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 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 of 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.
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 "neuorolgical event' fairytale 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 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 is 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. And another can be found in the new Vice-Chancellor's apparent
total absence of any concern . . .
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?
