VCNZ Council member and the Academic Program Director of Massey University’s undergraduate veterinary program.

I further required the expenditure to date that Massey has shoveled into the no-doubt rapidly expanding coffers of Buddle Findlay . . . who would appear – according to the analytics tracking of The Customer & The Constituent – to have multiple personnel monitoring the site daily for new uploads.

NEXT ACTIONS:

Formal notification of these latest findings and developments will be additionally sent to the three accrediting agencies – the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) and their respective leaderships. This latest notification will add to the list of their own Standards that I have previously advised each accrediting body Massey is in direct and severe breach of.

I will also send warnings to those universities in other countries who are directly associated with Massey and also to the government bodies in the South East Asian jurisdictions which rely primarily on Massey-trained graduates to staff the veterinary clinics of their own countries.

Of concern to the pet owners of New Zealand specifically, I will send urgent notices to the veterinary clinics of this country.

I will also advise these clinics that those notices will be permanently published on the website of the new initiative I have launched – the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) – and will serve as proof of their knowledge of Massey's conduct and standards (or dangerous lack thereof), including the University's standards of student "education"..

That is, the notices will be permanently and readily accessible to the legal counsel of any pet owner whose pet has been harmed or killed either by Massey University's veterinary "hospital" directly following a referral by that veterinary clinic or by any Massey graduate in their employ.

Finally, I will alert each of the authorities currently involved in this matter.

Within the domestic i.e. New Zealand jurisdiction, these include but are unlikely to remain limited to:

Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Inspectorate.

New Zealand Police.

Public Service Commission.

Commerce Commission.

Law Society (with regard to the conduct of the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Council, Iain McLachlan).

A WORD TO BUDDLE FINDLAY:

I am in no doubt that your advice to Massey’s “leadership”, Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, the “Dean” of the veterinary “School”, Jon Huxley, and the “Dean” of Veterinary “Education” Jenny Weston will have been to the effect of, “by the time her complaint to the Ombudsman for breaching the Official Information Act makes it through a year or so in the Ombudsman’s queue, she’ll have run out of topics to write about or she’ll have worn herself out; that’s infinitely preferable to the catastrophic results of releasing what she’s asked for, especially knowing that she’s going to publish it.”

Buddle Findlay, let me make this 100 percent clear to you:

If you genuinely believe that I will wear myself out and that all this will “fade out” with the passage of time, then your latest advice to Massey is equally reflective of your extraordinarily poor initial advice to the venerable Dean Huxley, when you told him to threaten me with you.

You don’t scare me. Far from it. I consider you a bunch of overpaid intellectual (or maybe not so intellectual) thugs who would sell your souls to anyone for anything, as long as the fee structure was right.

You won’t silence me. I told you: Rigg and co silenced Harry. You won’t silence me .

To believe otherwise would be to exercise remarkable arrogance, a lack of due diligence (notwithstanding all the archive-digging and other forms of profiling you have likely done), and a complete absence of responsibility for the fees you know Massey will have to continue to shovel – ongoingly – into your coffers as a result of that poorly-strategised and arrogant advice.

As I published for your benefit back on January 16 - in my article titled, You Won’t Wear Me Out or Wait Me Out, Massey. You Killed My Dog, Remember? , both my sentiment and my commitment to achieving some form of justice – albeit posthumously – for my beloved Harry ( who should still BE HERE WITH ME ) stands.

And. It. Stands. Firm . It will NEVER waver.

You can count on it NEVER changing. Not now. And – including also in the interests of my fellow pet parents – not ever .

In the meantime, allow me to introduce you to my latest demonstration of that commitment: The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE).

The Institute’s website is locked, loaded and launched . . . and right here for your information: www.iiive.org

The Harry Kelly Case Study will be referenced in everything we do - every piece of educational material, every media statement, and every online and bricks-and-mortar event.

EVERYTHING.

As unwelcome as that will be to you and to your client.

UPDATED 16.3.26: WAITING, MASSEY . . . Are You Going to Comply with Your Legally Required Information-Release Obligations?

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 10:27:14 GMT

UPDATED: 16.3.26
Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?
(16.3.26: MASSEY BREACHED ALL ITEMS ON THE BELOW OIA; TOTALLY IGNORED THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. NO COMMUNICATION. A HUGE NO-NO IN THE NZ CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.)

ABOVE :

W hen I left Harry just 15 hours earlier - for a simple 24-hour rehydration protocol - he looked like a completely normal dog . . . and this Is what Massey's repeated, intentional, 750% unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience-sedation overdosings did to him . . . on the way to Dr Stephanie Rigg's relentless two-hour coercion of me to allow her to lethally inject him on the basis of her deliberately false overnight "neurological decline" diagnosis without any disclosure of his having been sedated, let alone literally poisoned with the degree of cumulative toxicity from the dosages.

Overdoses given to him - some just 26 minutes apart - initially for the convenience of two ICU staff who couldn't be bothered with his crying related to his sudden separation from the owner (me) with whom he was intensely closely bonded . . . overdoses then repeated the next morning by the ICU vet for Harry's ( MY DOG'S) ready use (and abuse) in student activities and filming in his catastrophically sedated and pharmacologically-induced collapsing state.

This article is a critical component of a broader investigative series documenting the massive failure of ethics surrounding the killing of Harry Kelly (my own treasured, beloved little papillon ) at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital.

This statutory log of formal requests lodged by me, Harry's deeply grieving "mamma" (who is determined to honour his memory with the facts ), represents a formal effort to extract the truth from an institution that has, to date, met my search for answers with contemptuous, stubbornly disingenuous bureaucratic evasion and legal threats.

To understand the gravity of the injustice being investigated, I would refer new readers here , here , here , here , here , here , here and here . The full coverage (some 30+ articles are indexed here i.e. the Killing of Harry Kelly ).

The whole horror story has now "progressed" to include an impending investigation by the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare unit, a Police filing under the Crimes Act 1961 for the falsification of veterinary medical records , and the formal acceptance of a complaint against the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) related to multiple undisclosed conflicts of interest between Massey veterinary school leadership and the VCNZ and what appears to be a refusal to facilitate a complaint against the veterinary staff members Massey has been withholding the names of, but which he has the power to compel the release thereof.

In New Zealand, the Official Information Act (OIA) and the Privacy Act 2020 are the primary statutory mechanisms for institutional transparency. They ensure that public entities like Massey University remain, at least to some degree , accountable to the individuals they serve.

Below is the record of the formal requests currently served upon Massey's Vice-Chancellor, the Governance Office, and the Privacy Officer. Note, these requests now also include those made relating to multiple conflicts of interest at the regulatory level, as regards the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

UPDATED: March 16, 2026

MASSEY BREACHED ALL ITEMS ON THE BELOW OIA; TOTALLY IGNORED THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. NO COMMUNICATION. A HUGE NO-NO IN THE NZ CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.

UPDATED: March 10, 2026

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2026 10:01 pm
To: ' oia@massey.ac.nz ' < oia@massey.ac.nz >; ' R.L.Ferguson@massey.ac.nz ' < R.L.Ferguson@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: ' commission@publicservice.govt.nz ' < commission@publicservice.govt.nz >; 'Iain McLachlan' < iain@vetcouncil.org.nz >; ' liam@vetcouncil.org.nz ' < liam@vetcouncil.org.nz >
Subject: Re: SECOND AMENDMENT TO OIA REQUEST REF 02/2026 - Additional Items

Further to my original Official Information Act request of 13 February 2026 (Ref 02/2026) and my first amendment of 20 February 2026, I am formally adding the following further items to my request.

For completeness and ease of reference, the full request – incorporating all original and amended items – is set out below.

FULL REQUEST (AS AMENDED)

1. Identity of Clinicians

The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the "care", treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period – (expanded from original request) and also in the period following his death on December 1, 2025, including all staff involved in the handling of his body.

Note: Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process. Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.

It may be noted that, at 3.41pm on 20 February 2026, the VCNZ diverted my requests for assistance to a VCNZ staff member (after ignoring the totality of emails on which he had been cc'd on this matter for the preceding two months). There was, and is, still no indication that the names and titles would be provided, and it is, regardless, the legal obligation of Massey University directly to provide these. Thus, I filed this OIA to ensure the legal requirement for transparency is met.

In this regard, I note that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) – an organisation providing accreditation to Massey University – has confirmed in writing that, in the RCVS jurisdiction, veterinary surgeons are expected to provide their name to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern , and that this obligation applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice.

Thus, Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is entirely inconsistent with the international professional standard applicable to its own registered staff.

2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Seton Butler)

All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Seton Butler's dual role as a Massey University Adjunct Lecturer and his professional advisory role at the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) – and all communications of any type, relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

3. Instructional Content Authorisation

All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of "instructional content" or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part, operation, or department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, (expanded from original request) and including while his body was in Massey’s possession.

4. Pet Farewells Communications

As per previous requests: all communications (written, verbal, electronic, through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.

5. Post-Mortem Activity

As per previous requests: disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly.

NEW ITEMS AS ADDED BY THIS AMENDMENT:

6. Controlled Drugs Register

All entries in the Controlled Drugs Register maintained by Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital pursuant to the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as they relate to the dispensing, administration, or recording of any controlled or prescription substance administered to Harry Kelly during the period November 30 and December 1, 2025, or to his remains, to the date of Massey's response to this request.

7. Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail / Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)

The unredacted Field-Level Audit Log (Patient Change Log) and all associated system access logs identifying the names, position titles, and login credentials of every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, “updated” or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of Massey's response to this request.

This request specifically includes but is not limited to the metadata audit trail of the clinical records management system used by the Companion Animal Hospital.

8. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Jenny Weston)

As requested in Item 2 above regarding Seton Butler: all internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Dr Jenny Weston's dual role as Massey University Academic Program Director and her ex officio membership of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand – and all communications of any type, relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

9. ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly

The release in full of all video footage taken of Harry Kelly during his admission to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital ICU on November 30 and December 1, 2025 – and also any taken after his death .

This request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and I note that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has specifically and proactively advised me that this material is releasable under the Official Information Act and has recommended that I request it accordingly.

Massey's previous refusal to release the footage in full – including the offer of still-frame extracts in substitution for the actual footage, and the requirement that I attend the premises to view footage rather than receive it electronically - is not considered adequate compliance with my request and is not accepted.

Urgency

These items are inextricably linked to the Legal Expenditure request already in your system. The use of public funds to retain Buddle Findlay while simultaneously obstructing a regulatory process through redaction is a matter of immediate public interest. All items in this amended request are accordingly requested on an urgent basis.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

-------------------------------------------------

From: Rachel Ferguson < R.L.Ferguson@massey.ac.nz > On Behalf Of OIA Requests
Sent: Thursday, 5 March 2026 9:57 am
To: ' editor@consumeraffairswriter.com ' < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Subject: REF: 02/2026 - Request from Jordan Kelly - 13/02/2026 - Request Acknowledgement Email

Kia ora, Jordan

We acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request. The reference number for your request is 02/2026.

If we have any questions or need to seek clarification on any part of your request, we will be in touch.

Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 13 March 2026).

If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

--------------------------------------------

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Friday, 20 February 2026 4:55 PM
To: OIA Requests < oia@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: iain@vetcouncil.org.nz ; liam@vetcouncil.org.nz ; e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz ; t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz ; a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz ; s.reti@ministers.govt.nz ; n.willis@ministers.govt.nz ; enquiries@privacy.org.nz ; 'Info' < info@ombudsman.parliament.nz >
Subject: URGENT OIA/PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT: Conflict of Interest and Regulatory Obstruction

Given the discovery of new evidence regarding regulatory conflicts, I request the following under the Official Information Act 1982:

1. Identity of Clinicians:

The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the “care”, treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period. Note: Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process. Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.

It may be noted that, at 3.41pm this afternoon, the VCNZ diverted my requests for assistance to a VCNZ staff member ( after ignoring the totality of emails on which he has been cc’d on this matter for the past two months) . There is still no indication that the names and titles will be provided, and it is, regardless, the legal obligation of Massey University directly, to provide these. Thus, I am filing this OIA to ensure the legal requirement for transparency is met while his staff “does their best to assist”.

This sub-matter, but critical matter, for the proper serving of justice, should be noted in the context of the following further requests:

2. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Seton Butler): All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Seton Butler's dual role as a Massey University Adjunct Lecturer and his professional advisory role at the VCNZ.

3. Instructional Content Authorisation: All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of "instructional content" or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part / operation / department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly’s admission.

4. Pet Farewells: As per previous unresponded-to requests, all communications (written, verbal, electronic, through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly.

5. Post-Mortem Activity: As per previous unresponded-to requests, disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly.

Urgency Requested: These items are inextricably linked to the “Legal Expenditure” request already in your system. The use of public funds to hire Buddle Findlay while simultaneously obstructing a regulatory process through redaction is a matter of immediate public interest.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

-------------------------------------------

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2026 10:18 pm
To: 'OIA@massey.ac.nz' <OIA@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'team@taxpayers.org.nz' <team@taxpayers.org.nz>; 'Free Speech Union' <Team@fsu.nz>; 'commission@publicservice.govt.nz' <commission@publicservice.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Official Information Act 1982 Request: External Legal Expenditure and Engagement (Ref: Harry Kelly Matter)

I note this request is due for response by March 13. Please confirm you are on track to respond by that date.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 13 February 2026 6:22 pm
To: 'OIA@massey.ac.nz' <OIA@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'team@taxpayers.org.nz' <team@taxpayers.org.nz>; 'Free Speech Union' <Team@fsu.nz>; 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Subject: Official Information Act 1982 Request: External Legal Expenditure and Engagement (Ref: Harry Kelly Matter)

To the Registrar:

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982 , I request the following information regarding the expenditure of public funds and the engagement of external advisors in relation to the clinical and legal dispute concerning my dog, Harry Kelly (Patient Records Ref: 01_2026).

This request specifically references the email correspondence from Professor Jon Huxley (Head of School, School of Veterinary Science) dated January 30, 2026, which was carbon-copied to external legal counsel at Buddle Findlay .

Information Requested:

Total Invoiced Expenditure: The total dollar amount of all invoices received and/or paid by Massey University to Buddle Findlay, or any other external legal or strategic advisory firm, specifically for work performed in relation to the Harry Kelly matter from December 1, 2025, to the date of this request.

Unbilled Accruals and Estimates: Where a final invoice has not yet been submitted or processed, I request the total value of "work in progress" (WIP) or accrued legal costs currently held in Massey University’s financial monitoring systems for this matter.

Letters of Engagement: A copy of the formal Letter of Engagement and/or Instruction Brief(s) (written, emailed, or verbal) issued by Massey University to Buddle Findlay and any other external advisors regarding this dispute. (Note: Detailed legal strategy may be redacted under s9(2)(h), but the scope of the engagement and the fee structure are requested in the public interest of financial accountability.)

Verification of Funding Source: Disclosure of whether these legal costs are being met from the School of Veterinary Science’s operating budget, a centralised University legal fund, or an external insurance indemnity provider.

Public Interest & Transparency

There is a significant public interest in the transparency of how a government-funded institution utilises external legal resources.

As an observation of a component matter in the overall case, I note that Massey University has characterised its involvement in the final disposition of my property as a matter for which it holds "no responsibility".

It is a matter of high public interest to determine the scale of public funds being expended on external counsel to defend an institutional position of non-responsibility in the face of documented clinical malpractice.

Procedural Note

If the information requested is not held in a single consolidated invoice, I request that you search all purchase orders and internal financial authorisations associated with the Harry Kelly / Jordan Kelly case or the School of Veterinary Science’s legal spend for the current period.

I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

--------------------------------------------

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Monday, 23 February 2026 5:17 pm
To: 'Iain McLachlan' < iain@vetcouncil.org.nz >
Cc: ' enquiries@publicservice.govt.nz ' < enquiries@publicservice.govt.nz >; ' e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz ' < e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz >; ' t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz ' < t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz >; ' a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz ' < a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz >; ' s.reti@ministers.govt.nz ' < s.reti@ministers.govt.nz >; ' n.willis@ministers.govt.nz ' < n.willis@ministers.govt.nz >; ' commission@tec.govt.nz ' < commission@tec.govt.nz >; ' contact@comcom.govt.nz ' < contact@comcom.govt.nz >; ' enquiries@privacy.org.nz ' < enquiries@privacy.org.nz >; ' info@ombudsman.parliament.nz ' < info@ombudsman.parliament.nz >
Subject: RE: Official Information Act Request: Management of Conflict of Interest - Harry Kelly Matter (Now also submitted under Privacy Act 2020)

Dear Mr McLachlan

Thank you for your response.

Regarding your statement that the VCNZ is not subject to the Official Information Act (OIA), please note that the full list of information requirements detailed in my OIA request, is now formally submitted as a request under Principle 6 of the Privacy Act 2020.

As the party directly affected by these clinical events and the Council's regulatory handling, I have a statutory right to this information.

Regarding your delegation of the matter to Liam Shields (Deputy Registrar): Given his senior leadership role within the Council's professional standards and regulatory functions - and my specific identification of a structural conflict within those same functions (specifically the active academic appointment of your Primary Professional Advisor at the university currently under investigation) - delegating the review of this department’s integrity to its own leadership constitutes a further perceived conflict of interest.

Furthermore, it should be noted that I remain actively prevented from submitting formal professional conduct complaints due to the continued absence of your insistence that Massey University provides the names and position titles of all parties involved in Harry’s treatment.

To date, the Council has failed to assist in identifying these practitioners, effectively granting them immunity from your oversight - a situation neither the public nor your international peers would expect.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

------------------------------------------------

From: Iain McLachlan <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>

Sent: Monday, 23 February 2026 4:29 pm

To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Subject: Re: Official Information Act Request: Management of Conflict of Interest - Harry Kelly Matter

Dear Jordan

I confirm that we have received your email below. I have passed it on to Liam Shields and he and his team will do their best to assist you. While we are not subject to the Official Information Act, we aim to be as transparent as we can.

Kind regards

Iain McLachlan

He | Him

Kaiwhakahaere Matua me Pouroki | CEO & Registrar

Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand

P 04 473 9600 DDI 04 894 3705 W www.vetcouncil.org.nz

On 21 Feb 2026, at 10:47, editor@consumeraffairswriter.com wrote:

To: The Registrar / OIA Officer, Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ)

Request: Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information regarding the management of potential, perceived, or actual conflicts of interest in relation to all VCNZ activities, professional standards oversight, and administrative interactions concerning the clinical treatment, teaching resource utilisation, and death of Harry Kelly at Massey University, and all other aspects of the broader matter related to him and to his owner, Jordan Kelly:

Conflict Disclosure Logs: Copies of any conflict of interest declarations made by VCNZ Professional Advisor Seton Butler in relation to the School of Veterinary Science at Massey University.

Management Plans: Any formal "Conflict Management Plans" or "Recusal Records" established to ensure that Mr Butler’s role as an Adjunct Associate Professor at Massey University does not influence, or appear to influence, the VCNZ’s response to, or oversight of, the Harry Kelly matter.

Advisory Scope: Documentation defining the scope of Mr Butler’s involvement in the Harry Kelly file, including whether he has had access to case files, participated in any briefings regarding the matter, or provided clinical opinions on any aspect of Harry Kelly’s treatment or the subsequent dispute.

Policy Compliance: Records of any internal VCNZ reviews or audits conducted to ensure compliance with the VCNZ Policy Guideline on the Management of Conflict of Interests specifically regarding staff members with active secondary employment at Massey University.

Communications with External Counsel and Advisors: All records of correspondence, emails, informal communications (including text messages, WhatsApp, or other instant messaging platforms), and any logs, file notes, or summaries of phone/in-person conversations between Seton Butler (in his capacity as VCNZ Professional Advisor) and any external legal, clinical, or public relations advisors - including but not limited to the law firm Buddle Findlay, specialist veterinary consultants, or medical liability experts - concerning Jordan Kelly, Harry Kelly, or any matters arising from the handling, clinical treatment, teaching resource utilisation and subsequent death of private patient Harry Kelly at Massey University .

Statement of Purpose: This request is made in the public interest to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the regulatory oversight of veterinary standards in New Zealand.

Contextual Note (for Non-Veterinary Readers) Regarding A Conflict of Interest and the Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC):

My request for the advisory scope and recusal records of the VCNZ’s Professional Advisor is predicated on the statutory role of the CAC under the Veterinarians Act 2005.

As the CAC relies on the Professional Advisor to interpret clinical standards and "brief" the committee on the nuances of a case, any institutional entanglement between the Advisor and the entity under investigation (Massey University) would fundamentally compromise the integrity of the CAC’s deliberations.

Transparent management of this conflict is a prerequisite for public confidence in the VCNZ’s regulatory function.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly (Owner of Harry Kelly, deceased at Massey University, Companion Animal Hospital, December 1, 2025)

UPDATED: February 20, 2026

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 20 February 2026 6:10 pm
To: 'contact@comcom.govt.nz' <contact@comcom.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: ENC0024603 - Massey University

Kia ora Charlotte,

Thank you for your reply and the reference number ( ENC0024603 ).

To assist with your assessment, I am attaching the Ministerial Briefing I sent yesterday to the Ministers of Education, Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Science, and Finance.

My investigation identifies a complexity of clear and present patient-endangering failures and systemic consumer fraud.

I wish to highlight the following specific areas of Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and breaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) and Fair Trading Act (FTA) :

Misleading Representation of Clinical State: Massey staff represented a reversible, overdose-induced pharmacological collapse as a "terminal neurological failure" to induce a “euthanasia” decision. This constitutes a misleading representation of the "service" being provided and its likely outcome: CATASTROPHIC 500 - 750% OVERDOSE & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences

Unauthorised Use of Service for Instructional Purposes (CGA Breach): The patient was admitted for emergency ICU care. Evidence indicates this "service" was diverted into a research/instructional activity without my consent, and wholly for the benefit of Massey University and its training aid resources. This involved the intentional withholding of life-essential care to facilitate the filming of "teaching videos" while the patient was in a state of 750% pharmacological overdose. This is a gross breach of the CGA, as the service provided was not fit for purpose and was utilised solely for the provider's commercial gain without disclosure. PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest

Billing Fraud and Phantom Services: Clinical records and invoices demonstrate that Massey University billed for a Mila Dura Coil anti-tangling device related to IV lines, but then justified its disconnection of the patient only 8.5 hours into a prescribed 24-hour rehydration protocol (which, after their 750% overdosing of him, would have been life-essential) due to because the “line keeps tangling” (Massey’s “Clinical Summary” document). They also charged for the full 24-hour protocol, despite its permanent discontinuation so that the patient could be converted for utilisation as a training aid video subject. Massey also billed until 9pm for ICU care and monitoring despite (a) the patient being used instead for training video production purposes and receiving NO care whatsoever, (b) not being attached to any form of monitoring device for the entirely of the second day being billed for, and (c) until 9pm on the day he was handed back to the owner in a misrepresented state at approx.. 3pm and then was lethally injected at 5.45pm i.e. on the basis of the fraudulent diagnosis. Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice Demonstrates Fraudulent Killing of Harry Kelly

Redaction as Regulatory Obstruction: The University is currently redacting clinician names from the "Clinical Summary" to prevent the filing of a regulatory complaint, subverting the statutory oversight intended to protect consumers. PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest UPDATED 20.2.26: WAITING, MASSEY . . . What's Hiding In the 75 Percent of Video Footage You Refuse to Release?

Deceptive Conduct & Inseparable Breach of Bailment (Pet Farewells / Massey): Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They? The Ultimate Behind-the-Scenes, Invisible Industry: Pet Cremation

I will shortly be submitting a separate, detailed complaint regarding Pet Farewells , but it is not separable from the Massey University complaint due to Massey’s non-delegable obligations under the Contract of Bailment .

There is documented evidence of conflicting and deceptive representations:

‘Disposal Fee’ Phone Call Received: I was initially contacted with a request for a "$120 disposal fee" and told they "were told (I) didn't want Harry back" - a direct and distressing contradiction of my instructions to Massey.

Conflicting State of Arrival: Massey staff represented a specific, dignified arrangement for the transfer; however, a later slip from the provider indicated he arrived "in a bag", contrary to the professional service I was led to believe was organised.

Commercial Solicitation: Following the 'disposal' claim, the representation shifted to a demand that I “place an order and pay through the website (for my choice of vessels)”.

Industry-Wide Transparency & Verification Risk:

I am still trying to ascertain if the ashes currently with Pet Farewells are genuinely Harry's.

My inquiries to United States pet crematorium operator that also appears to operate as the international “accrediting body” suggest this “accreditation” is a marketing branding tool rather than a regulatory standard.

Given that 64% of New Zealand households include a pet, the potential for systematic deception regarding the handling and verification of remains is a matter of significant public interest and consumer protection that warrants the Commission's urgent attention.

The full index of articles I have produced on the Harry Kelly case can be found here .

Respectfully,

Jordan Kelly

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: Commerce Commission Enquiries < contact@comcom.govt.nz >
Sent: Friday, 20 February 2026 1:37 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: ENC0024603 - Massey University

Kia ora Jordan,

Thank you for contacting the Commerce Commission, Te Komihana Tauhokohoko. Your reference for this contact with us is ENC0024603 .

Your notification regarding Massey University has been logged for assessment using our complaints process and enforcement criteria . If you wish to provide more details or evidence about your situation, please feel free to do so by replying to this email.

Please note, you should not wait for our outcome to take independent action, as the Commission is unable to act on behalf of individuals or give legal advice. Your local Community Law centre can also provide free legal advice and guidance on an appropriate path.

Ngā mihi,

Charlotte

Screening and Enquiries team

Commerce Commission | Te Komihana Tauhokohoko
PO Box 2351 | Wellington 6140 | New Zealand

www.comcom.govt.nz

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 20 February 2026 4:55 pm
To: 'OIA@massey.ac.nz' <OIA@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'iain@vetcouncil.org.nz' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'liam@vetcouncil.org.nz' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz' <e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz>; 't.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz' <t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz>; 'a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz' <a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz>; 's.reti@ministers.govt.nz' <s.reti@ministers.govt.nz>; 'n.willis@ministers.govt.nz' <n.willis@ministers.govt.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>; 'Info' <info@ombudsman.parliament.nz>
Subject: URGENT OIA/PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT: Conflict of Interest and Regulatory Obstruction

Given the discovery of new evidence regarding regulatory conflicts, I request the following under the Official Information Act 1982:

Identity of Clinicians: The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff involved in the “care”, treatment, and handling in any way of Harry Kelly during the November 30 and December 1, 2025 period. Note: Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process. Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.

This sub-matter, but critical matter, for the proper serving of justice, should be noted in the context of the following further requests:

Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Seton Butler): All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Seton Butler's dual role as a Massey University Adjunct Lecturer and his professional advisory role at the VCNZ.

Instructional Content Authorisation: All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, or funding agreements related to the production of "instructional content" or clinical studies in the ICU or any other part / operation / department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly’s admission.

Pet Farewells: As per previous unresponded-to requests, all communications (written, verbal, electronic, through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly.

Post-Mortem Activity: As per previous unresponded-to requests, disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 20 February 2026 4:04 pm
To: 'e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz' <e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz>; 't.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz' <t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz>; 'a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz' <a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz>; 's.reti@ministers.govt.nz' <s.reti@ministers.govt.nz>; 'n.willis@ministers.govt.nz' <n.willis@ministers.govt.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE: Regulatory Obstruction & Conflict of Interest (Harry Kelly Case)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR MINISTERIAL ATTENTION:

This communication identifies a systemic regulatory failure involving the VCNZ and Massey University.

Massey has redacted clinicians’ names from the ‘Clinical Summary’ (supplied under the Privacy Act 2020) to physically prevent the filing of statutory VCNZ complaints, while the VCNZ’s own Professional Advisor maintains an active teaching role at the University, and also while the University is in active engagement with external lawyers in attempt of my suppression and also regarding likely required future legal defence.

Dear Mr McLachlan

In addition to having cc’d you on almost every email I have sent to Massey on this matter for the past two or more months (none of which have drawn any concern from you), I yesterday specifically emailed you (attached) to ask for you assistance to obtain the number, roles and identities of the staff implicated / involved in the abuse, false diagnosis, and coerced termination, of my dog, Harry Kelly, and indeed the entire matter ( as documented in evidence-supported, granular detail by me and of which you are well aware) and for your related assistance to submit complaints against each.

I have had nil response from you.

A s you are aware, your standard complaints process requires the naming of specific practitioners. Massey University has redacted all clinicians’ identities from Harry Kelly’s records. Their instruction in their January 30 legal threat to "use the VCNZ channel" while simultaneously withholding the identities required to open that channel is a bad-faith manoevre to grant their staff immunity from your oversight.

Action Required:

I formally request that the VCNZ exercise its statutory power to demand the unredacted clinical records from Massey University so that a proper regulatory investigation can proceed.

Conflict of Interest

I request an immediate formal statement of position on the clear Conflict of Interest regarding your Professional Advisor, Mr Seton Butler.

Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows for the disclosure of information necessary to "uphold or enforce the law“.There is no legal shield for clinician anonymity when the purpose is to subvert a statutory regulatory process.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2026 12:11 pm
To: 'e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz' < e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz >; 't.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz' < t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz >; 'a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz' < a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz >; 's.reti@ministers.govt.nz' < s.reti@ministers.govt.nz >; 'n.willis@ministers.govt.nz' < n.willis@ministers.govt.nz >
Subject: URGENT: Institutional Misconduct, Misuse of Public Funds, Record Tampering at Massey University

TO: Hon Erica Stanford (Minister of Education)

Hon Todd McClay & Hon Andrew Hoggard (Agriculture / Animal Welfare)

Hon Dr Shane Reti (Science, Innovation and Technology)

Hon Nicola Willis (Minister of Finance)

I am writing to advise you of serious misdemeanours within Massey University, and in its Companion Animal Hospital, at the highest levels.

While the information and revelations I bring to you today are that of my own very recent experience, communications I have had from the public following the commencement of the progressive publication of my investigation, would indicate that the issue is deeply systemic . . . albeit the severity of the travesty of own situation is sufficiently serious to warrant your urgent attention . (Please note that, at the same time as the publication of my revelations has flushed out other pet-owner clients’ experiences, Massey’s legal threats to obtain my silence are resulting in preventing others from now coming forward through fear of legal retribution to them also.)

Rather than compress a multi-faceted set of findings into one covering email, I will summarise the key issues in a “non-personal” manner for your convenience. A series of 30+ (many deep dive, investigative) articles can be found indexed here , with the most latest findings and/or core issues here , here and here .

Collectively, the coverage I have produced forms what might reasonably be deemed a “forensic audit” of the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital and a complexity of clear and present, highly patient and user community-endangering (clinical, administrative, and senior management) failures from, but certainly not limited to, the prioritisation of "instructional content" over patient life, the administration of a 750% pharmacological overdose, “euthanasia” coercion of a pet owner to prevent public or peer veterinary discovery, the subsequent tampering with medical records to suppress public accountability, and the redirection of substantial public funds to silence the aggrieved pet owner.

Key Findings by Portfolio

Minister for Education: Evidence of the prioritisation of "instructional content" production over the duty of care for a critical patient (made critical by ICU staff’s own repeated, catastrophic overdosing with an unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedative). This compromises the ethical integrity of the BVSc degree and the standard of clinical instruction at a Crown-funded institution. See here and here , specifically.

Minister for Agriculture & Animal Welfare: Documented denial of life-essential care during a 750% pharmacological overdose. This includes the unauthorised conversion of a suffering patient into a "teaching prop" without owner consent or knowledge, violating basic animal welfare standards and professional codes of conduct. See here and here , specifically.

Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology: Abuse of private fee-paying patients for research and instructional purposes; the intentional cessation of automated ICU data logging during a potentially fatal crisis; and the utilisation of "administrative friction" (withholding evidence and PDF-locking) to obstruct forensic verification and research integrity. See here and here , specifically.

Minister of Finance: The unauthorised use of public funds and university resources to suppress a documented indictment of institutional malfeasance. This includes the redirection of taxpayer-funded legal and administrative resources to intimidate a victim and bury evidence of gross clinical misconduct, rather than addressing the catastrophic failure of a Crown-funded entity .

Overview of Core Issues

Intentional Withdrawal of Care: The withholding of any emergency care and even the intentional cessation of life-essential rehydrating fluids to facilitate the filming of at least eight teaching videos - using the patient as a "live prop" during a severe and potentially fatal in-progress pharmacological collapse.

Catastrophic (Possibly Intentional) 750% Overdose: The administration of a catastrophic pharmacological overdose followed by a total failure to monitor the patient during the "golden window" of potential reversal.

Breach of Informed Consent: The unauthorised conversion of a private patient into a teaching asset and the failure to disclose the use of non-essential and contraindicated drugs.

Coerced Termination: The misrepresentation of a reversible, overdose-induced state as a "terminal neurological failure" to coerce a euthanasia decision - effectively liquidating both the patient and the evidence.

Evidence Tampering: The illegal (contrary to Privacy Act obligations) destruction and withholding of key information, the calculated omission of automated ICU data logs, and the delivery of redacted files in degraded, redacted, or locked formats to obstruct accountability.

Financial Fraud: Phantom billing, including but not limited to invoicing for monitoring equipment that was intentionally disconnected, and billing for ICU “care” and monitoring, post-mortem.

Misuse of Public Funds for Institutional and Individual Self-Preservation : Utilising Crown-funded legal counsel and senior management time to silence an aggrieved client and conceal a systemic ethical collapse, rather than providing the accountability required by the university's charter.

Public Disclosure Notice:

These reports and the associated evidence will shortly be released and distributed widely to the national media and to the Palmerston North community, in the interests of alerting and protecting other pets and their owners.

As the Ministers responsible for the funding and oversight of this institution, I am providing you with this briefing to ensure you are apprised of these failures before they enter, and spread widely around, the public domain.

I urge you to take swift action regarding the governance and ethical standards of this Crown-funded facility.

I look forward to your confirmation that this email has been read and that its content and disclosures will be acted upon with the clear, requisite degree of urgency.

The full audit and evidence exhibits are indexed in full here and laid out clearly as the most recent 30+ items of coverage on The Customer & The Constituent NZ .

Respectfully,

Jordan Kelly

UPDATED: February 13, 2026

The following two updates follow my receipt today, of communications relating to two of my (December 2025) information-related requests.

The first:

To the Registrar:

Information Requested:

Total Invoiced Expenditure: The total dollar amount of all invoices received and/or paid by Massey University to Buddle Findlay, or any other external legal or strategic advisory firm, specifically for work performed in relation to the Harry Kelly matter from December 1, 2025, to the date of this request.

Unbilled Accruals and Estimates: Where a final invoice has not yet been submitted or processed, I request the total value of "work in progress" (WIP) or accrued legal costs currently held in Massey University’s financial monitoring systems for this matter.

Letters of Engagement: A copy of the formal Letter of Engagement and/or Instruction Brief(s) (written, emailed, or verbal) issued by Massey University to Buddle Findlay and any other external advisors regarding this dispute. (Note: Detailed legal strategy may be redacted under s9(2)(h), but the scope of the engagement and the fee structure are requested in the public interest of financial accountability.)

Verification of Funding Source: Disclosure of whether these legal costs are being met from the School of Veterinary Science’s operating budget, a centralised University legal fund, or an external insurance indemnity provider.

Public Interest & Transparency

There is a significant public interest in the transparency of how a government-funded institution utilises external legal resources.

Procedural Note

I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

The other exchange of today's date: A .pdf containing "Standard Operating Procedure" material was received. It would be cumbersome for readers to wade through. Thus, I hereby simply reproduce my response to Massey University's Legal & Governance department - from which readers can easily ascertain the state of play:

Dear Ms Banner

The information provided in response to my OIA requests highlights a number of key issues omitted from my Privacy Act full records release request made now as far back as December 22, with specific follow-up requests by me since.

Please refer to that email to refresh your memory of the records you continue to withhold despite your legal obligation, under the Privacy Act 2020, to release them.

Your response today to my Official Information Act requests highlights additional information – some, if not all, of which should have long since been provided as part of the information encompassed by my Privacy Act request.

Specifically (and in addition to the information I still await as listed in my December 22, 2025 Privacy Act request) I require the following:

Executed Euthanasia Authorisation

The specific, completed, and signed authorisation form related to Harry Kelly. (A blank template is insufficient to satisfy a request for personal records under the Privacy Act.) Please note regarding your extremely liberal policy of redactions, there should be no reason for any redactions here.

Clinician’s Photograph

Immediately after receiving a phone call from Pet Farewells to collect a “$120 disposal fee” (when I was actually awaiting the phone call that “Steffi” had told me I could expect from Pet Farewells regarding a paw print, additional memento options, and urn/ashes container-related options), I made an urgent and horrified phone call to the Companion Animal “Hospital”.

While “SteffI” did not at any time during this phone call directly address the issue of how I came to receive a phone call that indicated Harry’s ashes had been “disposed of”, nor why the Pet Farewells staff member had been told that I “didn’t want Harry back” nor who told them that, she sought to placate me by telling me the trouble she had apparently gone to, to lay him out in accordance with my wishes, and said that she had taken a photo of him laid out accordingly.

I require the original digital file (including metadata) of the photograph mentioned by this clinician. As this was taken during the course of professional duties regarding a patient's final disposition, it constitutes a hospital record.

Third-Party Communication

I have already long since and several times requested all records of communication (verbal file notes, emails, digital portal entries, forms, and written correspondence) between the hospital and the third-party service provider regarding Harry). I have received nothing.

These are part of the records you are legally obligated under the Privacy Act to release to me.

Additionally and very specifically, I require the electronic "Order" produced for the pet cremation company, Pet Farewells, with all instructions from your organisation to that service provider, showing clearly for my reference.

Whiteboard and Pathology Records

At no time would I have consented to Harry’s body being “post-mortemed” in any way or to any degree. This would have been more than clear to your staff, as were my repeated instructions – both in writing, on forms, and verbally – across the years i.e . that Harry was never to be used in any way as a teaching aid or training tool (alive OR dead).

I therefore seek to know if he was, contrary to my wishes, utilised in this manner. Specifically, I note that the Pet Farewells staff member (in the above-mentioned phone call) referred to him as having been “picked up with all the other post-mortens” and received “in a bag” (as opposed to the “burrito’d in his blanket with his toys” claim by “Steffi” and as per the photograph she supposedly took supposedly confirms).

To be clear, and for the avoidance of your further avoidance regarding providing clear, straight and transparent information and answers to my questions:

I seek explicit confirmation as to whether any form of post-mortem examination or teaching dissection was conducted upon Harry, and if there was – albeit in direct contravention of my explicit wishes – I require the full description of the process that was conducted and the resulting Pathology Request Form and report.

Electronic Audit Trail

With regard to the relevant step in the Standard Operating Procedure sheet you have provided, I require the time-stamped ezyvet log showing whether or not a staff member selected any “disposal” option and when this action occurred, particularly to identify why the apparently associated "Awaiting owner instruction" hold status was bypassed.

Your Itemised Confirmation of Information Provision Compliance Is Required

I am aware of – and continue to be concerned by – the fact that, in situations such as those relating to my pet, Harry, the power and knowledge imbalance between pet owner vs clinician and clinic, is often significant, is often opportunised, and is sometimes weaponised. Specifically, it can be used to obscure issues – whether procedural mistakes or intentional wrongdoings.

Thus, to ensure your co-operation in ensuring against the deployment of this strategy in the case of Harry Kelly (my pet) and myself (his owner), I request that you specifically confirm that you have responded fully to this particular section of my OIA request (please insert your response to each item underneath that item):

Appendix A: Jordan Kelly OIA request and subsequent clarifications

1. Deceased Animal Transfer Protocols (Standard Operating Procedures)

Please provide a copy of the current Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), policy document, or internal staff guidelines that govern the release, transfer, and final disposition of deceased animals from the CAH to any external provider.

You have not provided these as they relate to my dog, Harry Kelly.

