The Happy Little Dog They Tortured, Overdosed and Killed. My Commitment to New Zealand's Dog Owners: 

The rest of my life is now dedicated to stopping Massey doing the same to YOUR beloved pets.

Foreground: The happy, perfectly viable little dog Massey tortured, utilised without my knowledge (and against my specific, explicit, numerous-times-issued instructions to 'never use Harry as a training tool') and organised for 'Dr' Steffi Jalava to present back to me catastrophically overdosed with undisclosed repeated, contraindicated sedative cocktails under the guise of an overnight 'neurological decline', to make her two hours' of aggressively coercive demands to let her kill him (there and then) seem (while shocking, illogical and totally out of the blue) somehow believable. My declared state of sleep deprivation and lack of clarity to compute his overnight "decline" and ill-preparedness that afternoon to make such a totally unexpected decision, didn't stop her going hard out to achieve her objective . . . which, with the greatest of regret, she finally did. And no doubt went home and gave the matter no further thought, given it was Standard Operating Procedure to pull off such a ruse whenever a private pet is targeted for conversion by the institution for covert student training activities. Until I too went home. And opened the invoice never shown to me at the time of payment . . . with all its smoking guns throughout. And ever since she, Practice Manager Pauline Nijman, the Dairy Cow Dean and the other parties Massey has ensured remain at this stage unnamed, have been progressively realising they killed the wrong woman's dog. Ya'll smiling now? You evil, opportunist, unspeakably cruel, ethic-less bastards.

___________________________________________________________________________

Today, Massey University's Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Veterinary Science received from me the following questions.

These questions serve three purposes:

(1) To make sure they are finally fully acquainted with the fact that, if you are going to torture and kill a paying client's perfectly viable, treasured pet, you might want to make sure you don't choose a relentlessly tenacious investigative journalist, who loves her pets with a primal passion, and who is precisely the type of operator who will dedicate the rest of her life to ensuring Massey never does this again to any fellow pet owner's beloved dog,

(2) That the collusion between Massey and the "industry regulator", who doesn't regulate at all nor ever have any intention of it (in fact, the reverse) i.e., the Veterinary Council of NZ and its "leadership" is fully exposed, as is

(3) The three academic "accreditation" agencies prepared to continue giving Massey their stamps of approval while clearly seeing for themselves the systemic clinical, cultural and managerial rot running rampant from top to bottom and side to side in this "veterinary hospital".

From:  editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent:  Thursday, 11 June 2026 8:51 pm
To:  'J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz'; 'G.W.Stirling@massey.ac.nz'
Cc:  'Jodie Banner' <J.M.Banner@massey.ac.nz>; 'Registrar@rcvs.org.uk'; 'Kate Simkovic' <ceo@avbc.asn.au>; 'Dr. Samantha Morello' <smorello@avma.org>
Subject:  Questions Requiring Your Direct and Specific Answers

Attention: Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Dean of Veterinary School Jon Huxley (cc RCVS; AVBC; AVMA)

As a former client who paid the $1236.84 fraudulent invoice for 15 hours of torture (by literal definition) of my dog Harry – including your catastrophic, repeat overdosing of him with a contraindicated sedative solely for ICU staff’s convenience (initiated during your November 30 overnight shift appearing not to have had a licensed veterinarian on duty), and the intentional discontinuation of his IV rehydration protocol (the sole reason for his admission) 8.5 hours into his 24-hour protocol (billed in full along with other items, the underlying intent of which has been questioned in the specific coverage you are aware I have given to this and other matters) . . .

And in light of Dr Steffi Jalava's decision not to remediate the overnight staff’s catastrophic overdosing of Harry but rather to continue to overdose him and convert Harry for covert, invasive, dangerous and cruel utilisation by the university as a live specimen for her December 1 student roster's training activities, and Dr Anita Shea's (i.e. your "neurologist’s") neurological examination of him (that was not asked requested by me) while he was under heavy sedation with a drug warned in veterinary literature as mimicking neurological symptoms and her fraudulent recording of "a neurological decline" diagnosis (such not having been a topic of discussion upon intake the previous night and never having been present in any of his previous (including 12 days' prior) independent, thorough, veterinary examinations and tests, i.e. in order to support Jalava's aggressive, two-hour campaign to obtain my signature on a "euthanasia" form, with his actual condition (i.e. his sedated state) undisclosed to me, along with the nondisclosure of the pharmaceuticals or sedatives with which he was (over)dosed) for the purposes of teaching utilisation . . .

