'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.'  - Margaret Mead

(And with zero doubt, what's going on at Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital' Needs A World of Urgent Change . . . to Stop More Pets Being Subjected to Huxley's House of Veterinary Horrors)

Is Massey's 'Head' of 'School' of 'Veterinary Science', 'Professor' Jon Huxley, operating in an impenetrable bubble of institutional arrogance and acceptance regarding the horrors that occur within the walls of his Companion Animal 'Hospital', or is he simply entirely detached from the realities of his Veterinary 'Teaching' Hospital?

Based on the belated 'response' (the response you get when you're not getting a response) I received to the 23 Key Questions put to him and Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, the answer would appear to be . . . an alarming combination of both. Read on, Massey 'clients' and other private pet owners, and draw your own conclusions about the level of transparency and safety inside that facility.

(Oh, and I forgot to mention in my below response to Mr Huxley's non-response, that not only will I publish any further legal threats, I'll also distribute them internationally as a Media Release.

In the meantime, I'm writing to ask the parties readers can see in the above envelope display, why this - by my experience - dangerous, high-risk, nontransparent facility should keep the 'accredited' status endowed upon it by its three 'accrediting' agencies; organisations who each appear unconcerned about whether or not this facility aligns with their own Standards for accreditation. . . not to mention the fact that this 'teaching' animal 'hospital' is currently the subject of an active Ministry of Primary Industries Animal Welfare investigation. AND . . . why the 'Dean' of such a facility - itself with a massive question mark hanging over its own operations - travels the world for one of them 'auditing' other veterinary teaching facilities for their compliance with its 'accreditation' standards . . . ALARMING MUCH? READ ON . . . )

AT YOUR PERIL, FELLOW PET OWNERS, AT YOUR PERIL . . .

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Sunday, 28 June 2026 8:11 pm
To: 'Jon Huxley' <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'Jodie Banner' <J.M.Banner@massey.ac.nz>; 'Registrar@rcvs.org.uk'; 'Kate Simkovic' <ceo@avbc.asn.au>; 'Dr. Samantha Morello' <smorello@avma.org>; 'G.W.Stirling@massey.ac.nz'
Subject: RE: Addendum: Questions Requiring Your Direct and Specific Answers

Dear Mr Huxley,

With reference to your below email, which you have cc’d to the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (UK), I hereby respond and cc the parties accordingly . . . noting, of course, the remarkably coincidental timing of your belated, and I put it to you otherwise unintended, “response” to my 23 Questions email of June 12: Massey VC Pierre Venter & Dean Jon Huxley: Questions Requiring Your Upfront, Unspun Answers. That is, your response comes within days of my internationally -couriered letters to the Directors of each of these three accrediting bodies (which were addressed via their secretariats, with their legal obligation to pass them on to said directors / board members). AVBC, AVMA & RCVS DIRECTORS: Is It OK With You That Pet Owners Can No Longer Trust the Veterinary 'Profession'?

Since you had left my “Questions” email otherwise unanswered (with its 23 questions also therefore unanswered), I do not believe that you suddenly woke up on June 26 and decided to acknowledge my June 12 email out of a personal desire to replicate the text of your January 30 email (which is what you have done, with my reply to your January 30 email published: Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me. It is clear to me that – with your accrediting agencies’ Directors now legally informed of the case – the management of these three bodies require a “this is localised, it’s under control and it’s nothing anyway” formal response from you to me, to forward to said respective Directors. Thus, Mr Huxley, you are simply submitting your homework to your overseers . . . whose intelligence you are insulting far more than mine with your uncharacteristic first-name sign-off of your email to me, in a pathetically desperate attempt to create the impression that the first-name sign-off on your now-published collusive January 30 invitation to the Veterinary Council Chief Executive (“wholly unfounded”; just ignore her; call me, Jon, for the official story) is just your correspondence norm.

