Massey's Legal Big Guns Can Fire Off As Many Rounds As They Want. The Truth Is Going to Come Out. Sue Me and You'll Force the Evidence Right Into the Courtroom. You Think I Don't Know That?

If you've been following this whole expose and transparency-seeking mission to hold Massey University and its "Companion Animal Hospital" accountable for the ruse they pulled on me to have me agree to "euthanase" my precious little dog under false pretences  (after they overdosed him with a potent and completely unnecessary sedative cocktail and presented him back to me as apparently neurologically dying after admission for a simple rehydration procedure), then you'll have read the previous article. In that update, I  published yesterday's litigiously intimidating email the "Head of Veterinary School", one Jon Huxley.

There's only possible interpretation of the content, the timing, and the fact that it follows:

(a)  two months of being dismissed by a junior in "Legal and Governance", and

(b)  it arrived in at one hour and 29 minutes before the time at which I advised I would be sending a formal complaint to the Privacy Commissioner for Massey's wilful non-compliance with Privacy Act legislation governing personal  information release. That interpretation is that Massey's suits know they don't have a leg to stand on in any of the raft of breaches of the Act. The only way they can avoid damning exposure through an OPC investigation, and also through the forced release of the files on my dog, Harry, is if that complaint never gets submitted in the first place.

My clear message to Mr Huxley is: 

In this somewhat panicked and certainly transparent attempt, you have failed. I trust that my response to your intimidating email of 3.31pm yesterday makes that clear.

For the avoidance of any doubt, however, by the time you read this article, you will see clearly that your attempts to silence me are a desperate move to stop a train that has already left the station.

I have nil fear of your top-tier international law firm and associated heavy-hitter hired guns. I can, however, see you might have otherwise bought into the notion that your large institutional taxpayer-and-donor funded legal budget affords you i.e. that I would retreat into the safety of silence, never to be heard from again.

Perhaps that funding would be best deployed not only in the upgrading of your own veterinary staff's basic clinical education (to make your facility at least fractionally safer for your premium fee-paying clients like myself, or former clients, in my case), and also elevating your own education of pharmacology, safe and acceptable clinical practices, and core ethics. I have provided you with some examples of where your current baseline knowledge is severely lacking here, Mr Huxley.

In order to provide context for my readers, I will - below - first display the email sent to the down-the-line Legal and Governance staffer, in which I finally told Massey I'd had enough of their stonewalling me on your legal obligations regarding the release of Harry's (full and unredacted i.e. not "summarised" and redacted) information.

I also pointed out that from what I had witnessed in the two of the eight videos that I had condescended to release to date, that my concern of having my tiny, blind and drugged dog handled in the cruel manner he had been for the purposes of student display, and the recording of him in his moments of terror on cell phones, made me all the more determined to prise the remaining six videos out of Massey . . . and also considering that the CCTV footage I requested had been conveniently "overwritten" and (wrote Massey) therefore "does not exist".

Below my warning email below (actually there are two emails, one of them after I was advised by onlookers of Massey's deceptive release of a "summary" document in place of what should have been full, clinical records). The email below that is something every pet owner who has ever had their animal referred to Massey's Companion Animal "Hospital" should read . . . whether or not the nature of the "student activity" regarding your pet has ever concerned you or not. It might, in fact, concern you (probably deeply), if you knew what I now do.

I then lay out the formal complaint that I have submitted to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner this afternoon - also showing readers to whom I have cc'd it. So, sorry, Mr Huxley bringing in your legal big guns   hasn't silenced me at all. As you can see.

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.

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: Thursday, 29 January 2026 1:12 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:

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:

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?

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?

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.

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):

• “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.

• "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.

• 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.

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

_______________________________________