UPDATED 20.2.26: WAITING, MASSEY . . . What's Hiding In the 75 Percent of Video Footage You Refuse to Release?

This article is a critical component of a broader investigative series documenting the clinical and ethical failures surrounding the death of Harry Kelly (my own treasured, beloved little papillon) at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital.

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

To understand the gravity of the injustice being investigated - from the catastrophic 500%-750% overdosing of a contraindicated convenience sedative to a dehydrated renal patient, to the nondisclosure of this sedated state in favour of a fabricated "neurological event" to secure my consent for "euthanasia", to the subsequent breakdown in the custodial chain of his body and his ashes - please refer to the complete "The Killing of Harry Kelly" Series here.

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

Below is the record of the formal requests currently served upon Massey's Vice-Chancellor, the Governance Office, and the Privacy Officer. These demands seek to resolve the profound discrepancies in Harry’s clinical history and the truth behind the push for his (later found to be unnecessary) life termination and to hold the University accountable for the outsourced relationships that resulted in the catastrophic failure of custodial integrity regarding Harry's remains.

Note, these requests now also include those made relating to potential conflicts of interest at the regulatory level, as regards the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. However, on a very positive note, the matter now has the attention of the Commerce Commission, which has officially logged the case for assessment. (Commerce Commission correspondence exchange immediately below, with Massey and VCNZ-related OIA requests included below that.)

UPDATED: February 20, 2026

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

Kia ora Charlotte,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is documented evidence of conflicting and deceptive representations:

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

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

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

Industry-Wide Transparency & Verification Risk:

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Jordan Kelly

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

Kia ora Jordan,

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

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

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

Ngā mihi,

Charlotte

Screening and Enquiries team

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

www.comcom.govt.nz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR MINISTERIAL ATTENTION:

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

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

Dear Mr McLachlan

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

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

I have had nil response from you.

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

Action Required:

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

Conflict of Interest

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

As a current Adjunct Lecturer at Massey, his involvement in any advice regarding this case constitutes a "Perceived Conflict" that threatens the integrity of your office, and of Massey University’s governance standards.

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

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

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

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

TO:

Hon Erica Stanford (Minister of Education)

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

Hon Dr Shane Reti (Science, Innovation and Technology)

Hon Nicola Willis (Minister of Finance)

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

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

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

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

Key Findings by Portfolio

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

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

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

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

Overview of Core Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Disclosure Notice:

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Jordan Kelly

UPDATED: February 13, 2026

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

The first:

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

To the Registrar:

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

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

Information Requested:

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

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

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

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

Public Interest & Transparency

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

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

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

Procedural Note

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

I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

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

Dear Ms Banner

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

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

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

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

Executed Euthanasia Authorisation

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

Clinician’s Photograph

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

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

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

Third-Party Communication

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

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

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

Whiteboard and Pathology Records

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

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

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

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

Electronic Audit Trail

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

Your Itemised Confirmation of Information Provision Compliance Is Required

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

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

Appendix A: Jordan Kelly OIA request and subsequent clarifications

1. Deceased Animal Transfer Protocols (Standard Operating Procedures)

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

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

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

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

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

• The procedure for recording and transmitting requests for ancillary services or memorials (e.g., paw prints, fur clippings, or "return of ashes" mementos) and how these instructions are communicated to the external provider or to trigger their contact with the owner;

As part of my request for ALL communications, in any form, between Massey and Pet Farewells, I specifically require the communication between Massey personnel and Pet Farewells staff or management in relation to Harry Kelly, which – I was told by “Steffi” – would involve me receiving a phone call to discuss paw print and other memento options. No such phone call was ever received; only the above-mentioned phone call to seek a “disposal fee”. To be clear, I am NOT inviting a reiteration of Dean Jon Huxley’s previous correspondence advising that Pet Farewells is not your regular contractor and therefore it’s not your problem and nothing to do with Massey. I am asking very specifically for the communications between the two organisations relating to this (and to all other aspects of) this matter.

• The procedure for recording and transmitting owner instructions to external providers, specifically how "Return of Remains" vs. "Non-Return" instructions are flagged in the system to prevent unauthorised disposal;

As above, the specific communications – including the electronic form submissions and any paperwork, as well as emails and verbal communications – relating to Harry Kelly’s case.