‘Grieving, Over-Emotional Pet Owner’ Attempted Re-frame Is Transparent & Made Ludicrous by the Evidence

All that noted, Mr Huxley . . . your persistent "grieving pet owner" reframe is transparent, your refutations are refuted, and your claim that my “allegations” are "wholly unfounded" is wholly unfounded . . . as any reader with a modicum of intelligence can clearly ascertain from the 60+ evidence-containing articles I have published since your January 30 legal threat to silence me. These highly detailed pieces dissect and demonstrate (in many cases, graphically, and with supporting documentation, including your own) the multiple, heinous atrocities that your staff committed upon both my dog and upon me . . . and with so many more that would no doubt be revealed in a legal discovery process if the matter were brought before a Court.

On that note specifically, and with reference to the formal police filing (OR-2484821N) (UPDATED: MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED), you are hereby reminded that any further alteration of records, data, metadata, or communications relating to this matter carries very real criminal consequence under the Crimes Act 1961.

I also note that the opening sentiment of your email bears a striking resemblance to a near-identical opening recently used by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Chief Executive, Iain McLachlan, in his own correspondence with me. (Perhaps you didn't see my published tutorial deconstructing exactly that tactic, and why it's an inadvisable opening gambit when dealing with an intelligent adversary: Calling Veterinary Council of NZ CEO Iain McLachlan: You've Been Hiding In the Shadows for Too Long.)

Having noted those necessary-to-be-noted notations, now to the many matters at hand: 

When an institution dealing with clients' pets (or any animals, for that matter) is currently undergoing an active Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) Animal Welfare investigation, with that institution’s staff members also facing potential criminal exposure under the Crimes Act 1961 – including Section 258 (altering, concealing, or destroying documents with intent to deceive; up to 7 years’ imprisonment) and Section 250 (damaging or interfering with a computer system; up to 10 years’ imprisonment) – and with a civil case potentially on the horizon for Tortious Conversion and Bailment Deviation, along with other potential legal and statutory liabilities (including unanswered and/or evaded Official Information Act requests), that it is highly unlikely that the initiator's claims are "wholly unfounded".

That said, I fully appreciate that you will be operating in strict accordance with your legal counsel's absolute directive: Do not answer specific questions, most especially not "Yes/No" questions, as indeed some of the questions I have put to you have been framed specifically, in order that they might achieve a straight, undiluted answer.

Unconsented Utilisation & Commercialisation of My Pet (My Private Property) As A Live Teaching Specimen

On the note of your unauthorised-by-me utilisation and commercialisation of my pet as a live teaching specimen, I do hope your esteemed legal counsel has acquainted you with the following:

In New Zealand civil law, a pet is legally classified as private property (a chattel). When a client leaves their pet at a hospital, a bailment relationship is created. That facility and its staff are legally bound to hold and care for that property, not moving outside the strict scope of the owner’s authorisation. Utilising that private property (my dog) for unauthorised commercial, educational, or promotional purposes (as you did) outside of my explicit instructions (as you did and, in fact, in direct contravention of them, as issued by me many times) constituted a clear breach of bailment contract, a trespass to chattels, and – given the resulting termination of that living property's life on the basis of consent obtained through deception as to that living being’s actual condition – escalates to the tort of conversion.

Furthermore, capturing and deploying media assets of my private property without consent gives rise to actionable civil claims for breach of confidence.

Or, if I am, through this response to your email, in fact having an indirect conversation with your external legal services providers, let me put it thus, for their convenience: Just that aspect alone of Massey staff’s actions constituted “unauthorised conversion of private chattel and breaches of bailment via covert institutional deployment”.

Mr Huxley, if your lawyers have been unsuccessful in helping you to understand this and the many other legal issues arising from the Harry Kelly case, perhaps you could reach out to your professional indemnity and liability insurance providers and their legal counsel to explain these, along with the gravity of each of them, and the cumulative totality of them.

Deferring to the VCNZ to Answer My Questions of Massey: Your Absurd Illogic & Persistent Absence of Ethics

Back to the 23 evidence-backed and unanswered questions I put to you (with more to come):

It must be noted that these cannot be – under any degree of ethics, logic, or basic common sense – deflected to your industry regulator, the VCNZ (no matter the degree of personal or institutional closeness shared), to answer. These very justified questions can, even to the most uninitiated reader, only be answered by YOU. You cannot ethically or logically (albeit I continue to note that neither ethics nor logic are your strong suits, Mr Huxley) delegate your corporate accountability obligations to a third-party regulator. In fact, if these could be answered by the VCNZ, this would give me, the pet-owning public, and other stakeholders grave cause for concern, since a clinical council possesses absolutely zero jurisdiction over who has high-level access to your university database audit logs to scrub them of pets' Dates of Death, or over student training rosters, or over client billing practices, or over corporate financial invoices, or over records of authorisation for commercial deployment of private property for “educational” filming . . . among other of the issues covered in the 23 (conservative and restrained) Questions.