And with regard to the despatch of Harry’s fraudulently and cruelly terminated body, no records kept of instructions issued to, or communications with, your recommended cremation services provider . . .

And your persistent refusal to release important (or to release only heavily redacted to the point of meaningless) medical records . . .

And your subsequent six-month (to date) campaign to prevent me from laying formal complaints against all licensed personnel concerned by (a) withholding the names of all associated personnel, and (b) colluding actively with the executive of said industry regulator, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand . . .

I require you to provide direct and explicit answers to the following questions:

Question One:  Massey's response states that Dr Steffi Jalava's role is "primarily clinical associated with clinical teaching of the BVSc5 student cohort”. Does that mean it was by her own decision that she converted Harry to a live specimen for teaching purposes?

[  ] YES
[  ] NO

(For the avoidance of doubt, any failure to select a binary option or any attempt to dilute this question with narrative deflection will be considered to be, and published as, a refusal to answer this question directly and meaningfully.)

Question Two:  Since the only "treatment" Harry required was the 24-hour rehydration that was prescribed upon his admission and that I was charged for but that he was disconnected from after 8.5 hours, with neither his admission records nor any prior (including up to 12 days' recent) independent (non-Massey) veterinary records indicating any "neurological" issues whatsoever – what was the specific "treatment" that "neurologist" Dr Anita Shea oversaw (with reference to VCNZ’s Liam Shields’s June 8 email), bearing in mind that she performed her "neurological examination" on him at 11.22am at the height of his oversedation vis-a-vis the last recorded (and, like all that had been previously administered, unnecessary and contraindicated) overdose at 9am, and bearing also in mind that the international veterinary literature warns against performing neurological examinations on dogs while under the influence specifically of Gabapentin (with which Harry was repeatedly and massively overdosed throughout the night shift and again by Dr Steffi Jalava when the morning shift commenced), as it mimicks dementia and other neurological symptoms?

(A simple bullet point list with these “treatments” and the specific reason or objective for each “treatment” will suffice. Please indicate clearly if Dr Jalava’s and Dr Shea’s various forms of Harry’s utilisation for student observation and/or student manipulation and participation and/or filming comprised any of these “treatments”.)

Question Three:  Which of these two practitioners (or if not either of them, then who specifically) approved the third dose (i.e. 9am) sedative/s to Harry, and any subsequent administrations of any sedative or other pharmaceuticals (aside from that which was used to kill him)? With regard to the 9am administration of sedative/s, what was the relationship of this to the student activities and filming of him that commenced 2.5 hours later (this being the precise duration for a peak state of sedation to be reached)? And what was the purpose of any subsequent sedative administrations of sedatives or any other pharmaceutical (again, with the exception of that which was used to terminate him)?

Question Four:  If the claim is made that no further doses of any other pharmaceuticals other than the one used to kill him (pentobarbitone) were administered to Harry Kelly after 9am on December 1, are you, Pierre Venter and Jon Huxley, prepared to personally warrant this with the incumbent legal ramifications if this claim is found at any future time, to have been false?

Question Five:  What is the institutional justification for using owner-unauthorised, condition-contraindicated sedative cocktails to artificially induce a state of pharmacological collapse that mimics a sudden neurological decline, entirely undisclosed to the owner who had no idea the animal was heavily sedated or had been given any pharmaceuticals of any description since being brought in only for rehydration?

Furthermore, why are these manufactured declines systematically used as a clinical basis to enforce aggressive coercion for the pet’s immediate destruction under the guise of “euthanasia”, to be conducted immediately and at Massey, while actively blocking the owner's ability to seek a mandated, independent second opinion, including from their own primary veterinarian?

Question Six:  Given Chief of Staff Jodie Banner’s formal admission that non-controlled sedatives (like Gabapentin) bypass the Controlled Drug Register entirely, what specific oversight mechanism ensures accountability for the administration, frequency, and tracking of these heavy, behaviour-altering cocktails when privately-owned pets are inside the ICU?

Question Seven:  What, very specifically, is behind the questionable timing of your (Dean Jon Huxley’s) correspondence that followed my 5.22pm, January 29 2026 Privacy Act 2020 "FINAL DEMAND" for Harry's Medical Administration Records i.e. your 3.31pm January 30 threat to have your external legal services provider, Buddle Findlay, silence me, and your 3.16am January 30 email to Veterinary Council of NZ CEO Iain McLachlan instructing him to ignore me, claiming that my complaints were "wholly unfounded", and recommending that he contact you for your apparently superior, replacement narrative? (Noting that Mr McLachlan responded promptly with an indication of intention to take up your, Dean Jon Huxley’s, invitation)?