• The required documentation to be completed prior to uplift (e.g., Transfer of Custody forms, identifying tags, or service instruction sheets) to ensure the provider knows exactly which service is required, including the mandatory sign-off required for any "No Return" designation;

As above, the specific communications – including the electronic form submissions and any paperwork, as well as emails and verbal communications – relating to Harry Kelly’s case.

The protocols for verifying that an external provider is approved or authorised to handle deceased patients, covering ALL disposition types including (but that might not be limited to): Individual Cremation (return of ashes);

Mass Disposal / Communal Cremation / Rendering;

Clinical or Biological Waste Disposal.

Refinement of Scope (received 7/01/2026):

The requested Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), policy documents, and internal guidelines must include any and all protocols governing the physical release and transfer of custody of deceased patients from the CAH to ANY third party.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• Contracted or regular vendors;

• One-off or "ad hoc" service providers;

• Entities collecting remains for biological/clinical waste or rendering;

• Individual third parties or owner-authorised agents.

I await your response to each of the issues, information requests and questions contained herein, which – given the already protracted and continuing delays associated with the release of information to me – should be provided to me by Close of Business on Monday, February 16, 2026.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Ref: My previous information-release requests (i.e. for information still largely being withheld, specifically in the case of the Privacy Act request): (as can also be viewed here, along with yet other information requests still unresponded to or unsatisfied) https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/waiting-massey-privacy-act-official-information-act-requests-to-masseys-vet-hospital (Meantime, for an overview of the broader issue to which these information requests relate: https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/this-is-what-happens-when-massey-thinks-they-own-your-dog-you-just-pay-the-invoice

______________________________

To date, Massey has released only a small portion of what the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 information-release provisions legally obligate it to, and none of what its Official Information Act requirements mandate.

The Request Log: Seeking Accountability for Harry Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2026 2:26 am
To: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>; 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Ms Mullan

. . . .

More importantly – and for the avoidance of further evasiveness and "cat and mouse" games – to be clear yet again: the two videos provided represent only a fraction of the footage recorded during Harry’s time in the ICU.

To fulfil the records request and meet the 3:18pm deadline today, please provide a secure download link containing the remaining six videos, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings.

An educational and highly resourced institution like Massey University is well-equipped to apply simple and readily available pixelation technology to obscure the staff and other patients you purport to be the reason for your refusal to release these files.

Having reviewed the (flattened PDF) "records" you emailed yesterday afternoon, I very strongly suspect that these six videos depict the repeated, unnecessary, totally-unrelated-to-his-reason-for-admission, invasive, and cruel examinations you subjected Harry to frequently throughout the night – clearly for teaching value but certainly not for his benefit – e.g., glaucoma, retinal detachment, dental assessments and so on and so on, repeatedly, all through the night.

These six withheld videos also likely confirm the glaring clinical contradictions that are now evident in your records.

While these vulnerabilities might provide you with the motivation to continue to evade their release (especially when obscuring the identity of those conducting these experiments is so easily achieved), the knowledge of what you are seeking to obscure – or to "explain away" via a one-time, supervised viewing – only, conversely, provides me with the motivation to ensure these missing videos are seen by the independent experts I have engaged.

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Monday, 26 January 2026 4:44 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Kia ora Ms Kelly

As noted here are the PDF files we sent via the link on the 14^th . The clinical summary, change log and detailed statements. The two videos that accompanied these files are just under 40 megabytes (29, 174 and 10, 250 respectively). I am not sure how much capacity your inbox has but I can attempt to send these individually if that assists – as regards our system, the 29 megabyte file is above our recommended 25 megabyte limit but I can attempt to send it that way if you wish.

Best Regards, Frances Mullan

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Monday, 26 January 2026 3:18 pm
To: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; enquiries@privacy.org.nz
Subject: URGENT: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Formal Rejection of Restricted Access and Final Deadline

Ms Mullan:

I am in receipt of your email of 10.53am today.

I assure you the fact that I have not clicked the link to download your supplied information is in no way a reflection of any dissipation of interest at my end. There is a very good reason for the fact that I have not downloaded the materials yet. However, I am in no way obligated to disclose this to you. Your obligation, on the other hand, is to keep it live and functional until I am ready to do so.