Specifically, I request the sections of these documents that detail:

• The specific verification protocol required before an animal’s remains/ashes are designated as "Not for Return to Owner". I require the SOP that dictates how staff must confirm and document an owner's explicit instruction to waive their right to/interest in the remains;

• As part of my request for ALL communications, in any form, between Massey and Pet Farewells, I specifically require the communication between Massey personnel and Pet Farewells staff or management in relation to Harry Kelly, in order to ascertain how it came to be that Pet Farewells staff were told that I “didn’t want Harry back” i.e. when they called me for a “$120 disposal fee”.

• The procedure for recording and transmitting requests for ancillary services or memorials (e.g., paw prints, fur clippings, or "return of ashes" mementos) and how these instructions are communicated to the external provider or to trigger their contact with the owner;

As part of my request for ALL communications, in any form, between Massey and Pet Farewells, I specifically require the communication between Massey personnel and Pet Farewells staff or management in relation to Harry Kelly, which – I was told by “Steffi” – would involve me receiving a phone call to discuss paw print and other memento options. No such phone call was ever received; only the above-mentioned phone call to seek a “disposal fee”. To be clear, I am NOT inviting a reiteration of Dean Jon Huxley’s previous correspondence advising that Pet Farewells is not your regular contractor and therefore it’s not your problem and nothing to do with Massey. I am asking very specifically for the communications between the two organisations relating to this (and to all other aspects of) this matter.

• The procedure for recording and transmitting owner instructions to external providers, specifically how "Return of Remains" vs. "Non-Return" instructions are flagged in the system to prevent unauthorised disposal;

As above, the specific communications – including the electronic form submissions and any paperwork, as well as emails and verbal communications – relating to Harry Kelly’s case.

• The required documentation to be completed prior to uplift (e.g., Transfer of Custody forms, identifying tags, or service instruction sheets) to ensure the provider knows exactly which service is required, including the mandatory sign-off required for any "No Return" designation;

As above, the specific communications – including the electronic form submissions and any paperwork, as well as emails and verbal communications – relating to Harry Kelly’s case.

The protocols for verifying that an external provider is approved or authorised to handle deceased patients, covering ALL disposition types including (but that might not be limited to): Individual Cremation (return of ashes);

Mass Disposal / Communal Cremation / Rendering;

Clinical or Biological Waste Disposal.

Refinement of Scope (received 7/01/2026):

The requested Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), policy documents, and internal guidelines must include any and all protocols governing the physical release and transfer of custody of deceased patients from the CAH to ANY third party.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• Contracted or regular vendors;

• One-off or "ad hoc" service providers;

• Entities collecting remains for biological/clinical waste or rendering;

• Individual third parties or owner-authorised agents.

I await your response to each of the issues, information requests and questions contained herein, which – given the already protracted and continuing delays associated with the release of information to me – should be provided to me by Close of Business on Monday, February 16, 2026.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Ref: My previous information-release requests (i.e. for information still largely being withheld, specifically in the case of the Privacy Act request): (as can also be viewed here, along with yet other information requests still unresponded to or unsatisfied) https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/waiting-massey-privacy-act-official-information-act-requests-to-masseys-vet-hospital (Meantime, for an overview of the broader issue to which these information requests relate: https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/this-is-what-happens-when-massey-thinks-they-own-your-dog-you-just-pay-the-invoice

______________________________

To date, Massey has released only a small portion of what the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 information-release provisions legally obligate it to, and none of what its Official Information Act requirements mandate.

The Request Log: Seeking Accountability for Harry Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2026 2:26 am
To: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>; 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Ms Mullan

. . . .

More importantly – and for the avoidance of further evasiveness and "cat and mouse" games – to be clear yet again: the two videos provided represent only a fraction of the footage recorded during Harry’s time in the ICU.

To fulfil the records request and meet the 3:18pm deadline today, please provide a secure download link containing the remaining six videos, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings.

An educational and highly resourced institution like Massey University is well-equipped to apply simple and readily available pixelation technology to obscure the staff and other patients you purport to be the reason for your refusal to release these files.

Having reviewed the (flattened PDF) "records" you emailed yesterday afternoon, I very strongly suspect that these six videos depict the repeated, unnecessary, totally-unrelated-to-his-reason-for-admission, invasive, and cruel examinations you subjected Harry to frequently throughout the night – clearly for teaching value but certainly not for his benefit – e.g., glaucoma, retinal detachment, dental assessments and so on and so on, repeatedly, all through the night.

These six withheld videos also likely confirm the glaring clinical contradictions that are now evident in your records.

While these vulnerabilities might provide you with the motivation to continue to evade their release ( especially when obscuring the identity of those conducting these experiments is so easily achieved ), the knowledge of what you are seeking to obscure – or to "explain away" via a one-time, supervised viewing – only, conversely, provides me with the motivation to ensure these missing videos are seen by the independent experts I have engaged.

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Sent: Monday, 26 January 2026 4:44 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com ; Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Subject: RE: URGENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Kia ora Ms Kelly

As noted here are the PDF files we sent via the link on the 14 ^th . The clinical summary, change log and detailed statements. The two videos that accompanied these files are just under 40 megabytes (29, 174 and 10, 250 respectively). I am not sure how much capacity your inbox has but I can attempt to send these individually if that assists – as regards our system, the 29 megabyte file is above our recommended 25 megabyte limit but I can attempt to send it that way if you wish.

Best Regards, Frances Mulla n

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Monday, 26 January 2026 3:18 pm
To: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' < iain@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'Liam Shields' < liam@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'Seton Butler' < seton@vetcouncil.org.nz >; enquiries@privacy.org.nz
Subject: URGENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Ms Mullan:

I am in receipt of your email of 10.53am today.

I assure you the fact that I have not clicked the link to download your supplied information is in no way a reflection of any dissipation of interest at my end. There is a very good reason for the fact that I have not downloaded the materials yet. However, I am in no way obligated to disclose this to you. Your obligation, on the other hand, is to keep it live and functional until I am ready to do so.

Further, as I have already laid out in my formal request under Privacy Act Principle 6 , I require that when it IS accessed from this end, that it contains the metadata and auditing logs that accompany ALL entries, so that any posthumous or other untimely additions, deletions or changes are transparent. In the meantime, I require that you fulfil your offer to send the clinical records, invoices, and “change records” via email immediately. This is in addition to, not in place of , the maintained digital link.

Regarding your specific mention of "change records", I require that you urgently itemise:

Every area in which the records have been changed;
What the original record stated;
What the record was subsequently changed to, and
The specific reason for that change in each individual instance.

This includes those that I will see by virtue of auditing logs, and any others you have made that are not transparent.

I am well aware that the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct (Standard 2.1) establishes clear, enforceable expectations for professional behaviour.

Specifically that section of the Code includes, as a key component of that expectation, the VCNZ’s clear, enforceable expectations for comprehensive, detailed explanatory notes – the unedited provision of which is then required in law by the New Zealand Privacy Act Principle 6 – Access to Personal Information.

Further, and back to the VCNZ Code, veterinarians must adhere to the Code, and compliance is mandatory for registration and holding a practicing certificate.

As these records serve as the benchmark for evaluating behaviour, integrity, and adherence to legal and ethical requirements (with their requirement to maintain a secure and unalterable audit trail), any retrospective "retrofitting" of the veterinarian’s narrative to align with a defensive strategy – through whatever means I am able to ascertain this i.e. as admitted by you or otherwise – will be treated as a wilful and illegal corruption of the clinical record under Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020. To ensure your knowledge is current: Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020 defines specific criminal offences regarding personal information, with penalties of up to $10,000 for breaches. It covers:

Destruction of Documents: Intentionally destroying documents containing personal information after a request for that information has been made. This can be taken to relate to the intentional alteration of any part of the original and true record.

Given that you were included as recipients of my media statements on December 23, 2025, and January 9, 2026, the timing of any such alterations will be under intense forensic and other forms of scrutiny available to me either currently or in the future i.e. given that I had given you transparency of my baseline of knowledge of certain (but not all) of the key aspects of the facts surrounding Harry’s killing i.e. as they were known to me as of that date.

I draw your attention again to Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020 , which makes it an offence to alter or destroy information after an access request has been made. Given that you were included as recipients of my media statements on December 23, 2025, and January 9, 2026, any retrospective "retrofitting" of the veterinarian’s narrative to align with a defensive strategy will be identified through the metadata and treated as a wilful and illegal corruption of the clinical record.

Regarding your condition that I must return to ANY PART of the Massey environment:

Your environment – having been the stage for massive and multiple instances of malpractice against my deeply loved dog, Harry, and the veterinarian's multiple-angled and deep deception to coerce me into allowing her (and even requiring my own coerced participation in an act of violence against him) to achieve her orchestrated plan for his unnecessary death, thereby eliminating his living presence as evidence of the malpractices – is clearly an environment that, in its totality is emotionally untenable for me to come anywhere near. Accompanied or otherwise.

The other reasons – which I posit are the primary underlying drivers for your attempts to enforce a controlled viewing on me – almost certainly include:

(a) Your need to control the perception of what will be seen in the suspiciously large number of videos taken of Harry;

(b) The one-time nature of the viewing with no ability to conduct any freeze-frame analyses of it, and

(c) The fact that you would be very aware how difficult it would be for me to have my independent analysts accompany me when none of us live anywhere near Palmerston North.

Under Section 56 of the Privacy Act 2020, an agency must provide information in the manner preferred by the individual.

As provided previously, and for the reinforcement of your edification:

The Manner of Access: Section 56(1) of the Privacy Act holds that the agency must give that access in the manner preferred by the individual.

Meantime, Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020 creates criminal offences related to interfering with personal information.

Key aspects of Section 212 Offences include:

Altering/Destroying Records: It is an offence to destroy, alter, or conceal any document containing personal information, or to cause it to be altered or destroyed, knowing that a request for that information has been made.
Penalty: Individuals convicted under this section are liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000. The Act’s specific use of the clarifier, “individuals”, is well worth noting here. ( As is the fact that I am a tenacious investigative journalist by profession, whose sources are not limited to those that you condescend to provide to me.)

Your Strategic But Ill-Advised Use of the Term, ‘Edit’

I specifically take exception to your use of the term "edit" (implying the deletion or clipping of footage), as opposed to "redact" or "pixelate".

Your attempt to paint me into a corner whereby my refusal to enter your untenably traumatic environment provides you with a pretext to permanently destroy the integrity of the clinical record through "clipping and deleting" is a bogus excuse.

Any "clipping" of footage will be treated as a wilful obstruction of my right to access a complete and uncorrupted record – and I will do all in my power to see that the Act’s Section 212 consequences to the individuals concerned are pressed for.

Meantime, the release of these videos (or your refusal to do so) is the subject of a formal complaint I have composed to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I have refrained – with knowledge of the glacial pace of your correspondence performance – from hitting Send on this complaint to the OPC, in order to give you a period of grace to respond to my email of Thursday, 15 January 2026, 7:48 pm, objecting to your strategy and the related restricted access.

I will give you until 24 hours from the timestamp of this email to you today to advise of your intention to release these videos to me, before I proceed with the submission of my ready-to-go formal complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

*A copy of this correspondence is being provided to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for inclusion in the formal complaint file pending my 24-hour deadline.*

To be 100% clear on this matter: I will not have my access, or the access of the independent parties who require it, restricted in a manner that precludes proper forensic analysis . I consider this my final word on the matter of access format and will not be drawn into further delays by responding to circular correspondence attempts from your end.

Finally, Ms. Mullan, and "for the avoidance of doubt" (a phrase with which your Legal and Governance department no doubt have an affinity for the use thereof themselves), I will leave you with the following concrete and lasting assurances:

If your strategy in sending this VCNZ-cc'd email to me is an attempt to signal to them that you have "played your part" and I am either "running out of steam" or the ability to mount a solid case for my intended formal complaint to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, you are very sorrowfully mistaken in those attempts. I trust that when the time comes (very shortly), the Council will demonstrate the professional objectivity and transparency that Harry’s case, and the public interest, will demand.

If your own assumption is actually that I am becoming overwhelmed and fatigued at the prospect of coming up against the brick walls and formidable resources of the University in exposing its management, the Companion Animal Hospital, and the “veterinarian” that oversaw and fronted the plan for the gross deception that led to me consenting to, and even physically participating in, the killing of my dog – then you would be well advised to be, to the contrary, apprised of:

(a) The depth of my protective instinct over my dog ( even posthumously and even despite your refusal to oversee the return of his ashes to me );

(b) My lengthy background both as a deep-research journalist and industry-intelligence consultant;

(c) My degree of personal and professional tenacity, and

(d) My personal and professional commitment to ensure that, to the best of my ability, no such degree of multiple malpractice instances and related deceptions, with their lethal and irreversible consequences, ever befall any other pet owner that entrusts their pet to the Massey institution.

With regard to your repeatedly, mercilessly and opportunistically draining every cent I possessed, and then some, amounting to multiple tens of thousands of dollars over multiple years, under the pretences of "caring" for Harry: Your final move was the opportunistic optimisation of "line items" in one last $1,200 invoice for the 15 hours of hellish and unspeakably cruel and torturous malpractice you subjected him to – a failure you then attempted to obscure with a $45 "euthanasia" injection.

I am not able to change the irreversible, fatal consequences upon Harry of your callous conduct and your related calculated plans. Nor of their horrific and lasting impacts also upon me, his loving and devoted (and despicably deceived by you) owner.

However, as a minimum moral and enduring obligation on my part, it is now incumbent upon me to devote the rest of my life to ensuring against such a travesty ever being visited upon my fellow "pet parents", here in New Zealand or in any other country. I hereby assure you of the thoroughness and sustained diligence with which I will execute this moral duty.

For your necessary edification:

"Moral" refers to principles, standards, or habits that distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. It describes actions that align with commonly accepted rules of goodness, honesty, and ethics.

I encourage you to distribute the above concept to those among your University’s and Companion Animal “Hospital’s” staff for whom it is clearly a decidedly foreign concept.

I await the prompt arrival of the emailed records (with all metadata and audit logs intact), with the required disclosures re the “change records” to which you refer (in each instance thereof), and the release to me of the six remaining videos of my precious (and resultantly, deceased) dog, Harry, whilst in your “care”.

Sincerely,

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Sent: Monday, 26 January 2026 10:53 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com ; Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: Iain McLachlan < iain@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'Liam Shields' < liam@vetcouncil.org.nz >; Seton Butler < seton@vetcouncil.org.nz >
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

Kia ora Ms Kelly

I have reconfirmed that we are unable to redact the footage we have currently withheld as it was recorded on a cell phone. The only editing we can do is therefore to clip and delete the footage that records university staff and other clinic patients. We do not wish to make such changes however without first giving you the opportunity to view the footage prior to the edits being made.

As you have indicated a preference to not return to the Companion Hospital, I am happy to arrange a time for you to view the footage here at our offices in the Refectory Building or another location on campus of your choosing (other than the veterinary school or Companion Hospital). You are welcome to bring whomever you wish to view the footage with you

Furthermore, our records indicate you have not downloaded either the clinical records (including invoices and change records) or the two video recordings of Harry Kelly we were able to make available without editing, sent to you on the 14 ^th of January. We sent you a link for downloading these records due to the size of the files (primarily the video footage) rendering us unable to forward by email. If you would prefer, I can send the clinical records, invoices, and change records also by email.

I await your response on viewing the footage prior to editing and email versions of records previously sent via a link for downloading.

Best regards

Frances Mullan

Governance and Assurance Office

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2026 4:17 am
To: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>; 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Subject: URGENT: VISUAL EVIDENCE OF CRUELTY AND ILL-TREATMENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Ms Mullan

I have now accessed the download link provided, and I have viewed the videos titled “circling” and “testing of vestibulo-ocular reflexes”.

Regarding the reflex video, I am profoundly disturbed by what I have witnessed.

The footage captures a cruelly harsh, vice-like grip – with each finger of the harshly gripping hand complete with fingernails clearly driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp – as his eyes are forced open for the camera.

The sheer terror in Harry’s eyes as he is manhandled and paraded around for display makes for appalling watching.

It is clear from this recording that Harry was being utilised as a teaching model for the benefit of an audience, rather than being treated as a private, fee-paying patient in crisis and deserving of dignity and harm minimisation.

If this clenching, fingernails-included restraint represents the standard of care for a “premier” teaching hospital, it is a matter of grave concern.

Furthermore, the video titled “circling” shows Harry moving at significant speed. This physical vitality directly contradicts the institutional narrative of a vegetative or collapsed patient.

Further still, this occasional behaviour (when disoriented, as he would have been when separated from me and being blind) – i.e., circling in disorientation – was a known clinical baseline for Harry following the onset of his vestibular syndrome on Easter Sunday, 2024. To characterise this familiar, chronic state as a sudden, terminal neurological collapse is a significant clinical misrepresentation.

These recordings only heighten the necessity of my unrestricted access to the full, unedited record of the EIGHT videos you have admitted to taking . The two videos provided represent only a fraction of Harry’s time in the ICU. As I have stated multiple times now, an institution as highly resourced as Massey University is well-equipped to easily apply standard pixelation technology to address the privacy concerns you purport to be the reason for withholding this majority proportion of the footage.

I continue to demand the immediate release of the remaining six videos, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings, to ensure a transparent and independent review of Harry’s “care”.

The 3:18 PM deadline today remains unchanged with reinforced non-negotiability after viewing these two videos – and especially the vice-like gripping for “vestibular testing” of my clearly terrified little dog.

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2026 7:48 pm
To: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' < iain@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'Liam Shields' < liam@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'Seton Butler' < seton@vetcouncil.org.nz >
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

Dear Ms Mullan

I am sending this initial response prior to having had the opportunity to review the materials in the data depository to which you have sent me a link. This email deals specifically with your ongoing refusal to provide digital access to 75% of the video records you hold of Harry.

Regarding the six videos you are currently withholding: I do not accept being restricted to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing as a valid form of access.

I consider restricting me to such a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing, to be a calculated manoeuvre that is emotionally and psychologically manipulative, cunning, and totally unacceptable.

It is intended to prevent independent forensic scrutiny and to shield your clinical decisions and actions from outside oversight.

Legal Breach (Privacy Act Section 58)

According to Section 58 of the Privacy Act 2020 , if an individual has a right to access information, the agency must provide that information in the manner preferred by the individual (e.g. as a digital copy), unless doing so would:

Prejudice the interests of others;
Be contrary to a legal duty; or
Impair "efficient administration”.

Your "privacy" excuse is a calculated manoeuvre to avoid your statutory duty. As a major University with significant technical resources, performing standard digital redactions (pixelation) – which would therefore avoid any risk of “prejudicing the interests of others” – is a basic administrative task and does not constitute an "unreasonable" burden or "impair efficient administration".

Refusing to provide the files in my preferred digital format simply to prevent me from having a copy, is a breach of the Act .

Calculated Obstruction of Expert Scrutiny

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing makes a professional clinical audit logistically impossible.

I reserve my right to seek a second, independent expert opinion – a right I was actively denied while Harry was alive, and a move that forced me into an irreversible decision under duress.

By limiting my access to the information in question to strictly that which can be performed at your own premises, you are ensuring no outside expert can review the footage, shielding your staff from forensic scrutiny.

Secondary Victimisation and Coercion

I consider restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative and cunning.

It is a form of secondary victimisation, requiring me to immerse myself in the very environment in which I was coerced – under what the facts clearly indicate were false pretences – into allowing your staff to terminate my dog's life.

The Necessity of Forensic Review

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing is useless for a clinical investigation.

Both I and independent experts require digital copies to rewind, freeze-frame, and properly examine the clinical interventions during the less than 24 hours Harry spent in your “care” – and during which his condition changed in the most extreme manner imaginable (based, as I now know) on unnecessary and owner-unauthorised pharmaceutical intervention.

This restriction is a transparent tactic to obfuscate the truth.

Continuity of Access to the Data Depository

Regarding the materials you have already provided via a link: please ensure this link remains live with the records fully accessible until such time as I formally advise you – in writing – that my investigation, clinical audits, and all related legal or regulatory proceedings are concluded.

Any premature termination of access will be viewed as a further act of obstruction.

Meantime, I require the redacted digital files of all eight videos. I look forward to receiving them by Friday, January 23, 2026 .

In the meantime, please ensure your future correspondences address me more formally as Ms Kelly. Anyone who has any part in the coercion of a pet’s owner related to the pre-meditated clinical killing of that pet under false pretences – or the after-the-fact cover-up thereof – is not a party with whom I consider myself to be on first name terms.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2026 11:27 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Subject: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026

Kia ora, Jordan

Please see attached the university’s response to your privacy request. Due to the size of the files being supplied our letter includes a link for you to click to download/access the material covered in our response.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

From: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2026 5:25 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com ; Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: Vet Clinic < VetClinic@massey.ac.nz >; Pauline Nijman < P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz >; Jon Huxley < J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz >; kevin.bryant@vets.org.nz
Subject: RE: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

Kia ora, Jordan

We acknowledge receipt of your request. The reference number for your request is 01/2026.

If we have any questions or need to seek clarification on any part of your request, we will be in touch.

Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 11 February 2026). If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.

The response date shown takes into account:

1. Christmas Day (25 December 2025)

2. Boxing Day (26 December 2025)

3. Summer Holiday (27 December to 15 January 2026)

4. New Years Day (1 January 2026)

5. Waitangi Day (6/2/2026)

Notwithstanding the formal deadline for our response listed above, I note the clinics response to you on the 6 ^th of January regarding the collation of the clinical records for Harry Kelly. I can confirm our office received the clinic’s files this afternoon. We will need some time to review and although I believe it is unlikely we will be able to respond tomorrow we will do best to respond as soon as possible. Please note from hereon in, our office will be communicating with you directly regarding the fulfilment of your request.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Friday, 26 December 2025 5:14 pm
To: Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: Vet Clinic < VetClinic@massey.ac.nz >; Pauline Nijman < P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz >; Jon Huxley < J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz >; kevin.bryant@vets.org.nz
Subject: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

Privacy Officer:

The below request for the clinical records of Harry Kelly (originally sent Dec. 22) should have been addressed directly to your office.

Please confirm receipt and ensure the statutory 20-working-day clock is being monitored.

Regarding the integrity of these records: I require the full digital export, including the system's Metadata and Audit Logs ( showing the date, time, and user ID for every entry and any subsequent modifications ).

I am well aware that modern veterinary practice management software tracks all "edit" history and deletions. I expect the records provided to be the original, unedited entries as they existed at the time of Harry's care. Any discrepancies between the nursing logs and the clinical summaries will be noted and the subject of further action.

I look forward to your timely (and, I hope, ethical) co-operation.

Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Monday, 22 December 2025 9:05 pm
To: 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' < vethospital@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Subject: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

To the Practice Manager:

I am writing to formally request a complete copy of the clinical records for my dog, Harry Kelly, who was a long-term patient at your facility.

Please provide a full digital export of his entire file, to include:

All clinical and veterinary notes.

All time-stamped nursing logs and hourly monitoring charts (including his final admission in the ICU).

Medication administration records (MAR).

All internal and external communication logs regarding his care.

All records of communication and co-ordination with third-party service providers (specifically Pet Farewells) regarding the handling and release of remains, and the specific instructions given to related parties.

Diagnostic results and imaging reports.

Furthermore, I note that I was not provided with any invoice or itemised breakdown for the final sets of charges (Nov. 30 and Dec. 1). I was merely presented with an EFTPOS machine without any explanation of the cost componentry.

I am requesting these formal tax invoices now. Please note that the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct instructs practices to provide full transparency with regard to costs and charges.

I would appreciate all records being provided in chronological order as a PDF export for my personal archives and permanent records.

As the owner/guardian and the party responsible for the account, I am making this request pursuant to my rights under the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

Thank you in advance for your timely co-operation as required both by the Privacy Act and by the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct.

Request 1: The Integrity of Clinical Records & Comprehensive Metadata

Legal Basis: Privacy Act 2020 (Principle 6).

The Demand: A full digital export of all clinical notes, nursing logs, and communication archives. Crucially, this includes the digital metadata and audit logs for every entry. This data is required to establish the exact dosages and precise timestamps for all pharmaceuticals administered—metadata that will determine whether the "neurological state" used to justify the recommendation for euthanasia was a clinical reality or a transient sedative effect from the substantial pharmaceuticals administered (without consent and without disclosure) that same day.

Status: PENDING. Despite a written commitment from Hospital Management on January 6 to provide these records "by the end of the week," the University has since retracted that promise, shunting the request to the central Privacy Office. As of this publication, the University continues to withhold the data that would clarify Harry's final neurological baseline.

Request 2: ICU & Consulting Room CCTV (Ref. 02/2026)

Legal Basis: Privacy Act 2020 / OIA 1982.

The Specific Demand: The immediate preservation and release of all ICU ward footage from November 30 to December 1, 2025.

The preservation of Consulting Room footage from the afternoon of December 1. This evidence is vital to document the patient’s physical motor function and his strength in responding to his owner in the moments before the attending clinician insisted the patient's condition was irredeemable.

Status: Refused. Claimed "Overwritten".

ICU Footage & Videos :

Acknowledged that EIGHT videos exist of Harry. However, ONLY TWO are to be released to me. Regarding the other SIX, I am allowed only a one-time, controlled environment viewing of these. That is, to be clear, the viewing of this footage that represents 75 percent of the available video footage, must be conducted at the Companion Animal Hospital itself, or not at all.

And as above, all ICU and consulting room footage has been "overwritten".

Request 3: OIA on Transfer Protocols & Vendor Payments

Legal Basis: Official Information Act 1982.

The Demand: Disclosure of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) governing the transfer of deceased remains and a financial audit of all payments made by the University to the external provider, NZ Pet Cremate Ltd trading as Pet Farewells ( the pet cremation company who first claimed to have been told "I didn't want Harry back" and called me for a "disposal fee", then - upon my horrified reaction - suddenly "found" his ashes , and all entities of which Gavin or Lyn Shepherd are directors or shareholders or similarly associated, over the preceding 24 months. This request seeks to uncover the systemic failures that allowed a patient's remains and personal property to be handled in such a profoundly irresponsible manner. (NB: Having despatched Harry's body to this operator and upon my subsequent advice of this distressing debacle, Massey advised "no responsibility" and nil interest in the matter.)

For the Record:

Request Served: Friday,, December 26, 2025.

Read Receipt Confirmed: Monday, 5 Jan 2026, 7.52am (The University’s first business hour of the year), but it took Massey's Legal & Governance Department until January 16 to formally acknowledge the request, with the "20 working day" clock only set going at that belated stage, and with two public holidays included to push the advised timeframe out still further.

(NB: It should be noted that the information i.e. regarding Deceased Patient Transfer Protocols should not be something anyone at any "international standard" veterinary institution has to go deep-diving to dig out. If they do, that’s a major red flag issue for a major government-funded teaching hospital producing New Zealand's next generation of veterinarians.)

_____________________________________________________

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2026 7:48 pm
To: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

Dear Ms Mullan

Regarding the six videos you are currently withholding: I do not accept being restricted to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing as a valid form of access.

It is intended to prevent independent forensic scrutiny and to shield your clinical decisions and actions from outside oversight.

The Legal Breach (Privacy Act Section 58)

Prejudice the interests of others;
Be contrary to a legal duty; or
Impair "efficient administration”.

Calculated Obstruction of Expert Scrutiny

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing makes a professional clinical audit logistically impossible.

I reserve my right to seek a second, independent expert opinion – a right I was actively denied while Harry was alive, and a move that forced me into an irreversible decision under duress.

Secondary Victimisation and Coercion

I consider restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative and cunning.

The Necessity of Forensic Review

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing is useless for a clinical investigation.

This restriction is a transparent tactic to obfuscate the truth.

Continuity of Access to the Data Depository

Any premature termination of access will be viewed as a further act of obstruction.

Meantime, I require the redacted digital files of all eight videos. I look forward to receiving them by Friday, January 23, 2026 .

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly (Ms)

Kia ora, Jordan

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

_______________________________

Kia ora, Jordan

We acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request. The reference number for your request is 95/2025.

If we have any questions or need to seek clarification on any part of your request, we will be in touch.

Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 13 February 2026).

The response date shown takes into account:

Summer holidays (25 December to 15 January)
Waitangi Day (6 February 2026)

If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Friday, 26 December 2025 6:08 pm
To: OIA Requests < oia@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Official Information Act 1982 Request: CAH Deceased Patient Transfer Protocols and Vendor Payments

To the Registrar / Governance and Assurance Team:

As a long-term client of the Companion Animal Hospital (CAH), I request the following information under the Official Information Act 1982.

Please acknowledge receipt of this request by return email.

1. Deceased Animal Transfer Protocols (Standard Operating Procedures)

Please provide a copy of the current Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), policy document, or internal staff guidelines that govern the release, transfer, and final disposition of deceased animals from the CAH to any external provider.

Specifically, I request the sections of these documents that detail:

The specific verification protocol required before an animal’s remains/ashes are designated as "Not for Return to Owner". I require the SOP that dictates how staff must confirm and document an owner's explicit instruction to waive their right to/interest in the remains;

The procedure for recording and transmitting requests for ancillary services or memorials (e.g., paw prints, fur clippings, or "return of ashes" mementos) and how these instructions are communicated to the external provider or to trigger their contact with the owner;

The procedure for recording and transmitting owner instructions to external providers, specifically how "Return of Remains" vs. "Non-Return" instructions are flagged in the system to prevent unauthorised disposal;

The required documentation to be completed prior to uplift (e.g., Transfer of Custody forms, identifying tags, or service instruction sheets) to ensure the provider knows exactly which service is required, including the mandatory sign-off required for any "No Return" designation;

The protocols for verifying that an external provider is approved or authorised to handle deceased patients, covering ALL disposition types including (but that might not be limited to):
Individual Cremation (return of ashes);
Mass Disposal / Communal Cremation / Rendering;
Clinical or Biological Waste Disposal.

2. Vendor Payments & Financial Relationship

Please provide the total dollar amount of invoices paid by Massey University over the past 24 months to the following entities for services of any kind (including, but not limited to, cremation, biological waste disposal, cadaver transport, or rendering services):

The entity trading as "Pet Farewells";
Gavin Shepherd and/or Lyn Shepherd (as individuals or sole traders);
Any limited liability company of which Gavin Shepherd or Lyn Shepherd is/are listed as a Director or Shareholder.

Additionally, please provide the total dollar amount paid to:

Any other external entity engaged by the CAH to provide services related to the uplift, collection, transportation, management, storage, cremation, or final disposition of:
Deceased companion animals;
Post-mortem (necropsy) subjects;
Animal carcasses or biological/clinical waste.

Note: If specific dollar amounts are withheld for commercial reasons, I strictly request confirmation of the existence of the vendor relationship and the general nature of the services provided.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly

FOLLOW THE MONEY: The Compromised Veterinary Regulatory & Accreditation 'System'

Sun, 08 Mar 2026 12:01:56 GMT

Hidden in Plain Sight:
Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin

Each year, Massey University and its veterinary faculty draws – through the students it pulls in from countries all around the world and most especially from its increasingly pivotal Asian and Southeast Asian marketplaces – large (almost bottomless) buckets of funding from government scholarship and student loan agencies.

Some of these are short on veterinarians and have almost no other option but to staff their countries’ veterinary clinics with Massey graduates. It’s a lucrative scenario indeed for Massey and its management (whose immediate past Vice-Chancellor, Jan Thomas, was in 2021/22 reported as earning a healthy annual salary of NZD 586,000).

But do these geographically removed recipients of Massey’s supposedly gold standard educational standards know what they’re really getting when they hire a Massey vet school grad?

Do they know of the sort of practices that apparently form acceptable operating principles within the walls of its Veterinary Teaching “Hospital” aka “Companion Animal Hospital”?

Do they know, for example, that the “school” is about to be investigated by the Animal Welfare Inspectorate of New Zealand’s Ministry of Primary Industries at the instruction of the Ministry’s Director General?

That’s no mean feat. With universities historically treated as the quintessential “law unto themselves” in New Zealand public service culture, readers might want to consider just how bad things have to be before a Ministry will actually break the unspoken “hands-off code” and step in to find out what the hell is going on with the way Massey treats its private fee-paying clients’ pets.

(For the record, the Inspectorate’s Team Manager – Compliance Analysis and Co-ordination Animal Welfare, is on the case, and has added the Police filing (OR-2484821N) regarding Massey veterinary staff’s breaches of Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) and the formal complaint to the New Zealand Law Society against Veterinary Council CEO Iain McLachlan, to its case files. )

New VC's Window of Opportunity to Be the Clean-Sweeping New Broom . . . MISSED

Massey’s management recently switched at the top: Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas handed over to new blood, Pierre Venter, who hails from a research and scientific background in New Zealand’s high-profile dairy industry.

But does Venter represent the much-needed “new broom” approach . . . or is he just a new broom to sweep the old dirt under the institutional rug? Read my experience of him here . . . . and note that no , there was not only nil response, but instead an apparent upscaling of the moral filth and cover-up to which my Open Letter to the Vice-Chancellor pertains.

Any of the many items of coverage I’ve produced here on The Customer & The Constituent are evidence not only of the malpractice, malfeasance, clinical cruelty and deceit that saw the demise of my own precious pet and the ongoing resultant traumatisation of the human involved in it (me) . . . but also of the obviously ingrained, institutionally systemic nature of the rot .

The new VC had the ideal moment, albeit a short one, to spot that rot and turn things around forthwith. But – as you’ll read here – he chose to support his deans in the intimidation-over-integrity approach.

It’s a shame, because Pierre Venter was pretty clearly brought in to achieve what his predecessor couldn’t i.e. a turn-around in Massey’s substantial, and substantially publicised, financial woes, with the Tertiary Education Commission classifying the institution as “high risk” for its financial management, a 20 percent decline in domestic students between 2021 and 2024 (perhaps they know something the overseas student markets don’t), the reduction of over 500 courses, and the elimination of more than 60 science roles back in 2023.

Notwithstanding Massey’s urgent and ongoing need for a financial recovery plan, the markets into which it shovels large numbers of its graduates each year still deserve veterinarians not only trained in competent, rightful and honorable principles of veterinary medicine and “care”, but also graduates imbued with functioning ethics . . . which, according both to my experience and the systemic behaviour it has uncovered, is currently an area in which Massey is substantially challenged -at the senior academic level and at the level of the Veterinary Teaching “Hospital” and a concerning proportion of its individual staff.

What Massey's Triple Accreditation Is Actually Worth . . . And to Whom

These geographically-removed importers of Massey veterinary graduates are entirely reliant on one thing to be sure of the standards their own veterinary sectors are resultantly being built upon: the regulators and the accrediting agencies.

Massey holds simultaneous accreditation from all three bodies: the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education (AVMA COE) in the United States, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) in the UK, and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), covering Australia and New Zealand.

What does that actually buy Massey? In blunt commercial terms: everything .

Because of that accreditation, Massey graduates can practice not only in New Zealand, but without additional or jurisdiction-specific qualifications in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, South Africa, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

In markets that are chronically short of veterinarians - and Malaysia, for instance, has been formally identified by its own government as still significantly short of vets - a Massey degree is not just an education. It is a passport to markets that have few other options.

International students pay between NZD 350,000 and NZD 400,000 (BEFORE still-substantial additional and, in New Zealand, particularly substantial living expenses) for that five-year degree passport.

Financially speaking, Massey’s veterinary school is a load-bearing part of the institution. No wonder the Tertiary Education Commission didn’t want to know when I reported any of my experiences – including the Crimes Act breaches for records falsification – to them.

Strip the accreditation, or place it under probation, and the international enrolment pipeline — and with it Massey's entire financial recovery strategy — collapses.

That’s what's at stake. For Massey.

What's At Stake for the Accreditors

But this shouldn’t be about Massey. It should be about the animals and the pet owners . . . and the “care” and ethics they’re going to be paying for, when they entrust their pets to a Massey-qualified veterinarian. Which, according to my experience and what I’ve had reported to me by those scared of the legal threats I myself don’t actually give a stuff about, is not who you want to be entrusting your precious pets to. At all. Not if you want any guarantees they won’t be catastrophically sedated without cause with contraindicated drugs for use in student training videos and then presented back to you for apparently immediately required “euthanasia” – under the guise of a supposedly overnight “neurological decline”.

So who’s meant to make sure an institution like Massey doesn’t operate in this manner and do this sort of thing with its fee-paying clients’ pets? Who’s meant to be making sure it doesn’t need to be investigated – as it apparently does – by our Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare inspectorate, under order of the Ministry’s Director General?

Well, according to my correspondence (published further down in this article) with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) , no-one in that organisation, at least.

I’m now waiting to see how the other two accrediting agencies in question – the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) (RCVS) and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) – respond to the similar correspondence I’ve sent to them. I’ll be publishing that, too, and then all the stakeholders in this rather disturbing picture will get a direct window into what’s really going on . . . who cares, who doesn’t, and who intends to do what (if anything) about it.

Now let’s take a moment to follow the money flow from the other direction.

The AVMA Council of Education (COE) confirms in its own published policies that accredited institutions pay an annual administrative fee to the AVMA, plus all costs associated with site visits. The exact figures are not publicly disclosed — a point worth noting in itself — but the structure is unambiguous:

Massey pays to be accredited. Every year. So, the AVMA has a direct financial interest in retaining Massey as an accredited client.

I haven’t been able to confirm whether the same applies to the RCVS and the AVBC – but it would be a reasonable assumption. Over to anyone with the appetite to dig further into that for the specifics. (If any reader finds a verifiable figure and wants me to add it here, please send it in.)

The Singapore Problem: Why the Financial Stakes Just Got Much Higher

In November 2024, Massey University opened a branch campus in Singapore in partnership with PSB Academy. This Singapore campus is the centrepiece of Massey's plan to have had 5000 offshore students enrolled by 2026, and was hailed by Massey's then-Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas as a key plank of the university's international expansion and financial recovery strategy.

On March 6, i.e. Friday of last week, I formally notified the Singapore Veterinary Association, Singapore's national parks veterinary registry, and its SPCA, of the documented records falsification and malpractice at Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital.

They were not the only ones. I have also notified the Malaysian Veterinary Council and Director of Veterinary Services, the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong, the Nanjing Agricultural University, and the Chinese Ministry of Education - all of them accreditation-dependent markets for Massey graduates, and all of them now formally on notice.

If Massey hasn’t notified these organisations of the MPI's intended formal animal welfare investigation it certainly should have.

It’s in the AVMA rules, for example. If the accreditors, their joint venture partners and other stakeholders in its primary graduate markets are finding out about it here for the first time, Massey has even further explaining to do when it comes to its ethics and its ability – or inability – to follow the rules.

That omission in itself would constitute a powerful – and powerfully negative – statement.

The Regulator That Is NOT Independent of What It Regulates

Closer to home, the financial and institutional entanglement is not abstract. It’s structural and it’s got some specific names attached to it.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) is the domestic regulatory body charged with investigating complaints against Massey veterinary staff. It’s the body to which Massey's own Dean of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley, directed me as my only “allowed (by him)” option when threatening me with legal action for publishing my evidence.

By the way, for an institution plagued with big-time money problems, the funds they’re shoveling in their high-profile national law firm’s – Buddle Findlay’s – direction would, I’m pretty sure, not be insignificant. It’s just a pity the Dean’s scary letter cc’d to the Buddles Findlay didn’t do the trick with me. And that nor will it.

EVER. I’m not just a pissed-off pet owner (or WAS a pet owner before Massey's “veterinarians” got their hands on my precious pet, who they clearly didn’t view as being as precious as I did). I’ve been an investigative writer and reporter of the truth for a very long career to date . . . and maybe Massey should have done as much checking on my background before they did what they did to my pet, as their expensive legal counsel has done since.

What Dean Huxley knew, and what I subsequently documented, is this:

One of the VCNZ's seven Council members (ex officio) is the Academic Program Director of the undergraduate veterinary program at Massey University - one Dr Jenny Weston. She sits simultaneously on the body that would assess complaints about Massey's veterinary staff, and on Massey's own academic leadership.