I remain in wait for those answers to my 23 well-founded and very justified questions. Again, I do understand your apparent reticence to provide direct answers – a straightforward and honest response to any one of these questions carries obvious implications for the individuals named in the “PS” section below, and also for whoever else currently unnamed becomes named when you are finally forced to disclose these, and ultimately for you yourself, Mr Huxley, as the person institutionally accountable for all that has occurred, and all that which is yet to be discovered to have occurred, under your watch.

However, if you wish to have Buddle Findlay threaten me for my persistence in asking you for this information, you are most welcome . . . although I can only assume that since you have been unable to dispute any of the facts and supporting evidence I have published (much of it in graphic detail) both since before your January 30 legal threat and in the 60+ articles I have published since that date, that you have found no grounds for your esteemed (and expensive) external legal counsel to make good on your threat to date.

Another of Massey Chief of Staff, Jodie Banner’s, OIA Deadlines Has Gone By . . . Plus the Full Suite of Licensed Staff’s Names Is Still Awaited, Six Months On

On the note of your lawyers, I await your answer to my Official Information Act request regarding the legal fees you have absorbed in your utilisation of them or other parties in monitoring my activities. My published article (Massey Evades OIA on Legal Fees: What Are You Hiding, and Who's Paying for It?) demonstrates how my first OIA request was reframed to provide an inaccurate answer, and details my submission of a second OIA request designed to ensure against this. However, you may wish to inform Ms Jodie Banner, your Chief of Staff, that she is now significantly overdue in responding to my May 7 OIA re-request. This is additional to the other OIA requests she has failed to respond to.

Further, I would remind you that I await the full suite of licensed staff's names – and the un-redaction of their initials on Harry's "Clinical Summary" so that I can see who was responsible for what decision and for what action – before I can even consider laying complaints against each of them. For the avoidance of doubt, currently, you are insisting, and for the past six months the university’s position has been, that – metaphorically speaking – I open a door (i.e. lay complaints with the VCNZ against individual staff) while your own department continues to hide the key. Further, the lay-out of the room on the other side of that door has been pre-determined between yourself and the VCNZ leadership, as per your January 30 exchanges and assumedly follow-up communications – as can be seen in the continuing shenanigans of the Veterinary Council’s “leadership” here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Please, therefore, advise when these will be forthcoming, in order for me to lay the complaints that you continue to insist (in your trademark authoritarian, and with me wholly ineffectual, manner) is my only path forward . . . noting that even if you do, these would fall safely into the hands of Iain McLachlan and co., with their demonstrated collusion with you, and their always-to-be-relied on Massey/VCNZ deep and direct structural conflicts of interest and 1.5 percent prosecution rate.

In any case, I would also, of course, need the answer to most if not all of my to-date 23 well-founded and specific Questions, in order to lay those complaints – with reference once again to the above locked-room-while-you-hide-the-key analogy, which I optimistically hope is not beyond your comprehension.

Finally, and back to the note of Official Information Act requests, I would ask that you give your Chief of Staff, Jodie Banner (whom I see you have already copied in on today's email) an additional polite prod with regard to remembering to provide her answer to my June 9 and June 13 emails asking for her express logic in attempting to reclassify my June 4 OIA request. I had explicitly requested the corporate authorisations, operational protocols, and decision-making frameworks that allow Massey to utilise private clients' pets as live teaching specimens aka "lab rats" – including specific confirmation of whether my own repeated, documented refusal of such use for Harry was honoured or overridden.

Without Jodie Banner providing any statutory logic for her attempt at this forced reclassification, I can only assume she is doing so because the Privacy Act allows the university to narrow the scope of disclosure to my personal data alone, thereby cloaking your internal training policies, institutional mechanics, and the owner-unauthorised utilisation, filming and commercialisation of clients' pets from the mandatory public transparency of the Official Information Act. In which case, or regardless, I refuse this re-classification and remain in wait for the full information requested by me under the Official Information Act 1982.