Further, as I have already laid out in my formal request under Privacy Act Principle 6, I require that when it IS accessed from this end, that it contains the metadata and auditing logs that accompany ALL entries, so that any posthumous or other untimely additions, deletions or changes are transparent. In the meantime, I require that you fulfil your offer to send the clinical records, invoices, and “change records” via email immediately. This is in addition to, not in place of, the maintained digital link.

Regarding your specific mention of "change records", I require that you urgently itemise:

Every area in which the records have been changed;
What the original record stated;
What the record was subsequently changed to, and
The specific reason for that change in each individual instance.

This includes those that I will see by virtue of auditing logs, and any others you have made that are not transparent.

I am well aware that the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct (Standard 2.1) establishes clear, enforceable expectations for professional behaviour.

Specifically that section of the Code includes, as a key component of that expectation, the VCNZ’s clear, enforceable expectations for comprehensive, detailed explanatory notes – the unedited provision of which is then required in law by the New Zealand Privacy Act Principle 6 – Access to Personal Information.

Further, and back to the VCNZ Code, veterinarians must adhere to the Code, and compliance is mandatory for registration and holding a practicing certificate.

As these records serve as the benchmark for evaluating behaviour, integrity, and adherence to legal and ethical requirements (with their requirement to maintain a secure and unalterable audit trail), any retrospective "retrofitting" of the veterinarian’s narrative to align with a defensive strategy – through whatever means I am able to ascertain this i.e. as admitted by you or otherwise – will be treated as a wilful and illegal corruption of the clinical record under Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020. To ensure your knowledge is current: Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020 defines specific criminal offences regarding personal information, with penalties of up to $10,000 for breaches. It covers:

Destruction of Documents: Intentionally destroying documents containing personal information after a request for that information has been made. This can be taken to relate to the intentional alteration of any part of the original and true record.

Given that you were included as recipients of my media statements on December 23, 2025, and January 9, 2026, the timing of any such alterations will be under intense forensic and other forms of scrutiny available to me either currently or in the future i.e. given that I had given you transparency of my baseline of knowledge of certain (but not all) of the key aspects of the facts surrounding Harry’s killing i.e. as they were known to me as of that date.

I draw your attention again to Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020, which makes it an offence to alter or destroy information after an access request has been made. Given that you were included as recipients of my media statements on December 23, 2025, and January 9, 2026, any retrospective "retrofitting" of the veterinarian’s narrative to align with a defensive strategy will be identified through the metadata and treated as a wilful and illegal corruption of the clinical record.

Regarding your condition that I must return to ANY PART of the Massey environment:

Your environment – having been the stage for massive and multiple instances of malpractice against my deeply loved dog, Harry, and the veterinarian's multiple-angled and deep deception to coerce me into allowing her (and even requiring my own coerced participation in an act of violence against him) to achieve her orchestrated plan for his unnecessary death, thereby eliminating his living presence as evidence of the malpractices – is clearly an environment that, in its totality is emotionally untenable for me to come anywhere near. Accompanied or otherwise.

The other reasons – which I posit are the primary underlying drivers for your attempts to enforce a controlled viewing on me – almost certainly include:

(a) Your need to control the perception of what will be seen in the suspiciously large number of videos taken of Harry;

(b) The one-time nature of the viewing with no ability to conduct any freeze-frame analyses of it, and

(c) The fact that you would be very aware how difficult it would be for me to have my independent analysts accompany me when none of us live anywhere near Palmerston North.

Under Section 56 of the Privacy Act 2020, an agency must provide information in the manner preferred by the individual.

As provided previously, and for the reinforcement of your edification:

The Manner of Access: Section 56(1) of the Privacy Act holds that the agency must give that access in the manner preferred by the individual.

Meantime, Section 212 of the Privacy Act 2020 creates criminal offences related to interfering with personal information.

Key aspects of Section 212 Offences include:

Altering/Destroying Records: It is an offence to destroy, alter, or conceal any document containing personal information, or to cause it to be altered or destroyed, knowing that a request for that information has been made.
Penalty: Individuals convicted under this section are liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000. The Act’s specific use of the clarifier, “individuals”, is well worth noting here. (As is the fact that I am a tenacious investigative journalist by profession, whose sources are not limited to those that you condescend to provide to me.)

Your Strategic But Ill-Advised Use of the Term, ‘Edit’

I specifically take exception to your use of the term "edit" (implying the deletion or clipping of footage), as opposed to "redact" or "pixelate".