Weston represents New Zealand on the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee (VSAAC) - the very body that accredits schools in Australia and New Zealand. It’s a closed loop . The person responsible for the "quality" of the Massey degree is the same person who sits on the Council that would "assure the public" if that quality fails.

Under the Veterinarians Act 2005 , the VCNZ is structured to ensure that the only veterinary school in the country has a permanent, guaranteed voice in how the profession is regulated. No Election Required: the Massey Academic Lead has a reserved seat as an institutional proxy for Massey University and its Veterinary Teaching Hospital i.e. on the body that’s supposed to independently audit Massey University and its Veterinary Teaching Hospital.

You see the problem.

Meantime, the VCNZ's Professional Advisor - the person who advises the Council on professional standards, including in complaints matters - is one Dr Seton Butler. Dr Butler is a Massey University graduate who taught at Massey as an adjunct lecturer at the School of Veterinary Science, before taking the VCNZ advisory role. He is simultaneously a director of Panacea, a veterinary practice management software business with commercial interests in the veterinary sector he advises on.

You see the problem.

Fun Fact: Of particular interest to me since my discovery of Massey vets’ falsification of my dog, Harry’s, records both pre- and post the death they were determined for him to have, has been the whole integrity of clinical and medical records issue. On which note, I have just finished reading a piece Butler wrote for the industry journal, Vetscript, back in May 2020 in which he opines how important correct clinical records are: “Clinical Records Under the Microscope”, Vetscript, May 2020 . Such a pity he never instilled his values in Massey's staff while he had the ready opportunity to do so.

But the AVMA Doesn't See All this Head-Spinning Conflict of Interest As A Problem. At All.

It’s a "Conflict of Interest" (COI) map that SHOULD make any U.S. or UK regulator’s head spin. In the U.S., under CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) and U.S. Department of Education standards, "institutional integrity" requires a clear separation between the regulator and the regulated.

The American Veterinary Medical Association’s Standard 1 (Organisation) is being utterly mocked by this structure . . . that is, the one the author of the AVMA's response to my concerns said weren’t concerns for her. Read on.

Meantime, the VCNZ's CEO and Registrar is Iain McLachlan, a practising lawyer registered with the New Zealand Law Society.

McLachlan is currently under formal investigation by the Law Society - initiated by a complaint I lodged - for his conduct in relation to the Harry Kelly matter, including the VCNZ's non-facilitation of my complaint and the non-disclosure of its multiple conflicts of interest with Massey (including allowing me to unknowingly cc Dr Seton Butler in on all my emails to him, McLachlan, while I was still sufficiently naïve as to believe the VCNZ would act as the industry regulator it is mandated to act as).

Moving to the complaints mechanism itself . . . which contains a structural trap: Under New Zealand law, VCNZ complaints can only be lodged against individually named, registered veterinarians .

But Massey has redacted the names of the individuals involved in Harry's case from the records it has released. The VCNZ could , but will not, compel disclosure of those names.

You cannot lodge a complaint against someone whose name you are not permitted to know.

No names. No complaint. No accountability. By design.

Dean Huxley knew exactly what he was directing me towards when he told me to take my concerns to the VCNZ and nowhere else.

What Has Actually Happened . . . and What Hasn't

Here is what has happened since I began documenting the atrocities surrounding the abuse and demise of my dog, Harry Kelly (and the stink-ridden, broad-scale, multiple-party cover-up thereof) at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025:

New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has formally tasked its Animal Welfare team with investigating conduct at Massey's veterinary hospital.

A police report has been filed under Sections 258 and 260 of the Crimes Act 1961 for the falsification of clinical records. Victim Support has been engaged.

The VCNZ's CEO is under Law Society investigation.

The veterinary regulatory bodies of Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China have been formally notified – by me.

The AVMA, RCVS, and AVBC have all received formal third-party disclosures – from me.

Here is what hasn't happened:

The AVMA responded to my detailed, documented, section-by-section disclosure with 93 dismissive little words, telling me that my citations "do not align" specifically with their Policies and Procedures Manual - a claim that the 4,000-word response I sent back has comprehensively dismantled (and the compilation of which required me to study the specific clauses and associated specific wording in the AVMA's 207-page Accreditation Policies and Procedures document. Dry stuff.)

That response (printed in the email exchange hereunder), and this article, are now part of the permanent public record.

Meantime, Down Under, the AVBC has not acknowledged any of the multiple disclosures I have sent over past weeks.

The RCVS has responded in an interim manner.

I am assuming that none of them have told Massey's Asian partner institutions, joint-venture partners, or graduate licensing jurisdictions that they have received documented evidence of clinical record falsification and a government-level animal welfare investigation at the institution they accredit.

It should be noted, that each of these three accrediting bodies has certainly known for many weeks about every component of this whole murky picture (because I've told them, in detail), except, possibly, for the impending Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Inspectorate’s investigation.

Read It and Weep

What follows is the correspondence that has put all of them formally on notice.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2026 8:15 pm
To: 'Dr. Samantha Morello' <smorello@avma.org>; 'COE' <COE@avma.org>; 'generalcounsel@avma.org' <generalcounsel@avma.org>
C c: 'admin@avbc.asn.au' <admin@avbc.asn.au>; 'aslppu@ed.gov' <aslppu@ed.gov>; 'oig.hotline@ed.gov' <oig.hotline@ed.gov>; 'president@chea.org' <president@chea.org>; 'ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov' <ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov>; 'oig.hotline@ed.gov' <oig.hotline@ed.gov>; 'ceo@avbc.asn.au' <ceo@avbc.asn.au>; 'aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov' <aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov>; 'Registrar' <Registrar@rcvs.org.uk>
Subject: RE: AVMA Response of 7 March 2026 (and the procedural failure it has now created)

Dear Dr Morello

I have read your below, March 7th, 93-word dismissal of my correspondence and my multiple items of cross-referenced and detailed evidence.

I have also read, in detail, the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Council on Education (COE) 207-page Accreditation Policies and Procedures manual, per your link and as you appeared to have required me to do (albeit you appear to have read nothing of my correspondence or referred evidence as sent to you).

You advised me that my disclosure "does not align specifically" with your Policies and Procedures, offering this 207-page document by way of explanation.

Those 207 pages represent a more instructive document than you may have intended. They are also a document which, with all due respect, you may wish to re-acquaint / acquaint yourself with at your earliest opportunity . . . because what I will take the time and care to lay out for you here is a precise accounting of where, in fact, we do align.

Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Team to Investigate Massey’s Veterinary Teaching ‘Hospital’ (aka Companion Animal ‘Hospital’)

Before I do so, however, I note for the formal record of every party copied on this correspondence that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) has confirmed in writing that its Animal Welfare team has been formally tasked with investigating conduct at Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital as a result of my documented evidence. That is, to be clear, the same documented evidence I have already presented to yourself, Dr Morello, as AVMA’s Associate Director, Education & Research.

I have been advised by the Animal Welfare team’s national leader to expect communication shortly from the assigned regional investigators.

The MPI's Animal Welfare Act mandate covers the very conduct I have documented: the administration of substances to animals in ways that cause unnecessary suffering, the practice of cruelty and endangerment (including intentional) of life (e.g. in order to conduct experiments and invasive practices upon a client’s overdosed and IV-disconnected pet) and, generally, the treatment of animals in a manner inconsistent with their welfare.

The fact that New Zealand's primary agricultural and animal welfare regulatory authority has independently determined that the conduct at Massey warrants formal investigation is not a peripheral detail. It is a statement-in-action, from a respected government ministry, that the threshold for institutional intervention has already been reached - by a body with no connection to, or interest in, my personal situation.

On What Your Own Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual States - and Massey University’s Multiple Points of Contravention

Section 1.1 of your Policies and Procedures is unambiguous: accreditation "assures the public and licensing bodies that graduates of accredited programs meet a defined level of competency."

Section 1.2.2 states that the COE is "fully dedicated to protecting the rights of the students ... and assuring the public that accredited programs provide a quality education."

Your document also sets out the formal mandate of the AVMA COE. The COE is charged to "meet the needs of society by promoting active programs in veterinary medical education by, among other things, encouraging and assisting schools and colleges of veterinary medicine to meet the requirements for accreditation." Section 1.2.4 states that " it is vital that the accreditation process is conducted in a manner of utmost integrity."

I am the public.

This is what I have provided you with documented evidence of, at an institution whose graduates your organisation assures me are competent:

The deliberate, repeated administration of a renally contraindicated sedative at 750% of the indicated therapeutic threshold (to him) to a 3.8kg, 15-year-old, renally compromised patient - as documented in detail here: CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey - including two administrations within 26 minutes of each other, by which point the consequences of the first were already a clinical certainty, not an unknown risk. The third administration, at 09:00 hours the following morning - by the day-shift veterinarian who arrived to find this patient in the state the night shift had produced - requires no characterisation from me. The metadata speaks to the decision-making, and the metadata has already been provided to you: MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED – and to the New Zealand Police. ( Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 - Altering document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) .

The utilisation of this catastrophically over-sedated, IV-fluid-deprived patient as an institutional teaching specimen: a calculated act of property conversion under New Zealand common law (Bailment), and one that constitutes multiple instances of animal cruelty under Section 12 of the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 - which mandates that any person in charge of an animal must take reasonable steps to alleviate pain or distress. Instead, Massey ICU staff and students filmed this massively over-sedated patient on at least eight occasions, including on personal cell phones, subjecting him to forced physical manoeuvres, vice-like cephalic restraint, and dramatic and dangerous one-handed overhead suspension while in a state of pharmacological collapse - all while withholding the emergency corrective care his condition demanded, and while his life-essential IV fluids remained deliberately disconnected to facilitate that utilisation (and even stayed permanently disconnected thereafter). This is documented in detail, including (sanitised) photographic evidence from Massey's own records: ( UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It and The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. Repeated Unrelated, Invasive 'Observational' Tests .

The subsequent alteration of those clinical metadata records, for which a formal police report has now been filed under Section 258 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 (Altering a document with intent to deceive ): MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

The presentation (and misrepresentation) to me, the owner, of my dog's catastrophically over-sedated condition as an overnight "neurological decline" - a fabricated diagnosis, the forensic dismantling of which is documented here: NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences - used to coerce my consent to his immediate “euthanasia” (which cannot be rightfully deemed “euthanasia” because it was a clinical life termination under false pretences), thereby destroying the primary body of evidence.

The totality of the above - the “pharmacological” decisions, the conversion of a client’s property and the associated multiple acts of severe animal cruelty, the record falsification, the false diagnosis, the coerced life termination - is not the result of a series of unfortunate errors. It is a documented sequence of decisions, each made with full knowledge of what had preceded it. I note that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has reached a sufficiently similar conclusion to have tasked its Animal Welfare team with a formal investigation.

I anticipate you may prepare to invoke the language in Section 1.7.3 i.e. that limits the COE's jurisdiction to matters that are "of a continuing or pervasive nature, as opposed to an unfair or arbitrary act of an individual or an act isolated in nature." I will hereby address that directly . . . and at some length, because the breadth of what your own document requires, and what Massey is currently failing to deliver, warrants it.

I am not alleging a single act by a single veterinarian. That goes well beyond any need for “allegation” and clearly applies to multiple thereof. I am alleging an institutional pattern: deliberate and repeated pharmacological decisions resulting in the clearly INTENDED death of a patient, followed by multiple acts of multiple student-involvement in direct contravention of animal welfare laws, by falsification of records as the institutional response, followed by the deployment of external legal counsel to suppress disclosure by the owner. This sequence did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred in an active teaching hospital, in front of students who are being trained in clinical practice. What is modelled in that environment is, by definition, what is being taught.

In this article specifically - CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey - I document in detail, some of the many breaches of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct that students not only had modelled for them, but were expected to participate in, as this intentionally lethally debilitated dog was utilised as a live training aid and ghoulishly filmed on cell phones. Please refer to the section of the article under this subheading, Personal & Professional Liability of Staff and Students , for the details.

The Standards Your Own Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual Requires - and Massey's Performance Against Each

Standard 4: Clinical Resources

Your Standard 4 states that "medical records must be comprehensive and maintained in an effective retrieval system to efficiently support the teaching, research, and service programs of the college. Students must actively participate in the use of an electronic medical records system within a clinical setting during the care of patients."

At Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital, students are certainly “actively participating” in an electronic medical records system - but one in which the records have been subsequently altered to conceal the sequence of decisions that gave rise to a police complaint under Section 258 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961. The students are, therefore, being educated in record management that has been formally identified as potentially criminal: MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

I would further note that Standard 4 requires client-owned animals to be receiving "veterinary medical care" – which is indeed what their owners are paying richly for . The evidence I have published documents that the patient admitted for rehydration was instead subjected to at least eight video recordings, repeated invasive procedures unrelated to his admission diagnosis, and the deliberate withholding of his life-essential IV fluids to facilitate his use as a teaching specimen: The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. repeated, unrelated, invasive and objectively severely cruel “observational” tests . That is not "veterinary medical care". It is the conversion of a paying client's animal into institutional property - a matter that is also the subject of formal complaints under New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020, for which 75% of the predatory and opportunistic video footage taken of this patient remains withheld: UPDATED 20.2.26: WAITING, MASSEY . . . What's Hiding In the 75 Percent of Video Footage You Refuse to Release? (Note: This article is about to be updated with the addition of further breaches.)

Standard 6: Students

Your Standard 6 states that "the program must be able to demonstrate, using its outcomes assessment data, that the resources are sufficient to achieve the stated educational goals for all veterinary students engaged in its programs."

The outcome data I have provided is itself outcomes assessment data. It demonstrates that the resources at Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital are not producing the educational goals your Standards require.

They are producing their inverse.

I would be interested to understand whether this data has been incorporated into Massey's outcomes assessment reporting to you, or whether it has been omitted. Given that I have documented evidence of record alteration, and given that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has independently determined that the conduct at Massey warrants formal animal welfare investigation, the latter would not surprise me. It would, however, constitute precisely the category of conduct covered by Section 2.5.2 of your own Policies and Procedures i.e. that states accreditation may be withdrawn if “provides incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the Council.”

Standard 8: Faculty

Your Standard 8 states that "instruction in the pre-clinical and clinical setting must be delivered by faculty who have education, training, expertise, professional development, or a combination thereof, appropriate for the subject matter."

I have published a detailed analysis - drawing on expert contributed commentary - of the decisions made by Massey's ICU veterinarian, the attending “neurologist”, and the Dean of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley: ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous ?

The question raised by that analysis - and which I now formally put to you - is whether faculty whose decisions result in the repeated 750% pharmacological over-sedation of a patient, and whose institutional response to the subsequent disclosure is legal intimidation rather than clinical review, meet your Standard 8 requirement of "education, training, expertise ... appropriate for the subject matter ."

For your information, the nature of that legal intimidation is documented here: Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me

Your document further states that "the dean and other administrative officers should be knowledgeable in the definitions of the various levels of accreditation status and the impact of the failure to meet one or more of the Standards." The written communications from Dean Huxley's office that I have published suggest that this threshold is also not being met - a matter of some relevance given that it is Dean Huxley who is responsible for the institution's compliance with the Standards you are declining to investigate.

Standard 9: Curriculum

Your Standard 9 requires the curriculum to provide students with "opportunities to learn how to acquire information from clients (e.g. history) and about patients (e.g. medical records), to obtain, store and retrieve such information, and to communicate effectively with clients and colleagues." It further requires "opportunities throughout the curriculum for students to gain an understanding of professional ethical, legal , economic, and regulatory principles related to the delivery of veterinary medical services ."

What Massey students are currently being shown, with regard to client communication, is this:

Massively and repeatedly (including 26 minutes apart) overdose a paying client’s pet for the express convenience of ICU night staff ( Massey Vet Teaching Hospital ICU: Where Empathy Goes to Die ), double down on it yet again the next morning for the purpose of converting the client’s pet for the utilisation of Massey for “teaching” videos by students , tell the owner their animal has suffered a sudden neurological decline. Do not disclose the fact of the sedation. Do not disclose that IV fluids were disconnected . Do not offer a second opinion or any alternative to immediate euthanasia - the denial of which is itself a breach of international best practice standards, as documented here: The Criticality of ALWAYS Obtaining A Second (& Third) Opinion Before Agreeing to 'Euthanase' Your Pet . Present the animal for immediate lethal injection on the basis of that false account: NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences .

This is the "communication with clients" and "professional ethical and legal principles" being modelled in Massey's veterinary “teaching” hospital. I invite you to assess its alignment with you Standard 9 - and I note again that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries, in formally tasking its Animal Welfare team with investigating this conduct, has obviously reached its own assessment.

Standard 11: Outcomes Assessment

Your Standard 11 requires that graduates demonstrate competency in record management (Competency 1 ), anaesthesia and pain management and patient welfare (Competency 3 ), emergency and intensive care case management (Competency 6), and ethical and professional conduct (Competency 8 ).

(To elaborate on Competency 8 - ethical and professional conduct, including the knowledge, skills, and core professional attributes needed to provide culturally competent veterinary care in a multidimensional society; communication skills; including those that demonstrate an understanding and sensitivity to how each individual’s circumstances impact veterinary care – it should be noted that the pet’s owner had multiple times expressed to the “veterinarian” that she (the owner) was acutely sleep-deprived and not in a position to make a decision of such irreversible gravity on the day; the fact of the sleep deprived state even being documented by the preceding veterinarian in the patient’s intake notes).

The full catalogue of breaches across each of these competencies - including the multiple breaches of New Zealand's own Veterinary Code of Professional Conduct - is documented here: Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital Commits Multiple Breaches of New Zealand's Veterinary Code (And More)

At Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital, each of these competencies is currently being modelled in direct violation of what your Standard requires. These are not isolated acts. These acts, practices, policies and modus operandi are being modelled by senior veterinarians and teaching staff as part of the students’ curriculum, and are being overseen by the Practice Manager, the Dean of the Veterinary School, and the Dean of Veterinary Education.

Standard 1: Organisation

Your Standard 1 requires that the officers responsible for "the professional, ethical, and academic affairs of the veterinary medical teaching hospital" carry "overall budgetary and supervisory authority necessary to assure compliance with accreditation standards."

Massey University’s documented institutional response to these matters has been legal threats against the person who reported them. That is what "supervisory authority to assure compliance" looks like at this institution. I seek your comment on how that satisfies Standard 1 in your assessment.

Standard 1 also requires that "any secondary employment or activities must be approved and monitored by the parent institution and must not conflict with the CEO/dean's commitment to, or the interests of, the college." Your Appendix D - Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest - sets out in detail the conflict of interest obligations that apply to COE members and site visitors. I note that your document states "the Council must conform to the AVMA Conflict of Interest Policy at all times, not just during site visits," and that "no member of the COE who has an identified conflict of interest shall participate in any way in accrediting decisions."

I ask whether the AVMA holds its accredited institutions to equivalent conflict of interest standards - because the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ), which is the domestic regulatory body charged with investigating complaints against Massey veterinary staff - has multiple cross-organisational relationships with Massey University at its most senior academic and advisory levels. I have documented these in detail here: (UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest . The short version is this: the body charged with independently regulating Massey is not, in any meaningful sense, independent of Massey. When a complaint is lodged with the regulator, the university and the regulator are, at senior levels, effectively the same institution in different hats – and at the same time. This is a structural failure of Standard 1's organisational integrity requirements - and it is directly relevant to your accreditation of this institution, since there is no functional complaints system either within Massey or outside of it as concerns the national industry’s regulator.

On the Procedural Failure Your Response Has Now Created

Section 1.7.3 of your own Policies and Procedures states:

"Any written complaint by a third party (individual such as faculty, staff, public, or organisation) relating to an accredited college of veterinary medicine will be received by staff, who will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within seven (7) working days. AVMA staff will make a preliminary investigation of the initial complaint and report to the COE Executive Committee within 30 days."*

My original correspondence was by a member of the public, alleging that an accredited college of veterinary medicine is not in compliance with the Standards of Accreditation. It met your definition precisely.

But your response did not acknowledge it as a formal complaint under Section 1.7.3. It did not initiate a preliminary investigation. It did not indicate referral to the COE Executive Committee. It referred me to a site visit in 2028 and a link to a 207-page document.

Section 1.7.3 does not provide for that substitution. The mandatory complaint procedure exists independently of any site visit schedule. The 30-day Executive Committee referral is not at your discretion. The word your document uses is " will ".

I would also draw your attention to Section 2.3.2 of your Policies and Procedures, which provides for a focused site visit that "can be ... initiated by the COE based upon the contents of the college's annual interim report or third party (faculty, student, or public ) comment , or other applicable information (as determined by the COE)."

My disclosure constitutes third-party public comment of precisely the type your Section 2.3.2 contemplates as grounds for a focused site visit . The 2028 comprehensive site visit is entirely beside the point.

I would further draw your attention to Section 2.5.2 , which provides that accreditation may be administratively withdrawn where a college "makes misrepresentations or engages in misleading conduct in connection with consideration of the College's status by the Council , or in public statements concerning the College's approval status," or "provides incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the Council." The alteration of clinical metadata records - for which a police report has been filed - is precisely the category of conduct Section 2.5.2 describes.

Whether Massey has provided complete, accurate, and non-misleading information to you in its accreditation reporting is now a question I formally put on record.

Section 2.5.5 provides that the Council may reconsider and alter the classification of a college when "conditions affecting compliance with one or more Standards have deteriorated sufficiently so that the college fails to meet one or more of the Standard requirements."

I have provided evidence that conditions at Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital meet that threshold across multiple Standards simultaneously . New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has obviously reached sufficient independent agreement with that assessment to have formally tasked its Animal Welfare team with an investigation.

Section 2.5.8 states that the COE "monitors programs throughout the accreditation cycle via annual reports, third party comment , and site visits" and "will respond to any program not meeting the Standards." I have provided third-party comment. I am waiting for the response your own document mandates.

Finally, Section 3.2.6 provides that "a college that has one or more major deficiencies in one or more Standards will be placed on Probationary Accreditation. Major deficiencies have more than minimal impact on student learning or safety."

Deliberate and repeated, lethal levels of pharmacological over-sedation of a patient, followed by falsification of clinical records, followed by institutional suppression of the disclosure - across Standards 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 simultaneously - constitute major deficiencies with more than minimal impact on both student learning and patient safety. That is the Probationary Accreditation threshold, stated in your own document. It is also, as I have noted, the threshold that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has independently determined warrants formal regulatory investigation under its Animal Welfare Act mandate.

On Your U.S. Federal Mandate

This entire situation is now compounded by your obligations under your own country’s Federal law.

As a Federally-recognised accreditor, the AVMA COE operates under 34 CFR § 602.19, which requires that an accrediting agency demonstrate it "has, and effectively applies, monitoring and evaluation approaches that enable the agency to identify problems with an institution's or program's continued compliance with agency standards."

And under 34 CFR § 602.23(c)(1), the agency must "review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner any complaint it receives against an accredited institution or program that is related to the agency's standards or procedures."

Referring a complaint about active criminal record falsification to a 2028 calendar entry satisfies neither of those requirements. I am ensuring that the U.S. Department of Education Accreditation Group and the Office of Inspector General, both of whom are copied on this correspondence, have a formal record of that fact.

I also note that accreditation under the AVMA COE is a condition of Massey University students' eligibility for U.S. Health Profession Student Loans, as your Section 1.1 confirms. Any institution that maintains accredited status while its clinical staff falsify records and its administration deploys legal counsel to suppress that fact is one whose accreditation is being used to facilitate access to US federal funds on a fraudulent basis. That is a matter for the Office of Inspector General, and I have ensured they are aware of it.

What I Require

I am formally restating this as a complaint under Section 1.7.3 , and I require written confirmation of the following:

1. That this complaint has been formally logged under Section 1.7.3;
2. That a preliminary investigation will be conducted and reported to the COE Executive Committee within 30 days of this communication;
3. That I will be informed of the status of the complaint, as your own procedures require, and
4. That the COE will advise whether it intends to initiate a focused site visit under Section 2.3.2, given that this disclosure constitutes precisely the category of third-party public comment your document identifies as grounds for one.

This correspondence, and your response or lack thereof, will be published on the website of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) as a case study in the conduct of international accreditation bodies when presented with documented evidence of institutional misconduct.

Yours sincerely
Jordan Kelly
Editor & Reviewer-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ
New Zealand

From: Dr. Samantha Morello < smorello@avma.org >
Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2026 4:17 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com ; COE < COE@avma.org >; generalcounsel@avma.org
Cc: admin@avbc.asn.au
Subject: RE: External: FORMAL DISCLOSURE: Breach of Accreditation Standards 1 & 11 - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Jordan,

This is to confirm receipt of your email and to inform you that there is no upcoming scheduled site visit for Massey University. Massey University is not scheduled to receive a site visit from the AVMA Council on Education until 2028. Information about future site visit dates for all accredited veterinary schools is available publicly from our website:

https://www.avma.org/education/center-for-veterinary-accreditation/accredited-veterinary-colleges

Additionally, the items cited in your email do not align specifically with the AVMA Council on Education’s Policies and Procedures, including referenced aspects of Standards of Accreditation. The Councils policies and procedures are available here:

https://www.avma.org/education/center-for-veterinary-accreditation/accreditation-policies-and-procedures-avma-council-education-coe

Thank you,

Samantha L. Morello, DVM, DACVS-LA

Associate Director, Education & Research
American Veterinary Medical Association

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:28 PM
To: Dr. Samantha Morello < smorello@avma.org >; Dr. Karen Brandt < KBrandt@avma.org >; COE < COE@avma.org >; generalcounsel@avma.org
Cc: admin@avbc.asn.au ; aslppu@ed.gov
Subject: External: FORMAL DISCLOSURE: Breach of Accreditation Standards 1 & 11 - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Members of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Council on Education (COE):

I am formally submitting this as a Third-Party Comment to be included in the permanent accreditation file for Massey University’s upcoming site visit.

While I am the directly affected party in the abuse and death of my pet by Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital (aka Companion Animal “Hospital”), I am submitting this disclosure as a Formal Third-Party Comment regarding Massey University’s systemic failure to meet the AVMA Council on Education (COE) Policies and Procedures’ Standards of Accreditation : You are now on notice of institutional record falsification and also of the other associated matters outlined in my coverage of the matter - representing multiple material breaches of your clinical and ethical, and also of your governance, standards.

Standard 1: Organisation - Paragraph 1.1 (Organisation) The University must ensure the "integrity of the program". Falsified records represent a total failure of organisational integrity.

Standard 11: Outcomes - Paragraph 11.3.1 (Clinical Competency) Graduates must demonstrate clinical competency. A 750% overdose (let alone repeated overdoses thereof) as a "teaching standard" is a failure of educational outcomes.

Third-Party Comments - Section 14.6 (Third-Party Comments) That is, the specific rule that requires the AVMA’s COE to solicit and review comments from "interested stakeholders" regarding a school's compliance.

I have provided highly detailed, supported-by-documentation evidence of systemic record falsification (Breach of Standard 1: Organisation) and lethal teaching standards involving 750% overdosings (Breach of Standard 11: Outcomes Assessment).

If the COE chooses to re-accredit Massey without investigating these specific, documented breaches, it does so with full knowledge of the data provided here: THE KILLING OF HARRY KELLY

A Case Study In A Lethal Dose of Malpractice & Malfeasance By Massey University’s Companion Animal 'Hospital' (and that I have already provided to you, it should be further noted).

I am thus providing this Final Notice to ensure it is a matter of statutory record that the American Veterinary Medical Association has been provided with detailed evidence of clinical record falsification and systemic malpractice at Massey University. Again, I am formally submitting this as a Third-Party Comment to be included in Massey’s upcoming accreditation site visit file.

This notification, and your response (or lack thereof) will be published and appear permanently on the currently-in-progress website of the new international pet owner advocacy organisation, the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) . (Please note: this website is not yet complete; the formal launch of IIIVE is scheduled for June this year.)

The purpose of the publication of this notice to the AVMA will be to assist the legal counsel representing any pet owners whose animals have been harmed by Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital (aka Companion Animal Hospital) OR ANY OF ITS GRADUATES IN ANY JURISDICTION, by providing proof that both Massey and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) – as the accrediting body of that institution and its veterinary facility – were fully informed of these breaches of your Accreditation Standards.

It is my understanding that, upon your next on-site audit (which, actually and ethically, should now be immediately, following these disclosures to you), your auditing-and-accreditation team must refer to the information I am hereby (and that I have already) provided.

Further, it is my understanding that if the individuals on that audit team do not do so and do not act appropriately in accordance with their associated findings, that these individuals become personally and professionally liable for any future deaths or significant harms caused by Massey graduates.

Given the gravely serious nature of what is clearly evidenced in the coverage and materials I have sent you, and the clear breach of accreditation standards, should you choose to continue to remain silent with regard to your own legal and moral obligations as a recognised accrediting agency, then your right to accredit the school is hereby contested.

It is my understanding that the AVMA is recognised by the U.S. Department of Education and has a legal, statutory duty to ensure the schools you accredit are not engaging in fraudulent activity. Yet, I have provided you with evidence that one of them is i.e. Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital and School. Your ignoring evidence of the fact of these falsified records at Massey is, arguably, already violating your own mandate from the U.S. Government. By cc'ing the U.S. Department of Education (Accreditation Group) on this disclosure, I am ensuring there is a formal record of your notification. Any failure by the COE to investigate these documented breaches of Standard 1 (Organisation) and Standard 11 (Outcomes) will be reported as a failure of the AVMA’s own mandate as a recognised accrediting agency.

Also to be clear, this email and your response (or lack thereof) will be published – and it will also be included in our broader (general and specialist veterinary, pet, and animal-related) media distributions regarding this matter.

Meantime, the articles I have already supplied you with access to include, but are not limited to (and I hereby include a section of them yet again):

For your urgent information, the fully indexed coverage is here:

The Customer & The Constituent OR
THE KILLING OF HARRY KELLY: A Case Study In A Lethal Dose of Malpractice & Malfeasance By Massey University’s Companion Animal 'Hospital' :

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED : https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/massey-vets-falsify-records-police-report-filed
CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSE & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey
PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest
NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences
UP NEXT: How Massey 'Training' Produces the Low Vet Care Standards & Outright Contempt NZ Pet Owners Have to Tolerate
ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous?
Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice
The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death
The OPC Complaint the 'Head of Veterinary School' Doesn't Want Me to Make: Why Massey Is Terrified of Full Disclosure
Is Massey's Companion Animal ‘Hospital’ Running Potentially Lethal Experiments on People's Pets In ICU?
Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital Commits Multiple Breaches of New Zealand's Veterinary Code (And More)
The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. Repeated Unrelated, Invasive 'Observational' Tests
Massey Vet Teaching Hospital ICU: Where Empathy Goes to Die
Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me: Guess What? You Silenced Harry But You Won't Silence Me
With A Fearless Pet Welfare Advocate for An Owner, Was Harry A Marked Dog?
Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They?

Jordan Kelly

Editor & Reviewer-in-Chief

The Customer & The Constituent

New Zealand

IN PROGRESS: How Massey 'Training' Produces the Low Vet Care Standards & Outright Contempt NZ Pet Owners Have to Tolerate

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 21:39:41 GMT

Time for Change :

New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory

From unapologetic, potentially lethal, incorrect dispensing of medications (above, as sloppily dispensed by an untrained receptionist at South Wairarapa Vets' Masterton "clinic"; see my original story here on DoggieMamma.com ) to the supposedly mandated after hours service that doesn't exist but wastes multiple minutes of the pet owner's time in an emergency situation working through endless layers of phone menu along the way to nothing (The Vet Clinic, Wairarapa) , to the wilful dosing of a pet with a clearly contraindicated drug (sound familiar, much?; South Wairarapa Vets' Greytown) and numerous more examples (and not just mine) . . . the "standards" and contempt with which Massey instills its "graduates" echo through the vet practices of New Zealand.

And we, the pet parents of the Land of the Long White Cloud, pay dearly for them . . . sometimes, in more ways than one.

UP NEXT:

I’ll draw the clear parallels between what is being taught (or ignored) at Massey and what we are faced with when our pets are "treated" by this institution’s graduates.

ALSO COMING :

Why you can trust the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than protect its own.

INTERIM NOTE TO MASSEY "LEADERSHIP" & THE VCNZ: YOU'RE ACTIVELY REDUCING THE GLOBAL VALUE OF A MASSEY VET DEGREE TO THAT OF A CHOCOLATE TEAPOT.

The "Massey Mothership" and the VCNZ think they are protecting a school and the totally unacceptable status quo of conduct inside its walls. In reality, they are destroying a product - including an export product.

If - by way of example - the Sydney veterinary chain HQs currently showing up daily on The Customer & The Constituent's analytics read-outs conclude that Massey-trained vets are being taught that record falsification is an acceptable clinical tool, and that massive unauthorised drugging of private clients' pets in order to use them for student activities and filming , and presenting the abused pet back to their owners with a false "terminal" diagnosis and a demand that it be immediately "euthanased" is standard practice . . . then the value of Massey veterinary degrees hits ZERO. About as in demand out there in the global marketplace as a chocolate teapot.

The Customer & The Constituent had, for the two years of its existence (and until I began the serial and ongoing expose of this despicable institution, what they did to Harry , and what they're therefore almost certainly subjecting other clients' pets to), been just a private, specialist-readership blog with commentaries on customer service and customer ethics. Now it's blown up to include site visitors from all corners of the globe . . . and, particularly interestingly, in locations known as nodes of international veterinary research and regulatory concentration.

It had to happen sometime, Massey and VCNZ. If it wasn't Harry, there was going to be some other pet owner that finally said, enough is e-fucking- nough.

But it just so happened it was me. A journalist, investigative writer, and author of genuine pedigree - and more than that, a pet parent programmed with a primal protectiveness over my beloved dog. And when I discovered what you'd done . . . in the torturing and killing of my precious little Harry . . . who not only died needlessly , but who was cruelly ( beyond cruelly) abused by your multiple staff and hoardes of students for 15 hours' solid beforehand . . .

Now you pay the price with the exposure you so richly deserve . . . on behalf of all those pet parents who have had enough , or who will have had enough when it happens to them.

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 12:27:49 GMT

Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that:

(A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep.

(B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are.

(C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure.

(D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition.

(E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted.

(F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience.

You know all that.

You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry.

Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital".

What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff.

Note to Readers:

The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks.

They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me.

I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court.

Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception

But back to what readers do know for a moment:

You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department.

HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) .

I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to.

So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding.

Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs.

BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene .

There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under.

Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata
(That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed )

There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication.

And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring).

Well, one of two start times. Either:

(1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for).

And/or:

(2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog.

Now WHY would any vet take such a decision?

Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me.

That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him.

Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story

The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs.

They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1.

Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions.

And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to:

How long has this dog been in this state?

Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken?

Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift?

Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why?

(And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state?

When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state?

Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in?

Have you filled in an incident report?

Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice?

and, no doubt, many more questions.

OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night.

But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen.

Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.

The Lead-Up: From Clinical Error to Digital Fraud

The logs (if you know how to spot telltale inconsistencies) tell a grim story.

The story of a pre-determined outcome - pre-determined, that is, by staff. Not by Harry or his owner.

Here’s how I'm guessing it went down . . . starting back during the night shift of Novermber 30:

The ICU’s overnight staff, at some belated point, realise they overdid their shutting-that-little-crying-bastard-up-with-a-hit-of-Gabapentin-and-some-Maropitant (x 2) strategy. (It's worth re-reading my commentary on what I had found when I walked into the ICU the previous night, here .) To be noted: Their own "Clinical Summary" shows that they hit him with TWO (what amounted in real terms, for his weight and biological circumstances, at least 750%) overdoses JUST 26 MINUTES APART. That's right: a 750% overdose at 1am and then another massive overdose at 1.26am. That is, two doses 26 minutes apart, each representing a full day's dose for a dog multiple times his weight with nil kidney impairment.

So change of shift - night to day shifts - rolls around. And they now have one massively overdosed, renally-impaired (being that the kidneys represent the only exit pathway for Gabapentin) dog in one of the cages. They leave it for “Dr” Stephanie Rigg to figure out when day shift starts. They’re off home.

Rigg arrives, completes hand-over, and has an "oh shit" moment.

She quickly recognises that Harry is now a clinical liability. If he wakes up and survives, the hospital has to explain the toxicity and the not one, but two, massive overdoses.

If she starts a rescue protocol, she has to document the overdoses and file an incident report.

So she moves to a relatively easy alternative:

If she continues the sedation, she can "manage" Harry toward a permanent exit . . . all it will involve doing, is manufacturing a “neurological decline” narrative, getting her mate, the neurologist, on board with the ruse, and then somehow convincing Harry’s doting owner of the “reality” of the diagnosis and terrible “prognosis”.

She probably knew that the latter part would be the only really challenging bit . . . but maybe it’s not something that the "hospital" hasn't pulled off plenty of times before when circumstances called for a bit of creative licence.

So she administers another whopping dose of 50mg of Gabapentin to this tiny 3.8kg, still-dehydrated dog (representing a THIRD 750% overdose in its own right, and delivering his kidneys an intended lethal blow ). She, or one of her “colleagues”, had already disconnected Harry 22 minutes earlier – at 08:38 hours – just 8.5 hours into his prescribed 24-hour rehydration protocol (that Harry’s owner, I, was, fraudulently billed in full for. As is the Massey way.).

Now, she has achieved two very clever outcomes:

Harry has been converted from a clinical liability to a teaching resource asset (not to concern herself with the fact that she is committing a crime under Section 219 of the Crimes Act 1961 (Theft by conversion) . . But that, and the various other legal implications of the many acts perpetrated by the various individuals upon both Harry and I, will be the subject of a little face-time in a Court of law at some point in the medium-term.

I look forward to it. It will be nice to put names to the faces, at last.

Back to the plot:

Gabapentin takes approximately 90 to 120 minutes to reach its peak effect. So she calls the teaching staff and tells them she has the perfect, immobile, chemically-suppressed (pharmaceutically-straitjacketed) dog who will be in a perfectly pliable - and easily filmable state for students and the production of high-value, permanent teaching resources -by around 10.30am i.e. when the third massive (FOR HIM) hit of Gabapentin fully obtunds him, expedited by the fact that he's been off the IV fluids for nearly half an hour already . . . so, he'll be definitely good to go by 10.30am for sure.

Get them students rolling in and them cameras ready to roll!

Then, at 11.40am – either as part of the student-and-“teacher” film festival in which he was the exclusive “star” (including having his head grabbed in a vice-like grip, having cameras trained at close range into his eyes, being held up to the ceiling with one hand, being made to walk in circles while almost collapsing, being held upright with a camera pointed down on him from above while he was collapsing from the torso over sideways . . . and these were just the single “sanitised” stills from each of the eight videos that they claim were all they took . . .I don’t believe them as they clearly looked to have been filmed on selfie and personal cell phones) . . .

.. . . the “neurologist” arrives to (perform a “neurological examination” on a dog massively over-sedated with a drug that all the international veterinary literature warns mimics neurological and dementia symptomology and warns never to perform a neurological examination on a dog under the influence of Gabapentin (as if that weren’t obvious even to a layperson).

Said neurologist duly “concurs” with Rigg’s intended “neurologically failing” narrative to justify the push for “euthanasia’".

Now the "confirmed" narrative is neatly packaged in the "Clinical Summary" and into the intended script for the planned phone call to the dog's owner and her subsequent in-person arrival.

Framing, Confirming & Utilising . . . While they Wait for the Owner’s UNINFORMED “Consent" to Destroy the Evidence and Close the File

After framing the narrative, optimising the filming opportunities, and having the neurologist confirm the symptoms of Harry’s drug-induced stupor (which they caused) to frame a "neurological decline", Rigg rings the owner (whom the “Clinical Summary” demonstrates Rigg refers to by her surname only i.e. "Kelly") to advise that Harry has "declined" and it’s "time".

Readers who haven’t read the horror story of the prolonged, one-hour, intensive, multi-angle “consulting” room scene can do so here , here , here and here . And if you have the stomach for it, the “euthanasia” that WASN’T “euthanasia” here and here .