I trust you have enjoyed a restful weekend as I have spent mine very willingly indeed – in honour of my deeply beloved pet and in moral obligation to all Massey’s other owners of beloved pets  – deconstructing your disingenuous, illogical, dishonest, patronisingly evasive “response” that your “accreditation”-providing agencies have prompted you to “write”.

And again, Dean Jon Huxley, if you wish for Buddle Findlay or any other external legal counsel to issue me with any threats or “gag orders”, I am at the ready to receive these and to immediately redirect them to my Trash folder . . . after first publishing them in full.

Yours Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

Owner of Harry Kelly (deceased following undisclosed and unremediated catastrophic sedative overdosing, intentional disconnection from rehydrating IV following overdosing, unauthorised utilisation as a live student “teaching” specimen, covert commercial exploitation for training video content, with intensively coerced life termination achieved through non-disclosure of sedated state and fraudulent diagnosis and deception by Massey staff)

PS: On your claim that my “allegations” are “deeply distressing”, I must point out that it is far beyond just “deeply distressing” at my end, to have discovered that:

• My beloved and vulnerable little blind dog, entrusted to your “care”, was catastrophically overdosed with a contraindicated sedative (recorded in Massey’s own records as having caused him a prior recent adverse reaction right there in your “hospital”) with some of your ill-advised and totally unnecessary, “care”-substitute subsequent massive overdoses administered just 26 minutes apart (even prior to those used to prep him for your teaching staff’s, “Dr” Steffi Jalava’s, and “Dr” Anita Shea’s utilisation in their extensive and invasive student “educational” activities, given their need for a live “teaching” specimen for the day’s student activities;

• The overdosing was not immediately corrected by the day vet, “Dr” Steffi Jalava, on her arrival the following morning, but instead was opportunistically and intentionally continued in order to keep my pet pliable and facilitate his ease-of-use handling for the unauthorised, extensive, invasive, hands-on student activities and filming that your overnight crew had planned for him as part of Dr Jalava’s next-day “treatment” program (read: live teaching specimen utilisation for her December 1, 2025 student group, and video productions commercialisation of him for the University’s ongoing benefit);

• He was disconnected after just 8.5 hours into his 24-hour rehydration protocol (the only thing he needed from you) in order to facilitate this intensely cruel, unconsented and undisclosed, commercial utilisation by your staff and your institution;

• Your “neurologist’s” participation in this unauthorised and potentially lethal utilisation of him also included a “neurological decline” diagnosis when he was at the peak level of sedation with a drug known specifically – and published as such in the international veterinary literature – as producing exactly such neurological-mimicking symptomology. (It should be noted that I have provided the MPI investigators with a 13-page comprehensive report of Harry’s relevant veterinary records, including those as recent as 12 days prior to your “care” and “treatment” of him, that demonstrate his complete viability and also the numerous falsehoods added to your “Clinical Summary”.);

• On the basis of this, Dr Shea – your esteemed “neurologist” – gave her support to Jalava’s intended narrative for Harry’s convenient disposal by way of using this fabricated “diagnosis” and “prognosis” to pull out of the bag in Jalava’s intended coercion of me both on the phone and later that day in person i.e. in her insistent objective to have Harry immediately “euthanised”, with NO DISCLOSURE OF THE FACT THAT HARRY WAS DEEPLY SEDATED or that he had received any sedatives or any pharmaceuticals of any nature apart from the rehydration (which you had, of course, disconnected him from at the height of his pharmacological collapse for his utilisation without the encumbrance of an IV connection getting in your instructors' and students’ way). That is, for Jalava to resort to when none of her vague justifications for immediate on-site “euthanasia” had, up to that point, produced the required response or authorisation from me;

• It is standard ethical practice for a vet encountering a doubting client – not least of all whom they are trying at length and with intensive psychological force, manoeuvres and coming from multiple different angles – to convince to allow the “euthanasia” of their pet, for that pet owner be enabled to seek a second opinion, rather than being the subject of prolonged, forceful insistence that they sign authorisation paperwork on the spot and have the procedure conducted there and then without delay  (and to sign a “consent” form that had been pre-prepared, pre-timestamped, and filled in with another staff member’s name);

• To add insult to injury, to have the billing units (meant to be added to an invoice in real-time) of the invoice (not given to me in person) that I paid, fraudulently inflated posthumously – with the apparent assistance of junior staff. Additionally, the insult to my intelligence via the assumption that I would not be able to understand the line item inclusions on that invoice and how they provide a direct window into the staff’s intention for Harry to be sacrificed.