Your attempt to paint me into a corner whereby my refusal to enter your untenably traumatic environment provides you with a pretext to permanently destroy the integrity of the clinical record through "clipping and deleting" is a bogus excuse.

Any "clipping" of footage will be treated as a wilful obstruction of my right to access a complete and uncorrupted record – and I will do all in my power to see that the Act’s Section 212 consequences to the individuals concerned are pressed for.

Meantime, the release of these videos (or your refusal to do so) is the subject of a formal complaint I have composed to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. I have refrained – with knowledge of the glacial pace of your correspondence performance – from hitting Send on this complaint to the OPC, in order to give you a period of grace to respond to my email of Thursday, 15 January 2026, 7:48 pm, objecting to your strategy and the related restricted access.

I will give you until 24 hours from the timestamp of this email to you today to advise of your intention to release these videos to me, before I proceed with the submission of my ready-to-go formal complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

*A copy of this correspondence is being provided to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for inclusion in the formal complaint file pending my 24-hour deadline.*

To be 100% clear on this matter: I will not have my access, or the access of the independent parties who require it, restricted in a manner that precludes proper forensic analysis. I consider this my final word on the matter of access format and will not be drawn into further delays by responding to circular correspondence attempts from your end.

Finally, Ms. Mullan, and "for the avoidance of doubt" (a phrase with which your Legal and Governance department no doubt have an affinity for the use thereof themselves), I will leave you with the following concrete and lasting assurances:

If your strategy in sending this VCNZ-cc'd email to me is an attempt to signal to them that you have "played your part" and I am either "running out of steam" or the ability to mount a solid case for my intended formal complaint to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, you are very sorrowfully mistaken in those attempts. I trust that when the time comes (very shortly), the Council will demonstrate the professional objectivity and transparency that Harry’s case, and the public interest, will demand.

If your own assumption is actually that I am becoming overwhelmed and fatigued at the prospect of coming up against the brick walls and formidable resources of the University in exposing its management, the Companion Animal Hospital, and the “veterinarian” that oversaw and fronted the plan for the gross deception that led to me consenting to, and even physically participating in, the killing of my dog – then you would be well advised to be, to the contrary, apprised of:

(a) The depth of my protective instinct over my dog (even posthumously and even despite your refusal to oversee the return of his ashes to me );

(b) My lengthy background both as a deep-research journalist and industry-intelligence consultant;

(c) My degree of personal and professional tenacity, and

(d) My personal and professional commitment to ensure that, to the best of my ability, no such degree of multiple malpractice instances and related deceptions, with their lethal and irreversible consequences, ever befall any other pet owner that entrusts their pet to the Massey institution.

With regard to your repeatedly, mercilessly and opportunistically draining every cent I possessed, and then some, amounting to multiple tens of thousands of dollars over multiple years, under the pretences of "caring" for Harry: Your final move was the opportunistic optimisation of "line items" in one last $1,200 invoice for the 15 hours of hellish and unspeakably cruel and torturous malpractice you subjected him to – a failure you then attempted to obscure with a $45 "euthanasia" injection.

I am not able to change the irreversible, fatal consequences upon Harry of your callous conduct and your related calculated plans. Nor of their horrific and lasting impacts also upon me, his loving and devoted (and despicably deceived by you) owner.

However, as a minimum moral and enduring obligation on my part, it is now incumbent upon me to devote the rest of my life to ensuring against such a travesty ever being visited upon my fellow "pet parents", here in New Zealand or in any other country. I hereby assure you of the thoroughness and sustained diligence with which I will execute this moral duty.

For your necessary edification:

"Moral" refers to principles, standards, or habits that distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. It describes actions that align with commonly accepted rules of goodness, honesty, and ethics.

I encourage you to distribute the above concept to those among your University’s and Companion Animal “Hospital’s” staff for whom it is clearly a decidedly foreign concept.

I await the prompt arrival of the emailed records (with all metadata and audit logs intact), with the required disclosures re the “change records” to which you refer (in each instance thereof), and the release to me of the six remaining videos of my precious (and resultantly, deceased) dog, Harry, whilst in your “care”.