And why you should ALWAYS trust your gut when something feels off . There’s a REASON if feels off. Ignoring your intuition can be fatal. And for Harry, ignoring mine was.

And NOW . . . Onto the Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . . . the One Document They Thought I’d Never Have the Nous to Decipher. Well, I DID.

Now, aside from the shocked, stunned, questioning and totally resistant owner, there was one other challenge. They’d worked this one out ahead of time, but it involved some fancy footwork with the records.

So, if they were to avoid the next shift coming on and asking questions about the catastrophically overdosed dog and his IV-disconnected, untreated state, they had to be – quite literally – rid of him before 5pm.

So they typed up his “death certificate” (loooongggg before I arrived and took AGES to get to finally cave in), ahead of time.

Rigg damn well knew - especially after my shocked and stunned state at her phone call of a few hours earlier - that the in-person stage was going to be the marathon psychological manipulation event that it indeed was.

The time they wrote up Harry's intended death for? 4.53pm (the Patient Change Log document and the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form differ) .

That, they strategised, would give them the maximum possible time to strong arm that difficult bitch of an owner, “Kelly”, into submission. But - if everything was ready to roll, administratively - the whole thing would be just in time for them to “delete” Harry from the clinic’s active files before the next shift came on . (Interestingly, the logs - see below - would have it that moving from the "consulting" room, out for my Harry-and-Mummy photos, and then getting into and settled in the van, according to said logs, took a total of one minute i.e. 60 seconds i.e. the time of death there is 16.54pm versus the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form's 4.53pm. )

Not to worry that the accepted clinical practice the world over holds that the time of death must be recorded literally, as the time the heart stops beating . . . which in Harry’s case "Dr" Rigg had achieved, by my recollection, by somewhere between 6pm and 6.30pm . . . outside in our little camper van.

What a fucking joke. Except that it WASN'T a joke. It was my precious little boy's life that they had just ended . . . and, as I was to discover later, for completely clinically unnecessary reasons (because at the right clinic and with the right emergency treatment, he could still have survived what they had done to him ) .

Read here how he was actually starting to break through the drugging with the Gabapentin . . . in two separate events that "Dr" Rigg laughed off (LITERALLY, she LAUGHED AT HIM ) as "just his last hurrah". What a fucking MONSTER .

By the way this utter grub of an operator - "Dr" Stephanie Rigg - was so desperate to make sure I didn't change my mind and stop the process when Harry rose up on his hind legs and began screaming as she approached him, that she ripped the cap off the syringe with her teeth to get it into him before I could process the implications of Harry's response (i.e. clearly his brain was NOT "dying"). If you have the stomach for it, I have covered this especially revolting action in the previous articles linked to herein already.

And one more thing about this grub of an operator that shouldn't be operating in any veterinary facility:

I've since learned that there is supposed to be a gap of at least several minutes between the first and second injections to ensure the animal's brain is fully unconscious. But our "Dr" Rigg didn't wait. She delivered them as a "one-two punch". Because there was no window for the sedative to work, Harry was probably still awake enough to feel his own heart being forced to stop; which would be why his poor, dear little face was a mask of pain instead of peace - from her rushed execution of him.

I hope the bitch rots in hell.

ABOVE : The Software Caught the Lie Even When the Humans Didn't

At 7:20 PM, Massey attempted to add further charges to Harry’s bill as I paid it. The "Logs" document refused to approve the transaction because the clinician had already digitally '"killed" (i.e. in the system) Harry 146 minutes earlier.

This is quite literally the financial fingerprint of a fraud in progress - just to add financial insult to moral injury.

Retrospectively, Rigg and Governance Had A Little, Err, Logs Problem. Two, In Fact.

The pre-5pm race to close the file and seal off Harry's digital records with the finalisation of the invoice i.e. before any new staff or supervisors could see the live data, had resulted in a couple of timeline glitches:

The "Log" document reveals that the attempt to "seal" the record resulted in a series of catastrophic administrative collisions. The first of these is the (incorrect) 4.54pm time of death entry.

The second is a subsequent "Discharged" entry (two lines further up, chronologically, in the logs document). In professional veterinary software, a file is closed in one of two ways: a "Deceased" status OR a "Discharge" status. These are mutually exclusive. At 4.54pm, the system recorded the back-dated death entry. Yet, later, a human actor manually added the text "Discharged By:" to the file.

This is the digital signature of a clinician in a state of panic to get the file closed (as either "Deceased" or "Discharged") to avoid anyone going back into a live patient's file. You cannot discharge a corpse.

By triggering the "Discharge" workflow on a patient already marked as "Deceased", the bad actor created an administrative collision that exposed the fraudulent administrative anchor.

In short, they weren't recording a medical reality; they were slamming every digital exit door available to "evict" Harry from the system before the staff of the next shift would otherwise be accessing the file of a still-living patient.

Erasing the Trail by Erasing Harry's Very Existence

Then, on December 3, two days after Harry’s (unnecessary, wickedly pre-meditated, and highly regrettable) chemically-induced death , the hospital’s Governance and Legal department (or someone up the chain with "God view" access) realised that the 4:54 PM (16:54) timestamp was a liability.

It was a "smoking gun" that could be cross-referenced against phone logs and the 4:53 PM form printing.

So, at 2:44 PM on December 3, that next bad actor i.e. one with high-level access, entered the database and manually overwrote the 16:54 entry with 0:00 (Midnight).

This was a deliberate act of forensic scrubbing: By turning a specific time into a nil value, the institution vaporised the timeline.

"0:00" creates a clinical vacuum that prevents any investigator from syncing the time of death with specific staff movements or medication logs. It is the digital equivalent of shredding a death certificate to ensure no-one can prove who was in the room when the "death" occurred.

ABOVE : The Timing Tells the Story

With the 09:00 AM hit of yet another 50mg of the contraindicated convenience sedative , Gabapentin, to this tiny 3.8kg, renally-impaired dog, the clinician wasn't treating a patient; she was prepping a prop.

Standard pharmacology dictates that Gabapentin requires 90 to 120 minutes to reach peak effect . As the video timestamps confirm (see below), the student film festival – starring (private, fee-paying patient) Harry - began at 10:38 AM . . . precisely when Harry reached a state of drug-induced immobilisation .

This was a calibrated chemical straitjacket, timed to ensure he was perfectly pliable for the cameras by mid-morning.

The now THIRD, massive overdose was the starting gun for the misappropriation of a private client’s beloved pet into a university "teaching" asset. (Way to go, students. Some good quality teaching practices you're learning from there.)

The 4:56 PM Billing Inflation

Perhaps the most cynical evidence of the fraud is the 4:56 PM Billing Update.

At 4:56 PM - two minutes after the "official" death - someone manually accessed Billing Trigger #636969 and increased the quantity of a billable item from 1.6 to 4.

The metadata reveals a brazen manipulation of financial data occurring just minutes after the falsified death time. At 4:56 PM, , a manual entry was made to Harry’s bill (Record 636969), jumping the quantity from 1.6 units to 4.0. This represents a 150% increase in billable units - a literal 2.5x multiplier - applied to a patient they had officially declared "Deceased" just two minutes earlier.

This is the very definition of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. It's the financial fingerprint part of the bigger, badder lie.

You see, contemporaneous billing item logging is the standard practice in New Zealand veterinary practices . Thus, If Harry were genuinely dead at 4:54 PM, then increasing a billable quantity at 4:56 PM would constitute consumer fraud and theft.

You do not charge a corpse for a 2.5 x increase in supplies . Well, unless you're Massey University, that is.

But, actually, the reality was far worse.

The logs show they were still dicking around with the invoicing right up to when I paid the bill at around 7.20pm . . . somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour after I remember the actual time she finally managed to get me to allow her to stick him and take his life.

Good job, Massey, you bunch of mercenary, unprincipled pricks - from top to bottom. At the same time as I was still being coerced into terminating my dog's life, the hospital’s sole interest in him was (a) getting him out of the viewable system before the end of the shift, and (b) optimising him as a profit centre.

The problem for them now, though, is that the logs show that they forgot to align their greed with their narrative.

The Identity Shield (Consciousness of Guilt)

Every single name and position title in the logs - as with their previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" - has solid black boxes obscuring them.

This is purely and simply an accountability evasion measure i.e. deploying black boxes liberally throughout a patient's records to prevent the identity of (and therefore, they hope, any legal actions being taken against) those whose actions are clinically, morally, and legally, indefensible.

This practice is in contravention of all accepted standards for the veterinary sector, internationally.

I reached out to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) with questions about this and other dodgy practices both of Massey University and of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (who appear to be doing everything in their power to evade their regulatory duty to investigate Massey over the matter).

I'll elaborate on the response from the executive level of the Royal College in my next article, but with regard to this specific point, they state that there is no justifiable reason for a clinic to withhold the identities of treating veterinarians from a client.

It's clear, even to the layperson, that in terms of the manipulation of the records themselves, by hiding the names of these specific actors within the system, Massey has moved from medical malpractice and malfeasance to an active corporate conspiracy to obstruct justice.

You don't hide the identity of a clinician who followed the rules. You only use the "black box" trick when identifying the actor would lead to the immediate collapse of the institution's defence.

This log-tampering behaviour reveals an institution that manufactured a death time, attempted to "discharge" a deceased patient to hide his catastrophic drug-induced collapse, and then manually scrubbed the digital evidence while padding the bill.

Every black box and timestamp in this log is a documented admission of guilt.

ABOVE:

The notes of the "neurologist" who performed a "neurological" examination on a dog repeatedly, cumulatively, and catastrophically, overdosed with a convenience sedative known to create the exact neurological symptomology she then reports as his natural state . . . neatly aligning with Dr Stephanie Rigg's narrative (i.e. "neurologically failing", for which there was NIL prior evidence per his regular vet's totally contradictory notes i.e. TVG Feliding) and objective (destruction of evidence i.e. Harry).

Let's Get Into A Little "Appreciation of the Law" Lecture . . . for the Edification of Massey Clinical & Administrative Staff, and for the University's Legal and Governance Executives (and for You Too , Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Veterinary "School" Dean Jon Huxley)

Under Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) , the law doesn't care about "clinical mistakes" (which, by the way, this wasn't, anyway). It cares about intent .

When a Massey staff member with administrative access manually opened Harry’s master file on December 3 (two days after you had killed him) and overwrote his 16:54 (already fudged) death time with “0:00”, they weren't correcting a typo; they were creating a digital "black hole".

This is the textbook definition of altering a record to obtain a pecuniary advantage or cause loss. By "scrubbing" the timeline of death, they attempted to decouple the biological reality of Harry's killing from the possible consequences of a future auditing of his records or investigation of his case and any aspect thereof . . . from clinical decisions and actions through to billing actions.

In the eyes of the Crimes Act, this isn't some innocent "administrative clean-up"; it is a serious indictable, Category 3 offence, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment .

Additionally, Section 260 (Falsifying registers) specifically guards the integrity of records that are required by law to be accurate - such as the clinical registers Massey is mandated to maintain under the Veterinarians Act.

When the "ICU crew" or their supervisors initiated a later, posthumous "Discharge" workflow for a patient they had already logged as "Deceased" , they made a false entry in a professional register with the clear intent to deceive future auditors and bypass the software’s own safety locks. This "Panic Signature" in the metadata - trying to discharge a corpse to clear a shift log - is yet one more digital fingerprint of a cover-up.

In fact, the metadata reveals a multi-stage "panic signature". It began at 16:56 (4:56 PM) - just two minutes after their falsified death time - when a manual entry jumped a billing quantity from 1.6 to 4.0 units ( Record 636969 ). It reached its conclusion at 19:20 (7:20 PM) , when staff were still dicking around with the invoice of a patient they had officially declared dead two and a half earlier. In a professional clinical register, you do not "discharge" a corpse, and you certainly don't spend two and a half hours post-mortem cleaning a record to justify a padded invoice, that should have been calculated in real-time.

For a public institution to then redact the names of the individuals behind these potentially 10-year-penalty offences is, arguably, an act of institutional complicity in the falsification of a professional record.

The Missing Link: The Controlled Drug Register

A further document Massey continues to withhold is the Controlled Drug Register (CDR).

Unlike a progress log, the CDR is a legal ledger that must be balanced milligram-for-milligram.

This will be part of the next information-release battle I initiate with Massey University.

And if you try to alter it, Massey staff, you know exactly what's going to happen. There's only so many criminal prosecutions you're going to want listed on your individual, personal and professional, records.

The question I'd like to dive into below, is: Is Massey University, its Companion Animal "Hospital" and the staff of either the broader institution or the veterinary facility itself, exempt from the laws that the rest of New Zealand is subject to?

My research indicates that they are NOT.

Massey's Utilisation & Exit Plan for Harry

BREAKING UPDATE (March 1, 2026):

A formal criminal report has been filed with the New Zealand Police (OR-2484821N) regarding the manual falsification of clinical and financial records by Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital (and possibly also other) staff.

The complaint includes evidence of a manual "data scrub" performed on December 3, 2025, which erased key timestamps to obstruct auditing and investigations.

The police have been requested to secure the unredacted digital audit trails to identify all parties involved in the tampering.

_____________________________________________________________

Clinical Documentation: Null-and-Void 'Euthanasia' Authorisation

(Staff: Dr Stephanie Rigg)

Below: The null-and-void "authorisation" for the "euthanasia" that turned out to a ctually have been a pre-planned chemical destruction of the evidence of Massey staff's repeated catastrophic convenience sedation overdosin g and cruel, abusive "teaching tool" utilisation i.e. my precious little Harry himself being the evidence that needed to be destroyed.

PET OWNERS: YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE WHY I TOLD YOU NOT TO MISS THIS ARTICLE.

ABOVE : The Deceptively-Dated Digital Entry

Records show an incorrect timestamp i.e. this was NOT when I finally conceded and allowed Dr Stephanie Rigg to have her way and (based on her falsified "diagnosis" ) lethally inject Harry.

 Read on for why this false timestamp was strategic for the staff involved.

Neurological Impacts of Gabapentin: From Ataxia through to Coma

"Neurological sequelae following administration of the Gabapentin to patients with renal failure, varying from subtle changes in mental status to drowsiness and coma, have been reported in the literature."

Journal of Renal Hepatic and Biomedical Sciences

"Ataxia [loss of coordination] is a common adverse effect [of Gabapentin]."

MSPCA-Angell Clinical Review

COMING NEXT:

Call for An Independent Investigation into Industry Regulatory Body, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Featuring international "best practice" insights from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK).

This data is published in the interests of professional transparency and in accordance with the editor's desire to see an improvement in the integrity of New Zealand’s veterinary standards.

(UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:46:28 GMT

Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD .

I have been in a colossal fight with Massey's "Legal and Governance" for the past two months since my precious little Harry was terminated at its Companion Animal 'Hospital', trying to prise out of the institution any truly objective clinical records to determine the more granular, pivotal aspects of what was done to Harry in their "ICU" ward on November 30 and December 1, last year.

In fact, I've been in that colossal fight just to get them to admit that anything other than their subjective, manually produced (and, I firmly believe, significantly retrospectively altered and added to) "Clinical Summary" even exists .

But with the Privacy Commissioner's eyes on them and awaiting my full report, Massey had a dilemma:

Their "Option A" was to continue to insist that no objective, machine-based data existed (instead, continuing to argue the semantics of "primary records" vs "secondary records") and know that, when my report is tabled before the Commissioner and most certainly when it is tabled before the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, that those parties would see that falsehood for what it was.

Or, "Option B", hand over the IDEXX reports (part of what I requested) and hope I didn't notice what I've noticed.

Massey's continued arrogance will be its ultimate downfall . . . a symptom of that arrogance being that they think I'm stupid.

And because I'm not stupid, I noticed what they hoped I wouldn't . That Harry's machine-generated monitoring read-outs ended when November 30 ended. Either that, or the monitoring reports for December 1 were something they never want me to see.

There are three critical facts that I need to lay out here before I explain the significance of the above.

Readers, hold these three facts in mind:

1) Harry had been administered a massive overdose of an unauthorised, and for his kidney condition, strictly contraindicated, convenience sedative in three separate instances across the night and morning of November 30 and December 1. The hits amounted to something akin to 750% overdoses for his weight and his biological context.

2) Despite being in a catastrophically overdosed state with a drug that is well-documented in the international veterinary literature as distinctly mimicking neurological symptomology, with the veterinary literature warning against conducting a neurological exam on a dog under the influence of the drug in question - Gabapentin - a "neurologist" performed an extensive 11.22am neurological "examination" on Harry just 2 hours and 22 minutes after he was plied at 9am with a THIRD massive overdose on top of the two massive overdoses he had been administered during the night.

3) The "neurologist" then wrote that this (horrendously over-sedated and tiny) dog, was "limp" and "obtunded" - failing to note anywhere that Harry was even sedated per se . Let alone catastrophically over-sedated with a drug that mimicked neurological symptomology . . . and she apparently hadn't noticed that someone had disconnected him, three hours earlier, from the rehydrating fluids which by then, would have been his only hope of clearing, to some degree, the phenomenal level of toxicity from the 750% Gabapentin overdose.

Incomprehensibly Incompetent or Intentional? YOU Decide.

Focusing on (3) above, in any even partially professional veterinary "hospital", if a patient is "limp" and "obtunded", that indicates that they are one small step away from potentially entering into a coma .

That signals the need for URGENCY .

It signals immediate, detailed monitoring of cardiorespiratory status, blood glucose, electrolytes, and blood pressure ,, requiring the same equipment that had produced the reports that had been included at the end of the "Clinical Summary" for the previous night . . . but that were glaringly missing for the morning when they were needed most i.e. when Harry was literally - to revert to a layman's term - red lining .

But instead, what did this "neurologist" do? She showed students how you conduct a "menace" test on a blind dog (!), flipped his paws back a few times, palpated his spine, twisted his head around, played around with his ears, performed a "structural" examination on him . . . and did absolutely nothing about his near-comatose state.

Actually , staff DID do something. That critical window of time in Harry's life - that THEY had caused to BE critical, by their catastrophic 750% overdosings of him with an unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedative and then intentionally disconnecting him from his life-essential fluids - was exactly when they chose to wheel him off to conduct live experiments on him and film at least eight teaching videos of their cruelty.

Here's the "2 + 2" equation that Massey and - I'm assuming Pauline Nijman, the clinic's manager - hoped I wouldn't be able to calculate:

In an ICU setting, a patient described as "obtunded" and "neurologically abnormal" would be tethered to monitoring equipment - especially if, as was noted, his "condition was worsening since started".

The "Clinical Summary" claims he was being examined and monitored, but the machine logs - which cover the exact December 1 time window - show zero entries.

The absence of any machine monitoring when Harry is documented as "limp","obtunded" and "worsening" - which, in layman's terms is a dog that is COLLAPSING - is forensic proof that Massey's ICU staff are either incomprehensibly incompetent OR purged the digital evidence from the overall data set that was transmitted to me OR fabricated the manual notes after the fact.

Or all three.

On the note of all three, and focusing for the moment on the incompetence factor, have a go at this:

EXHIBIT C: FUNDAMENTAL PATIENT MISIDENTIFICATION

December 1:

Zero Diagnostics

Massey University Companion Animal Hospital ICU's "Clinical Record":

Harry, a MALE dog and patient of two years' standing with this veterinary "hospital", recorded as "Female" . . . a clear indication that he was nothing more than a mislabelled utility and profit centre to the institution.

The Significance of the Data Black-Out

In a modern ICU, the machine is the only objective witness. The reports in the left-hand panel slider above (Nov. 30) demonstrate a functioning clinical environment where every vital sign and blood gas was timestamped and recorded automatically.

Contrast this with the right-hand panel: The Data Black-Out of December 1. Despite manual notes claiming Harry was "monitored" while in a state of collapse ("obtunded" and "limp"), the machine logs are silent.

There are zero entries for the most critical hours of Harry's life.

This discrepancy leads to only three possible conclusions:

Negligence: The ICU staff failed to run any objective tests on a collapsing patient.
Fabrication: The manual notes describing "monitoring" were written after the fact to create a narrative of care that never happened.
Suppression: The data was recorded by the machines but purged from the records before they were released.

The machine logs don’t just show a gap; they show the terminal cessation of care.

This isn’t an “unfortunate outcome”. And it’s much more than a documented failure of clinical and data integrity.

It’s a demonstration of clear intent for a lethal outcome.

In my earlier article this week , I pointed to what appears to be the many hours of billable time the big guns at Buddle Findlay were racking up, diving into the two years of archived articles on The Customer & The Constituent , assumedly trying to build a "profile" to character-assassinate me with . . . the standard "vexatious litigant" playbook for dealing with a case where the actual facts can't be argued with.

(By the way Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Dean Jon Huxley, if your big-buck legal firm's extensive profiling research hasn't yet turned up this little piece of inconvenience to their "vexatious" strategy, now would be a good time for me to draw your attention to it, so you can in turn draw their attention to it, to help you stop bleeding university funds in that specific direction. You'll have to come up with another angle. Let me know if I can help.)

My daily site analytics of the past 48 hours would suggest it's worth my asking the question: Has the legal surveillance team's monitoring stretched across the Tasman? Or is it just the beginning of a wave of worthy international interest by Massey's peers?

If it's the former, let me save the University some of its redirected rescue funds:

(Being that The Customer & The Constituent is literally just a hobby publication for me, as is DoggieMamma.com , my hobby site produced as a service for fellow dog lovers) I have a long-standing reputation as a highly respected and formidable operator in the upper tiers of the B2B and B2G sphere across the Tasman, winning billion-dollar construction megaprojects for global infrastructure consortia - who recognise that my success lies in my ability to adopt high integrity, forensically detailed, thoroughly researched, processes and smarts to achieve their objectives.

And those processes extend to ensuring my own clients uphold very high standards so their clients aren't disappointed when they win their business. The same expectations I apply when I review companies and government agencies for this publication . . . of which Massey University has, unfortunately, now become the central topic. And for all the wrong reasons .

Just sayin', Vice-Chancellor Venter and Dean Jon Huxley . Because you're burning through a shitload of taxpayer money that you should be using to clean up your Companion Animal "Hospital" . . .so that more pets can make it out of there alive.

Because your current success rate ain't good.

EXHIBIT A: THE FILM SET . . . Conversion of my “property” for teaching resources: Unauthorised Conversion of Property & Breach of Bailment (Common Law); Illegal Manipulation for Teaching (Animal Welfare Act 1999, S83)

While diagnostic monitoring logs went silent on the morning of December 1, the cameras were rolling. These images - stills from six of at least eight teaching videos filmed by Massey staff - capture little blind, catastrophically convenience-overdosed, fluids-deprived Harry being used as a live prop for student instruction. The redaction overlays (the solid black boxes) are Massey’s handiwork, not mine.

To be clear: What these images demonstrate are totally irrelevant clinical examinations – and some apparently not so clinical examinations - for student instructional purposes . . . on an unsupported patient who was in a state of chemically-induced collapse.

Harry’s overnight transition from a viable, simply dehydrated patient to suddenly being “limp”, “obtunded” and near-comatose wasn’t a medical mystery; it was a catastrophic convenience overdose and a resource allocation choice. Massey chose "teaching content" over a patient's life.

Readers, please note:

(1) These are Massey’s carefully selected and edited stills sent to me (of assumedly the least disturbing of the at-least eight teaching videos they made of Harry), to “satisfy” my Privacy Act information-release request (which was for the actual videos).

(2) They are also the images Massey’s twisted staff placed in circular crops to mock my having used that form of crop to show my readers a close-up of Harry’s horrifically distorted face in the peak of his massively overdosed condition.

(3) They sent them only as embeds within a .pdf - as a means to make it harder for me to show you them. In a clinical and forensic context, providing image data inside a .pdf file format rather than as a native image file (.jpg or .png) is a known tactic to degrade the quality of evidence and create "technical friction" for the recipient.

The above site analytics screenshot is a real-time capture of active users in the moment.

Ironically, my dear, sweet, gentle little Harry is turning out to be the most expensive and dangerous dog Massey University and its Companion Animal “Hospital” ever encountered.

While they are literally selling the roof above their heads to cover their deficits and retirng one-sixth of the entire university's offerings, Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley have found the budget to hire a top-tier legal hit squad to extensively "profile" a single client in a desperate attempt to buy silence.

They chose to spend their dwindling "rescue" funds on intimidation instead of integrity. 

A Message from 'Harry's Mummy' to the Massey Staff Who Tortured and Killed My Precious Little Boy

ABOVE:

My precious little boy, Harry. Who had NOT had a sudden mysterious "neurological event" or decline overnight . . . other than the one Massey ICU staff chemically manufactured for him, so that their "teaching" staff could use him to star in a series of horrifically cruel training videos, and experiments and invasive pokings and proddings, by students (including those in which they ridiculed him openly with their intentionally cruel handling of him) . . . with the sudden "neurological" ruse being the story they cooked up for the frontwoman "vet", 'Steffi" to sell me the next day to facilitate the destruction of evidence i.e. Harry.

The pure, unadulterated evil of it. THESE. . . Veterinary Council of New Zealand . . . are the "standards" you and your "professional advisors" are protecting. How do you sleep at night?

With that level of general intelligence quotient, it is almost tempting to believe that the 750% overdoses administered to Harry were an act of genuine incompetence . . . but then, of course, we have the unauthorised fact of them, the repeated fact of them, the undisclosed fact of them, the intentional disconnection of Harry from his by-then life-essential rehydrating fluids, and the conversion of him to a test and experimental subject for an eight-documentary student film festival.

Another issue I have raised - and it is far from inconsequential - is the entirely obvious retrofitting of the "Clinical Summary".

In some instances this is likely obvious only to me (a) because I know the facts of various doctored or retrospectively added inclusions, and (b) because I'm a professional author and also the editor of thousands of other authors' outputs and can smell a mile away when something was added by the non-original author, especially when it is clearly in defence of an issue raised by an external party (me) after the original production of the document in question.

In other instances, any reader with an IQ sufficient to read a bedtime story to their child would readily spot the multiple tardy anomalies: Anomalies like the notation that Harry's 24-hour rehydration protocol (life-essential, following their catastrophic, repeated overdosing of his impaired kidneys with a renally-contraindicated convenience sedative) had been permanently stopped just 8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol, yet the obviously retrospectively-added-back in appearance of same in subsequent notes and the bogus claim of "hand-pumping". Noting, of course, that they couldn't have been administered, let alone, "hand-pumped" since this was the exact window of time Harry was starring in the eight-documentary lab rat video productions, elsewhere in the facility.

The 'Value' Was All Massey's As Ever, Not Harry's or Mine

This is the literally lethal level of "care" that I paid $1236.84 for 15 hours of.

But Massey doesn't exactly focus on providing "value" any more than it focuses on ethics , or providing any guarantee of competent, or even safe, care . . . or even that they won't kill your pet, or perform lab rat-style testing on them, or all of the above.

On the note of value, I couldn't help but notice the $3300 - $5500 I had obviously paid in October 22, 2024 for an MRI for Harry. I remember that well, I wrote about it in this article, "Was Harry A Marked Dog? . In a letter to Pauline Nijman, Clinic Manager, I had pointed out how concerning it was not only that Harry had gone for his full post-MRI day stay without being given water or being toileted, but also that the one (core) question I had asked the vet to have answered by the neurologist (since despite the above lofty fee I wasn't allowed to be present for because it had to be conducted at the neurologist's own convenience on the day) had never received an answer because "the neurologist was in such a hurry" Truly. Read the letter . Nijman didn't dispute it.

( Just on the note of mercenary billing: Massey's "intensive care" staff had managed to chemically "obtund" Harry with their 9am, third, massive overdose of their convenience sedation, and by 5.45pm t hey had achieved their desired outcome for him i.e. life termination, with their "neurological event" ruse to ensure I consented to it with the exact opposite of "informed consent ". The clinical summary confirms the patient was deceased at 17:45 . However, the final invoice includes charges for "ICU Monitoring" until 21:00 . This represents 3.25 hours of billing for services rendered to a non-existent patient.)

So Who Cares? Is Anyone 'Out There', In Government or In Regulatory Authority, Going to Take Any Action?

I have sent a Public Interest Disclosure notification to every New Zealand Parliamentarian . . . because if they can't be made to care, the risk for any pet owner whose dog is referred to Massey, and the credibility of any graduating student's veterinary qualification, is a matter of grave concern.

The response so far: Nil.

I have produced a specific Ministerial Briefing email for the Ministers of Education, Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Science, and Finance.

The response so far: Nil.

I emailed the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

The response so far: Nil.

I have emailed the Commerce Commission:

The response so far: Nil. UPDATE: COMCOM HAS RESPONDED STATING THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN "LOGGED FOR ASSESSMENT", WITH A SPECIFIC REFERENCE NUMBER ISSUED. READ THE NEW CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGE HERE .

The most outstanding response so far has been from the Public Service Commission (the guardian of public service integrity), whose response was not only instantaneous, but a reminder that some government departments have staff with beating hearts. They acknowledged simply being cc'd on an email, and took the time to express their sympathy over Harry's death. The read receipts they are politely and responsibly acknowledging as I now continue to keep the Commission apprised of developments (not that there are any, but I'm trying) indicate they have eyes directly on this whole matter.

I have TWICE emailed every single Palmerston North City Council elected representative i.e. Mayor and Councillors.

The response so far: Nil.

I emailed the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

The response so far: Nil.

And perhaps most tellingly of all, I have included the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's (VCNZ) Chief Executive Officer & Registrar, Iain McLachlan, the VCNZ's Deputy Registrar, Liam Shields, and the VCNZ's Professional Advisor, Seton Butler, on almost every single email to Massey for the past two months, as I try to (a) extract information, (b) get answers and accountability, and (c) generally get to the bottom of the whole travesty.

To be noted by the lay reader, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is the statutory body legally responsible for regulating every veterinarian in the country.

Their primary mandate, under the Veterinarians Act 2005 , is to protect the public and animal interests by ensuring that all vets are competent and fit to practice. To achieve this, they set and enforce (or they're meant to) the Code of Professional Conduct - the legally-backed rule book that dictates the ethical and clinical standards vets must follow. As the profession's "quality police", the VCNZ is responsible for receiving and investigating complaints, with the power to discipline or strike off practitioners who fail to uphold these standards.

The response or any indication of VCNZ concern: Nil.

When the leadership of such a body remains silent in the face of documented evidence of lethal malpractice and unconsented clinical studies, they aren't just being "unresponsive" - they're potentially failing in their core statutory duty to the New Zealand public.

Industry Incestuousness & Direct Conflicts of Interest in the New Zealand Regulatory Sphere

I'd like to make a point here about the "smallness" and the often incestuous nature of the New Zealand government, regulatory and watchdog organisational environment in general . . . and the fact that it's absolutely riddled with clear and present conflicts of interest.

Let's start with this one, for its direct relevance to the "Harry Kelly" case:

According to his bio, "the VCNZ's Professional Advisor, Seton Butler, is a Massey University graduate (1987) and an **adjunct lecturer at Massey’s School of Veterinary Science.** ("He has extensive experience in private practice, having founded Pet Doctors NZ (a 28-clinic group.")

As an aside, I would ask if, when I began trying to draw attention to this travesty by reaching out to management figures in the veterinary sector at large and immediately found my email domain the subject of a full-scale international server blockade at the same time as I was trying to get assistance from my established media contacts (which I had flagged to said veterinary sector management figures), whether there is any connection. Just asking.

I do rather feel the fact that Seton Butler is an adjunct lecturer at Massey University while serving as the VCNZ Professional Advisor is a point of significant interest:

Should the person advising the regulator on "standards" also be a staff member at the institution being investigated?

Since Mr Butler focuses on setting the "rules" for veterinary practice, his knowledge of the clinical study/teaching video protocols at Massey is likely extensive.

This duality of roles - one within the University and one within the Regulator - represents a significant "institutional entanglement". Public confidence in such cases relies entirely on the existence of a robust, transparent, and documented recusal protocol to ensure the absolute impartiality of any investigation. That is, at the very least .

In Answer to Interested International Parties Who Have Reached Out Over this Issue

To provide an answer to the international regulatory organisations that have reached out to me and urged me to lay a formal complaint with the Veterinary Council:

I have tried . But "the system" is set up so that a pet owner cannot complain about an organisation . They can only submit a complaint about an individual licensed veterinarian .

And to do that, you need the name or names of the veterinarian or veterinarians in question. Which - in Massey's case - have been redacted (with black boxes) in every single place in the "Clinical Summary". Notwithstanding that I paid richly for their "services".

The only name I have is that of the Clinic Manager, Pauline Nijman (I believe, unlicensed?) and the first name only of the vet that fronted the "neurological event" ruse and the coercion sessions re the supposedly "urgent euthanasia" (and who also "did the job") i.e. a "Steffi".

I have emailed CEO Iain McLachlan asking for assistance in obtaining the identities and submitting the complaints, but have thus far received no response whatsoever .

On the note of Massey's redaction of these names:

In New Zealand, the Privacy Act 2020 is often weaponised by institutions to hide names. However, Principle 11 (e) relates to the necessary disclosure of Information "if it is necessary to 'uphold or enforce the law'."

Further, the VCNZ's own policies state that owners are entitled to clinical records . Redacting the names of those who authored the records is an extraordinary step that interferes with a pet owner's statutory right to complain .

Perhaps that is specifically why Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley's January 30 legal threat to silence me, instructed that the only allowable audience for my grievances was the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's "complaint" system: Because, without the identities, and an understanding of the various and probably numerous parties involved in the Massey "clinical" environment that, err, "cared" for Harry, I'm screwed. No names, no complaint possible. And, anyway, you've still got to get it past the VCNZ's, err, "Professional Advisor". You know, the one on the Massey payroll.

It is important to highlight that I have CC’d VCNZ Professional Advisor Seton Butler, CEO Iain McLachlan, and Deputy Registrar Liam Shields on every single email to Massey for the past two or more months.

If Mr Butler - an adjunct lecturer on the Massey payroll - recognised the clear and present conflict of interest in receiving internal briefings on a case involving his own employer, he (or the VCNZ's CEO) had an ethical obligation to recuse himself and instruct me to remove him from the correspondence.

Instead, they ALL remained silent.

This silence is itself a conflicted situation in action. I have now filed an Official Information Act (OIA) request to determine whether Mr Butler’s receipt of these emails resulted in him forwarding or discussing my evidence with his Massey colleagues or personnel while he was actively being paid by them. The reader can judge the likelihood of such "internal data sharing" for themselves, but the VCNZ's failure to maintain a professional distance suggests a regulatory environment that is, at best, compromised.

How the Game Works . . .

It is also worth noting that, back on April 2, 2024, I had sought the VCNZ's assistance related to an after-hours emergency with Harry.

Instead of the after-hours emergency service the clinic in question had (under the VCNZ's own Code of Practice) been mandated to provide, I was ridiculed by the after hours staffer (I have kept detailed documentation of this event, if anyone is interested). I had to drive at breakneck speed, instead, to the Wellington 24-hour emergency clinic, some nearly two hours' drive and across a mountain pass (the Remutaka Ranges), where it was confirmed that the situation was indeed an emergency. I had emailed the VCNZ (attaching the clinical notes from the Wellington 24/7 clinic to demonstrate the genuine nature of the emergency) and I had also emailed the Code, pointing to the breached Clause, asking for the VCNZ's assistance in the identification of the practitioner and in laying a complaint. But . . . crickets.

Such is the way of the New Zealand regulatory sphere and its "closed club" nature. Closed club, that is, if you're a consumer, rather than a member.

Again, I've taken a moment to submit an Official Information Act request to the VCNZ since its CEO is maintaining his two-month position of complete radio silence. I'd like a wee bit of transparency over whether quality-and-standards advisor Seton Butler has been "double-dipping" his advice . . . giving Massey tips on how to handle "that Kelly woman" while simultaneously advising the VCNZ on the "standards" regarding the complaint they are now actively disabling me from submitting.

Is Mr Seton, perhaps, also giving Massey's big-buck lawyers, Buddle Findlay, a bit of a hand, with his duality of "insights"?

Because if Butler is advising the VCNZ on how to respond to my efforts and has access to their internal legal strategy while simultaneously an adjunct lecturer at Massey, he's in a position to "inform" Massey’s defence. This is a classic "Conflict of Commitment" as defined in Massey’s own 2026 policy .

But, honestly, nothing about this whole filthy matter and the continually expanding nature of the cover-up would surprise me now.

UPDATE Feb. 23, 5.17pm : 'We Are Not Subject to the Official Information Act'

Veterinary Council of New Zealand CEO, Iain McLachlan, has tonight refused my Official Information Act request on the basis that the Council is "not subject to the Official Information Act". I have immediately countered by re-submitting the request for the same information under Principle 6 of the Privacy Act 2020 - a statutory obligation he cannot legally avoid. So . . . the avoidance continues from that end, but so too does the pressure from mine. Also, McLachlan has "delegated" the matter to Deputy Registrar Liam Shields - the very executive in charge of the directly conflicted department.

UPDATE Feb. 25, 2026: A Second Massey Conflict Discovered

If one conflict of interest wasn't enough, I have now discovered that Dr Jenny Weston, who sits on the VCNZ Council, is also the Academic Program Director at Massey University’s veterinary school. So, we have the VCNZ’s "Professional Advisor" (Seton Butler) working at Massey, and a member of the Council itself (Jenny Weston) in a senior leadership role at Massey. This isn't just a "closed club", it’s a regulatory body that appears to be inextricably fused with the very University it is supposed to be policing. I have filed a second urgent Privacy Act request for all communications between the VCNZ and Dr Weston regarding this case. The VCNZ CEO says he's "delegated" it and I'll get it "in due course".

UPDATE Feb. 26, 2026: Formal Complaint Filed Against Veterinary Council CEO

The game stops here. I've had a gutsful now. My emails for assistance from the VCNZ's CEO continue to be stonewalled. As you've just read, for over two months, I've been trying to get the names of the Massey veterinarians who orchestrated Harry's demise and the horrors that preceded it. Massey University continues to hide those names, and the head of the Veterinary Council, Iain McLachlan, has failed to help me get them. So today, I filed a formal complaint with the New Zealand Law Society against Mr McLachlan, who is a qualified lawyer. My complaint is simple: it is wrong for a regulator to use red tape and delay tactics to protect vets from being held accountable for their actions. You cannot have a fair investigation if the authorities are helping to hide the participants.

UPDATE March 2, 2026: Formal Acceptance of Complaint Against VCNZ CEO into the System

The Law Society's Senior Professional Standards Officer has confirmed the acceptance of my complaint into their system to be investigated and put before the Society's Standards Committee. She did advise, however, that the process could take "many months". This, of course, provides McLachlan and his compromised organisation a large window of time in which to keep evading the facilitation of my complaint to the VCNZ itself. Thus, the need for an urgent investigation into this compromised structure and personnel.

Meantime, back to the present:

Speaking of grave concern, if anyone has read the commentary I published yesterday regarding the scandalous waste of the public purse viz a viz Massey's having hired a large team of top-tier lawyers to work out how to - put plainly - shut me up . . . then the following update will be of further interest to you:

The Hits Go TransTasman: An Expansion of 'Surveillance'? Or A Wave of International Veterinary Sector Interest?

CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey

Sun, 15 Feb 2026 11:58:29 GMT

This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )

Neurological Impacts of Gabapentin:

From Ataxia through to Coma

— Journal of Renal Hepatic and Biomedical Sciences

"Ataxia [loss of coordination] is a common adverse effect [of Gabapentin]."

— MSPCA-Angell Clinical Review

You know . . . the same sort of "neurological event" that your "neurologist" conducted a "neurological exam" to prove his "neurological decline" . . . in support of "Steffi's" intended intense push for his execution. (And NO. "Steffi", do NOT expect me to play along with the ruse posthumously by using the term "euthanasia'" . . . the definition of which is "mercy killing"; NOT "convenience killing" or "evidence destruction").