• My pet’s (unnecessarily killed) body was despatched to an unknown cremator without any recorded instruction, but rather – with the instructions to their staff that “We were told you didn’t want Harry back” when they called for a “disposal fee” (and to be told in your Jan. 30 dismissal of the matter, that my endeavours to ascertain the truth of the situation were essentially “not my problem, they’re not our regular supplier, and I’m on holiday for a month and don’t contact me back anyway, I don’t care.”)

• Six months on, you continue with you authoritarian insistence on my utilising – as my only “allowable” path by you (Huxley) – your demonstrably (by your own correspondence) collusive regulator, with its 1.5 percent prosecution rate, as my only means of achieving accountability, and for which I must, regardless, know the names, roles, decisions, and actions of each of those personnel specifically whom I wish to lay complaints about and which you continue to redact and withhold;

• You have, and continue to, withhold the videos you took OF MY DOG in the appalling state of immense and inhumane suffering you wilfully and intentionally and heartlessly and non-consentedly induced him into (with Jodie Banner telling me smart-assedly that “I’m not entitled to these), and about which the fact of your inability to supply vitals monitoring (IDEXX records) on the day this occurred speaks for itself;

• As well as your refusal to answer key statutory information requirements.

All these atrocities and others committed upon me and upon my beloved dog, “Dean” “Jon” Huxley . . . I assure you, I find MULTIPLE TIMES more distressing than any distress caused to you and your staff by my exposure of them.

Further, be “categorically” assured that it remains my intention to continue to expose and comment on them in multiple forums and across all my published platforms (and others), indefinitely.

You (and/or your legal advisors i.e. the ones whose fees you refuse to disclose, despite your OIA obligations) will have read in various of my previous articles, that I have made a published, public declaration that – and I do mean this literally – the rest of my life is dedicated to ensuring the sustained, permanent, and increasing exposure of what was done to my dog, Harry (and by extension, me). And that, to the best of my skill and ability (which you can clearly see you severely underestimated, Mr Huxley), I will do everything I can, ongoingly, to ensure that if what happened to Harry does in fact happen to any other pet, it will not be for any absence of public knowledge regarding the documented risks associated with entrusting that pet to your “facility”.

Continuing & Permanent Pet Owner Risk Education Initiatives & Campaigns

A key (but not the only) component of this, now life-time mission, is the development of IIIVE.org, the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (while a completed platform, yet still in the infancy of the very substantial plans ahead for it as both an educational publishing platform and an actual campaigning institute).

Additionally, there will be at least one book that will be published (you may take this seriously, since I wrote my first published hardcover book at age 24 and have written at least 26 – having lost count, actually – more published books since then, productions of either mainstream, academic, or self, publishing). There will also be academic (ethics; veterinary) and industry (crisis management; ethics) case studies produced and available as freely downloadable productions via IIIVE.org (which will by then have been narrowed and streamlined in its core purpose pillars and slightly restructured to accommodate and promote these downloadable educational materials).

Other forms of educational material based on ensuring the continuing exposure of, and helping other pet owners avoid what was committed by Massey staff upon my pet and myself, will also be part of the overall educational campaigns.

An ebook comprising a compilation of all the articles produced to date (more than 60 with more to come) is currently in production by an IIIVE volunteer i.e. a talented, qualified graphic designer. This will be freely available as a downloadable on IIIVE.org and will be sent to strategic audiences with an urgent need to know of the conduct of your staff, and of your own managerial failings as well as your refusal to acknowledge these. These intended recipients most especially comprise governance-related readers

Personal & Individual Consequences

Meantime, the individuals concerned – including but not limited to you, Jon Huxley, Jodie Banner, and Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter – will not escape consequence.