Sincerely,

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Monday, 26 January 2026 10:53 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: Iain McLachlan <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; Seton Butler <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

Kia ora Ms Kelly

I have reconfirmed that we are unable to redact the footage we have currently withheld as it was recorded on a cell phone. The only editing we can do is therefore to clip and delete the footage that records university staff and other clinic patients. We do not wish to make such changes however without first giving you the opportunity to view the footage prior to the edits being made.

As you have indicated a preference to not return to the Companion Hospital, I am happy to arrange a time for you to view the footage here at our offices in the Refectory Building or another location on campus of your choosing (other than the veterinary school or Companion Hospital). You are welcome to bring whomever you wish to view the footage with you

Furthermore, our records indicate you have not downloaded either the clinical records (including invoices and change records) or the two video recordings of Harry Kelly we were able to make available without editing, sent to you on the 14^th of January. We sent you a link for downloading these records due to the size of the files (primarily the video footage) rendering us unable to forward by email. If you would prefer, I can send the clinical records, invoices, and change records also by email.

I await your response on viewing the footage prior to editing and email versions of records previously sent via a link for downloading.

Best regards

Frances Mullan

Governance and Assurance Office

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

Ms Mullan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2026 7:48 pm
To: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

Dear Ms Mullan

I am sending this initial response prior to having had the opportunity to review the materials in the data depository to which you have sent me a link. This email deals specifically with your ongoing refusal to provide digital access to 75% of the video records you hold of Harry.

Regarding the six videos you are currently withholding: I do not accept being restricted to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing as a valid form of access.

I consider restricting me to such a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing, to be a calculated manoeuvre that is emotionally and psychologically manipulative, cunning, and totally unacceptable.

It is intended to prevent independent forensic scrutiny and to shield your clinical decisions and actions from outside oversight.

Legal Breach (Privacy Act Section 58)

According to Section 58 of the Privacy Act 2020, if an individual has a right to access information, the agency must provide that information in the manner preferred by the individual (e.g. as a digital copy), unless doing so would:

Prejudice the interests of others;
Be contrary to a legal duty; or
Impair "efficient administration”.

Your "privacy" excuse is a calculated manoeuvre to avoid your statutory duty. As a major University with significant technical resources, performing standard digital redactions (pixelation) – which would therefore avoid any risk of “prejudicing the interests of others” – is a basic administrative task and does not constitute an "unreasonable" burden or "impair efficient administration".

Refusing to provide the files in my preferred digital format simply to prevent me from having a copy, is a breach of the Act.

Calculated Obstruction of Expert Scrutiny

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing makes a professional clinical audit logistically impossible.

I reserve my right to seek a second, independent expert opinion – a right I was actively denied while Harry was alive, and a move that forced me into an irreversible decision under duress.

By limiting my access to the information in question to strictly that which can be performed at your own premises, you are ensuring no outside expert can review the footage, shielding your staff from forensic scrutiny.

Secondary Victimisation and Coercion

I consider restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative and cunning.

It is a form of secondary victimisation, requiring me to immerse myself in the very environment in which I was coerced – under what the facts clearly indicate were false pretences – into allowing your staff to terminate my dog's life.

The Necessity of Forensic Review

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing is useless for a clinical investigation.

Both I and independent experts require digital copies to rewind, freeze-frame, and properly examine the clinical interventions during the less than 24 hours Harry spent in your “care” – and during which his condition changed in the most extreme manner imaginable (based, as I now know) on unnecessary and owner-unauthorised pharmaceutical intervention.

This restriction is a transparent tactic to obfuscate the truth.

Continuity of Access to the Data Depository

Regarding the materials you have already provided via a link: please ensure this link remains live with the records fully accessible until such time as I formally advise you – in writing – that my investigation, clinical audits, and all related legal or regulatory proceedings are concluded.

Any premature termination of access will be viewed as a further act of obstruction.

Meantime, I require the redacted digital files of all eight videos. I look forward to receiving them by Friday, January 23, 2026.

In the meantime, please ensure your future correspondences address me more formally as Ms Kelly. Anyone who has any part in the coercion of a pet’s owner related to the pre-meditated clinical killing of that pet under false pretences – or the after-the-fact cover-up thereof – is not a party with whom I consider myself to be on first name terms.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2026 11:27 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026

Kia ora, Jordan

Please see attached the university’s response to your privacy request. Due to the size of the files being supplied our letter includes a link for you to click to download/access the material covered in our response.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2026 5:25 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: Vet Clinic <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>; Pauline Nijman <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>; Jon Huxley <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>; kevin.bryant@vets.org.nz
Subject: RE: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

Kia ora, Jordan

We acknowledge receipt of your request. The reference number for your request is 01/2026.