And did you know, Students, of the massive overdosings my precious little boy was being repeatedly slammed with . . . to make him pliable for you to poke, prod and shove your devices into his eyes to "test" for whatever the hell you were all "testing" for . . . that was nothing remotely related to his urgent need for rehydration (the actual reason for his admission) . . . which was even more urgent after he had been given 500% to 750% Gabapentin overdoses . . . a drug, on top of which, is strictly contraindicated for renal patients, which you all knew he was?

AND while he was dehydrated, and given barely a thimble full of hydrating fluids per hour? Did you know , did you care , that with all of the above circumstances converging, his poor little kidneys didn't have a chance of clearing the rapidly accumulating toxicity? Did you spare a thought for the hell you were all putting him through while you filmed him on cell phones in the utter agony you created for him? Did you not see him as anything more than a lab rat ? WICKED.

When I left Harry just 15 hours earlier - for a 24-hour rehydration protocol - he looked like a completely normal dog . . . and this Is what Massey's repeated 750% unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience-sedation overdosings did to this poor little dehydrated, renally-impaired baby.

Then this House of Veterinary Horrors and its students poked, prodded and filmed the Impacts for training materials instead of trying to save him.

(HERE'S THE PROOF AND THE IMAGE S , IF YOU HAVE THE STOMACH FOR THEM.)

Why? Because he had cried . But I have cried even more than Harry, when I discovered, later, that the supposedly irreversible neurological failure they fabricated to coerce me into allowing them to kill him, hadn't been anything of the sort: it had been a massive, stacked, overdosing of a drug specifically advised against for kidney patients (as they knew he was), and which he was making massive efforts to come out of when he saw me . . . valiant efforts the "vet", "Steffi", wickedly laughed off as "just his last hurrah". (A "vet", it should be noted that - both in my view and in my direct experience - should NEVER be allowed anywhere NEAR anyone's pet .)

Had I known the truth of what had happened to him that night and morning in Massey's "Intensive Care" ward, I would have been gotten him the hell out of there as fast as I could go, to the nearest real vet, who might have still been able to save him. But Massey, and its ICU and teaching staff needed him dead . . . to hide the evidence of their catastrophic, multiple malpractices (and also to hide what you will learn below).

There had been no "neurological event". What there was , was a catastrophic chemical stupor that they had caused, and then used to dupe and pressure me into ending Harry's life.

Do you see the poor little contorted face? His severely distorted left eye indicates acute internal pressure or systemic shock, typical of a biological system being chemically overwhelmed. The facial contortion with the asymmetry of the lip and nose are indicative of severe chemically-induced physiological distress and advanced Central Nervous System shock.

In this photo, he is in near autonomic collapse, with his involuntary (breathing, heart rate, facial tension) systems failing under the weight of Massey's repeated, catastrophic overdosing. The contorted mask, or the physical pulling of the face, is a physical reaction to the massive over-sedation and the body's struggle to survive it . . . his sheer willpower, the willpower that this "Steffi" "vet" (who shouldn't be let anywhere near anyone's pet) somehow succeeded in duping me into believing was "his last hurrah".

Pet parents: You MUST demand your pet's clinical notes and learn to read them. If you don't, you are failing your pets, most especially if they are ever referred to Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital" or any other veterinary teaching facility. I found - hidden on Page 15 of Massey's own notes - the evidence that a decision had been made at 8.38am (the morning after his admission for a simple rehydration procedure) that Harry's status in this "Hospital" was to be converted from "patient" to "student test subject" : "IV Fluids - 15ml/hr, Started at 12:00am 01/12/2025 . . . keeps tangling. Stopped at 8:38am 01/12/2025."

They disconnected Harry just one-third of the way in to a prescribed 24-hour protocol (that was already insufficient to rehydrate him even without the Gabapentin overdosing) after he had additionally been administered two 750% overdoses of a drug that requires fully healthy and HYDRATED kidneys to exit his system.

Incomprehensible? Actually, no. Disconnecting Harry from what by then were actual life-essential fluids achieved two objectives for the Massey staff:

(1) They no longer had to concern themselves with a "tangling" line (although the $198 Dura Flow Coil Mila line item on the invoice is designed specifically to prevent this situation) . . . leading to one remaining and sinister conclusion . . .

(2) That Harry was disconnected from (and never returned to) his life-saving IV fluids so that he could be extracted from his cage to facilitate the numerous below-mentioned tests (and likely, many others) performed on him for the benefit of Massey's veterinary students. (I have learned, albeit not because they told me, that eight teaching videos were made of him, six of which they refuse to release, despite their legal obligations to do so. In other words, Harry was "content" for their "productions".)

According to the plan, Harry was to be presented back to me with the narrative that "he has had a neurological event/decline and needs euthanased".

A private, high-needs geriatric patient was downgraded to a "living anatomy lesson" for unauthorised student training: the usage of a tiny, blind, 15-year-old dog in acute distress as a training tool for junior staff or students without the owner’s knowledge or informed consent . . . following incomprehensible acts of malpractice and sheer recklessness, the effects of which still had a chance of being reversed had the ICU and day staff wanted to.

This wasn't just a "failure of care"; it was a patient being actively decommissioned to serve as a training prop.

In legal terms alone , this is a breach of:

(a) the Contract of Bailment (Massey has a legal "obligation to return a pet owner's property (their pet) in the same or better condition as received; by prioritising "institutional utility" (teaching) over a patient's clinical survival, they breached that bailment);

(b) the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (under the CGA, services must be provided with "reasonable care and skill" and be "fit for purpose"; a rehydration protocol that is stopped after 8 hours due to a "tangling" line - despite being charged for an anti-tangling device - is a "total failure of service", and

(c) the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Section 10), which mandates that the person in charge of an animal must meet its physical and health needs; disconnecting and discontinuing life-essential fluids from an overdosed patient to facilitate "observation" is a direct violation of this statutory duty).

As far as the innumerable breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians and the provisions of the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 governing the communication, and the release, of correct and comprehensive information, let alone any reasonable expectation of the same Health & Disability Act human medicine ethics being applicable also in veterinary care . . . this is a genuine "where do you even start?" situation.

And as concerns Massey University's legal threats to me to "gag" me regarding my continuing discoveries, and their withholding of all other information from me (knowing now that I have learned how to read clinical notations), the actions of the institution's management now sit squarely in the domain of not just malpractice, but malfeasance .

To the Students of Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital':

Be Ashamed. Be Very, Very Ashamed . . . . .

. . . . . particularly if you had knowledge of the intention to obtain my duped and coerced agreement to unnecessarily end the life of my precious little Harry, by keeping from me any mention or knowledge of the fact that he had been convenience-sedated with a series of massive overdoses of renally-contraindicated Gabapentin (further potentiated by Maropitant) . . . to produce the guise of some "neurological event".

That is, a "neurological event" created by a drug specifically noted in the international veterinary literature as mimicking a neurological event:

When you, Students, were participating in all the horrendous, invasive, lab animal-type procedures on my precious little Harry, did you ever spare a thought for how YOU would have felt if he was YOUR dog?

DID you? Does your own dog have a name? Perhaps read this article and substitute "Harry" with the name of YOUR pet.

Did you stop for 30 seconds in time, if not to think about the hellscape that my poor little dog's life had been in that veterinary house of horrors, then maybe to ponder the fact that he actually had an owner ? An owner who loved him enough (and STILL loves him, even in death) for him to have even been brought there for "care" in the first place?

And did you know that Harry (by then in more desperate need than ever of the simple but life-essential rehydration procedure for which he had been admitted) had been disconnected from his IV fluids line and the prescribed 24-hour protocol discontinued just 8.5 hours in, to enable YOU to spend the next few hours performing YOUR INTENSELY CRUEL LAB RAT PROCEDURES ON HIM ?

May you all one day be richly rewarded for your "compassion" and "empathy" - to say nothing of your "ethics" - with a one-way ticket to hell.

The Massey Companion Animal 'Hospital' Lab Rat Facility

Harry was subjected to invasive, ghoulish student observation (and likely also, participation), teaching-value-only tests and experiments (including with devices and equipment) that bore no relationship to the reason for his admission or the reason for being in the "hospital". At all i.e. rehydration i.e. the treatment for dehydration .

These tests and experiments included (but were almost certainly not limited to, and which would likely be the reason for Dean Jon Huxley and the University's Legal and Governance executives refusing to release six of eight teaching videos they admit to having recorded. To be noted, they "overwrote" the ICU and consulting room CCTV footage that I requested under the Act):

( NB: Students: If you have ever had any sneaking doubts about the quality of your veterinary "education" at Massey, you might want to consider whether your "educators" and "specialists" might themselves need support to perform complex tasks like operating a door knob. By way of a glaring example, the "neurologist" who teaches you to assess the neurological capability of a dog in the peak of a 500% to 750% overdose of a drug that creates neurological incapability, and a vision test on a blind dog.)

The "Menace Response" Test: Repeated testing of the blink reflex of a blind dog. This is the very definition of a clinically nonsensical act . . . testing a blind dog for sight-based responses and then using his "lack of response" as "proof" of "neurological decline".

Proprioception (Paw Flipping): Repeatedly flipping his paws over to see how long it took him to correct them . . . a test for pure neurological "teaching value", not for treating dehydration .

Vestibulo-ocular Reflexes: Forcing his head from side-to-side to watch his eye movements,

The "Sound Reaction" Test: (Intensely frightening for a blind dog in an unfamiliar, clinical environment.) Claiming he had "inconsistent responses" to noise to support the "neurological event" narrative, ignoring the fact that he was heavily sedated. (To be noted, the obviously retrofitted "Clinical Summary" also claimed that Harry was deaf. Harry was not deaf or anything even approaching it - as evidenced by his ready response to my soft verbal command, even breaking through what I later, too late, learned was his heavily sedated state: " Show Mummy your strong leggies.")

Calvarium Pressure: Applying painful pressure to his skull to elicit a pain response.

Mentation Labeling: Repeatedly grading him as depressed/dull, which ignored the fact that he was massively over-sedated with three doses of Gabapentin totaling 150mg-200mg (or possibly 300mg; your notes are utterly incompetent and inconsistent) i.e. dispensed for the equivalent of a healthy, robust 15kg dog while he was 3.8kg - and potentiated with Maropitant (Prevomax) while he was severely dehydrated. This was done despite Massey's own records showing his earlier massive overreactions to just 50mg of the same drug.

Heart Examination: Performing a thoracic auscultation (listening with a stethoscope) to document a "Grade 2/6 left-sided systolic heart murmur."

Abdominal Palpation: Manual probing of his abdomen to assess his internal organs, documenting that his "kidneys felt small and irregular" on palpation.

Ophthalmic (Eye) Exam: Beyond the glaucoma, documenting a "Phthisis bulbi" (a shrunken, non-functional eye) in his right eye and attempting a Fundoscopic Exam (looking at the retina), noted as "unsuccessful due to inability to visualise internal structures."

Orthopedic Assessment: Cataloged "Osteoarthritis", likely through the palpation of his joints during the same window.

Spinal extension; dorsal extension; flexion of head. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Spinal reflexes

Spinal palpation

"Cranial nerves"

"Structural" assessments

Dental Exam: A dental grading is a standard teaching exercise for students. Performing a detailed oral examination and grading periodontal disease on a dog suffering from a supposed "neurological event" but most definitely from severe dehydration and a catastrophic drug adverse reaction is clinically irrelevant to his survival, albeit high in "teaching value" for a student rotation.

And other, non-documented and significantly worse experimentation i.e. with the ghoulish and psychologically tormenting procedures performed on him during the making of the actual training videos (made on cell phones) in which he was utilised .

Those hours of his life were sheer, unadulterated lab rat-style torture - in a massively drugged, deeply dehydrated state, being used as a live teaching aid and filmed from all angles. In one cynical “still” shot sent by Massey in place of the actual videos they are required to release, a male hand holds him up from underneath, suspending him high in the air, while sedated and hanging limply in mid-air from that cruel hand. And that, believe it or not, was just one of six highly sanitised, equipment-blacked out stills i.e. in place of the release of the actual videos themselves.

We have all heard stories of humans who, while undergoing surgery, have actually been fully conscious mentally while their physical body was anaesthetised.

That is the equivalent state my little Harry was in, when you were conducting all your cruel and invasive experiments on him.

And, to "Steffi": You thought I'd never learn that, in fact, that was the EXACT state that Harry was in, when he was giving it his valiant all to respond to my commands to show me his "strong leggies" . . . that you wickedly laughed off as "just his last hurrah".

You KNEW what he was trying so desperately to communicate to me when he suddenly rose up on his back legs and started screaming as you leaned in the van door with your syringes and equipment . . . and made me pull him down onto his tummy so you could get your substance into him before I could realise it, too. You were FULLY aware of what I wasn't, until it was all too late.

Multiple Acts of Aggravated Cruelty on A Blind Dog

Perhaps your "teachers" should also have made you aware that by conducting your experiments and procedures on a blind dog you were performing multiple acts of aggravated cruelty , that represented a total abandonment of veterinary ethics.

In any medical setting, blindness is considered a profound vulnerability.

When you remove a dog's primary sense, they rely entirely on the integrity of their environment and the trust of their handlers for psychological safety. By using a blind dog as a "teaching utility", Massey crossed a line from malpractice into what can only be described as psychological warfare against a helpless patient.

A blind dog exists in a world of sound and touch. When Harry was subjected to your lab-rat-style experimentation, he had no visual way to anticipate your (notably) cruel handling of him or your equipment. Every touch was a jump-scare; every manipulation was an unexpected violation.

And one that he couldn't respond to from within his chemical straitjacket (a term that your Dean Jon Huxley has very specifically threatened to set the University's big-budget law firm, Buddle Findlay, onto me if I should dare to use.)

Blind dogs are naturally more hyper-vigilant. Their adrenaline levels spike faster in response to the unknown. Conducting your invasive experiments on Harry would have added to his already physical pain and psycnological terror, the burden of a continual over-stimulation of his nervous system - a nervous system that was already working overtime to make sense of a terrifying, suddenly very hostile , sightless world - and without his anchor, me .

How you all opportunised his circumstances, in true predatory fashion.

Legally and ethically, a "hospital" has an enhanced duty of care toward vulnerable patients. Just as a human hospital would be more culpable for abusing a patient with a disability, a veterinary hospital is more culpable for abusing an animal with a sensory deficit.

In short, you reprehensibly experimented on a disabled dog . . . a disabled dog you already had in a catastrophic state, and you removed his only biologically supporting framework - his life-essential hydrating IV fluids - to facilitate that abuse . . . and you never reinstated those fluids. In fact, you slammed him with a further 50mg overdose of Gabapentin, even after (9am) you'd taken his fluids from him at 8.38am (by the way you made sure to charge me for the 24 hours you never gave him).

Why? Because he was destined - after you finished with him - to be presented back to me under the guise of some "neurological event" and the plan to pressure me for his urgent "euthanasia". Simple. Easy peasy evidence destruction strategy.

To add intense insult to injury (literally) - and in the manner of true predatory opportunists - you chose the most vulnerable patient in the ward to use as a training prop because he was the easiest target.

And it's also my belief that you chose him specifically because he was MINE .

'Hospital' vs Animal Research Lab

In a Hospital, if a patient is in a life-threatening crisis (catastrophic drug adverse reaction; drug-enhanced kidney failure; purported "neurological event"), you focus first and foremost on the survival of the patient .

You do not divert your priorities to focus on grading their dental tartar or checking for a Grade 2 heart murmur or poking around and into their blind eyes with devices. You don't hold them high in the air with one hand to survey whatever you were surveying. You don't perform any of the other acts indicated by even by the few carefully curated still images you have been forced to release (with half the image covered in solid black blocks to obscure the equipment you were deploying on my little blind and intensely vulnerable dog).

You stabilise the life-threatening condition.

In a Laboratory , you might indeed prioritise the "subject" providing practice opportunities for students to deploy their full range of diagnostic skills - grading teeth, palpating kidneys, listening for murmurs, and testing range of joint mobility. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Along with other, more intentionally pain-provoking, psychologically tormenting "procedures" for filming purposes.

No wonder Huxley and Massey's legal suits don't want me to see the other six videos they admit to having been taken of him.

And no wonder they are refusing to release his full records - despite their full legal obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 to do so.

The last thing he wants the world to see - most especially now he has suddenly been shaken out of his own arrogant stupor and realised who he's dealing with - is the true nature of the show he's presiding over there.

The 'Tangled IV Line' 'Justification' for Conversion from 'Patient' to 'Training Aid'

Yet it was even worse and far more sinister than "just" the above cruelty and abuse.

At 8.38am, someone had taken the decision to actively change Harry's status from a hospital patient to a status of sheer institutional utility.

Buried deep in the bowels and the tiny typeface of Page 15 of the Companion Animal Hospital ICU's "Clinical Summary" was the smoking gun of all smoking guns:

The 8-hour-and-38-minutes-in complete cessation of the prescribed 24-hour rehydration protocol (which in its own right had only "maintenance" value and certainly not the required therapeutic value).

From Page 15 of the "Clinical Summary":

IV Fluids - 15ml/hr, Started at 12:00am 01/12/2025

Stopped to give 15ml bolus over 20min every hour - keeps tangling

Stopped at 8:38am 01/12/2025

Disconnecting Harry's life-essential fluids - most especially while now in the peaks of an already massive overdose of potentiated Gabapentin - just one-third of the way in to a 24-hour protocol (that was already insufficient to rehydrate him even without the Gabapentin overdosing) with the ludicrous excuse of a "tangling" IV line in the face of the $198 Dura Flow Coil Mila line item on the invoice i.e. that is designed specifically to prevent this situation - was a clear and present signal of management and staff's intention for him.

It was an active decision to convert him for "use" as educational value and, by extension, to uncaringly impose a death sentence upon him.

"Because Gabapentin is almost exclusively eliminated by the kidneys, it must be used with caution and at reduced dosages in patients with renal impairment."

— Source: Plumb’s Veterinary Drug Handbook (Clinical Pharmacology)

And did you know that Massey's own records show that, a few months prior, he had had an adverse reaction to just one-quarter of the dose your ICU staff loaded him up with this time, and on that prior occasion he hadn't even been dehydrated, as he was now? (And would you have cared?)

From your OWN NOTES: “ . . . Marked elevations of urea and creatinine . . . "

Don't you even know what that means , Students?

It means he was renally impaired . Significantly . The very reason you should never administer exactly what you administered: 500% to 750% overdoses of the strictly contraindicated GABAPENTIN.

And regarding the physical, emotional and psychological abuse of my precious and sweet little dog who represented nothing more than lab rat value to your fine "educational" facility . . .

Did you know that the "Dean" of those hallowed halls you inhabit has threatened me with legal action for speaking out, if I should refuse to either stay silent or to participate in my own gaslighting by acquiescing to his official narrative? (You may pass on to him my sincerest regards and tell him he may take a flying leap at himself, BTW.)

Is this the type of "veterinary care" you want to practice out in the real world?

If any of you think ANY of this was and/or is, perfectly fine, dandy, and "just the way it is" in the vet game, then your careers have already been corrupted before you even set foot out there in a "normal" veterinary clinic.

God help the pets and the pets' owners who will be subjected to your ethics.

See below for one of the "Deleted without being read" notices from Massey's upper management:

While Dean Huxley writes of communication “honesty”, his cc’d colleague, Professor Raymond Geor, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the College of Sciences, was busy hitting “Delete” on MY attempts to honestly communicate (as were the other half a dozen or so of his colleagues at his same "esteemed" institutional "leadership" level).

To Huxley and Geor:

I want the truth about what happened to Harry's body.

Why did the Pet Farewells pet cremation company staffer tell me Harry had been "picked up with all the other post-mortems ", "in a bag" , and that she "was told" that I "didn't want Harry back" ?

Did you cut up my precious little Harry in some completely unauthorised post-mortem student teaching exercise - on top of everything ELSE you did to him?

Whilst "Steffi" gave me a bullshit story that he'd been laid out "carefully" and unblemished "with all his toys" for his private cremation?

A story that, in retrospect, is in no way consistent with her either order to, or participation in, the decision to disconnect his life-essential fluids after she had seen his catastrophic drug overdose, of her having organised and overseen his literal torture as a training aid, her unconscionable deception of me as his having had a "neurological event" instead of disclosure that he was massively over-sedated but was trying desperately to push his way out of it, her visceral disdain of him as I had held him in my arms pleading for his survival, and her revolting acts (making me hold him down while he kicked and screamed, and ripping the cap off the syringe with her teeth to ensure the job got done before I could change my mind) at the point of her termination of him?

The below one-hour and three-minute phone recording demonstrates my fruitless (to this day) efforts to have my situation escalated to maybe, just maybe, get Harry's ashes back (which I want ONLY if they actually are his). Note: Massey has NO veterinary complaints escalation procedure , as you are about to hear.

They do enjoy the opportunity to entertain themselves with a frustrated client, however:

Note: Because Harry's renal clearance was reduced by approximately half, these percentages represent an even higher level of metabolic saturation and predictable toxicosis.

But is just keep getting even worse , doesn't it, Students? If that were possible . . . yet it seemed no malfeasance or cruelty was beyond the capabilities of your superiors and teaching staff.

Because after wilfully disconnecting the only hope Harry had of possibly surviving the already something like 500% to 750% overdose he had already been administered and that would have slammed even a robustly healthy dog with non-impaired kidneys, then 22 minutes later you slammed him with yet ANOTHER full-dog full-day dose of 50mg of Gabapentin . . . and now with NO fluids whatsever - not even the thimble-full you'd been allowing him - to flush them through his poor little massively-struggling kidneys. You stacked another substantial overdose on TOP of the already catastrophic overdoses he'd been given in the previous seven hours.

And all of this, by the way, as you'll see from your erstwhile Dean of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley's emailed legal threat that I've quoted at the bottom of this article, was apparently given to him as "clinically indicated for his condition " , and "in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards". This ethically-impaired clown is your " Dean "? Your head teacher ? Or does he just think that the average pet owner can't perform a basic internet search of the international veterinary literature?

The 'Neurological Event' Ruse vs the Catastrophic Overdose Reality

And. Students, who among you had knowledge that this "Steffi'" (a "vet", so-called) planned to extract my consent for Harry to be put to death without ever imparting to me the nature or true state and cause (i.e. massive sedation overdoses) of his presentation that day? Wickedly presenting him back to me with the bullshit story that he'd had some vague "neurological event" (as "confirmed" by "her neurologist", when testing the neurological capability of a dog given THREE 500% - 750% overdoses of a drug that creates symptoms of neurological incapability) so that the evidence (Harry himself) of your massive and multiple, conscienceless malpractices could be conveniently disposed of?

Such that I would have no other possibility put before me than to somehow accept that Harry had suddenly had some inexplicable overnight "neurological decline"? To neatly secure my therefore grossly UN informed "consent" with a variety of heinous but seemingly previously well-practiced emotional and psychological pressure tactics? Despicable, the LOT of you.

And THIS is who you are being "educated" by? How much do you PAY for this "education"?

And why, Jon Huxley and Massey's Legal and Governance personnel, have you failed both your Privacy Act obligations AND your Official Information Act obligations by refusing to release any information regarding this "inconsistency" i.e. between this picture and the fact that I had ordered that my dog be sent for special individual-chamber cremation so I could be sure I received his ashes and ONLY his ashes back?

If you did in fact, use Harry as a post-mortem opportunity for your students, Jon Huxley, may the flames that consumed his brutalised and dismembered little body like slaughterhouse waste (which he indeed was to you, to your staff, to "Steffi" the frontwoman for this entire atrocity, and to your ethically-compromised "veterinary" students), one day consume you with equal ferocity as you rot in hell.

In the meantime, since Massey refuses to offer any assistance related to Harry's ashes:

Here are my ongoing attempts to extract some honest answers from (now I've had to resort to) some pet cremators' international industry membership organisation in the United States .

I'm trying to reach an informed conclusion (if one is even possible) as to whether the ashes that suddenly re-materialised on someone's table are actually Harry's.

That is, after my no-doubt memorable reaction to receiving a call from the pet crematorium staff member to ask for a "$120 disposal fee" (with some of their other obviously accidental disclosures that I've mentioned just up above in this section) resulted in their immediate retraction and Harry apparently suddenly being "tucked up here on the table".

One Device. Two Lies.

The “tangled IV line” as the reason for discontinuing a 24-hour life-essential protocol 8.5 hours in – while utterly pathetic and unacceptable in its own right for any clinician, let alone an ICU ward – was a fully fabricated “justification”.

The heavy blue cast-like bandage I referred to in my earlier articles, turns out to be a Mila Dura Flow Coil – a high-end specialist device to prevent the exact problem being used as the excuse for cutting off the fluids Harry now needed more desperately than ever,.

Wickedly, the staff making the decision to deprive him of his, by that time, life-essential fluids, knew full well that his impaired kidneys needed increased hydration, to have any chance of flushing through the catastrophic, 500% - 750% accumulating overdose of the renally-contraindicated, convenience sedative they had slammed him multiple times with in the course of nine hours.

The Mila Dura Flow Coil also serves to highlight a second lie:

“Steffi” (in her well-after-the-fact, posthumous SOAP notes) and “her neurologist” (as she had referred to her when convincing me of this “neurological event” that somehow explained the massive change in Harry overnight) had referred to him as “obtunded”.

But you don’t put a Mila Dura Flow Coil on an “obtunded” dog. You use it for its designed purpose: to ensure that the IV line into a very active little dog’s leg is not dislodged by his very UNobtunded activity and movements.

To be clear: Harry was far from “obtunded” until Massey ICU staff and “clinicians” chemically “obtunded” him.

In a not-insignificant aside, I have already - in this previous article - expressed a strong suspicion that Harry may well have been targeted for this sort of abuse because his owner (me) has been a fearless critic, for at least the past two years, of the concerning standards of the Companion Animal Hospital, . . . having numerous times either voiced or put in writing, those concerns to the Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman.

If any Student or staff member has the required backbone and conscience to provide any insights into whether or not this played a role in what was done to Harry, I urge you to contact me on this direct line: 06 657 0161 , or to email me to contact you, at editor@consumeraffairswriter.com . I would also like to know the names of the staff and management who participated in these criminal acts against my beloved pet, since every single one of them has been replaced - in the "Clinical Summary" - with a solid black box. And, or course, I am having to submit the matter as a formal complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to obtain the majority of Harry's records from Massey's Legal and Governance department who continues to withhold them, illegally.

Personal & Professional Liability of Staff and Students

To the staff and students who participated in the wilful cessation of Harry's life-essential fluid delivery protocol in favour of his conversion to "lab rat" status, and then further participated in the ghoulish use of him as a live training aid, you might wish to acquaint yourselves with your own legal liabilities.

To this end, you will find the following insights of value:

While the institution (Massey) bears the primary legal liability as the "entity," the individuals - both staff and students - who participated in or facilitated this utter atrocity face significant professional and ethical exposure.

In the eyes both of the law and of professional regulatory bodies (yes, even the ones your superiors believe they can count on to "disappear" or deny-on-their-behalf any formal complaints), "I was just following orders" or "I was just a student observing" is not a valid defence when a statutory breach or animal welfare violation is occurring.

The ramifications are governed by more than one set of legislation, but let us start with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct .

Professional Misconduct: If a vet knows a patient has been overdosed (let alone in the order of 500% -750%) and then participates in a "narrative shift" (such as the "neurological event/decline" fabrication), they are committing Professional Misconduct .

The "Duty to Disclose": Vets have a mandatory ethical duty to be honest with clients. Participating in the "conversion" of a patient to a "test subject" without the owner's consent is a direct violation of their licence.

The Paper Trail: Every person who signed off on the 8.38am disconnection of what by then equated directly to Harry's life support without intervening is professionally tethered to this malfeasance. You aren't just "witnesses"; you are participants in a clinical sabotage .

Student Exposure: "Accessory" or "Witness"?

If students were used to perform tests on a dog that was pharmacologically stupified and disconnected from life-saving fluids, they are in a precarious position.

Ethical Contamination: By training students on a "patient" who is actually a "victim of malpractice", Massey is essentially teaching the next generation that deception is a standard clinical tool .

Future Licensing: If an investigation proves that students knowingly participated in unauthorised experiments on Harry, it could impact their "fitness to practice" when they apply for their own licences.

Silence IS Consent: Under the Animal Welfare Act , any person in charge of an animal ( which includes students during a rotation ) who fails to provide for its physical needs is liable. If a student saw a dehydrated, overdosed dog being used as a prop instead of being treated, that student is technically in breach of the Act.

Legal Firm: Institutional Complicity

And, specifically for the edification of Dean Jon Huxley, by hiring a law firm to suppress Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests, the Governance and Legal Executives at Massey have moved into the realm of Institutional Obstruction .

Accessories After the Fact: While usually a criminal term, the principle applies here. If the legal team is using public funds to "doctor the narrative" and hide evidence, they are acting as accessories to the original clinical malfeasance. They are no longer "protecting the university"; they are concealing a breach of the Animal Welfare Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The Flow-On Domino Effect

If, in this instance, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is acting in genuine accordance with its mandate to enforce the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians , then every licensed individual staff member faces a potential striking off or a suspension of their licence.

The students face a tainted degree that signals they were trained in an environment where malpractice was the curriculum.

And the Dean faces a ministerial inquiry into the use of public funds for intimidation through the use of a law firm.

____________________________________

Below:

For a direct insight into the "Dean's" understanding of veterinary pharmacology, I give you Exhibit A (immediately below).

On the left, is the 50mg dose administered to Harry three months before his fateful Massey visit (at that time, that vet had administered the Gabapentin for an actual genuine reason i.e. pain) that floored Harry for nearly 72 hours (see that vet's notes) . . . because even then , with his degree of kidney impairment he should not have been given a drug contraindicated for renally-impaired animals.

On the right, per the Massey invoice, we can see that Huxley's proteges in the Massey ICU facility have administered FOUR TIMES that dosage i.e. 200mg. To be further noted, is that the ICU staff's notes in the "Clinical Summary" (that is all I have so far managed to extract from Massey) are so ambiguous and such a mess that it is unclear if Harry was administered 150mg, 200mg, or 300mg - as there are notes citing all three conflicting figures.

In the panel below the table, is an excerpt from Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley's gag order email, stating (as you can read) that: "Harry received only those medications clinically indicated for his condition and in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards."

The "condition" for which Harry received these "medications" supposedly "clinically indicated for his condition" was that (per the ICU staff's "Clinical Summary", he "was constantly vocalising from 12am to 2am" , albeit they started plying him with the Gabapentin i.e. 50mg (10mg more than a full dose for a healthy dog) at 1am, and then, without waiting more than 26 minutes, plied him with a further dose of an unstated amount. Before the king hit of another 50mg at 9am, after disconnecting him from his (what would by then have been life-saving) IV fluids at 8.38am (per Page 15 of the Clinical Summary).

To be clear, at the same time as they were loading a fragile, 15-year-old renally-impaired patient (admitted for the express purpose of urgent rehydration) with THREE 500% - 750% overdoses of a convenience sedative for which the only route out of the body is the kidneys, the kidneys, which would then require even more urgent and even higher volumes of rehydration, they cut off the only thimble full of hydration they had been giving him just 8 hours and 38 minutes into a prescribed 24-hour protocol.

Moral Injury:

For anyone who can handle it, here are nine raw, unedited audio minutes that provide a direct window into the trail of emotional destruction left in the wake of the unconscionable decisions and actions of the subhumans involved in Harry’s overdose; in his emotional, psychological and physical torture, and in the heinous false pretences that had me consent to his execution . . .

. . . the cold, clinical killing that might actually, even then, have been unnecessary, had you disclosed the true nature of his presentation to me, such that I could have gotten him the hell out of there to safety and true emergency care .

NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 02:50:55 GMT

FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE .

My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation

Why Did My Precious Little Boy Die . . . Die Needlessly . . . And In Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony?

When all I had taken him into Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital' for, that fateful night, was a straightforward rehydration procedure? That, arguably, I could have taken him to any vet clinic for, had it not been a Sunday evening?

To Pet Parents Everywhere: If there is one article you need to read, it's this one . . . if you never want to find yourself duped into becoming an active participant in your own pet’s unnecessary and pre-meditated clinical execution.

The Massey University Companion Animal Hospital House of Horrors, Malpractice & Lethal Deception

Two months ago, I learned what it’s like – exactly how it feels – to take part in a cold-blooded, pre-planned, orchestrated-in-detail clinical killing.

I hope you never have to learn exactly what that’s like . . . especially if it relates to your own deeply beloved pet.

Sweet, Innocent, Loving . . . & Totally Expendable

If any of readers of this article know me, you’ll know that I am rarely ever seen – anywhere, for any reason – without my precious little papillon, Harry. Harry is adored by everyone who comes into contact with him. You don’t have to even go past his photo to see why. And his sweet, loving, intelligent personality matches that sweet, innocent and characterful exterior.

On November 30 ^th , after having been relegated to my small camper van for several weeks due to an ongoing debacle involving insurance-related repair work to my property and some rogue contractors who had left it in an uninhabitable state, Harry had started to become badly affected by the hot temperatures of that week. He’d gotten what I would describe as “weak and wilty” and had lost his appetite over the previous 24 hours when the temperatures down in Wellington had seen the mercury spike relentlessly for over a week. Since it was a Sunday night, I made the decision to head for Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital. We were already living mobile, so it was a decision that was immediately actionable.

By the time we reached Otaki, the skies had suddenly opened up and were pouring down a torrential rain. Harry had perked up, so I stopped at the New World supermarket and decided to try my luck with getting him to eat. He devoured a huge bowl of roast lamb slices – and I debated whether or not I’d keep on to Massey, or consider the emergency over. Dear God, how I wish I’d taken the latter option. But I didn’t. I thought I’d “play it safe” and take him in anyway.

When I arrived, an alarmingly young vet (looking nervous and completely lacking any degree of confidence) came out to let us in. We went through a “consult” and she advised that he was “dehydrated” and needed rehydration . . . which made perfect sense. She wanted to take Harry through and get him started on a rehydration IV process. With my worry about Harry, I hadn’t eaten myself and could feel a likely blood sugar crash coming on, so I told her she could do that and I’d be back in 30 minutes (there’s a Burger King 10 minutes down the road from Massey).

The Last Time I Would Ever Recognise My Beloved Dog

When I returned, I insisted that – if I was going to leave him in ICU overnight, given the hour and the rehydration process required – I wanted to see where he was caged and take his toys and bedding to him.

'That would be the last time I ever recognised my beloved dog. Although it shouldn’t have been. But I’ll get to that in a minute.

When I walked through the ICU ward doors, I heard him screaming. He was terrified, wrenched from my arms and dumped in a cold steel cage, all alone.

Blind, Disoriented, Crying and Terrified . . . & Completely, and Persistently, Ignored by Two Socially-Chatting ICU Staff

Harry was blind. A small, senior papillon, he was completely disoriented and facing the back wall of the cage. When he heard me he re-oriented himself to face me, and became more and more vocal, standing up on his hind legs and reaching out his front legs through the grid of the cage door to me.

If that sounds heartrending, it was. But let me broaden the picture for you:

As I walked through the ICU doors , I couldn’t believe what I was seeing and hearing.

The two ICU staff were literally, totally, ignoring him . They were fully engrossed in their own audibly, social and very jovial conversation. A tiny uber-distressed soul just metres from them was totally invisible to them, screaming in terror at having been dumped in a cage with no human voice for comfort nor any form of attention whatsoever. And might I remind readers, Harry was blind. A blind dog has only sound and touch for orientation and comfort.

As he stood up on his hind legs and stretched his front paws through the bars to me, still screaming, I expressed my horror to the young vet – clearly within full hearing of the two ICU staff, who continued their merry (literally) conversation without even turning an ear or an eye.

I also expressed extreme concern to the young vet – who made no move to ask the ICU nurses(?) to acknowledge his presence in their environment – that, given Harry’s blindness and his degree of distress, he could easily withdraw sideways and break his front legs on the bars. Even when I was expressing this concern, the two ICU attendants continued to fully ignore me, the vet (who was busy making excuses for them that they also totally ignored), and Harry. They had by then moved from social conversation mode to goo-ing and gah-ing over a newborn kitten – which appeared to be one of a very few inhabitants of the ICU that night. They weren’t exactly run off their feet.

Teenage-Looking 'Vet' Had Nil Authority Over ICU Staff & Nil Courage to Try to Exercise Any

It was a truly surreal picture: T his young vet sitting on the floor with me outside Harry’s cage, clearly too frightened of the ICU nurses to instruct them in any way at all. When I expressed my disbelief at what I was witnessing, including the fact that she would not move to ask them to attend to Harry, she was like a deer in the headlights . . . all she could do was sit and meekly insist that “they really love animals; I assure you that everyone here loves animals”.

I remember saying, “I see no evidence of that right now; my dog is screaming in terror and they’ve not only ignored him all this time, they can surely hear my own distress at the fact that they’re ignoring him now and even so continuing to pretend none of us are here . . . and they’re about four metres away from us.”

It was totally consistent with what I would find out the next day . . . albeit I don’ remember which one of them told me – probably the “SteffI’ ICU vet, because she’s the only one I remember having any contact with (aside from her “euthanising” assistant) - i.e. that they admitted they didn’t feed him. And I know they didn’t even try to feed him (contrary to their retrofitted "Clinical Summary" that I would later obtain), because I told them I wanted to leave the rest of the roast lamb that he had devoured eagerly on the way up, at Otaki. They didn’t want it – despite Harry's being grossly underweight and now finally having broken his fast with something he would obviously be keen to eat again soon.

There was absolutely NIL care – not even the pretence of it.

'My Shift Is Finishing . . . Let's Hurry This Along'

My gravest concern in that moment was the fact that the young vet was keen to get me out of ICU since – she claimed – her shift was finishing . . . which, to me and thus, of course, to Harry, meant that he would be completely alone in an environment with a couple of negligent, laughing socialisers whose presence in that ICU ward made it feel more like the staff tearoom.

But – and albeit not for the same gutless reasons that the young intrepid, irresponsible vet was too scared to say anything to the two “nurses?” – I knew I was on dangerous ground if I dared say a thing to them. You see, I’ve pointed out on a good number of occasions – both verbally and in writing – to the practice manager, Pauline Nijman, the culture of either inattention or, sometimes, arguably downright negligence that I had either experienced or witnessed in that “hospital” (and on several occasions the exercise of downright psychological cruelty). For my efforts I’ve been “soft-threatened” with the classic “cancel culture” that only the pampered, unaccountable employees of a large publicly-funded institution like Massey can get away with.

That night, as I was ushered out of ICU and had to leave my distressed and crying little Harry in their “care” , I had to make a decision that Massey should be utterly ashamed that any pet owner should have to make: ask for the care Harry needed and that I was paying handsomely for and risk “cancel culture” at the worst possible time, risk that Harry would suffer as a result of any interchange, or risk that he would continue being ignored, in his increasingly distressed state. Already seeing the cruelty of which these two ICU staff were clearly capable based on their negligent ignoring of Harry’s distress, I chose what I thought was the “safer” option, saying nothing as I walked back through the ICU doors.

The next morning, I received a call from the day vet, Steffi. Harry had “had a neurological event”, she told me, and “must be euthanased . . . TODAY”.

From 'Rehydration' to 'Unrecoverable' in the Space of A Few Hours? What HAPPENED?

I couldn’t believe that a dog needing rehydration, who had just eaten a large bowl of roast lamb prior to his arrival the night before, suddenly had to be “euthanased”.

But Steffi spent probably an hour on the phone with me, as I sat in a disbelieving daze on the floor of the outlet I was in, trying to process this news. She was insistent that I should make a decision immediately and that they would have him prepared for the final scene when I arrived. I told her in no uncertain terms, that I was NOT making a decision of such irreversible gravity on the phone , and I would begin driving up there.

It should be noted that, during that entire, exhaustive conversation – where she had my full and undivided attention – s he never once mentioned that she had actually administered 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax .

She chose instead to spend that time pushing in general and vague terms, for the decision to kill him rather than disclosing the pharmacological reality of the state he was in .

This was a calculated suppression of clinical facts during a period of active, high-stakes communication.