Question Eight: 
 
Part A: Given that veterinary bills at a facility such as Massey's Companion Animal Hospital commonly run to thousands – and frequently multiple thousands – of dollars, what is the justification for Massey's practice regarding the avoidance of the basic ethical obligation to show a client what they are being charged for at the time they are being asked to pay?

Part B: What is Massey's policy regarding the treating veterinarian's obligation to acquaint clients with the basic cost components of their pet's treatment upon their generation of an invoice – and, for pet owners who want to understand more, to personally walk them through each line item when asking them for payment, explaining what was administered or performed, at what dose, for what clinical purpose, and precisely how each item relates to the animal's documented treatment plan and clinical needs? And why, in Harry Kelly's case, was none of this done?

Question Nine:  Regarding Missing Key Diagnostic Tracking Outputs:

Why was intensive vitals monitoring maintained on November 30, yet absolutely no IDEXX diagnostic or monitoring data exists for December 1 (as finally confirmed by Chief of Staff Jodie Banner in her May 13 OIA response to this question asked by me for multiple months, in multiple formats)? That is, December 1 being the specific day of Harry's peak pharmacological sedation, clinical collapse, and documented student utilisation activities upon him and video productions of those activities?

Question Ten:  Given that Harry Kelly was admitted to the Companion Animal Hospital as a direct "walk-in" emergency patient on a Sunday evening, with no external referring veterinarian acting as an intermediary or for immediate visibility and accountability;

• How does Massey University justify a communication framework where the primary owner receives no progressive clinical updates (especially in light of the noncomplicated, standard rehydration procedure for which he was admitted), but rather, a single, sudden, unexpected phone call demanding agreement to her pet’s apparently required “euthanasia” – furthermore, required to be performed that day and at Massey, specifically – without prior documentation of a catastrophic, unmanageable decline being communicated prior?

• How does Massey University reconcile the unilateral alteration of clinical protocols to allow for the owner-unauthorised, and indeed undisclosed, utilisation of a direct-admission patient for student teaching activities without obtaining prior, written, unambiguous authorisation directly from the pet’s owner?

• Further, how is this justified in the context of the pet’s owner having previously, upon every prior visit with her pet, made abundantly clear that staff are expressly forbidden to use him in student activities? Such express forbiddance having been given in writing, on intake forms, in phone calls, and verbally to multiple different staff, from Practice Manger Pauline Nijman, to front desk staff, to the attending veterinarians themselves, and on each and every occasion?

Question Eleven:  Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and referencing the extensive published evidentiary record demonstrating a clinically un-indicated medication cascade, repeated severe over-sedation, and the unauthorised disconnection of prescribed and paid-for IV rehydration fluids, I require you to provide the specific statutory records, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) registrations, and internal audit, review, or billing communications that legally authorised Companion Animal Hospital staff to transition Harry Kelly away from therapeutic care and into a non-indicated student teaching resource.

Specifically, this includes the disclosure of any internal directives or legal risk-assessment communications regarding the total absence of explicit, written owner consent for his utilisation in student observation, physical manipulation, or video productions, particularly given the owner’s prior, explicit written and verbal instructions expressly forbidding his use in any student activities.

Question Twelve:  Are Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Dean Jon Huxley personally aware that floor staff within the ICU were creating student training videos using Harry Kelly while he was in a state of severe, pharmacologically induced distress? If so, on what clinical or legal basis did management permit private, fee-paying client property to be exploited for student filming activities under those conditions, without the owner's knowledge or consent?

Question Thirteen:  Are Massey University’s international Joint Venture academic partners and institutional stakeholders formally aware that the property of private, fee-paying clients is being systematically converted, as teaching stock, into hands-on training aids, including for highly invasive and painful procedures and manipulations also involving dangerous handling practices, and further used as “educational” production assets, to fulfil Dr Steffi Jalava’s BVSc5 student (and likely, other) training requirements?

Does Massey consider the unauthorised exploitation of an owner's pet for student filming and graduation competencies to be an aligned practice with the ethical and operational standards expected by its international academic partnerships?

Question Fourteen:  Why is it necessary for each (painstakingly achieved) release of Harry's records - including his actual "Clinical Summary" (much of which, I assert, is false and much of it altered or added after the fact) - to be preceded by time spent on it by your Legal and Governance department? Is it normal Massey University practice for a client’s pet’s clinical records to be subject to editing and approval by your Legal and Governance department prior to release to the client?