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

Otherwise, we will seek to respond to your request as soon as practicable and no later than 20 working days after the date your request was received (by 11 February 2026). If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of this timeframe.

The response date shown takes into account:

1. Christmas Day (25 December 2025)

2. Boxing Day (26 December 2025)

3. Summer Holiday (27 December to 15 January 2026)

4. New Years Day (1 January 2026)

5. Waitangi Day (6/2/2026)

Notwithstanding the formal deadline for our response listed above, I note the clinics response to you on the 6^th of January regarding the collation of the clinical records for Harry Kelly. I can confirm our office received the clinic’s files this afternoon. We will need some time to review and although I believe it is unlikely we will be able to respond tomorrow we will do best to respond as soon as possible. Please note from hereon in, our office will be communicating with you directly regarding the fulfilment of your request.

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 26 December 2025 5:14 pm
To: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: Vet Clinic <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>; Pauline Nijman <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>; Jon Huxley <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>; kevin.bryant@vets.org.nz
Subject: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

Privacy Officer:

The below request for the clinical records of Harry Kelly (originally sent Dec. 22) should have been addressed directly to your office.

Please confirm receipt and ensure the statutory 20-working-day clock is being monitored.

Regarding the integrity of these records: I require the full digital export, including the system's Metadata and Audit Logs (showing the date, time, and user ID for every entry and any subsequent modifications).

I am well aware that modern veterinary practice management software tracks all "edit" history and deletions. I expect the records provided to be the original, unedited entries as they existed at the time of Harry's care. Any discrepancies between the nursing logs and the clinical summaries will be noted and the subject of further action.

I look forward to your timely (and, I hope, ethical) co-operation.

Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Monday, 22 December 2025 9:05 pm
To: 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz' <vethospital@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'editor@consumeraffairswriter.com' <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Subject: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

To the Practice Manager:

I am writing to formally request a complete copy of the clinical records for my dog, Harry Kelly, who was a long-term patient at your facility.

Please provide a full digital export of his entire file, to include:

All clinical and veterinary notes.

All time-stamped nursing logs and hourly monitoring charts (including his final admission in the ICU).

Medication administration records (MAR).

All internal and external communication logs regarding his care.

All records of communication and co-ordination with third-party service providers (specifically Pet Farewells) regarding the handling and release of remains, and the specific instructions given to related parties.

Diagnostic results and imaging reports.

Furthermore, I note that I was not provided with any invoice or itemised breakdown for the final sets of charges (Nov. 30 and Dec. 1). I was merely presented with an EFTPOS machine without any explanation of the cost componentry.

I am requesting these formal tax invoices now. Please note that the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct instructs practices to provide full transparency with regard to costs and charges.

I would appreciate all records being provided in chronological order as a PDF export for my personal archives and permanent records.

As the owner/guardian and the party responsible for the account, I am making this request pursuant to my rights under the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

Thank you in advance for your timely co-operation as required both by the Privacy Act and by the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct.

Request 1: The Integrity of Clinical Records & Comprehensive Metadata

Legal Basis: Privacy Act 2020 (Principle 6).

The Demand: A full digital export of all clinical notes, nursing logs, and communication archives. Crucially, this includes the digital metadata and audit logs for every entry. This data is required to establish the exact dosages and precise timestamps for all pharmaceuticals administered—metadata that will determine whether the "neurological state" used to justify the recommendation for euthanasia was a clinical reality or a transient sedative effect from the substantial pharmaceuticals administered (without consent and without disclosure) that same day.

Status: PENDING. Despite a written commitment from Hospital Management on January 6 to provide these records "by the end of the week," the University has since retracted that promise, shunting the request to the central Privacy Office. As of this publication, the University continues to withhold the data that would clarify Harry's final neurological baseline.

Request 2: ICU & Consulting Room CCTV (Ref. 02/2026)

Legal Basis: Privacy Act 2020 / OIA 1982.

The Specific Demand: The immediate preservation and release of all ICU ward footage from November 30 to December 1, 2025.