Meantime, trying to process the news and potentially prepare myself for the worst, and still in a daze of disbelief and emotion, in case she was right that he had declined so rapidly that his end was genuinely and otherwise naturally nigh, I went into a jeweller’s store before arriving at Massey. I bought two solid gold cross pendants. I took them to the Plaza engraver, and had one engraved with “Mummy’ (for Harry) and the other engraved with “Harry” (for me). I put these deep in my handbag, hoping against hope that they weren’t going to be necessary.

When I arrived, Steffi led me into a consulting room. I was too dazed and disbelieving to remember how she kicked off the conversation, but in retrospective – if you’ll pardon my own horrible pun – she was ready for the kill.

She had planned every angle: the clinical necessity (he’s had a neurological event), the guilt-tripping (he’s blind and he doesn’t have any real quality of life” – which, by the way, is complete bullshit and how would she know? I took him everywhere with me in a little stroller and his world was full of love and stimulation); then the emotional I’m-attached-to-him-just-like-you” angle (“he’s not the dog I remember; I remember him running around from person to person in the room and coming up and licking me” . . . I don’t remember that; he’s only been seen by her once or at most twice i.e. Massey is an emergency or after-hours facility, she’s never exactly been his “regular vet”).

Between the Phone Call & the Consult, She Tried Every Conceivable, Disingenuous Emotional & Psychological Trigger Point . . . Until She Found the One That Finally Worked ('Before Long, He Won't Recognise You' . . . Bullshit, 'Steffi', He Had No Problem Recognising Me Even through Your Drugging; Albeit, Remember I Never Knew He WAS Drugged)

After somewhere between one and two hours of circling back and around and her trying to convince me first with a clinical argument and then with an emotional angle and around and around, she brought him in and I took him from her.

Yeah, he certainly wasn’t in good shape. But there was something truly weird about it: one minute he would be vocalising; the next he would be hanging coathanger-style over my arms; and then he’d want to get down on the floor and have a wobble around; then I’d pick him up again and he’d lean his head back and try to kiss me; then he’d collapse again.

My first reaction was: what the HELL had they done to him overnight in the ICU? Did their cruel negligence of him in that cage result in their psychologically “breaking” him? No, no, assured Steffi. He’d had a totally unrelated “neurological event”. It would have happened anywhere, anyway. “It’s just his time,” she said. "He's not coming back."

But there was something that should have been my first massive red flag . . . and I’m ashamed to say I let myself be so torn between professional trust and the logic and gut reaction of my own observation that I didn’t react to it as I most certainly should have:

It was The wry smile that had come across "Steffi’s" somewhat arrogant face when our eyes met fleetingly as they had brought Harry in and I saw that – despite my still, at that stage, avid rejection of her insistence upon the need to end his life, they had brought him to me with the infrastructure of euthanisation already in place: a long, heavy blue cast-like “bandage” with the catheter in it.

Three reactions flooded my mind simultaneously as I saw it:

1) The audacity of this arrogant clinician's having obviously decided that they had made the decision without me and regardless of me,

2) That wry smile appeared to me the indication of her confidence that this powerful psychological ploy – this unspoken “obligation” upon me to follow through – would be successful, and

3) The fact that I had never before seen any such stiff, very substantial in size, immobilising type of “bandage”. Why was such an instrument of obvious immobilising intent required for my little Harry, given the flaccid state he was in? Albeit, I subsequently realised that he was going in and out of that flaccid state and another very vigorous, vocalising and “objecting” state . . . a state I would later, too l ate, realise from my research and as confirmed by the “smoking gum” invoice line items, was a dog trying desperately to reach me through extreme sedation . . . to let me know that, “I’m still in here, Mummy.”

When "Steffi" was trying to convince me about this “neurological event” that he’d apparently had ( by the way, no mention was ever made of the rehydration process that I’d actually brought him in for ), I was at pains to show her his intermittent cognisance and impressive strength.

I prompted him with his well-recognised prompt: “Show Mummy your strong leggies” . . . as I put my arm under his back paws for him to press down on them with his back paws . . . a prompt he eagerly responded to .

I said to Steffi, “Look, he’s still so strong. HOW can I let you kill him?”

She just laughed and said, “I strongly suspect it’s just his ‘last hurrah’.”

Her next, escalated efforts were her kill shot: (Readers, remember, I'm a journalist of 40 years' experience. My ability to quote with precision has never been questioned.)

“He’s not coming back, Jordan. He will never be the dog you knew. He will become increasingly unrecognisable. He will stop recognising you at all, and it will break your heart even more than now. This is the best time. Do it while he still recognises you, before he becomes fully vacant and stops recognising you at all. And it would be cruel to him to let him get to that stage.”

Yep. There it was. She finally got me. The kill shot. The thought that I would have beside me a little dog who no longer recognised me. Whose consciousness was ebbing away anyway. Who it would be “cruel” to let him “get to that stage”.

While I Was Paralysed With Grief, 'Steffi the Vet' Was Brimming with A Strange, Heady Energy & Urgency

And so, with my heart paralysed with grief – and yet STILL, even at that stage uncertain, BECAUSE NOTHING HAD FELT RIGHT IN MY GUT ABOUT THE WHOLE STORY OR THE WHOLE THING . . .

. . . .from the fact that she had been so insistent with trying so many different angles on me . . . .

. . . . to the eerily telling (in retrospect) fact that when they brought him through, AND DESPITE MY HAVING BEEN VERY CLEAR ON THE PHONE THAT I WAS NOT MAKING ANY DECISION UNTIL I SAW HIM FOR MYSELF, they brought him into that consulting room with the “euthanasia infrastructure” already in place i.e. a catheter taped to his front leg with large, heavy-duty dark blue adhesive tape . . .

. . . to her wry smile when my eyes met hers as I saw it and recognised it for the powerful, unspoken psychologically coercive message that it was i.e. ' "It's a done deal, Jordan. We're doing it whether you like it or not. Everything's ready."

. . . . through to how unbefittingly excited and “heady’ her energy had become when I finally hung my head and tearfully consented. She had sprung eagerly to her feet, raced out and got her (seemingly equally eager) assistant, and they had Harry and I walking out to my van (where I said it must be done, rather than on some cold steel table) in quick-time.

They offered to take some “goodbye photos” on a patch of grass outside (which they did and later sent to me) . . .. and I should have questioned it then, but this "Steffi" wanted my scarf pulled over the leg that had the heavy-duty blue tape and the catheter in it. “We like dignity,” she joked.

When we got to the van and I climbed in with him, he suddenly rose up strongly once again on his back legs – this time so strongly he was standing upright. He screamed or “vocalised” loudly.

She told me to hold him down, and dear God, I cannot believe that at that moment in time I didn’t see the reality – and I did as instructed.

My little Harry was SO strong. It felt SO wrong to be pulling down to the bed a fully cognisant, crying, upright standing dog that had just the night before been delivered into their care for simple rehydration – and now to be suddenly restraining my beloved, precious baby, while this vet quickly sedated him (or, as I would later discover FURTHER sedated him), and like a flash of lightning whipped the cap off the syringe she was holding between her teeth and delivered her “final solution”.

She stood back, satisfied. She had achieved her objective. She had finished him off . . . whether I had liked it or not.

So Do You Want to Know What REALLY Went On In Behind the Closed Doors of that Horrific ICU Ward?

And NOW – do you want to know what REALLY went on with my little Harry? Do you want to know why my gut was screaming at me that something wasn’t right with this whole story and this whole scene just as loudly as Harry was screaming while standing up in that ICU cage the night before?

Because two weeks later I discovered the truth. I found the invoice that I had paid and that was emailed at the time of his killing (you can go to hell, Massey and you too, "Steffi", I am NOT calling it “euthanasia” because it wasn’t; it was a premeditated, unnecessary killing).

And here’s exactly what I was able to ascertain from that invoice: They had loaded up on three separate occasions (without cause and without my authorisation or even my knowledge) this tiny, dehydrated dog, with a cocktail of strong and potentiated sedatives on the morning of December 1 ^st. By the time I arrived at Massey that afternoon, he would have been at the peak of a pharmaceutical pincer effect caused by 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax, given while he was already metabolically compromised by the dehydration.

Incompetent or just plan wicked? Whichever it was (certainly both, in my view) . . . it was not only without my consent, but also without my knowledge . And here’s the evil in play: it remained outside of my knowledge until I found this smoking gun invoice . . . that, together with some deep-dive research, heartbreakingly, explained everything .

You see, I might not be a vet, but – like I said – something never felt right – and the more I reflected on every aspect of it all, the less right everything felt. So I started doing some research. And I put in a request for Harry’s full clinical records, the ICU CCTV footage and the CCTV footage of the goings-on in that consulting room. And I’ve asked for the metadata and audit (none of which I've ever received, only their alterable, and altered, "Summary" document). . . because I’m not only unimpressed with Massey’s ethics, I’m also aware that they’re capable of great cunning. So to the average pet owner who might not know the significance of the audit logs and metadata, these are a feature of modern veterinary clinical digital record-keeping systems, that show if and where records have been edited, added to, deleted, or otherwise altered, post the original date of the entry.

DO you know WHY I’ve requested these? I’ll tell you:

BECAUSE HARRY HAD NOT HAD A “NEUROLOGICAL EVENT’. HE WAS HEAVILY SEDATED. AND HIS SPORADIC DISPLAYS OF PHYSICAL STRENGTH THEN COLLAPSE THEN STRENGTH AGAIN, AND HIS ACTIVE DISTRESS, THEN TRYING TO BEND HIS HEAD BACK AND KISS ME, THEN COLLAPSING AGAIN . . . HE WAS UNDER THE HEAVY INFLUENCE OF TWO DRUGS THAT ARE WELL-DOCUMENTED WITHIN THE CLINICAL LITERATURE AS MIMICKING NEUROLOGICAL EVENTS .

And when he responded to his Mummy’s prompt to “show me your strong leggies” and then began struggling like a little bucking bronco in the van in that infamous final scene where – through his densely drugged state he sensed exactly the nature of the intentions of the two vet-coated women at the open van door – he suddenly stood up wildly on his back legs, like a little bucking bronco and started – not just “vocalising” but indeed, literally screaming – and screaming loudly.

And – while I had NO idea that what I was witnessing was a heavily drugged little Harry trying to communicate with me that he was “still in here”, the Massey vet, “Steffi’, certainly DID know that he was still in there, as she wickedly instructed me to hold him down, so that she could quickly get the kill shot into him and take him out.

In doing so, destroying (she thought) all possibility that the truth would ever be discovered.

But here – as I now (very much too late) know – is that truth:

The Invoice:

Gabapentin

Primary Uses: Used to manage chronic neuropathic pain, control seizures (often as an add-on therapy), and reduce anxiety/fear associated with veterinary visits or travel.

Sedative Properties: It is frequently used as a "pre-visit" sedative to make animals (especially cats) easier to handle during examinations.

Ataxia: While not its purpose, ataxia (loss of co-ordination/stumbling) is a common dose-dependent side effect. "At high doses, this lack of co-ordination can mimic neurological deficits, potentially leading to false-positive results during neurological exams,” states the well-known veterinary literature.

The Clinical Reality:

Harry Had NOT Had A 'Neurological Event'. . . . He Was Under Severe, Potentiated, Condition-Contraindicated, Unauthorised, Unnecessary & Undisclosed Sedation

Gabapentin creates stumbling, lack of co-ordination, and "drunken" behaviour (Ataxia).

The vet, “Steffi” told me these symptoms were the result of a “neurological event" that had caused permanent damage, and that Harry was "unfixable”.

But he wasn’t “ unfixable”.

He was drugged.

Convenience-drugged.

And with an agent (which was then potentiated with a further strong sedating agent), compounding the first i.e. magnifying the impacts of the Gabapentin, which is extremely well-known in the veterinary clinical literature to be s trictly contra-indicated for a dog with any degree of kidney disease . . . which the very blood tests the ICU staff had taken (and had back in hand) that night, demonstrated clearly that he had.

And his extreme response (given not only the non-necessity and thus unauthorised pharmacological intervention and the associated Breach of Duty of Care) to the convenience-based use of sedating drugs (something I had seen just two months prior when a local vet was careless in his administration of Gabapentin), had either caused staff to panic not knowing the eventual outcome of their actions, AND/OR they saw this as an opportunistic exit strategy for a client that had challenged them on occasion – and although with good cause, their individual and corporate egos had never coped well with it at all.

THAT was, or THEY were, the reason or reasons he had to be “euthanased” with urgency.

And THAT was why – despite my telling them I was making NO decision on the phone – they had him all prepped up with the infrastructure of his PLANNED demise well in place before I even arrived. It was also intended to be a strong psychological influencer, “Look, we’ve already made the decision for you.” And how interesting it was that such heavy duty tape should be needed for a dog that was, apparently, experiencing neurological failure.

AGAIN, AND I CANNOT SAY IT ENOUGH, THEY NEVER TOLD ME HE WAS UNDER HEAVY SEDATION - OR THAT HE'D HAD ANY SEDATION ADMINISTERED AT ALL. That he was “drugged”, “doped”.

But that, unbeknownst to me, was what I was seeing that fateful day. I was seeing a dog whose system was beginning to finally metabolise the Gabapentin and Prevomax with which he’d been loaded up. And actually, loaded up repeatedly.

"Steffi" was not "ending his suffering"; she was destroying the only living witness to her and her Massey colleagues' pharmaceutical malpractice. She was ensuring the truth would be buried with him.

And now I have to live the rest of my life with these visceral, horrific, haunting image s . . . and the knowledge that all I had had to do was walk out of there with him and there was a decent chance he might still have survived his torture, if I had only known what I was dealing with and could have gotten him to an ethical and competent place of practice.

Clinical Research Note :

Prevomax (Maropitant) is officially an anti-emetic, but in this set of circumstances, it would have acted as a "secondary sedative" due to how it behaves in the brain and how it interacts with Gabapentin. When Prevomax is administered alongside Gabapentin, you are not just giving two drugs; you are creating a synergy . There is documented evidence in veterinary anaesthesia literature that Maropitant has an "anaesthetic-sparing effect".

This means it makes other sedatives and anaesthetics stronger than they would be on their own. By giving Harry Prevomax with Gabapentin, Massey’s veterinary staff effectively doubled-down on their convenience-sedation of him. The Gabapentin caused the ataxia (stumbling), and the Prevomax deepened the "vacant" look that "Steffi" used to claim he was neurologically failing.

Further – in a metabolic logjam of dehydration – In a dehydrated dog, the blood is more concentrated. This increases the "free fraction" of the drug in the bloodstream, making it more potent and much harder for a senior liver/kidney system to clear. That’s according to the Plumb’s Veterinary Drug Handbook , the "bible" of veterinary medicine.

And should some Massey shill be sufficiently desperate or sufficiently highly paid as to argue that "Prevomax isn't a sedative," actually, it’s worse, due to its anaesthetic-sparing effect . . . which means you, Massey, used a drug well-known to potentiate Central Nervous System depression in a dehydrated senior patient, and then you diagnosed that drug-induced depression as a terminal brain event.

That Massey, that "Steffi", is gross multi-level malpractice.

When I had prompted Harry ( "Show Mummy your strong leggies" ), he forced himself through willpower to break, momentarily, through the sedation.

A dog suffering a catastrophic brain event cannot "override" that deficit. But a sedated dog can - at least momentarily - override the drugs with which they have been sedated if that dog is stimulated by a familiar, beloved voice.

But . . . WHY?

And WHY had they sedated him to start with?

Sedation is prohibited under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct when a dog is neither in pain nor being prepared for surgery.

My Harry was not in pain, nor was he having surgery.

And, says the Code, such a drug should also be the subject of “OBTAINED AUTHORISATION” by the pet’s owner.

Nobody ASKED me. Nobody even TOLD me.

And It Gets WORSE. MUCH Worse.

READERS: PLEASE NOTICE SOMETHING ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH BELOW.

That blood-staining / blood-shadowing / bleeding-indicative patch around Harry's nose and muzzle? Look at it carefully.

At Home. A Normal Day.

This shows Harry standing up in his cot at home. It demonstrates his physical capability and is exactly how he was standing in the Massey ICU cage that fateful night – reaching through the bars and screaming for help while staff ignored him.

The Aftermath - At Massey. After They'd Finished With Him.

Taken in the hospital grounds moments before the "euthanasia" that turned out NOT to have been "euthanasia" at all . . . but rather a cold, calculated and coerced clinical killing, to cover up the catastrophic and contraindicated drug overdose they had given him the night before to stop him crying and seeking comfort.

It was NOT the "neurological event", they had me believe it was. If they had disclosed what they'd really done, there was still a chance he might have survived what they did to him. But they chose instead to coldly video his decline for "teaching aids" and do NOTHING to try to save him . . . instead taking the route of duping me into his termination.

The Implications for ‘Informed Consent’

Under New Zealand law and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct, a veterinarian must provide an accurate clinical picture.

Specifically, Clause 2.1 (Communication and Consent) states:

" Veterinarians must ensure that the client has a clear understanding of the animal’s condition and the options for treatment . . . to enable the client to make an informed decision. "

Further, Clause 2.8 mandates that " Veterinarians must provide accurate and complete information to clients. "

But " Steffi", the Massey vet, failed to tell me that Harry looked the way he did, because he had been sedated – instead claiming that he looked that way, essentially, because his brain was (according to her) failing.

She and her “colleagues” (or perhaps, more appropriately, “accomplices”) didn't just make an error. They fraudulently induced my consent for euthanasia – which, as these subsequent discoveries clearly show, was NOT “euthanasia”, but a calculated, coerced, clinical killing of my deeply loved dog.

Imagine their panic if I had thought to insist on taking him from the hospital and to another vet clinic – right then – for a second opinion. Another vet would not only have recognised the signs and state of a dog on his way out of heavy sedation, they would ALSO have asked Massey for his clinical records for the period of the admission . . . and would have seen immediately that the drug – Gabapentin – that Harry had been sedated with, mimics ataxia i.e. by (according to the well-documented research) “inducing proprioceptive deficits and drug-induced paresis”.

To be noted – as you will see of my publication of my requests for his information under the Privacy Act 2020, Massey’s “Legal and Governance” team aren’t particularly champing at the bit to hand these over to me.

While the Companion Animal "Hospital's" Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, had the records ready to hand over two weeks prior, the Legal and Governance team stepped in for a bit of – what sounds like – sanitisation.

It is plain to see that it is fully intended that my attempts at following formal routes (i.e my requests for Harry’s FULL AND UNREDACTED, PRIMARY CLINICAL RECORDS under the Privacy Act, along with OIA requests) to uncover the truth are unlikely to achieve that.

But to the suits, and to the staff who knowingly participated in this travesty and the plan to "destroy the evidence" of your wilful malpractice:

You no longer hold this leverage over me – but, I fully believe – you exercised it to the point of a very successful “exit strategy” for my dog . . . and thus for myself as a client who dared to challenge what she saw as your (all too numerous) shortcomings.

Now, though, you have created a situation whereby I have nothing further to lose, as I turn the lights on – and to continually brighten the intensity of them – in a room you would greatly prefer to remain dark.

I had a highly sophisticated AI subscription service analyse it. Here is its output:

Visual Forensic Analysis: The Muzzle and Eyes

Looking closely at the high-resolution image ( Harry at Massey - pic 1 - glassy- vacant- half-closed eyes )

Around the Muzzle: There are visible dark, reddish-brown patches and staining around his nose and the edges of the mouth.

Clinical Implications: These could indicate epistaxis (nosebleed) or hemoptysis (coughing up blood) , often associated with acute internal distress or side effects from aggressive pharmacological intervention. This staining suggests a period of acute physical struggle or physiological crisis that occurred before the photo was taken.

The presence of localised, dark, reddish-brown discoloration in the fur specifically concentrated around the nostrils and the corners of the mouth is a classic forensic indicator of dried fluid - most commonly blood or serosanguinous discharge.

"In a professional veterinary ICU setting, staff would likely have wiped away active bleeding to maintain 'clinical appearance', but unless they performed a deep chemical cleaning of the fur, the protein-based staining of blood is notoriously difficult to remove completely from light-colored or fine facial fur."

Forensic Reasoning:

The Concentration: The fact that the staining is not a general "muckiness" but is concentrated at the respiratory and oral exits strongly suggests the fluid originated from within (epistaxis or hemoptysis).

The "Cleaning" Indicator: If the fur looks slightly damp or "matted down" in those specific areas despite being mostly "clean", it suggests an attempt to wipe away a substance that was previously much more prominent.

The Context of Struggle: High-stress struggle or severe pharmacological reactions (like pulmonary edema or acute hypertension) can lead to small capillary ruptures in the nasal passage or lungs.

Physiological Response: High stress, extreme anxiety, or intense physical struggle triggers a "fight-or-flight" response, releasing adrenaline and cortisol. This causes a sudden, sharp rise in blood pressure.

Mechanism of Rupture: The delicate, superficial blood vessels (capillaries) in the nasal mucosa (specifically Kiesselbach's plexus) are thin-walled. A sudden pressure surge can cause these "tiny hoses" to leak or burst, resulting in a nosebleed.

Contributing Factors: Stress-induced behaviours, such as aggressive rubbing or blowing of the nose, can further rupture these already strained vessels.

Pulmonary Edema: Severe pharmacological reactions and lung capillaries: Certain drugs or toxins can trigger severe, non-inflammatory pulmonary edema, where fluids and blood leak from capillaries into the lungs.

Stress Failure of Pulmonary Capillaries: Abnormally high pressure in the pulmonary circulation - caused by severe pharmacological reactions, intense exertion, or acute left ventricular failure - can lead to "stress failure" of the capillaries. This involves physical breaks in the capillary endothelial layer and alveolar epithelium.

Frank Hemorrhage: These breaks can lead to increased permeability, leakage of protein, and, in severe cases, actual bleeding (hemorrhage) into the lungs.

Acute Hypertension:

Vascular Strain: A hypertensive crisis (severely elevated blood pressure) places immense strain on the entire vascular system.

Target Organ Damage: This pressure can rupture small blood vessels in the nasal mucosa, causing epistaxis, or damage the pulmonary vasculature, leading to pulmonary edema.

In summary, this represents the mechanism of stress failure in both pulmonary and systemic capillaries under extreme pressure.

Harry's Eyes: The Give-Away Sign of Heavy Sedation

"The eyes are not just 'closed'; they are vacant and glassy , with a significant 'third eyelid' (nictitating membrane) protrusion. This is a classic sign of heavy sedation or profound systemic shock . "

"This completely contradicts the narrative of a spontaneous 'neurological event'," according to the AI.

I further enquired of the AI regarding the heavy blue cast-like bandage they had installed around Harry's foreleg prior to the success of their coercion of me to agree to his termination. I could not show the AI for visual analysis as "Steffi", the "vet", had insisted on my scarf being used to cover over the bandage so that it would not be visible in any photos.

"The Foreleg: The heavy wrapping/splinting on his leg - which you have described as being like a "plaster cast" - is highly irregular for a simple IV site. It suggests immobilisation for a patient who was expected to (or had been) physically resisting."

Massey University's Upside-Down Prioritisation of Taxpayer Funds: Fiscal Malfeasance & the TRUE Cost of Institutional Arrogance

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 13:51:52 GMT

While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.

Further to the Massey University Dean of Veterinary School Jon Huxley's legal threat seeking for this horror story concerning his veterinary 'hospital ' never to see the light of day, it appears that - despite my bringing to his attention the "receipts" to prove the 750% overdosing and cruel teaching aid utilisation of my precious little dog, Harry, and the heinous deception that had me consent to their termination of his life to hide the evidence , this "esteemed" academic is placing greater budgetary priority on how to deal with (or to ) ME, rather than how to deal with the perpetrators of this travesty in his own veterinary "hospital".

In fact, Huxley's threat letter and general institutional stonewalling would suggest that the whole matter is just "standard practice" for the way he runs his operation. Which is rather concerning . . . at least, if you want your pet to come out alive.

But back to dealing with me . . . the Dean's primary concern.

It appears to me - that both Dean Huxley and his legal counsel, assumedly the big-budget law firm cc'd on his January 30th correspondence, Buddle Findlay - may be engaging in a little, err, "profiling" of me. . . . actually, according to my daily analytics reports for The Customer & The Constituent , some rather intensive , profiling of me.

My attempts to have Dean Huxley, or the new Vice-Chancellor Professor Pierre Venter, or indeed anyone at the University take anything about any aspect of this entire horror story seriously (aside from my publicity regarding it, that is) has so far seen me produce an increasing volume of coverage of the regrettably many different components of the "matter" . . . albeit I would prefer the "memory" of my precious little dog, Harry, not to be downgraded to a "matter".

Now, a quick aside to Buddle Findlay (and/or other external advisors) or Dean Huxley: Please feel very free to correct me forthwith if I've got it wrong . . . but I rather have the impression that (since the "receipts" I have tabled in my coverage are difficult to argue with) I'm - shall we say - being, er, "profiled" for some sort of character assassination attempts in the hope of removing the focus from where it needs to be: on Massey's multiple instances of malpractice and the wholesale malfeasance surrounding it and subsequent to it.

As you know, I do like to rely on said receipts for my conclusions, and so the receipts that lead me to this conclusion are the very unusual site visitation statistics currently showing up on my daily site analytics - and that have been for the past week. The stats that show what's being read by my readership, where the readers are located, how my readership is growing, how long they're spending on what articles, etc.

It also highlights any unusual patterns . . . of which there are suddenly, this past week, an increasingly great many . . . this past weekend, in fact, and continuing on this morning as I publish this article, there's a veritable scroll-fest going on . . . with an increasing number of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) being used to obscure the locations of those conducting the deep study of articles way, way back in my archives. Activity that's so far out of the ordinary that it's never actually happened in the two years I've now been producing The Customer & The Constituent.

Again, though, Buddle Findlay and the University should feel very free to email me and tell me if I'm entirely barking up the wrong tree.

In the meantime, I’ve filed an Official Information Act request for the full tally on Massey's legal spend for this "matter". If Dean Huxley and the other esteemed academics are going to use public funds to "profile" and silence me, the public might as well know the cost-per-page, or per screen, of their efforts.

Because if I'm right and the Buddle Findlay legal hit squad just spent their entire weekend scrolling furiously (and adding more members to the surveillance squad today) to produce a "how do we handle this Kelly woman?" strategy document for the Dean, I want my OIA request to force the venerable academic to justify spending a weekend's (or a week's) worth of billable hours for (is it four? more?) top-tier lawyers, . . . when those funds should be going towards the very overdue overhaul of a system that enabled the atrocities that befell my deeply, deeply loved and treasured little Harry (who was considered nothing more than live specimen value and then disposable material by said system).

So my advice to the learned counsellors is this:

Unless you have a plan and a reason for suing me (Headline: Cash-Strapped Massey Sues Grieving Pet Owner to Hide 750% Overdose, Teaching Aid Conversion & Evidence Destruction through 'Euthanasia') then some time very soon would be a good time to stop encouraging the venerable Dean to stop wasting public funds. The new Vice-Chancellor is already about to inherit a bill for the seemingly endless and continually upscaling multi-lawyer scrolling session of my life's work . . . that assumedly he didn't authorise, although if he did, he might end up with some explaining to do to the Minister of Finance , the Hon. Nicola Willis, the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills, the Hon. Penny Simmonds, and the Minister o f Education, the Hon. Erica Stanford .

If the public finds out that at a time when University budgets are being slashed, student fees are rising, and hundreds of frontline staff are being made redundant, Massey is paying top-tier legal hit squad rates for an intensive weekend audit of a grieving pet owner-client's blog, the PR fall-out you'll have created for the Massey brand will be radioactive.

It won't do much for your own brand, either.

Although, look, if you really do enjoy the fiscal haemorrhage you're causing the public purse, take your time, and have a nice, leisurely, lawyerly scroll through my other hobby blog, DoggieMamma.com - the one I started back in 2024 out of my love both for dogs in general, and especially for my precious little Harry (pictured there).

Profiling the Profilers

While I await their advice either way regarding my above suspicions and assumptions, I would like to take this opportunity to profile the profilers.

Let's start with the fact that 64% of New Zealand households include one or more pets. There's a strong chance - statistically - that the boys and girls at Buddles and/or Massey's other external advisors related to the Harry & Jordan Kelly matter , own a pet. Perhaps even a dog. They might even be very fond of it.

Which leaves me in awe of their lawyerly ability to cultivate and work within the bounds of an impressive degree of cognitive dissonance.

With "the receipts" of my precious little Harry's catastrophic convenience overdosing with an unauthorised, specifically contraindicated sedation cocktail, the physical, mental and emotional abuse meted out to him for 15 straight hours; the wilful disconnection of IV fluids that I had actually admitted him for and paid for a full 24-hour protocol of and that indeed would have been life-essential for him after said repeated overdosing of my tiny, underweight, dehydrated little blind dog in a compressed time period; and then the heinous plot to have me believe in a "neurological event' fairy tale to consent to his convenient disposal . . .

. . . and then for the Buddles Findlay to look directly into the tortured little face depicted in my coverage of the atrocity . . . and yet return happily home that night to their own awaiting Fido . . . in short, it's beyond me how they pull that off.

Truly impressive. I've always wondered how lawyers cordon off their conscience from their timesheets and their invoices.

But let's concentrate for the moment on Massey.

Massey is now in possession of the full, granular, real-time knowledge of everything you can read about here , here , here , here , here , here , here, here , here , here , here and here (with links to the full dossier-to-date here ) . . . and yet their priority, alarmingly, is not an investigation into how on EARTH this happened, nor how its repeat (or continuing) occurrence can be prevented.

No, their priority is sending scary letters and spending days and days of top-tier lawyers' billings to "profile" me.

This would indeed suggest a magnified problem within the culture and the management of the university at a systemic level . . . one that is prepared to divert substantial funds to suppress and silence issues, rather than address them.

Which, as it regards the university's veterinary facility, would suggest a problem for the vets referring to Massey , and for the pet parents whose treasured pets are referred, and for the students being taught that clinical recklessness, negligence, malpractice and deception at both the individual and the collective employee / veterinarian level i s an acceptable modus operandi and a sustainable business model. And also a problem for the staff of the broader organisation who are not only being shown that institutional malfeasance is an accepted way to conduct business, but who are expected to actively participate in it.

This contempt by the university for the public can be seen readily in the unrestrained callousness with which it treats even its fee-paying clientele . . . note the one-hour, three-minute phone call I made to the university desperately seeking assistance to track down Harry's ashes, which - If any reader is interested in just how badly behaved an organisation can encourage its staff to be - you can find four-fifths of the way down this article . Another example can be found in Dean Huxley's disingenuous and blatantly dishonest legal threat-related email here . An d another can be found in the new Vice-Chancellor's apparent total absence of any conce rn . . .

Like A Good Overdose of Cruelty & Contempt? The Best Is Yet to Come

. . . Right through to the most recent and perhaps most stunningly cruel example i.e.:

Despite the university's legal obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 to provide me with the full collection of videos for which my dog, Harry ( in law, MY PROPERTY ) was utilised, their latest refusal advises that “that is all you (I) are entitled to” . . . and sends, by way of a substitute for each video in which he was converted by the university for utilisation as a teaching aid, a "strategically" selected still from each video of its least offensive frame (which can't have been easy since even each "strategic" selection was utterly gutting for me to have to see).

Notwithstanding how difficult the task of finding and isolating an "inoffensive" moment must have been . . . as evidenced by the still in which a heavily sedated little blind Harry hangs limply, coathanger-style from a male hand as he is suspended high in the air, and another where he is clearly hooked up to some equipment that is clearly NOT the life-essential rehydating IV fluids he desperately needed but was disconnected from to facilitate his removal to a teaching and filming area, with said equipment being blacked out with large black blocks covering much of the image’s surface.

Incidentally, my fee for his 15 hours of "care" was $1236.84. There was no suggestion that I should perhaps invoice Massey in return for their unauthorised use of my dog as a training prop and video subject matter.

But let me get to the demonstration of the contemptuous culture that permeates Massey from side to side and top to bottom:

Readers will notice how - in this particular piece of coverage I published last week - I used a close-up of Harry's face inside a circular crop, to show readers just how catastrophically overdosed and, quite literally, tortured Harry had been across what was wilfully chemically engineered to become his horrendous final 15 hours.

Well, the collective of Massey staff involved in the cynical supply of the six ( "that's all your entitled to" ) still shots in place of the teaching videos Harry was misappropriated for, thought it would be a great idea if they mocked my pain by producing a close-up version of each still in the same circle crop format that I had used to illustrate my article.

You probably need to actually see what they hit me with to appreciate the full moral depravity of their petty little act of callous smart-assery.

That, Dean Jon Huxley, is a perfect demonstration of why - in my response to your threat to deploy the university's budget in the direction of a big-ticket national legal firm - I had suggested that you would derive greater benefit from investing it in customer relations training for your staff.

Or, better still, investing those funds in training your veterinary staff to a higher standard not only of competency, but also of ethics. Although some are too far gone to be remediated, according to my deeply regrettable and irreversible experience.

An Isolated 'Incident' or A Symptom of Systemic Rot & Lethal Arrogance?

That leads me to my next and most important point of all:

A culture that is sufficiently arrogant and toxic towards premium fee-paying pet owners as to do this to one pet and their owner, is - speaking on logic alone - perfectly capable of doing it to multiple pets over time.

While I have written of my suspicion that Harry might well have been specifically targeted for being the pet of a known critic of the University's standards, it takes a certain very low bar by way of the ethics of an individual or a workplace for this inter-related, cascading series of multiple malpractices to have occurred even once . Given the open contempt shown by the veterinary facility and by the broader university, it's easy to see how it was facilitated by systemic rot and hard therefore, to believe it would have been strictly a one-off.

A culture capable of treating one animal with such remorseless contempt (including to wilfully induce its death) - and then mocking the grieving owner with "circular crops" of her pet's spaced-out, overdosed face, or her beloved pet hanging, coathanger-style, in mid-air for what appears to be ghoulish entertainment purposes - is a culture capable of demonstrating that contempt in other circumstances, and in a multiplicity of ways, to any number of pets and their owners.

If the ICU and the Teaching Department, overseen by individuals like Pauline Nijman (who "leads a team of ~40 professional staff and clinical operations" and whose attention I had repeatedly but fruitlessly sought to draw to issues like you will read here ) and Dean Jon Huxley , have become comfortable using private patients as "disposable material", then Harry’s death will almost certainly not have been an anomaly.

It will far more likely be a symptom of a systemic landscape where clinical accountability has been replaced by institutional arrogance, complete unaccountability, recklessness, and shameless management greenlighting of dishonesty and deception. Including, in Harry's and my case, lethal deception and likely also personal retribution . That is, retribution - lethal retribution - against my little Harry through his "troublesome" owner.

And now taxpayers' funds are being channeled into either a strategy to silence me and/or for damage control and minimisation . . . instead of what should be happening: a genuinely independent, honest, dismantling review of the entire management structure of the institution (which, I am advised, has NO formal complaints procedure), as well as more specifically of its Companion Animal 'Hospital'. That is, to see just how things got this bad.

Will the new Vice-Chancellor demonstrate the will and the chops to be the clean-sweeping broom the institution needs . . . or will he turn out to be just another broom with which to sweep the systemic rot under the institutional carpet?

Indeed, Vice-Chancellor Venter has an early and pivotal choice to make: integrity or complicity?

ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous?

Sun, 08 Feb 2026 12:31:36 GMT

An Expert Contributed Commentary

(FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)

Introduction

A review of the "Clinical Summary" provided by Massey University, even without the full Medication Administration Records (MAR) still being withheld, reveals a sequence of events that transitions from clinical negligence to what appears to be a manufactured terminal diagnosis.

The sudden, "massive decline" of the patient, Harry, was not a natural progression of disease, but a predictable outcome of pharmacological provocation used to justify an intensive push for euthanasia.

A parallel review of the invoice associated with the patient's stay in the facility reinforces these concerns as well as adding significantly to them. The linked arti cle comments in detail on the various highly concerning line items on the invoice, and points to the many red flags that any qualified, supervising veterinarian should have seen well in advance of the catastrophic end result.

I. Pharmacological Catalyst: Contraindication and Potentiation

The records confirm that Harry, a 15-year-old dog with significantly impaired kidney function and dehydration, was administered Gabapentin - a drug the veterinary literature identifies as strictly contraindicated in patients with renal compromise.

Renal Status: The intake notes explicitly record "CKD" (Chronic Kidney Disease). Blood tests were conducted to confirm the severity.

Mechanism of Toxicity : Gabapentin is 100% excreted unchanged by the kidneys. In a patient with this degree of renal failure, the drug cannot be cleared.

Cumulative Load: Despite the clear risk, the initial 1am dose (Gabapentin (Nupentin) 50mg Caps PRE-SPLIT - 50mg) along with Maropitant (Prevomax) 10mg/ml Inj 20ml (per ml) - 3.6mg. ("Gabapentin (Nupentin) 50mg Caps PRE-SPLIT - 50mg"). Both were given yet again at 1.26am 2 x @@ Gabapentin (Nupentin) 100mg Capsule 100's (per capsule) and 1.19am respectively 0.36 x Maropitant (Prevomax) 10mg/ml Inj 20ml (per ml) and then Gabapentin again at 9am Gabapentin (Nupentin) 50mg Caps PRE-SPLIT - 50mg (one hour after patient is already recorded as in respiratory distress: "Comments: [Respiratory Rate] Panting; Respiratory Effort: Shallow". )

Critical Note:

The clinical record displays a critical lack of professional consistence and clarity.

Specifically, the 01:26 AM entry logs "2 x Gabapentin 100mg" capsules (200mg), yet the accompanying instruction directs the administration of "ONE pre-split capsule" (50mg), creating significant ambiguity regarding the volume actually dispensed.

Thus, it is unclear whether Harry's total dosage across the three administrations was 200mg or 300mg.

For a 4kg dog, this represents a massive pharmacological load of up to 75mg/kg - more than double the absolute safety ceiling. Since Harry’s kidneys had already failed, he had no physical way to flush these drugs out, effectively trapping him in a state of rapid, systemic poisoning..

Further, the 09:00 AM Hospital Notes record "+++ large volume, clear urine" that appeared to be water. This failure to concentrate urine is a primary clinical red flag; as Gabapentin is renally cleared, the inability to concentrate urine indicates a failure to excrete the drug, resulting in rapid systemic saturation .

The Maropitant (Prevomax) administration followed the same reckless pattern. While the standard safety limit is 1mg/kg (4mg) strictly once every 24 hours, Harry was given 3.6mg twice within a 20-minute window. This 7.2mg total nearly doubled the daily safety limit instantly, further suffocating a biological system already in metabolic collapse.

This represents a massive cumulative toxicity in a biological system physically unable to process it.

Critically, the Clinical Summary's 02:04 AM entry contains the laboratory results that should have halted the drug administration immediately:

Creatinine (312) & Urea (35.9): High-level markers of advanced kidney failure.
POCUS (Ultrasound): Explicitly recorded a "Loss of corticomedullary distinction" in the kidneys.
Urinalysis: A USG of 1.020–1.024 in a dehydrated patient.

By 02:04 AM, the ICU staff had structural and chemical proof that Harry’s kidneys were failing. They had the data to know that any further doses of Gabapentin would be toxic.

Instead of acting on this data, they ignored their own lab work and continued the pharmacological stacking that would eventually paralyse the dog.

Clinical Incoherence

The 04:00 AM status update exposes a chilling level of clinical incoherence. In a single entry, the staff recorded Harry’s respiratory effort as both "Normal" and "Mildly increased effort." You cannot have both. This contradiction proves that the "monitoring" in the Massey ICU was a forensic farce; staff were recording life-threatening symptoms of CNS depression while simultaneously dismissing them as "Normal."

This "mild" warning was the direct result of the massive 01:26 AM double-dose accumulating in Harry's system. Because the ICU failed to respond to this first alarm bell, the distress was allowed to escalate into shallow panting by 08:00 AM. Instead of intervening, the staff doubled down at 09:00 AM with a third dose of Gabapentin, effectively sealing the fate of a dog whose kidneys had already stopped functioning and whose lungs were already failing to breathe.