Sustained public exposure of your respective roles in this matter will continue, indefinitely and unconditionally, as per above. But in addition, you each remain personally exposed to civil liability for your individual roles in the institution's deception of its clients. A university cannot blanket-shield its staff where those staff are found to have personally participated in, or orchestrated, a cover-up or deception. Most especially, Veterinary Council of New Zealand CEO Iain McLachlan, in his exercise of statutory public power as head of a public regulatory body, will face the initiation of civil proceedings for Misfeasance in Public Office, individually and personally – a tort under New Zealand law carrying a six-year statutory limitation period.

Further, if – at that end i.e. the causative end – you find my exposes and their related consequences “distressing” (consequences for which you should be prepared will be ongoing), you should address this with the root cause instigators of your distress i.e. your “Dr” Steffi Jalava and “Dr” Anita Shea, the overnight staff of your “Intensive Care” Unit (NB: I remain in wait for your answer regarding whether this includes a licenced veterinarian or whether you run your ICU night shift without one) and the remaining collective staff you allow to run a Wild West environment under the “management” of “Practice Manager” Pauline Nijman, overdosing patients’ pets at their convenience rather than attending to them, then prepping them for Jalava’s and Shea’s next day “student educational” utilisation and video productions commercialisation – with the intended means of disposing of the evidence of those activities being coercion of lethal injection under clinical fraud and the convenient digital scrubbing etc of audit logs e.g. time of death etc to avoid detection in any future audit or investigations.

Additionally, you should have given forethought to how “distressed” you would feel if you were ultimately caught in the act regarding the way you operate your “hospital” . . . because there is simply no way I or any other intelligent member of the public could believe you haven’t at least had some semblance of knowledge of what has been going on in the facility of which you are “Dean” (read: he with whom the buck supposedly stops) and what you have been doing to people’s pets – the “care” and “treatment” of which you charge phenomenal fees for (while utilising them as live teaching specimens and commercialising them as video production subjects). I am advised that paying clients have tried extremely hard to have brought very serious issues to your attention, but that they have been the target of the same stonewalling by you as have I. Here is one article that lays out just a small amount of that feedback, noting that this feedback has included that which has been derived from phone calls made to me by your clientele: Reader Feedback Reveals Pattern of Dangerous Clinical & Cultural Failures at Massey’s Companion Animal 'Hospital'.

Directorial Obligations, Professional Liability Insurance Consequences & Accreditation Credibility

To the AVMA:  These reader feedback commentaries and my about-to-be-published article regarding Student training ethics, will serve to provide Dr Samantha Morello of the AVMA, with a direct window into just how systemic the issues exposed by the Harry Kelly Case are i.e. with reference to her correspondence as published on IIIVE.org and specially on the Harry Kelly Case Study.)

To the RCVS’s Ky Richardson, Standards & Advice Manager/Solicitor:  You will note that – with reference to your confirmation that the disclosure of the identities of staff to enable a pet owner to lay complaints – is a standard expectation of the veterinary industry internationally – that six months in, my attempts to lay any formal complaints continue to be thwarted by Massey and the VCNZ management collusion. You can read about this here, if you have ignored my further correspondence about this to date.

I would also ask the Directors of the RCVS if it is safe or appropriate to allow Mr Jon Huxley to continue to sit on your international visitations committee, endowing him with the responsibility for auditing other educational institutions for their compliance against Standards that his own institution has been demonstrated, in numerous instances (including being under active Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare investigation), to itself be in breach of, under his current and active watch?

If it is on this basis that the RCVS issues its own accreditations to those organisations, you are surely in grossly irresponsible breach of your own obligations? Or somehow, are you not? Can any international auditing body justify keeping an active auditor on their committee while his own facility is under a formal government animal welfare investigation?

To the AVBC:  Chief Executive Kate Simkovic’s stance that she will wait to see how the VCNZ rules, has a slight flaw in its logic . . . in that (a) without the full list of clinicians’ names and an unredacted version of my dog’s “Clinical Summary” to align the decisions and actions taken by each still-unnamed entity, I am prevented from laying any such complaint against these individuals, and (b) the collusion between the VCNZ and Massey’s Dean Huxley  has been multiple times laid out in detail, including with published evidence. She would also know that the VCNZ’s CEO Iain McLachlan is currently the subject of an active Law Society of New Zealand complaint for the same. Thus, such perversion of natural justice is exacerbated and reinforced by your own stance, Ms Simkovic.