Question Fifteen:  What is the statutory and ethical justification for Massey's six-month campaign of identity suppression and blanket redaction of all names and roles across all of Harry’s clinical records?

Bearing in mind that international regulatory expectations dictate this most basic of transparencies, and that standard-setting bodies – including direct confirmation from Head of Professional Conduct Ky Richardson of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (UK), an agency providing accreditation to Massey’s veterinary facility – expressly confirm that registered veterinarians are expected to provide their names to clients, and that under no circumstances should a client be prevented from raising a professional conduct concern with the regulator (which Massey’s redaction of names has indeed prevented)?
 
Further, since Massey has blacked-out every name or set of initials which were beside the various actions, “procedures”, aspects of handling, decisions and drug administrations, and since the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) accepts only complaints against individual clinicians, Massey’s disablement of any mapping of critical, disputed aspects of his “care” and “treatment” means I cannot lay a complaint against the associated individual/s.

This represents direct perversion of natural justice. Does Massey consider itself not to be subject to the laws that govern this concept in New Zealand?

Question Sixteen:  Given that you have not disclosed the identities or confirmed the existence of any registered veterinarians in attendance at the ICU on the night of November 30, 2025, is the overnight environment of the ICU running without the physical on-site attendance of any qualified, licensed veterinarian?

Question Seventeen:  Given Dean Jon Huxley's position as an international auditor on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ (RCVS) International Visitation Committee, are the RCVS, and Massey veterinary teaching facility’s other two accrediting agencies i.e. the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) aware that Massey’s accredited teaching hospital operates under these optional pharmaceutical administration recording policies, undocumented overnight veterinarian attendance, owner-unauthorised conversions of private pets to teaching resources, aggressive “euthanasia” coercions under false pretences, nil record-keeping for deceased pets’ despatches to cremation services providers, Legal and Governance department vetting of clients’ pets’ clinical records and other information, and systemic identity suppression protocols that ignore all basic international professional standards?

Further, has each of these accrediting agencies been formally advised of the active investigation currently under way by the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit, and if so, does the continuation of these three agencies’ accreditations of Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital (MUVTH) align with their own published standards for those institutions it accredits?

Question Eighteen:  Given that Dean Jon Huxley's academic and professional background lies specifically in dairy cows – with no documented small-animal emergency or pharmacological specialisation – what specific clinical competence does he personally possess to evaluate, authorise, or oversee the intricate and complex canine pharmacokinetic protocols being administered inside the Companion Animal Hospital's ICU?

Further, given that his documented background does not claim any such expertise, what is his justified, legal basis for having threatened me with legal action for public disclosure of my concerns regarding the owner-unauthorised, potentially lethal-levels of repeated administrations (some just 26 minutes apart) of a clinically unneeded sedative, specifically contraindicated for my dog’s condition (with prior reactions to it documented in Massey’s own recent records) and, further, the deprivation of Harry’s by-then even more intensively required rehydration fluids (increasingly needed to flush the rapidly accumulating toxicity from his system) for which he had been solely admitted and for which I had paid in full, just one-third of the way through the 24-hour protocol, and 22 minutes prior to a yet-further massive overdosing by the incoming morning shift staff, under the direction of Dr Steffi Jalava, and prior to his 2.5-hours later utilisation in student training activities and filming, with all vitals monitoring ceased while, by then, in a state of severe pharmacological collapse (as can even be seen on one of the still shots from the videos otherwise refused release thereof to me by Massey?)

Question Nineteen:  On the note of Dean Jon Huxley’s managerial conduct and attitude towards the “after care” of animals’ bodies (in the case of my own pet, terminated without any genuine cause whatsoever, under false pretences following aggressive coercion of me, his owner), I wish to specifically investigate the following: Is it an accepted Massey practice for clients’ pets’ bodies to be despatched into the back of an unmarked station wagon, beside scales and buckets with strangely-shaped black plastic bags of (possibly biological?) waste, with (as confirmed by your Chief of Staff, Jodie Banner, in her May 13 OIA response) no records of instructions or communications in any form, or owners’ wishes conveyed, to the cremation company whatsoever?