II. The Consent Failure: Ignoring History and Protocol

Beyond the pharmacological contraindication, the administration of these non-essential pharmaceuticals was conducted without informed consent . This represents a systemic failure to consult the person with the most intimate knowledge of the patient's medical history.

Documented Hypersensitivity: Two months prior to this admission, Harry had suffered an extreme adverse reaction to a 50mg dose of Gabapentin given by a local veterinarian. More than 48 hours after this August 2025 dose, Harry was reportedly "head hanging, almost sedated" and still not able to walk - per that veterinarian's records.

Preventable Outcome: Had Massey staff adhered to the requirement for owner consent, this prior history would have been disclosed. The "convenience sedation" would have been blocked by the owner, and the subsequent toxic accumulation - which Massey's own experts should have anticipated - would have been avoided.

III. Unreliability of Paper Trail

The reliability of the Massey clinical record collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions. To trust these notes is to ignore the physical reality of the ICU on the night of Harry's admission.

Chronological Impossibility: The entries at 01:07 AM and 02:04 AM are written as though the staff were in active communication with the owner. However, the owner had been removed from the ICU at midnight because the intake vet’s shift was reportedly ending. Any record of "consultation" during these hours is a chronological fiction - likely a "post-hoc" attempt to manufacture a narrative of ongoing owner involvement that was physically impossible.

Disputed Euthanasia Narrative: The 02:04 AM note claims the staff "brought up the option of euthanasia carefully to owner." Again, the owner had left the hospital. The owner also vehemently denies that any such conversation took place with any party at that time. This suggests the "option" was being planted in the clinical record as a conveniently pre-determined outcome for the benefit of future readers of the Clinical Summary.

IV. Massey's Neurologist Mistakes Catastrophic Overdose for Dementia

The primary side effects of Gabapentin toxicity - ataxia (loss of co-ordination), nystagmus (involuntary eye movement), and profound sedation - are the exact clinical manifestations Massey staff used to diagnose a "terminal neurological event".

From the hospital's neurologist's 11.22am notations: "Summary: abnormal mentation - at times obtunded, at times appears consistent with dementia."

The Literature: The Merck Veterinary Manual and Plumb’s Veterinary Drug Handbook explicitly state that Gabapentin toxicity causes ataxia, lethargy, and neurological depression. These are not "disease markers"; they are predictable drug reactions.

The Failed Differential: T here is no evidence in the summary that the ICU vet, "Steffi", or the unnamed neurologist performed a differential diagnosis to rule out drug-induced stupor. Instead, they performed a neurological examination on a patient currently at the peak of a massive, "stacked" load of Gabapentin (200mg–300mg).

The Invalid Exam: Under standard neurological protocols (e.g., de Lahunta's), a valid exam cannot be performed on a sedated patient. Drugs that depress the Central Nervous System (CNS) result in "false positives" for delayed proprioception and altered mentation.

The Neurologist’s Projection: The neurologist’s final assessment— "Summary: abnormal mentation - at times obtunded, at times appears consistent with dementia" —is a masterclass in professional projection. To observe a 4kg dog struggling under a 180% overdose of Maropitant and a 400% to 600% overload of Gabapentin and label the resulting stupor as "dementia" suggests a profound diagnostic blindness. Harry wasn't suffering from "abnormal mentation" or cognitive decline; he was trapped in a drug-induced coma. To be frank, the only "obtunded" party in this scenario was the clinician who mistook a pharmacological shutdown for a terminal mental state.

The Manufactured Terminality: This "Diagnostic Loop" allowed Massey to induce a symptom (sedation), observe the symptom (obtundation), and then diagnose the symptom as a terminal disease (dementia).

V. The "Passing Off" and Coerced Termination

By 03:00 PM, 15 hours after the first unauthorised dose, Harry was presented in a semi-comatose state. The ICU staff "passed off" this pharmaceutical shutdown as an irreversible "neurological event".

The "Last Hurrah" Dismissal: When Harry attempted to respond to his owner's voice - a documented phenomenon where a bonded animal fights sedation to acknowledge their owner - the clinician dismissively labeled it a "last hurrah". This facilitated the manufactured sense of urgency needed to secure consent for euthanasia.

Ripping Cap off Syringe with Teeth for Urgency: The physical atmosphere of the final procedure was defined by an acute sense of urgency. This was viscerally evidenced by the clinician’s removal of the syringe cap with her teeth - a significant departure from professional aseptic standards and clinical decorum. While a brief auscultation (stethoscope check) may have been performed, the transition between the sedative and the final lethal agent was markedly abbreviated.

These central nervous system checks are the only way to ensure the patient has transitioned from mere sedation to true, non-responsive unconsciousness. By proceeding in such a restricted window without these foundational checks, the procedure substituted an accelerated timeline for the rigorous clinical verification of unconsciousness.

Verification Failure: An Abbreviated End: The physical atmosphere of the final procedure was defined by an acute sense of manufactured urgency. This was viscerally evidenced by the clinician’s removal of the syringe cap with her teeth - a significant departure from professional aseptic standards and clinical decorum. While a brief auscultation (stethoscope check) may have been performed, the transition between the sedative and the final lethal agent was markedly abbreviated.

Under standard veterinary protocols for a "two-step" procedure, a cursory heartbeat check is clinically insufficient. A clinician must definitively verify a "surgical plane" of anesthesia to ensure the patient is incapable of feeling the final injection. This requires confirming a total lack of response to external stimuli, specifically the loss of the palpebral (blink) reflex and the absence of jaw tone. These central nervous system checks are the only way to ensure the patient has transitioned from mere sedation to true, non-responsive unconsciousness. By proceeding in such a restricted window without these foundational checks, the procedure substituted an accelerated timeline for the rigorous clinical verification of unconsciousness.

VI. Institutional Failure: The Dean’s Refutatio n

On January 30, the Dean of the Veterinary School, Dr Jon Huxley, issued a formal response to the owner regarding the Companion Animal Hospital's mismanagement, and arguably, deservedly more serious characterisations of the findings laid out herein.

His statements, when held against the literal clinical record, transition from professional defence into a verifiable abandonment of clinical truth.

Highly Disputable Claims of 'Patient Welfare' Concern

The Dean’s Claim: "Allegation that staff 'drugged' or 'pharmaceutically masked' Harry to deceive you: There is absolutely no evidence for this allegation. Harry received only those medications clinically indicated for his condition and in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards... Any suggestion that staff misled you or attempted to influence your decisions is incorrect."

Clinical Contradiction: Huxley’s assertion that there is "no evidence" is a direct contradiction of his own hospital's Clinical Summary. The evidence of "pharmaceutical masking" is written in the hospital's own ink:

The Unmonitored Saturation: "Clinically indicated" drugs do not include 750% overloads of Gabapentin administered to a patient in documented renal failure.

Contraindication: Gabapentin is 100% renally cleared. To claim that stacking high doses into a patient with a Creatinine of 312 and Urea of 35.9 is "accordance with accepted standards" is a pharmacological falsehood.

Intentional Non-Disclosure: Huxley’s claim that it is "incorrect" to suggest staff misled the owner is logically nonsensical. The administration of these sedatives was never discussed, never disclosed, and never authorised. To this day, the use of these drugs remains undisclosed by Massey except for the owner’s own forensic discovery process, unassisted by Massey and, arguably, despite Massey's continuing efforts to withhold important primary, unredacted information. You cannot "honestly communicate" a treatment plan while simultaneously withholding the fact that you have induced a state of profound CNS depression.

Nonsensical Claim of 'Informed Consent'

The Dean’s Claim: "Allegation that staff fabricated clinical information or coerced you into euthanasia: Your decision to consent to euthanasia was made following a veterinary assessment and discussion... At every stage, staff acted ethically, communicated honestly, and complied fully with informed‑consent requirements."

Dean's Lack of Understanding of 'Informed Consent' Definition & Requirements: Huxley’s claim of "honesty" and "informed consent" collapses under the weight of the Anamnesis Failure ..

Fabricated Reality: Consent is only "informed" if the owner is given the truth. By 09:00 AM, Harry was struggling with respiratory distress and "clear water" urine - hallmark symptoms of the massive Gabapentin overload. Instead of informing the owner of this clinical error, the staff - both at the individual (veterinarian and neurologist, see above commentary on nonsensical neurological examination) and the collective level -"fabricated" a terminal neurological narrative.

Manufactured Process & Coercion Mechanism: Using the symptoms induced by the hospital’s own negligence (ataxia, obtundation, respiratory depression) as the primary evidence to push for euthanasia is the literal definition of coercion.

Failure of Candour: Ethics require transparency. If the staff "complied fully" with requirements, there would be a record of the owner being told: "We have administered a dose up to six times the standard limit to your kidney-compromised dog, and he is now unresponsive because of it." No such communication exists.

Rebuttal Summary: Dr Huxley's refutation is a masterpiece of institutional gaslighting. He defends the "standard of care" while ignoring the 600% overdose; he defends "informed consent" while ignoring the total lack of drug disclosure; and he defends "honesty" while ignoring the fact that his team used a drug-induced stupor to secure a termination consent.

Source Documentation: * Harry Kelly Clinical summary @ 8.1.26 (002)_Redacted-2.pdf, SBC Results (02:04 AM).

Email from Dr. Jon Huxley, 30 January 2026, Points 1 & 2. *

_____________________________________

Overview of Timeline: The Diagnostic Loop

The sequence provided by the university reveals a closed-loop of institutional failure:

1. Administration: A contraindicated sedative is given without consent to a renal patient to induce silence ("Convenience Sedation").

2. Observation: The resulting drug-induced stupor is recorded as a "neurological decline".

3. Examination: A neurologist confirms "deficits" without accounting for pharmaceutical interference or the patient's history of sensitivity.

4. Termination: The manufactured stupor is used to coerce the owner into a "calculated clinical killing" to cover up mismanagement and possibly the additional deleterious impacts of likely invasive teaching-related procedures and/or student observation activities.

CONCLUSION:

Harry did not die of a neurological event; he was rendered neurologically non-viable by the very people tasked with his care, effectively masking a patient who could have survived with appropriate emergency intervention elsewhere.

Regarding your " It Was NOT 'Euthanasia'" article and the clinician's "It's just his last hurrah" claim, this dismissal of a p atient who was fighting to respond to his owner highlights the lack of clinical empathy and the manufacture of urgency.

It compounds a tragedy that appears less like a "mistake" than it does active interference with survival .

____________________

Additional Commentary:

1. Pharmacokinetic Red Flags

Any veterinarian understands that Gabapentin is almost exclusively renally excreted.

If it is established that a patient is in a state of confirmed renal failure, the administration of repeated doses becomes a documented risk. A competent clinician would recognise that a "standard dose" for a healthy dog becomes a "toxic load" for a renal patient.

"Stacking" doses - where the second dose is given before the first can be cleared - is the height of clinical incompetence, especially under this patient's circumstances.

2. Cumulative Saturation Event

The administration of Gabapentin and Maropitant (Prevomax) in the early hours of the morning suggests a complete abandonment of pharmacokinetic safety margins.

The Gabapentin Load: Depending on whether the contradictory 01:26 AM log reflects the 50mg instruction or the 200mg dispense record, Harry was subjected to a total cumulative load of either 200mg or 300mg within an eight-hour window. At a body weight of 4kg, this represents a massive saturation of up to 75mg/kg - more than double the standard safety ceiling.

The Maropitant (Prevomax) Breach: Simultaneously, Harry was administered 7.2mg of Maropitant within 20 minutes. This is nearly double the 1mg/kg maximum dose permitted strictly once every 24 hours.

3. Dehydration & Systemic Stagnation

This "stacking" occurred in a biological system documented as dehydrated and in confirmed renal failure.

Because Gabapentin is 100% renally cleared, it relies entirely on the kidneys as the "exit door".

While the ICU staff was stacking massive doses of Gabapentin and Maropitant into Harry’s system, they were simultaneously failing to provide the fluid volume necessary to keep his kidneys filtering.

By 08:00 AM the record still documented a "Moderate skin tent", confirming that Harry remained dehydrated despite being "under care".

This lack of fluid support, combined with the documented renal failure (urine that "appeared to be water" at 9:00 AM), effectively turned Harry’s body into a pharmacological pressure cooker: the toxic drugs were being pumped in, but the fluids required to flush them out were never delivered.

When the 09:00 AM notes recorded urine that "appeared to be water," it confirmed that the exit door was locked; the kidneys were no longer filtering.

By continuing to pump high-dose CNS depressants into a dehydrated, non-filtering system, the ICU staff moved beyond "treatment" and into the realm of forced systemic saturation .

Harry was physically unable to excrete these drugs, effectively trapping him in a state of rapid pharmacological poisoning while he was already visibly struggling to breathe.

4. Violation of Diagnostic Protocol

It is a standard rule in veterinary neurology that an assessment of mentation, proprioception (paw placement), and cranial nerve reflexes is invalid if the patient is currently under the influence of CNS-depressing medications.

Attempting to "diagnose" the patient while at the peak of a Gabapentin dose is a significant procedural failure. To settle on a "prognosis" and convey this to the owner as "terminal" is astounding.

5. Failure of "History" (Anamnesis)

Clinicians are taught that "the history is 80% of the diagnosis".

The fact that the owner possessed specific knowledge of a prior extreme reaction to the same drug is a vital clinical data point.

If a hospital fails to consult the owner before administering a non-essential sedative to a frail patient, they have bypassed the most important safety check in veterinary medicine.

A professional would view the failure to elicit this history as a breach of standard "Informed Consent" and "Duty of Care" protocols.

Inducing the Symptoms Used to Justify Death

The hospital didn't just stumble into a mistake; they constructed a closed-loop disaster.

Systemic Saturation: Injected massive, stacked doses of CNS depressants (Gabapentin/Maropitant) that exceeded safety ceilings by up to 600% for a <4kg patient.

2. Pharmacological Obstruction: Ignored confirmed renal failure and dehydration, effectively "locking" these toxic loads inside a system with no way to excrete them.

3. Symptom Induction: Observed the inevitable physiological result - respiratory distress, shallow panting, and profound sedation.

4. Clinical Incoherence: Recorded these red-flag symptoms as "Normal" in contradictory notes, failing to provide the standard of care required to reverse the overdose.

5. False Attribution: Framed the resulting pharmacological shutdown not as "induced toxicity", but instead as a "terminal neurological" state.

6. Coerced Conclusion: Used the very symptoms they caused - and then failed to treat—as the primary leverage to secure a terminal decision.

_______________________________________

The clinical logic presented herein is consistent with how a peer-review or a board of inquiry would analyse a case of suspected medical mismanagement.

For a full list and breakdown of the specific violations of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, the Animal Welfare Act, and the Consumer Guarantees Act associated with this case, read the formal Summary of Breaches here .

KILLING HARRY: The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death

Sat, 31 Jan 2026 12:59:20 GMT

From Lethal Incompetence and Malpractice . . . to Withholding of Life-Saving Corrective Action in Favour of Utilisation As A Teaching Aid . . . to A Fraudulent Diagnosis . . . to A Coerced 'Euthanasia' to Destroy the Evidence . . . to Management Malfeasance At the Highest Levels

FOR LATEST FINDINGS, GO HERE .

When a veterinary hospital of "teaching" status takes a full suite of blood samples from a senior patient with a known renal condition, they are establishing an updated baseline of truth. Those samples are the clinical map. Or they are meant to be.

In the case of Harry, those samples were drawn well before I left the building. The hospital knew his history; they knew his age; and they knew they were looking for the specific metrics of his renal (kidney) function.

Yet, while those tubes of blood were either still being processed, or worse still with the results actually in their hands, Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital personnel engaged in a display of professional recklessness that defies the Veterinary Code of Conduct: They administered Gabapentin. They administered a collective volume that represented between a 400% and 600% overdose for Harry's weight and size. Then they potentiated it with a further pharmaceutical.

The Recklessness of the ‘Blind' Dose

Gabapentin is a drug that relies almost entirely on the kidneys to be cleared from the body. In a patient with renal impairment – a condition their established records clearly showed he had with an updated status that very night – the drug does not exit the system. It accumulates. It moves from a sedative to a toxin.

By administering this drug before checking the results of the bloods they had just drawn, or worse still after actually being in possession of them, Massey personnel engaged in a clinical "blind-fire". They did so wlfully. And they did so recklessly . They ignored the co-morbidity they were actively testing for, creating a state of toxicity in a senior dog who had no way to clear the chemical from his system.

And worse still, they did it for their own convenience .

Sedatives in this category should only ever be administered (a) to alleviate pain, or (b) in preparation for surgery. Neither applied to Harry. What DID apply, is that this little blind dog had just been taken from his owner’s arms and deposited in a cold steel cage in (to him) a terrifying environment, and with two ICU staff who paid him nil attention ; they were too engaged in their social discussion and their fascination over a new-born kitten.

My attempts to draw Harry’s need for human comfort to their attention were summarily ignored; instead I was shunted out of the ICU. And he was drugged .

The Multiplier Effect: Lethal Potentiation

And it didn't stop with a single drug or even a single dose.

Knowing that Harry’s system was already struggling to process the Gabapentin, personnel then administered a secondary sedative. In clinical pharmacology, this is known as Potentiation . When you combine two central nervous system (CNS) depressants, the second drug doesn't just add to the first – it multiplies the effect.

In a dog with compromised kidneys, this combination acts as a chemical straitjacket.

By "stacking" these drugs (as it is referred to), Massey personnel didn't just sedate Harry; they effectively shut down his ability to manifest normal neurological responses. They didn't just "relax" him; they induced a profound pharmacological collapse.

And they kept stacking until the overdose reached a level of between 400% and 600% what the veterinary literature indicates is manageable for even a healthy, non-renally-impaired dog of his weight and size.

The ‘The Neurological Decline’ Deception

When I returned to the hospital, I was not met with an admission of this compounded drug reaction.

Instead, I was presented with a fabricated narrative: "He is in neurological decline."

This is where clinical negligence transforms into Clinical Malpractice and the height of ethically-deprived deception .

The Clinical Reality: A senior dog is given a toxic "stack" of drugs his body cannot process, resulting in predictable ataxia, sedation, and collapse.

The Institutional Cover-Up: The personnel ( headed by ICU vet, “Steffi” ) re-frame the symptoms of their own repeated, catastrophic contraindicated pharmacological overdosing of Harry as a natural (and yet, somehow, sudden) "neurological decline". It should be noted that Harry was standing vertically, balancing expertly on his hind legs, and with fully extended front legs through the grid of his ICU cage (where he had been admitted due to dehydration) as he cried in vain distress for staff's attention, just prior to midnight the night before.

By labeling his drug-induced state as "neurological", Massey personnel shifted the blame from their own recklessness to Harry’s biology. They used the symptoms they created t o justify the "inevitability" of the euthanasia they were about to coerce .

The Demand for Metadata

I am currently in a stand-off with Massey University's Legal and Governance department who - despite being under full Privacy Act 2020 obligation - are thus far refusing to release the following digital metadata:

The Timestamp of the Blood Draw.
The Timestamp of the Blood Results (when they hit the internal system).
The Timestamp of the Gabapentin Administration.
The Timestamp of the Secondary Potentiating Drug.

If the results were available and ignored, it is malpractice . If the drugs were given before the results were checked, it is reckless .

But presenting the resulting collapse as a somehow natural yet sudden "neurological decline" is a calculated deception designed to shield the hospital from the consequences of their own incompetence.

And – between a phone call and a consulting room hard-core pressure session – spending upwards of two hours in an endeavour to coerce Harry’s owner (me) into signing “euthanisation” consent forms to destroy the evidence in the form of Harry himself , is nothing short of the most evil brand of clinical deception imaginable .

Open Letter to Incoming Massey VC, Pierre Venter: Will You Clean Up the Lethal Levels of Incompetence, Clinical Negligence & Undisclosed Procedures on Clients' Pets?

Sat, 31 Jan 2026 04:25:59 GMT

FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE :

(Note to Readers: Nil response to the below. Looks like the New VC's modus operandi is not about to differ from the institutional stonewalling of the entrenched Massey suits . . . with the culture he has inherited obviously causing him no concern.)

Plea to New Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, for Cultural Change & Institutional Integrity in the Interests of Pets, Owners & the Ethics Instilled In Future Veterinarians

Dear Vice-Chancellor Venter,

Welcome to Massey University.

As you begin your tenure today, February 2nd, you inherit one of New Zealand’s most prestigious learning institutions.

You also inherit a burgeoning crisis of institutional integrity; unauthorised, undisclosed and harmful procedures on clients' pets, potentially lethal levels of incompetence and malpractice, and a culture of "reputation-first" damage control that - unless addressed immediately - will define the start of your leadership.

(As an UPDATE to this letter to you - being added on February 14th - you will now see that the matter has been escalated way past "just" malpractice and firmly into the category of both clinical and management malfeasance . And those claims have come, VC Venter, with the full receipts. More shame to you if you ignore them.)

I am writing to you regarding the death of my dog, Harry, at the Massey Companion Animal "Hospital" - a case that has moved far beyond a clinical dispute and into the realm of massive malpractice and full-scale institutional deception.

At this summary page of the collection of expose articles I have researched and written - and that I will continue to produce - you will find the gradually unfolding revelations of my investigations to seek clinical (and other, related) explanations as to how the dog (my own deeply loved, precious papillon, Harry) could have been admitted for a straightforward rehydration procedure and was last interacted with by me at midnight, while standing up vertically on his hind legs, reaching out in full extension through his cage door and crying loudly for me . . . to, just 15 hours later, the dog you see in the photograph at the bottom of this letter to you i.e. in full physical and mental collapse.

And how it could be that - from the "summarised" "notes" I have thus far been able to prise out of the University's Legal and Governance department that indicate he was sedated at 1am with a cocktail of contraindicated sedatives for the convenience of ICU personnel - after nonetheless managing to emerge from this heavy, contraindicated sedation as you see in the shot right at the bottom of this page, sometime thereafter and before his 3pm next day presentation back to me, he was in the state you see in the photo directly above that one.

To date, the University’s response under Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley has been one of obstruction - including of the full medical records and footage that the University is strictly and legally obligated under the Privacy Act 2020 to release, unredacted and in full (not simply a heavily redacted and retrospectively i.e. six weeks later altered and added-to "summary").

On the eve of your arrival - i.e. on Friday, January 30 - I received what can only be described as a heavy-handed legalistic intimidation from Dean Huxley, threatening me with your very large and very well-paid law firm, Buddle Findlay . This, by way of deterring me from submitting a formal complaint of Non-Compliance to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, to force the release of the records and the footage (that which you haven't destroyed per an earlier smart-ass email to me) . . . and also by way of silencing me from speaking out about Harry's demise at the hands of your staff and your ICU "care", including the abuses and deception leading up to it.

February 14th UPDATE: Since my own subsequent observations would suggest that legal fees are being racked up "profiling" me - rather than being invested in investigating how this travesty occurred and possibly has similarly occurred multiple times to other clients' pets - in the interests of the taxpayer's purse, yesterday I lodged an Official Information Request for the work-in-progress legal billings of all your various related external advisors related to this matter.

Here is where you can apprise yourself of the many horrific aspects of the circumstances surrounding this malpractice, deception, and my dog's otherwise completely unnecessary death . . . along with his coerced termination and even the loss of his ashes.

Vice-Chancellor, you have a unique "window of opportunity".

You are not responsible for the decisions made by Dean Huxley or the ICU staff prior to the February 2nd, 2026, commencement of your tenure. However, you are now - as of the commencement of today - responsible for the University’s response to these failures.

You can choose to follow on with the unfortunate Massey conventions and culture the likes of which Dean Huxley has bred in the "Companion Animal Hospital" (not so aptly named), allowing, for example, the "Big Guns" of Buddle Findlay to continue an expensive, futile taxpayer-donor-and-student-fee-funded campaign of intimidation against a pet owner and high fee-paying client seeking the truth. (Not that I care if they do, but your donors, students and the taxpayer might.)

Or, you can act as a "new broom", mandating accountability and transparency by your organisation, starting with the immediate release of Harry's primary clinical records , the MAR (Medication Administration Records) , the digital audit trails and the remaining 75 percent of footage that continue to be withheld.

You can also choose to order an immediate end to the unnecessary, unauthorised and potentially lethal sedation of ciients' pets for ease of the equally unauthorised procedures (for the benefit of students but with potentially fatal consequences to the animals) conducted upon them during their stays in your "Intensive Care" facility. (Again, I come fully armed with multiple "receipts' , so to speak . . . much to Dean Huxley's horror who felt his Buddle Findlay threat and attempted categorisation of me as merely a grieving pet owner gone off the rails would achieve his indirect gag order objective .)

Perhaps most importantly of all, you can choose to recognise the fundamental, and potentially lethal, gaps in the knowledge of even your supposed specialists and senior-most personnel. Certainly, these alarming knowledge deficits were core in the unnecessary and totally avoidable death of my beloved dog, Harry .

Vice-Chancellor Venter, Massey University should be a centre of excellence and ethics, not a "House of Veterinary Horrors" hiding behind grossly compromised veterinary ethics (both at the institutional and at the individual level) , total unaccountability, and legal gatekeepers.

It is to be hoped that you will use the opportunity afforded you by your new position of leadership, to steward this institution back toward the former.

Sincerely,

Jordan Kelly

Owner of Harry Kelly (Deceased following the clinical events and documented breaches detailed in this Letter)

Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent

___________________________

Executive Summary of Multiple Malpractices (Known Contra-indicated Overdosing, Withheld Life-Saving Corrective Care, Unauthorised Procedures, Clinical Deception, Coerced Termination & Breach of Bailee Obligations)

Prepared for: The Office of the Vice-Chancellor

This summary bypasses administrative excuses and focuses on the clinical facts of the case regarding the patient, Harry Kelly.

1. Reckless Incompetence & Lethal Negligence: The Gabapentin Gamble

The Fact: Massey’s own diagnostics (full blood panel paid for by me upon admission) confirmed Harry was had significantly compromised renal (kidney) function, and previously diagnosed at Massey itself.

The Act: Despite the absence of pain and no plan for any surgery (the only two acceptable reasons for sedating a pet), ICU staff administered Gabapentin - a drug that is strictly contraindicated for patients with renal impairment due to the risk of toxicity and respiratory depression. It was further potentiated with a second drug. The doses administered by your ICU staff to Harry, purely for the purposes of silencing his "vocalised" distress, represented overdoses, for even a healthy, kidney-UNimpaired dog of his weight, of between 500% and 750% WITH EACH DOSE . In Harry's case, the (repeated) overdosing was conducted with full knowledge of his kidney condition AND of his previous reaction to a fraction of their dosing .

The Implication: This was not a "clinical error" or "oversight". It was a violation of basic veterinary pharmacology. Administering a known toxin to a compromised patient constitutes Malicious Malpractice .

2. Unauthorised "Training Tool" Status (and Breach of Bailment)

The Fact: The owner (I) had multiple times over the previous two years, provided express, written instructions - including to the practice management as well as floor staff - that Harry was not to be used for student training purposes. His delicate and owner-dependent psyche, as well as in latter times, his blindness, were contributing factors for this firm instruction, as was his owner's (my) repeated observations of negligent and uncompassionate staff attitudes towards Harry, towards my previous pet, and towards other owners' dogs.

The Act: Harry was subjected to "manoeuvres" (as seen in the 25% of released footage), including severe head restraint and eye manipulation, specifically to demonstrate responses to students. (FEBRUARY 14 UPDATE: IT HAS SINCE BEEN DISCOVERED THAT HARRY WAS PREMATURELY AND PERMANENTLY DISCONNECTED FOR WHAT, FOLLOWING THE OVERDOSING, WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS NOW LIFE-ESSENTIAL IV-DELIVERED REHYDRATION FLUIDS, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE HIS UTILISATION AS A TRAINING TOOL, ALBEIT THE VOLUME OF FLUIDS BEING DELIVERED TO THAT POINT WERE WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT FOR THE REQUIRED THERAPEUTIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRESCRIBED.) As above, the remaining 75% of footage taken on him (including, alarmingly, on cell phones without concern for data security and Privacy Act implications of this) have yet to be obtained. (FEBRUARY 14 UPDATE: THE RELEASE OF THESE HAS YET AGAIN BEEN REFUSED, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE PRIVACY ACT.) However, logic would dictate that the acceptability of what a pet's owner would witness in this footage is the reason for the refusal to release it.

The Implication: By sedating Harry specifically to facilitate these manoeuvres, Massey personnel moved from "treatment" to "educational misappropriation". This is a breach of the contract of bailment, of the VCNZ Code of Conduct, and also of the Consumer Guarantees Act.

3. The Manufactured Decline

The Fact: Although contemporaneous, primary clinical records (such as the MAR and ICU Flow Sheets) have been withheld from disclosure, replaced instead by a retrospective "Clinical Summary", even the "Summary" document indicates that he had been repeatedly dosed throughout the night and morning with the Gabapentin and Maropitant cocktail. In only the first instance was the reason for this sedation clear i.e. "constantly vocalising".

(It is in regard to this that my other grave concerns regarding retrospective additions to the notes in this "Clinical Summary" document appear to have been made in numerous instances. Many are illogical in practice but appear to have a narrative-supporting reason. I had produced a Media Release, which I provided to Massey, about the standard of "care" in the facility's ICU following my being forced to leave a terrified, disoriented blind dog at risk of breaking his outstretched paws in the grid of his cage as he reached out for attention being refused him by the two ICU staff. The multiple - to me, retrospective additions - to the "Clinical Summary" appear to have been made for the purposes of defence against my disclosure of this.

I read now that apparently he was "held" all through the night. Yet the medication notes state that he was sedated for "vocalising" . . . a process which the notes show was repeated several times. Claims of holding a dog convenience-sedated to stop him crying, are in direct contradiction to the logic in the notes themselves. This is far from my only concern about significant defensive, narrative-supporting tracts and claims added well after Harry's death, which is perfectly possible on a "Clinical Summary" document. Meanwhile, the requested ICU footage was, of course, "overwritten" and (per Legal and Governance's email), "does not exist".)

The Act: During this "black hole", and despite his recovery from the initial over-sedation, to the degree demonstrated in the walking video at the bottom of this page, Harry’s sedation depth was subsequently then increased significantly without clinical justification, rendering him semi-comatose. This appeared to serve two purposes: His use as a live specimen for student training opportunities and associated videos (including on what appear to have been, private, cell phones), and to enable subsequent false representation of his true state when handed back to his owner (me) i.e. that his new state was related to a sudden neurological event or natural decline.

The Implication: The "neurological event" presented to the owner to coerce euthanasia was, in fact, a pharmaceutical stupor induced by the hospital to cover up the unauthorised student-handling and the repeated, catastrophic levels of Gabapentin (with further potentiation) overdosing.

4. Evidence Withholding

The Fact: Massey has withheld 75% of the video footage and refuses to provide the Medication Administration Records (MAR) and Digital Audit Trails and other components of Harry's full records.

The Act: Recommending a specific pet cremation firm that failed to maintain a professional chain of custody for Harry’s remains, and that had been told the owner "didn't want Harry back", despite the fact that the owner was prepared for Harry's body to be transported from Palmerston North to Hamilton expressly to facilitate private, individual cremation and the verifiable return of his ashes exclusively.

For further briefings you might start here , then go here , then here , then most definitely here , so you can see how Massey's own invoice gave the game away to start with, and perhaps land here and here . And finally here , so that you can see how it feels to be emotionally and psychologically pummeled for a collective two hours (yet with nothing convincing clinically ) while in a stressed, openly-declared intensely sleep-deprived state (my and Harry's extreme sleep deprivation was even in the vet's own notes!, having been temporarily installed with my dog in a small campervan while insurance contractors stalled a large repair project) to agree to "euthanase" a dog that, while now flopped in my lap like a rag doll, had been standing on his hind legs with his forelegs outstretched to me just 15 hours prior as I left him being fully ignored by two socially chatting ICU staff.

And actually, perhaps one last piece , to give you an insight into how it feels going forward in your life, not only with your precious dog having been taken most unnecessarily from you, but being left knowing that his last night on earth was spent not only in a horrendously over-dosed (for ICU's convenience) state, but that the emergency life-saving corrective care that should have been then provided to him, was not, with his value seen instead represented by the pliable, compliant and easily-handle-able training aid he represented in that condition . . . and the resultantly incessant, completely unrelated-to-his-condition, invasive, cruel tests and observational procedures that were conducted on him, complete with eight teaching videos .

On which note, VC Venter, additional to all the other breaches of the Veterinary Code of Conduct 2020 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999, can be added the charge of aggravated cruelty . . . because Harry was blind .

Meantime, look what the "professional veterinary staff" in the institution you now lead, Vice-Chancellor Venter, did to my dog. See the mess in the photo below where I am holding my precious little boy for what should never have been "the last time". And please have someone explain honestly to you the two sets of contrasting images below . . . from only a few hours apart.

How did Harry go from standing up strongly on his hind legs and vocalising loudly in the Companion Animal Hospital's ICU (and looking like a normal dog) when I left him at midnight, to THIS mess when I returned for him (but was instead coerced intensively into consenting to his suddenly and inexplicably "urgent euthanasia") just 15 hours later ?

How did he go from your staff's needing to install the "Dura Mila Flow Coil" you see on Harry in the lower image below - an expensive, specialised, high-durability IV extension line with its specific coiled architecture designed for active, mobile and recovering patients - to the horrendous, near-comatose state depicted in the image above that, in less than six hours? Unless this catastrophic downward spiral was pharmacologically induced - as indeed their own invoice and even the "Clinical Summary" shows it was? NB: Forcing Harry to walk with his front leg bandaged from top to bottom with an immobilising device, just for him to be ghoulishly video'd as a teaching aid, is immensely cruel . . . as was the clawing open of his little blind eyes, complete with fingernails driving into his scalp, which I've captured as a telling still from the brief video released, while six remain unreleased by your Legal and Governance Department. I can hardly bare the thought of what that unreleased footage depicts.

I now fully understand - albeit too late for Harry - why "Steffi", the ICU "vet", "invested" a total of approximately two hours to make sure I was not leaving Massey with a live dog that day. And why she sprung with glee to get the process under way the moment I finally hung my head in confused acquiescence.

Vice-Chancellor Venter, I cannot even bear to LOOK at this photo . . . but I ask that you do:

Below : Harry, a contraindicated-and-convenience-sedated, private fee-paying patient having his little terrified blind eyes forcibly pulled and held open while being paraded around for an audience and filmed on cell phones. Check out the fingernails driving into his little head. This is the "premium ICU care" Massey's clients pay for.

Observations on Record Integrity:

One other particularly sinister aspect of this case, VC Venter: I wholly disagree with a number of certain specific additions in the 'Clinical Summary' which, as stated, I very strongly suspect have been retrospectively added to support the narrative, including by one unnamed staff member who has never met me, let alone ever seen me interact with Harry. One especially ludicrous claim was my apparent failure to provide him with "stimulation" and interaction with his environment.

This criticism was entered by another staffer who was fully aware that i took my little blind dog everywhere with me in a specially manufactured "doggie stroller", and that he was well-known and loved by a wide variety of local humans who provided him with plenty of "stimulation" and "interaction". in addition to multiple treat-dispensing toys with which he played actively multiple times a day, along with constant interaction with me. He was never alone and he was never without stimulation, unless sleeping or resting. Before and AFTER becoming blind.

Another wicked (I firmly believe defensively and retrospectively added) assertion from the same staff member who had never met me nor EVER seen me with Harry, claimed a "breakdown in owner/pet relationship". Really? Perhaps having never met me, this would explain why she hadn't noted my carrying him in a front pack in Petone's Repco store and pushing him in his stroller in Bunnings the day prior, or hand-feeding him on the way up to Massey.

Such were the desperate and heinous efforts to retrofit the "clinical notes" to find another "justification" for their actions, when they knew I'd become wise to the truth of the matter and was beginning to publicise that truth.

Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me: Guess What? You Silenced Harry But You Won't Silence Me

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 06:34:33 GMT

Bring It On, Huxley, Dean of 'Veterinary School'. Exposing the Realities of Your 'School' Is the Hill I've Chosen to Die on. So It's the Courage of My Convictions vs the Size of Your Legal Budget.

LATEST FINDINGS IN THE TORTURE & DEATH OF HARRY KELLY, HERE .

"Torture" used advisedly, Huxley.

In my view, and in the view of any reasonable person, subjecting a blind, dehydrated and frail senior, private patient to repeated 750% overdoses of a contraindicated drug that you have no business giving him - leaving him in a state of anesthetic awareness where he can feel his body being ghoulishly experimented on (and equally ghoulishly filmed) by students but cannot move or cry out - is nothing short of psychological and physiological torture.

It should also serve to highlight to your other premium fee-paying clientele just what goes on behind closed doors in your highly dubious veterinary "teaching" facility.

____________________________________________

Today, in response to my continued efforts to prise from Massey University's Legal and Governance department, my dog Harry's FULL (versus "summarised" and redacted) clinical records - and finally giving the institution until close of business today to indicate that they will do as legally required under Principle 6 of the Privacy Act 2020 - the Dean of the Veterinary School panicked and brought in the Legal Big Guns.

Top tier law firm Buddle Findlay, no less. (Hold onto your wallets, fellow taxpayers.) A move meant to scare the living bejeezus out of me in general, but with the most immediately required effect being that close of business would come and go with me curled up in foetal position under my desk and abandoning my stated intention of submitting my formal complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Massey's failure to comply with the Act. (Didn't work. Complaint in process of being submitted.)

Before I treat readers to this afternoon's email exchange with Mr Jon Huxley (which I reproduce at the bottom of this article), it is incumbent upon me to alert all prospective students of Mr Huxley's veterinary school (and those prospective students' funders), to the apparent vacuum of basic veterinary, clinical and legislative knowledge at the top of the tree.

In my email ( which you can read here ), I advised someone down the line (who had obviously been the junior previously tasked by Huxley with acting as a barricade) of my intended escalation to the Privacy Commissioner, of my grave concerns around the University's breaches of its most basic obligations, under the Act, concerning information and records release.

Dean's Ignorance, Denial & Arrogant, Heavy-Handed Dismissiveness

The problem - more so than the predictable roll-out of the legal silencing machinery - is that Huxley's " don't you dare" response provided an alarming window into the lethal combination of his ignorance, his denial, and his arrogant, heavy-handed dismissiveness.

For the purposes of the insight I am about to provide to those would-be future veterinarians who would wish their professional education to be grounded in a firm understanding at least of clinical basics, foundational veterinary literature, core legislation, and fundamental veterinary ethics, I will restrict my commentary to the glaring gaps in the Dean of the Veterinary School's knowledge base.

Mr Huxley's denial-without-detail email indicates that he is unaware of the following:

Sedation: Accepted veterinary standards restrict the use of sedation to animals in pain or being prepared for surgery. (Neither applied to my dog, Harry.) Convenience sedation is considered totally unacceptable - even more so if administered without the permission - or even the knowledge - of the pet's owner. And even more so, if ICU and teaching staff intend to administer repeated 5 00% to 750% potentially lethal overdoses thereof.

Gabapentin: The drug with which my dog was heavily convenience-sedated is strictly contraindicated for renally-compromised patients - which my dog was at a significant level, as could be readily seen in Massey's own clinical records. He had been diagnosed with kidney disease at Massey itself, and this diagnosis would have been sitting right next to the results from the comprehensive panel of blood tests that were processed upon his admission that very night.

Yet ICU staff (without reason, without my consent, and without disclosure to me) chose this specific strictly contraindicated drug not only to recklessly administer to him, but they doubled down on that recklessness by further potentiating it with Maropitant, and repeat-dosed him over subsequent hours . . . with the effect that the drug clearly accumulated in his kidneys to a toxic and potentially lethal level. Yet the severe limitations of Mr Huxley's veterinary pharmacological knowledge have it, that this was all quite acceptable clinical practice.

