The OPC Complaint the 'Head of Veterinary School' Doesn't Want Me to Make: Why Massey Is Terrified of Full Disclosure

If you haven't 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 get me to agree to "euthanase" my precious little dog under false pretences (after they 500% - 750% 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 please read this, this and this.

Meantime, in a further 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.

My interpretation of Huxley's missive is that Massey's suits know they don't have a leg to stand on in any of their raft of breaches of the Act.

The only way they can avoid damning exposure through an Office of the Privacy Commissioner (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, Mr Huxley. I trust that my response to your intimidating email of 3.31pm yesterday makes that clear.

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 big-budget law firm and its apparently Massey-dedicated 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 considerable comfort, arrogance and dismissiveness. Or, perpetual comfort, arrogance and dismissiveness.

In the context of my continuing investigation to uncover the full truth surrounding what you and your "proteges" did to my precious little dog, Harry, and to pursue your accountability for it, that would, according to the objective of your and Buddle FIndlay, come in the form of my 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 in elevating your own education of pharmacology, safe and acceptable clinical practices, and core ethics.

To this end, I have provided you with s ome 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 Massey 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".

My investigation continues, Mr Huxley, despite your bringing in your legal big guns . . . and that is involving my current gargantuan effort of producing a comprehensive report and formal complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. A gargantuan effort reflective of the numerous breaches you have committed, and that you continue to be in breach of.

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

_______________________________________

< Older Post

Newer Post >

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

by Jordan Kelly • 15 March 2026

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

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

by Jordan Kelly • 10 March 2026

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.)

FOLLOW THE MONEY: The Compromised Veterinary Regulatory & Accreditation 'System'

by Jordan Kelly • 8 March 2026

Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin

IN PROGRESS: How Massey 'Training' Produces the Low Vet Care Standards & Outright Contempt NZ Pet Owners Have to Tolerate

by Jordan Kelly • 4 March 2026

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

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

by Jordan Kelly • 27 February 2026

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.

(UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest

by Jordan Kelly • 17 February 2026

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 .

CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey

by Jordan Kelly • 15 February 2026

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 )

NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences

by Jordan Kelly • 12 February 2026

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

Massey University's Upside-Down Prioritisation of Taxpayer Funds: Fiscal Malfeasance & the TRUE Cost of Institutional Arrogance

by Jordan Kelly • 11 February 2026

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.

ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous?

by Jordan Kelly • 8 February 2026

An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)

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.

Other News, Reviews & Commentary