And for the Dean, in belatedly “responding” to a distraught pet owner’s attempts (possible only via email) to determine the true location and state of her dog’s remains, to advise the owner that the company in question is not a regular supplier, he has no interest in the matter, and he is going on holiday for a month, and there is no point in contacting him again regardless, as he considers the matter closed . . . with the owner’s attempts to also seek help from Professor Ray Geor regarding the matter, met with a “Deleted Not Read” email, and lower-level staff entertaining themselves in multiples, between the front desk, call centre, and the Companion Animal Hospital personnel, toying with the frustrated, distressed, and at times tearful owner for one hour and three minutes (audio recording published) before finally letting the call suddenly drop after having again placed her on hold? (PHONE CALL RECORDING AT END OF THIS ARTICLE)

(The verification of Harry’s ashes has not, six months later, ever been enabled . . . with an initial call by Pet Farewells for a “disposal fee” because “we were told you didn’t want Harry back”, followed by a sudden, inexplicable re-emergence of “Harry’s” ashes on someone’s desk and a demand to “go to our website and pick and pay for your choice of urn” – with no normal, standard crematorium records provided to demonstrate that the suddenly-found, not-disposed-of-after-all ashes are actually those of my pet.)

Question Twenty:  Are New Zealand’s local referring veterinarians explicitly informed that private pets sent to Massey for basic clinical care are vulnerable to being disconnected from their protocols and converted into live specimens for teaching purposes? Or are they being kept completely in the dark regarding the operational culture that enables this environment?

Question Twenty-one: Why has Massey’s Governance and Assurance office consistently sought to narrow, re-frame, stall, and redact the subject matter of statutory Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests? Is this standard practice for handing the complaints of its Companion Animal Hospital clients and former clients?

Question Twenty-two:  Unauthorised Data Leaks and Privacy Act Breaches

Given the documented evidence of the unauthorised use of Harry’s Massey client records for regular, ongoing late-night online trolling following my persistence in requiring Massey to release the names of all staff involved in my dog's case (such being required both under statutory obligation and also in accordance with ethical conduct standards) – notice of which I have published but the university has failed to address – what specific administrative or disciplinary actions are planned by the university to address these severe breaches of the Privacy Act 2020?

Who authorised the dissemination of private client and case files to personnel engaged in this online harassment campaign e.g. by “lol@lol”, Hugh Janus, “@getagriponreality.com”, “@getgriefcounselling.com” and so on and so forth. What internal investigation has Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter initiated to address these serious Privacy Act breaches, coupled with this institutional indecency and complete lack of corporate control?

And is it deemed acceptable in the Massey staff culture, when evading a client’s Privacy Act request for the student activity videos taken of her own dog by sending her a substitutional single still shot from each of the videos (or those that were admitted to exist), to take the opportunity to provide “special” additional cynically cropped/shaped “bonus” versions to highlight her pet’s intense suffering (as caused explicitly by Massey and by the activities being filmed) and also to mock the client’s horror and distress at the images in question (and the further distress at what the “unsanitised” versions would depict by way of his unspeakable suffering?).

Question Twenty-three:  Tampering With Evidence: Altering Records After Death 

Given that a formal criminal report has been lodged and is being tracked with the New Zealand Police regarding the back-end digital system logs of Harry Kelly - and given that these background server logs act as a permanent, un-erasable digital audit trail that automatically records the exact user account, date, and second that a file is touched, making any post-mortem modification a deliberate, manual intervention to alter data after an animal's death, which is illegal and criminal, carrying a maximum penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment under Section 258 of the Crimes Act 1961 - what specific steps have Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Dean Jon Huxley taken to ensure these critical electronic files have been immediately locked down and not further criminally accessed, altered, or overwritten?

For the avoidance of doubt, you are hereby put specifically on notice that because a formal criminal report has been officially lodged with Police, any subsequent entry into the back-end database to further modify, overwrite, or delete data trails constitutes separate, additional acts of criminal access and evidence tampering, regardless of any internal or external regulatory manoeuvrings.

Furthermore, why would Massey personnel risk entering the system days after the fact to manually alter these hidden background lines of code, if not as a desperate attempt to scrub the automated digital timeline through which is exposed the unauthorised utilisation of privately-owned pet Harry Kelly (i.e. the private property of a client, as per New Zealand law, thus illegally misappropriating and misusing that client's private property) in student activities and filming, before outside investigators can step in?

Given the evidence held and published regarding student activities upon, and filming of, Harry, scrubbing the specific timeline related to his handling, in order to obscure the reality of your facility's and your personnel's commercial utilisation of MY pet, is the most logical explanation for why you or they would take such a massive legal risk.

READERS: DO YOU THINK MY DOG IS THE ONLY ONE THEY'VE DONE THIS TO . . . OR PLAN TO EVER DO THIS TO?

Jordan Kelly
Owner of Harry Kelly (Deceased with intent by Massey’s Hand)