I also ask the AVBC’s Ms Simkovic to confirm whether the July 1 incoming Chairperson, "Professor" Jan Thomas, has provided a formal, written declaration of a material personal conflict of interest to her fellow Directors, as strictly mandated under Section 191 of the Corporations Act 2001.

As the immediate former Vice-Chancellor of Massey University, Jan Thomas was the ultimate institutional head under whose watch the systemic clinical atrocities, unauthorised student training -related exploitations and university commercialisations of my pet, and deceptions of myself, listed in the "PS" section below took place. Given that the AVBC’s core statutory function is the quality assurance and accreditation of Massey’s veterinary program, her dual position creates an immediate, severe conflict.

For the avoidance of doubt, under corporate law, this conflict cannot be managed by a casual verbal aside. It requires a formal entry into the company's Register of Directors' Interests and her absolute, documented recusal from any discussions, votes, or oversight regarding Massey University’s accreditation status or compliance reviews. And for the even further avoidance of doubt, under Australian law, failing to disclose a material conflict of interest as a corporate director is considered a serious breach of statutory director duties, which can carry personal fines and disqualification from managing corporations entirely.

And for yet further avoidance of doubt, given the high stakes both for Massey’s pet owner clientele and for student training standards and the ethics imbued in students graduating the Massey facility and being despatched into the private veterinary practices of its target client geographies, any failure by Ms Thomas to explicitly declare this conflict in writing, or any attempt by the AVBC Board to shield her from doing so – which constitutes a direct breach of corporate governance laws – will be immediately referred to the relevant corporate regulators and associated broader interests.

By me. Personally.

In closing, to the senior management of the AVMA, RCVS and AVBC: 

My response herein to Mr Huxley’s email will be printed out and posted by airmail to your offices with the instruction that you pass it directly to the Directors named on each individual sealed envelope, as legal notification of the as-yet unresolved status of this matter.

In the meantime, I remind each of you that I have requested the contact details of each organisation’s Directors’ and Public Liability insurers. It is my firm understanding that you have an obligation under normal policy requirements, to advise your insurers of a matter such as this, where (a) the staff of a facility you have accredited have conducted themselves in this manner, and (b) where the laxity of governance and legal requirements adherence has enabled them.

This correspondence is also being copied – by post – to the members of the Massey University Council.

_________________________________________

From: Jon Huxley <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz> 
Sent: Friday, 26 June 2026 2:44 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: Jodie Banner <J.M.Banner@massey.ac.nz>; Registrar@rcvs.org.uk; Kate Simkovic <ceo@avbc.asn.au>; Dr. Samantha Morello <smorello@avma.org>
Subject: RE: Addendum: Questions Requiring Your Direct and Specific Answers

Dear Ms Kelly,

I am writing further to your recent correspondence by email dated the 11^th and 12^th of June 2026 (copied below).

Before responding to the matters you raise, I want to acknowledge again how deeply upsetting the loss of Harry has been for you. Losing a much-loved pet is profoundly difficult, and I am genuinely sorry for the pain this has caused you.

As I indicated to you in my email dated 30^th January 2026, the School of Veterinary Science categorically refutes all of the allegations you have raised, they are entirely unfounded. In that email, I directed you to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, the statutory body responsible for considering complaints about veterinary practice and professional conduct. If you have not already done so, I would encourage you to submit your concerns to the Veterinary Council so they can be independently reviewed and investigated.

The allegations you have made against the University and particularly against individual staff members are serious, entirely unsubstantiated, and deeply distressing. I must therefore ask you again to refrain from repeating them. Should you wish to pursue your concerns further, I reiterate that the appropriate avenue is via the complaints process of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Yours sincerely,

Jon

Jon Huxley

Dean and Head of School

Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science

Massey University │ Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North │ 4100 │ New Zealand │

P: (+64) 6 951 9009 (DDI) Ext. 86009  │ M: (+64) 021 563 603  │ www.massey.ac.nz/school-vetscience/