The preservation of Consulting Room footage from the afternoon of December 1. This evidence is vital to document the patient’s physical motor function and his strength in responding to his owner in the moments before the attending clinician insisted the patient's condition was irredeemable.

Status: Refused. Claimed "Overwritten".

ICU Footage & Videos:

Acknowledged that EIGHT videos exist of Harry. However, ONLY TWO are to be released to me. Regarding the other SIX, I am allowed only a one-time, controlled environment viewing of these. That is, to be clear, the viewing of this footage that represents 75 percent of the available video footage, must be conducted at the Companion Animal Hospital itself, or not at all.

And as above, all ICU and consulting room footage has been "overwritten".

Request 3: OIA on Transfer Protocols & Vendor Payments

Legal Basis: Official Information Act 1982.

The Demand: Disclosure of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) governing the transfer of deceased remains and a financial audit of all payments made by the University to the external provider, NZ Pet Cremate Ltd trading as Pet Farewells (the pet cremation company who first claimed to have been told "I didn't want Harry back" and called me for a "disposal fee", then - upon my horrified reaction - suddenly "found" his ashes, and all entities of which Gavin or Lyn Shepherd are directors or shareholders or similarly associated, over the preceding 24 months. This request seeks to uncover the systemic failures that allowed a patient's remains and personal property to be handled in such a profoundly irresponsible manner. (NB: Having despatched Harry's body to this operator and upon my subsequent advice of this distressing debacle, Massey advised "no responsibility" and nil interest in the matter.)

For the Record:

Request Served: Friday,, December 26, 2025.

Read Receipt Confirmed: Monday, 5 Jan 2026, 7.52am (The University’s first business hour of the year), but it took Massey's Legal & Governance Department until January 16 to formally acknowledge the request, with the "20 working day" clock only set going at that belated stage, and with two public holidays included to push the advised timeframe out still further.

(NB: It should be noted that the information i.e. regarding Deceased Patient Transfer Protocols should not be something anyone at any "international standard" veterinary institution has to go deep-diving to dig out. If they do, that’s a major red flag issue for a major government-funded teaching hospital producing New Zealand's next generation of veterinarians.)

_____________________________________________________

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 January 2026 7:48 pm
To: 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01 2026 - Your Restriction of My Access to Video Records

Dear Ms Mullan

Regarding the six videos you are currently withholding: I do not accept being restricted to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing as a valid form of access.

It is intended to prevent independent forensic scrutiny and to shield your clinical decisions and actions from outside oversight.

The Legal Breach (Privacy Act Section 58)

Prejudice the interests of others;
Be contrary to a legal duty; or
Impair "efficient administration”.

Calculated Obstruction of Expert Scrutiny

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing makes a professional clinical audit logistically impossible.

I reserve my right to seek a second, independent expert opinion – a right I was actively denied while Harry was alive, and a move that forced me into an irreversible decision under duress.

Secondary Victimisation and Coercion

I consider restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative and cunning.

The Necessity of Forensic Review

Restricting me to a one-time, on-site, "controlled environment" viewing is useless for a clinical investigation.

This restriction is a transparent tactic to obfuscate the truth.

Continuity of Access to the Data Depository

Any premature termination of access will be viewed as a further act of obstruction.

Meantime, I require the redacted digital files of all eight videos. I look forward to receiving them by Friday, January 23, 2026.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly (Ms)

Kia ora, Jordan

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

_______________________________

Kia ora, Jordan

We acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act request. The reference number for your request is 95/2025.

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

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

The response date shown takes into account:

Summer holidays (25 December to 15 January)
Waitangi Day (6 February 2026)

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

Kind regards

Governance and Assurance Office

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 26 December 2025 6:08 pm
To: OIA Requests <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Official Information Act 1982 Request: CAH Deceased Patient Transfer Protocols and Vendor Payments

To the Registrar / Governance and Assurance Team:

As a long-term client of the Companion Animal Hospital (CAH), I request the following information under the Official Information Act 1982.

Please acknowledge receipt of this request by return email.

1. Deceased Animal Transfer Protocols (Standard Operating Procedures)

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

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

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

The procedure for recording and transmitting requests for ancillary services or memorials (e.g., paw prints, fur clippings, or "return of ashes" mementos) and how these instructions are communicated to the external provider or to trigger their contact with the owner;

The procedure for recording and transmitting owner instructions to external providers, specifically how "Return of Remains" vs. "Non-Return" instructions are flagged in the system to prevent unauthorised disposal;

The required documentation to be completed prior to uplift (e.g., Transfer of Custody forms, identifying tags, or service instruction sheets) to ensure the provider knows exactly which service is required, including the mandatory sign-off required for any "No Return" designation;

The protocols for verifying that an external provider is approved or authorised to handle deceased patients, covering ALL disposition types including (but that might not be limited to):
Individual Cremation (return of ashes);
Mass Disposal / Communal Cremation / Rendering;
Clinical or Biological Waste Disposal.

2. Vendor Payments & Financial Relationship

Please provide the total dollar amount of invoices paid by Massey University over the past 24 months to the following entities for services of any kind (including, but not limited to, cremation, biological waste disposal, cadaver transport, or rendering services):

The entity trading as "Pet Farewells";
Gavin Shepherd and/or Lyn Shepherd (as individuals or sole traders);
Any limited liability company of which Gavin Shepherd or Lyn Shepherd is/are listed as a Director or Shareholder.

Additionally, please provide the total dollar amount paid to:

Any other external entity engaged by the CAH to provide services related to the uplift, collection, transportation, management, storage, cremation, or final disposition of:
Deceased companion animals;
Post-mortem (necropsy) subjects;
Animal carcasses or biological/clinical waste.

Note: If specific dollar amounts are withheld for commercial reasons, I strictly request confirmation of the existence of the vendor relationship and the general nature of the services provided.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly

< Older Post

Newer Post >

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 .)

KILLING HARRY: The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death

by Jordan Kelly • 31 January 2026

From Lethal Incompetence and Malpractice . . . to Withholding of Life-Saving Corrective Action in Favour of Utilisation As A Teaching Aid . . . to A Fraudulent Diagnosis . . . to A Coerced 'Euthanasia' to Destroy the Evidence . . . to Management Malfeasance At the Highest Levels

Open Letter to Incoming Massey VC, Pierre Venter: Will You Clean Up the Lethal Levels of Incompetence, Clinical Negligence & Undisclosed Procedures on Clients' Pets?

by Jordan Kelly • 31 January 2026

FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE : (Note to Readers: Nil response to the below. Looks like the New VC's modus operandi is not about to differ from the institutional stonewalling of the entrenched Massey suits . . . with the culture he has inherited obviously causing him no concern.) Plea to New Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, for Cultural Change & Institutional Integrity in the Interests of Pets, Owners & the Ethics Instilled In Future Veterinarians

Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me: Guess What? You Silenced Harry But You Won't Silence Me

30 January 2026

Bring It On, Huxley, Dean of 'Veterinary School'. Exposing the Realities of Your 'School' Is the Hill I've Chosen to Die on. So It's the Courage of My Convictions vs the Size of Your Legal Budget.

Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice Demonstrates Fraudulent Killing of Harry Kelly

by Jordan Kelly • 30 January 2026

A VITAL & URGENT WARNING TO PET PARENTS EVERYWHERE

UPDATED: 20.2.26
Will This Badly Behaving Institution Preserve the Truth & Allow It to Be Released In Full? Not So Far. Not By A Long Shot.

UPDATED: February 20, 2026

UPDATED: February 13, 2026

The Request Log: Seeking Accountability for Harry Kelly

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

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

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

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

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

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

KILLING HARRY: The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death

Open Letter to Incoming Massey VC, Pierre Venter: Will You Clean Up the Lethal Levels of Incompetence, Clinical Negligence & Undisclosed Procedures on Clients' Pets?

Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me: Guess What? You Silenced Harry But You Won't Silence Me

Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice Demonstrates Fraudulent Killing of Harry Kelly

Want to contribute your comments or ideas?

Want to Contribute?

UPDATED: 20.2.26Will This Badly Behaving Institution Preserve the Truth & Allow It to Be Released In Full? Not So Far. Not By A Long Shot.

UPDATED: February 20, 2026

UPDATED: February 13, 2026

The Request Log: Seeking Accountability for Harry Kelly

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

UPDATED: 20.2.26
Will This Badly Behaving Institution Preserve the Truth & Allow It to Be Released In Full? Not So Far. Not By A Long Shot.