Honest Communication & Informed Consent: Mr Huxley is apparently unaware that it is not honest to neglect to inform a pet's owner that the reason for the pet's suddenly near-comatose state - in direct contrast to the pet's state when left in ICU the night before i.e. standing up strongly and balanced on his hind legs with his front legs outstretched through the cage door and crying loudly - was due to a toxic accumulation of the repeated, contraindicated sedation cocktail that his kidneys had been unable to clear.

Mr Huxley is also unaware that a veterinarian spending 45 minutes on the phone and an additional one hour in the consulting room coercing the pet's owner ( who remains unaware of the pet's sedation ) into signing a "euthanasia" consent, does not constitute "informed consent". And it most certainly does not resemble any degree of informed consent when the opportunity for an independent second opinion has not been given - and when, in fact, by the prevailing circumstances, any possibility for another opinion has been neatly prevented.

FEBRUARY 14th & 17th UPDATES BASED ON NEW FINDINGS : DEAN HUXLEY, THE CONVERSION OF A PRIVATE FEE-PAYING ICU PATIENT TO HIS UNAUTHORISED UTILISATION AS A TRAINING TOOL FOR STUDENTS' CELL PHONE FILM FESTIVAL OF HIM, AND THE PREMATURE AND PERMANENT, UNAUTHORISED DISCONNECTION OF HIM FROM HIS LIFE-ESSENTIAL IV REHYDRATION FLUIDS (RENDERED EVEN MORE ESSENTIAL FOLLOWING YOUR STAFF'S REPEATED CATASTROPHIC OVERDOSING OF HIM) IS SOMETHING YOU MIGHT ALSO WANT TO ACQUAINT YOURSELF WITH AS REPRESENTING AN "INFORMED CONSENT" ISSUE. FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, GO HERE and HERE .

Fiduciary Duty of Care re Pet's Remains: Mr Huxley appears unaware of the multiple legislative "after care" requirements incumbent upon his "Companion Animal Hospital".

These include but are not limited to a contract of Bailment. That is, In New Zealand law, when his facility is handed over someone's "property" (which pets are legally classified as) for treatment and subsequent "after-care", a Contract of Bailment is created. That is, Massey, as the "bailee", has a legal obligation to exercise "reasonable care" over that property until it is returned to the owner.

There is also the powerful common law principle of "non-delegable duty of care", and also (by incorporating the cremation services provider into its clinical workflow) the principle of Endorsement and, in Massey's case, Negligent Referral.

Further, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's Code of Professional Conduct's Section 2: Professionalism , makes it clear that a veterinarian’s professional obligations do not end at the moment of death. As clear, in fact, as this shameful, one-hour and three-minute phone call to Massey that I fruitlessly endured, in an attempt to determine the true whereabouts of my beloved dog's ashes, is in its non -professionalism (which, as of two months and 11 days following Harry's execution, are still unknown):

Privacy Act & Information Release Legislation: Mr Huxley is apparently unaware that Principle 6 of New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020 legally obligates the University to release the FULL clinical and all other records related to the owner's pet. He apparently struggles to comprehend that a "summary" does not constitue the full records, and that two videos out of eight leaves six unreleased.

And that the alteration of a patient's records continuing on for six weeks after the patient's death is neither normal ethical practice, or indeed, normal at all. He appears unable to see that his nebulous statement that "Information has and will be released as it becomes available" is in breach of the 20-working day requirement, when the 20-working day period has already elapsed.

He further appears not to understand that "No obstruction or delay has occurred" i s not a credible claim, when the circumstances indicate precisely that obstruction and delay is occurring.

As an aside, Huxley's actions would be comical if the matter didn't relate to the torture and killing of my precious little Harry i.e. the unauthorised utilisation of a private fee-paying patient ($1236.84 for 15 hours of overdosing and torture in lab rat experiments) , while at the same time biologically decimating him with the 750% overdose of a contraindicated convenience sedative and then disconnecting him from the 24-hour IV fluids protocol I paid for that, at that point, were his only chance of purging the resultant cumulative toxicity from his body . . . which was then heinously misrepresented to me as some inexplicably sudden "neurological decline" to justify their prolonged, aggressive coercion of me (in the acutely sleep-deprived state that even their own Clinical Summary notes showed I was in) to "euthanase" him "today" . . . like, right now . Destruction of evidence needed, of course, before said stunned and sleep-deprived owner had time to consider getting, or the opportunity to get, any external, non-Massey opinion i.e. since "Steffi", the intended executioner, was knocking off in under two hours' time from the commencement of the coercion.

But I do digress . . . here would be that otherwise comical legal briefing scene:

Picture this: Huxley briefing the '"Big Guns" in Auckland. He’s likely painted a picture of a reactive, disgruntled amateur - a mad, grieving pet owner "woman" using her "customer service" blog to "get at us without justification". OK, say the lawyers, we'll dive into the archives and paint her as a "vexatious litigant". But . . . hold the clock. If those budget-incinerating lawyers had spent even 30 seconds doing their own, open-minded due diligence instead of racing straight into billing Massey for "strategic profiling", they would have stumbled upon doggiemamma.com . . . a highly inconvenient piece of reality that has been live since January 2024, documenting my advocacy for the New Zealand dog community long before Massey’s clinical and ethical failures became my full-time job.

Huxley figured he was calling in the legal cavalry. I wonder how long it will be before he and the venerable Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter finally realise they've called them in to charge at a brick wall of pre-existing, non-commercially-motivated credibility .

I will leave readers now to peruse the below legalistic email from the above-named Dean of Massey University's Veterinary School, along with my reply (presented, chronologically, above his correspondence).

_________________________________________________________

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent : Friday, 30 January 2026 8:57 pm
To : 'Jon Huxley' <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Cc : 'Raymond Geor' <R.Geor@massey.ac.nz>; 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject : RE: Regarding Your Recent Allegations and Appropriate Next Steps

Dear Mr Huxley

I acknowledge your email and the involvement of Buddle Findlay.

You are correct that losing a beloved pet is difficult. However, it is made orders of magnitude more unacceptable when that loss occurs under fraudulent, manufactured circumstances and false pretences with highly questionable and suspicious underlying motives.

I note, ironically, your entirely unsubstantiated assertions (i.e. mine are not “unsubstantiated” and I invite you to read my intended publications that will clearly demonstrate this ): Specifically, I note, your claim that my substantiated forensic, well-researched, and decidedly granular evidence is “unfounded”.

I also note your use of taxpayer-funded external legal counsel in an attempt to silence a vocal critic of your institution's standards i.e. who is already noted as such (long before the engineered demise of my latest pet).

Go your hardest, Mr Huxley, and Buddle Findlay. You will not silence me. Not now, not ever . To the best of my ability and for the rest of my life, I will do everything in my power to ensure a horror of this nature is never perpetrated upon another animal or their owner.

In the meantime, regarding your included notice of refusal of service related to any future pet I might own: In what deluded, alternative universe would you consider it remotely possible that I would ever again subject a pet to the Massey University veterinary "House of Horrors"? Their chances of making it out alive would again be next to nil. Two of mine now have not.

The "truth" will not be found in your institutional gaslighting; it is to be found in your own clinical “summary” (that is, the parts you have had to leave in around those you have doctored) and the invoice for Harry’s torturous final “stay” in your “care” (an invoice you never thought I would access or understand) . with further, deeper truths almost certain to be found in the full and proper records that you are currently illegally withholding.

In the meantime, please be advised that any correspondence you and your grossly overpaid (from the public purse) legal shills target me with, will be publicised as a permanent record of my attitude towards, and well-known stance against, the precise type of institutional bullying in which you have now begun engaging.

Bring it on.

Let’s allow the taxpayers, the pet owners, and any interested media outlets internationally, as well as other tertiary educational institutions worldwide, to see how you operate. What you do in the shadows is going to be brought into the light. And whether you like it or not, Mr Huxley, your limitless taxpayer-provided legal budget will not force this horror story back into the shadows.

In fact, Mr Huxley, your attempts to do so are probably now going to result in the matter receiving a far wider (and likely, international) audience than you had bargained for. Maybe your priority move should have been to direct your taxpayer-provided funding towards the engagement of an international PR firm, before wasting taxpayers’ money on lawyers. Because, frankly, for every dollar you drop into the eagerly awaiting coffers of Buddle Findlay, you will generate ten times that value in the international exposure of this travesty.

In short, the truth, and the many indisputable component facts thereof, are squarely on my side, Mr Huxley. And this is the hill I choose to die on.

One last thing: Your attempts to wash away this utter institutional shame by painting me as simply a deeply grieving pet owner gone off the rails, will be as futile as they are transparent.

With the publication of the many exposes I am currently researching and authoring, the media contacts I intend furthering my communications with, and the book I intend to publish – your shallow and desperate strategy will make of you a shamed laughing stock with international peers, pet owners, students (who should be horrified to know the culture of your hallowed institution) and the general public alike.

Thank you for your facilitation of the far wider audience for the much-deserved publicity of this horrific matter.

Sincerely,

Jordan Kelly

PS: Please look forward to receiving my request under the Official Information Act (OIA) for a full disclosure of all expenditure paid to Buddle Findlay in relation to this matter. I intend to publish these figures to ensure the public and all taxpayers are fully informed as to how University funds are being deployed to quash forensic evidence of malpractice.

Additionally, if you’re gifting your buddies at Buddles $500+ per hour of taxpayer money to fight a consumer advocate and a journalist, the public and the media at large need to know that.

From : Jon Huxley < J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz >
Sent : Friday, 30 January 2026 3:31 pm
To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc : Raymond Geor < R.Geor@massey.ac.nz >; Privacy < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Subject : Regarding Your Recent Allegations and Appropriate Next Steps

Dear Ms Kelly,

I am writing further to your recent correspondence, including the emails sent on 23–24 December 2025 and subsequent communications copied to a range of internal and external parties.

Before addressing the matters raised, I want to acknowledge again how deeply upsetting the loss of Harry has been for you. Losing a companion animal is profoundly difficult, and I am genuinely sorry for the pain this has caused. However, I must address several serious and entirely unfounded allegations you have made about the conduct of Massey University Companion Animal Hospital staff and the integrity of our clinical processes.

1. Allegation that staff “drugged” or “pharmaceutically masked” Harry to deceive you

There is absolutely no evidence for this allegation. Harry received only those medications clinically indicated for his condition and in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards. All treatments were documented, transparent, and provided solely to support his welfare. Any suggestion that staff misled you or attempted to influence your decisions is incorrect.

2. Allegation that staff fabricated clinical information or coerced you into euthanasia

Your decision to consent to euthanasia was made following a veterinary assessment and discussion of Harry’s clinical status and prognosis. At every stage, staff acted ethically, communicated honestly, and complied fully with informed‑consent requirements. The allegation that staff fabricated clinical information or obtained your consent improperly is without foundation.

3. Allegation of an “ethical breach” or “breakdown in chain of custody” concerning Harry’s ashes

As we have previously explained, Massey University has no formal association with Pet Farewells, the cremation provider you selected. Staff assisted you only by helping identify a service that aligned with your stated preferences. Your disagreement with the provider falls entirely outside the University’s authority. No chain‑of‑custody breach occurred on Massey’s part.

4. Allegation of improper handling, withholding, or manipulation of your Privacy Act or OIA requests

Your requests have been managed diligently and in accordance with statutory requirements. Information has and will be released as it becomes available. No obstruction or delay has occurred.

Appropriate pathway for any further concerns

If you wish to pursue your concerns about veterinary care or clinical decision‑making further, the correct avenue is the:

Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ)
Website: https://vetcouncil.org.nz
Email : vetcouncil@vetcouncil.org.nz
Phone: 04 473 9600

VCNZ is the statutory body responsible for considering complaints about veterinary practice and professional conduct. They will be able to advise you on the formal complaints process.

Future Engagement with the Companion Animal Hospital

Given the seriousness and persistence of the allegations you have made — including repeated assertions of misconduct, fabrication, and unethical behaviour — I have determined that the professional relationship between you and our staff has broken down irretrievably. Under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct , veterinarians may discontinue providing services where the therapeutic relationship has deteriorated to the point that effective and safe care can no longer be delivered. Accordingly, the Companion Animal Hospital will not be able to provide veterinary services to you in the future. Should you need it for future pets, please seek veterinary care from an alternative provider.

Given the seriousness of the allegations you have raised, and the way they have been disseminated, I have copied this correspondence to Buddle Findlay, the University’s external legal counsel. This ensures that the University’s position is clear, appropriately documented, and supported should further action become necessary.

While I understand that the loss of a beloved pet is deeply painful, the allegations you have made against individual staff members and the University are serious, unsubstantiated, and damaging. I must therefore ask that you refrain from repeating them. Should you wish to pursue your concerns further, the appropriate avenue is via the complaints process of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Yours sincerely,

Jon Huxley
Dean and Head of School
Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science
Massey University

Cc : Buddle Findlay (University Legal Counsel)

Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice Demonstrates Fraudulent Killing of Harry Kelly

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 00:36:02 GMT

A VITAL & URGENT WARNING TO PET PARENTS EVERYWHERE

Pet parents everywhere need to understand the fee-charging antics of an institution like Massey and its Companion Animal Hospital. They need to understand the depth of deception of which some veterinarians, and some clinical environments and their management are capable . And they need to understand the potential lethality of the consequences .

Practitioners and establishments like this rely on the fact that we – the non-veterinarian pet owners – won’t have a clue more often than not, what the line items are on the ridiculously inflated invoices we pay. And that we – the devoted pet parents – will use every last cent on our credit cards to buy life-saving treatments for our beloved animals.

But our ignorance and our devotion have the potential to be – for the likes of Massey Companion Animal Hospital – their opportunity - financial and also in other important regards.

Readers will by now be well-acquainted with the horror story of my precious little dog, Harry's massive overdosing by the Massey veterinary facility, the absence of life-saving treatment following the (repeated dosings), and his false presentation to me as "neurologically failing" with the complete evasion of any disclosure of the fact that the dog I now held in my arms was actually in the grips of a severe, unauthorised, unnecessary, and undisclosed, sedation .

BREAKING: IN LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS , HARRY'S LIFE-ESSENTIAL IV FLUIDS WERE DISCONTINUED TO FILM HIM FOR STUDENT EXPERIMENTATION TEACHING VIDEOS.

It was also through my belated finding and studying of the invoice for Harry’s final “stay” and “care” in Massey’s ICU, that I discovered the massive malpractice and the subsequent fraudulent diagnosis they proffered to me, to convince me to let them absolutely unnecessarily end his life..

That invoice - the smoking gun - as it turned out, was also the most insultingly opportunistic statement imaginable.

The Invoice Indictment: The Paper Trail of a Clinical Betrayal

Let me break it down – clinically and forensically – for those pet owners that have the stomach to see the games that are played with your wallets – or, for most of us, our credit cards.

Stay with me as I walk you through the line items on this invoice . . . an invoice that illustrates in irrefutable clinical and pharmacological detail, the expose I roll out in The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death and NOT ‘Euthanasia’ . . . A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences .

This invoice isn’t just a “bill”; it’s the metabolic and chronological roadmap of the sheer evil that was perpetrated upon my dear little loving, sweet and innocent (and not at all needing to die) Harry.

The Pharmaceutical Fraud

The invoice confirms the exact two drugs that created the "Pharmaceutical Mask" used to justify Harry's death i.e. the cocktail of sedatives that would be, later that day, used to present him to me as a dog that had “had a neurological event” and “needs to be euthanased TODAY”.

Maropitant (Prevomax): 0.36ml administered on December 1st .
Gabapentin (100mg): 2 capsules administered on December 1st .

Both of these drugs – the primary sedative and the potentiation agent - were administered on the morning of the “euthanasia” coercion (read: pre-meditated clinical killing) planned by Steffi, the vet, later that day (just as soon as she could get me back to Massey) .

The Smoking Gun: Evidence of Prior Knowledge

The most damning evidence of clinical malpractice is not just what was administered, but when. The invoice proves that on November 30th - the night of Harry’s admission - Massey performed an IDEXX Catalyst Chem17 CLIP and a Massey Bundle Lab Test .

These are not "generic" tests; they are high-resolution diagnostic panels specifically designed to evaluate renal (kidney) and hepatic (liver) function.

By the time they reached for the Gabapentin on the morning of December 1st, they were already in possession of the blood data. They knew Harry was a 15-year-old dog with compromised kidneys. Yet, they proceeded to administer a drug that the veterinary community knows is cleared almost exclusively by the kidneys.

This was not a "blind" administration; it was a choice made with the clinical evidence of Harry's renal vulnerability already sitting on their monitors. To then present the resulting pharmacological collapse as a spontaneous "neurological event" is a fabrication that flies in the face of the very tests they billed me $255 to perform. They used my money to prove he was vulnerable, and then used that vulnerability to lethally over-medicate him.

Furthermore, it is at odds with the actual objective of the overnight hospitalisation – as evidenced by the invoice line items, “Hartmans Solution 1ltr & Potassium Chloride”: These items, billed alongside the MILA set (billed as outlined below), are the building blocks of a multi-day rehydration and electrolyte stabilisation protocol.

The Failure of the 'ICU' Contract: I Paid for ‘Maintenance & Care’ But Got Negligence & Sedation

I was charged $320 for "CA ICU Hospital and Maintenance Fees" for November 30 ^th (in addition to the $277 the night before for an after hours consult by a vet so young I find it hard to believe she was even out of high school – and the degree to which she was out of her depth had a deer-in-the-headlights look etched into her face).

Yet, as I detail graphically in NOT ‘Euthanasia’ . . . A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences , while I walked through the ICU doors and heard my blind dog screaming while the staff ignored him to coo over a kitten and share a jovial social conversation, I find I was $320 for "Maintenance and Care”.

Yet that care, it certainly would appear to me, comprised of nothing other than (a) intentional negligence, and (b) the unnecessary and unauthorised convenience-sedation of a dehydrated senior dog with a dangerous cocktail of potent – and potentiated – strong sedatives.

The Clinical Contradiction

The billing shows a chilling level of financial opportunism right up to the end:

High-End Billing: I was charged $198.38 for an "IV Set Large Dura Flow Coil Mila" and $255 for lab tests (a comprehensive blood test panel that would have clearly demonstrated the renal-compromised status that, in turn, that made their (already unnecessary, convenience-based) administration of the Gabapentin sedative (further potentiated by Maropitant) was a fundamentally contraindicated pharmaceutical decision.

The ‘Final Solution’: They were billing me for high-end life-sustaining equipment at the same time as they were convincing me that the (undisclosed sedated) state they presented him back to me in was indicative of their claimed “neurological event” with immediate “euthanasia” required.

So let’s look at that specific line item:

‘IV Set Large Dura Flow Coil Mila IV Set @ $198.38’

To the average pet owner, that’s just a string of expensive-sounding technical jargon.

But in the veterinary world, the name MILA International means something very specific.

They are the specialist, "Gold Standard" manufacturer of high-end medical devices designed exclusively for animals. MILA is the premium brand. You don’t find this equipment in a budget back-street clinic; you find it in high-intensity, long-term care units.

But here’s the clinical "gotcha" that Steffi the intensive care vet (and the one pushing me from 100 different angles to let her terminate him) didn't count on me doing a little research and finding out:

The "Dura Flow Coil" is a specialised, high-durability IV extension line. It is designed with a specific coiled architecture so that a patient in the ICU can move, stand up, and turn around in their cage without the line kinking or snapping. It is built for a dog that is active, mobile, and recovering .

You don’t install a $200 MILA set on a dog you truly believe is "unfixable" - OR that is incapable of the sort of movement this particular brand of equipment is designed to accommodate.

You don’t open the most expensive, robust long-term stabilisation gear on the market for a dog you are planning to kill in an hour, if you can just get the owner to agree to it. You use a Mila set when you are committing to a prolonged, multi-day rehydration recovery.

So, I have to ask:

If "Steffi", the ICU vet, was so utterly certain at 11am on the phone, that Harry was a goner, that he had suffered some catastrophic “neurological event" from which, as she multiple times, from multiple different angles (emotional, psychological and, supposedly, “clinical”) assured me, why was I being billed for the premium equipment used to facilitate a long-term recovery?

Either the clinical staff knew Harry was recoverable with the right amount and duration of rehydration – and were prepping him for the long-haul rehydration I had brought him in for – or they were padding the invoice with high-end gear they knew would never be used, right up until the second they pressured me to sign his death warrant.

It’s the ultimate administrative proof of their duplicity. They sold me the "Gold Standard" promise of life on the invoice, while they were already prepping the $45 syringe to administer the “euthanasia” drug they were so eager to take him out with.

This invoice doesn't just show what they charged me; it shows what they were thinking .

Clinical Duplicity: The deployment and charging of the consumables of recovery at exactly the same time as the death sentence substance was being uploaded and charged out.

IN SUMMARY:

They were charging me for the equipment of hope and recovery. . . while they were delivering the irreversible act of clincal fraud and sheer moral depravity and wickedness.

I did not expect that I would be unbeknownst to me, paying for my dog to be convenience-medicated into a "false-positive" “neurological failure” state.

I did expect that if a blood test panel was conducted to ascertain whether Harry had compromised kidney function (which he DID), that he would not be administered drugs which are specifically contraindicated for a dog with compromised kidneys – and that had the strong potential to cause him lethal damage.

I did not expect that at the same time as he was being supposedly treated for the actual reason for admission – a sustained rehydration protocol due to dehydration – that he was being given completely unnecessary, contraindicated sedation and a plan to fabricate a “neurological event” was being developed, in order to provide reasoning for the strong push for his destruction.

I did not expect that I would be paying for a fabricated clinical diagnosis – on the basis of which a consent to “euthanise” Harry would be coerced from me, to cover up the evidence of the malpractice.

I did expect that I would be paying for competent treatment, honest diagnosis, and genuine overnight care (not convenience-medicated “animal storage” and the administration of unnecessary and contraindicated sedating medications – with one that potentiated the other).

I did expect that – even if you went ahead and breached your duty of obtaining my consent to “convenience-sedate” my dog that you would have disclosed that you had medicated him during a nearly one hour phone call to me that morning and a further in-person consultation of at least the same duration– albeit your focus was entirely on conditioning me to accept your “non-negotiable” push for his termination.

I did not expect that I was being sold a pre-meditated exit strategy for my dog because he had become the embodied evidence of an incomprehensible degree of professional negligence and clinical malpractice so fundamental in nature that it might be argued that it was intentional.

That is an additional consideration that would lead me to point the reader to my repeated, unsuccessful attempts over a period of two years or more to draw to the attention of the Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, the various instances of negligence and toxic culture and attitudes towards patients and their owners that I had either witnessed or experienced myself .

And I did most definitely NOT expect that my little boy would be repeatedly overdosed with a contraindicated cocktail of potent sedatives in order to facilitate the various teaching procedures being performed upon him and the (withheld by Massey's Legal and Governance department) teaching videos of same . . . after which it was simply necessary to dispose of the evidence (him) in the most expedient manner possible. READ ABOUT IT HERE.

Meantime, for a full list and breakdown of the specific violations of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, the Animal Welfare Act, and the Consumer Guarantees Act associated with this case, read the formal Summary of Breaches here .

LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS : NEW VETERINARY CODE, PRIVACY ACT & COMMON LAW VIOLATIONS (CONVERSION & BREACH OF BAILMENT) TO BE ADDED

The Smoking Gun: So Why Is Massey Stalling Its Information Provision Obligations?

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:19:40 GMT

Reckless Clinical Negligence, Malpractice, Clinical & Management Malfeasance . . . Well Done, Massey

FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE & HERE .

The records (or the surface-level version) that I've been able to prise thus far from the "Legal and Governance" department of Massey, reveal that Harry (above) was drugged with his first strictly contraindicated dose of convenience-sedation at 1am. (I'd left him in their "care" at midnight: he was crying, standing up on his hind legs, reaching his front paws desperately through the grid of his cage, and being TOTALLY ignored by ICU staff.)

At some point, he must have recovered from the heavy dosing sufficiently to have been mobile enough to circle around (in full-blown disorientation, but certainly mobile) . . . yet when I returned to the facility at circa 3pm the next day, he was near-comatose (after being loaded up with another two doses that were accumulating in his compromised kidneys and that represented a total 400% to 600% of this renally-contraindicated convenience sedative) , albeit spasmodically kicking and crying and trying to seemingly come back to consciousness.

My later (and too late for Harry) investigations uncovered that he'd been loaded up with repeated doses of a sedative strictly contraindicated for the kidney failure the Massey clinic's staff knew all too well he had (potentiated by a further pharmaceutical) and was in a state of near-collapse from that grossly cumulative over-sedation . . . at the point that he was deceptively presented to me as "neurologically failing and needing urgent euthanasia".

Multiple layers of cruelty, malpractice and deception had preceded the "collapse" that Massey's Companion Animal Hospital ICU staff and their frontwoman "vet", "Steffi" choreographed in time for my arrival. That is, in order to convince me that Harry had somehow "naturally" gone from a little dog standing on his hind legs and crying loudly the night before, to just 15 hours later being a "vegetable" that "requires urgent euthanasia" ..

Back to the issue of Harry's clinical records: You can see why Massey's Legal and Governance Department might be wanting to prevent me from accessing his full and proper veterinary and associated information.

Below is the current status of the struggle I'm going through to get them to abide by their clear Privacy Act 2020 obligations for full records release. There is, however, an update to bring you . . . which is, that one hour and 29 minutes before my stated deadline, Dean of the Veterinary School weighed in with a legal threat, which you can read here .

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2026 5:22 pm
To: 'Frances Mullan' <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>; 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Harry Kelly – FINAL NOTICE regarding Non-Compliant Disclosure & Demand for Primary Clinical Records

Ms Mullan:

I have been formally advised that Massey University has failed to act in accordance with my specific request for Harry’s personal information.

The "Clinical Summary" provided is a subjective narrative produced after the fact. It is not a clinical record. Under the Privacy Act 2020 , I am entitled to the raw, contemporaneous, and complete data held by the hospital.

I require the immediate disclosure of the following Primary Records :

Medication Administration Records (MAR): The original, timestamped logs showing the exact dose, time, and administrator for all medications, specifically the Gabapentin and any other sedatives.
Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: The hourly raw data charts recording vital signs (HR, RR, Temp) and "mental status" notes.
Raw Laboratory Data: The original machine-generated result printouts for all bloodwork and diagnostics, not the transcribed summaries.
Contemporaneous Progress Notes: The original, unedited notes made by clinical staff at the bedside during Harry’s admission.
Audit Trails: The digital metadata for the clinical file showing when entries were made, by whom, and if any retrospective edits were performed. To be absolutely clear, and for the avoidance of this request again being passed off with a high-level summary rather than the provision of the actual data I am requesting: I require the granular digital metadata for the clinical file, including View Logs (who accessed the file and when), Field-Level Deltas (the "before and after" values for every modification), and precise system timestamps to verify the contemporaneity of all entries and edits.

To tell you what you already know, Ms Mullan: A "Summary" (i.e. your provided “Clinical Summary”, is a subjective curation of facts (or claimed facts); I am demanding the facts themselves .

As you and your veterinary school personnel and your legal team would well know, the 101-page “Clinical Summary” and the “Change logs” you provided to date are secondary, processed narratives and metadata . They are not the primary clinical records.

My request specifically encompasses the missing Medication Administration Records (MAR) , the original ICU Flow Sheets containing hourly vital sign data, and the raw, machine-generated laboratory printouts . The absence of these primary documents means Massey University remains in breach of its disclosure obligations.

Which is also something you are all well aware of, but obviously had hoped that I would not become aware of.

I wish to express my further disgust at the Massey institution for yet again attempting to take advantage of a pet parent’s lack of specific clinical and related administrative knowledge for the obvious purposes of obscuration.

Seemingly not. My intelligence has not appreciated being insulted yet again.

Please confirm by the Close of Business tomorrow that these raw records (in their entirety) are being prepared for urgent release, in order to avoid the need for me to file a second formal complaint with the Privacy Commissioner.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

'Summaries' vs the TRUE Records: How Massey & Its Vet Hospital Take Advantage of the Pet Owner's Knowledge Imbalance

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 04:57:41 GMT

If You Ever Need to Dig Into What Really Happened with Your Pet's Treatment, You Need to Know What to Ask for . . . Especially If Dealing with Massey's Veterinary Facility

Unless you know what to ask for, you won't get it. You'll get a curated, polished, summarised and redacted version of what they want you to know (or believe) versus what you actually need to know.

Below is an explanation of what constitutes a "primary clinical record" vs a "clinical summary'" . . . and why it's essential for accountability.

But before you potentially get lost in the weeds of veterinary terminology (which I hope I've simplified for you), there's another equally critical reason:

"Clinical Summaries'"can easily be altered, added to, or deleted from, after the fact . . . which is precisely what very much appears to have happened to my dog, Harry's, "notes" regarding his final and fatal visit to Massey's Companion Animal "Hospital".

When they're in support of a clinician's desired narrative or to position defensively against subsequent complaints by the pet's owner, they're quite often very obvious . . . as is the case with key additions that appear to have been made following my distribution of two Media Releases (which I supplied to Massey) detailing the horror story that was Harry's overnight "care" at the facility.

Primary Records vs Clinical Summaries

A Clinical Summary is a processed, subjective narrative written after the fact.

It's a clinician’s interpretation of events, often exported from software as a story to be presented to a client.

Because it's written retrospectively, it's subject to "narrative smoothing", where discrepancies or errors can be omitted or minimised.

Primary Records , on the other hand, are the raw, contemporaneous data points captured at the bedside at the exact moment care is provided.

To perform a forensic audit of veterinary care, the following primary documents are mandatory:

Medication Administration Records (MAR): These are the only records that prove a drug was actually given. While a summary might list what was prescribed, the MAR contains the timestamped logs showing the exact dose, the time it entered the patient’s system, and the initials of the staff member who administered it. This is the only way to verify if a drug like Gabapentin was administered correctly . . . or in error (whether recklessly or intentionally) as it was in my dog, Harry's case .

Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: In an ICU setting, vitals (heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature) and "mental status" are recorded hourly. These flow sheets provide a real-time map of a patient’s decline or stability. A summary might claim a patient was "stable", but the raw flow sheets reveal the minute-by-minute reality of their physiological state.

Raw Laboratory Data: Transcribed tables in a summary can contain typos or omissions. Primary records include the original, machine-generated printouts from diagnostic equipment. These print-outs have their own internal timestamps and metadata that cannot be altered by hospital staff.

Contemporaneous Progress Notes: These are the unedited, raw notes made by clinical staff during a shift. They capture the immediate concerns and observations of the people at the bedside, before those thoughts are polished into a final "summary".

The Full Audit Trail: In a digital environment, the audit trail is the "record of the records".

It includes:

View Logs: Proof of who accessed the file and when.

Field-Level Deltas: The "before and after" values for every modification. If a record was changed, the audit trail shows the original value and the new value.

System Timestamps: These verify whether a note was written at the time of care or added days later to justify an outcome.

Why Raw Data is Essential

The imbalance of power in veterinary medicine relies on the pet owner’s lack of access to this raw data.

By providing a "Summary" instead of "Primary Records", an institution maintains control over the narrative.

Only the raw, timestamped, and unedited data allows for an objective, forensic verification of the truth.

Without these documents, there is no transparency, and therefore, no possibility of true accountability.

Massey Continues On In Full Arrogant Denial . . . As I Continue to Investigate the Multiple Malpractices & Unravel the Full Extent of the Cover-Up

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent : Thursday, 29 January 2026 5:22 pm
To : 'Frances Mullan' <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>; 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc : 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject : RE: Harry Kelly – FINAL NOTICE regarding Non-Compliant Disclosure & Demand for Primary Clinical Records

Ms Mullan:

I have been formally advised that Massey University has failed to act in accordance with my specific request for Harry’s personal information.

I require the immediate disclosure of the following Primary Records :

Medication Administration Records (MAR): The original, timestamped logs showing the exact dose, time, and administrator for all medications, specifically the Gabapentin and any other sedatives.
Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: The hourly raw data charts recording vital signs (HR, RR, Temp) and "mental status" notes.
Raw Laboratory Data: The original machine-generated result printouts for all bloodwork and diagnostics, not the transcribed summaries.
Contemporaneous Progress Notes: The original, unedited notes made by clinical staff at the bedside during Harry’s admission.
Audit Trails: The digital metadata for the clinical file showing when entries were made, by whom, and if any retrospective edits were performed. To be absolutely clear, and for the avoidance of this request again being passed off with a high-level summary rather than the provision of the actual data I am requesting: I require the granular digital metadata for the clinical file, including View Logs (who accessed the file and when), Field-Level Deltas (the "before and after" values for every modification), and precise system timestamps to verify the contemporaneity of all entries and edits.

To tell you what you already know, Ms Mullan: A "Summary" (i.e. your provided “Clinical Summary”, is a subjective curation of facts (or claimed facts); I am demanding the facts themselves .

Which is also something you are all well aware of, but obviously had hoped that I would not become aware of.

Seemingly not. My intelligence has not appreciated being insulted yet again.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Massey Withholds Footage Following Discovery of ICU Cruelty: Formal Complaint Filed With Privacy Commissioner to Force Full Release

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 02:41:17 GMT

MASSEY WITHHOLDS INCRIMINATING FOOTAGE FOLLOWING DISCOVERY OF ICU CRUELTY: Complaint Filed with Privacy Commissioner to Force Full Release

FOR LATEST UPDATE: GO H E RE .

Subject: Formal Complaint - Interference with Privacy (Principle 6) - Massey University - Refusal to Provide Complete Video Records

Dear Commissioner:

Background

Following a formal request for these records, the university released only two (2) videos on the night of November 30, 2025. After weeks of delay, they claimed "privacy concerns" for third parties as the basis for withholding the remaining 75% of the footage.

Evidence of Cruel Handling and Unexplained Physical Trauma

Upon reviewing the two released videos – specifically the recording titled “testing of vestibulo-ocular reflexes” – I have witnessed overtly cruel and unnecessary manhandling of a small, blind, distressed patient. The footage documents a vice-like grip, with a strong hand (with woman’s fingernails) driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp as his eyes are forced open for the camera and he is moved around, apparently on display.

The withholding of the remaining six videos prevents a necessary investigation into when and how this bleeding and the associated physical distress occurred.

Objective Contradiction of the Clinical Record

The second video provided – titled “circling” – documents Harry moving easily and at speed (normal baseline behaviour for him, as a blind dog with a head tilt, when under stress-induced disorientation).

Inadequacy of the "Privacy" Justification

Massey University is a premier, highly resourced teaching institution. The technology required to pixelate or blur the faces of third parties is standard and readily available.

Their refusal to utilise this technology to fulfil a Principle 6 request – while instead offering "supervised viewing" (which prevents independent forensic analysis) – constitutes a wilful obstruction of my right to access the full record.

Secondary Victimisation and Constructive Denial of Access

The University’s proposal of on-site, in-person-only, supervised viewing is inherently coercive and constitutes a profound act of secondary victimisation.

Furthermore, as neither I nor the required independent experts reside in proximity to Palmerston North, this condition represents an insurmountable logistical barrier. This in-person, on-site requirement serves as a constructive denial of access and a direct obstruction of the primary reason for my request: to allow for independent, expert forensic analysis of the records in the pursuit of justice.

Conclusion

I am requesting that the Privacy Commissioner compel Massey University to release the remaining six videos in their original digital format, with third-party faces pixelated (and NOT “clipping or editing”) as required, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings.

The withholding of these records appears to be a strategic move to avoid accountability for documented mistreatment and clinical misrepresentation.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. Repeated Unrelated, Invasive 'Observational' Tests

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:52:42 GMT

Your Pet Is NOT Massey's Property and Is NOT A Disposable Training Aid. He or She Is A Sentient Being . . . and YOURS (You're Also Paying Through the Nose for His or Her 'Care'.)

FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE : HARRY WASN'T JUST UTILISED AS A TRAINING AID, HE HAD HIS LIFE-ESSENTIAL IV FLUIDS DISCONTINUED TO FACILITATE THAT UTILISATION OF HIM, AND THE LAB RAT-STYLE EXPERIMENTATION WAS FAR WORSE THAN DOCUMENTED BELOW, WITH MORE YET TO BE DISCOVERED.

Above: Harry being treated as a live specimen for students' ghoulish edification, as opposed to being seen as the sensitive, sentient, in-crisis (as he was after they got hold of him) being that he actually was (and still should be). How is this invasive test-of-many performed relentlessly on him throughout the night, in any way related to the rehydration procedure he was admitted to this animal "hospital" for?

The "Clinical Summary" document shows he was repeatedly subjected throughout the night (while under heavy, cumulatively-administered contraindicated sedation) to frequent, exhaustive tests and invasive observational procedures most of which were entirely unrelated to the condition of dehydration for which he had been admitted - and that were clearly performed for the benefit of students and most certainly not for his.

He was also paraded and video'd at least eight times - including, against numerous privacy-related legislative regards, on cell phones.

To point out the obvious:

Harry was admitted for rehydration , yet students were performing exhaustive neurological, structural, dental and other observational tests while withholding the emergency corrective care they should have been urgently administering for the drug-induced "collapse" they had brought about with their catastrophic, intentional, and uncorrected, 400% - 600% overdosing of him.

Massey's own records demonstrate clearly that he was seen exclusively as a "training aid".

_________________________________________

If the 24 other articles in the Killing Harry Kelly Series haven't yet convinced you of the decidedly educational "specimen" (versus sentient being) mentality, culture and sense of entitlement-to-do-with-as-we-please over your pet while in Massey University's inaptly-named Companion Animal "Hospital", try this for size:

Below is an email to someone in the "Legal and Governance" department who has been delighting in dismissing my legally justified (under the Privacy Act 2020) requests for withheld information, including most notably, 75% of the video footage taken of him (i.e. the remaining six of the so far admitted-to eight recordings they for some reason felt necessary to take of him during an overnight stay for the very standard procedure of rehydration ).

I believe that the reason for the University's repeated attempts to find a reason not to release six of the apparently eight videos they hold of him (and why take EIGHT VIDEOS of a sedated patient? ), is that they are the teaching aids produced from these repeated, cruel, invasive, clinically unrelated, and highly unnecessary "examinations" throughout that night.

To be noted, one of the two videos they have released depicts immense and ghoulish cruelty by the owner of a female hand with substantial fingernails being driven into Harry's tiny skull as his little sedated blind eyes were forced open and he was paraded for observation.

The other video gives direct rise to prime suspicion of the absence of any ethical reason for the recorded 9am massive repeat sedation. That is, I firmly believe that this would both facilitate ease of further invasive observation procedures for the benefit of students, and would also ensure he remained in an over-sedated state when I arrived, to facilitate the premeditated intention of "Steffi", the "vet", to misrepresent him to me (without any disclosure of any sedation) as having experienced some irreversible "neurological failure " .

This latest discovery also adds weight to my suspicions that the reason the pet crematorium staff's email referred to Harry being received "in a bag" with instructions that I "didn't want him back" and that he was collected "with other post-mortems" may well have been that - against any wish I could ever have had - his body may indeed have been supplied to another area of the Companion Animal "Hospital" as a post-mortem specimen.

On the above note, Dean of Massey University's Veterinary School, Jon Huxley, has not only been intimidating in his refusal to provide any information . . . but further - as of close of business on Thursday, February 12 - he and his Legal and Governance colleagues will be in breach of their legal obligations under the Official Information Act, if they have not provided it.

Below are my two emails to Frances Mullan, of Massey University's "Legal and Governance" department, on the cruelty displayed and my renewed insistence for the release of the remaining six videos (although I believe it is highly likely there are more, especially given that it appears Harry was allowed to be filmed on cell phones).

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent : Tuesday, 27 January 2026 4:17 am
To : 'Privacy' < Privacy@massey.ac.nz >
Cc : 'Iain McLachlan' < iain@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'Liam Shields' < liam@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'Seton Butler' seton@vetcouncil.org.nz >; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' < enquiries@privacy.org.nz >; 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Subject: URGENT : VISUAL EVIDENCE OF CRUELTY AND ILL-TREATMENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline