iiive

WARNING TO VETS REFERRING TO NZ'S MASSEY ICU FACILITY . . . AND TO ALL PET OWNERS BEING DIRECTED TO VETERINARY TEACHING HOSPITALS BY THEIR VETS

Sat, 20 Jun 2026 06:16:54 GMT

The Multiple Hidden Liabilities in Every Massey Referral: What Vets and Pet Owners Need to Know . . . And the Points of Awareness Critical to ANY Pet Owner Being Referred to ANY Teaching Establishment

This article serves as an advisory regarding the risks associated with admitting companion animals to New Zealand's Massey University Companion Animal Hospital Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for overnight or extended stays .

It outlines specific vulnerabilities in patient care , drug administrations , owner-unauthorised invasive, hands-on utilisation of pets for student teaching activities , and - for referring vets, specifically - it details the downstream legal and insurance liabilities for the primary veterinary practices that refer clients to this facility.

The Core Risks in Massey's Companion Animal Hospital ICU Policies & Practices

When an animal is referred to an institutional ICU for extended or overnight monitoring , clients expect a c ontinuous, high standard of professional oversight .

However, documented systemic issues at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital (which it must be remembered is also otherwise known as its Veterinary Teaching Hospital ) present significant hazards:

Supervision Gaps : Overnight care protocols may rely heavily on unsupervised junior staff or rotating personnel, without a registered veterinarian physically present . (Confirmation the contrary is still awaited from either Massey or the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.)
Undocumented Drug Administration: Massey's own Chief of Staff, Jodie Banner, has formally admitted in writing that non-controlled sedatives — including Gabapentin — bypass the Controlled Drug Register entirely. This means heavy, behaviour-altering pharmaceuticals can be administered to a privately-owned pet inside Massey's ICU with no mandatory record, no oversight mechanism, and no audit trail. (A detailed expose on this specific clear and present danger is in production; check back soon for its imminent publication.)
Lack of Informed Consent: Animals may be utilised in practical student training modules without the explicit, written consent of the owner - or indeed even without their knowledge. The outcomes of these practices can be fatal .

Accountability Deficits and Documented Legal Suppression: When untoward events occur — ranging from clinical incompetence to severe procedural errors to unauthorised and undisclosed, potentially lethal utilisation of private clients pets as live training specimens and practices condoning false diagnoses to obtain owner consent for "euthanasia" to avoid disclosure of this utilisation — the institutional response has, in the demonstration of this Case Study, prioritised reputation management by way of institutional force, with the threat of legal action aimed at ensuring owners' compliant silence.

The Transfer of Legal and Insurance Liability

Many primary care veterinarians operate under the assumption that once a patient is transferred to a tertiary facility like Massey , their own legal liability terminates. This is a critical misconception.

The Duty to Warn: A referring veterinarian has a professional obligation to understand the operational realities of the facilities they recommend . If a primary vet fails to warn a client of documented risks, and an incident subsequently occurs, the primary vet can be held contributorily liable.

Professional Indemnity Insurance Exposure: If a client suspects negligence, malpractice, unauthorised student training activities conducted upon their pet, or clinical incompetence at the secondary facility , the primary vet's own professional indemnity and liability insurance is directly exposed. Because the primary vet initiated the referral chain without appropriate disclosures, the owner has grounds to pursue a claim against the referring clinic's policy.

This is not a hypothetical risk sitting somewhere in legal theory. It's the practical reality facing every clinic that continues to send clients' animals into an environment where the drug administration trail can vanish, where consent can be bypassed, and where the institution's own documented response to scrutiny has been to threaten the people who ask questions and seek accountability .

Bypassing the VCNZ: Direct Insurer Correspondence

When disputes arise, the standard advice is to lodge a complaint with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ ).

However, data and documented evidence indicate this pathway is highly ineffective for consumers:

Systemic Collusion : Documented interactions demonstrate a close, protective relationship between the VCNZ regulatory apparatus and institutional bodies like Massey, compromising the regulator's impartiality .

1.5 Percent Prosecution Rate : A peer-reviewed study published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal in 2019 found that of 1218 complaints and notifications received by the VCNZ between 1992 and 2016, 818 — i.e. 67.2 percent — were not investigated or were dismissed outright. Only 18 complaints — 1.5 percent of the total — were upheld on the basis of technical competency concerns. To be clear, that is a grand total of just 18 complaints upheld across 24 years.

The Conflict at the Heart of It: That study was co-authored by Dr J.F. Weston of Massey University's School of Veterinary Science — the same Dr Jenny Weston who currently sits on the VCNZ Council .

Inadequate Penalties: In the rare instances where a complaint is upheld, the outcomes are overwhelmingly limited to minor "training recommendations" rather than substantive disciplinary action or licence suspension.

Options for Owners

If an incident occurs and the referring veterinarian refuses to address the complaint or take responsibility for the referral outcome, owners might want to consider bypassing the Veterinary Council of New Zealand entirely .

My own personal opinion, based on my own, drawn-out, intentionally ineffectual and still-in-progress experience with the VCNZ , is that this is an entirely captured agency, predominantly by Massey but also by way of its loyalties to the broader veterinary sector — which, it should be remembered, in New Zealand, is largely loyalty-beholden to Massey as most vets' own alma mater.

The VCNZ's modus operandi, in the clear demonstration of my own case with the tragic outcome of my own beloved pet , is to delay, obstruct, frustrate, and hope to exhaust a pet owner-complainant's wil l , with a view to either actively obstruct or ensure the dismissal of a complaint, or to naturally burn-out the complainant in order to achieve the ultimate fading away of the complaint. The VCNZ's own woeful - in fact, beyond negligible - prosecution rate provide clear, stark testament to this.

Thus, what an aggrieved pet owner might want to consider as an alternative first and most immediate step, is to identify the primary veterinarian's professional liability insurer and open correspondence directly with them. Insurers evaluate risk purely on financial exposure and strict liability, making them far more responsive to unmanaged practice risks than a compromised regulatory board .

Conclusion: Deconstructing Traditional Trust & Naivete

The historical model of unquestioning, naive trust in the veterinary industry leaves companion animals highly vulnerable - and worse still, at the most vulnerable moments in their life cycles .

Pet owners must take active responsibility for investigating where their animals are being sent and under what specific conditions they will be held overnight and during the course of any period of stay when the owner will not be present with them .

When facing a referral, owners should directly and explicitly notify their primary veterinarian that they understand the legal and insurance consequences available to them should the referral facility fail to meet baseline standards of competent care or convert their companion animal - which remains their legal private property - for unauthorised use as an institutional educational, film production, or commercial resource .

IMPORTANT NOTE TO PET OWNERS:

Under New Zealand's Animal Welfare Act 1999, companion animals are recognised as sentient beings , and in civil/property law, they remain the legal property and chattels of their owners .

Converting private property for unauthorised commercial use (like student training or film production, as you will see here having been the case with the author's own pet, Harry , a blind papillon obviously offering Massey's Dr Steffi Jalava and Dr Anita Shea additional student interest teaching value vis a vis his blindness, which veterinary codes of practice should have ensured, as a disability, resulted in greater care, not training utilisation) without consent is an actionable legal violation .

Go here, for the full story (with regular updates) of the intentional, repeated, catastrophic levels of overdosing with an unnecessary, contraindicated, convenience sedative ; his covert conversion to University utilisation as a live teaching specimen ; and the fabricated diagnosis manufactured by Drs Shea and Jalava to support Jalava's aggressive coercion of Harry's owner (by plan, misrepresenting his undisclosed sedated state as a sudden "neurological decline ") to achieve immediate, in-situ for the later-discovered-to-be completely unnecessary termination of his life .

Harry's owner, the author of this advisory article , has been subject to all the acts (and more) outlined herein - with the quest for accountability ongoing and being strenuously resisted by Massey's management , with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand in full and active support of Massey's obstruction and perversion of natural justice .

AVBC, AVMA & RCVS DIRECTORS: Is It OK With You That Pet Owners Can No Longer Trust the Veterinary 'Profession'?

Fri, 19 Jun 2026 03:30:00 GMT

Bypassing Managerial Stonewalling at AVBC, AVMA & RCVS to Alert Accreditors' Directors of their Directorial Liability Obligations

Above: With assistance reflective of reader and general public sentiment for the need to (a) hold Massey's management to account for the atrocities committed in the Harry Kelly case, and (b) call for investigations and actions to stop the institution's " Companion Animal Hospital" management and staff committing these atrocities on private clients' family pets , the management and several of the staff of the Masterton Paper Plus, Copy Centre and Post Shop personally downed tools yesterday to donate their expertise and support to the mission. (Special shout-out to Manager Richard and 2IC Callum.)

Over several intense hours, they re-laid-out and format-converted this week's internationally-distributed Media Release and Questions-to-VC-and-Dean articles as accompaniments to my letters to the nine lead Directors of the three agencies currently providing Massey with the undeserved international accreditations that Massey uses to attract student enrolments into this "educational" facility. They printed, collated, stapled, labeled, stuck, listed, Customs forms-filled, checked, re-checked and finally despatched these nine critical information-and-alert packages to their respective overseas destinations.

Meanwhile, by complete contrast, yet another anonymous cruel taunt from the Massey insider/s sat fresh in my inbox from 9.05am. (It's worth noting that I have published more than sufficient details for Massey management to readily identify this anon or small gaggle thereof , but Massey's "leadership" clearly chooses to allow them to persist, demonstrating, among other misfeasance, blatant disregard for the institution's Privacy Act 2020 obligations, with the sender/s having provided detailed demonstration of their direct access to Harry's Massey records.

Note to New Readers: ' Always the Latest ' provides a continually updated entry point for the extensive and ongoing coverage of this Massey University atrocity . . . that could just as easily befall your own pet/s.

______________________________________________________

On June 18, 2026, the above nine individually addressed registered letters were dispatched by international courier from Masterton, New Zealand, to the as-named (see labels) directors of the three international bodies holding Massey University's veterinary accreditation — the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS, UK), and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

Each letter places its named recipient on formal personal notice of the Harry Kelly Case — the forensic investigation into the catastrophic and intentional sedative overdosings , fraudulent diagnoses by Dr Anita Shea , aggressively coerced life termination under false pretences by Dr Steffi Jalava , conversion of a private client's pet as a live specimen for multiple, invasive hands-on student training exercises, records falsification (subject to an active Police report under NZ Crimes Act 1961 ), fraudulent invoicing practices overseen by Practice Manager Pauline Nijman , OIA non-compliances by Chief of Staff Jodie Banner (including over her evasion of the issue of who gives permission for the training resource use of clients' pets ), Privacy Act breaches by anonymous staff emailers , nil chain-of-custody over Harry's remains , campaign of online torment by staff or others with access to Harry's Massey records, and now, the active Ministry of Primary Industries' animal welfare investigation currently under way into the facility's operations.

And, of course, Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley's threats to use the University's big-ticket legal services provider , Buddle Findlay, to gag me . . . and his collusion with the Chief Executive and "leadership" team of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to prevent me from laying formal complaints, with what I can only logically interpret at this point as the new, incoming Vice-Chancellor's, Pierre Venter's, full, active and budgetary support .

The letters were sent to the following individuals:

⚠️ THE ENABLER-IN-CHIEF: IMMEDIATE PAST VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY, JAN THOMAS.

THE HARRY KELLY CASE ATROCITIES WERE COMMITTED ENTIRELY UNDER 'PROFESSOR' THOMAS'S WATCH . . . MEANTIME, IN ONE OF THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY AND OVERT DISPLAYS OF STRUCTURALLY-EMBEDDED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, SHE IS NOW THE INCOMING CHAIRPERSON OF THE AUSTRALASIAN VETERINARY BOARDS COUNCIL (ONE OF THE THREE ACCREDITATION AGENCIES CURRENTLY TURNING A DOGGEDLY PERSISTENT WILFUL BLIND EYE TO THE MATTER).

Every single point of clinical fraud, severe animal cruelty, records manipulation, institutional stonewalling, and threatened gagging by use of the University's legal firm Buddle Findlay, as documented in this campaign, occurred directly under the governance and ultimate executive watch of immediate former Massey University Vice-Chancellor Professor Jan Thomas — who takes the position of AVBC Chair effective 1 July 2026.

Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC)

Jan Thomas — Chair of the Board of Directors (effective 1 July 2026; Vice-Chancellor of Massey University January 2017 – January 2026)
Charlie Blackwood — Director
David Ensor — Director
Inma Beaumont — Director
Kym Ayscough — Director

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS, UK)

Council Member Timothy Parkin FRCVS — President
Council Member David Barrett FRCVS — Junior Vice-President

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

President Michael Q. Bailey DVM, DACVR
Board Chair Sandy Willis DVM, MVSc, DACVIM

The letters follow below in full.

____________________

(Named Director)

c/- Australasian Veterinary Boards Council
Level 14, 10-16 Queen Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000
Australia

Dear (Named Director)

Formal Notification – Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital and ICU – Accreditation Review – Harry Kelly Case

I write to you in your capacities as directors of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, which has recently transitioned to a Company Limited by Guarantee. You accordingly carry personal directorial duties under Australian Corporations Law, including duties of care, diligence, and good faith, along with duties to act in the best interests of the organisation and to avoid conduct that may expose it to liability.

In publicly acknowledging this transition, the AVBC claims to have “helped build a system that supports high educational standards . . . and public confidence in the profession”, with a stated future focus of “stronger governance . . . and continuing to advance veterinary education in the public interest,” adding that “change in governance structures rarely makes headlines, but the impact these foundations have on professions, practitioners and communities is substantial.”

Active Expectations of Institutions You Accredit Must Align With Your Public Statements

I would draw to your attention the self-assessment of having made a positive impact on “advancing veterinary education” and on “communities”.

I would point out that when the pet-owning public and your clientele cannot trust you not to administer undisclosed and highly inappropriate pharmaceuticals to their pets at potentially lethal levels, and to then discontinue – yet charge them for – their specifically prescribed protocols in order to convert them for commercial usage as student training tools, and then fabricate diagnoses in order to ensure the evidence is neatly discarded . . . that this neither “advances veterinary education” nor does anything else to engender confidence in “communities” and those members of them who own pets and entrust them to your accredited institutions.

My letter today relates to serious cruelty, clinical and managerial misfeasance, clinical and other forms of fraud including criminal, at Massey University and its Veterinary Teaching Hospital, known to the pet-owning public as its “Companion Animal Hospital”.

The Harry Kelly Case

• Cruelty and Neglect in ICU

• Possible Operation of Overnight ICU Facilities without the Presence of Licensed Veterinarian (TBC)

• Intentional Catastrophic, Repeated Overdosing with Contraindicated Sedatives

• Refusal to Provide Emergency Corrective Treatment Following Potentially Lethal and Repeated Overdosing

• Discontinuation of Prescribed & Paid Protocols

• Fraudulent Examinations & False Diagnosis

• Covert Conversion of Private Property As Owner-Unauthorised Hands-On Student Training Resource (And Against Repeated Owner Forbiddance)

• Animal Cruelty

• Inappropriate & Unsafe Use and Handling of Sedated Private Pet in Dangerous Manner

• Withholding of Critical Information from Owner (Both Before Forced, Fraudulently-Achieved Death and Posthumously)

• Coerced Termination Under False Pretences

• Clinically Filthy, Reprehensible and Immoral Conduct of (Unnecessary and Coerced) Life Termination Procedure (Permission for which was obtained under false pretences)

• Records Restrictions, Clinicians’ Identities Redactions, Records Falsifications and Tampering & Fraudulent Invoice Escalations

• Non-Compliance with Official Information Act Requirements

• Dean of School and Veterinary Council Leadership Collusion to Pervert Natural Justice

• Multiple Points of Conflict of Interest

• Legal Threats to Silence Complainant

I am the Editor-in-Chief of The Customer & The Constituent NZ (www.thecustomer.co.nz) and Executive Director of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) (www.iiive.org).

I am also the owner of Harry Kelly, a deeply loved and treasured blind papillon who was admitted to the afore-mentioned facility (accredited by AVBC), as a private, full fee-paying patient, for a 24-hour rehydration protocol, but was instead catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with an unnecessary convenience sedative contraindicated for his specific condition (as clearly included in Massey’s own recent recorded records for him), then disconnected from that rehydration protocol after 8 hours and 38 minutes for commercialisation and utilisation by Massey’s Dr Steffi Maja Jalava in student teaching activities and video productions, with a false diagnosis produced by her in conjunction with “neurologist” Dr Anita Shea, who conducted (along with extensive student activities upon him in his catastrophically sedated state) a “neurological examination” on him while at the peak of his over-sedated state, and with a sedative, gabapentin, well-documented within international veterinary records as mimicking dementia and other neurological symptomology.

That false diagnosis along with surrounding fabrications by Dr Jalava were used in an intensive, lengthy coercion of me, as Harry’s doting owner, to agree to his immediate termination there at Massey – with no ability for me to have him seen by even his own primary vet. An external vet would not only have questioned his apparent “sudden neurological decline” against his clinical baseline of just 12 days earlier (which demonstrated no such condition, symptoms or diagnosis) but would, of course, have immediately recognised the reality of his horrifically over-sedated state. To be clear, no indication of the administration of any pharmaceuticals – much less sedation – had been disclosed to me by Jalava; with his sedated state misrepresented as some sudden neurological decline. My discovery, and cascading subsequent discoveries, resulted from my accessing an invoice that, while paid in full, was not shown to me at the time, but rather emailed to me after the fact. It was only then that my recognition and then forensic analysis of its component line items revealed the truth of the circumstances.

Key components of Harry’s back-of-house audit logs and related records have been manipulated by Massey personnel in acts that engage several sections of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 relating to fraud. Police reports have been filed.

Crimes Act 1961 Records Tampering & Perversion of Course of Justice

As a result of the continued refusal to release the identities of the full list of (or for six months, any) of the clinical staff involved in Harry’s case, and the active and demonstrated collusion between Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley and Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Chief Executive, Mr Iain McLachlan (being a registered lawyer), McLachlan himself is now the subject of an active complaint with the Law Society of New Zealand.

The continued refusal to release the names of all personnel about whom I seek to lay complaints precludes my ability to lay such complaints with the VCNZ – with Massey and VCNZ management thus openly perverting the course of justice.

In my endeavours to seek accountability, I also have been met with continual delays and substantial redactions regarding the release of my pet’s veterinary records and other requested information, with these having been the subject of Legal and Governance inputs and removals. Similarly, Privacy Act and Official Information Act (OIA) obligations have been ignored, or reframed, or at best, only partially met.

AVBC Accredits this Institution . . . It’s Time to Assess & Review in the Interests of the Pet-Owning Public

Massey University holds AVBC accreditation. The AVBC is therefore among the bodies with formal governance responsibility for the standards under which that institution operates.

Clearly, with reference to your confidence in the Australasian Veterinary Board of Councils’ apparent significant contribution to the integrity of the profession and its protection of the pet-owning public, this is severely misplaced in at least this one case. However, indications are that this – although egregious in its own right – is not at all an isolated case.

Strong indications – including by basic, logical deduction alone – indicate a systemic foundational rot within this particular institution.

You Have Legally-Enforceable Directorial Duties:
Structural & Deep-Rooted Loyalties MUST be Resisted & Overcome

I do recognise that, with its role as the only veterinary curriculum of this type at any New Zealand university – and with the deeply interwoven loyalties a majority proportion of the veterinary sector undeniably has towards it, including as its Alma Mater – to deal with what I have exposed in my 60+ items of often forensic and evidence-supported coverage on my two public platforms will take substantial intestinal fortitude. This is particularly so in the almost certain significant peer pressure you will be under to avoid doing so.

Nonetheless, I draw your attention back to the directorial duties you now hold, under the new organisational structure you have opted to transition to.

On that specific note, I draw your attention to a structural conflict of interest of direct relevance to this board:

Professor Jan Thomas, who served as Vice-Chancellor of Massey University from January 2017 to January 2026 – the institution at the centre of the case I have outlined (i.e. the Harry Kelly case ) – takes the position of Chair of this board effective 1 July 2026. Notwithstanding the tightknit veterinary sector at large, and also personal loyalties often operating within the appointees to Boards themselves, this would deem Professor Thomas in a position of direct conflict of interest over this case.

Numerous Attempts Made to Bring This Matter to the Attention of AVBC Management

I have made numerous attempts to alert the AVBC to this matter and its many aspects – all having been summarily dismissed. The AVBC was first notified on 6 March 2026, when admin@avbc.asn.au was copied on a statutory disclosure email sent to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) advising of serious, multiple breaches of accreditation standards, and also of record falsification, at Massey University.

A direct follow-up was sent to your Chief Executive Officer, Kate Simkovic, on 16 March 2026, with numerous subsequent attempts since. The earlier correspondence is included at https://www.iiive.org/massey-universitys-abuse-killing-of-harry-kelly-case-1. Subsequent correspondence has become too extensive to continue adding; itself an indication of how strenuously I have tried to bring this extremely grave matter to the attention of your organisation’s management.

Directorial Duties & Legal Requirements of Corporations Act 2001

Chapter 2D of the Corporations Act 2001 lays out the statutory duties for directors and corporate officers. It outlines personal liability mechanisms for failures in care, diligence, good faith, and proper purposes, establishing severe civil and criminal consequences.

Key Duties and Liabilities in Chapter 2D

• Care and Diligence (Section 180): Directors must act with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise in their position. (NB: This would, in the context of the AVBC, be interpretable as the requirement to ensure that those institutions upon which you bestow your accreditation must operate in alignment with your published Standards – and without exception.)

• Good Faith and Proper Purpose (Section 181): Directors and officers must exercise their powers in good faith in the best interests of the company, and for a proper purpose. (NB: This would, in the context of the AVBC, be interpretable as the avoidance of the influence of conflicts of interest that might result in the evasion of Care and Diligence (see above) or the influence of the way in which these Directorial Duties are exercised.)

• Use of Position & Information (Sections 182-183): Directors cannot improperly use their position or corporate information to gain an advantage for themselves or cause detriment to the corporation. (NB: This would, in the context of the AVBC,
be interpretable as wilfully allowing the compromise of the integrity of your bestowed accreditations.)

Consequences of Breach

Breaches of duties in Chapter 2D can result in significant consequences e.g. Civil Penalties including fines and management bans, and Criminal Charges (Section 184), applied in cases of dishonesty or recklessness regarding duties.

Enclosed with this Letter

• The media release: ‘Massey Veterinary ICU’s Wild West Practices & Covert Use of Clients’ Pets As Live Teaching Specimens’ distributed internationally on 15 June 2026 to 59 media recipients across New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and published on both www.thecustomer.co.nz and www.iiive.org, with links to the full dossier repository.

• The article, ‘Massey VC Pierre Venter & Dean Jon Huxley: Questions Requiring Your Upfront, Unspun Answers’ published on thecustomer.co.nz and iiive.org, setting out 23 core unanswered questions to which AVBC is encouraged to prompt VC Venter and Dean Huxley to respond.

As Directors, you are now each on formal notice of this matter and its numerous components.

Your organisation’s accreditation of Massey University must be reviewed, and the direct conflict of interest – as represented by immediate past Massey Vice-Chancellor Professor Jan Thomas now AVBC Chair – embedded in your incoming governance structure must not prevent this, nor be allowed to influence its outcome.

Your Insurer’s Contact Details

In the meantime, I require you to provide, within 14 days of receipt of this letter, the name, postal address, and contact details of the Directors and Officers liability insurer currently holding your organisation’s policy.

This is to allow me to ensure appropriate notification is made to your insurer regarding this matter of very real gravity, with its obvious broad implications to the credibility and liabilities of accreditations provided, and renewed, by the organisation of which you are now a Director.

Please furnish me with the details I require at my email address i.e. editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Yours faithfully,

Jordan Kelly

Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ www.thecustomer.co.nz

Executive Director, International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) www.iiive.org

Masterton, New Zealand

Enclosures:
Media Release (15 June 2026) / ‘ Questions’ Article (11 June 2026)

_______________________________________________

(Named Council Members)
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
1 Hardwick Street
London EC1R 4RB
United Kingdom

Dear RCVS (Named Director)

Formal Notification – Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital and ICU – Accreditation Review – Harry Kelly Case

I write to you in your capacity as (relevant title) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in relation to a matter of accreditation accountability of which you are required to be formally on notice at governance level.

The Harry Kelly Case

• Cruelty and Neglect in ICU

• Possible Operation of Overnight ICU Facilities without the Presence of Licensed Veterinarian (TBC)

• Intentional Catastrophic, Repeated Overdosing with Contraindicated Sedatives

• Refusal to Provide Emergency Corrective Treatment Following Potentially Lethal and Repeated Overdosing

• Discontinuation of Prescribed & Paid Protocols

• Fraudulent Examinations & False Diagnosis

• Covert Conversion of Private Property As Owner-Unauthorised Hands-On Student Training Resource (And Against Repeated Owner Forbiddance)

• Animal Cruelty

• Inappropriate & Unsafe Use and Handling of Sedated Private Pet in Dangerous Manner

• Withholding of Critical Information from Owner (Both Before Forced, Fraudulently-Achieved Death and Posthumously)

• Coerced Life Termination Under False Pretences

• Clinically Filthy, Reprehensible and Immoral Conduct of (Unnecessary and Coerced) Life Termination Procedure (Permission for which was obtained under false pretences)

• Records Restrictions, Clinicians’ Identities Redactions, Records Falsifications and Tampering & Fraudulent Invoice Escalations

• Non-Compliance with Official Information Act Requirements

• Dean of School and Veterinary Council Leadership Collusion to Pervert Natural Justice

• Multiple Points of Conflict of Interest

• Legal Threats to Silence Complainant

I am the Editor-in-Chief of The Customer & The Constituent NZ ( www.thecustomer.co.nz ) and Executive Director of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) ( www.iiive.org ).

I am also the owner of Harry Kelly, a deeply loved and treasured blind papillon who was admitted to the afore-mentioned facility, as a private, full fee-paying patient, for a 24-hour rehydration protocol, but was instead catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with an unnecessary convenience sedative contraindicated for his specific condition (as clearly included in Massey’s own recent recorded records for him), then disconnected from that rehydration protocol after 8 hours and 38 minutes for commercialisation and utilisation by Massey’s Dr Steffi Maja Jalava in student teaching activities and video productions, with a false diagnosis manufactured by her in conjunction with “neurologist” Dr Anita Shea, who conducted (along with extensive student activities upon Harry in his catastrophically sedated state) a “neurological examination” on him while at the peak of his over-sedated state, and with a sedative, Gabapentin, well-documented within international veterinary records as mimicking dementia and other neurological symptomology.

That false diagnosis along with surrounding fabrications by Dr Jalava were used in an intensive, lengthy coercion of me, as Harry’s doting owner, to agree to his immediate termination there at Massey – with no ability for me to have him seen by even his own primary vet. An external vet would not only have questioned his apparent “sudden neurological decline” against his clinical baseline of just 12 days earlier (which demonstrated no such condition, symptoms or diagnosis) but would, of course, have immediately recognised the reality of his horrifically over-sedated state. To be clear, no indication of
the administration of any pharmaceuticals – much less sedation – had been disclosed to me by Jalava; with his sedated state misrepresented as some sudden neurological decline.

My discovery, and cascading subsequent discoveries, resulted from my accessing an invoice that, while paid in full, was not shown to me at the time, but rather emailed to me after the fact. It was only then that my recognition and then forensic analysis of its component line items revealed the truth of the circumstances.

Crimes Act 1961 Records Tampering & Perversion of Course of Justice

As a result of the continued refusal to release the identities of the full list (or for six months, any) of the clinical staff involved in Harry’s case, and the active and demonstrated collusion between Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley and Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Chief Executive, Mr Iain McLachlan (being a registered lawyer), McLachlan himself is now the subject of an active complaint with the Law Society of New Zealand.

RCVS Accredits this Institution . . . It’s Time to Assess & Review in the Interests of the Pet-Owning Public

Massey University holds RCVS accreditation. The RCVS is therefore among the bodies with formal governance responsibility for the standards under which that institution operates.

Currently, as you are an accreditor of an organisation the management and staff of which operate and conduct themselves in this manner, and who deeply betray the trust of paying clients and their beloved pets, any confidence in your organisation’s ability to ensure the integrity of the profession and your protection of the pet-owning public, is severely misplaced.

On this note, all indications are that this – although utterly egregious in its own right – is not at all an isolated case, and that there exists a systemic foundational rot within this particular institution.

You Have Legally-Enforceable Governance Obligations: Structural & Deep-Rooted Loyalties MUST be Resisted & Overcome

I do recognise that there are structural and collegial loyalties that might see you reticent to deal with what I have exposed in my 60+ items of often forensic and evidence-supported coverage on my two public platforms , and that the decision to address this matter both head on and fully, will take substantial intestinal fortitude on your part.

This is particularly so in the face of the almost certain significant peer pressure you will be under to avoid doing so – not least of all because Massey University Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley sits on your very own Course Accreditation Visitations Panel.

However, this is one of the core and most urgent reasons to address the matter.

If Dean Jon Huxley himself heads an institution that operates in this manner and defends its right to do so with legal threats to its clients, how is it in any way appropriate – or responsible of you (at either an institutional or at an individual level) – to send him into the clinical, administrative and managerial environments of other veterinary educational establishments around the world, to audit and approve their operations in order for you to bless them with the accreditation and stamp of approval of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK)?

I thus draw your attention to the governance responsibilities and personal obligations you hold – personally and individually –as a Council member of a Royal Charter body.

Royal Charter Governance & The Nolan Principles of Public Life

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons operates under the authority of its Royal Charter and the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

Under the College’s own governance framework, Council members are explicitly designated as holding “a responsibility equivalent to trustees for the governance of the College”.

As public office holders governing a chartered regulatory body, you are personally bound by the Seven Principles of Public Life, as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and most recently restated in the Committee’s 2024–25 Annual Report.

Key Principles and Their Application to This Matter

• Selflessness: “Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.” ( NB: In the context of the RCVS, this would be interpretable as the requirement to act in the interests of the pet-owning public and of animal welfare – not in the interests of professional collegiality, institutional loyalty, or the comfort of a tight-knit veterinary sector with deep ties to the institution under scrutiny.)

• Integrity: “Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.” ( NB: In the context of the RCVS, this would be interpretable as the obligation to ensure that no professional, collegial or sector loyalty to Massey University – or to any individual within it – influences the manner in which this matter is assessed and acted upon.)

• Objectivity: “Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.” ( NB: In the context of the RCVS, this would be interpretable as the requirement to assess the documented evidence enclosed with this letter – and the extensive forensic dossier to which it links – on its merits, without allowing the professional standing of the named clinicians or the institutional reputation of Massey University to influence the conclusion reached.)

• Accountability: “Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.” ( NB : In the context of the RCVS, this would be interpretable as the obligation to provide a substantive, non-evasive, timely and direct response to this formal notification – not to route it to an administration officer for dismissal, as has occurred with prior correspondence – and to account publicly for any decision taken regarding the accreditation status of Massey University in light of what is documented herein.)

• Openness: “Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.” ( NB: In the context of the RCVS, this would be interpretable as the obligation to be transparent with the pet-owning public about the standards to which RCVS-accredited institutions are held, and about the consequences – or, in effect, lack thereof – when those standards are demonstrably breached.)

• Honesty: “Holders of public office should be truthful.” ( NB: In the context of the RCVS, this would be interpretable as the obligation to be truthful with this complainant about what action, if any, has been taken in response to the multiple prior formal notifications sent to you – rather than providing template acknowledgements through administration staff with no authority to act.)

• Leadership: “Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.” ( NB: In the context of the RCVS, this is perhaps the most unambiguous principle of all. A Council that has been formally placed on notice of serious clinical fraud, animal cruelty, coerced life termination of a private client’s treasured pet on the basis of a provably false diagnosis after its conversion to institutional student teaching and filming usage, and records falsification at an institution it accredits – and that takes no action – is not exhibiting leadership. It is exhibiting the opposite.)

Consequences of Failure to Act

The Nolan Principles are embedded in the RCVS’s own governance framework.

A Council member who fails to uphold them – particularly after being formally and personally placed on notice – faces reputational, professional and governance consequences.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life exists precisely to investigate and report on failures of this kind in public bodies. This letter will be available to that Committee should it be required.

Numerous Attempts Made to Bring This Matter to the Attention of RCVS

I have made numerous attempts to alert the RCVS to this matter and its many aspects, commencing on 6 March 2026 with a statutory disclosure, with numerous subsequent attempts since – including correspondence with Ky Richardson, Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor.

The earlier correspondence is included at https://www.iiive.org/massey-universitys-abuse-killing-of-harry-kelly-case-1

Subsequent correspondence has become too extensive to continue adding; itself an indication of how strenuously I have tried to bring this extremely grave matter to the attention of your organisation – and how apparently lightly and fully, even automatically, it would seem – it has been dismissed by this accrediting organisation you lead.

I write now directly to you to ensure that governance-level accountability is engaged, and that you, together with the members of your broader Council, are personally and formally on notice of the matters set out in the enclosed documents.

Enclosed with this Letter

• The article, ‘Massey VC Pierre Venter & Dean Jon Huxley: Questions Requiring Your Upfront, Unspun Answers’ published on thecustomer.co.nz and iiive.org, setting out 23 core unanswered questions to which your organisation is encouraged to prompt VC Venter and Dean Huxley to respond.

These documents establish, among other matters, that active investigations are under way by the Ministry for Primary Industries (Central Investigations team), that Police reports have been filed regarding criminal falsifications of records, that a Law Society complaint is active against the CEO of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand in his capacity as a registered lawyer and that relate to collusion between the VCNZ and Massey’s leadership, and that formal notifications have been made not only to your own organisation, but also to the other two organisations bestowing their accreditations – and thereby staking their own reputations – upon Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka Companion Animal Hospital.

As (Member's title), and as representative of the other members of the Council, you are now on formal notice of this matter and its numerous components. Your organisation’s accreditation of Massey University must be reviewed in light of what is documented in the enclosed materials and in the forensic dossier to which they link.

Your Insurer’s Contact Details

In the meantime, I require you to provide, within 14 days of receipt of this letter, the name, postal address, and contact details of the management liability, trustee indemnity, or professional liability insurer currently holding your organisation's policy.

Please furnish me with the details I require at my email address: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Yours faithfully,

Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ www.thecustomer.co.nz
Executive Director, International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) www.iiive.org
Masterton, New Zealand

Enclosures:
Media Release (15 June 2026) / ‘ Questions’ Article (11 June 2026)

_____________________________________________________

(NAMES OF BOARD CHAIR AND PRESIDENT)
American Veterinary Medical Association
1931 N. Meacham Road, Suite 100
Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360
United States of America

Dear AVMA Board Chair Willis

Formal Notification – Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital and ICU – Accreditation Review – Harry Kelly Case

I write to you in your capacity as Board Chair (LETTER ALSO SENT TO PRESIDENT) of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and to the AVMA Board of Directors as its governing body, in relation to a matter of accreditation accountability of which you are required to be formally on notice.

The Harry Kelly Case

• Cruelty and Neglect in ICU

• Possible Operation of Overnight ICU Facilities without the Presence of Any Licensed Veterinarian (TBC)

• Intentional Catastrophic, Repeated Overdosing with Contraindicated Sedatives

• Refusal to Provide Emergency Corrective Treatment Following Potentially Lethal and Repeated Overdosing

• Discontinuation of Prescribed & Paid Protocols

• Fraudulent Examinations & False Diagnosis

• Covert Conversion of Private Property As Owner-Unauthorised Hands-On Student Training Resource (And Against Repeated Owner Forbiddance)

• Animal Cruelty

• Inappropriate & Unsafe Use and Handling of Sedated Private Pet in Dangerous Manner

• Withholding of Critical Information from Owner (Both Before Forced, Fraudulently-Achieved Death and Posthumously)

• Coerced Life Termination Under False Pretences

• Clinically Filthy, Reprehensible and Immoral Conduct of (Unnecessary and Coerced) Life Termination Procedure (Permission for which was obtained under false pretences)

• Records Restrictions, Clinicians’ Identities Redactions, Records Falsifications and Tampering & Fraudulent Invoice Escalations

• Non-Compliance with Official Information Act Requirements

• Dean of School and Veterinary Council Leadership Collusion to Pervert Natural Justice

• Multiple Points of Conflict of Interest

• Legal Threats to Silence Complainant

I am also the owner of Harry Kelly, a deeply loved and treasured blind papillon who was admitted to the afore-mentioned facility, as a private, full fee-paying patient, for a 24-hour rehydration protocol, but was instead catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with an unnecessary convenience sedative contraindicated for his specific condition (as clearly included in Massey’s own recent recorded records for him), then disconnected from that rehydration protocol after 8 hours and 38 minutes for commercialisation and utilisation by Massey’s Dr Steffi Maja Jalava in student teaching activities and video productions, with a false diagnosis produced by her in conjunction with “neurologist” Dr Anita Shea, who conducted (along with extensive student activities upon him in his catastrophically sedated state) a “neurological examination” on him while at the peak of his over-sedated state, and with a sedative, Gabapentin, well-documented within international veterinary records as mimicking dementia and other neurological symptomology.

To be clear, no indication of the administration of any pharmaceuticals – much less sedation – had been disclosed to me by Jalava; with his sedated state misrepresented as some sudden neurological decline. My discovery, and cascading subsequent discoveries, resulted from my accessing an invoice that, while paid in full, was not shown to me at the time, but rather emailed to me after the fact. It was only then that my recognition and then forensic analysis of its component line items revealed the truth of the circumstances.

Crimes Act 1961 Records Tampering & Perversion of Course of Justice

AVMA Accredits this Institution . . . It’s Time to Assess & Review in the Interests of the Pet-Owning Public

Massey University holds AVMA Council on Education accreditation.

The AVMA COE is therefore among the bodies with formal governance responsibility for the standards under which that institution operates.

You Have Legally-Enforceable Fiduciary Duties: Structural & Deep-Rooted Loyalties MUST be Resisted & Overcome

I do recognise that there are structural and collegial loyalties that might see you reticent to deal with what I have exposed in my 60+ items of often forensic, and evidence-supported, coverage on my two public platforms , and that the decision to address this matter both head on and fully, will take substantial intestinal fortitude on your part.

This is particularly so in the almost certain significant peer pressure you will be under to avoid doing so.

Nonetheless, I draw your attention to the fiduciary duties and personal obligations you hold as Directors of the AVMA under Illinois law.

Fiduciary Duties Under the Illinois General Not For Profit Corporation Act 1986 (805 ILCS 105/)

The AVMA is incorporated as an Illinois not-for-profit corporation. Its own bylaws confirm that its officers perform duties consistent with the Illinois General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986 (805 ILCS 105/).

Under Illinois law, directors and officers owe strict fiduciary duties to the organisation and the public interest it serves.

Key Duties and Their Application to This Matter

• Management of Affairs (Section 108.05(a)): “Each corporation shall have a board of directors, and except as provided in articles of incorporation, the affairs of the corporation shall be managed by or under the direction of the board of directors.” ( NB: In the context of the AVMA, this would be interpretable as the obligation to ensure active board-level oversight of the Council on Education and the integrity of the international accreditations it bestows. A board that has been formally and repeatedly placed on notice of serious failures at an accredited institution, and that has taken no action, is not managing those affairs in accordance with its statutory obligation.)

• Limited Liability Threshold (Section 108.70(b)): “No director of a corporation ... shall be liable, and no cause of action may be brought for damages resulting from the exercise of judgment or discretion in connection with the duties or responsibilities of such director, unless: (1) such director earns in excess of $25,000 per year from his duties as director, other than reimbursement for actual expenses; or (2) the act or omission involved wilful or wanton conduct. ” ( NB: In the context of the AVMA, this would be interpretable as follows: a director who has been formally, personally, and repeatedly placed on notice of a grave accreditation failure and has taken no action cannot readily claim the protection of this limited liability provision. Deliberate inaction in the face of documented, formally notified systemic fraud and animal cruelty is capable of constituting willful or wanton conduct within the meaning of this Section.)

Consequences of Breach

Directors who act with wilful or wanton disregard for their duties lose the protection of the limited liability provisions of Section 108.70 and may face personal civil liability.

In cases involving dishonest or reckless conduct, consequences are more severe.

Directors cannot shield themselves behind organisational inaction where they have been personally and formally placed on notice.

Numerous Attempts Made to Bring This Matter to the Attention of AVMA

I have made numerous attempts to alert the AVMA to this matter and its many aspects, commencing on 5 March 2026 with correspondence to Dr Samantha Morello, Associate Director, Education and Research Division, with numerous subsequent attempts since.

The earlier correspondence is included at https://www.iiive.org/massey-universitys-abuse-killing-of-harry-kelly-case-1

Subsequent correspondence has become too extensive to continue adding; itself an indication of how strenuously I have tried to bring this extremely grave matter to the attention of your organisation – and how strenuously my attempts have been dismissed at your end.

I write now directly to you as AVMA Board Chair to ensure that governance-level accountability is engaged, and that the Board is personally and formally on notice of the matters set out in the enclosed documents.

Enclosed with this Letter

• The media release: ‘ Massey Veterinary ICU’s Wild West Practices & Covert Use of Clients’ Pets As Live Teaching Specimens ’ distributed internationally on 15 June 2026 to media recipients across New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and published on both www.thecustomer.co.nz and www.iiive.org , with links to the full dossier repository.

• The article, ‘ Massey VC Pierre Venter & Dean Jon Huxley: Questions Requiring Your Upfront, Unspun Answers ’ also published on thecustomer.co.nz and iiive.org, setting out 23 core unanswered questions to which your organisation is encouraged to prompt Vice-Chancellor Venter and Dean Huxley to respond.

These documents establish, among other matters, that active investigations are under way by New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (Central Investigations team), that Police reports have been filed regarding criminal falsifications of records, that a Law Society of New Zealand complaint is active against the CEO of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) in his capacity as a registered lawyer, regarding collusion between the VCNZ and Massey management, and that formal notifications have been made to the other two organisations bestowing their accreditations upon this Massey University veterinary facility i.e. the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (UK).

As Board Chair / As President, and along with the other members of your Board of Directors, you are each now on formal notice of this matter and its numerous components.

Your organisation’s accreditation of Massey University must be reviewed in light of what is documented in the enclosed materials and in the forensic dossier to which they link.

Your Insurer’s Contact Details

Please furnish me with the details I require at my email address: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Yours faithfully,

Enclosures: Media Release (15 June 2026) / ‘ Questions’ Article (11 June 2026)

MEDIA RELEASE: Massey Veterinary ICU's 'Wild West' Practices & Covert Use of Clients' Pets As Live Teaching Specimens

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 07:21:54 GMT

Entering New Zealand's Massey University Companion Animal 'Hospital' Is A High-Risk & Potentially Lethal Proposition for Your Pets . . . THINK TWICE

MEDIA RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

‘A Lethal Proposition for Family Pets’: 'Wild West' Practices at New Zealand's Massey University Veterinary ICU

MASTERTON, NZ:

A comprehensive investigative dossier published by the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) and The Customer & The Constituent NZ warns New Zealand's pet owners that entering Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital is a high-risk and potentially lethal proposition for their animals.

With 64 percent of New Zealand households owning one or more pets, the risks documented in this investigation represent a mainstream consumer concern – and especially for the large percentage of the pet-owning community prepared to pay for specialist care that could see their pets referred to what they otherwise assume is an elite, and by extension safe, veterinary care environment.

The exposure alleges an institutional framework where private pets are systematically converted into live training props for students behind closed doors, without owner knowledge or explicit permission.

"This is a facility that is promoted as a world-class veterinary hospital, but what the public is actually getting is an unregulated, unaccountable training mill," says Jordan Kelly, Editor-in-Chief of The Customer & The Constituent NZ and Executive Director of IIIVE.

The investigation, sparked by the death of Kelly's own treasured pet dog, a blind papillon, has resulted in explosive findings – including that private clients’ pets are being covertly taken off the therapeutic treatment programs for which they are admitted, and utilised instead in cruel, invasive and completely owner-unauthorised student training and filming activities. In the case of Kelly’s dog, Harry, who was admitted for a relatively uncomplicated and standard procedure of rehydration following several days of hot weather back in late November, a sudden, inexplicable and later-proven bogus “neurological” diagnosis was presented to Kelly the next day as a reason for his apparently urgently required “euthanasia”.

Kelly’s own subsequent investigations determined that Harry had not suffered any sudden “neurological decline” at all; he had been catastrophically overdosed, repeatedly over the course of 15 hours, with a cocktail of sedatives specifically contraindicated for his circumstances, with his prior adverse reaction to the core pharmaceutical in question documented in Massey’s own records. The sedation had been timed to reach its peak effect for invasive student training activities to be conducted – with the production of University filming assets.

Kelly’s own investigation and the substantial, detailed evidence she has amassed, has now seen the Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare complex cases unit launch its own formal inquiry.

Key revelations of systemic issues have emerged, including not only the lack of owner authorisation for their pets to be used as live teaching specimens and worse, producing lethal consequences with the abandonment of their prescribed treatment protocols (which Massey bills for in full, regardless), but also misrepresentation of pets’ true conditions (in the case of Kelly’s dog, the fact of his sedation was concealed in order to misrepresent him as in sudden “neurological decline”) to support aggressive coercion for termination under the guise of immediately-required, on-the-spot “euthanasia” – and without the input of any external, independent opinion.

While Kelly has faced substantial, ongoing “stonewalling” of her information-seeking attempts, her six-month persistence in insisting on Harry's Medical Administration Records has had the indirect effect of forcing Chief of Staff Jodie Banner to inadvertently reveal that sedatives like Gabapentin and Prevomax – the heavy, behaviour-altering sedatives apparently used extensively by the ICU and administered to Harry repeatedly and at potentially lethal levels – are completely exempt from mandatory logging in the University's Controlled Drug Register. In Harry's case, the beloved papillon was subject to these unauthorised sedative cocktails – administered repeatedly at potentially lethal levels, in some instances just 26 minutes apart.

"They have built a 'Wild West' environment," says Kelly. "Harry was admitted solely for a straightforward rehydration procedure. Instead, he was subjected to unnecessary, repeated convenience sedations and at catastrophic levels, especially for his specific circumstances. He was then disconnected from, what was by then, his life-essential IV fluids protocol that would have been needed to flush the accumulating toxicity from his system, and utilised as a live teaching specimen in the day’s student ‘teaching’ activities apparently part of Dr Steffi Jalava’s training roster.

Jalava’s misrepresentation of Kelly’s dog after his utilisation in the activities and the associated film productions was given further misrepresentative reinforcement to the shocked owner by a “diagnosis” by Massey neurologist Dr Anita Shea, who conducted her examination of Harry, at Jalava’s request, two hours and 22 minutes after his third catastrophic overdose of the contraindicated Gabapentin – a drug the international veterinary literature specifically warns against performing any such examination of a dog while under the influence of, for its well-known production of false neurological symptomology. These dementia-like symptoms produced by Gabapentin – which Harry was under the massive, cumulative overdosed effect of – were recorded by Shea to support Jalava’s intention to present Harry as “neurologically nonviable” to Kelly, demanding she sign a “euthanasia” authorisation immediately.

Alongside the 342- page evidential dossier Kelly has provided to the MPI investigation team, Kelly sourced all her dog’s relevant previous veterinary records – including those as recent as his full and comprehensive examination and blood tests just 12 days prior to his fatal Massey admission – as clear and provable absence of any sign of “neurological decline”.

Broader Implications

“Aside from the total absence of ethics associated with the ruse Jalava and Shea pulled off to ensure Harry was neatly and conveniently disposed of after their utilisation of him such that no outside vet would advise me of his true i.e. sedated NOT neurologically impaired condition, these recording loopholes also effectively mean there is zero provable oversight into who is administering these drugs, at what frequency, or on whose authority . . . and most importantly of all, for what underlying objective."

The dossier heavily critiques the leadership of Massey's Veterinary School under Dean Jon Huxley – whose background is strictly in dairy cattle and not complex small animal or canine pharmacology – with sourced communications from January 30 between Huxley and Veterinary Council of New Zealand Chief Executive Iain McLachlan, having been followed immediately by aggressive legal threats to silence Kelly.

The conflict reaches far beyond New Zealand's borders, engaging three major global regulatory bodies: the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) in the UK, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) – the bodies that provide the accreditation approvals that underpin Massey's international student recruiting campaigns.

"Ironically and alarmingly, Dean Jon Huxley sits as an international auditor on the RCVS International Visitation Committee, inspecting and approving the operational and ethical standards of overseas universities," Kelly points out. "The hypocrisy is as monumental as it is dangerous," she says. "We are asking Dean Huxley publicly: are these chaotic, unmonitored and lethal conditions common among the international universities you audit? Do you give them a pass, too?"

In a further demonstration of the structural conflicts of interest permeating Massey's accreditation framework, Professor Jan Thomas – Massey's Vice-Chancellor from January 2017 to January 2026 i.e. during which the Harry Kelly atrocity occurred (November 30 – December 1, 2025) – takes up the position of Chair of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), one of the three agencies accrediting the Massey facility, effective 1 July 2026.

Kelly says it's on the basis of these global committee approvals that institutions like Massey enjoy continuously renewed academic "accreditations" and keep their lucrative – and especially, international – student fees rolling in.

Kelly asks whether New Zealand's referring veterinarians are being kept completely in the dark about these systemic risks, while they continue to routinely send their clients' pets into a facility that maintains absolutely no independent internal complaints process – operating only a loop that apparently moves between legal threats and a collusive industry regulator.

"Or, with a large proportion of New Zealand veterinarians themselves graduates of the Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital (known as its Companion Animal Hospital to the general fee-paying public), are they already aware of what really goes on there and the culture that enables it?"

Other pet owners have come forward with accounts of similar experiences – that Kelly has now published – at Massey's Companion Animal Hospital, suggesting the practices exposed here are systemic rather than exceptional.

Information Withholding & Evasion

When exposed, the university's internal defence mechanism relies on an evasive information gatekeeping operation, headed by Chief of Staff, Jodie Banner.

IIIVE's investigation documents a clear pattern of Banner and the institution's Legal and Governance department ignoring, stalling, altering, reframing, and narrowing the scope of statutory OIA and Privacy Act requests.

"The latest antic is a particularly telling one," says Kelly. "I requested under the Official Information Act the specific institutional records, Animal Ethics Committee registrations, and internal risk communications that authorised the transition of my dog from a patient into a teaching resource. That resulted in what they hoped I wouldn't notice was a critical sleight of hand – the reclassification of my OIA request as a Privacy Act submission, the effect of which is to dramatically shrink their disclosure obligations and allow them to shield the very institutional records I was seeking, on the basis that they are not my 'personal information'."

Records Manipulation & Falsification

The investigation has also uncovered active records manipulation.

Critical digital system audit logs – designed, in a clinical environment, to act as the permanent footprint showing who accesses or alters a patient's files – were the subject of strategic entry scrubs two days after Harry's death, assumedly to conceal non-compliant overnight interventions and unauthorised student activities.

A formal criminal complaint has been filed with the New Zealand Police.

The dossier also provides evidence of fraudulent posthumous billing inflation, as well as for services not rendered e.g. life-essential IV fluids and 24-hour intensive vitals monitoring during the exact periods those services were actively disconnected so Harry could be utilised as a training prop.

‘After-Care’ Atrocities

The human cost of this institutional stonewalling is laid bare in an explosive, one-hour audio recording embedded within the published dossier. Following weeks of total silence from Massey executives, Kelly recorded her real-time phone call to the university administration as she attempted to extract information about Harry's ashes.

The recording demonstrates the cruel treatment of a still-in-shock and deeply grieving pet-owner client as she unsuccessfully endeavours to extract vital information from staff openly entertaining themselves with her distress.

Late-Night Trolling by Anonymous Senders with Apparent Direct Access to Massey’s Clinical Records

In the face of Kelly's findings and subsequent public revelations, Kelly became the target of regular, ongoing late-night trolling and taunting regarding Harry's treatment and termination, with the anonymous senders making no secret of their direct access to the records held by Massey.

"When a public university loses control of its data and its personnel resort to covert, late-night digital intimidation, you are looking at an institution in a state of total administrative collapse," says Kelly.

"Management has seemingly turned a blind eye to rogue employees breaching Privacy laws and using their own defensive opinions as anonymous digital weaponry in a desperate bid to achieve the silence the Dean's legal threats have been unable to achieve."

Dean Jon Huxley and Massey University’s new Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter were last week sent a comprehensive list of 23 critical questions related to each of the multiple components of this ongoing and increasingly high-profile matter that is attracting growing international attention. No acknowledgement has been received.

__________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF CORE COMPONENT & KEY BACKGROUND ISSUES:

Clinical Bait-and-Switch:

Private pets admitted for even simple, standard procedures like rehydration face the risk of being subjected to unauthorised "convenience" sedations – and, as in Harry's case, specifically contraindicated (per Massey's own prior records) and each dose catastrophic in its own right, with some overdoses further potentiated and administrations forced just 26 minutes apart – before being disconnected from their paid-for protocols and covertly converted into live specimens for invasive student training procedures and video production.

Manufactured "Neurological Decline" & Coerced Euthanasia:

The international veterinary literature clearly demonstrates that Gabapentin – the primary sedative administered to Harry at catastrophic, repeated overdose levels and in direct contraindication to a dog with renal impairment (as Harry’s records clearly documented) – produces neurological symptoms that mimic dementia and cognitive decline. Despite this being well-documented, "neurologist" Dr Anita Shea examined Harry at the peak of his pharmacological sedation with the sedative and used the resulting misrepresentation as the basis for a sudden and otherwise entirely inexplicable "neurological decline" diagnosis – one contradicted by every piece of Harry’s independent veterinary evidence, including records from his primary vet just 12 days prior.

This false diagnosis was then deployed during Dr Steffi Jalava’s intensive two-hour coercion of Kelly to have her sign a pre-produced euthanasia authorisation form with a different staff member’s name on it.

Kelly repeatedly protested that Harry's dramatically changed presentation in just 15 hours made no clinical sense. No opportunity was given for an independent veterinary assessment. Massey staff knew that any external veterinarian would have immediately recognised Harry as a dog under heavy, undisclosed sedation – not one experiencing genuine neurological decline.

The Execution:

Once Kelly's resistance was finally broken after two hours of coercion, the manner of Harry's termination was itself an "unclinical, deeply unethical and subhuman disgrace", In Kelly's own words.

For a second time since the coercion had begun, her catastrophically sedated little dog suddenly reared up strongly on his hind legs (clearly, in retrospect, attempting to break through the effects of the sedatives) and on this second occasion, as he sensed Jalava and her assistant approaching, had begun screaming.

Despite Jalava knowing that Kelly was in a self-declared state of sleep-deprivation (also as documented on Harry’s admission notes from the previous night) and had no idea of Jalava's use of sedatives on Harry, Jalava immediately ordered Kelly to pull him flat to his stomach, ripping the cap off the Pentobarbitone-filled syringe with her teeth and injecting him before Kelly could properly process the implications of his very physical, very strong, and distressing reaction to her.

Lethal Opportunism with No External Accountability:

Harry Kelly was admitted to Massey's Companion Animal Hospital as a direct walk-in patient on a Sunday night, with no external referring veterinarian acting as an intermediary on that occasion.

This removed the single most important external check on Massey's clinical decisions – a referring vet who could have been contacted, who would have known Harry's history, and who would have been asked to verify the sudden and otherwise inexplicable neurological decline diagnosis before any euthanasia decision was made. Massey knew this. Not only was no second opinion offered or suggested – in direct contravention of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians — the logistics of that afternoon and the intensity of the coercion specifically prevented it.

Massey's Own Written Denial – Directly Contradicted by Its Own Videos:

In a formal OIA response dated May 13, 2026, Massey University's Chief of Staff Jodie Banner stated in writing: "All activity involving Harry Kelly was undertaken solely for treatment purposes for the benefit of Harry Kelly and not for research or undergraduate training purposes."

This categorical denial is directly and irrefutably contradicted by Massey's own cell phone videos, which demonstrate student activity being conducted on a catastrophically sedated dog including in a state of severe pharmacologically-induced collapse, in direct defiance of his owner's often-repeated, explicit written and verbal instructions that he was never to be used as a teaching or training resource.

Furthermore, the extensive, condition-unrelated invasive procedures conducted on Harry by the "neurologist" Dr Anita Shea – apparently as part of detailed student demonstrations, while Harry was at the peak of his state of induced and potentially fatal pharmacological collapse, and involving demonstrably dangerous and high-risk handling – were self-evidently not undertaken "solely for the benefit of Harry Kelly."

Exploitation of Pets' Disabilities:

Harry, a blind papillon, should under all veterinary care standards have been treated with extra care and consideration.

Instead, his blindness was additionally the subject of specific and extraordinarily cruel exploitation by teaching staff for the benefit of final-year students, as demonstrated in one of the admitted-to eight videos (with only two released and the remaining six withheld) produced by the facility.

Missing Diagnostic Records:

Intensive vitals monitoring (as is normal for an ICU environment) was maintained throughout Harry's admission on November 30, showing a perfectly viable and robust dog, and confirming his need for nothing other than the rehydration for which he was admitted. Yet no IDEXX diagnostic or monitoring data exists for December 1 – the specific day on which Massey staff's repeated sedative overdosing of him would have reached its peak of intensity and cumulative toxicity, the documented clinical collapse, and the documented student utilisation activities.

In eventually responding to Kelly's repeated questions, now in OIA form, and in refusing the request, Chief of Staff Jodie Banner's justification was that "no such information exists."

All Veterinary Records Funnelled through Massey’s Legal & Governance Department Before Release:

None of Harry Kelly’s veterinary records have been permitted to come directly from the veterinary facility where they were recorded and held. All have been required to spend further time in the possession of Massey’s Legal & Governance department before release to Kelly.

Every release of Harry's clinical records and associated files – including his Clinical Summary (which Kelly maintains is riddled with falsehoods and altered and added to posthumously) – has been preceded by review and processing by Massey's Legal and Governance department before being belatedly released to her. Hardly standard practice for the release of a client's pet's medical records, this is the operational footprint of an institution managing legal liability.

The Invoice That Cracked the Case:

Kelly discovered the truth about what had happened to Harry only two weeks later when opening the invoice Massey emailed her after Harry's termination – having only handed her a total amount on an EFTPOS terminal at the time and point of payment.

The itemised invoice later revealed that Harry had been given Gabapentin – for him, as known by Massey, specifically contraindicated – and in what appeared to have been potentially lethal and repeated amounts, some as closely spaced as just 26 minutes apart.

Refused Disclosure of Identities & Regulatory Obstruction:

Six months (and ongoing) of total refusal by Massey to release the names of ALL clinical staff involved – enforcing a blanket redaction across all medical records and position titles – directly violates international regulatory expectations. Kelly’s own investigations finally revealed the name of the primary veterinarian and the clinician who fronted the ruse and coercion, and who is believed to have also been directly responsible for his utilisation as a live training aid and teaching specimen: Dr Steffi Jalava. The neurologist’s (Dr Anita Shea) identity was disclosed only last week. The names of all other staff – including licensed staff – remain withheld.

Head of Professional Conduct Ky Richardson of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (UK), one of the Massey veterinary facility’s own accrediting agencies, has confirmed that registered veterinarians are expected to provide their names to clients, and that under no circumstances should a client be prevented from raising a professional conduct concern with the regulator – which has been the direct effect of Massey’s suppression of clinicians’ names.

Not only does Massey's total administrative black-out explicitly strip away consumer rights and block regulatory oversight, but in addition to the university hiding these identities to systematically insulate its staff from professional accountability, it has raised a critical and urgent question of concern to all referring veterinarians: Is the ICU operating overnight shifts without any licensed veterinarians physically on duty?

Rigged Regulator:

The investigation exposes a structurally and politically conjoined relationship between the university and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ). Industry-published data reveals it operates as an industry protection mechanism rather than an overseer, maintaining a microscopic 1.5 percent prosecution rate across all consumer complaints over a 24-year period – and with, often, those "prosecutions" amounting to nothing more than "training recommendations".

Criminal Notice: Records Falsification and Evidence Tampering:

Internal digital audit logs of Harry Kelly's clinical file were manually altered after his death. Specifically, the recorded time of death in the Patient Change Log was overwritten with 0:00:00 – a nonsensical value that renders the entry invisible to standard audit searches and investigation tools. This was a deliberate act. It is illegal under Sections 258 and 260 of the Crimes Act 1961, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. A formal criminal complaint has been filed with New Zealand Police under report OR-2484821N.

Venter and Huxley have been formally put on notice that any subsequent entry into the back-end database to further modify, overwrite or delete data trails constitutes separate, additional criminal acts, regardless of any internal or external regulatory manoeuvring.

Fraudulent Posthumous Billing:

Kelly's published forensic analysis of Harry's clinical and financial records shows manual posthumous billing inflation across a number of items.

Formal Demand for Answers:

Six months into Kelly's continued attempts for information release and answers, and Massey's persistent evasion of numerous key issues, Kelly has finally, on June 11, 2026, put 23 written and published questions directly to Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Dean of Veterinary Science Jon Huxley, and copied these to the three international agencies providing accreditation to the facility – the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS, UK), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC). The questions, published in full, address the core components of the case.

Capital Squeeze vs Legal Warfare:

In the face of its own significant and ongoing institutional debts, and its recent department and curriculum closures, staff redundancies, and asset fire sales, Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley (a dairy cow but not small animal or emergency veterinary care expert, to be noted) has threatened Kelly with legal action for speaking out.

An OIA was sent to Chief of Staff Jodie Banner requesting all external legal services’ costs over the six months-to-date of what appears to be continuing, intensive monitoring and profiling of Kelly’s progressively and ongoing published investigation findings – but Banner has shifted the scope of this to produce a non-answer. A more tightly-worded OIA has subsequently been submitted with the response awaited, or indeed even any acknowledgment.

Privacy Act Breaches & Targeted Cyber-Harassment:

Following the launch of Kelly's investigation and the commencement of her published coverage (as a consumer affairs advocate), she has been the subject of a series of persistent late-night digital trolling of an increasingly cruel and taunting nature from parties (such as "lol@lol", and "Hugh Janus"), each of whom appear to have, and in some cases make overt their direct access to her pet's Massey veterinary records.

Feedback from Other Massey Pet-Owner Clients:

Kelly’s published dossier has attracted revelations from other Massey Companion Animal Hospital clients confirming that Harry Kelly’s fate is far from an isolated case. Tellingly, they have conveyed their fear of speaking out, for reasons which include Massey’s heavy-handed legal silencing approach, possible ramifications regarding the treatment and outcomes of pets still in Massey’s “care”, and severe, ongoing trauma.

MPI Investigation: An investigation by the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare complex cases unit was initiated in May and is continuing.

FORTHCOMING RELEASES:

This media release is the first in a Five-Part series.

Part Two: Drugs . . . No Records Required:

With implications for all pets admitted to the Massey facility, Part Two will present a deep-dive investigation into what appears to have been the subsequent, further, undisclosed sedation of Harry to ensure the success of the fraudulent "neurological decline" diagnosis upon which the coercion of Kelly to sign “euthanasia” papers was based . . . and will include the recent inadvertent confirmation by Massey's Chief of Staff Jodie Banner that the sedatives used to repeatedly overdose Harry Kelly are entirely exempt from mandatory recording in the Controlled Drug Register.

Photographic evidence will be laid out demonstrating Harry's dramatically deteriorated state during the 7-hour gap between the last documented dose and Kelly's return to the facility whereupon she was presented with the "euthanasia" demand.

Part Three : The Yuck Truck Despatch . . . And Where Did Harry End Up?

Part Three will document the still-unknown fate of Harry Kelly's remains – including the audio recording of Kelly's one-hour phone call attempting to locate her dog's ashes,

Massey's written confirmation that no electronic records of any kind were kept regarding instructions or his dispatch to a cremation service, and the photographic evidence of his final departure from the facility in the back of a station wagon beside a set of scales, a bucket containing what appears to be possibly biological waste materials in a strangely-shaped thick black plastic bag, and other debris.

Part Three will also include an exposé of the international pet cremation industry . . . one of the most invisible industries in modern history. The 64 percent of Kiwi householders who own pets need to know exactly what happens to them after they have entrusted them, posthumously, to their local clinic, which in turn entrusts the "after-care" of their beloved pets to a largely invisible pet cremation company.

Part Four: It’s All One Big Club (& the Pet-Owning Public Isn’t In It)

The extraordinary, built-in, structural overlaps between Massey University and the very agencies who audit and provide its accreditation credentials, and those who are mandated to regulate, this institution –including the appointment of Massey's own outgoing Vice-Chancellor to chair one of its three international accrediting bodies.

Part Five: Who Knew?

Part Five of the investigation will move into the broader structural accountability questions that must be addressed:

What parties – managerial, administrative, and clinical – knew, at the individual level, what was occurring behind closed doors with private clients' pets? The coverage will examine why internal personnel failed to speak out, the institutional mechanisms used to enforce compliance and silence within the veterinary teaching hospital, and whether any internal whistleblowers actively attempted to raise alerts regarding non-compliant clinical practices.

Could this be a precedent-setting expose that potentially reveals undisclosed teaching practices whereby other veterinary academic establishments around the world also utilise private fee-paying clients’ pets in this same covert manner?

ENDS.

Media Contact:

Jordan Kelly

Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ

Executive Director, International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE)

Full dossier & published investigation:
https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/harry

https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/always-the-latest-here-massey-companion-animal-hospital-s-torture-killing-of-harry-kelly-the-whole-story

https://www.iiive.org/massey-universitys-abuse-killing-of-harry-kelly-case-1

IIIVE Founder Demands Direct Answers from NZ's Massey University Over Covert & Lethal 'Teaching Stock' Utilisation of Clients' Pets

Fri, 12 Jun 2026 03:14:29 GMT

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

The rest of my life is now dedicated to stopping this veterinary house of 'teaching' horrors doing the same to YOUR beloved pets.

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

____________________________________________________________

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

These questions serve four core purposes:

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

(2) To provide a window into the shameless and overt dishonesty of Massey's management, administrative and clinical personnel. By way of example, Chief of Staff Jodie Banner's OIA response: " All activity involving Harry Kelly was undertaken solely for treatment purposes for the benefit of Harry Kelly and not for research or undergraduate training purposes. "

This boldfaced denial is directly and irrefutably contradicted by Massey's own videos of student activity being conducted on a catastrophically over-sedated dog , in direct defiance of his owner's explicit written and verbal instructions that he was never to be used as a teaching or training resource . Furthermore, the extensive, condition-unrelated and invasive procedures conducted on Harry by the "neurologist" Dr Anita Shea — apparently as part of student demonstrations, while Harry was at the peak of the potentially fatal pharmacological collapse that Dr Steffi Jalava had induced him into — were self-evidently not undertaken "solely for the benefit of Harry Kelly."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question Eight:

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

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

Question Nine: Regarding Missing Key Diagnostic Tracking Outputs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bearing in mind that international regulatory expectations dictate this most basic of transparencies, and that standard-setting bodies – including direct confirmation from Head of Professional Conduct Ky Richardson of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (UK), an agency providing accreditation to Massey’s veterinary facility – expressly confirm that registered veterinarians are expected to provide their names to clients, and that under no circumstances should a client be prevented from raising a professional conduct concern with the regulator (which Massey’s redaction of names has indeed prevented)?

Further, since Massey has blacked-out every name or set of initials which were beside the various actions, “procedures”, aspects of handling, decisions and drug administrations, and since the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) accepts only complaints against individual clinicians, Massey’s disablement of any mapping of critical, disputed aspects of his “care” and “treatment” means I cannot lay a complaint against the associated individual/s.

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

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

Question Seventeen: Given Dean Jon Huxley's position as an international auditor on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ (RCVS) International Visitation Committee , are the RCVS, and Massey veterinary teaching facility’s other two accrediting agencies i.e. the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) aware that Massey’s accredited teaching hospital operates under these optional pharmaceutical administration recording policies, undocumented (i.e. no provided evidence of) overnight veterinarian attendance, owner-unauthorised conversions of private pets to teaching resources , aggressive “euthanasia” coercions under false pretences , nil record-keeping for deceased pets’ despatches to cremation services providers , Legal and Governance department vetting of clients’ pets’ clinical records and other information, and systemic identity suppression protocols that ignore all basic international professional standards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A current example: My June 4, 2026 OIA request seeks the Animal Ethics Committee registrations, Standard Operating Procedures, and internal authorisations that will identify who - very specifically - approved (without the knowledge of his owner) Harry Kelly's transition from a fee-paying patient into a student teaching resource. It seeks to determine what communications and internal authorisations were given - and, in the case of any authorisations other than the veterinarian Dr Steffi Jalava's own self-approvals - by whom.

Banner has attempted to reclassify the OIA as a Privacy Act request. Under the Privacy Act, Massey is obliged only to provide my own personal information — not institutional policy documents, not internal authorisations, and not ethics committee records i.e. the very documentation actually being sought . The attempted reclassification means the documents most likely to identify who made the decision to use Harry as a teaching resource would not have to be disclosed. Banner's justification continues to be sought, and will be published.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHECKMATE, Vet Council of NZ: You Can't Answer This Now Without Exposing Either Massive Operational Negligence by Massey or A Dual Cover-Up

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 11:20:40 GMT

Is VCNZ Running A Protection Racket to (a) Cover for Licensed Staff It's Mandated to Hold Accountable, or (b) Cover for A Major Veterinary 'Hospital' Operating Its ICU with NO Qualified Veterinarians on its Evening Shifts and Night Shifts, or (c) BOTH?

UPDATE: Within minutes of hitting Send on the below email to the VCNZ at 8.47pm on June 8, this site's live "real-time" viewer analytics recorded immediate visitor traffic from Melbourne, Auckland and Palmerston North - all landing at the same time. Sharp-minded readers will understand the interconnected significance of those three reader locations springing up simultaneously. Hint: Read my email to VCNZ Deputy Registrar Liam Shields, and note who I have listed as being on the cc'd recipients list . . . and who I haven't.

The Google Analytics real time screenshot and a more explanatory summary here .

___________________________________________________

The scandal-proportions collusion between the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) and Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka Companion Animal Hospital continues . . . and it's either exactly as expected OR a whole lot worse than expected OR both.

Let the reader decide.

Here is my response to an email received today from the Veterinary Council's Deputy Registrar Liam Shields (in the conspicuous and conspicuously continuing absence of Chief Executive Iain McLachlan, who - it might be reasonably assumed - is currently hidden away from public view licking his self-inflicted Law Society investigation wounds resulting from having intentionally set up the board for this unintentional and ongoing duel).

Immediately below is my response to Shields's email which arrived this afternoon after, this time, only a tiny three-week foot-dragging delay. His email is below mine (since mine is far more interesting and contains information of genuine value).

_______________________________________________________

Dear Mr Shields

Is VCNZ Running A Protection Racket to (a) Cover for Licensed Staff It's Mandated to Hold Accountable, or (b) Cover for A Major Veterinary 'Hospital' Operating Its ICU with NO Qualified Veterinarians on its Evening Shifts and Night Shifts, or (c) BOTH?

Thank you for your email of today's date.

I note that your response provides two names:

Dr Steffi Maja Jalava (the day shift veterinarian who oversaw the continuation of the night shift’s catastrophic, unauthorised and intentional convenience over-sedation of my dog , who would have overseen his covert and unauthorised conversion as a university training resource, and who aggressively coerced me into consenting to his fraudulent “euthanasia” on the basis of a completely false “neurological” diagnosis) – and whose identity I had already independently established and published months ago – and now Dr Anita Shea, who conducted a neurological examination on a catastrophically sedated dog with a resultantly pharmacologically-suppressed central nervous system) at 11.22am, three hours after his IV fluids had been disconnected for covert student activities and filming), and who is the subject of this specific article from among the 50+ items of coverage that I have thus far produced, and who also features in the 342-page forensically-detailed report I have provided to the Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Complex Cases investigators .

Dr Anita Shea’s role in the demand for my perfectly viable, falsely diagnosed, but massively Gabapentin-oversedated little dog to be "euthanased" will, of course, form one of the far greater number of formal complaints that must be laid . . . and that must be enabled ( with full and proper disclosure of ALL involved licensed practitioners ) to be laid.

A commentated repository of the entire, constantly updated coverage can be found here , with a more graphical display of article links here .

Firstly, let us address the fact that your response is precisely the entirely predictable, disingenuously selective, incomplete response I warned you – in writing, and publicly – that I knew you would be scheming with Massey to produce. I refer you to my published correspondence : Veterinary Council of NZ to Disclose Names: Don’t Get Excited. It’s Not What It Sounds Like. Jordan Kelly • 19 May 2026

That prediction has now played out in full.

There is now, however, a far more systemic and all-encompassing – nothing less of scandalous, in fact – issue to be urgently addressed. One that involves your apparent inadvertent confession on Massey’s behalf that it operates a major international veterinary teaching establishment’s Intensive Care Unit without any registered, qualified veterinarians physically present on duty during its critical, emergencies-receiving, evening and overnight shifts.

Because this is a matter of immediate consumer concern, I am cc’ing this email to Consumer New Zealand, to the three international accrediting bodies i.e. the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the American Veterinary Medical Council (AVMA), and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) . Further, given that this is also a matter of considerable and urgent public interest, I am including Radio New Zealand's John Campbell in the recipients. And further, given the fact that Massey uses this facility in the provision of its academic education to both domestic and international veterinary students , I am including, in the recipients, Mr John Gill (CEO of Times Higher Education) and Mr Franz Wild (CEO and Editor-in-Chief of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ).

It will, additionally, be forwarded to the Senior Investigation Team conducting the Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit’s investigation into the University’s veterinary facility.

Whether or not this can be confirmed to be the case, there are nonetheless and even so, still core omissions from your disclosure . . . the disclosure, in fact, that the senior in-house legal counsel of Massey’s premier accrediting body, the RCVS, has plainly confirmed to me, should absolutely include ALL the names of any clinician who had ANY in involvement in ANY form, in the “treatment”, “care” or decisions made about my dog.

To whatever degree these can or will be answered, will make clear whether we are dealing here with a catastrophic operational failure in the rostering, supervision and staffing of Massey’s ICU, and/or whether we are dealing with a systemic dual-party cover-up. Or both.

Your Deliberate Omissions

Your response makes no reference whatsoever to:

Dr Stephanie Rigg

Rigg’s name appears directly on Harry's pre-typed “euthanasia” “consent” form ( noting that this was signed on the basis of an entirely and intentionally false diagnosis and non-disclosure of the real nature of Harry’s condition i.e. massive undisclosed, over-sedation), and who presented herself to me as a qualified veterinarian at the time of Harry's admission. She is either a registered veterinarian – in which case her name belongs on your list – or she is not. If she is not, I require you to confirm that in writing, because it is a component of the above bigger-picture institutional concern.

The licensed supervising veterinarian(s) responsible for the overnight ICU shift

During which Harry was catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with unnecessary, unauthorised and contraindicated sedatives, beginning at 1am and hitting him in quick succession with another massive overdose – just 26 minutes later – at 1.26am on December 1, 2025. Assumedly this, and the Prevomax as the other pharmaceutical in the sedation cocktail, was not taking effect fast enough to ensure the cessation of his distressed crying (witnessed directly by me as being completely ignored by socialising ICU staff, while this, my disoriented blind dog stood up on his hind legs with his forelegs fully and dangerously outstretched through the cage door wire grid, seeking (but not receiving) human orientation and comfort.

All other licensed veterinary practitioners

Who had any involvement in Harry's admission, “treatment”, handling, “diagnosis”, decisions regarding, and the authorisation and supervision of student observational activities and cell phone filming / video’ing of Harry during his state of severe pharmacological collapse, the refusal of emergency overdose-reversal treatment , and the noncommunication (in fact, the deliberate obscuration) of any of the preceding to me, or the recommendation of immediate “euthanasia”.

Also, the veterinarian or veterinarians who recorded, or who should have recorded but did not record, Harry’s vitals during December 1, such being completely missing from Massey’s supplied IDEXX screen shots – albeit, his November 30 vitals/IDEXX readings depicted a perfectly viable, recovering patient requiring only the rehydration protocol for which he had been admitted (and entrusted).

The registered veterinarian responsible for posthumous record manipulation

Specifically, the licensed practitioner who authorised, executed, or oversaw the manual data scrubs on December 3, the manual inflation of Billing Record 636969 hours after Harry's death, the forensic wiping of the Patient Change Log timestamps and other records falsifications. These actions are currently the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N under Sections 258 and 260 of the Crimes Act 1961 and they have been extensively documented, complete with screen shots, in the associated-headlined article within my coverage compilation.

Massey’s and VCNZ’s Mutual Active Evasion & Disablement of Proper Complaints Submission

To be noted, your statement that "any other staff members and students who were involved with Harry's care were following the treatment plan provided by the primary veterinarian" is not an answer, Mr Shields. It is the evasion I predicted in several of my earlier articles.

Harry Kelly was admitted to Massey's Companion Animal Hospital ICU at approximately 9pm on Sunday November 30, 2025. The first documented contraindicated sedation overdose occurred at 1am – thus, around four hours into his admission.

Dr Jalava is the day shift clinician . Her shift (she had told me herself) commences at 9am.

Dr Stephanie Rigg, the intaking intern from the previous night, stated she was clocking off at midnight.

So I put this directly to you, Mr Shields – and I put it publicly, because the answer carries consequences far beyond my dog’s individual case, which is in its own right beyond comprehension for any supposedly professional, supervised, and ethical veterinary establishment of any size or standing – anywhere.

Who was the registered veterinarian responsible for Harry's “care” between midnight and 9am?

If a registered veterinarian WAS on duty and overseeing the ICU during those hours – who are they, and why are their names being withheld from me by both Massey and now by you?

If a registered veterinarian was NOT on duty – are you confirming that Massey University's premier veterinary teaching hospital ICU operates throughout the entire night without a registered veterinarian present?

That critical pharmaceutical and other medical and emergency care and treatment decisions – including the administration of contraindicated sedatives (per Massey’s own records) to a renally compromised patient (also as per Massey’s own records) – are being made and executed by unregistered, unsupervised students and interns, operating in a complete regulatory vacuum? Including their dosages at catastrophic levels, combined with other drugs, without the owner’s knowledge or consent, and repeatedly, in some cases (with full day’s doses for a substantially larger and renally NON- compromised dog), just 26 minutes apart?

It is absolutely critical that these two fundamental questions be answered, in the interests of the entire veterinary sector and its pet-owning clientele – as well as any intending student of Massey’s academic veterinary degree program.

Clearly, whichever answer is the case, either one of them is a scandal in the first degree.

For further clarity, Mr Shields: If a private fee-paying patient’s "treatment plan" covers everything, then you must explain how a day-shift clinician is legally or clinically responsible for overdosing that commenced at 1am while she was, by any reasonable assumption, asleep at home. If she is not responsible for those overnight interventions – and she clearly cannot be (although she certainly was responsible for the catastrophic continuance of them and the fraudulent “euthanasia” push , in which she was regrettably successful).

The failure to provide any name from the night shift roster of December 1, 2025 then means Massey is operating an unregulated, unsupervised Intensive Care Unit (ICU) environment where private clients' pets are managed as autonomous instructional assets by unqualified staff operating in a complete managerial, structural, and accountability vacuum.

Further, if the VCNZ's regulatory remit covers registered veterinarians only, and if the VCNZ cannot investigate students, unqualified technicians, or unregistered staff (although you certainly have the power to compel Massey to disclose their identities to me as the owner of the dog they “treated” ( and terminated under fully false pretences ), then every single clinical action, prescription, pharmaceutical administration, and entry in Harry's medical records must be legally tied back to a specific registered veterinarian who authorised it.

Massey cannot have it both ways. And neither can the Veterinary Council. They and you cannot claim that the actions carried out during the overnight period were the decisions of unregistered staff in order to evade VCNZ scrutiny – while simultaneously claiming those actions constituted legally authorised clinical procedures for which a private, fee-paying client was charged $1236.84 (while, it should be noted, Massey profited additionally from Harry’s covert conversion as a teaching video subject , with its Chief of Staff, Jodie Banner, telling me that I am “not entitled” to be sent the videos they utilised my own dog for the unauthorised production thereof ).

For the first approximately two-thirds of Harry's fifteen hours in Massey's ICU and the administration of these sedatives to him – none of which was communicated to, or authorised by, me as his owner – not one registered veterinarian has been identified as responsible for any of those medications administered to him, nor any treatment decisions made about him, nor any oversight of his "care".

I ask you directly, Mr Shields: do Massey's referring veterinary clinics know this ? Do the pet owners of the Manawatū region, and does the broader New Zealand pet-owning public, know this?

The CAC Trap I Will Not Be Entering

Your suggestion that I simply complete separate Notification Forms to be referred to a Complaints Assessment Committee who will then, assumedly, secretively identify and investigate, or not identify and not investigate , all those individuals you have left me to identify for myself, is a transparent attempt to funnel this matter into a closed-door system designed for erasure.

I am well aware of the VCNZ's own published data – previously co-authored by your own VCNZ Council member, Professor Jenny Weston – revealing that over a 24-year period, 67.2% of complaints were dismissed outright or not investigated at all, with a microscopic 1.5% ever upheld, and then only on narrow technical competency grounds, with no meaningful accountability for ethical failures whatsoever.

I will not allow a systemic failure of professional ethics, animal welfare, and potential criminal document alteration to be buried in a framework optimised for institutional protectionism.

On this note, I would like to ensure that you are hereby made aware of the Official Information Act request that I have had to send to Massey , in order to finally determine how it came to be that – and who authorised – my beloved, treasured private fee-paying pet (papillon, Harry Kelly) to be utilised – most especially in the catastrophically over-sedated state of collapse into which he had been pharmacologically engineered by your staff (starting in the early hours of your apparently non-veterinarian/non-supervised night shift and continuing into the day shift) to be used for Massey’s student training and filming activities. (Further to be answered is that, if he really were suffering some mysteriously sudden neurological decline, such would clearly not be a clinically responsible or ethical time for his utilisation for invasive and totally irrelevant student training procedures to be conducted upon him (dental exams, stomach palpitations, leg extensions, and the rest of the very extensive list documented in Massey’s own “Clinical Summary”) and “educational” video productions.

I also hold grave concerns about undocumented pharmaceutical and dosage administrations. I am currently investigating this and my further article on it should be published within the week.

Structural Conflicts of Interest

I note again that Professor Jenny Weston – the co-author of the very research that documents your Council's 1.5% uphold rate – sits on the VCNZ Council that is legally required to review all CAC decisions, while simultaneously serving as Academic Program Director at Massey University. I further note that Seton Butler holds a dual role as Massey Adjunct Lecturer and professional advisor to the VCNZ.

These are not incidental overlaps. They are the architecture of the collusive, closed-loop arrangement I have been documenting publicly for months. The VCNZ's refusal to provide the complete list of veterinary personnel (at the very minimum, including ALL associated licensed veterinarians) – while its own Council members and advisors span both institutions – creates an undeniable perception of a conflicted network protecting its own.

The VCNZ's Own Authority

You possess the absolute statutory authority to demand the identity of every individual involved in a patient's full case timeline – not merely those you intend to (or intend to pretend to) discipline. You and the rest of the VCNZ executive are fully aware that Massey has systematically redacted all names, and withheld all shift rosters, audit logs, and personnel lists specifically to block me from filing individual complaints – and that I have sought through every available statutory tool to extract them and still they have been fully withheld.

By your having simply accepted Massey's two-name summary (one of which, as you know, I have long since identified for myself) without demanding the complete (including night-shift) roster, the VCNZ is not merely failing in its duty – it is actively allowing a public institution to deploy administrative redactions as a shield against regulatory accountability .

And your acceptance of Massey's two-name summary – without demanding the complete set of names of all practitioners who signed off on pharmaceutical administrations, the identity of every registered veterinarian who authorised, supervised, or oversaw the student observational activities and cell phone filming of Harry during his state of induced pharmacological collapse on the morning of December 1, or the identity of the individual responsible for the December 3 data scrub and other records falsifications that are the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N and posthumous billing manipulation – constitutes active participation in the suppression of information you have the statutory power to compel.

A Direct Question for Your Chief Executive

I note that your Chief Executive Officer, Mr Iain McLachlan, has been copied on months of correspondence regarding this matter and has chosen to remain entirely absent from this process – delegating all engagement to his Deputy Registrar while a matter of this gravity sits unaddressed. Or, more accurately stated, consistently evaded.

I ask publicly: Is a systemic breakdown of this magnitude at New Zealand's only veterinary teaching hospital – involving potential criminal record falsification, the overnight pharmaceutical overdosing of a private patient without registered veterinary oversight, the covert conversion of a private fee-paying client’s pet to university teaching resource status, and the coerced killing of a fully viable animal under false pretences to dispose of the evidence of foul play – beneath the attention of the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand? Or is his silence a deliberate act of institutional protectionism?

The public, and the pet-owning clients of Massey's referring veterinary clinics , deserve an answer to that question also.

My Requirement

I require the complete, unredacted list of every licensed veterinarian who had any involvement whatsoever with Harry Kelly during his admission on November 30 and December 1, 2025 – including but not limited to any registered practitioner who authorised, administered, or oversaw any pharmaceutical intervention, clinical decision, handling or procedure, student activity or filming, or real-time or posthumous record manipulation.

I expect this without further delay – and I will continue to document your response, your non-response, your partial response . . . or any response akin to those you have already provided i.e. responses given when no response is actually being given.

This correspondence is being published in full at The Customer & The Constituent NZ and in the Investigations, Media and Case Study sections of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE ) and, as already stated, will be forwarded to the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit .

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief – The Customer & The Constituent NZ

Executive Director – International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE)

________________

From: Liam Shields < liam@vetcouncil.org.nz >
Sent: Monday, 8 June 2026 3:02 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: 2026_06_08 Your Privacy Act Response of March 19, 2026 - Jordan Kelly

Kia ora Ms Kelly,

We wrote to Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital (“MUVTH”) and asked for the names of the veterinarians who had primary care responsibility for the treatment and care of Harry Kelly. MUVTH responded -

The main veterinarian who had primary care responsibility for Harry Kelly was Dr Steffi Jalava. She is a Senior Practicing Veterinarian in the Veterinary Teaching Hospital, a diplomate of the European College of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care and is one of the 3 criticalists who look after patients in our ICU. Her role is primarily clinical associated with clinical teaching of the BVSc5 student cohort.

Dr Jalava consulted with Dr Anita Shea, a diplomate of the European College of Veterinary Neurology, who oversaw Harry Kelly’s neurological assessment and treatment. Dr Shea is a Senior Lecturer in Veterinary Education who is frequently consulted on neurological patients in the Companion Animal Hospital.

Any other staff members and students who were involved with Harry’s care were following the treatment plan provided by the primary veterinarian.

Below is information about how to make a complaint about an individual veterinarian. Please let me know if you have any questions about how the process works.

A formal compliant must be made in writing. The easiest way to do this is by completing our Notification Form . A separate form is needed for each veterinarian that you would like to complain about. If you have supporting documents, or would prefer to make submissions by letter, you’re welcome to do so. Please make sure that any letter addresses the questions that are listed in our notification form. We ask for this information so that the scope of the complaint is clear from the outset, including how the concerns relate specifically to the veterinarian that has been named.

Your complaint/s will be referred to a Complaints Assessment Committee (“CAC”). A CAC is an investigative body that gathers information and makes decisions about what should happen with a complaint - often carrying out an investigation before reaching a decision. The standard applied by the CAC is what would reasonably be expected of a competent veterinarian practising in similar circumstances (taking into account their level of training and resources). The outcomes available are - no further action; educative advice; referral for a competence or health assessment; and in the most serious of cases, the laying of a disciplinary charge.

You raised a comment in your earlier email about the scope and nature of any potential investigation. I thought it would be helpful to note that if, during an investigation, a CAC identifies concerns about a veterinarian who was not named in the original complaint, it can refer the matter to us to open a separate complaint.

The Vet Council promotes high standards through proportionate, right touch regulation. Where appropriate, we use education and voluntary or assisted compliance to ensure that veterinarians are meeting professional standards (and the standard expected by the wider profession). You can read more about our complaint process here.

Please see attached a brochure on the CAC.

Regards,

Liam Shields

Deputy Registrar

Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011

UPDATED: Huxley’s House of Veterinary ‘Teaching’ Horrors: OIA Asks Who Authorises Massey's Lab Rat Use of Private Clients’ Pets?

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 11:02:19 GMT

Come Clean, Massey Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley:

Clients Have NO Idea You're Using Their Pets for Unethical, Unauthorised, Lethal Student Activities and Filming

EXHIBIT A: THE FILM SET . . . Conversion of my “property” for teaching resources: Unauthorised Conversion of Property & Breach of Bailment (Common Law); Illegal Manipulation f or Teaching (Animal Welfare Act 1999, S83)

UPDATE – June 9, 2026: THE OIA BAIT-AND-SWITCH

Yesterday afternoon, Massey University’s Governance and Assurance Office sent an email notifying me that "due to its content" they are reclassifying the OIA request that is the subject of this article.

By processing this as a Privacy Act request instead of under the Official Information Act (OIA) 1982, Massey is executing a deliberate administrative reclassification.

This is a calculated legal maneuver - seemingly another of Chief of Staff Jodie Banner's and/or their big-ticket-but-entirely-and-unintentionally-transparent legal firm's sleight-of-hand strategies - designed to shield the university from institutional accountability, as follows:

Shielding Corporate Risk Records: Under the OIA, public universities are legally compelled to disclose internal correspondence, audit logs, and risk assessments regarding potential statutory breaches unless there is a restrictive withholding ground. Under the Privacy Act, their disclosure obligation shrinks drastically - they only have to provide "personal information".

Hiding Animal Ethics and Policy Documents: By moving this into a privacy box, their legal team can argue that internal Animal Ethics Committee logs, project approvals, and institutional directives are university-level operational records, not my personal data. Banner and the legal lot are almost certainly planning to use this reclassification to redact or deny the very documents that prove Harry was used as an unauthorised training tool.

The Shielding of Jodie Banner's Office: This move allows the Chief of Staff and the executive management to avoid answering for systemic, high-level operational negligence by narrowing the scope of the inquiry down to a simple, localised privacy file.

This is a classic gatekeeping tactic to prevent a broader public-interest audit of the Companion Animal Hospital's operations . . . and you can bet I've challenged it.

_______________________________________________________________

What follows (i.e. beneath this panel that sets out the essential context) is the full text of an Official Information Act request submitted to Massey University today, June 4, 2026 – the statutory framework underpinning each question having been established through six months of forensic investigation, published documentation, and independent analysis.

Massey University has 20 working days to respond. Their response – or non-response – will be published here.

This OIA has been formally forwarded for the awareness of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, as the statutory regulator of the veterinary profession in New Zealand and the body mandated to investigate complaints against registered veterinarians; the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK), as an international accreditor of Massey University's veterinary program and the body whose own Senior Standards and Advice Officer has acknowledged in writing that Massey's systematic redaction of clinical staff identities breaches all accepted international standards; the American Veterinary Medical Association, as a second international accreditor of Massey University's veterinary program; and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, as the third international accreditor of Massey University's veterinary program . . . all four of which have now received multiple rounds of detailed correspondence documenting the conduct this OIA addresses, but none of which have taken any meaningful action in response (or, seemingly, any action at all).

The structural depth of these conflicts of interest is extraordinary . . . and a massive disservice both to the pet-owning public and to the students of the institutions these "regulators" (don't, in reality) regulate , and the accreditors whose accreditations are, in many regards, little more than pay-to-play marketing stamps . By way of a graphic demonstration of the dangerous irony at play in some institutions, Massey's Dean Jon Huxley sits on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Course Accreditation Visitations Panel (the very body that has acknowledged Massey's name redaction practices breach all accepted international standards), playing an auditing-and-approving role in the accreditation of other veterinary teaching facilities around the world.

Yet Huxley's own teaching establishment - among other numerous current shames - is under investigation by New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit , has an active filing against it with the New Zealand Police for records falsification under New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 , and deploys fraudulent billing practices to escalate invoiced amounts to its pet-owner clients . It also deploys taxpayer funds to pay top-tier national law firms to silence disgruntled clients, and it evades or refuses to meaningfully comply with (including simply thumbing its nose at in some instances ) the country's most respected statutory obligations i.e. Privacy Act and Official Information Act (OIA) releases .

Meantime, the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is under investigation by the New Zealand Law Society for collusion with Huxley , and for the Council's active and ongoing prevention of the ability to lay complaints against the practitioners involved in the torture and killing of private patient Harry Kelly .

This official statutory request is issued directly in relation to the documented clinical record of the private patient Harry Kelly, admitted to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on November 30 / December 1, 2025.

A comprehensive clinical and systemic analysis of the hospital's invoicing data, medical logs, and post-admission records has revealed an un-indicated medication cascade and severe over-sedation that did not align with any active neurological or structural brain pathology.

Under New Zealand statutory frameworks – including the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand Code of Professional Conduct – utilising a privately-owned animal for clinical demonstration, student training, or non-indicated pharmaceutical protocols outside of explicit therapeutic necessity crosses directly into regulated territory and requires both mandatory institutional oversight and owner consent .

The following core investigative records form the explicit evidentiary basis for this inquiry: (NB: These are part of a broader and even more comprehensive base of published documentation.)

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 VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

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

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and referencing the investigative evidence linked above, Massey University is required to provide definitive answers to the following:

1. Informed Consent Protocol & Its Application by the CAH in the Harry Kelly Case

The exact operational protocol or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that governs the obtaining of specific, explicit, written owner consent for the use of a private patient in student teaching activities, clinical demonstrations, or video productions – distinct from and beyond any general teaching hospital disclosure clause contained in standard admission forms.

This request specifically includes whether Massey University's own protocols require additional specific consent where an owner has previously and repeatedly stated, verbally, in writing and on admission documentation, that their animal is not to be used as a teaching aid, training tool, or the subject of any student activity – as Harry Kelly's owner had documented and verbally stated on multiple prior occasions.

Please confirm whether any such specific consent was sought from, or provided by, Harry Kelly's owner for any student activity or video production conducted on, or with the use of, him during his November/December 2025 admission.

2. Animal Ethics Committee Registrations for Harry Kelly

All internal registry entries, meeting minutes, approvals, or project logs demonstrating whether Harry Kelly was at any time during his November/December 2025 admission registered, listed, or utilised as a live subject under an active Massey University Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) approved protocol for research, testing, teaching, or data collection.

3. Divergence from Clinical Necessity in Harry Kelly's Care

The specific institutional directive, clinical justification worksheet, or authorisation that legally permitted Companion Animal Hospital or ICU staff to transition Harry Kelly's medical management – including his documented sedation levels and drug administration cascades – away from direct therapeutic welfare and into a non-indicated clinical protocol without notifying or obtaining the consent of his owner.

4. IV Disconnection Authorisation for Harry Kelly

Whether the disconnection of Harry Kelly's IV rehydration fluids during his November/December 2025 admission was documented, clinically justified, and authorised by a supervising clinician – and if so, what clinical justification was recorded, who authorised it, and at what time it occurred relative to the documented sedation administrations.

5. Internal Audit, Review and Billing Records for Harry Kelly

All internal correspondence, emails, clinical review notes, handwritten meeting minutes, incident reports, or file notes held by the School of Veterinary Science, the Companion Animal Hospital Executive / Management or other parties, or individual ICU staff, regarding the specific drug administrations, medication discrepancies, over-sedation concerns, or invoicing codes applied to Harry Kelly in November/December 2025.

If no formal audit report exists, this request explicitly includes all informal communications, email strings, team debriefs, or draft reviews concerning these billing and clinical discrepancies.

6. Regulatory Breach and Risk Communications

All communications, emails, internal memos, legal counsel briefings, and risk-assessment notes exchanged within the University – including but not limited to the Veterinary School Executive / Management, the Companion Animal Hospital Clinical Director and Practice Manager, and University Risk and Legal teams – or with any external regulatory, statutory, or insurance bodies or the like, concerning potential, alleged, or established compliance breaches under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, or the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, or other legal concerns held, regarding the case file of Harry Kelly.

This request explicitly includes any internal correspondence discussing or reacting to the publisher's public exposures, Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests, or statutory ( or intended statutory, for example those awaiting Massey’s / VCNZ’s release of clinician identities to enable ) complaints regarding this matter.

I request a response within 20 working days as required by the Act.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief – The Customer & The Constituent, www.thecustomer.co.nz
Executive Director – International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics, www.iiive.org

UPDATED: The Conflicts-of-Interest Web Spins Wide . . . And Catches All (As Did the Trap Expressly Set for Them)

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 10:04:07 GMT

UPDATE 15.6.26: The web has spun wider still. Professor Jan Thomas, Massey University's Vice-Chancellor from January 2017 to January 2026 - the presiding VC when the Harry Kelly atrocity occurred (November 30/December 1, 2025) – takes up the position of Chair of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), one of the three agencies accrediting the Massey facility, effective 1 July 2026.

____________________________________________

UPDATED 9.6.26: The Web Spun Wide Again. And Caught All. Again.

Above: Google Analytics' 'Real-Time View' dashboard snapshot tracking concurrent user traffic from Melbourne, Auckland, and Palmerston North in the hour immediately following my June 8 (i.e. last night), 8.47pm email to the Veterinary Council and cc'd to the three "independent" international accrediting bodies (including the Australasian Veterinary Board of Councils in Melbourne, but not to ANYONE in Auckland or Palmerston North . . . Gosh, I wonder who's located in those two spots?)

UPDATE TO BELOW JUNE 2 ARTICLE: June 9, 2026

Yesterday afternoon I finally received a "response" from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ), after three weeks of further foot-dragging, regarding the apparent (subsequently, inarguable) Massey / VCNZ collusion to subvert the course of justice by refusing to disclose the names of those staff involved in the fatal "care" of my dog in Massey's veterinary "hospital" (names without which, complaints to the VCNZ can't be laid).

To be noted, it's now nearly four months since the VCNZ's CEO Iain McLachlan's singular acknowledgement of my regular, continuing identity-seeking efforts i.e. when he responded to a frustrated February 20 I sent notice to six government ministers that I'd openly copied him in on . . . with a brief, friendly undertaking designed to make him look co-operative in the eyes of said Ministers.

Now, on June 8, I receive what is apparently the making good of that undertaking, from his Deputy Registrar Liam Shields , since McLachlan (who happens to be a registered lawyer) has gone dark following my having laid a formal (and formally accepted) Law Society of NZ complaint about his malarkey .

Shields finally provided just two names: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava , whom I had already long-since independently identified and published, and Dr Anita Shea . . . the "neurologist" who examined Harry at peak sedation with a drug well-evidenced in the international veterinary literature to mimick neurological symptoms and used her "diagnosis" (one never even hinted at in any of even Harry's most recent records e.g. 12 days prior by his new primary vet) to support Jalava's overnight "neurological decline" theory and her push for Harry's immediate, non-negotiable and aggressively coerced "euthanasia" (following his owner-unauthorised covert utilisation in student activities and cell phones filming).

The VCNZ has allowed Massey to attribute everything else to unnamed staff "following the treatment plan" (which, it should be noted, was for nothing else other than a 24-hour rehydration protocol ).

My response to Shields, published in full here — CHECKMATE, VCNZ: You Can't Answer This Now Without Exposing Either Massive Operational Negligence by Massey or A Dual Cover-Up — was emailed to him at 8.47 last night. I copied it to the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), Consumer NZ, Times Higher Education and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Within the hour, AVBC CEO Kate Simkovic's read receipt confirmed she had opened the email. My real-time site visitation analytics (see above screen shot) simultaneously showed three locations active on this site: Melbourne, Auckland (home of Massey's legal representatives, Buddle Findlay) and Palmerston North (location of Massey University's campus and its "Companion Animal Hospital").

Not one of the email's recipients is based in either Auckland or Palmerston North.

The web — documented in the article below (originally published on June 2, 2026 i.e. last week) — spun wide again. And caught all. Again.

Also see: Veterinary Teaching 'Hospitals' & the Great Pay-to-Play 'Accreditation' Game and FOLLOW THE MONEY: The Compromised Veterinary Regulatory & Accreditation 'System' and go to the Correspondence tabs in the Harry Kelly Case Study here on the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) website to read the fully dismissive emails by AVMA's Samantha Morello, the "we'll wait and see how the VCNZ rules" email by AVBC's Kate Simkovic, and the "acknowledgements" and nothing further from the RCVS (UK).

____________________________________

When I launched this investigative archive, I didn't set out purely to document the apparently intended-to-be-fatal compromises in clinical “treatment” and the associated, catastrophic practitioner-level ethics failures . . . although those were certainly my primary objectives.

It was apparent to me from very early on that what I was uncovering was, underlying and facilitating such fundamental failures, massive rot in the foundations not only of the institution I was taking on, but also in the broader foundations of the national regulatory and global “accreditation” political structures .

As a journalist, a veteran public relations operative, a business/marcoms educator and a consumer advocate, I structured this platform to serve as a live, evolving trap to expose the absence of core institutional ethics . It has been, in a very real sense, a deliberate, controlled field test of their institutional integrity. And it's a test they are actively failing every single day .

I deliberately gave the established systems of authority the time, the rope, and the precise conditions necessary to either honour their statutory mandates or to complete their own reputational undoing. And they've consistently chosen the latter . . . to hang themselves with their own rope.

I have now given the three "premier" international accrediting bodies - the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) , the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) , and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) (RCVS) - three and a half months and several rounds of detailed, revelatory, evidence-rich correspondence to examine and act on . . . as well as the growing body of work on this very platform (and also on my newer initiative, the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) . It has been, in large part, a deliberate baseline test to demonstrate their level of preparedness to act on their regulatory mandates and ethical duties (or not), in accordance with the very standards they use to bless institutions with their elite “accreditation” credentials.

All Three 'International Accreditors' Have Failed the Test . . And Spectacularly

The extensive, unyielding paper trail of correspondence with Dr Samantha Morello (AVMA) and Kate Simkovic (AVBC) can be fully reviewed in the Harry Kelly Case Study on IIIVE.org .

The remaining global "accreditor" I want to focus on today, however, is the UK-based RCVS.

The RCVS's Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor, Ky Richardson, has previously and expressly acknowledged that all registered veterinary clinics and practices -including university clinical facilities -are expected, in accordance with accepted international standards, to provide the names of the staff involved in a client's pet's care.

Yet, three and a half months later, Massey University remains stubbornly locked into its refusal to do so. In its latest defensive manoeuvre, Massey stated it would only provide those crucial identity records to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ).

After multiple twists and turns , and now an active formal Law Society complaint against its Chief Executive , Iain McLachlan (a registered lawyer), the VCNZ finally undertook, two weeks ago , to hand those names over to me . . . but have, predictably enough, retreated to their now five-month-old “holding pattern” , showing absolutely no sign of fulfilling that obligation. I have already written several detailed articles exposing the internal conflicts of interest behind that specific domestic hornet's nest.

But let us set the local deflections aside. Today's article is designed to pull back the curtain on the web of conflicts of interest operating at the international level . This is an exposure that doesn't merely dismantle the credibility of the RCVS/Massey relationship; it fundamentally compromises the integrity of the accreditation credentials stamped onto every other institution that the RCVS purports to regulate.

They walked blindly into an ethical assessment of my design, and the resulting data is absolute gold for any student of international corporate governance .

'International Accreditation': Does It Represent Any Real-World, Ground-Level Currency At All?

For international tertiary students of public relations, corporate governance, and institutional ethics, the narrative irony of this real-time crisis management disaster breaches a critical threshold.

According to official, public credentials published by Massey University, "Dean" Jon Huxley (Head of the "School" of Veterinary Science) explicitly states in his staff biography profile:

"I currently sit on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Course Accreditation Visitations Panel."

The man overseeing an institution under active Ministry of Primary Industries’ animal welfare investigation , who sent a private briefing email to the VCNZ on the same day as he issued a heavy-handed legal threat to silence me (which clearly wasn’t particularly effective), simultaneously sits on the panel that audits and accredits veterinary schools globally for the very body - the RCVS - that has acknowledged Massey's name redaction practices as contrary to all international standards.

The RCVS Course Accreditation Visitations Panel is a premier international regulatory entity tasked with auditing, inspecting, and certifying that veterinary schools worldwide maintain the absolute highest thresholds of clinical execution, operational transparency, and ethical integrity.

This revelation introduces a profound structural contradiction into this real-time case study, presenting a textbook core ethical question for business and compliance students everywhere (and one I intend to present them with in my eventual tertiary-level educational productions dissecting the entire horror of it all):

That Core 'Ethics' Question Is This . . .

How can a senior academic credibly sit on an international panel that audits and enforces the clinical and educational standards of the global veterinary profession, while concurrently overseeing an internal institutional culture accused of systematic Official Information Act (OIA) evasions, withholding critical medical administration records , and utilising centralised corporate legal funds to insulate a broken veterinary ICU from transparency?

The man who sits on the panel certifying that other schools meet the highest standards of clinical execution, operational transparency and ethical integrity is the same man whose own school is under active government investigation for the exact opposite of all three . Would he even recognise high standards if he came face-to-face with them in a dark alley?

Shouldn't "Dean" Jon Huxley be focusing his time and supposed intellect on fixing the phenomenal mess in his own institution , festering away fatally under his own watch ?

To say nothing of the gross clinical incompetencies and astounding ethics failures in the actual "treatment" of the animals entrusted into the “care” of his “Companion Animal ‘Hospital’ ”?

Here's what I understand to be the role of someone executing that specific duty on behalf of the RCVS:

Members of the Visitations Panel are the expert auditors sent directly into global veterinary schools. They inspect the facilities, audit clinical files, interview staff, evaluate ethical governance , and feed into the definitive Visitation Report detailing the school's strengths, weaknesses, and compliance.

To shun clinical language for a moment . . . Holy. Shit.

If I didn't hold the honorable Dean in such utter derision , I'd almost feel sorry for him.

Huxley’s fellowship with the RCVS and his seat on the Course Accreditation Visitations Panel are what he clearly considers his ultimate badges of global authority .

The Ultimate Assassination of the Academic Ego

So now, walking (no doubt, formally striding) into a peer institution knowing that a permanent, evidence-rich archive explicitly, and very bloody deservedly, is "out there" granularly challenging his credibility to audit other schools' ethics . . . with the name-redaction ploys overseen by his administration, Chief of Staff Jodie Banner's persistent and repeated fancy footwork OIA and Privacy Act evasions , and all the other associated antics in his own “school” . . . must be a total nightmare for an insatiable academic ego.

Take a look at the “ ethics” malarkey alone , that the man is presiding over in his own institution. Let alone the clinical standards and any working comprehension of “quality assurance” . There are even criminal acts being committed . How much worse could it actually get ?

And just since Huxley considers himself the premium academic, let’s be clear about what his decisions and the conduct he approves at his hallowed “accredited” learning facility have actually provided:

That is, they have provided all the raw material that could ever be needed for a high-profile international case study – a mere component of which is the real-time demonstration of how personal international panel appointments and institutional commercial ambitions become fundamentally incompatible with real-world clinical accountability.

Ironically, the very instruments he wields to audit the global veterinary education sector are not at all dissimilar to the mechanisms currently dissecting Massey University's own “ ethics ”, “ governance ”, “ institutional ”, “ educational ” and “ clinical ” " standards " . . . and they’re being wielded by one lone, particularly pissed-off, deceived-and-bereaved pet owner-client. With one and three-quarter hands tied behind her back.

Oh, and PS to Jon Huxley:

Do pass on to your partner, wife, whatever (I don’t care), Jacqui Huxley of Apex Cardiology, that I find her most callously rude - or rudely callous, whichever, both are gross understatements anyway - in never even having acknowledged my emails regarding Harry's demise.

Of course, any veterinary cardiologist with a beating heart would have expressed sadness. But even out of basic professionalism , given that she had been his cardiologist for something like three or more years, she might have at least said something .

I mean, if nothing else, he was a profit centre for her that she doesn't have any more.

But there you have it. These are the hands being placed on your beloved pets at Massey's Companion Animal Hospital and, unfortunately, also by some of these affiliated with it, too.

Despicable doesn't come anywhere near cutting it , does it?

_________________________

Verification Sources & References:

Official Academic & Panel Credentials Profile : The verified statement confirming "Dean" Jon Huxley's active position on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Course Accreditation Visitations Panel as publicly documented on his official Massey University biography page: https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/expertise/profile.cfm?stref=747450

Institutional Accreditation Strategy : To review how heavily Massey University relies on international accreditation frameworks (including the RCVS, AVMA, and AVBC) for its global marketing and educational standing, see the core institutional declarations here: https://www.massey.ac.nz/about/colleges-schools-and-institutes/college-of-sciences/school-of-veterinary-science/

UPDATED: Calling Veterinary Council of NZ CEO Iain McLachlan: You've Been Hiding In the Shadows for Too Long. NO MORE.

Tue, 09 Jun 2026 08:02:50 GMT

The Spotlight Is Back on You, McLachlan. Where It Should Have Stayed.

UPDATED:

In receiving the below “response” to my challenge to Veterinary Council (VCNZ) CEO Iain McLachlan to emerge from the shadows and show himself, I want to take the opportunity to offer what I genuinely hope will be valuable insight and tuition to not only any fellow pet owner who has ever sought, or may need to in the future seek, accountability from the veterinary profession . . . but to anyone anywhere seeking recognition of serious issues and honest, effective redress.

This is an article I wrote a year ago: How Wellington REALLY Works: The '5 Ds '. A quick read will be instructive to start with. Then, if you scroll down and read McLachlan’s response before then reading my reply to him, you’ll see his obvious deployment of (the first two “Ds” (1) Delay, and (2) Defer. That’s already been going on, as you will read in my reply, since January.

But if you read more deeply into the intent behind McLachlan’s three brief paragraphs, you’ll see the third and fifth "D's" i.e. (3) Deny and (5) Dismiss lurking there, too.

That is, the patronising, "I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time, and I am truly sorry for your loss of Harry" , clearly doesn't come from any place of genuine sympathy or empathy.

Had McLachlan been in the least honest, open and NOT coming from a place of needing to protect Massey, the phrasing would have been different. Only slightly different wording, but monumentally different in meaning. It would have been, "I am truly sorry for what happened to Harry." Notice, that more genuine phraseology wouldn't have compromised any investigation or complaint with any acknowledgement of anything other than "something happened to Harry". But even acknowledging that anything "happened" to Harry would have disallowed the intended "grieving pet owner not to be taken seriously" and the unspoken "owner who can't accept her dog had reached its use by date" re-frame.

Instead, McLachlan's chosen wording was a cunning but not clever sleight-of-hand; a disingenuous, and probably lawyer-directed endeavour to minimise ("Deny" the gravity and due weight of) the matter, and also, to reduce ("Dismiss") the seriousness with which the complainant themselves deserves to be taken . . . along with the unintended indication of the re-engineered manipulation of reality that will no doubt be at the core of how the VCNZ and Massey will work together to dismiss any complaints I might finally bring if ever the full list of names is released.

In the context of a matter like animal cruelty and a singular complainant, the "emotional, grieving pet owner" re-frame is a predictable strategy that hasn't placed heavy intellectual demand on the writer or their advisors, and it’s helped along by the distant, never-to-be-voiced, but clearly underlying inference of, "emotional female".

There are numerous other such manipulative "5D" textbook response "templates" in use by organisations like Massey and the VCNZ. But most of them have central strategies that are easy to spot once you've decoded a few. The key characteristic common to every single one of them is intense disingenuousness.

So, then, next question: How do you respond when you’re up against a big piece of institutional machinery with “comms advisors” and both in-house and external legal advisors adding further to the already well-entrenched bureaucratic playbooks, and even individual administrators well-versed in the deployment of deflective and/or minimising template responses?

There is only one, and one only, counter-offence: You recognise the ploy, reject the re-framed narrative, call it out openly, and return the conversation to the matter at hand. Every time.

______________________________________________________

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Friday, 12 June 2026 6:25 pm
To: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: INVESTIGATION: Massey Veterinary ICU Staffing and Critical VCNZ Disclosure Failures [RE: Harry Kelly]

Dear Mr McLachlan

Your patronising opener, “I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time, and I am truly sorry for your loss of Harry” , is unwelcome . . . and as insulting as you intended it to be.

Albeit I recognise such manipulative re-framing is not beneath you, and is in fact intended to be strategic to your organisation’s “position”, I would nonetheless ask that you refrain from such reductive and patronising insults in future.

The “loss” of my dog is the direct result of a complexity of serious clinical, managerial, and ethical issues entrenched in the practices and culture of your conjoint organisation i.e. Massey University’s Veterinary “Teaching Hospital” aka Companion Animal “Hospital”.

I do not require your sympathy – which, in any case, is entirely disingenuous and farcical.

I DO require that you take the action you are mandated to take, to properly carry out the duties of your position, and in doing so, provide the New Zealand pet-owning public with the confidence that true accountability exists within the industry’s regulatory framework. Not only does it not currently, but in fact, the reverse is the case under your “leadership” and that of Liam Shields.

I recommend your focus remain on the severe, demonstrable lackings and ethical compromises of the organisation you "lead", and the honest and effective execution of your mandated role and duties, rather than narrative deflection and unwelcome familiarity.

I would also take this opportunity to point out that your response and your “position” has confirmed the most concerning aspect of the entire, ongoing, deep-rooted-in-cultural-issues matter:

That your 1.5% complaint prosecution rate is almost certainly achieved on the basis of re-framing even the most egregious, systemic and lethal cases of malpractice, misfeasance, animal cruelty, and criminal acts, as low-importance, grief-driven, “consumer complaints”.

Under your leadership, Mr McLachlan, the rot in the foundations of organisations like your conjoint partner, will persist – at great cost both to the New Zealand pet-owning public, and also to the levels of clinical competence and the ethical standards of the students trained at, and graduating from, Massey University’s Veterinary “Teaching Hospital”.

In the meantime, regarding your patronisation i.e. “I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time” : Indeed. And that infuriating reality is entirely, 100% attributable to your and Mr Shields’ collusion with the management of the Massey institution to ensure against the release of the identities of those that I seek to lay formal complaints about to your (albeit, conjoint) organisations.

Thus, I would bring you back to the central questions of my June 9 email, the answers to which are necessary to enable me to lay the required series of complaints in the first instance – with the central information requirement (which I have been pursuing through you, and in the face of your unkept commitments), being the provision to me of the entire, uncompressed, unsummarised, unredacted list of licensed operatives who were in any way involved with my dog’s case.

I await this information from either yourself or Mr Shields, and again leave you with my previous communication’s comment i.e. that you almost certainly already possess the answers to these core questions, which are essential to the enabling of natural justice. Thus, I trust I will be receiving these from you without too much further delay . . . noting that my first communication to you to seek such core elements of information, to enable the laying of formal complaints, stretches back as far as January 2026.

On this note and regarding your closing statement, “ The substantive questions you have raised are for Liam to address, and he will respond to you as necessary.” Yes, they ARE substantive questions, Mr McLachlan.

And ALL of them MUST, therefore, be considered “necessary” . . . with a timely, complete, honest and transparent response to EACH of these questions.

Yours sincerely
Jordan Kelly

From: Iain McLachlan < iain@vetcouncil.org.nz >
Sent: Friday, 12 June 2026 4:52 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc: Liam Shields < liam@vetcouncil.org.nz >
Subject: Re: INVESTIGATION: Massey Veterinary ICU Staffing and Critical VCNZ Disclosure Failures [RE: Harry Kelly]

Dear Ms Kelly

Thank you for writing. I recognise that you have been carrying this for some time, and I am truly sorry for your loss of Harry.

Liam Shields acts on my behalf in complaints-related matters, and his responses to you represent the Vet Council's position. That is not a deflection, it reflects the proper allocation of responsibilities within our organisation. My involvement in individual correspondence is not appropriate.

The substantive questions you have raised are for Liam to address, and he will respond to you as necessary.

Yours sincerely

Iain McLachlan

He | Him

Kaiwhakahaere Matua me Pouroki | CEO & Registrar

Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand

P 04 473 9600 | DDI 04 894 3705 | W www.vetcouncil.org.nz

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 9 June 2026 7:38 pm
To: 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: INVESTIGATION: Massey Veterinary ICU Staffing and Critical VCNZ Disclosure Failures [RE: Harry Kelly]

Mr McLachlan

You have been hiding in the shadows for too long on this matter of extreme gravity – now drawing, rightly – significant national and international attention.

As of course you will have seen, my reply to Liam Shields’s totally inadequate “response” of yesterday (regarding my request for your Council’s provision of the names of any and all licensed individuals involved in any capacity with my dog’s case), was published here and here .

From now on, I require that you respond to my communications personally. If Mr Shields continues to cover for you, I will continue to respond to you as my primary addressee. As a practising lawyer holding a current New Zealand Law Society practising certificate, you are personally bound by professional obligations of transparency and integrity that your subordinate is not. You cannot hide behind a non-lawyer deputy to evade answering questions that directly engage your own professional conduct – particularly while a Law Society complaint against you is active.

On which note, I have three outstanding questions that I wish to be answered individually and separately from the overarching issue of the continually withheld names – and whether or not Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital’s Intensive “Care” Unit is staffed by any licensed veterinarians overnight.

To cut off at the pass your deflection efforts by directing me back to Massey for the answers to these questions, I remind you, that you were apparently quite happy to accept these two clinicians’ names as being the only ones relevant to the laying of any formal complaints. Of course, I have made clear that that is unacceptable, and I await Mr Shields’s response with the FULL list, so as to ensure the conduct of proper and full natural justice . . . and that such may not continue to be prevented as it has been for now six months and counting.

But since you accepted these two names at all and in any case, regardless of the requirement for the full list, I require you to answer the following questions yourself – as they are directly relevant to the formal complaints that will be laid regarding these two operators specifically:

Question One: Massey's response states that Dr Steffi Jalava's role is "primarily clinical associated with clinical teaching of the BVSc5 student cohort”. Does that mean it was by her own decision that she converted Harry to a teaching resource? (A straightforward YES or NO, will suffice. Answer with a checkbox beside this question, if you will otherwise find it difficult to provide me with a straightforward answer. For the avoidance of doubt, any failure to select a binary option or any attempt to dilute this question with narrative deflection will be formally logged and published as an administrative refusal to answer a direct question.)

Question Two: Since the only "treatment" Harry required was the 24-hour rehydration that was prescribed upon his admission and that I was charged for, but that he was disconnected from after 8.5 hours – what was the specific "treatment" that Dr Anita Shea oversaw? (A simple bullet point list with the list of “treatments” and the specific reason or objective for each “treatment” will suffice. Please indicate clearly if Harry’s various forms of utilisation for student observation and/or student manipulation and participation and/or filming comprised any of these “treatments”.)

Question Three: Which of these two practitioners, or if not either of them, then who specifically approved the third dose (i.e. 9am) sedative/s to Harry, and any subsequent to that ? With regard to the 9am administration of sedative/s, what was the relationship of this to the student activities and filming of him that commenced 2.5 hours later? And what was the purpose of any subsequent sedative administrations?

I look forward to the answers that, of course, you would surely already have. You cannot reasonably expect me to believe that the strategy behind the provision of these two names (and only to date these two names) has not been the subject of considerable discussion with Massey University’s Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley and others, including Massey’s legal counsel.

Notwithstanding, I look forward to your answers . . . but not “in due course”, Mr McLachlan, per your now four-month-old February 26 email. The variations between our respective definitions of that undertaking make it untenable here. In fact, given that you surely already know the answers to the above three questions, there is no reason not to provide them by return email.

In closing, let me take the opportunity to be 100% clear about the following: I do not expect – and will not accept – any reply to this email as being a substitute for the clear question I asked Mr Liam Shields in my below email to him. These two matters are interlocked, but at the same time, separate.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Massive Legal Minefield for NZ's Massey University: Unauthorised Data Leaks & Late-Night Trolling Expose Complete Lack of Control at Companion Animal Hospital

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 03:05:14 GMT

Panicked Rearguard Action: Exposing the Toxic, Uncontrolled Culture Operating Inside Massey’s Veterinary ICU

Last night, yet another caustic, medically-illogical, internally-panicked anonymous web form submission dropped into my inbox from (as is very obvious to me) the same small tightknit group of Massey ICU insiders . . . the day after I had hit Publish on this article .

Interestingly, its Sunday 9.23pm arrival just happens to coincide with Harry’s Sunday 9pm admission to that facility last November 30 .

This latest missive expanded on the same ludicrous challenges of past drops – this time, based even more specifically on their obvious direct in-house access to Harry’s Massey ICU records. It demonstrated a worryingly barely even generic-level of grasp on veterinary medicine, protocols and practices (although that was clearly not the author's or authors' own self-estimation) and even spoke with what appeared to be a casual affection for "pentobarb" – a chillingly flippant tone for an internal operator to adopt when discussing a lethal veterinary pharmaceutical used specifically to terminate animals' lives i.e. Pentobarbital sodium.

It was also written with the same juvenility as all previous drops, with the same immature and silly type of fake email address.

The arrival of these emails doesn’t trouble me. In fact, they are flushing out, and increasingly pointing to, the identity of the anonymouses.

What IS troubling is something very different . . . and with the drop of every anonymous dollop of veterinary ignorance, evidence of cultural toxicity, and arrogant “toe digging-in”, these emails display the very thing Massey needs to isolate, unpick, and actually address. But that it clearly is not.

A Little Gone-Rogue State-Within-A-State . . . In Control of YOUR Pet's Life & Outcome

That is, the rogue element that operates with dangerous “state-within-a-state” autonomy in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” ICU.

I am yet to get a full handle on the degree to which this rogue, arrogant, dangerously ignorant and woefully either uncredentialed or undeservedly credentialed element is simply an extension of the more senior levels of the veterinary establishment’s management . . . versus what they don’t necessarily approve of but have no control over . . . versus what they actually have only a sense of and would rather remain willfully blind to the ward-level realities of.

Let’s look through the window that little rogue ICU clique of anonymous emailers unintentionally but very effectively provides for us . . . and I’ll tell you the point I’m going to get to, here, up front, while I lay out the facts that will help you see it clearly for yourselves:

If Massey’s management and a highly paid and thus assumedly highly skilled external legal firm has no control over a group or groups of staff (however big or small) and allows them to go rogue, or can’t stop them going rogue enough to compromise Massey’s veterinary teaching establishment and its public-facing “Companion Animal Hospital’s” already-crumbling reputation, then it is clear to see that, why, and how, it has nil or next-to-nil control over their hospital floor-level decisions, actions, conduct and culture. The culture that produced what happened to my own dog, Harry, and not only the complete absence of any remorse for it but, in fact, a taunting, teasing barrage of emails from (it has become very obvious to me) those actively responsible for it or for significant components of it.

The Spectacularly Stupid Poking of the Wrong Bear

I have mentioned my corporate reputational, B2B and B2C public relations, and brand management (did I mention that latter part, too?) professional background.

Quite aside from the heinous fact that replicated client accounts now evidence a pattern whereby private clients’ pets are being subjected to undocumented sedation cocktails, unauthorised and invasive clinical procedures, and unvetted student training protocols without their owner’s knowledge or consent . . . the crisis management aspect of this whole disaster is exactly that, an unmitigated, utter managerial disaster of staggering, international case study-worthy proportions .

Beyond the nub of the matter . . . that it exposed horrendous, systemic failures of ethics, is the complete lack of control combined with the complete incompetence of management at a practice management level, at an institutional divisional level, and at the very upper-most level. That is, he with whom the buck should stop, Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter.

A VC who inherited a very bad situation and seems to have agreed to keep making it worse.

More Total Ineffectiveness & Wasteful Budget Evisceration by Massey's High-Flying Legal Eagles

Let’s look at Vice-Chancellor Venter’s total Lack of steering ability over an out-of-control veterinary facility ship. And that look should more rightly start with where the stakes are, literally, life or death: in it’s “Intensive Care Unit”. It would behove Massey’s management to re-acquaint themselves with that seemingly-forgotten full expansion of the “ICU” acronym.

However, my impression is that that is neither his nor his veterinary school dean's most pressing centre of concern. If they have one at all, perhaps it sits more at the level of brand, strategic and risk management. They're not doing well in that regard, either, however.

From that (i.e. brand, strategic and risk management) perspective, whether Venter or Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley recognise it or not, allowing an internal, uncontrolled clique to autonomously handle a high-stakes crisis by launching an anonymous rearguard action is an absolute legal, regulatory and administrative disaster.

And Massey’s big-budget, national, premier corporate legal firm assumedly handling external services for this major "educational" institution isn’t doing much of a job when it comes to its core business for the uni either i.e. risk mitigation, brand protection, and procedural compliance.

I’ve made numerous mentions of these rogue actors from within their walls in my various recent articles. One would think these big-buck legal eagles would be enlightening their client’s executive team as to the fact that their behaviour is doing the institution massive damage.

Let me count the ways:

1. Evidence of Management’s Complete Lack of Administrative & Staff Control

Not only have I documented the ongoing arrival of these anonymous missives – the contents of which explicitly rely on proprietary, internal hospital records – but I have publicly stated that every single transmission is being handed directly to the New Zealand Government's Ministry for Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit's team of senior investigators.

Yet, astoundingly, despite the university and its legal counsel being fully aware that this unvetted data leak is actively occurring, the individual or individuals responsible have escalated both their frequency and their intensity. Boldly going where almost certainly no man (or perhaps more accurately, woman) has gone before.

If management possessed effective administrative oversight or basic network compliance control, an unauthorised insider would not be permitted to continuously compromise the institution's legal position in real time.

I rest my case.

2. High-Risk Exposure Under the Privacy Act

By sending an email like the one I received last night, explicitly referencing details of Harry's paperwork, records, and specific administrative forms, an employee is stepping into a massive legal minefield.

Using a client's internal institutional records or inputs from their supposedly privacy-protected data to compose unauthorised, anonymous communications to a member of the public – especially one already actively engaged in formal legislative disputes with the University – is a profound breach of internal security and of the Privacy Act 2020.

It completely undercuts the standard "we take your privacy seriously" corporate homily. It makes the university look disorganised, unprofessional, and extremely loose with internal client data. Because, clearly, it IS disorganised, unprofessional, and extremely loose with internal client data.

Competent external lawyers spend their entire lives trying to prevent staff from creating unvetted, rogue electronic paper trails.

3. Contaminating An Active Government Investigation

I have a 342-page evidential report and a 13-page supplementary report sitting with the Ministry for Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit.

In any high-stakes regulatory investigation, the absolute golden rule for an institution's staff is total silence . You do not talk, you do not engage, and you certainly do not send anonymous, provocative emails to the complainant.

By acting out of personal spite, this little gaggle of reckless individuals is actively handing me – and by extension, the government investigators – real-time proof of a toxic, defensive institutional culture. And one that has real and (in my case, at least) lethal consequences for clients' pets.

They are literally giving the regulatory body ammunition to show that the hospital's staff lack basic oversight, professional boundaries, and compliance control.

4. Creating Massive Public Liability

Corporate legal advisors know that an institution's brand is incredibly fragile.

While a firm can build an institutional shield using formal, polite, heavily-vetted legal correspondence, that entire shield is instantly shattered when a staffer goes rogue in someone’s inbox. Especially the wrong person’s inbox.

(You’d have thought they’d have had the basic comprehension capacity to work out by now that given that they covertly, mercilessly, and inhumanely utilised , subjected to at least 15 straight hours of severe torturous physical and psychological trauma , and then killed, precisely the wrong woman’s dog – treating a private, fee-paying client’s deeply beloved and treasured pet as an expendable asset for institutional convenience , student training, and commercial profit – that continuing to provoke that same furious, outspoken and clearly capable woman would probably continue to guarantee things will not end well either for them individually , or for the university at large .)

From a strategic perspective alone, let alone any moral or ethical concerns, the university's “leadership” and its “legal counsel’s” decision to allow Massey’s veterinary “hospital” staff to continuously provoke a professional with my specific background is an act of absolute cumulative, high-impact, self-sabotage .

By allowing a tiny, panicked core to arrogantly take it upon themselves to mount a private, defensive rearguard action (because they know their specific actions are under the microscope) Massey demonstrates – including to its insurers – that the university's risk management is held completely hostage by a small core of reckless, boundary-less staffers. And that core of rogue operators is prepared to willfully sabotage the institution’s legal standing by trolling a public consumer affairs writer . . . as recklessly as the recklessly catastrophic convenience sedative cocktails with which her defenceless, distressed, disoriented little blind dog was repeatedly hammered for the convenience of socialising ICU staffers .

Of course, there’s one other possibility:

Maybe the left hand genuinely has no idea what the right hand is doing.

So maybe start there, Vice-Chancellor Venter. Maybe figure out how many dogs or other species of private fee-paying pets are leaving in a worse state than that in which they arrived . . . and include in that tally, those that don’t leave at all .

Then, if you isolate those causing that root problem , your actual reputational problem goes away all by itself.

With the exception of those you've already converted to your own internally profitable, torturous utilisation and then killed , of course.

Like Harry .

Pet Parents' Collective Experiences Reveal Pattern of Dangerous Clinical & Cultural Failure at NZ's Massey Companion Animal 'Hospital '

Sun, 07 Jun 2026 11:29:10 GMT

As I've Warned in Previous Articles, It Didn't Start with Harry and, If Something Isn't Done About Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka 'Companion Animal Hospital', It Won't End with Him, Either.

Since I began publishing my documented account of what was done to Harry at Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital" (and dear God, what wasn't done to him?), other pet owners have reached out.

Some by email through the site. Some face-to-face. Some by phone.

None of them knew each other. None of them knew me before they read my coverage. And none of them needed to compare notes — because the notes compared themselves.

What follows is an anonymised account of what they told me. Names, identifying details and specific circumstances have been withheld — partly to protect people who are still grieving (some still traumatised years later), partly because some of them were still trying to have Massey "hear" them and weren't ready to go on record until they had tried every possible formal channel (albeit they seemed to have already done so), partly because some fear what I didn't: Massey deploying the full force of its external legal services budget against them to shut them down.

And partly because the point isn't who they are. The point is what they experienced . And what they experienced, in case after case, mirrors what was done to Harry with a consistency that can only be described as deeply and culturally ingrained.

The ICU Ward Where Empathy Goes to Die . . . and the Template Accusation

One reader — a multi-pet owner who had several animals treated at Massey's Companion Animal Hospital over a period of time — contacted me after sharing my ICU article on her social media platform, where it received an estimated 40,000 views and a large number of horrified user comments. My article helped her draw daylight to her own experiences, following the nature of what she had endured from Massey's ICU staff with regard to her own pets.

She told me that on one occasion, with a dog in the ICU, she had been promised a progress update call from staff. When that call hadn't come by around 2am, she rang the hospital herself. When she was put through to the ICU, she could hear her dog crying loudly in distress in the background. The staff appeared unperturbed — and more interested in having a debate with her about the call than in attending to the dog.

What followed was a summoning. She was called into the hospital and placed in a room with two members of staff. She was accused of having distracted ICU staff for approximately 40 minutes, and told this was unacceptable. Her own phone records showed the call was a mere fraction of that duration. Massey's version of events was simply false — and she had the evidence to prove it.

One staff member went as far as to claim that a dog had died because of her distraction — placing the blame for that death squarely on the distressed pet owner who had simply called to check on her own pet.

The accusation — summoning a distressed pet owner into a room and blaming them for the institution's failures — appears to be a template response . . . at least for one specific staff member. I know this because a version of the same tactic was deployed against me by Dr Steffi Maja Jalava herself when I was desperately, and in vain, trying to find out what had happened to Harry's "remains" (it still pisses me off to the back teeth to use the words, "remains" and "ashes", about a beloved, treasured little dog who still should be very much alive) — implying that my call had compromised another patient's care, although stopping short of claiming an animal had actually died.

(And, just as an aside, when Practice Manager Pauline Nijman finally "responded" to my repeatedly unanswered emails about Harry's body and ashes, it wasn't with any answers. It was with a "Mother Superior" email informing me that her staff had "gone above and beyond. They had indeed. They had gone above and beyond - under her specific watch - to covertly, catastrophically, repeatedly and unnecessarily over-sedate Harry with a specifically contraindicated sedation agent; to secretly convert him from a private, paying patient into a (still-paying) teaching resource for owner-unconsented, invasive observational testing and filming on cell phones, and then to cook up a plot to maintain the catastrophic over-sedation so that he could be presented back to me later that afternoon as suddenly and mysteriously "neurologically failing" and apparently requiring immediate, non-negotiable "euthanasia".

When 'Euthanasia' Is the Easy Go-To Cover-Up Strategy

A lifestyle block pet had been given a terminal prognosis by a Massey farm animal vet, who recommended immediate euthanasia on the basis of a clinical assessment that a non-Massey vet subsequently identified as not only inaccurate, but as one that appeared designed to deflect from a prior clinical failure by the Massey vet.

The doubting owners sagely sought a second, non-Massey veterinary opinion. The loved pet lived in good health for another four years.

'Of Course He's Been Outside to the Toilet', Students Assured the Owners of A Dog So Sedated It Couldn't Stand

A dog being treated at Massey's ICU was brought through to its waiting owners unable to stand — collapsing to the floor.

The owners recognised immediately that it had been given a sedative. They asked whether the dog had been toileted recently — knowing that in its current state, it could not possibly have been walked outside.

The two students in charge of the dog assured them it had.

The claim was demonstrably false, but in an attempt to be believed, one of the students put her arms underneath the dog's belly and attempted to haul it to its feet to prove it could stand. It could not and kept collapsing back to the floor.

When 'Urgent' Means Nothing

A separate account described how an urgent diagnostic sample requiring international courier to a specialist laboratory sat unprocessed at Massey for weeks, despite repeated follow-up by the owners.

When the matter was finally escalated in writing, the response from Massey staff was dismissive — to the effect that the hospital had many competing demands and could not prioritise individual cases.

The sample was eventually sent . . . but with the obvious delay to the determination of a life-essential treatment plan.

'Some of Our Students Don't Like Noisy Dogs'

One account included a concerningly caustic comment made by a senior member of Massey's teaching staff — recounted verbatim by the pet owner who heard it — in response to a dog crying audibly in the ICU:

"It's just as well we don't have any students here right now. Some of them don't like noisy dogs."

A teaching hospital. Where some of the student vets apparently don't like noisy dogs. Their intolerance fully blessed and supported by the teaching staff.

You'd have to ask yourself why those "students who don't like noisy dogs" want to be veterinarians in the first place . . . and what sort of veterinarians they will actually be when released out into private clinics, where - God forbid - they might encounter a noisy dog or three.

The Ethics Committee Member Who Walked Away

Information also reached me — although I was unable to verify it independently — regarding a member of a Massey University ethics committee who had resigned, apparently in disgust at institutional practices.

Whether that resignation was from the committee specifically or from Massey University itself was unclear.

'We Regret It to This Day'

“Good luck with your investigation and I truly hope you do get people to tell you about their experiences and that Massey is held accountable for their terrible care of dogs."

A verbatim quote from a reader who contacted this platform through the website's contribution form.

She described taking her dog to Massey in 2022 on the recommendation of her vet. When she was collected following a procedure, "she was worse than when she had gone in".

Her obviously deeply loved "wee dog" died three weeks later.

In her own words: "Definitely feel your pain."

We exchanged several emails but she declined to speak further on record. Four years on, she remains too traumatised to revisit what happened: "The grieving took so long to get over and I don't want to relive it, hence why I would never get another dog."

(Editor's Note: I too am in the same place as this reader. I've had dogs all my life, from childhood until Harry, with almost no gaps. I adore dogs. I've given up career positions for them when they needed me more than I needed corporate life. But what Dr Steffi Maja Jalava and her evil cohorts did to Harry - and the thought that another dog would almost certainly end up being treated by a Massey graduate at some point during its life with all the associated risks - makes the entire concept untenable for me.)

The Cocked-Up Chemotherapy

A retail staff member in the Wairarapa region recounted, in a visibly distressed and tearful condition, the experience of having her dog treated for cancer at Massey's Companion Animal Hospital.

The dog had been receiving a course of chemotherapy. He was becoming progressively weaker — and she felt strongly that something was wrong beyond the cancer itself.

The dog's owner later learned from an external professional that the chemotherapy protocol being used was meant to follow a specific "time on, time off" pattern — a standard requirement of oncological treatment designed to allow the patient's body to recover between cycles.

She had never been told this and it certainly wasn't happening. The young staff handling her dog's treatment had administered it intensively and without the clinically mandated pauses — apparently without knowledge of, or regard for, the correct application of the protocol.

Her dog died.

(Editor's Horrified Note: What sort of a basic, fundamental institutional and clinical failure is that for any place of purportedly professional, qualified veterinary "treatment" and "care"?)

The Pattern Is the Point: It Evidences A Toxic Environment. And for Your Pets . . . Literally .

Again, these and other accounts came to me unsolicited. None of these people (or indeed any of the others I have since spoken to) knew each other.

They contacted me independently of each other, in direct response to my published documentation of what was done to Harry. Many specific elements of what they described, as readers following Harry's case will clearly see, mirror that documentation with a consistency that speaks for itself.

Communication failures that aren't so much "failures" as intentional and contemptuous information roadblocks.

Aggressive "euthanasia" recommendations that not only proved 100 percent unnecessary but that were designed, in actual fact, to obscure clinical cock-ups.

Potentially lethal levels of undisclosed convenience sedation administered without owner knowledge.

Junior, inexperienced staff conducting procedures way above their pay grades.

Urgent clinical matters left unattended for weeks.

A fundamental chemotherapy protocol error followed by the death of the dog.

And a senior staff member who, when a pet owner called in distress to check on her suffering animal, responded by accusing her of causing the death of another . . . which appears to be an emotionally manipulative habit deployed to achieve psychological superiority . . . in direct keeping with Massey's very own special brand of keeping its paying clients "in line".

This Is A CULTURE. And A Very, Very Dangerous One for Owners to Entrust Their Pets To.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. This is a culture . And a deeply embedded one.

If you need any more evidence of that, the many juvenile, taunting anonymous emails I have referred, in other articles, to having received from (very clearly) Massey insiders, have just been followed by another one. Quite literally, with flawless and perfect timing, as I was completing this article for tonight's publication. Real-time proof of a highly toxic culture in action.

Again, very obviously from a "clinical" staffer and one who had direct access to Harry's Massey records, it demonstrates appalling, fundamentally flawed veterinary "knowledge" and "training", as well as basic errors of logic spottable by the average 14-year-old. Or younger.

And all of which are beyond ludicrous in the face of the detailed evidence in my now 50+ articles, to say nothing of the 342-page evidential report I have submitted to the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit investigation team who, the anonymous emailer and his or her counterparts may be well assured, don't launch expensive and extensive, multi-month cruelty investigations based on a pet owner's "conspiracy theories" . . . the taunt with which this latest Massey masterpiece concludes i.e. inviting me to " get (my) knickers into even more of a twist and fall down an even deeper conspiracy theory".

No doubt, this Reader Feedback article on which I'm about to hit the Publish button, will send the anonymouses (singular or plural, who knows and who cares) into another defensive tailspin. And no doubt, Massey's highly compensated legal defence machinery and its protective industry insiders will attempt to dismiss these replicated client accounts as some collection of disjointed "conspiracy theories".

But they now have to face a very cold, very public reality: the "conspiracy theorists" are their own paying clients. And when those clients - who have never met and thus have never compared their experiences - report the exact same systemic failures independently of one another, the narrative ceases to be a "theory". It becomes an established, documented pattern .

Fellow pet owners, these are the individuals to which you are entrusting the care of your beloved pets behind closed doors.

But Wait. There's More.

I have yet more to disclose regarding my own experiences with this callous, cruel, incompetent veterinary hellhole.

Harry's predecessor was a majestic yet playful collie/Alsation cross, Yanni. A truly magnficent creature, and just like Harry, the apple of his Mummy's eye. A "toy boy" because he was almost never seen without one of his numerous soft toys in his mouth, which he would attempt to tease you with.

When Yanni developed a cancer, I was initially - for some months - making the long drive from the deep South up the island, over the inter-island ferry, and up to Massey, with he and his brother, Vette (a cheeky border collie/papillon cross who, thankfully, never having been taken anywhere near Massey, lived to 19.5 years of age).

Eventually the long, multi-day haul became too physically taxing, so I moved to Wellington to get Yanni near to Massey for treatment. No sooner had I moved and taken on a lease in addition to still owning property in the deep South, when - in asking the (middle-aged male) vet what naturopathic options might be available for Yanni's treatment, I was told swiftly and cruelly: "If that's a conversation you want to have, you can come and take your dog back right now."

Other delightful memories of Massey staff included the young (early to mid-20s) front counter receptionist, who - on the day I had to do the unthinkable concerning Yanni, and walked in clutching as many of his soft toys as I could carry - smirked sadistically at me, cruelly holding my tearful gaze all the way until I was out of her line of sight.

When Harry came into Massey's occasional "care", I eventually endeavoured to tell a senor staff member about that despicable event. She didn't want to know, dismissing me with an unconcerned, "Oh, we've got completely different staff on the front desk now,"

The Sadism, the Nastiness & the Psychological Cruelty (and the Clinical Cruelty) Is Right On Brand

Practice Manager Pauline Nijman absolutely didn't want to know.

Which makes a complete lie of the, " Oh, we've got completely different staff on the front desk now" flick-off, because it's EXACTLY the scene that repeated itself when I was called in to (as it turned out, give totally UNinformed consent for the totally UNnecessary, planned-by-Dr-Steffi-Jalava-and-co, fraud-based) clinical killing of my precious little Harry.

Want specifics, Nijman?

I know you don't, but have them anyway: Light/blondey coloured "big" hair, big glasses, somewhere between late 30s and early to mid-40s . . . and someone I hadn't seen on your front desk before. And a really nasty, wicked "smile". And a vibe you don't expect to find in a place of veterinary "care". Unless we're talking about Massey's "Companion Animal Hospital", of course.

There, it's completely on brand.

Fully Viable & Requiring Nothing More from Massey than the Rehydration for Which He Was Admitted: Clinical Proof Now with NZ Govt Investigators

Sun, 07 Jun 2026 04:54:15 GMT

Undoctoring Massey's Not-So-Masterful (& Substantially Fabricated) 'Clinical Summary'

Much to Massey's chagrin — and most especially their Legal & Governance department , the staff of which saw the need to intercept the "Hospital's" "Clinical Summary" when it had been about to be released to me (and that, even so, features numerous nonsensical entries, inconsistencies and obvious "doctoring" ) — I have now produced 13 pages of undeniable clinical evidence eviscerating their attempts to paint my dog, Harry, as some past-his-use-by-date, sad, suffering old thing.

I have painstakingly amassed all his recent — some as recent as 12 days before his fatal and highly regrettable admission to Massey for a simple rehydration protocol — and where relevant, slightly older specialists' records. All records, all full clinical examinations (including a full intake physical at his new primary vet together with extensive bloodwork) demonstrate with nil doubt or ambiguity that Harry was a perfectly viable and generally vibrant little dog who needed only what he was admitted to Massey for that fated night: a proper, clinically adequate, competent, rehydration protocol . . . oh, and not to be catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with a cocktail of contraindicated sedatives for the ICU night staff's convenience , and for the day staff's usage (literal torture) as a teaching mechanism and film subject .

This 13-page analysis has been formally submitted to the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit.

MPI's investigation is active and the evidence is documented .

And what can be said, without equivocation , is this:

Harry required nothing more than the simple rehydration procedure for which he was admitted.

They chose to give him something else entirely .

(And, in a deliberate move to prevent any complaints being laid against those involved, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is choosing to misappropriate its mandate and betray the trust of all pet owners by misdirecting its powers to the protection of the great unnamed, identity-retracted "they " . . . leaving this pet owner to have to painstakingly research and progressively identify the "they's" herself .)

Imagine If They Realised I'd Find Out: 'We Are Sorry for Your Loss.' Bullshit. You Were All Delighted & Relieved That It Went According to Plan

Sun, 07 Jun 2026 00:16:54 GMT

The 'Euthanasia' that I Later Learned Was NOT A 'Euthanasia' At All . . . But the Flawless, Final Execution of An Utterly Evil Pharmacologically-Engineered 'Strategy' by 'Dr' Steffi Jalava . . . and An Assistant . . . But WHO Was That Assistant?

Christina Searle of Massey University’s grossly inaptly-named “Companion Animal Hospital ” , I have questions for you.

BIG questions. And one way or another – especially since your employing institution is now the subject of an investigation by the Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Complex Cases Unit – I strongly suspect that one way or another, these questions WILL get answered.

The context for my questions relates directly to my activities on behalf of the MPI investigators i.e. I was asked to forward every communication and all materials Massey has provided (or, put more accurately, that I have thus far managed to extract ).

In the process of doing that, I trawled right back to the worst day of my life i.e. December 1 , when – as I now know – the killing of my precious little papillon, Harry (who had been admitted the prior evening for a straightforward rehydration procedure ), was preceded by his catastrophic, unnecessary and recklessly contraindicated overdosing with sedation cocktails by your midnight to morning ICU crew , which were then continued on into the next day by your day crew, for his conversion by your “teaching” staff into a university teaching and filming resource for students , before being then, after he was finished with by them, presented (or more, accurately, misrepresented) to me as having suffered some sudden “neurological” decline, with a two-hour coercion session (first by phone and then in a room alone with Massey's ICU high-pressure saleswoman, "Dr" Steffi Jalava) demanding I agree to his immediate “euthanasia”.

The 'Euthanasia' That Went Exactly According to Plan . . . Except that It WASN'T A 'Euthanasia' (As I Later Learned). It Was the Flawless Execution of A Plan that Required the Execution of My Dog.

It was an event that certainly had been planned. Meticulously, as far as extracting my (totally, uninformed) consent. It was planned, alright. Just not by me.

So, for the benefit of readers, that’s the context for the questions I am hereby putting to Christina Searle . . . and I put those questions with the complete frankness of stating that I do not know whether you were “Dr” Steffi Jalava’s young offsider that (a) took the photos you emailed me from your email address two days later, on December 3, or (b) whether you sent them purely in your administrator / nursing co-ordinator role that I see on the Massey website.

Yes, I see your photo, but no, I still don’t know whether or not that was you that took the photos and participated in the horror in the van that was the “euthanasia” that didn’t need to be. The execution of the plan that required the execution of my dog.

Firstly, I was in seven shades of emotional hell, as the loving and devoted owner of a completely normal, albeit dehydrated little dog that had been standing up strongly on his little back legs and crying loudly for human comfort the night before when ICU staff had been completely ignoring him and was now suddenly apparently neurologically fucked and needed to be destroyed immediately, I was in uncomprehending shock.

Secondly, you shared Jalava’s strange happy, heady energy and excitement and I didn’t want to look at you and have your face etched into my memory.

Thirdly, someone can look in a photo today very different to how they might have looked in real life yesterday.

Combine all that, and I don’t know if you were the happy, chirpy assistant that took the photos of a dog you MUST have known, HAD to have known, was NOT “dying” or terminally ANYTHING, but rather was j ust under massive, undisclosed sedation for use in multiple, unspeakably and unethically and unauthorised (by me, anyway) student "training" activities before being considered "finished with" and now a liability to the ICU's records (which were later falsified and a key component of his actual presence in the records, digitally deleted by someone with what is known as "God-view" access to confound any future possible investigation).

And I don’t know if it was you that took those “goodbye photos” knowing Jalava and your colleagues had willfully done your utmost to ensure that “goodbye” was necessary, and even then, knowing that he could possibly have been saved from what had been done to him if I’d been able to leave there and get him urgent overdose-rever sal treatment at an actual place of care and a normality of clinical environment.

And did you know (as, if you were Jalava's offsider, you must have) why she really threw my scarf around his foreleg before she would allow the photos to be taken . . . dishonestly claiming it was "for his dignity"? If you were that assistant, you must have known the truth (that I found out two weeks later when I came across the invoice that was posthumously emailed to me and had never been shown to me that night when I paid it) . . .that that heavy blue cast on his leg was actually - as can be seen here on my dissection of the invoice and its revealing and dastardly line items - a Dura Flow Coil. That is, a specialised, high-durability IV extension line, designed with a specific coiled architecture so that a patient in the ICU can move, stand up, and turn around in their cage without the line kinking or snapping. It's an expensive device built for a dog that is active, mobile, and recovering . (You don’t install a $200 MILA set on a dog you truly believe is neurologically fucked and "unfixable" - per Jalava's highly sophisticated "Clinical Summary" notes i.e. "I told her I can't fix him." You COULD have, Jalava, but the first step in that process would have been to rewind the clock and have decided not to have fucked him in the first place, you psychopathic monster.)

And I don’t know if you were the one who stood there beside Jalava as my precious little blind dog – upon realising you and Jalava were standing at the door of my vehicle where the deed was to be done – suddenly reared up on his strong little back legs like a bucking bronco and began literally screaming (but I sure as shit want to know what she and you or that assistant participated in that day that made him react like that) . . . and watched as Jalava instructed a very confused owner (me) to grab his coat and pull him down hard onto his stomach so she could lethally inject him . . . which she did at the speed of light before I could comprehend his sudden reactivity (which I now, post-humously, realise was him again trying to break through the sedation) and change my mind . . . disgustingly ripping the cap off the syringe with her teeth like an animal herself.

And did you know this . . . whichever equally evil bitch stood there and also witnessed what my own eyes and my subsequent understanding of standard veterinary protocols tell me: That by rushing the lethal injection without the necessary, calculated time required for the sedation to fully lock down his system, Jalava’s actions point directly to a rushed and internally chaotic execution? If you were a qualified practitioner, you had to have known that a standard two-stage termination relies entirely on giving the first-stage drugs proper time to fully circulate and completely disconnect the brain from sensory perception before the final agent is introduced.

But there was bugger-all time allowed for that, was there. Jalava compressed that timeline massively, denying Harry what should have been an internally calm, peaceful transition (albeit a transition he never needed to have), almost certainly leaving his heavily sedated but still-perceiving brain to endure the sudden, internal horror of a burning chemical entry and progressive respiratory suffocation. That must be exactly what explains the pained look I saw later on his little dead face.

And I am left to wonder if his last thoughts were of the fact that it was ME who was holding him down (under Jalava's wicked and deceitful instruction) when he was being forced to die in this chemically provoked, utter agony. A lifetime of loving him completely, of primal, protective "pet parenthood" . . . suddenly turned into a hell of killing him both senselessly and with unspeakable cruelty. What were his final thoughts of ME, his adored and trusted "Mummy", as his little light finally, and painfully, went out?

I don’t know if that was you, Christina Searle, or if you’re just the admin person that emailed the photos on the actual assistant’s behalf. That young vet nurse or student or whatever her role is or was, is someone else that is still on my radar to confirm the identify thereof. But that identification WILL be done.

Unlike Your Determination that Harry Was Going To Have An Abrupt End Date, this Accountability Mission I’m on Has NO End Date . Tell Your 'Colleagues' that From Me, Will You?

Now those are the core questions, but I have others.

Here they are . . . if it wasn’t you, please pass them to whoever it was that day. But – as an administrator and nursing co-ordinator, I would also like for you to ponder them yourself:

At what point in your veterinary training or nursing career did the human-animal bond — the very thing that almost certainly drew you to this profession in the first place — stop mattering? Research consistently shows that over 97 percent of students entering veterinary programs had childhood pets and were primarily motivated by a deep fondness for animals. What happened to that?

Massey's BVSc curriculum lists clinical competencies, diagnostic reasoning, anaesthesia, surgery, business management and legislative obligations. Where, specifically, is the module that teaches a student or a vet nurse to look at the person standing in front of them holding their dog and to understand - and to care about - what that bond actually means ?

A veterinary law firm has written that vets must be "vigilant" because pet owners increasingly "anthropomorphise" their pets. That's the legal profession's “technical term” for the insulting and convenient diminishment of the deep and real bond that I shared with Harry. A word that frames love as a liability risk. Is that the lens through which Massey trains its students to view pet owners like me? Perhaps you laugh your asses off in derision when we describe ourselves as “pet parents”. The sad irony is that – with the level of fees you charge – your primary clients are people that see themselves just exactly this way i.e. as "pet parents". And you’re not afraid to make a monetary meal of them for it, either . (I'm guessing, from the obviously insider anonymous emails I'm receiving from "@takearealitypill.com" and "@getgriefcounselling.com" and "@getagrip.com" etc etc etc, the majority of Massey's veterinary staff view us with the same special Massey brand of contempt.)

Is that the vet nurse — or if you are a student, the vet — you want to become? Someone who cannot be trusted not to participate in the torture and fraudulent, coerced killing of someone's deeply loved pet?

Is that the human being you want to be?

And also, a more fundamental and clinical question:

If you were indeed the young woman who assisted "Dr" Jalava (you know, the sophisticated "clinician" who rips the caps off of euthanasia syringes with her teeth to get the job done before the pet's owner has time to figure out what's actually going on) that afternoon — what was your exact clinical mandate and authorisation to be assisting at that "procedure" (if it could be termed that)?

(That is, to be doubly clear, the “procedure” that you turned into a completely unnecessary termination of a little dog who, instead of being discarded after having become a live "training" tool and video subject, should actually have still been in your “ICU” ward simply completing the 24-hour rehydration that he was admitted for, and also, to be noted, that you billed me for .)

Or is that another question Massey would prefer remained unanswered?

Wicked. Wicked. Wicked.

Whether it was you or not, I cannot begin to tell you the utter contempt I hold for you, for your “We are so sorry for your loss” line, Christina Searle . . . when it was Massey staff's own heinous plans and actions that very intentionally caused my "loss".

Your own colleagues, or the very staff that you “co-ordinate”, tortured a completely viable, sweet, loving, trusting, distressed and disoriented little blind dog (who, being a Sunday night, was in the vulnerable position of having had no primary referring vet upon admission, and whose high-standards owner was intensely disliked by Massey ), for 15 hours straight and then planned the fraudulent framing of their demand that he be killed immediately, without delay and without any independent input . . . along with everything else that went with the horror and the sheer evil of what was done to my precious pet . . . and by extension, me.

It brings a whole new meaning to "how do you sleep at night?"

Rot in hell with the rest of them.

Including your esteemed, twisted colleagues who sent me additional "happy snaps" i.e. the sadistic little circular cameos of Harry's tortured face after you had disconnected him from his IV rehydration fluids (after intentionally and repeatedly overdosing him with your special sedation cocktails so you could use him in your student "training" i.e. cruel, invasive "handling" and videos).

Or maybe it wasn't your esteemed colleagues. Maybe that was you ?

I look forward to finding out exactly who did what "in due course" (Massey's favorite undertaking but one it has nil intention, of its own accord, of applying now or in any definition of "due course".)

But the truth is on its way. I have far more tenacity for ensuring that, than Massey and its Venerable Dean Jon Huxley ever realised when he set the clock ticking on what he no doubt thought was a short, sharp, shiny and effective legal threat . . . the nil result and now uncontrollable continuation of which has probably since wiped out nearly half his "teaching hospital's" annual operating budget .

A Taste of What's Coming Up . . . Sneak Previews

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:52:16 GMT

The Veterinary 'Teaching' 'Hospital' that Thought It Could Wait Out This Determined Pet Parent . . . And Is Learning Otherwise

Above: Harry, Yours Truly, and Vette (Harry's big brother).

A Rare Live-and-in-Real-Time Case Study In Institutional Crisis & Ethics Management Gone Utterly Pear-Shaped . . . A Learning Opportunity for International PR & Marcoms Students

Rarely do students of Public Relations and Marketing Communications – which usually sit within the broader academic Business Studies certifications and course of study – get to watch an institutional PR, crisis and ethics management case study play out in real time. (Their tutors usually rely on well-worn, dusty old historic textbook examples.)

Even less frequently do students get to see an institutional, multi-stakeholder Public Relations disaster unfold in real time on an increasingly international stage.

What “Dr” Steffi Jalava, the sedation-slap-happy ICU attendants, practice manager Pauline Nijman, “Dean” Jon Huxley . . . and the rest of the broader, progressively-to-be-revealed heinous cast of characters who approved and oversaw the torture and termination of my beloved little blind dog after their commercial utilisation of him . . . failed to account for, is that his owner is completely unable to separate her private self from her professional perspectives .

She (me) is a veteran public relations and marketing communications operative and educator, and author of (I’ve actually lost count) upwards of 26 (at last count but that’s an outdated tally) published books (including tertiary-level textbooks) on a variety of components of Business to Business marketing and PR (and also consumer purchasing psychology). (Should have spent the University’s legal funds on profiling me BEFORE you killed my dog, Huxley and Venter . . . it’s a bit late now, you budget-eviscerating fools. Question for ethics students: Why is an institution that is actively gutting its own academic budgets and selling off assets spending stratospheric legal fees trying to shield a broken veterinary ICU?).

I’ll be beavering away in the background over time, in the interests of providing interested international Business Studies and marcoms tertiary students of crisis management, with fresh learning materials on what is on-track to become the worst-managed - and the most unethically -managed - international institutional PR and crisis management disaster of the 2020s.

This might even be one for the ages .

In parallel, I’ll be pulling back the curtain on the industry “regulator’s” (the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s) collusion with Massey’s senior management , and also the intentional ignorance of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Australian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) (RCVS) , to demonstrate to students how this crisis management disaster also became a high-profile global regulatory failure . . . dropping the entire notion of “academic accreditation” into the same poisoned chalice of Massey’s own wrongdoings.

This broader picture is central to any competent, full-spectrum case study: A true crisis management study doesn't look only at the origin of the fire ; it looks at how the surrounding infrastructure fails to ethically address it . That perspective is gold not only for Business Studies’ marcoms and public relations students, but also for those studying institutional ethics.

She Knew EXACTLY What She Was Doing . . . And That Made It 100X More Wicked

Her own academic research co-authorships on sedation and on "low-stress handling" (don't laugh; it's NOT funny) makes any desperate claim of ignorance regarding the suffering and impacts she was inflicting upon Harry, 100% impossible as a defence.

Massey's 'Companion Animal Hospital': The Upfront Promotional Spiel vs The Backroom Reality

What Massey promises pet owners. What Harry got. And some of what your own dog might be getting, behind closed doors, too.

Massey University's Enduring, Vertically Integrated Culture of Cruelty & Cancellation

It didn't start with Harry. And without this ongoing campaign to insist on accountability both at the institutional AND at the individual level, it won't end there either.

The Missing Shift: Who Set the Ball Rolling?

Someone hammered Harry just 1 hour and 26 minutes apart with severe specifically contraindicated and totally unnecessary convenience sedatives . . . catastrophic overdoses each one. Someone knows who.

PS: A Taste of What's Coming Up for You, Too, New Zealand's Massey University & Your Very Inaptly-Named Companion Animal 'Hospital'

To the jeering insiders - "Hugh Janus" and the like who've courageously hidden their ridicule and taunts behind their anonymous "@takearealitypill.com" and "@getgriefcounselling.com" etc etc hilarious (and hilariously juvenile) email addresses - and to the very specific staff who smart-assedly sent me your cruel little cameo images of Harry's tortured face from your students' video productions to mock his pain and mine . . . are you laughing now?

MPI investigators, accreditation bodies, other veterinary teaching institutions internationally, Law Society investigations, ethics interest groups . . . Harry's pain and your evil being read in every corner of the globe (including major international hubs of veterinary academia) . . .

Still want to laugh me off as a silly, grieving woman with a dead dog?

Or is it finally starting to dawn on you that what the outside world now sees - and very clearly indeed - is an institution that tortured a defenceless little blind dog (and that has very likely done the likes many times before) over a sustained, relentless 15-hour period, then coerced his none-the-wiser heartbroken owner to let them kill him and had her actively participate under heinous false pretences in that intensely traumatic and, as she later discovered, completely senseless killing, covered up the crime, lost his ashes and tormented his owner over it, hidden the identities of all involved, continues to withhold core medical records, weaponised the industry's regulator, tried unsuccessfully to bully a grieving owner-and-client with legal threats . . .

. . . and is now being systematically dismantled article by article, regulatory complaint by regulatory complaint, on two platforms across multiple countries and in front of an audience of many and varied categories of reader, each of which is drawing in more and more horrified readers every day?

Rescue, Compassion and Courage vs Recklessness, Cruelty and Cowardice

Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:54:24 GMT

Compassion vs Cruelty . . . Spot the Difference

Today, I was in the process of checking on the background of several rescue and rehoming organisations for “ The Harry Homing Mission: A Home for Every Pet” initiative launched to save lives in response to Massey University’s Companion Animal "Hospital"'s Dr Steffi Jalava and associates having intentionally, heinously, unspeakably cruelly, and deceptively, taken the life of my own pet . . . my beloved little papillon, Harry.

The rescuers in many of these organisations can only be described as angelic beings disguised as human beings, but with an inner core of steel.

I’ve worked in a voluntary marketing support capacity for the pet rescue world on and off since 2003, when I launched Operation Toby . . . a much larger and much more comprehensive (but exclusively Australian and New Zealand) version of what I intend the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics’ (IIIVE.org’s) Harry Homing Mission to become – albeit the Harry Homing project will be a global index. (After several years and a massive database, Operation Toby, in the “Web 1.0” environment, finally succumbed to the overwhelming then-expense of having to pay commercial website development fees every time a listing needed to be added.)

A video on one of the rescue group’s (Los Angeles's Hope for Paws https://www.hopeforpaws.org/ ) website, depicted in heartrendingly graphic detail, one of the worst cruelty (yet thankfully, successful rescue) cases I’ve seen for a while, and one of the most heroic rescue missions. Yes, there are many worse, but this puppy had not only been brutalised in general, but had also had one of its back feet hacked off, before being thrown 30 feet down a culvert into a body of water.

Remarkably, little Jordan (yes, you read that right) survived that. And even more remarkably, witnesses or passersby called the Hope for Paws rescuers in time for them to get straight there and conduct an equally remarkable rescue mission . . . which was followed by an equally swift and remarkable life-saving veterinary mission . . . surgery, blood transfusion, intensive care, and recovery.

Rescuers' Determination to Save the Almost Unsaveable vs Massey's Determination to Destroy the Perfectly Viable

And I marvelled . . . and not in a good way, at how the smarts, strategy and commitment of those rescuers and that veterinary crew, were equalled in a wickedly counter-opposing way, by the cunning, guile and determination of Dr Steffi Maja Jalava and the “team” (whose identities I have had to research for myself, given Massey's systematic redaction of names from all thus-far-extracted records) that she "led" as they c atastrophically and repeatedly overdosed with a contraindicated, unnecessary cocktail of potent sedatives , then sadistically conducted invasive student participation procedures on (against my numerous-times forbiddance), and psychopathically filmed in the resultant state of pharmacological collapse, my precious little blind Harry – torturing him for the entire 15 hours of his fated “stay”.

At the end of which, Jalava got me in a room by myself and – with absolutely no disclosure of Harry’s sedated state whatsoever – hammered me mercilessly with a wickedly constructed false diagnosis and all manner of “prognoses” until she found the one that would finally get me to sign a “euthanasia” “consent” form . . . heinously misrepresenting his desperately over-sedated state as some vague “neurological” decline or event .

And I further marvelled, at how – by extreme contrast – those rescuers were running on the smell of an oily rag of goodhearted donations and quite likely their own personal funds . . . while Massey’s Companion Animal ‘Hospital’ practice manager, Pauline Nijman, presides over a billing culture that takes every opportunity to inflate a client's invoice —including after they’ve already killed the client’s pet.

Imagine what the $1236.84 I paid for the 15 hours of “care” (with no food, water or toileting, and being billed for a 24-hour rehydration protocol they disconnected him from after 8.5 hours for their invasive student activities upon him and cell phones filming of it ) that resulted in Harry’s torture and equally torturous and totally-without-cause, fully intentional killing, could have done under the prudent and ethical stewardship of a rescue organisation like the one these brave, responsive and heart-of-gold rescuers give their time and devotion to.

It’s the cruelest of ironies, isn’t it?

Those who are paid handsomely (and make sure they extract even more than they are legally entitled to take ), are those who operate with reckless abandon, cruelty and no accountability and get to do so strictly behind closed (ICU) doors . . . while those who operate almost pennilessly, with compassion and courage in its most unadulterated form, operate with a degree of transparency that is on open display for the whole world to see.

Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital Commits Multiple Breaches of New Zealand's Veterinary Code (And More)

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:46:13 GMT

UPDATE: Since the initial January 17 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , many additional breaches of multiple Acts and professional Codes have revealed themselves in the course of this ongoing investigation. These will be covered in a forthcoming, fully updated version of this article.

Is the VCNZ's 'Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians' A Document to Be Taken Seriously . . . Or Isn't It?

When we entrust our animals to a "teaching hospital", we expect the highest standard of clinical ethics.

We do not expect to have our pets convenience-sedated without our knowledge or consent and in place of the big-fee ICU care we’re paying for; we don't expect life-saving corrective treatment to be withheld to instead optimise their value to the organisation as a flacid training aid; we don’t expect to be coerced into ending our pets’ lives on the basis of false diagnoses , we don’t expect clinical duplicity and financial opportunism in charging practices ; we don’t expect to be mercilessly and heartlessly stonewalled and sent around in circles in a one hour, 3 minutes and 7 second phone call that terminates with being cut off in the process of supposedly being transferred multiple times (hear below audio file of phone call to Massey) while trying to track down our pet's ashes; we don’t expect to have our pets’ ashes lost or “disposed of” when we’re waiting for them to be returned , and we don’t expect to be mercilessly and heartlessly stonewalled when we are trying to ascertain where our pets’ ashes actually are .

Following a forensic review of the clinical timeline and the "smoking gun" invoice associated with the death of my dog, Harry, I am formally documenting a series of what I contend are egregious breaches of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct, the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act, and the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020.

I will start with the most egregious and genuinely sinister of all the breaches and contraventions:

Breach 1: Multiple Breaches Related to Observation & Documentation In Place of Emergency Corrective Care Following A Catastrophic Drug Reaction

Massey veterinary staff and/or students didn't just 'fail' Harry; they exploited him .

Between the hours of 1am and 9am, they observed a dog in a catastrophic, drug-induced crisis and chose to pick up their phones to video him in place of providing emergency life-saving corrective treatment.

Staff and students chose documentation over de-escalation and taking any action whatsoever to save my dog from the severe and readily visible consequences of their drug administrations.

This is not just clinical negligence; it is a total collapse of professional, ethical, and legal duty . It moves this case from an overdose born of negligence or recklessnes, to one of malpractice, overt cruelty, through the intentional withholding of life-saving care for institutional gain .

1. The VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct

Massey staff and students violated the Codes' most sacred principles:

The "First Responsibility" Rule: "A veterinarian's first responsibility is to the animal." By prioritising "observational studies" (the 8 videos) over emergency corrective treatment for a drug reaction, they fundamentally ignored this responsibility.

Competence and Care: Failure to recognise and immediately treat a known contraindicated reaction to 200mg of Gabapentin in a renal patient.

Informed Consent: They did not have consent to use Harry as a "teaching specimen" while he was in a clinical crisis (or at all.)

2. The Animal Welfare Act 1999

The below moves the matter from one of professional standards to one of criminal liability:

Section 12 (Obligation to Alleviate Pain/Distress): An owner or person in charge (the ICU staff) must take reasonable steps to alleviate any pain or distress being suffered by the animal.

The Breach: Withholding treatment to "document" the reaction for students is a proactive failure to alleviate distress. It is, by definition, cruelty.

3. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993

I paid for a service (rehydration). Massey staff delivered a pharmacological collapse and unauthorised documentation:

Section 28 (Reasonable Care and Skill): A 1000% overdose (effectively for the rate of reduction that should have been worked to, even IF staff had had my permission to sedate him, which they most certainly did not) and the subsequent failure to treat it is a total failure of "reasonable care and skill".

Section 29 (Fitness for Particular Purpose): The purpose of admission was care, not "observational study". Using him as a teaching aid is a "substantial failure" of the service contract - and one for which I paid handsomely, as the invoice shows.

4. Breach of Bailment (Property Law)

In NZ law, a pet is "property" (Bailment). When I entrusted Harry to the ICU and other Massey representatives, they had a legal duty to return him in the same or better condition:

The Breach: They used my "property" in a way that was inconsistent with my instructions . I instructed "rehydration"; they performed "unauthorised pharmacological experimentation and documentation".

5. The Privacy Act 2020 (Rules 6, 9, & 10)

Rule 6 (Access): Stalling the release of the "original" / primary records.

Rule 9 (Retention/Security): If students used personal cell phones to record Harry, that data is unmanaged and insecure.

Rule 10 (Limits on Use): U sing personal information (Harry's clinical state) for a purpose (teaching) other than what it was collected for (treatment).

Breach 2: Failure of Informed Consent (VCNZ Code Clause 2.1 & 2.8)

The Code: "Veterinarians must ensure that the client has a clear understanding of the animal’s condition . . . to enable the client to make an informed decision."

On the morning of December 1st, my dog, Harry, was administered 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax. This was done without my knowledge or authorisation, and without any need as he was not suffering pain or being prepared for any surgery.

Most critically, Gabapentin is a drug that relies almost exclusively on renal (kidney) excretion. To administer this drug to a senior dog—especially one whose blood results Massey was in the process of auditing for kidney function—is a direct violation of basic pharmacological safety. Had they consulted me, they would have known that Harry suffered from kidney disease, making the administration of Gabapentin not just a risk, but a clinical certainty for toxic accumulation.

(It should be noted that I had been in a lengthy phone discussion with Steffi around 11am that daty, when she had phoned to persuade me – most unexpectedly – to consent to the euthanisation of Harry. She never once mentioned that she had already administered 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax – or any such sedation of any kind.)

Furthermore, Harry was a senior dog and a dog who had been brought in the night before suffering from dehydration – two specific circumstances in which these drugs would have a greater than normal sedating and other enduring and undesirable effects. Further still, because I had not been consulted about this convenience-sedation, there was no opportunity for me to have advised the vet that Harry had, two months prior, had a hyper-reaction to Gabapentin and had been in a state of severe ataxia for more than 48 hours after its administration at low doses by the highly irresponsible local vet, South Wairarapa Vets, who didn’t bother to check for contraindications of the heavy duty sedative they were administering to Harry. While they failed, the country’s national veterinary teaching hospital should certainly conduct this fundamental, base-level due diligence.

When I arrived, the vet, "Steffi", presented Harry’s drug-induced ataxia (stumbling and vacancy) as a terminal "neurological event." However, she failed to disclose that Harry was under this heavy, unauthorised sedation.

*It should be noted that I still have not been informed, and that Massey is currently withholding Harry’s clinical records and all related information I have requested under the Privacy Act 2020. The only reason I am now aware of this falsified diagnosis is that I referred back to, and researched, the line items on the hospitalisation’s emailed receipted invoice.

Thus, the Massey vet, “Steffi”, suppressed the "clear understanding" required by law – and I was, to my now-greatest regret, coerced under these false pretences, into consenting to a killing based on a drug-induced "false positive" diagnosis .

(Harry’s life was terminated for NO good reason, and I, having participated in what I belatedly know was a completely unnecessary killing, am suffering traumatic levels of guilt and grief. For Steffi, the vet, it was “just another day at the office”, using whatever means to bend a pet owner’s will to hers. For me, it was the last and saddest day of the most precious chapter of my life – and the days since have been the most traumatic, as I realise the fraud I was subject to and what was so unnecessarily sacrificed as a result of it.)

Breach 3: Further Breach of Informed Consent (VCNZ Clause 1.4)

Under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct (Clause 1.4) , veterinarians are legally and ethically required to obtain informed consent .

The VCNZ’s official Technical Advice on Informed Consent is crystal clear on what this requires. To obtain informed consent, a vet must:

Discuss the range of treatment options available.

Discuss the risks, benefits, and costs of each option.

Discuss alternatives , including the option of no treatment or referral for a second opinion.

I was given NO alternative options for Harry's treatment. The only "treatment" was "euthanasia".

This was not just a failure that resulted in the execution of their overtly preferred option (and of Harry), in failing to disclose any options, or offer the opportunity for me to obtain a second opinion (albeit had they offered this and I had sourced it from an external clinic, the fact that the truth of Harry's heavily sedated state vs the Massey vet's "neurological event" narrative would have been revealed LINK TO GABAPENTIN GAMBLE ARTICLE), they violated the mandatory standards of their profession.

By withholding the options for stabilisation or any other form of treatment, they ensured that the "consent" I gave was based on a false narrative. Legally and ethically, if consent isn't informed, it doesn't exist.

The claim that "there are no alternatives" is not merely a clinical opinion; in this context, it is a structural breach of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct .

To satisfy Clause 1.4 of the Code's Technical Advice on Informed Consent , to satisfy this legal and ethical requirement, a clinician is obligated to discuss "alternatives, including the option of no treatment."

By stating there were zero alternatives, the Massey clinicians effectively bypassed the informed consent process. Informed consent is a mandatory process of transparency; it cannot exist where the options for stabilisation, referral, or palliative care are suppressed. In the absence of this information, the "consent" obtained for Harry's euthanasia was clinically and legally invalid.

Crucially, the VCNZ Technical Advice on Informed Consent mandates that a veterinarian must provide sufficient information to allow a client to make a " rational decision". By withholding the fact that Harry was under peak pharmacological influence during the supposed "terminal" diagnosis, the ICU staff denied the owner the biological truth required to make a rational choice, rendering the "'consent" null and void.

Breach 4: Professional Negligence & Duty of Care (VCNZ Standard of Care)

The Code: "Veterinarians must act in a professional manner . . . and provide an appropriate standard of care."

Harry was a blind, senior patient. After he was taken from me and out to the ICU ward, I insisted on seeing him one last time for the night in his cage, and taking some toys to him. I found him disoriented and vocalising loudly in distress, while staff engaged in jovial social conversation and completely ignoring him, despite few other patients being in the ICU and his being just meters away from them.

When expressing my own distress over this and the fact that he was standing up reaching out through the bars of the cage in a manner that could have seen a disoriented blind dog break his legs had he not pulled them in while turning, the attending vet simply assured me that “everyone here loves animals” – while the two ICU personnel continued to ignore him and my own distress over the scene.

This is a direct failure of the Code’s Duty of Care clause. Furthermore, the use of "convenience-medication" to quiet a distressed animal rather than providing human comfort is a violation of the basic tenets of veterinary professionalism.

Breach 5: Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (Fair Trading Act 1986)

The Law: Prohibits conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive.

The vet, Steffi’s, unsubstantiated and misleading diagnosis of an "unfixable" neurological event – while Harry was at the metabolic peak of a pharmaceutical pincer effect – is a textbook case of misleading conduct. To present a drug-induced state as a natural and rapid terminal decline is to deceive the consumer into an irreversible "purchase" (the euthanasia service).

Principle 2: Communication and Consent

The core of this principle is that veterinarians must maintain trust by being open, honest, and providing a clear path for owners to make informed decisions.

Clause 2.1 (Clear Understanding): "Veterinarians must ensure that the client has a clear understanding of the animal’s condition and the options for treatment... to enable the client to make an informed decision."

Forensic Conflict: By suppressing the fact that Harry was under heavy, contraindicated sedation while claiming he was in a spontaneous "neurological event," the vet, “Steff”, prevented me from obtaining a clear understanding of his actual condition.

Clause 2.8 (Accurate and Complete Information): "Veterinarians must provide accurate and complete information to clients."

Forensic Conflict: The omission of the 100mg Gabapentin and Prevomax administration during my hour-long phone call and subsequent one-to-two-hour long in-person consultation is a direct violation of the requirement to provide "complete" information.

Clause 2.3 (Informed Consent): This requires veterinarians to obtain consent for any procedure or treatment, which includes being transparent about the risks and side effects of medications.

Forensic Conflict: Administering high-dose sedatives to a renal-compromised geriatric patient without prior authorisation – and then using the side effects of those drugs as a reason for euthanasia—constitutes a fraudulent induction of consent.

Breach 6: Financial Opportunism & Misrepresentation (Consumer Guarantees Act)

The Law: Services must be provided with reasonable care and skill.

The Evidence: The emailed invoice I belatedly located reveals a chilling contradiction. I was charged $198.38 for a "Mila Dura Flow Coil" – a specialised piece of equipment designed for long-term stabilisation and mobility in a recovering patient. Steffi, the vet, had called me at approximately 11am that day and insisted that Harry must be “euthanased”.

You do not install "Gold Standard" recovery equipment on a dog you have already marked for death. This is a failure to provide services with the "honesty" expected under the Act.

Breach 7: Informed Consent, Non-Therapeutic Intervention & Other Associated Breaches

A critically ill (and private, fee-paying) patient being subjected to repeated, invasive examinations for teaching purposes (as can be readily ascertained from the records of Harry's ICU overnight hospitalisation (primarily for rehydration) - unrelated to their primary reason for admission (glaucoma, retinal detachment, dental examinations etc etc) - points to a significant breach of professional and ethical standards.

When a veterinary hospital performs procedures that are non-therapeutic and unrelated to the presenting emergency, they risk violating Section 2 of the VCNZ Code (Informed Consent) and Part 6 of the Animal Welfare Act (Teaching Protocols) . By failing to prioritise the patient's immediate comfort and stability over "teaching value", the institution is in clear breach of their fundamental statutory duty to minimise "unnecessary distress" as defined under Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act .

In veterinary medicine, the "standard of care" is fundamentally built on the principle that every diagnostic or physical intervention must be performed for the direct benefit of the patient. Subjecting a vulnerable animal to non-essential procedures like glaucoma testing, retinal exams, or dental assessments while they are in acute crisis (such as renal failure or drug toxicity) constitutes several distinct failures:

Breach of Informed Consent: Veterinary teaching hospitals have a heightened duty to disclose when a patient will be used for student instruction. If an owner provides consent for "emergency care," that does not extend to "unrelated teaching demonstrations." Performing invasive checks that do not inform the immediate treatment plan without explicit permission is a failure of the contractual and ethical agreement between the clinician and the owner.

Failure of Harm Minimisation: For a patient already suffering from physiological stress, every instance of handling, restraint, or light stimulation (in the case of eye exams) increases cortisol levels and metabolic demand. In a patient whose system is struggling to clear toxins, these "teaching" moments are not neutral; they are actively detrimental to the patient’s stability.

Professional Misconduct (Unnecessary Distress): Most professional codes of conduct, including those overseen by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ), mandate that practitioners minimize distress. If the clinical record shows a series of exams that had zero impact on the final diagnosis or treatment of the primary complaint, it suggests the patient was being used as a "teaching model" rather than being treated as a patient.

Incorporating this into a public account adds a vital layer to the investigation: it shifts the focus from a "medical error" to a "medical exploitation." It suggests that while the patient was in his most vulnerable state, the institution prioritised academic data-gathering over clinical compassion and the specific duty of care owed to that individual animal.

Under New Zealand law and professional regulations, the standards for informed consent and the use of animals for non-therapeutic teaching purposes are governed by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct and the Animal Welfare Act 1999 .

Below are the specific clauses and legal sections relevant to a breach involving non-therapeutic intervention and the use of a patient for teaching without specific consent.

1. VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct: Section 2 (Informed Consent)

The VCNZ sets the professional standards that all veterinarians must follow. Failure to adhere to these is considered professional misconduct.

Clause 2.1 (The Decision-Making Process): "Veterinarians must provide clients with enough information, in a way they can understand, to make an informed decision about the care and treatment of their animal."

Clause 2.2 (Scope of Consent): Consent must be obtained before any treatment or procedure is carried out. This implies that consent given for "emergency stabilization" does not automatically cover unrelated diagnostic procedures (like dental or glaucoma checks) if they are not clinically indicated for the emergency.

Clause 2.6 (Discussion of Options): "Veterinarians must discuss with the client the range of reasonable treatment options, the prognosis for each, and the estimated costs." If a procedure is for teaching purposes and not for the patient's "reasonable treatment," it must be disclosed as such.

2. Animal Welfare Act 1999: Part 6 (Research, Testing, and Teaching)

This is the primary legislation governing the use of animals for any purpose other than direct clinical benefit.

Section 80 (Definition of Teaching): Defines "teaching" as the use of an animal for the purpose of illustrating a principle or providing training.

Section 82 (Requirement for Ethical Approval): Any person using an animal for teaching purposes must do so under a "Code of Ethical Conduct" approved by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

The Three Rs (Section 80): Teaching institutions are legally required to adhere to the "Three Rs"—Replace, Reduce, and Refine . "Refinement" means that if an animal is used for teaching, the procedures must be refined to minimize pain and distress. Subjecting a critically ill patient to non-essential exams (glaucoma/dental) could be argued as a failure to "refine" the teaching method to protect the animal’s welfare.

3. Animal Welfare Act 1999: Section 10 (Obligation to Alleviate Pain or Distress)

Clause 10: This section mandates that the person in charge of an ill or injured animal must ensure that the animal receives treatment that "alleviates any unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress".

The "Unnecessary" Threshold: If examinations are performed that are "totally unrelated to the reason for admission" (non-therapeutic), any distress caused by the restraint or the procedure itself may be classified as "unnecessary" under this Act.

4. VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct: Section 1 (Standard of Care)

Clause 1.1 (Animal Welfare): "Veterinarians must make the health and welfare of animals their first consideration."

Clause 1.2 (Professional Judgement): "Veterinarians must ensure that their professional judgement is not influenced by self-interest or the interest of others." In a teaching environment, using a patient for "teaching value" over the patient’s immediate need for rest and recovery can be seen as allowing the "interests of others" (students/institution) to override the veterinarian's duty to the animal.

5. Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (Service Standards)

While not a veterinary code, this Act applies to the "service" provided by the clinic.

Section 28: Services must be provided with "reasonable care and skill."

Breach Argument: Providing "teaching services" on a patient without consent, while the owner is paying for "emergency clinical services," constitutes a failure to provide the service agreed upon with the required professional care.

Under Section 28 of the CGA , services must be provided with 'reasonable care and skill.' Administering a drug that is medically contraindicated for a patient’s documented condition (renal failure) is a fundamental failure of professional skill. This constitutes a breach of the statutory guarantee of service quality.

Breach 8: Indication of Wrongful ‘Disposal’ of Remains & Lack of Any Communication or Accountability (VCNZ Code Clause 1.13)

The Code: "Veterinarians must ensure that the remains of deceased animals are handled with respect and in accordance with the owner's wishes."

The Breach: Massey’s failure to maintain a verifiable chain of custody for Harry’s remains – leading to the claimed “disposal” of his ashes and the loss of his personal effects (gold) – is a direct violation of Clause 1.13.

Further, under the Consumer Guarantees Act, the hospital also failed to ensure the service of "remains handling" was provided with reasonable care and skill, resulting in wrongful disposal (albeit a pivot position that this claim had not been made at all, and the resultant refusal to take any actions to verify the authenticity of what were subsequently claimed to be Harry’s ashes).

The Companion Animal Hospital has taken the stance that Harry’s body was handed over to an external company and this it had no responsibility for any part of the matter, including for the conveyance of the correct communication of the owner’s (my) wishes. Meantime, the cremation company is insisting that they were told I “didn’t want Harry back”. See " ARE THESE HARRY’S ASHES OR NOT? "

Breach 9: Records Integrity & Transparency

The current delay in releasing Harry’s full clinical records, metadata, and CCTV footage – now being handled by their "Legal and Governance" department – suggests an attempt to sanitise the audit trail. Under the Privacy Act 2020, an individual has a right to their information without "sanitisation”.

Furthermore, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct states that veterinary records must be released “as soon as practicable” upon an owner’s request.

Breach 9 (Continued): Integrity of Records: The Prohibition of Investigative 'Sanitisation' (VCNZ Clause 1.7 & Privacy Principle 6)

The Code: VCNZ Code Clause 1.7 explicitly requires that clinical records be "accurate, contemporaneous, and permit another veterinarian to take over the case."

Furthermore, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct states that veterinary records must be released “as soon as practicable” upon an owner’s request.

Any attempt to alter, redact, or "cleanse" a clinical record before release constitutes an interference with privacy under Section 66 of the Act and a severe professional breach of clinical record integrity.

Under VCNZ Clause 1.7 , records must be 'accurate and contemporaneous.' I am formally demanding the Digital Audit Trail (Metadata) for Harry’s ICU records. This is to verify that the clinical notes were entered at the time of the events and not retrospectively 'curated' to justify a terminal narrative that contradicts the physical evidence of Harry’s state.

Breach 10: Institutional Obstruction and the Failure of Professional Respect (VCNZ Code Clause 1.11)

The Code: "Veterinarians and their staff must communicate effectively and respectfully with clients."

The Evidence: Below is the 1 hour, 3 minute and 7 second phone call to Massey I made in an endeavour to speak to an appropriate senior personnel member, after the Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, repeatedly refused to acknowledge my emails to determine the whereabouts of Harry’s remains.

Furthermore, when I managed to escalate the matter by virtue of researching the email address of the “Head of the School of Veterinary Science”, Jon Huxley, he summarily refused any assistance whatsoever. This institutional refusal to engage with a grieving client (with a well-justified reason for seeking communication and clarity) is a documented breach of the professional requirement for respectful communication.

Breach 11: Deliberate and Continuing Delay in the Release of Records (Privacy Act Principle 6 & OIA 1982)

The co-ordinated delay in releasing clinical records WAITING, MASSEY . . . What's Hiding In the 75 Percent of Video Footage You Refuse to Release? represents a breach of Privacy Act Principle 6 (Right of access to personal information) and the Official Information Act 1982, which requires a decision on requests be made and communicated "as soon as reasonably practicable" (especially under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct) and no later than 20 working days.

By moving the request to "Legal and Governance" without providing the data, Massey is using bureaucratic delay as a tool of information suppression.

Breach 12: The Digital Blockade – Organised Suppression of Communication and Agency

Massey’s suspected role in the " d igital blockade" of my communications and broadscale “poisoning” of my email address (if my strong suspicion, based on the equally strong indications, is correct) constitutes an active interference with an individual's right to seek and impart information.

Under the Privacy Act 2020, intentionally obstructing an individual in the exercise of their rights is a significant breach (Section 212: Interference with Privacy).

An organised industry or internet-wide security filters blockade takes this breach to an entirely new level. Most critically, as a public institution, Massey is bound by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Section 14), which protects the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds. A "digital blockade" intended to isolate and silence a journalist is a direct assault on these constitutional protections.

Breach 13: Statutory Obstruction and Interference with Access (Privacy Act 2020, Section 58 & Section 66)

The Law: Section 58 of the Privacy Act 2020 mandates that an agency must provide access to information in the manner preferred by the requester (e.g., digital copies) unless it would "unreasonably" interfere with the agency's operations or prejudice the interests of others.

The Evidence: Massey’s refusal to provide digital copies of the remaining 75% of Harry’s video records—insisting instead on a "controlled environment" viewing on-site—is a direct breach of this section. Given Massey’s technological capacity to perform standard redactions, this refusal is not a matter of "privacy" or "efficiency," but a calculated tactic to prevent independent forensic review and expert scrutiny. This constitutes an "Interference with Privacy" under Section 66 by creating an unreasonable barrier to the data, effectively shielding the hospital’s actions from outside oversight.

The Paper Trail: Reclaiming Agency and Rejecting Institutional Familiarity

The following email exchange between myself and the Massey University Governance and Assurance Office (Privacy Officer) illustrates the institution’s attempt to manage the situation through "first-name" familiarity while simultaneously stalling the release of critical evidence. It highlights my rejection of their "controlled" viewing terms and the formal demand for the digital release of the 75 percent of withheld 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.

The 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:

Christmas Day (25 December 2025)
Boxing Day (26 December 2025)
Summer Holiday (27 December to 15 January 2026)
New Years Day (1 January 2026)
Waitangi Day (6/2/2026)

Notwithstanding the formal deadline for our response listed above, I note the clinics response to you on the 6th 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

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.

Sincerely, Jordan Kelly

A Call for Institutional Accountability

Massey University’s incoming Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter, must decide: is this the "brand promise" Massey intends to keep?

A promise of convenience-based sedation, coerced “euthanasia” based on a fraudulent diagnosis, no accountability (and a seeming lack of processes related to the release of bodies to external cremation services), and the digital suppression of whistle-blowing pet owners?

I am not just a grieving pet owner. I am both a longstanding marketing professional with an extensive international background, and also a journalist with years of experience “in the trenches”. Yet, I have never witnessed anything as egregious as the set of circumstances that resulted in the coerced and unnecessary killing of my precious dog, Harry, nor the ongoing stonewalling and cover-ups in progress, and nor the loss of a pet’s ashes.

These are not "errors in judgment"; they are documented breaches of the professional and legal codes that not only govern every veterinarian in New Zealand but that should represent the most minimal baseline expected of an international teaching hospital.

Will the Veterinary Council of New Zealand Be the Watchdog It’s Mandated to Be . . . or the Institutional Guard Dog the More Cynical Among Us Have Come to Expect of Our Public Sector Regulatory Bodies?

Meantime, it is no secret that public sector and industry watchdogs have an unfortunately well-deserved reputation for acing more in the capacity of “guard dogs” of the very agencies and institutions they are meant to ensure uphold regulated, mandated and rightfully expected standards.

That unfortunate reality is central to my reasoning in producing this “audit” of breaches . . . which, given that I am not a regulator myself, is likely very “light-on” in its list of Massey’s failures.

READ MY OPEN LETTER TO VCNZ CHIEF EXECUTIVE, IAIN MCLACHLAN, AND MY DEMAND FOR A NEUTRAL & COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION AND THE UNREDACTED PUBLICATION THEREOF.

I, and international accreditation and rankings organisations, will watch with interest to see if Massey’s egregious conduct will be given the quintessential “5D” protectionist treatment i.e. 1) Delay 2) Defer 3) Deny 4) Defend 5) Dismissed.

For the sake of all dedicated pet owners everywhere, let’s remain for the moment, in fervent hope that such will not be the approach applied to the Harry Kelly Case.

The Role of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) is a statutory regulatory body established by law (the Veterinarians Act 2005) to protect the public interest by ensuring veterinarians are competent and fit to practice, acting as the official guardian for the profession. While it functions under government mandate and sets standards, it's a statutory body overseeing a regulated profession, distinct from a direct government department but operating within the public sector's framework for professional standards and public safety.

Key Characteristics:

Statutory Authority: Operates under specific legislation (Veterinarians Act 2005).

Public Interest Focus: Its primary goal is safeguarding public health and animal welfare by ensuring high standards for vets.

Regulatory Functions: Sets standards, registers vets, handles complaints, and ensures ongoing competence.

Governance: Governed by a council with both elected veterinarians and lay members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, linking it to government oversight.

In essence, it's a public-facing, legally mandated body that ensures accountability and trust in the veterinary profession, much like other professional regulatory authorities in healthcare.

And in the Council’s own words : "The Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) is the statutory body responsible for upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals."

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:43:14 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: My investigation continues to uncover the names of the ICU staff who, on the night of November 30 , began the catastrophic repeated sedative cocktail overdosing . (As you will read below, the ring leader of the "urgent euthanasia' deception and coercion following Massey's heinous student filmfest utilisation of him in the pharmacologically collapsed state staff had engineered him into , has now been identified as Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.)

Also continuing is my investigation to determine - what I believe is the near-certainty of - the undocumented continuance of the sedation prior to my arrival in order to facilitate the plan to present Harry falsely to me as having suffered some sudden "neurological" event or decline . . . so that I would sign the form for his immediate "euthanasia".

Massey's Utilisation & Exit Plan for Harry

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. Remember, 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.

The Lead-Up: From Clinical Error to Digital Fraud

The logs (if you know how to spot telltale inconsistencies) tell a grim story.

The story of a pre-determined outcome - pre-determined, that is, by staff. Not by Harry or his owner.

Here’s how I'm guessing it went down . . . starting back during the night shift of Novermber 30:

The ICU’s overnight staff, at some belated point, realise they overdid their shutting-that-little-crying-bastard-up-with-a-hit-of-Gabapentin-and-some-Maropitant (x 2) strategy. (It's worth re-reading my commentary on what I had found when I walked into the ICU the previous night, here .) To be noted: Their own "Clinical Summary" shows that they hit him with TWO (what amounted in real terms, for his weight and biological circumstances, at least 750%) overdoses JUST 26 MINUTES APART. That's right: a 750% overdose at 1am and then another massive overdose at 1.26am. That is, two doses 26 minutes apart, each representing a full day's dose for a dog multiple times his weight with nil kidney impairment.

So change of shift - night to day shifts - rolls around. And they now have one massively overdosed, renally-impaired (being that the kidneys represent the only exit pathway for Gabapentin) dog in one of the cages. They leave it for “Dr” Stephanie Rigg to figure out when day shift starts. They’re off home.

Rigg arrives, completes hand-over, and has an "oh shit" moment.

She quickly recognises that Harry is now a clinical liability. If he wakes up and survives, the hospital has to explain the toxicity and the not one, but two, massive overdoses.

If she starts a rescue protocol, she has to document the overdoses and file an incident report.

So she moves to a relatively easy alternative:

If she continues the sedation, she can "manage" Harry toward a permanent exit . . . all it will involve doing, is manufacturing a “neurological decline” narrative, getting her mate, the neurologist, on board with the ruse, and then somehow convincing Harry’s doting owner of the “reality” of the diagnosis and terrible “prognosis”.

She probably knew that the latter part would be the only really challenging bit . . . but maybe it’s not something that the "hospital" hasn't pulled off plenty of times before when circumstances called for a bit of creative licence.

So she administers another whopping dose of 50mg of Gabapentin to this tiny 3.8kg, still-dehydrated dog (representing a THIRD 750% overdose in its own right, and delivering his kidneys an intended lethal blow ). She, or one of her “colleagues”, had already disconnected Harry 22 minutes earlier – at 08:38 hours – just 8.5 hours into his prescribed 24-hour rehydration protocol (that Harry’s owner, I, was, fraudulently billed in full for. As is the Massey way.).

Now, she has achieved two very clever outcomes:

Harry has been converted from a clinical liability to a teaching resource asset (not to concern herself with the fact that she is committing a crime under Section 219 of the Crimes Act 1961 (Theft by conversion) . . But that, and the various other legal implications of the many acts perpetrated by the various individuals upon both Harry and I, will be the subject of a little face-time in a Court of law at some point in the medium-term.

I look forward to it. It will be nice to put names to the faces, at last.

Back to the plot:

Gabapentin takes approximately 90 to 120 minutes to reach its peak effect. So she calls the teaching staff and tells them she has the perfect, immobile, chemically-suppressed (pharmaceutically-straitjacketed) dog who will be in a perfectly pliable - and easily filmable state for students and the production of high-value, permanent teaching resources -by around 10.30am i.e. when the third massive (FOR HIM) hit of Gabapentin fully obtunds him, expedited by the fact that he's been off the IV fluids for nearly half an hour already . . . so, he'll be definitely good to go by 10.30am for sure.

Get them students rolling in and them cameras ready to roll!

Then, at 11.40am – either as part of the student-and-“teacher” film festival in which he was the exclusive “star” (including having his head grabbed in a vice-like grip, having cameras trained at close range into his eyes, being held up to the ceiling with one hand, being made to walk in circles while almost collapsing, being held upright with a camera pointed down on him from above while he was collapsing from the torso over sideways . . . and these were just the single “sanitised” stills from each of the eight videos that they claim were all they took . . .I don’t believe them as they clearly looked to have been filmed on selfie and personal cell phones) . . .

.. . . the “neurologist” arrives to (perform a “neurological examination” on a dog massively over-sedated with a drug that all the international veterinary literature warns mimics neurological and dementia symptomology and warns never to perform a neurological examination on a dog under the influence of Gabapentin (as if that weren’t obvious even to a layperson).

Said neurologist duly “concurs” with Rigg’s intended “neurologically failing” narrative to justify the push for “euthanasia’".

Now the "confirmed" narrative is neatly packaged in the "Clinical Summary" and into the intended script for the planned phone call to the dog's owner and her subsequent in-person arrival.

Framing, Confirming & Utilising . . . While they Wait for the Owner’s UNINFORMED “Consent" to Destroy the Evidence and Close the File

After framing the narrative, optimising the filming opportunities, and having the neurologist confirm the symptoms of Harry’s drug-induced stupor (which they caused) to frame a "neurological decline", Rigg rings the owner (whom the “Clinical Summary” demonstrates Rigg refers to by her surname only i.e. "Kelly") to advise that Harry has "declined" and it’s "time".

Readers who haven’t read the horror story of the prolonged, one-hour, intensive, multi-angle “consulting” room scene can do so here , here , here and here . And if you have the stomach for it, the “euthanasia” that WASN’T “euthanasia” here and here .

And why you should ALWAYS trust your gut when something feels off . There’s a REASON if feels off. Ignoring your intuition can be fatal. And for Harry, ignoring mine was.

And NOW . . . Onto the Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . . . the One Document They Thought I’d Never Have the Nous to Decipher. Well, I DID.

Now, aside from the shocked, stunned, questioning and totally resistant owner, there was one other challenge. They’d worked this one out ahead of time, but it involved some fancy footwork with the records.

So, if they were to avoid the next shift coming on and asking questions about the catastrophically overdosed dog and his IV-disconnected, untreated state, they had to be – quite literally – rid of him before 5pm.

So they typed up his “death certificate” (loooongggg before I arrived and took AGES to get to finally cave in), ahead of time.

Rigg damn well knew - especially after my shocked and stunned state at her phone call of a few hours earlier - that the in-person stage was going to be the marathon psychological manipulation event that it indeed was.

The time they wrote up Harry's intended death for? 4.53pm (the Patient Change Log document and the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form differ) .

That, they strategised, would give them the maximum possible time to strong arm that difficult bitch of an owner, “Kelly”, into submission. But - if everything was ready to roll, administratively - the whole thing would be just in time for them to “delete” Harry from the clinic’s active files before the next shift came on . (Interestingly, the logs - see below - would have it that moving from the "consulting" room, out for my Harry-and-Mummy photos, and then getting into and settled in the van, according to said logs, took a total of one minute i.e. 60 seconds i.e. the time of death there is 16.54pm versus the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form's 4.53pm. )

Not to worry that the accepted clinical practice the world over holds that the time of death must be recorded literally, as the time the heart stops beating . . . which in Harry’s case "Dr" Rigg had achieved, by my recollection, by somewhere between 6pm and 6.30pm . . . outside in our little camper van.

What a fucking joke. Except that it WASN'T a joke. It was my precious little boy's life that they had just ended . . . and, as I was to discover later, for completely clinically unnecessary reasons (because at the right clinic and with the right emergency treatment, he could still have survived what they had done to him ) .

Read here how he was actually starting to break through the drugging with the Gabapentin . . . in two separate events that "Dr" Rigg laughed off (LITERALLY, she LAUGHED AT HIM ) as "just his last hurrah". What a fucking MONSTER .

By the way this utter grub of an operator - "Dr" Stephanie Rigg - was so desperate to make sure I didn't change my mind and stop the process when Harry rose up on his hind legs and began screaming as she approached him, that she ripped the cap off the syringe with her teeth to get it into him before I could process the implications of Harry's response (i.e. clearly his brain was NOT "dying"). If you have the stomach for it, I have covered this especially revolting action in the previous articles linked to herein already.

And one more thing about this grub of an operator that shouldn't be operating in any veterinary facility:

I've since learned that there is supposed to be a gap of at least several minutes between the first and second injections to ensure the animal's brain is fully unconscious. But our "Dr" Rigg didn't wait. She delivered them as a "one-two punch". Because there was no window for the sedative to work, Harry was probably still awake enough to feel his own heart being forced to stop; which would be why his poor, dear little face was a mask of pain instead of peace - from her rushed execution of him.

I hope the bitch rots in hell.

ABOVE : The Software Caught the Lie Even When the Humans Didn't

At 7:20 PM, Massey attempted to add further charges to Harry’s bill as I paid it. The "Logs" document refused to approve the transaction because the clinician had already digitally '"killed" (i.e. in the system) Harry 146 minutes earlier.

This is quite literally the financial fingerprint of a fraud in progress - just to add financial insult to moral injury.

Retrospectively, Rigg and Governance Had A Little, Err, Logs Problem. Two, In Fact.

The pre-5pm race to close the file and seal off Harry's digital records with the finalisation of the invoice i.e. before any new staff or supervisors could see the live data, had resulted in a couple of timeline glitches:

The "Log" document reveals that the attempt to "seal" the record resulted in a series of catastrophic administrative collisions. The first of these is the (incorrect) 4.54pm time of death entry.

The second is a subsequent "Discharged" entry (two lines further up, chronologically, in the logs document). In professional veterinary software, a file is closed in one of two ways: a "Deceased" status OR a "Discharge" status. These are mutually exclusive. At 4.54pm, the system recorded the back-dated death entry. Yet, later, a human actor manually added the text "Discharged By:" to the file.

This is the digital signature of a clinician in a state of panic to get the file closed (as either "Deceased" or "Discharged") to avoid anyone going back into a live patient's file. You cannot discharge a corpse.

By triggering the "Discharge" workflow on a patient already marked as "Deceased", the bad actor created an administrative collision that exposed the fraudulent administrative anchor.

In short, they weren't recording a medical reality; they were slamming every digital exit door available to "evict" Harry from the system before the staff of the next shift would otherwise be accessing the file of a still-living patient.

Erasing the Trail by Erasing Harry's Very Existence

Then, on December 3, two days after Harry’s (unnecessary, wickedly pre-meditated, and highly regrettable) chemically-induced death , the hospital’s Governance and Legal department (or someone up the chain with "God view" access) realised that the 4:54 PM (16:54) timestamp was a liability.

It was a "smoking gun" that could be cross-referenced against phone logs and the 4:53 PM form printing.

So, at 2:44 PM on December 3, that next bad actor i.e. one with high-level access, entered the database and manually overwrote the 16:54 entry with 0:00 (Midnight).

This was a deliberate act of forensic scrubbing: By turning a specific time into a nil value, the institution vaporised the timeline.

"0:00" creates a clinical vacuum that prevents any investigator from syncing the time of death with specific staff movements or medication logs. It is the digital equivalent of shredding a death certificate to ensure no-one can prove who was in the room when the "death" occurred.

ABOVE : The Timing Tells the Story

With the 09:00 AM hit of yet another 50mg of the contraindicated convenience sedative , Gabapentin, to this tiny 3.8kg, renally-impaired dog, the clinician wasn't treating a patient; she was prepping a prop.

Standard pharmacology dictates that Gabapentin requires 90 to 120 minutes to reach peak effect . As the video timestamps confirm (see below), the student film festival – starring (private, fee-paying patient) Harry - began at 10:38 AM . . . precisely when Harry reached a state of drug-induced immobilisation .

This was a calibrated chemical straitjacket, timed to ensure he was perfectly pliable for the cameras by mid-morning.

The now THIRD, massive overdose was the starting gun for the misappropriation of a private client’s beloved pet into a university "teaching" asset. (Way to go, students. Some good quality teaching practices you're learning from there.)

The 4:56 PM Billing Inflation

Perhaps the most cynical evidence of the fraud is the 4:56 PM Billing Update.

At 4:56 PM - two minutes after the "official" death - someone manually accessed Billing Trigger #636969 and increased the quantity of a billable item from 1.6 to 4.

The metadata reveals a brazen manipulation of financial data occurring just minutes after the falsified death time. At 4:56 PM, , a manual entry was made to Harry’s bill (Record 636969), jumping the quantity from 1.6 units to 4.0. This represents a 150% increase in billable units - a literal 2.5x multiplier - applied to a patient they had officially declared "Deceased" just two minutes earlier.

This is the very definition of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. It's the financial fingerprint part of the bigger, badder lie.

You see, contemporaneous billing item logging is the standard practice in New Zealand veterinary practices . Thus, If Harry were genuinely dead at 4:54 PM, then increasing a billable quantity at 4:56 PM would constitute consumer fraud and theft.

You do not charge a corpse for a 2.5 x increase in supplies . Well, unless you're Massey University, that is.

But, actually, the reality was far worse.

The logs show they were still dicking around with the invoicing right up to when I paid the bill at around 7.20pm . . . somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour after I remember the actual time she finally managed to get me to allow her to stick him and take his life.

Good job, Massey, you bunch of mercenary, unprincipled pricks - from top to bottom. At the same time as I was still being coerced into terminating my dog's life, the hospital’s sole interest in him was (a) getting him out of the viewable system before the end of the shift, and (b) optimising him as a profit centre.

The problem for them now, though, is that the logs show that they forgot to align their greed with their narrative.

The Identity Shield (Consciousness of Guilt)

Every single name and position title in the logs - as with their previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" - has solid black boxes obscuring them.

This is purely and simply an accountability evasion measure i.e. deploying black boxes liberally throughout a patient's records to prevent the identity of (and therefore, they hope, any legal actions being taken against) those whose actions are clinically, morally, and legally, indefensible.

This practice is in contravention of all accepted standards for the veterinary sector, internationally.

I reached out to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) with questions about this and other dodgy practices both of Massey University and of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (who appear to be doing everything in their power to evade their regulatory duty to investigate Massey over the matter).

I'll elaborate on the response from the executive level of the Royal College in my next article, but with regard to this specific point, they state that there is no justifiable reason for a clinic to withhold the identities of treating veterinarians from a client.

It's clear, even to the layperson, that in terms of the manipulation of the records themselves, by hiding the names of these specific actors within the system, Massey has moved from medical malpractice and malfeasance to an active corporate conspiracy to obstruct justice.

You don't hide the identity of a clinician who followed the rules. You only use the "black box" trick when identifying the actor would lead to the immediate collapse of the institution's defence.

This log-tampering behaviour reveals an institution that manufactured a death time, attempted to "discharge" a deceased patient to hide his catastrophic drug-induced collapse, and then manually scrubbed the digital evidence while padding the bill.

Every black box and timestamp in this log is a documented admission of guilt.

ABOVE:

The notes of the "neurologist" who performed a "neurological" examination on a dog repeatedly, cumulatively, and catastrophically, overdosed with a convenience sedative known to create the exact neurological symptomology she then reports as his natural state . . . neatly aligning with Dr Stephanie Rigg's narrative (i.e. "neurologically failing", for which there was NIL prior evidence per his regular vet's totally contradictory notes i.e. TVG Feliding) and objective (destruction of evidence i.e. Harry).

Let's Get Into A Little "Appreciation of the Law" Lecture . . . for the Edification of Massey Clinical & Administrative Staff, and for the University's Legal and Governance Executives (and for You Too , Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Veterinary "School" Dean Jon Huxley)

Under Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) , the law doesn't care about "clinical mistakes" (which, by the way, this wasn't, anyway). It cares about intent .

When a Massey staff member with administrative access manually opened Harry’s master file on December 3 (two days after you had killed him) and overwrote his 16:54 (already fudged) death time with “0:00”, they weren't correcting a typo; they were creating a digital "black hole".

This is the textbook definition of altering a record to obtain a pecuniary advantage or cause loss. By "scrubbing" the timeline of death, they attempted to decouple the biological reality of Harry's killing from the possible consequences of a future auditing of his records or investigation of his case and any aspect thereof . . . from clinical decisions and actions through to billing actions.

In the eyes of the Crimes Act, this isn't some innocent "administrative clean-up"; it is a serious indictable, Category 3 offence, punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment .

Additionally, Section 260 (Falsifying registers) specifically guards the integrity of records that are required by law to be accurate - such as the clinical registers Massey is mandated to maintain under the Veterinarians Act.

When the "ICU crew" or their supervisors initiated a later, posthumous "Discharge" workflow for a patient they had already logged as "Deceased" , they made a false entry in a professional register with the clear intent to deceive future auditors and bypass the software’s own safety locks. This "Panic Signature" in the metadata - trying to discharge a corpse to clear a shift log - is yet one more digital fingerprint of a cover-up.

In fact, the metadata reveals a multi-stage "panic signature". It began at 16:56 (4:56 PM) - just two minutes after their falsified death time - when a manual entry jumped a billing quantity from 1.6 to 4.0 units ( Record 636969 ). It reached its conclusion at 19:20 (7:20 PM) , when staff were still dicking around with the invoice of a patient they had officially declared dead two and a half earlier. In a professional clinical register, you do not "discharge" a corpse, and you certainly don't spend two and a half hours post-mortem cleaning a record to justify a padded invoice, that should have been calculated in real-time.

For a public institution to then redact the names of the individuals behind these potentially 10-year-penalty offences is, arguably, an act of institutional complicity in the falsification of a professional record.

The Missing Link: The Controlled Drug Register

A further document Massey continues to withhold is the Controlled Drug Register (CDR).

Unlike a progress log, the CDR is a legal ledger that must be balanced milligram-for-milligram.

This will be part of the next information-release battle I initiate with Massey University.

And if you try to alter it, Massey staff, you know exactly what's going to happen. There's only so many criminal prosecutions you're going to want listed on your individual, personal and professional, records.

The question I'd like to dive into below, is: Is Massey University, its Companion Animal "Hospital" and the staff of either the broader institution or the veterinary facility itself, exempt from the laws that the rest of New Zealand is subject to?

My research indicates that they are NOT.

CORRECTION - MAY 7, 2026:

Following an anonymous tip-off by someone appearing to have been a Massey insider and subsequent confirmation via the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's public register, the day shift ICU veterinarian referred to throughout this article as "Dr Stephanie Rigg" is alternatively confirmed - and hereby stated as a correction - as Dr Steffi Maja Jalava, registered, of Palmerston North.

All references to "Dr Stephanie Rigg" or "Dr Rigg" in this article should be read accordingly.

It should be noted that this confusion originates directly from Massey University's own conduct — specifically, the appearance of a name on the "Euthanasia" "Consent" form other than the actual clinician who coerced and conducted the forced killing, combined with Massey's blanket redaction of all staff names from Harry Kelly's clinical records and refusal to respond to multiple Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests.

The name "Stephanie" and the name "Steffi" — both appearing in connection with the day shift ICU role (again, Rigg's name having been entered into what appears to have been an unwarrantedly pre-populated "Euthanasia""Consent" form) — were therefore reasonably treated as referring to the same individual.

It is extremely noteworthy that neither Massey University nor the Veterinary Council of New Zealand has ever, at any point, taken any step to correct this confusion — despite being fully aware of it .

Notwithstanding the above, two key questions present themselves to any thinking reader:

1) Precisely WHY did neither Massey University nor the Veterinary Council of New Zealand make any move to correct this confusion at any point — given that "Dr Stephanie Rigg" was being publicly named for acts committed by Dr Steffi Maja Jalava?

2) And why did Dr Steffi Maja Jalava not do the decent thing herself and speak up to correct the record?

It should be noted, however, that this correction does not absolve (Dr?) Rigg of her own conduct.

As the attending registered veterinarian during the night shift of November 30, 2025, Rigg carries supervisory responsibility for the catastrophic overdoses authorised and administered during that period.

Furthermore, the pre-typed appearance of her name on the "Euthanasia" "Consent" form — before any consent had been sought or given — remains an as yet un-investigated matter of serious concern in its own right.

Meantime, New Zealand Police have been notified of this correction in relation to report OR-2484821N.

BREAKING UPDATE (March 1, 2026):

A formal criminal report has been filed with the New Zealand Police (OR-2484821N) regarding the manual falsification of clinical and financial records by Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital (and possibly also other) staff.

The complaint includes evidence of a manual "data scrub" performed on December 3, 2025, which erased key timestamps to obstruct auditing and investigations.

The police have been requested to secure the unredacted digital audit trails to identify all parties involved in the tampering.

_____________________________________________________________

Clinical Documentation: Null-and-Void 'Euthanasia' Authorisation

Below: The null-and-void "authorisation" for the "euthanasia" that turned out to actually have been a pre-planned chemical destruction of the evidence of Massey staff's repeated catastrophic convenience sedation overdosing and cruel, abusive "teaching tool" utilisation i.e. my precious little Harry himself being the evidence that needed to be destroyed.

PET OWNERS: YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE WHY I TOLD YOU NOT TO MISS THIS ARTICLE.

ABOVE : The Deceptively-Dated Digital Entry

Records show an incorrect timestamp i.e. this was NOT when I finally conceded and allowed Dr Stephanie Rigg to have her way and (based on her falsified "diagnosis" ) lethally inject Harry.

Read on for why this false timestamp was strategic for the staff involved.

Neurological Impacts of Gabapentin: From Ataxia through to Coma

"Neurological sequelae following administration of the Gabapentin to patients with renal failure, varying from subtle changes in mental status to drowsiness and coma, have been reported in the literature."

Journal of Renal Hepatic and Biomedical Sciences

"Ataxia [loss of coordination] is a common adverse effect [of Gabapentin]."

MSPCA-Angell Clinical Review

COMING NEXT:

Call for An Independent Investigation into Industry Regulatory Body, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Featuring international "best practice" insights from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK).

This data is published in the interests of professional transparency and in accordance with the editor's desire to see an improvement in the integrity of New Zealand’s veterinary standards.

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

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:41:58 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original February 17 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion - after "teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming - were the grounds on which the author, IIIVE's Founder & Executive Director, Jordan Kelly, was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of her own deeply beloved dog.

The falsification of clinical records designed to bury this evidence — including the December 3 data scrub and the manipulation of Harry's Patient Change Log — is the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N.

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.

EXHIBIT A: THE FILM SET . . . Conversion of my “property” for teaching resources: Unauthorised Conversion of Property & Breach of Bailment (Common Law); Illegal Manipulation for Teaching (Animal Welfare Act 1999, S83)

I have been in a colossal fight with Massey's "Legal and Governance" for the past two months since my precious little Harry was terminated at its Companion Animal 'Hospital', trying to prise out of the institution any truly objective clinical records to determine the more granular, pivotal aspects of what was done to Harry in their "ICU" ward on November 30 and December 1, last year.

In fact, I've been in that colossal fight just to get them to admit that anything other than their subjective, manually produced (and, I firmly believe, significantly retrospectively altered and added to) "Clinical Summary" even exists .

But with the Privacy Commissioner's eyes on them and awaiting my full report, Massey had a dilemma:

Their "Option A" was to continue to insist that no objective, machine-based data existed (instead, continuing to argue the semantics of "primary records" vs "secondary records") and know that, when my report is tabled before the Commissioner and most certainly when it is tabled before the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, that those parties would see that falsehood for what it was.

Or, "Option B", hand over the IDEXX reports (part of what I requested) and hope I didn't notice what I've noticed.

Massey's continued arrogance will be its ultimate downfall . . . a symptom of that arrogance being that they think I'm stupid.

And because I'm not stupid, I noticed what they hoped I wouldn't . That Harry's machine-generated monitoring read-outs ended when November 30 ended. Either that, or the monitoring reports for December 1 were something they never want me to see.

There are three critical facts that I need to lay out here before I explain the significance of the above.

Readers, hold these three facts in mind:

1) Harry had been administered a massive overdose of an unauthorised, and for his kidney condition, strictly contraindicated, convenience sedative in three separate instances across the night and morning of November 30 and December 1. The hits amounted to something akin to 750% overdoses for his weight and his biological context.

2) Despite being in a catastrophically overdosed state with a drug that is well-documented in the international veterinary literature as distinctly mimicking neurological symptomology, with the veterinary literature warning against conducting a neurological exam on a dog under the influence of the drug in question - Gabapentin - a "neurologist" performed an extensive 11.22am neurological "examination" on Harry just 2 hours and 22 minutes after he was plied at 9am with a THIRD massive overdose on top of the two massive overdoses he had been administered during the night.

3) The "neurologist" then wrote that this (horrendously over-sedated and tiny) dog, was "limp" and "obtunded" - failing to note anywhere that Harry was even sedated per se . Let alone catastrophically over-sedated with a drug that mimicked neurological symptomology . . . and she apparently hadn't noticed that someone had disconnected him, three hours earlier, from the rehydrating fluids which by then, would have been his only hope of clearing, to some degree, the phenomenal level of toxicity from the 750% Gabapentin overdose.

Incomprehensibly Incompetent or Intentional? YOU Decide.

Focusing on (3) above, in any even partially professional veterinary "hospital", if a patient is "limp" and "obtunded", that indicates that they are one small step away from potentially entering into a coma .

That signals the need for URGENCY .

It signals immediate, detailed monitoring of cardiorespiratory status, blood glucose, electrolytes, and blood pressure ,, requiring the same equipment that had produced the reports that had been included at the end of the "Clinical Summary" for the previous night . . . but that were glaringly missing for the morning when they were needed most i.e. when Harry was literally - to revert to a layman's term - red lining .

But instead, what did this "neurologist" do? She showed students how you conduct a "menace" test on a blind dog (!), flipped his paws back a few times, palpated his spine, twisted his head around, played around with his ears, performed a "structural" examination on him . . . and did absolutely nothing about his near-comatose state.

Actually , staff DID do something. That critical window of time in Harry's life - that THEY had caused to BE critical, by their catastrophic 750% overdosings of him with an unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedative and then intentionally disconnecting him from his life-essential fluids - was exactly when they chose to wheel him off to conduct live experiments on him and film at least eight teaching videos of their cruelty.

Here's the "2 + 2" equation that Massey and - I'm assuming Pauline Nijman, the clinic's manager - hoped I wouldn't be able to calculate:

In an ICU setting, a patient described as "obtunded" and "neurologically abnormal" would be tethered to monitoring equipment - especially if, as was noted, his "condition was worsening since started".

The "Clinical Summary" claims he was being examined and monitored, but the machine logs - which cover the exact December 1 time window - show zero entries.

The absence of any machine monitoring when Harry is documented as "limp","obtunded" and "worsening" - which, in layman's terms is a dog that is COLLAPSING - is forensic proof that Massey's ICU staff are either incomprehensibly incompetent OR purged the digital evidence from the overall data set that was transmitted to me OR fabricated the manual notes after the fact.

Or all three.

On the note of all three, and focusing for the moment on the incompetence factor, have a go at this:

EXHIBIT C: FUNDAMENTAL PATIENT MISIDENTIFICATION

December 1:

Zero Diagnostics

Massey University Companion Animal Hospital ICU's "Clinical Record":

Harry, a MALE dog and patient of two years' standing with this veterinary "hospital", recorded as "Female" . . . a clear indication that he was nothing more than a mislabelled utility and profit centre to the institution.

The Significance of the Data Black-Out

In a modern ICU, the machine is the only objective witness. The reports in the left-hand panel slider above (Nov. 30) demonstrate a functioning clinical environment where every vital sign and blood gas was timestamped and recorded automatically.

Contrast this with the right-hand panel: The Data Black-Out of December 1. Despite manual notes claiming Harry was "monitored" while in a state of collapse ("obtunded" and "limp"), the machine logs are silent.

There are zero entries for the most critical hours of Harry's life.

This discrepancy leads to only three possible conclusions:

1. Negligence: The ICU staff failed to run any objective tests on a collapsing patient.

2. Fabrication: The manual notes describing "monitoring" were written after the fact to create a narrative of care that never happened.

3. Suppression: The data was recorded by the machines but purged from the records before they were released.

The machine logs don’t just show a gap; they show the terminal cessation of care.

This isn’t an “unfortunate outcome”. And it’s much more than a documented failure of clinical and data integrity.

It’s a demonstration of clear intent for a lethal outcome.

In my earlier article this week , I pointed to what appears to be the many hours of billable time the big guns at Buddle Findlay were racking up, diving into the two years of archived articles on The Customer & The Constituent , assumedly trying to build a "profile" to character-assassinate me with . . . the standard "vexatious litigant" playbook for dealing with a case where the actual facts can't be argued with.

(By the way Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Dean Jon Huxley, if your big-buck legal firm's extensive profiling research hasn't yet turned up this little piece of inconvenience to their "vexatious" strategy, now would be a good time for me to draw your attention to it, so you can in turn draw their attention to it, to help you stop bleeding university funds in that specific direction. You'll have to come up with another angle. Let me know if I can help.)

My daily site analytics of the past 48 hours would suggest it's worth my asking the question: Has the legal surveillance team's monitoring stretched across the Tasman? Or is it just the beginning of a wave of worthy international interest by Massey's peers?

If it's the former, let me save the University some of its redirected rescue funds:

(Being that The Customer & The Constituent is literally just a hobby publication for me, as is DoggieMamma.com , my hobby site produced as a service for fellow dog lovers) I have a long-standing reputation as a highly respected and formidable operator in the upper tiers of the B2B and B2G sphere across the Tasman, winning billion-dollar construction megaprojects for global infrastructure consortia - who recognise that my success lies in my ability to adopt high integrity, forensically detailed, thoroughly researched, processes and smarts to achieve their objectives.

And those processes extend to ensuring my own clients uphold very high standards so their clients aren't disappointed when they win their business. The same expectations I apply when I review companies and government agencies for this publication . . . of which Massey University has, unfortunately, now become the central topic. And for all the wrong reasons .

Just sayin', Vice-Chancellor Venter and Dean Jon Huxley . Because you're burning through a shitload of taxpayer money that you should be using to clean up your Companion Animal "Hospital" . . .so that more pets can make it out of there alive.

Because your current success rate ain't good.

While diagnostic monitoring logs went silent on the morning of December 1, the cameras were rolling. These images - stills from six of at least eight teaching videos filmed by Massey staff - capture little blind, catastrophically convenience-overdosed, fluids-deprived Harry being used as a live prop for student instruction. The redaction overlays (the solid black boxes) are Massey’s handiwork, not mine.

To be clear: What these images demonstrate are totally irrelevant clinical examinations – and some apparently not so clinical examinations - for student instructional purposes . . . on an unsupported patient who was in a state of chemically-induced collapse.

Harry’s overnight transition from a viable, simply dehydrated patient to suddenly being “limp”, “obtunded” and near-comatose wasn’t a medical mystery; it was a catastrophic convenience overdose and a resource allocation choice. Massey chose "teaching content" over a patient's life.

Readers, please note:

(1) These are Massey’s carefully selected and edited stills sent to me (of assumedly the least disturbing of the at-least eight teaching videos they made of Harry), to “satisfy” my Privacy Act information-release request (which was for the actual videos).

(2) They are also the images Massey’s twisted staff placed in circular crops to mock my having used that form of crop to show my readers a close-up of Harry’s horrifically distorted face in the peak of his massively overdosed condition.

(3) They sent them only as embeds within a .pdf - as a means to make it harder for me to show you them. In a clinical and forensic context, providing image data inside a .pdf file format rather than as a native image file (.jpg or .png) is a known tactic to degrade the quality of evidence and create "technical friction" for the recipient.

The above site analytics screenshot is a real-time capture of active users in the moment.

Ironically, my dear, sweet, gentle little Harry is turning out to be the most expensive and dangerous dog Massey University and its Companion Animal “Hospital” ever encountered.

While they are literally selling the roof above their heads to cover their deficits and retirng one-sixth of the entire university's offerings, Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter and Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley have found the budget to hire a top-tier legal hit squad to extensively "profile" a single client in a desperate attempt to buy silence.

They chose to spend their dwindling "rescue" funds on intimidation instead of integrity. 

A Message from 'Harry's Mummy' to the Massey Staff Who Tortured and Killed My Precious Little Boy

ABOVE:

My precious little boy, Harry. Who had NOT had a sudden mysterious "neurological event" or decline overnight . . . other than the one Massey ICU staff chemically manufactured for him, so that their "teaching" staff could use him to star in a series of horrifically cruel training videos, and experiments and invasive pokings and proddings, by students (including those in which they ridiculed him openly with their intentionally cruel handling of him) . . . with the sudden "neurological" ruse being the story they cooked up for the frontwoman "vet", 'Steffi" to sell me the next day to facilitate the destruction of evidence i.e. Harry.

The pure, unadulterated evil of it. THESE. . . Veterinary Council of New Zealand . . . are the "standards" you and your "professional advisors" are protecting. How do you sleep at night?

With that level of general intelligence quotient, it is almost tempting to believe that the 750% overdoses administered to Harry were an act of genuine incompetence . . . but then, of course, we have the unauthorised fact of them, the repeated fact of them, the undisclosed fact of them, the intentional disconnection of Harry from his by-then life-essential rehydrating fluids, and the conversion of him to a test and experimental subject for an eight-documentary student film festival.

Another issue I have raised - and it is far from inconsequential - is the entirely obvious retrofitting of the "Clinical Summary".

In some instances this is likely obvious only to me (a) because I know the facts of various doctored or retrospectively added inclusions, and (b) because I'm a professional author and also the editor of thousands of other authors' outputs and can smell a mile away when something was added by the non-original author, especially when it is clearly in defence of an issue raised by an external party (me) after the original production of the document in question.

In other instances, any reader with an IQ sufficient to read a bedtime story to their child would readily spot the multiple tardy anomalies: Anomalies like the notation that Harry's 24-hour rehydration protocol (life-essential, following their catastrophic, repeated overdosing of his impaired kidneys with a renally-contraindicated convenience sedative) had been permanently stopped just 8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol, yet the obviously retrospectively-added-back in appearance of same in subsequent notes and the bogus claim of "hand-pumping". Noting, of course, that they couldn't have been administered, let alone, "hand-pumped" since this was the exact window of time Harry was starring in the eight-documentary lab rat video productions, elsewhere in the facility.

The 'Value' Was All Massey's As Ever, Not Harry's or Mine

This is the literally lethal level of "care" that I paid $1236.84 for 15 hours of.

But Massey doesn't exactly focus on providing "value" any more than it focuses on ethics , or providing any guarantee of competent, or even safe, care . . . or even that they won't kill your pet, or perform lab rat-style testing on them, or all of the above.

On the note of value, I couldn't help but notice the $3300 - $5500 I had obviously paid in October 22, 2024 for an MRI for Harry. I remember that well, I wrote about it in this article, "Was Harry A Marked Dog? . In a letter to Pauline Nijman, Clinic Manager, I had pointed out how concerning it was not only that Harry had gone for his full post-MRI day stay without being given water or being toileted, but also that the one (core) question I had asked the vet to have answered by the neurologist (since despite the above lofty fee I wasn't allowed to be present for because it had to be conducted at the neurologist's own convenience on the day) had never received an answer because "the neurologist was in such a hurry" Truly. Read the letter . Nijman didn't dispute it.

( Just on the note of mercenary billing: Massey's "intensive care" staff had managed to chemically "obtund" Harry with their 9am, third, massive overdose of their convenience sedation, and by 5.45pm they had achieved their desired outcome for him i.e. life termination, with their "neurological event" ruse to ensure I consented to it with the exact opposite of "informed consent ". The clinical summary confirms the patient was deceased at 17:45 . However, the final invoice includes charges for "ICU Monitoring" until 21:00 . This represents 3.25 hours of billing for services rendered to a non-existent patient.)

So Who Cares? Is Anyone 'Out There', In Government or In Regulatory Authority, Going to Take Any Action?

I have sent a Public Interest Disclosure notification to every New Zealand Parliamentarian . . . because if they can't be made to care, the risk for any pet owner whose dog is referred to Massey, and the credibility of any graduating student's veterinary qualification, is a matter of grave concern.

The response so far: Nil.

I have produced a specific Ministerial Briefing email for the Ministers of Education, Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Science, and Finance.

The response so far: Nil.

I emailed the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

The response so far: Nil.

I have emailed the Commerce Commission:

The response so far: Nil. UPDATE: COMCOM HAS RESPONDED STATING THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN "LOGGED FOR ASSESSMENT", WITH A SPECIFIC REFERENCE NUMBER ISSUED. READ THE NEW CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGE HERE .

The most outstanding response so far has been from the Public Service Commission (the guardian of public service integrity), whose response was not only instantaneous, but a reminder that some government departments have staff with beating hearts. They acknowledged simply being cc'd on an email, and took the time to express their sympathy over Harry's death. The read receipts they are politely and responsibly acknowledging as I now continue to keep the Commission apprised of developments (not that there are any, but I'm trying) indicate they have eyes directly on this whole matter.

I have TWICE emailed every single Palmerston North City Council elected representative i.e. Mayor and Councillors.

The response so far: Nil.

I emailed the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

The response so far: Nil.

And perhaps most tellingly of all, I have included the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's (VCNZ) Chief Executive Officer & Registrar, Iain McLachlan, the VCNZ's Deputy Registrar, Liam Shields, and the VCNZ's Professional Advisor, Seton Butler, on almost every single email to Massey for the past two months, as I try to (a) extract information, (b) get answers and accountability, and (c) generally get to the bottom of the whole travesty.

To be noted by the lay reader, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is the statutory body legally responsible for regulating every veterinarian in the country.

Their primary mandate, under the Veterinarians Act 2005 , is to protect the public and animal interests by ensuring that all vets are competent and fit to practice. To achieve this, they set and enforce (or they're meant to) the Code of Professional Conduct - the legally-backed rule book that dictates the ethical and clinical standards vets must follow. As the profession's "quality police", the VCNZ is responsible for receiving and investigating complaints, with the power to discipline or strike off practitioners who fail to uphold these standards.

The response or any indication of VCNZ concern: Nil.

When the leadership of such a body remains silent in the face of documented evidence of lethal malpractice and unconsented clinical studies, they aren't just being "unresponsive" - they're potentially failing in their core statutory duty to the New Zealand public.

Industry Incestuousness & Direct Conflicts of Interest in the New Zealand Regulatory Sphere

I'd like to make a point here about the "smallness" and the often incestuous nature of the New Zealand government, regulatory and watchdog organisational environment in general . . . and the fact that it's absolutely riddled with clear and present conflicts of interest.

Let's start with this one, for its direct relevance to the "Harry Kelly" case:

According to his bio, "the VCNZ's Professional Advisor, Seton Butler, is a Massey University graduate (1987) and an **adjunct lecturer at Massey’s School of Veterinary Science.** ("He has extensive experience in private practice, having founded Pet Doctors NZ (a 28-clinic group.")

As an aside, I would ask if, when I began trying to draw attention to this travesty by reaching out to management figures in the veterinary sector at large and immediately found my email domain the subject of a full-scale international server blockade at the same time as I was trying to get assistance from my established media contacts (which I had flagged to said veterinary sector management figures), whether there is any connection. Just asking.

I do rather feel the fact that Seton Butler is an adjunct lecturer at Massey University while serving as the VCNZ Professional Advisor is a point of significant interest:

Should the person advising the regulator on "standards" also be a staff member at the institution being investigated?

Since Mr Butler focuses on setting the "rules" for veterinary practice, his knowledge of the clinical study/teaching video protocols at Massey is likely extensive.

This duality of roles - one within the University and one within the Regulator - represents a significant "institutional entanglement". Public confidence in such cases relies entirely on the existence of a robust, transparent, and documented recusal protocol to ensure the absolute impartiality of any investigation. That is, at the very least .

In Answer to Interested International Parties Who Have Reached Out Over this Issue

To provide an answer to the international regulatory organisations that have reached out to me and urged me to lay a formal complaint with the Veterinary Council:

I have tried . But "the system" is set up so that a pet owner cannot complain about an organisation . They can only submit a complaint about an individual licensed veterinarian .

And to do that, you need the name or names of the veterinarian or veterinarians in question. Which - in Massey's case - have been redacted (with black boxes) in every single place in the "Clinical Summary". Notwithstanding that I paid richly for their "services".

The only name I have is that of the Clinic Manager, Pauline Nijman (I believe, unlicensed?) and the first name only of the vet that fronted the "neurological event" ruse and the coercion sessions re the supposedly "urgent euthanasia" (and who also "did the job") i.e. a "Steffi".

I have emailed CEO Iain McLachlan asking for assistance in obtaining the identities and submitting the complaints, but have thus far received no response whatsoever .

On the note of Massey's redaction of these names:

In New Zealand, the Privacy Act 2020 is often weaponised by institutions to hide names. However, Principle 11 (e) relates to the necessary disclosure of Information "if it is necessary to 'uphold or enforce the law'."

Further, the VCNZ's own policies state that owners are entitled to clinical records . Redacting the names of those who authored the records is an extraordinary step that interferes with a pet owner's statutory right to complain .

Perhaps that is specifically why Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley's January 30 legal threat to silence me, instructed that the only allowable audience for my grievances was the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's "complaint" system: Because, without the identities, and an understanding of the various and probably numerous parties involved in the Massey "clinical" environment that, err, "cared" for Harry, I'm screwed. No names, no complaint possible. And, anyway, you've still got to get it past the VCNZ's, err, "Professional Advisor". You know, the one on the Massey payroll.

It is important to highlight that I have CC’d VCNZ Professional Advisor Seton Butler, CEO Iain McLachlan, and Deputy Registrar Liam Shields on every single email to Massey for the past two or more months.

If Mr Butler - an adjunct lecturer on the Massey payroll - recognised the clear and present conflict of interest in receiving internal briefings on a case involving his own employer, he (or the VCNZ's CEO) had an ethical obligation to recuse himself and instruct me to remove him from the correspondence.

Instead, they ALL remained silent.

This silence is itself a conflicted situation in action. I have now filed an Official Information Act (OIA) request to determine whether Mr Butler’s receipt of these emails resulted in him forwarding or discussing my evidence with his Massey colleagues or personnel while he was actively being paid by them. The reader can judge the likelihood of such "internal data sharing" for themselves, but the VCNZ's failure to maintain a professional distance suggests a regulatory environment that is, at best, compromised.

How the Game Works . . .

It is also worth noting that, back on April 2, 2024, I had sought the VCNZ's assistance related to an after-hours emergency with Harry.

Instead of the after-hours emergency service the clinic in question had (under the VCNZ's own Code of Practice) been mandated to provide, I was ridiculed by the after hours staffer (I have kept detailed documentation of this event, if anyone is interested). I had to drive at breakneck speed, instead, to the Wellington 24-hour emergency clinic, some nearly two hours' drive and across a mountain pass (the Remutaka Ranges), where it was confirmed that the situation was indeed an emergency. I had emailed the VCNZ (attaching the clinical notes from the Wellington 24/7 clinic to demonstrate the genuine nature of the emergency) and I had also emailed the Code, pointing to the breached Clause, asking for the VCNZ's assistance in the identification of the practitioner and in laying a complaint. But . . . crickets.

Such is the way of the New Zealand regulatory sphere and its "closed club" nature. Closed club, that is, if you're a consumer, rather than a member.

Again, I've taken a moment to submit an Official Information Act request to the VCNZ since its CEO is maintaining his two-month position of complete radio silence. I'd like a wee bit of transparency over whether quality-and-standards advisor Seton Butler has been "double-dipping" his advice . . . giving Massey tips on how to handle "that Kelly woman" while simultaneously advising the VCNZ on the "standards" regarding the complaint they are now actively disabling me from submitting.

Is Mr Seton, perhaps, also giving Massey's big-buck lawyers, Buddle Findlay, a bit of a hand, with his duality of "insights"?

Because if Butler is advising the VCNZ on how to respond to my efforts and has access to their internal legal strategy while simultaneously an adjunct lecturer at Massey, he's in a position to "inform" Massey’s defence. This is a classic "Conflict of Commitment" as defined in Massey’s own 2026 policy .

But, honestly, nothing about this whole filthy matter and the continually expanding nature of the cover-up would surprise me now.

UPDATE Feb. 23, 5.17pm : 'We Are Not Subject to the Official Information Act'

Veterinary Council of New Zealand CEO, Iain McLachlan, has tonight refused my Official Information Act request on the basis that the Council is "not subject to the Official Information Act". I have immediately countered by re-submitting the request for the same information under Principle 6 of the Privacy Act 2020 - a statutory obligation he cannot legally avoid. So . . . the avoidance continues from that end, but so too does the pressure from mine. Also, McLachlan has "delegated" the matter to Deputy Registrar Liam Shields - the very executive in charge of the directly conflicted department.

UPDATE Feb. 25, 2026: A Second Massey Conflict Discovered

If one conflict of interest wasn't enough, I have now discovered that Dr Jenny Weston, who sits on the VCNZ Council, is also the Academic Program Director at Massey University’s veterinary school. So, we have the VCNZ’s "Professional Advisor" (Seton Butler) working at Massey, and a member of the Council itself (Jenny Weston) in a senior leadership role at Massey. This isn't just a "closed club", it’s a regulatory body that appears to be inextricably fused with the very University it is supposed to be policing. I have filed a second urgent Privacy Act request for all communications between the VCNZ and Dr Weston regarding this case. The VCNZ CEO says he's "delegated" it and I'll get it "in due course".

UPDATE Feb. 26, 2026: Formal Complaint Filed Against Veterinary Council CEO

The game stops here. I've had a gutsful now. My emails for assistance from the VCNZ's CEO continue to be stonewalled. As you've just read, for over two months, I've been trying to get the names of the Massey veterinarians who orchestrated Harry's demise and the horrors that preceded it. Massey University continues to hide those names, and the head of the Veterinary Council, Iain McLachlan, has failed to help me get them. So today, I filed a formal complaint with the New Zealand Law Society against Mr McLachlan, who is a qualified lawyer. My complaint is simple: it is wrong for a regulator to use red tape and delay tactics to protect vets from being held accountable for their actions. You cannot have a fair investigation if the authorities are helping to hide the participants.

UPDATE March 2, 2026: Formal Acceptance of Complaint Against VCNZ CEO into the System

The Law Society's Senior Professional Standards Officer has confirmed the acceptance of my complaint into their system to be investigated and put before the Society's Standards Committee. She did advise, however, that the process could take "many months". This, of course, provides McLachlan and his compromised organisation a large window of time in which to keep evading the facilitation of my complaint to the VCNZ itself. Thus, the need for an urgent investigation into this compromised structure and personnel.

Meantime, back to the present:

Speaking of grave concern, if anyone has read the commentary I published yesterday regarding the scandalous waste of the public purse viz a viz Massey's having hired a large team of top-tier lawyers to work out how to - put plainly - shut me up . . . then the following update will be of further interest to you:

The Hits Go TransTasman: An Expansion of 'Surveillance'? Or A Wave of International Veterinary Sector Interest?

The Killing of Harry . . . The Fatal Consequences of Ignoring Intuition

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:40:43 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original January 16 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

Why I Deserve (ALMOST) Every Ounce of the Excruciating Pain I’m In

Above - The Pharmacological Shutdown :

Harry on the Massey lawn, draped in the scarf the ICU vet, "Steffi", insisted be used to hide the rigid 'euthanasia' catheter they installed before my arrival and prior to any consent (in fact, while I was still very much objecting). This image captures the false pretences established by the hospital - a dog portrayed as peacefully fading from their claimed "neurological event ) - while, in reality, under heavy, undisclosed sedation that his body would shortly violently reject as he tried valiantly to alert me that he was still "in there" (with his efforts being quickly shut down by the vet "Steffi" , who instructed me to pull him down so she could administer the terminating substance).

This was a little boy, who just 15 hours earlier, after admission into Massey's ICU "care" was standing on his hind legs with front paws outstretched through the bars of his cage, screaming loudly for human comfort (and receiving none from the ICU staff - who, it appears, " convenience-sedated" him instead with a potent sedative cocktail specifically contraindicated for the kidney issues they would clearly have seen he had , from the blood tests they had just processed).

For a more clinical and pharmacological evaluation of the above photograph, see end of article.

_______________

Notwithstanding the Victim Impact Statement I felt compelled to write to demonstrate the intense and lasting impacts upon me of the sheer wickedness of Massey’s strategies and actions in the clinically and ethically incomprehensible actions they took that led to their ending the life of my beloved dog, Harry . . . here’s why I deserve (almost) no sympathy.

Every cell in my being – at the very deepest level – screamed at me that something sinister was afoot at Massey . . .

from the moment of the highly unexpected, lengthy and ultra high-pressure phone call telling me had to be “euthanased” (with no mention of the actual reason he’d actually been admitted just 12 hours earlier i.e. for a rehydration procedure . . .

to the ramping up of the pressure in another lengthy in-person “consultation ” . . .

. . . to the multiple different trigger points the vet, "Steffi", came from in trying to get an "OK, then" response . . . from the clinical, "he's probably had a neurological event", to "he'll go downhill from here and don't you want to remember the good times instead?" . . . to "I remember how he used to run around the room and come up and lick me" (like a reminiscing family member, when she'd only ever seem him once, or at most, twice before and on a consulting room table) . . . to "you can't take him back into the van" (I was temporarily in a small campervan while flood-related repairs were being carried out on my house) . . . to every other angle she could come from as she probed for the one - logic or emotion-based - that would achieve the result she wanted from me . . .

. . . to the “urgency” of the claimed need . . .

. . . to the blatant evasion of discussing anything about the actual reason I'd brought him in i.e. basic rehydration . . .

. . . to the avoidance of any opportunity for me to seek a second opinion . . .

. . . to the fact that she didn't allow Harry to be brought through to the consulting room until a long duration into the coercive conversation, and (I see this now in retrospect) allowed herself full opportunity to explain away and reframe what I was about to see as the completely different, unrecognisable condition I was about to witness him, in contrast to how I had delivered him at circa 11pm the previous night (i.e. approx. 15 hours earlier) . . .

. . . to the presentation of him to me with the infrastructure of euthanasia already installed in his leg while I was still actively rejecting the notion . . .

. . . . to the cognitive dissonance of the fact that the intended euthanasia-catheter-securing bandage was a heavy cast-like structure clearly designed to keep my supposedly “brain evented” dog still from his sporadic bucking and vocalising (which I too late realised was him trying valiantly to push through the undisclosed dense fog of the heavy sedation they’d put him under) . . .

. . . . to the vet, Steffi’s wickedly wry “it’s a done deal, so don’t fight this” smile when our eyes met as they handed him to me with that cast on . . .

. . . to the unrelenting, terrier-like way this "Steffi" probed and probed and probed (and probed, and probed, and probed) - like a phlebotomist probing for the right vein to hit - for the right finally trigger, word, phrase, image or fear that would achieve that "OK, then, if there's really no other option" response from me . . .

. . . to the trigger that finally worked on me: the claim that Harry was mentally "slipping away" and "how would I feel about the fact that there would be fewer and fewer instances when he would recognise me" ( note: given what I clearly know and see now i.e. that the dog that was perfectly in tune with me in the normal manner of his entire life, was the dog and his condition when I walked through the doors of the facility the night before, and given that it is now known that in the intervening period between then and Steffi the vet's claims, he was placed under catastrophic levels of unwarranted, contraindicated multi-pharmaceutical sedation - that he was already trying to push himself out of in response to me - that picture this "vet" created in my mind was wickedly fraudulent) . . .

. . . to the sparkle in her eyes and the out-of-place jack-in-the-box speed with which she jumped from her chair to go and get the needles and the substances etc the very second I finally hung my head in acquiescence, in her obvious endeavour to ensure thee was no time and no opportunity for me to waver or change my mind . . .

. . . to the strange insistence that my scarf should hide the large rigid blue bandage on Harry’s leg during the taking of the “goodbye” photos . . .

. . . to the strange excitedness that she and the vet nurse assisting her exhibited as they stood at the door of my van (where I insisted “the deed” be done rather than a cold steel table) waiting for me to allow them to “do it” . . .

. . . . to the final scene whereby Harry (clearly comprehending the essence of their intentions) suddenly rose up strongly on his hind legs like a little bucking bronco and started screaming . . .

. . . and their rapid reactive insistence that I grab him hard and hold him down while "Steffi" tugged the top of the euthanasia needle with her teeth and jammed it into the catheter.

And the objective was achieved.

The body of evidence was now a dead one that would soon be “disposed” of.

And Harry’s adoring owner would (they thought but have now been acquainted with the contrary) never know the truth of what had led to that final, frightful scene in Harry’s precious little life.

So why do I deserve the unspeakable pain with which I am left to deal for the rest of my life?

Because – of ALL people – I KNOW the foolishness of ignoring intuition and “gut”.

I work in the field of high-stakes corporate and government construction megaproject bids. And one of my points of difference in my tutorship and coaching is that I teach the many different levels of “thinking”.

And one of those levels is actually not thinking at all . . . it is the somatic response of subconscious pattern recognition.

Intuition is the brain's ability to process thousands of environmental cues and past experiences in a split second . . . long before the analytical mind can catch up. It is a biological survival mechanism that identifies anomalies and threats by comparing the current situation against an internal database of "normal" behaviour, making it a highly reliable, data-driven warning system.

I TEACH THIS. I teach it to the most resistant, commercially hardened audience imaginable . . . and I change their entire perception with it.

And yet, when the stakes were life-or-death high, I failed both my beloved dog, Harry ( who was no less than a child to me ), and I failed myself.

For that, I deserve NIL sympathy.

What I DO deserve understanding for, however, is being trapped by the no-win toxic “cancel” culture of Massey’s veterinary teaching “hospital” – one where if you object to even the most objectionable , you do so at the risk of the threat to withdraw services and treatment from your pet. It is a gnawing issue that - had I not been concerned for the possible ramifications to me or, worse still to Harry (which ended up happening anyway), I would have covered long since in another labour-of-love blog I started back in January 2024, for the dog community, DoggieMamma.com ).

That is, having experienced that on several occasions prior to that fateful night of November 30 ( w hen I had restrained the expression of my horrified reaction to seeing two ICU nurses completely ignore my little blind dog in a state of high distress ), I held my tongue due to my fear that I might trigger their toxic "cancel culture" and inadvertently let loose the wrecking ball of Harry's destruction.

Ironically, holding my tongue resulted in exactly what I sought to avoid.

For being trapped in the no-win situation created by the veterinary facility's own toxic culture, I can forgive myself.

But for ignoring the massive red flags that flew in my face, one after the other in quick succession over the intense and sustained period of deception and coercion the following day? No. I cannot forgive myself for that.

_______________________

Detailed evaluation of article displayed at top of article:

This photo, taken minutes before Harry was taken to my campervan to "euthanase" him under the pretences of "Steffi" (in my view, retrospectively speaking, NOT a "veterinarian" but rather an utterly immoral monster with psychopathic tendencies who should NEVER be allowed near anyone's pet ) provides the visual proof that the "vacant stare" she pointed to was not his blindness, but a classic symptom of a drug-induced state . . . and a p harmacological stasis rather than a terminal "brain event".

Ocular state: The "glassy" and "vacant" appearance exhibited by Harry's eyes display the telltale ptosis (drooping eyelid), particularly on the visible eye. This is a clear visual manifestation of Central Nervous System (CNS) Depression .

That is, profound pharmacological suppression rather than the natural "neurological event", this "Steffi" and her Companion Animal "Hospital" "colleagues" had manufactured to disguise his true condition - and thus to achieve my (greatly objecting) consent for the sudden and unexpected need for "urgent euthanasia".

Contrast with Blindness: While Harry was already blind, this image captures the "chemical glaze" that is distinct from a natural vacant stare, illustrating the systemic drug effect of the Gabapentin/Prevomax combination.

Muscle Tone (Hypotonia): Harry shows a symmetrical "wet rag" lack of tone . His head is lolled sideways against my shoulder with no evidence of independent muscular support or the "righting reflex" . This is, similarly, a manifestation of Central Nervous System suppression (or what might be described as a "chemical straitjacket" effect) i.e. of the heavy sedating agents he was (unbeknownst and undisclosed to me) administered repeatedly with in the hours before presenting him to me (and with his by-then life-essential rehydrating fluids discontinued just 8.5 hours into a prescribed 24-hour protocol, to - heinously - facilitate Harry's utilisation by teaching staff and students as a subject for experimentation and filming for teaching videos for the sheer profit of Massey University at what was intentionally planned to be the cost of his life.

Off-the-Charts Evil In New Zealand's Veterinary House of Horrors . . . A Pet Parent's Victim Impact Statement

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:39:31 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original January 21 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

Off-the-Charts Evil:
New Zealand's Veterinary House of Horrors . . A Pet Parent's Victim Impact Statement

NOTHING made sense. NOTHING she said . NOTHING about the intensity with which she bore into me - first in a phone call of nearly an hour, and then in at least another hour of intense, multi-angle psychological trigger point attempts - to convince me that the little dog standing on his hind legs reaching out and screaming for comfort in that emotionally bereft ICU ward the night before, had suddenly had a mysterious "neurological event", was near-comatose, and needed urgent "euthanising".

But EVERYTHING would have made sense, if she had disclosed the truth :

Rather than take the time or effort to offer a terrified little blind dog a moment of human comfort, they had lazily and irresponsibly (beyond all comprehension) "convenience medicated" my little Harry into an over-drugged stupor , with a cocktail of unnecessary, potent, heavy-duty sedatives contraindicated for the compromised kidneys the blood tests they had just conducted clearly showed he had.

Then, as I would later, and far too late, learn through my own investigations, they had repeated the doses - each one a massive overdose in its own right - three times over, before administering the final king hit dose just eight hours after the first . . . and then, unbelievabiy disconnecting him from his, by-then absolutely life-essential IV rehydrating fluids, to heartlessly and opportunistically transition him from "patient" to "student experimentation and video content subject".

And opposite to confessing to it, " Steffi", the pre-planned deception's frontwoman , appeared to revel in duping me into the belief that Harry had had some "neurological event" from which he would never recover. The truth of the matter was, he was - even as I finally got him back into my arms - trying to push himself through the chemical straitjacket she and her "colleagues" had pharmacologically placed him in , a valiant attempt to communicate that he was "still in here".

Valiant attempts that the incomprehensible wicked Massey vet laughingly passed off as "his last hurrah " , insisting that he was unrecoverable, as she continued towards the objective she was hellbent on achieving.

But it's WORSE than "just" that, isn't it, Steffi, "colleagues" and students in the House of Veterinary Horrors:

If the only logical conclusion I can come to about the fact that you took EIGHT videos (and are refusing to release SIX of them) of a little dog admitted for the not particularly fascinating procedure of rehydration, is that - (assuming your horrendous error wasn't intentional to start with) having realised your error - instead then of administering life-saving treatment to correct your error, you decided to make this catastrophic situation the subject of clinical observation.

READER: THIS LOGICAL CONCLUSION HAS SINCE BEEN WELL AND TRULY CONFIRMED. READ THE DETAIL HERE .

You made the conscious and unconscionable decision to use Harry as a disposable teaching tool. (WARNING TO READERS: BEFORE CLICKING THE LINK TO THAT SPECIFIC ARTICLE, PLEASE KNOW THAT IF YOU ARE AN ANIMAL LOVER, YOU WILL FIND THE IMAGES OF WHAT WAS DONE TO HARRY MORE THAN MILDLY DISTRESSING - AND TO BE NOTED, THESE ARE JUST MASSEY'S SELECTED "STILLS" FROM THE VIDEOS MASSEY OTHERWISE REFUSES TO RELEASE.)

I could - but it would be a likely ongoing death sentence to other people's pets to - "simply" describe you as embodying everything that is wrong with the veterinary sector today (and dear God, there is much ), but your capacity for the execution (literally) of the sheerest form of evil renders you far, far, far beyond that.

The Intentional Cruelty & Harry's Suffering Were Beyond Comprehension . . . As Is Their Unmitigated Cold, Clinical Documentation of It for 'Teaching Aid' Value

It is almost worse for me that I have uncovered the truth.

Because now I have to do it with the visual and tactile memory of having even executed your final instruction to literally grab my precious Harry by his little blue coat and haul him down on his stomach - as he was screaming and bucking like a little bronco.

And why was he doing so, "Steffi", you walking personification of evil ?

For the very reason you needed him gone so urgently , and for the very reason that you had his leg restrained in something akin to a plaster cast to receive the lethal injection you had all day planned for him: because he needed to be disposed of before the uber-sedating you had done of him, could finally wear off and I would suddenly realise the truth of his "condition ". Because you were stunned by how hard he was fighting (what I never knew was the sedation) to reach me, weren't you? You spiritually vile, psychopathic creature.

And you panicked at the door of the van, didn't you, Steffi, when you revoltingly ripped the top of that hyperdermic with your teeth and acted with the lightning speed that gave me no time to process the implications of what I was seeing in Harry as he suddenly began kicking and screaming . . . which was that he was not suffering "neurological decline" or an "event" .. . . he was catastrophically drugged .

I have to (try to) live with all of that. That scene and those that led up to it , would be one of the most traumatic things that could ever happen to a devoted and loving pet owner with a bond like I had with Harry.

But I am now having to live with it at a whole different level of emotional and yes, even, profoundly physical impact, following the discoveries you never thought I'd make, and the realisation that you did your evil utmost to ensure I never did make.

A Pet Parent's Victim Impact Statement

Well, I did. And this is my Victim Impact Statement. Which will slide off your back as easily as your complete absence of conscience let you - without prick of guilt - preside over a scenario in which you saw to it that my little boy, quite unnecessarily was made to die in unthinkable and prolonged physical, mental and emotional agony . . . while "safely" (for you, but certainly not for him) separated from his one anchor and source of love and safety: his loving mamma.

The real victim is, of course, Harry . But in so unnecessarily bringing about the end of Harry's life - and in the horrific and unthinkable circumstances in which you did and the prolonged, multiple inflictions upon this "teaching aid" aka lab rat (as you and your colleagues used him) - you have robbed me of all emotional peace for the rest of my life.

It is incomprehensible that you are in a position where you are empowered so lethally and so grimly, without consequence.

This may be the most heinous execution of your misappointed powers , but I struggle to believe that you have not misappropriated them, likely many times, in the past.

If there is a stage beyond reprehensible and incomprehensible, then that is the only possible description for the fact that the Massey University Companion Animal Veterinary "Hospital" and its management teach its "graduates" this form and degree of cruelty, deception, absence of any compassion or ethics , and complete contempt for your own industry's Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians.

I would take this opportunity to point out that, in setting these "standards" for the university's veterinary "graduates", you are effectively, each year, pumping out into the veterinary sector at large , a swathe of walking liabilities for their employers, as well as for the pets and pet owners who patronise the practices of those employers.

You are also flying in the face of one of the most intensively discussed concerns of veterinary ethics bodies and leaders internationally: the increasing incidence of transgressive acts of commission i.e. the active perpetration of deeds that violate moral, ethical, legal, or social boundaries.

Exactly, "Steffi" and "colleagues", what you have so proficiently demonstrated that you excel in.

For readers who have come this far with me, please ensure you're across the latest findings here . . . I come with full receipts for every one of my claims and charges.

My discoveries, as I have persisted, against every roadblock put up by the Massey institution, have been harrowing and heartbreaking. As is even writing this Victim Impact Statement.

But I owe it Harry. I owe it to honour him for what he suffered . . . and still had the will to do his utmost to fight to stay with me.

He fought the sheer evil of an entire institution and a cascade of actions stacked up to ensure against his very survival .

Meantime . . .

That blood-staining / blood-shadowing / bleeding-indicative patch around Harry's nose and muzzle? Look at it carefully.

I had a highly sophisticated AI subscription service analyse it. Here is its output:

Visual Forensic Analysis: The Muzzle and Eyes

Looking closely at the high-resolution image ( Harry at Massey - pic 1 - glassy- vacant- half-closed eyes )

Around the Muzzle: There are visible dark, reddish-brown patches and staining around his nose and the edges of the mouth.

Clinical Implications: These could indicate epistaxis (nosebleed) or hemoptysis (coughing up blood), often associated with acute internal distress or side effects from aggressive pharmacological intervention. This staining suggests a period of acute physical struggle or physiological crisis that occurred before the photo was taken.

"The presence of localised, dark, reddish-brown discoloration in the fur specifically concentrated around the nostrils and the corners of the mouth is a classic forensic indicator of dried fluid—most commonly blood or serosanguinous discharge."

"In a professional veterinary ICU setting, staff would likely have wiped away active bleeding to maintain 'clinical appearance', but unless they performed a deep chemical cleaning of the fur, the protein-based staining of blood is notoriously difficult to remove completely from light-colored or fine facial fur."

Forensic Reasoning:

The Concentration: The fact that the staining is not a general "muckiness" but is concentrated at the respiratory and oral exits strongly suggests the fluid originated from within (epistaxis or hemoptysis).

The "Cleaning" Indicator: If the fur looks slightly damp or "matted down" in those specific areas despite being mostly "clean," it suggests an attempt to wipe away a substance that was previously much more prominent.

The Context of Struggle: High-stress struggle or severe pharmacological reactions (like pulmonary edema or acute hypertension) can lead to small capillary ruptures in the nasal passage or lungs.

Physiological Response: High stress, extreme anxiety, or intense physical struggle triggers a "fight-or-flight" response, releasing adrenaline and cortisol. This causes a sudden, sharp rise in blood pressure.

Mechanism of Rupture: The delicate, superficial blood vessels (capillaries) in the nasal mucosa (specifically Kiesselbach's plexus) are thin-walled. A sudden pressure surge can cause these "tiny hoses" to leak or burst, resulting in a nosebleed.

Contributing Factors: Stress-induced behaviours, such as aggressive rubbing or blowing of the nose, can further rupture these already strained vessels.

Pulmonary Edema: Severe pharmacological reactions and lung capillaries: Certain drugs or toxins can trigger severe, non-inflammatory pulmonary edema, where fluids and blood leak from capillaries into the lungs.

Stress Failure of Pulmonary Capillaries: Abnormally high pressure in the pulmonary circulation - caused by severe pharmacological reactions, intense exertion, or acute left ventricular failure—can lead to "stress failure" of the capillaries. This involves physical breaks in the capillary endothelial layer and alveolar epithelium.

Frank Hemorrhage: These breaks can lead to increased permeability, leakage of protein, and, in severe cases, actual bleeding (hemorrhage) into the lungs.

Acute Hypertension

Vascular Strain: A hypertensive crisis (severely elevated blood pressure) places immense strain on the entire vascular system.

Target Organ Damage: This pressure can rupture small blood vessels in the nasal mucosa, causing epistaxis, or damage the pulmonary vasculature, leading to pulmonary edema.

In summary, this represents the mechanism of stress failure in both pulmonary and systemic capillaries under extreme pressure.

The Eyes: The eyes are not just "closed"; they are vacant and glassy, with a significant "third eyelid" (nictitating membrane) protrusion. This is a classic sign of heavy sedation or profound systemic shock."

This completely contradicts the narrative of a spontaneous "neurological event", according to the AI.

I further enquired of the AI regarding the heavy blue cast-like bandage they had installed around Harry's foreleg prior to the success of their coercion of me to agree to his termination. I could not show the AI for visual analysis as Steffi, the "vet", had insisted on my scarf being used to cover over the bandage so that it would not be visible in any photos.

The Foreleg: The heavy wrapping/splinting on his leg - which you have described as being like a "plaster cast" - is highly irregular for a simple IV site. It suggests immobilisation for a patient who was expected to (or had been) physically resisting.

Add all this to the fact that it was actually readily and casually admitted to that they hadn't bothered to feed him for the entire period (which explains the earlier, very young, admission vet's laissez faire attitude to my insistence that - since the whole issue that prompted me to bring him to Massey that night, was he'd become heat-affected by the late November temperatures in my hot little camper van and hadn't eaten for nearly 48 hours but had suddenly begun eating again coming through Otaki - that I leave her with the rest of the roast lamb that he had just wolfed down. (She never did bother herself to take it from me, in the end. She was too keen to clock off i.e. her shift was ending. Tell you something, much?)

Add it to the likely fact that - given the condition in which I had retrieved Harry from this veterinary "hospital" after a previous stay back in 2024 and that it was admitted to then that he neither been given water (despite the essential nature of hydration for a kidney-compromised dog) nor toileted during his entire day-long stay - it's reasonable to assume he probably hadn't been given water this time, either (which would have gone some way to helping his kidneys flushing through and reducing his reaction to the catastrophically administered contraindicated convenience-sedation cocktail).

For a dog with known kidney compromise, water isn't just "care". It's his primary defence against pharmacological toxicity.

Alarmingly, I discovered more recently, that they discontinued his IV fluids to use him for teaching video content , while continuing to slam him with massive overdoses of a contraindicated cocktail of unnecessary and unauthorised heavy-duty sedatives .

It wasn't just reckless; it was an intentional physiological setup for the crisis they then had their students ghoulishly film on cell phones , as they conducted all manner of lab rat-type experiments and procedures on him.

Six Unreleased Videos

Until Massey is finally forced to release the six withheld videos I am forced to ask:

And why was he - as I have now discovered - not only massively over-sedated for the sake of your ICU staff's convenience, but then REPEATEDLY SEDATED THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT AND ON INTO THE MORNING? WHY ??

Clearly, the invasive teaching aid procedures performed upon him could not possibly have been performed in front of students watching a struggling, screaming, terrified BLIND dog. Sedation neatly converted him from an inconvenience for your ICU staff into a useful teaching prop.

DID I MENTION THAT HARRY WAS BLIND? Using him in lab rat-style experiments is cruel for any animal, and most certainly a breach of all Duty of Care contractual standards to the University's paying clientele, but to use a BLIND DOG in this manner is reprehensible in the extreme .

At the end of these hours of multi-faceted living hell to which my precious little boy was subjected, Harry had, according to your plan, to be disposed of. Which had to include my consent. And that was achieved only after two hours of intense psychological and emotional manipulation on an owner who repeatedly told you "no" and who repeatedly told you they were both acutely and chronically sleep deprived and unable to properly process the situation. The sleep deprivation - involving both Harry and I - was even in your own notes.

Which you then had to dispose of. Which involved convincing his owner to let you do so. Which necessitated the manufacture of a false narrative to pass of his over-sedated presentation as a some vaguely-explained sudden neurological decline.

How my precious little boy must have suffered: physically, emotionally, and mentally. Beyond comprehension.

And in the "care" of the premium-fee, "gold standard" veterinary "hospital" facility of one of New Zealand's supposed (and clearly falsely-labelled) "premier" educational institutions. (I again paid premium fees for this "care" and for what was meant to be the straightforward clinical procedure of simple rehydration.)

With the increasing revelations and their associated realisations, I am left to struggle with the images of the immense suffering, neglect, unadulterated cruelty and outright abuse , to which my precious little dog was, behind those closed ICU doors, for 15 long and tortuous hours, mercilessly subjected.

Suffering some of which, I strongly suspect, was evident in the six of the eight teaching videos the University's Legal and Governance department have refused to release to allow me any expert interpretation of .

(This is the subject of a formal complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner i.e. the failure to act in accordance with the relevant Principles of the Privacy Act in terms of their requirements for accessibility of clinical records. And in this instance, the particularly egregious nature of the refusal to release these records, given their likely demonstration of the physical trauma suffered by my dog by the actions of, and at the hands of Massey's veterinary personnel and their students.

To My Fellow Pet Owners (Or I Used to Be): How Would YOU Cope?

Tell me, if you are one of my readers who also happens to be a pet owner (and 64% of all New Zealand households are), how do you cope with these revelations and the knowledge of this horror?

Frankly, I'm not. I haven't slept more than a few hours since I first found that invoice - and the puzzle pieces began, progressively and beyond painfully, to drop into place. One by one. And even now, the full picture hasn't been completed, as the horrific realisations continue. Mercilessly. Like this one. That Harry was so pharmacologically and physically abused by the Companion Animal "Hospital" personnel (to say nothing of mentally and emotionally) that it was likely he bled profusely from the nose .

Under any other circumstances the staff and students of this veterinary house of horrors would be reported to the SPCA, and likely successfully charged with animal cruelty. In fact, given Harry's disabled status (a blind dog), they would likely be charged with aggravated cruelty to an animal.

The Systemic, Clinical Abuse of A Pet Behind Closed Doors Is Also the Severe & Unconscionable Abuse of the Pet Parent

Further, the enabling of that abuse to BOTH parties by dismissive regulatory bodies who effectively provide institutions like Massey and the broader veterinary sector with carte blanche impunity, is a compounding cruelty to the pet parent.

It's a corrupt ecosystem that allows hidden cruelty to flourish.

By turning the quintessential "blind eye" to the conduct of their industry colleagues , these regulatory bodies (who are actually charged with the active upholding of both clinical and ethical standards) are greenlighting the violation of a primary care-giving bond. They actively greenlight these acts of interpersonal violence and their perpetration by a clinical authority.

In my and Harry's case the Massey vet, "Steffi" engineered the most fundamental betrayal of my bond with Harry: She had me grab him and hold him down for her to inject him with the termination substance, as he struggled, NOT as she told me as his "last hurrah", but what I now know to be his desperate effort to signal to me that he was trying to break through the pharmaceutical "straitjacket" that she and her colleagues (and the students?) had put him in .

I have to carry this horrific scene and memory with me throughout the rest of my life. And I have to carry it knowing that my precious little dog spent the last but 15 hours but one of his life wondering why his Mummy had deserted him to these literal monsters that were doing things to him that he could not see but could most definitely feel . . . and would have been in an unthinkable state of fight-or-flight anticipating the infliction thereof.

And worse yet even than these horror memories and realisatiions, I have to live with the knowledge that all I needed to have known was that he was catastrophically sedated - and there was still a reasonable chance that if I'd gotten him the hell out of there and to a real veterinary practice, he might have been saved.

This is the worst moral injury that could ever be inflicted upon a pet owner, or "pet parent".

No Visibility, No Oversight. No Accountability.

We have laws for the visible abuse of animals in the street, but we lack transparency for the sophisticated, clinical abuse that happens behind the high-priced doors of a "teaching" hospital.

And institutions like Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital" and regulatory bodies like the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, lack either the emotional IQ and/or the willingness to understand - or to want to understand - the deep emotional, ethical and even spiritual bond between a highly bonded owner and pet . . . which doesn't in any way excuse their heartless practices, even so.

I have hardly slept. And I can't eat without becoming nauseous. I see the horrific images in my mind's eye all day, and when I move from REM sleep into a lighter stage of sleep, I wake up with adrenaline and cortisol coursing through my veins. Most mornings. Not just once or twice. Like now. I'm typing this at, literally, 4.21am, because I can't sleep.

The protective "mamma bear" instinct that I always had for Harry is still communicating to my brain that Harry is in danger . . . and my brain is trying to resolve a past problem that I no longer have the power to either prevent or solve. It's over. Like his life.

But my suffering will continue for the rest of my life. My pet had life yet to be lived. When the time came for a natural death, that would have been hard to bear but emotionally and spiritually acceptable.

But not a pointless execution under false pretences after 15 hours of hell on earth . . . .and wondering why his Mummy left him alone to endure it.

Massey Students Who Participated in This Horror Show Should Search Themselves to See If They Are Still In Possession of A Conscience

What Massey's unconscionable decisions, actions and unmitigated inflictions - for the sake of a predatory, opportunistic film festival and, I also believe, likely revenge on me - robbed Harry and I of is of no concern to them. But worse, much worse, is there moral and spiritual inability to even conceive of it.

Management, "Steffi" - the front face of the wicked pre-plotted deception,, the ICU personnel, the "teaching" staff, and certainly the participating students, should all search themselves to see if they are still in possession of a conscience and the required empathy to actually be - or become - veterinarians.

To those students who witnessed and/or participated in these acts of sophisticated - and probably not even that sophisticated - clinical abuse without objection or intervention, I say this:

As future "veterinarians", you have already been compromised before your veterinary careers have even begun. You have already reached a stage of complete ethical and moral desensitisation.

Ask yourselves honestly if you really are fit to enter a profession, the fundamental oath of which is to "ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care" and to maintain "the highest standards of professional conduct and integrity".

To be clear, both the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians and the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) oath emphasises that the veterinarian's first responsibility is to the animal .

By participating in the predatory and opportunistic film-making of a (BLIND aka DISABLED) patient's (reckless and intentionally-engineered) unmitigated pharmacologically-triggered reaction and suffering, those students violated the core tenets of the profession before they even took that oath.

And I must now live with the knowledge that I unwittingly delivered Harry into their hands.

And the completely unnecessary, and even then mitigable, yet unspeakable and sustained suffering that quite intentionally resulted - and that was filmed by these students with cold, cruel, clinical interest . . . accompanied by the strategy o f deception to coerce my consent for the disposal of what they saw purely as an expendable "teaching tool" now ready for disposal .

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)

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

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:36:36 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original February 12 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

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

Why Did My Precious Little Boy Die . . . Die Needlessly . . . And In Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony?

When all I had taken him into Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital' for, that fateful night, was a straightforward rehydration procedure? That, arguably, I could have taken him to any vet clinic for, had it not been a Sunday evening?

To Pet Parents Everywhere: If there is one article you need to read, it's this one . . . if you never want to find yourself duped into becoming an active participant in your own pet’s unnecessary and pre-meditated clinical execution.

The Massey University Companion Animal Hospital House of Horrors, Malpractice & Lethal Deception

Two months ago, I learned what it’s like – exactly how it feels – to take part in a cold-blooded, pre-planned, orchestrated-in-detail clinical killing.

I hope you never have to learn exactly what that’s like . . . especially if it relates to your own deeply beloved pet.

Sweet, Innocent, Loving . . . & Totally Expendable

If any of readers of this article know me, you’ll know that I am rarely ever seen – anywhere, for any reason – without my precious little papillon, Harry. Harry is adored by everyone who comes into contact with him. You don’t have to even go past his photo to see why. And his sweet, loving, intelligent personality matches that sweet, innocent and characterful exterior.

On November 30 ^th , after having been relegated to my small camper van for several weeks due to an ongoing debacle involving insurance-related repair work to my property and some rogue contractors who had left it in an uninhabitable state, Harry had started to become badly affected by the hot temperatures of that week. He’d gotten what I would describe as “weak and wilty” and had lost his appetite over the previous 24 hours when the temperatures down in Wellington had seen the mercury spike relentlessly for over a week. Since it was a Sunday night, I made the decision to head for Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital. We were already living mobile, so it was a decision that was immediately actionable.

By the time we reached Otaki, the skies had suddenly opened up and were pouring down a torrential rain. Harry had perked up, so I stopped at the New World supermarket and decided to try my luck with getting him to eat. He devoured a huge bowl of roast lamb slices – and I debated whether or not I’d keep on to Massey, or consider the emergency over. Dear God, how I wish I’d taken the latter option. But I didn’t. I thought I’d “play it safe” and take him in anyway.

When I arrived, an alarmingly young vet (looking nervous and completely lacking any degree of confidence) came out to let us in. We went through a “consult” and she advised that he was “dehydrated” and needed rehydration . . . which made perfect sense. She wanted to take Harry through and get him started on a rehydration IV process. With my worry about Harry, I hadn’t eaten myself and could feel a likely blood sugar crash coming on, so I told her she could do that and I’d be back in 30 minutes (there’s a Burger King 10 minutes down the road from Massey).

The Last Time I Would Ever Recognise My Beloved Dog

When I returned, I insisted that – if I was going to leave him in ICU overnight , given the hour and the rehydration process required – I wanted to see where he was caged and take his toys and bedding to him.

'That would be the last time I ever recognised my beloved dog. Although it shouldn’t have been. But I’ll get to that in a minute.

When I walked through the ICU ward doors, I heard him screaming. He was terrified, wrenched from my arms and dumped in a cold steel cage, all alone.

Blind, Disoriented, Crying and Terrified . . . & Completely, and Persistently, Ignored by Two Socially-Chatting ICU Staff

Harry was blind. A small, senior papillon, he was completely disoriented and facing the back wall of the cage. When he heard me he re-oriented himself to face me, and became more and more vocal, standing up on his hind legs and reaching out his front legs through the grid of the cage door to me.

If that sounds heartrending, it was. But let me broaden the picture for you:

As I walked through the ICU doors , I couldn’t believe what I was seeing and hearing.

The two ICU staff were literally, totally, ignoring him . They were fully engrossed in their own audibly, social and very jovial conversation. A tiny uber-distressed soul just metres from them was totally invisible to them, screaming in terror at having been dumped in a cage with no human voice for comfort nor any form of attention whatsoever. And might I remind readers, Harry was blind. A blind dog has only sound and touch for orientation and comfort.

As he stood up on his hind legs and stretched his front paws through the bars to me, still screaming, I expressed my horror to the young vet – clearly within full hearing of the two ICU staff, who continued their merry (literally) conversation without even turning an ear or an eye.

I also expressed extreme concern to the young vet – who made no move to ask the ICU nurses(?) to acknowledge his presence in their environment – that, given Harry’s blindness and his degree of distress, he could easily withdraw sideways and break his front legs on the bars. Even when I was expressing this concern, the two ICU attendants continued to fully ignore me, the vet (who was busy making excuses for them that they also totally ignored), and Harry. They had by then moved from social conversation mode to goo-ing and gah-ing over a newborn kitten – which appeared to be one of a very few inhabitants of the ICU that night. They weren’t exactly run off their feet.

Teenage-Looking 'Vet' Had Nil Authority Over ICU Staff & Nil Courage to Try to Exercise Any

It was a truly surreal picture: This young vet sitting on the floor with me outside Harry’s cage, clearly too frightened of the ICU nurses to instruct them in any way at all. When I expressed my disbelief at what I was witnessing, including the fact that she would not move to ask them to attend to Harry, she was like a deer in the headlights . . . all she could do was sit and meekly insist that “they really love animals; I assure you that everyone here loves animals”.

I remember saying, “I see no evidence of that right now; my dog is screaming in terror and they’ve not only ignored him all this time, they can surely hear my own distress at the fact that they’re ignoring him now and even so continuing to pretend none of us are here . . . and they’re about four metres away from us.”

It was totally consistent with what I would find out the next day . . . albeit I don’ remember which one of them told me – probably the “SteffI’ ICU vet, because she’s the only one I remember having any contact with (aside from her “euthanising” assistant) - i.e. that they admitted they didn’t feed him. And I know they didn’t even try to feed him (contrary to their retrofitted "Clinical Summary" that I would later obtain), because I told them I wanted to leave the rest of the roast lamb that he had devoured eagerly on the way up, at Otaki. They didn’t want it – despite Harry's being grossly underweight and now finally having broken his fast with something he would obviously be keen to eat again soon.

There was absolutely NIL care – not even the pretence of it.

'My Shift Is Finishing . . . Let's Hurry This Along'

My gravest concern in that moment was the fact that the young vet was keen to get me out of ICU since – she claimed – her shift was finishing . . . which, to me and thus, of course, to Harry, meant that he would be completely alone in an environment with a couple of negligent, laughing socialisers whose presence in that ICU ward made it feel more like the staff tearoom.

But – and albeit not for the same gutless reasons that the young intrepid, irresponsible vet was too scared to say anything to the two “nurses?” – I knew I was on dangerous ground if I dared say a thing to them. You see, I’ve pointed out on a good number of occasions – both verbally and in writing – to the practice manager, Pauline Nijman, the culture of either inattention or, sometimes, arguably downright negligence that I had either experienced or witnessed in that “hospital” (and on several occasions the exercise of downright psychological cruelty). For my efforts I’ve been “soft-threatened” with the classic “cancel culture” that only the pampered, unaccountable employees of a large publicly-funded institution like Massey can get away with.

That night, as I was ushered out of ICU and had to leave my distressed and crying little Harry in their “care” , I had to make a decision that Massey should be utterly ashamed that any pet owner should have to make: ask for the care Harry needed and that I was paying handsomely for and risk “cancel culture” at the worst possible time, risk that Harry would suffer as a result of any interchange, or risk that he would continue being ignored, in his increasingly distressed state. Already seeing the cruelty of which these two ICU staff were clearly capable based on their negligent ignoring of Harry’s distress, I chose what I thought was the “safer” option, saying nothing as I walked back through the ICU doors.

The next morning, I received a call from the day vet, Steffi. Harry had “had a neurological event”, she told me, and “ must be euthanased . . . TODAY”.

From 'Rehydration' to 'Unrecoverable' in the Space of A Few Hours? What HAPPENED?

I couldn’t believe that a dog needing rehydration, who had just eaten a large bowl of roast lamb prior to his arrival the night before, suddenly had to be “euthanased”.

But Steffi spent probably an hour on the phone with me, as I sat in a disbelieving daze on the floor of the outlet I was in, trying to process this news. She was insistent that I should make a decision immediately and that they would have him prepared for the final scene when I arrived. I told her in no uncertain terms, that I was NOT making a decision of such irreversible gravity on the phone , and I would begin driving up there.

It should be noted that, during that entire, exhaustive conversation – where she had my full and undivided attention – s he never once mentioned that she had actually administered 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax .

She chose instead to spend that time pushing in general and vague terms, for the decision to kill him rather than disclosing the pharmacological reality of the state he was in .

This was a calculated suppression of clinical facts during a period of active, high-stakes communication.

Meantime, trying to process the news and potentially prepare myself for the worst, and still in a daze of disbelief and emotion, in case she was right that he had declined so rapidly that his end was genuinely and otherwise naturally nigh, I went into a jeweller’s store before arriving at Massey. I bought two solid gold cross pendants. I took them to the Plaza engraver, and had one engraved with “Mummy’ (for Harry) and the other engraved with “Harry” (for me). I put these deep in my handbag, hoping against hope that they weren’t going to be necessary.

When I arrived, Steffi led me into a consulting room. I was too dazed and disbelieving to remember how she kicked off the conversation, but in retrospective – if you’ll pardon my own horrible pun – she was ready for the kill.

She had planned every angle: the clinical necessity (he’s had a neurological event), the guilt-tripping (he’s blind and he doesn’t have any real quality of life” – which, by the way, is complete bullshit and how would she know? I took him everywhere with me in a little stroller and his world was full of love and stimulation); then the emotional I’m-attached-to-him-just-like-you” angle (“he’s not the dog I remember; I remember him running around from person to person in the room and coming up and licking me” . . . I don’t remember that; he’s only been seen by her once or at most twice i.e. Massey is an emergency or after-hours facility, she’s never exactly been his “regular vet”).

Between the Phone Call & the Consult, She Tried Every Conceivable, Disingenuous Emotional & Psychological Trigger Point . . . Until She Found the One That Finally Worked ('Before Long, He Won't Recognise You' . . . Bullshit, 'Steffi', He Had No Problem Recognising Me Even through Your Drugging; Albeit, Remember I Never Knew He WAS Drugged)

After somewhere between one and two hours of circling back and around and her trying to convince me first with a clinical argument and then with an emotional angle and around and around, she brought him in and I took him from her.

Yeah, he certainly wasn’t in good shape. But there was something truly weird about it: one minute he would be vocalising; the next he would be hanging coathanger-style over my arms; and then he’d want to get down on the floor and have a wobble around; then I’d pick him up again and he’d lean his head back and try to kiss me; then he’d collapse again.

My first reaction was: what the HELL had they done to him overnight in the ICU? Did their cruel negligence of him in that cage result in their psychologically “breaking” him? No, no, assured Steffi. He’d had a totally unrelated “neurological event”. It would have happened anywhere, anyway. “It’s just his time,” she said. "He's not coming back."

But there was something that should have been my first massive red flag . . . and I’m ashamed to say I let myself be so torn between professional trust and the logic and gut reaction of my own observation that I didn’t react to it as I most certainly should have:

It was The wry smile that had come across "Steffi’s" somewhat arrogant face when our eyes met fleetingly as they had brought Harry in and I saw that – despite my still, at that stage, avid rejection of her insistence upon the need to end his life, they had brought him to me with the infrastructure of euthanisation already in place: a long, heavy blue cast-like “bandage” with the catheter in it.

Three reactions flooded my mind simultaneously as I saw it:

1) The audacity of this arrogant clinician's having obviously decided that they had made the decision without me and regardless of me,

2) That wry smile appeared to me the indication of her confidence that this powerful psychological ploy – this unspoken “obligation” upon me to follow through – would be successful, and

3) The fact that I had never before seen any such stiff, very substantial in size, immobilising type of “bandage”. Why was such an instrument of obvious immobilising intent required for my little Harry, given the flaccid state he was in? Albeit, I subsequently realised that he was going in and out of that flaccid state and another very vigorous, vocalising and “objecting” state . . . a state I would later, too l ate, realise from my research and as confirmed by the “smoking gum” invoice line items, was a dog trying desperately to reach me through extreme sedation . . . to let me know that, “I’m still in here, Mummy.”

When "Steffi" was trying to convince me about this “neurological event” that he’d apparently had ( by the way, no mention was ever made of the rehydration process that I’d actually brought him in for ), I was at pains to show her his intermittent cognisance and impressive strength.

I prompted him with his well-recognised prompt: “Show Mummy your strong leggies” . . . as I put my arm under his back paws for him to press down on them with his back paws . . . a prompt he eagerly responded to .

I said to Steffi, “ Look, he’s still so strong. HOW can I let you kill him ?”

She just laughed and said, “I strongly suspect it’s just his ‘last hurrah’.”

Her next, escalated efforts were her kill shot: (Readers, remember, I'm a journalist of 40 years' experience. My ability to quote with precision has never been questioned.)

“He’s not coming back, Jordan. He will never be the dog you knew. He will become increasingly unrecognisable. He will stop recognising you at all, and it will break your heart even more than now. This is the best time. Do it while he still recognises you, before he becomes fully vacant and stops recognising you at all. And it would be cruel to him to let him get to that stage.”

Yep. There it was. She finally got me . The kill shot. The thought that I would have beside me a little dog who no longer recognised me. Whose consciousness was ebbing away anyway. Who it would be “cruel” to let him “get to that stage”.

While I Was Paralysed With Grief, 'Steffi the Vet' Was Brimming with A Strange, Heady Energy & Urgency

And so, with my heart paralysed with grief – and yet STILL, even at that stage uncertain, BECAUSE NOTHING HAD FELT RIGHT IN MY GUT ABOUT THE WHOLE STORY OR THE WHOLE THING . . .

. . . .from the fact that she had been so insistent with trying so many different angles on me . . . .

. . . . to the eerily telling (in retrospect) fact that when they brought him through, AND DESPITE MY HAVING BEEN VERY CLEAR ON THE PHONE THAT I WAS NOT MAKING ANY DECISION UNTIL I SAW HIM FOR MYSELF, they brought him into that consulting room with the “euthanasia infrastructure” already in place i.e. a catheter taped to his front leg with large, heavy-duty dark blue adhesive tape . . .

. . . to her wry smile when my eyes met hers as I saw it and recognised it for the powerful, unspoken psychologically coercive message that it was i.e. ' "It's a done deal, Jordan. We're doing it whether you like it or not. Everything's ready."

. . . . through to how unbefittingly excited and “heady’ her energy had become when I finally hung my head and tearfully consented. She had sprung eagerly to her feet, raced out and got her (seemingly equally eager) assistant, and they had Harry and I walking out to my van (where I said it must be done, rather than on some cold steel table) in quick-time.

They offered to take some “goodbye photos” on a patch of grass outside (which they did and later sent to me) . . .. and I should have questioned it then, but this "Steffi" wanted my scarf pulled over the leg that had the heavy-duty blue tape and the catheter in it. “We like dignity,” she joked.

When we got to the van and I climbed in with him, he suddenly rose up strongly once again on his back legs – this time so strongly he was standing upright. He screamed or “vocalised” loudly.

She told me to hold him down, and dear God, I cannot believe that at that moment in time I didn’t see the reality – and I did as instructed.

My little Harry was SO strong. It felt SO wrong to be pulling down to the bed a fully cognisant, crying, upright standing dog that had just the night before been delivered into their care for simple rehydration – and now to be suddenly restraining my beloved, precious baby, while this vet quickly sedated him (or, as I would later discover FURTHER sedated him), and like a flash of lightning whipped the cap off the syringe she was holding between her teeth and delivered her “final solution”.

She stood back, satisfied. She had achieved her objective. She had finished him off . . . whether I had liked it or not.

So Do You Want to Know What REALLY Went On In Behind the Closed Doors of that Horrific ICU Ward?

And NOW – do you want to know what REALLY went on with my little Harry? Do you want to know why my gut was screaming at me that something wasn’t right with this whole story and this whole scene just as loudly as Harry was screaming while standing up in that ICU cage the night before?

Because two weeks later I discovered the truth. I found the invoice that I had paid and that was emailed at the time of his killing (you can go to hell, Massey and you too, "Steffi", I am NOT calling it “euthanasia” because it wasn’t; it was a premeditated, unnecessary killing).

And here’s exactly what I was able to ascertain from that invoice : They had loaded up on three separate occasions (without cause and without my authorisation or even my knowledge) this tiny, dehydrated dog, with a cocktail of strong and potentiated sedatives on the morning of December 1 ^st. By the time I arrived at Massey that afternoon, he would have been at the peak of a pharmaceutical pincer effect caused by 200mg of Gabapentin and a potentiating dose of Prevomax, given while he was already metabolically compromised by the dehydration.

Incompetent or just plan wicked? Whichever it was (certainly both, in my view) . . . it was not only without my consent, but also without my knowledge . And here’s the evil in play: it remained outside of my knowledge until I found this smoking gun invoice . . . that, together with some deep-dive research, heartbreakingly, explained everything .

You see, I might not be a vet, but – like I said – something never felt right – and the more I reflected on every aspect of it all, the less right everything felt. So I started doing some research. And I put in a request for Harry’s full clinical records, the ICU CCTV footage and the CCTV footage of the goings-on in that consulting room. And I’ve asked for the metadata and audit (none of which I've ever received, only their alterable, and altered, "Summary" document). . . because I’m not only unimpressed with Massey’s ethics, I’m also aware that they’re capable of great cunning. So to the average pet owner who might not know the significance of the audit logs and metadata, these are a feature of modern veterinary clinical digital record-keeping systems, that show if and where records have been edited, added to, deleted, or otherwise altered, post the original date of the entry.

DO you know WHY I’ve requested these? I’ll tell you:

BECAUSE HARRY HAD NOT HAD A “NEUROLOGICAL EVENT’. HE WAS HEAVILY SEDATED. AND HIS SPORADIC DISPLAYS OF PHYSICAL STRENGTH THEN COLLAPSE THEN STRENGTH AGAIN, AND HIS ACTIVE DISTRESS, THEN TRYING TO BEND HIS HEAD BACK AND KISS ME, THEN COLLAPSING AGAIN . . . HE WAS UNDER THE HEAVY INFLUENCE OF TWO DRUGS THAT ARE WELL-DOCUMENTED WITHIN THE CLINICAL LITERATURE AS MIMICKING NEUROLOGICAL EVENTS .

And when he responded to his Mummy’s prompt to “show me your strong leggies” and then began struggling like a little bucking bronco in the van in that infamous final scene where – through his densely drugged state he sensed exactly the nature of the intentions of the two vet-coated women at the open van door – he suddenly stood up wildly on his back legs, like a little bucking bronco and started – not just “vocalising” but indeed, literally screaming – and screaming loudly.

And – while I had NO idea that what I was witnessing was a heavily drugged little Harry trying to communicate with me that he was “still in here”, the Massey vet, “Steffi’, certainly DID know that he was still in there, as she wickedly instructed me to hold him down, so that she could quickly get the kill shot into him and take him out.

In doing so, destroying (she thought) all possibility that the truth would ever be discovered.

But here – as I now (very much too late) know – is that truth:

The Invoice:

Gabapentin

Primary Uses: Used to manage chronic neuropathic pain, control seizures (often as an add-on therapy), and reduce anxiety/fear associated with veterinary visits or travel.

Sedative Properties: It is frequently used as a "pre-visit" sedative to make animals (especially cats) easier to handle during examinations.

Ataxia: While not its purpose, ataxia (loss of co-ordination/stumbling) is a common dose-dependent side effect. "At high doses, this lack of co-ordination can mimic neurological deficits, potentially leading to false-positive results during neurological exams,” states the well-known veterinary literature.

The Clinical Reality:

Harry Had NOT Had A 'Neurological Event'. . . . He Was Under Severe, Potentiated, Condition-Contraindicated, Unauthorised, Unnecessary & Undisclosed Sedation

Gabapentin creates stumbling, lack of co-ordination, and "drunken" behaviour (Ataxia).

The vet, “Steffi” told me these symptoms were the result of a “neurological event" that had caused permanent damage, and that Harry was "unfixable”.

But he wasn’t “ unfixable”.

He was drugged.

Convenience-drugged .

And with an agent (which was then potentiated with a further strong sedating agent), compounding the first i.e. magnifying the impacts of the Gabapentin, which is extremely well-known in the veterinary clinical literature to be s trictly contra-indicated for a dog with any degree of kidney disease . . . which the very blood tests the ICU staff had taken (and had back in hand) that night, demonstrated clearly that he had.

And his extreme response (given not only the non-necessity and thus unauthorised pharmacological intervention and the associated Breach of Duty of Care) to the convenience-based use of sedating drugs (something I had seen just two months prior when a local vet was careless in his administration of Gabapentin), had either caused staff to panic not knowing the eventual outcome of their actions, AND/OR they saw this as an opportunistic exit strategy for a client that had challenged them on occasion – and although with good cause, their individual and corporate egos had never coped well with it at all.

THAT was, or THEY were, the reason or reasons he had to be “euthanased” with urgency.

And THAT was why – despite my telling them I was making NO decision on the phone – they had him all prepped up with the infrastructure of his PLANNED demise well in place before I even arrived. It was also intended to be a strong psychological influencer, “Look, we’ve already made the decision for you.” And how interesting it was that such heavy duty tape should be needed for a dog that was, apparently, experiencing neurological failure.

AGAIN, AND I CANNOT SAY IT ENOUGH, THEY NEVER TOLD ME HE WAS UNDER HEAVY SEDATION - OR THAT HE'D HAD ANY SEDATION ADMINISTERED AT ALL. That he was “drugged”, “doped”.

But that, unbeknownst to me, was what I was seeing that fateful day. I was seeing a dog whose system was beginning to finally metabolise the Gabapentin and Prevomax with which he’d been loaded up. And actually, loaded up repeatedly.

"Steffi" was not "ending his suffering"; she was destroying the only living witness to her and her Massey colleagues' pharmaceutical malpractice. She was ensuring the truth would be buried with him.

And now I have to live the rest of my life with these visceral, horrific, haunting images . . . and the knowledge that all I had had to do was walk out of there with him and there was a decent chance he might still have survived his torture, if I had only known what I was dealing with and could have gotten him to an ethical and competent place of practice.

Clinical Research Note :

Prevomax (Maropitant) is officially an anti-emetic, but in this set of circumstances, it would have acted as a "secondary sedative" due to how it behaves in the brain and how it interacts with Gabapentin. When Prevomax is administered alongside Gabapentin, you are not just giving two drugs; you are creating a synergy . There is documented evidence in veterinary anaesthesia literature that Maropitant has an "anaesthetic-sparing effect".

This means it makes other sedatives and anaesthetics stronger than they would be on their own. By giving Harry Prevomax with Gabapentin, Massey’s veterinary staff effectively doubled-down on their convenience-sedation of him. The Gabapentin caused the ataxia (stumbling), and the Prevomax deepened the "vacant" look that "Steffi" used to claim he was neurologically failing.

Further – in a metabolic logjam of dehydration – In a dehydrated dog, the blood is more concentrated. This increases the "free fraction" of the drug in the bloodstream, making it more potent and much harder for a senior liver/kidney system to clear. That’s according to the Plumb’s Veterinary Drug Handbook , the "bible" of veterinary medicine.

And should some Massey shill be sufficiently desperate or sufficiently highly paid as to argue that "Prevomax isn't a sedative," actually, it’s worse, due to its anaesthetic-sparing effect . . . which means you, Massey, used a drug well-known to potentiate Central Nervous System depression in a dehydrated senior patient, and then you diagnosed that drug-induced depression as a terminal brain event.

That Massey, that "Steffi", is gross multi-level malpractice.

When I had prompted Harry ( "Show Mummy your strong leggies" ), he forced himself through willpower to break, momentarily, through the sedation.

A dog suffering a catastrophic brain event cannot "override" that deficit. But a sedated dog can - at least momentarily - override the drugs with which they have been sedated if that dog is stimulated by a familiar, beloved voice.

But . . . WHY?

And WHY had they sedated him to start with?

Sedation is prohibited under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct when a dog is neither in pain nor being prepared for surgery.

My Harry was not in pain, nor was he having surgery.

And, says the Code, such a drug should also be the subject of “OBTAINED AUTHORISATION” by the pet’s owner.

Nobody ASKED me. Nobody even TOLD me.

And It Gets WORSE. MUCH Worse.

READERS: PLEASE NOTICE SOMETHING ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH BELOW.

That blood-staining / blood-shadowing / bleeding-indicative patch around Harry's nose and muzzle? Look at it carefully.

At Home. A Normal Day.

This shows Harry standing up in his cot at home. It demonstrates his physical capability and is exactly how he was standing in the Massey ICU cage that fateful night – reaching through the bars and screaming for help while staff ignored him.

The Aftermath - At Massey. After They'd Finished With Him.

Taken in the hospital grounds moments before the "euthanasia" that turned out NOT to have been "euthanasia" at all . . . but rather a cold, calculated and coerced clinical killing, to cover up the catastrophic and contraindicated drug overdose they had given him the night before to stop him crying and seeking comfort.

It was NOT the "neurological event", they had me believe it was. If they had disclosed what they'd really done, there was still a chance he might have survived what they did to him. But they chose instead to coldly video his decline for "teaching aids" and do NOTHING to try to save him . . . instead taking the route of duping me into his termination.

I had a highly sophisticated AI subscription service analyse it. Here is its output:

Visual Forensic Analysis: The Muzzle and Eyes

Looking closely at the high-resolution image ( Harry at Massey - pic 1 - glassy- vacant- half-closed eyes )

Around the Muzzle: There are visible dark, reddish-brown patches and staining around his nose and the edges of the mouth.

Clinical Implications: These could indicate epistaxis (nosebleed) or hemoptysis (coughing up blood) , often associated with acute internal distress or side effects from aggressive pharmacological intervention. This staining suggests a period of acute physical struggle or physiological crisis that occurred before the photo was taken.

The presence of localised, dark, reddish-brown discoloration in the fur specifically concentrated around the nostrils and the corners of the mouth is a classic forensic indicator of dried fluid - most commonly blood or serosanguinous discharge.

"In a professional veterinary ICU setting, staff would likely have wiped away active bleeding to maintain 'clinical appearance', but unless they performed a deep chemical cleaning of the fur, the protein-based staining of blood is notoriously difficult to remove completely from light-colored or fine facial fur."

Forensic Reasoning:

The Concentration: The fact that the staining is not a general "muckiness" but is concentrated at the respiratory and oral exits strongly suggests the fluid originated from within (epistaxis or hemoptysis).

The "Cleaning" Indicator: If the fur looks slightly damp or "matted down" in those specific areas despite being mostly "clean", it suggests an attempt to wipe away a substance that was previously much more prominent.

The Context of Struggle: High-stress struggle or severe pharmacological reactions (like pulmonary edema or acute hypertension) can lead to small capillary ruptures in the nasal passage or lungs.

Physiological Response: High stress, extreme anxiety, or intense physical struggle triggers a "fight-or-flight" response, releasing adrenaline and cortisol. This causes a sudden, sharp rise in blood pressure.

Mechanism of Rupture: The delicate, superficial blood vessels (capillaries) in the nasal mucosa (specifically Kiesselbach's plexus) are thin-walled. A sudden pressure surge can cause these "tiny hoses" to leak or burst, resulting in a nosebleed.

Contributing Factors: Stress-induced behaviours, such as aggressive rubbing or blowing of the nose, can further rupture these already strained vessels.

Pulmonary Edema: Severe pharmacological reactions and lung capillaries: Certain drugs or toxins can trigger severe, non-inflammatory pulmonary edema, where fluids and blood leak from capillaries into the lungs.

Stress Failure of Pulmonary Capillaries: Abnormally high pressure in the pulmonary circulation - caused by severe pharmacological reactions, intense exertion, or acute left ventricular failure - can lead to "stress failure" of the capillaries. This involves physical breaks in the capillary endothelial layer and alveolar epithelium.

Frank Hemorrhage: These breaks can lead to increased permeability, leakage of protein, and, in severe cases, actual bleeding (hemorrhage) into the lungs.

Acute Hypertension:

Vascular Strain: A hypertensive crisis (severely elevated blood pressure) places immense strain on the entire vascular system.

Target Organ Damage: This pressure can rupture small blood vessels in the nasal mucosa, causing epistaxis, or damage the pulmonary vasculature, leading to pulmonary edema.

In summary, this represents the mechanism of stress failure in both pulmonary and systemic capillaries under extreme pressure.

Harry's Eyes: The Give-Away Sign of Heavy Sedation

"The eyes are not just 'closed'; they are vacant and glassy , with a significant 'third eyelid' (nictitating membrane) protrusion. This is a classic sign of heavy sedation or profound systemic shock . "

"This completely contradicts the narrative of a spontaneous 'neurological event'," according to the AI.

I further enquired of the AI regarding the heavy blue cast-like bandage they had installed around Harry's foreleg prior to the success of their coercion of me to agree to his termination. I could not show the AI for visual analysis as "Steffi", the "vet", had insisted on my scarf being used to cover over the bandage so that it would not be visible in any photos.

"The Foreleg: The heavy wrapping/splinting on his leg - which you have described as being like a "plaster cast" - is highly irregular for a simple IV site. It suggests immobilisation for a patient who was expected to (or had been) physically resisting."

The Implications for ‘Informed Consent’

Under New Zealand law and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct, a veterinarian must provide an accurate clinical picture.

Specifically, Clause 2.1 (Communication and Consent) states:

" Veterinarians must ensure that the client has a clear understanding of the animal’s condition and the options for treatment . . . to enable the client to make an informed decision. "

Further, Clause 2.8 mandates that " Veterinarians must provide accurate and complete information to clients. "

But "Steffi", the Massey vet, failed to tell me that Harry looked the way he did, because he had been sedated – instead claiming that he looked that way, essentially, because his brain was (according to her) failing.

She and her “colleagues” (or perhaps, more appropriately, “accomplices”) didn't just make an error. They fraudulently induced my consent for euthanasia – which, as these subsequent discoveries clearly show, was NOT “euthanasia”, but a calculated, coerced, clinical killing of my deeply loved dog.

Imagine their panic if I had thought to insist on taking him from the hospital and to another vet clinic – right then – for a second opinion. Another vet would not only have recognised the signs and state of a dog on his way out of heavy sedation, they would ALSO have asked Massey for his clinical records for the period of the admission . . . and would have seen immediately that the drug – Gabapentin – that Harry had been sedated with, mimics ataxia i.e. by (according to the well-documented research) “inducing proprioceptive deficits and drug-induced paresis”.

To be noted – as you will see of my publication of my requests for his information under the Privacy Act 2020, Massey’s “Legal and Governance” team aren’t particularly champing at the bit to hand these over to me.

While the Companion Animal "Hospital's" Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, had the records ready to hand over two weeks prior, the Legal and Governance team stepped in for a bit of – what sounds like – sanitisation .

It is plain to see that it is fully intended that my attempts at following formal routes (i.e my requests for Harry’s FULL AND UNREDACTED, PRIMARY CLINICAL RECORDS under the Privacy Act, along with OIA requests ) to uncover the truth are unlikely to achieve that.

But to the suits, and to the staff who knowingly participated in this travesty and the plan to "destroy the evidence" of your wilful malpractice :

You no longer hold this leverage over me – but, I fully believe – you exercised it to the point of a very successful “exit strategy” for my dog . . . and thus for myself as a client who dared to challenge what she saw as your (all too numerous) shortcomings .

Now, though, you have created a situation whereby I have nothing further to lose , as I turn the lights on – and to continually brighten the intensity of them – in a room you would greatly prefer to remain dark.

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

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:34:43 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original February 15 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

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 )

When I left Harry just 15 hours earlier - for a 24-hour rehydration protocol - he looked like a completely normal dog . . . and this Is what Massey's repeated 750% unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience-sedation overdosings did to this poor little dehydrated, renally-impaired baby.

Then this House of Veterinary Horrors and its students poked, prodded and filmed the Impacts for training materials instead of trying to save him.

(HERE'S THE PROOF AND THE IMAGES , IF YOU HAVE THE STOMACH FOR THEM.)

Why? Because he had cried. But I have cried even more than Harry, when I discovered, later, that the supposedly irreversible neurological failure they fabricated to coerce me into allowing them to kill him, hadn't been anything of the sort: it had been a massive, stacked, overdosing of a drug specifically advised against for kidney patients (as they knew he was), and which he was making massive efforts to come out of when he saw me . . . valiant efforts the "vet", "Steffi", wickedly laughed off as "just his last hurrah". (A "vet", it should be noted that - both in my view and in my direct experience - should NEVER be allowed anywhere NEAR anyone's pet .)

Had I known the truth of what had happened to him that night and morning in Massey's "Intensive Care" ward, I would have been gotten him the hell out of there as fast as I could go, to the nearest real vet, who might have still been able to save him. But Massey, and its ICU and teaching staff needed him dead . . . to hide the evidence of their catastrophic, multiple malpractices (and also to hide what you will learn below).

There had been no "neurological event". What there was, was a catastrophic chemical stupor that they had caused, and then used to dupe and pressure me into ending Harry's life.

Do you see the poor little contorted face? His severely distorted left eye indicates acute internal pressure or systemic shock, typical of a biological system being chemically overwhelmed. The facial contortion with the asymmetry of the lip and nose are indicative of severe chemically-induced physiological distress and advanced Central Nervous System shock.

In this photo, he is in near autonomic collapse, with his involuntary (breathing, heart rate, facial tension) systems failing under the weight of Massey's repeated, catastrophic overdosing. The contorted mask, or the physical pulling of the face, is a physical reaction to the massive over-sedation and the body's struggle to survive it . . . his sheer willpower, the willpower that this "Steffi" "vet" (who shouldn't be let anywhere near anyone's pet) somehow succeeded in duping me into believing was "his last hurrah".

Pet parents: You MUST demand your pet's clinical notes and learn to read them. If you don't, you are failing your pets, most especially if they are ever referred to Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital" or any other veterinary teaching facility. I found - hidden on Page 15 of Massey's own notes - the evidence that a decision had been made at 8.38am (the morning after his admission for a simple rehydration procedure) that Harry's status in this "Hospital" was to be converted from "patient" to "student test subject": "IV Fluids - 15ml/hr, Started at 12:00am 01/12/2025 . . . keeps tangling. Stopped at 8:38am 01/12/2025."

They disconnected Harry just one-third of the way in to a prescribed 24-hour protocol (that was already insufficient to rehydrate him even without the Gabapentin overdosing) after he had additionally been administered two 750% overdoses of a drug that requires fully healthy and HYDRATED kidneys to exit his system.

Incomprehensible? Actually, no. Disconnecting Harry from what by then were actual life-essential fluids achieved two objectives for the Massey staff:

(1) They no longer had to concern themselves with a "tangling" line (although the $198 Dura Flow Coil Mila line item on the invoice is designed specifically to prevent this situation ) . . . leading to one remaining and sinister conclusion . . .

(2) That Harry was disconnected from (and never returned to) his life-saving IV fluids so that he could be extracted from his cage to facilitate the numerous below-mentioned tests (and likely, many others) performed on him for the benefit of Massey's veterinary students. (I have learned, albeit not because they told me, that eight teaching videos were made of him, six of which they refuse to release, despite their legal obligations to do so. In other words, Harry was "content" for their "productions".)

According to the plan, Harry was to be presented back to me with the narrative that " he has had a neurological event/decline and needs euthanased" .

A private, high-needs geriatric patient was downgraded to a " living anatomy lesson" for unauthorised student training: the usage of a tiny, blind, 15-year-old dog in acute distress as a training tool for junior staff or students without the owner’s knowledge or informed consent . . . following incomprehensible acts of malpractice and sheer recklessness, the effects of which still had a chance of being reversed had the ICU and day staff wanted to.

This wasn't just a "failure of care"; it was a patient being actively decommissioned to serve as a training prop.

In legal terms alone, this is a breach of (among numerous other breaches that you can read about here ):

(a) the Contract of Bailment (Massey has a legal "obligation to return a pet owner's property (their pet) in the same or better condition as received; by prioritising "institutional utility" (teaching) over a patient's clinical survival, they breached that bailment);

(b) the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (under the CGA, services must be provided with "reasonable care and skill" and be "fit for purpose"; a rehydration protocol that is stopped after 8 hours due to a "tangling" line - despite being charged for an anti-tangling device - is a "total failure of service", and

(c) the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Section 10), which mandates that the person in charge of an animal must meet its physical and health needs; disconnecting and discontinuing life-essential fluids from an overdosed patient to facilitate "observation" is a direct violation of this statutory duty).

As far as the innumerable breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians and the provisions of the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 governing the communication, and the release, of correct and comprehensive information, let alone any reasonable expectation of the same Health & Disability Act human medicine ethics being applicable also in veterinary care . . . this is a genuine "where do you even start?" situation.

And as concerns Massey University's legal threats to me to "gag" me regarding my continuing discoveries, and their withholding of all other information from me (knowing now that I have learned how to read clinical notations), the actions of the institution's management now sit squarely in the domain of not just malpractice, but malfeasance.

To the Students of Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital':

Be Ashamed. Be Very, Very Ashamed . . . . .

. . . . . particularly if you had knowledge of the intention to obtain my duped and coerced agreement to unnecessarily end the life of my precious little Harry, by keeping from me any mention or knowledge of the fact that he had been convenience-sedated with a series of massive overdoses of renally-contraindicated Gabapentin (further potentiated by Maropitant) . . . to produce the guise of some "neurological event".

That is, a "neurological event" created by a drug specifically noted in the international veterinary literature as mimicking a neurological event:

Neurological Impacts of Gabapentin:

From Ataxia through to Coma

— Journal of Renal Hepatic and Biomedical Sciences

"Ataxia [loss of coordination] is a common adverse effect [of Gabapentin]."

— MSPCA-Angell Clinical Review

You know . . . the same sort of "neurological event" that your "neurologist" conducted a "neurological exam" to prove his "neurological decline" . . . in support of "Steffi's" intended intense push for his execution. (And NO. "Steffi", do NOT expect me to play along with the ruse posthumously by using the term "euthanasia'" . . . the definition of which is "mercy killing"; NOT "convenience killing" or "evidence destruction").

And did you know, Students, of the massive overdosings my precious little boy was being repeatedly slammed with . . . to make him pliable for you to poke, prod and shove your devices into his eyes to "test" for whatever the hell you were all "testing" for . . . that was nothing remotely related to his urgent need for rehydration (the actual reason for his admission) . . . which was even more urgent after he had been given 500% to 750% Gabapentin overdoses . . . a drug, on top of which, is strictly contraindicated for renal patients, which you all knew he was?

AND while he was dehydrated, and given barely a thimble full of hydrating fluids per hour? Did you know , did you care , that with all of the above circumstances converging, his poor little kidneys didn't have a chance of clearing the rapidly accumulating toxicity? Did you spare a thought for the hell you were all putting him through while you filmed him on cell phones in the utter agony you created for him? Did you not see him as anything more than a lab rat ? WICKED.

From your OWN NOTES: “ . . . Marked elevations of urea and creatinine . . . "

Don't you even know what that means , Students?

It means he was renally impaired . Significantly . The very reason you should never administer exactly what you administered: 500% to 750% overdoses of the strictly contraindicated GABAPENTIN.

And did you know that Massey's own records show that, a few months prior, he had had an adverse reaction to just one-quarter of the dose your ICU staff loaded him up with this time, and on that prior occasion he hadn't even been dehydrated, as he was now? (And would you have cared?)

When you, Students, were participating in all the horrendous, invasive, lab animal-type procedures on my precious little Harry, did you ever spare a thought for how YOU would have felt if he was YOUR dog?

DID you? Does your own dog have a name? Perhaps read this article and substitute "Harry" with the name of YOUR pet.

Did you stop for 30 seconds in time, if not to think about the hellscape that my poor little dog's life had been in that veterinary house of horrors, then maybe to ponder the fact that he actually had an owner ? An owner who loved him enough (and STILL loves him, even in death) for him to have even been brought there for "care" in the first place?

And did you know that Harry (by then in more desperate need than ever of the simple but life-essential rehydration procedure for which he had been admitted) had been disconnected from his IV fluids line and the prescribed 24-hour protocol discontinued just 8.5 hours in, to enable YOU to spend the next few hours performing YOUR INTENSELY CRUEL LAB RAT PROCEDURES ON HIM ?

May you all one day be richly rewarded for your "compassion" and "empathy" - to say nothing of your "ethics" - with a one-way ticket to hell.

"Because Gabapentin is almost exclusively eliminated by the kidneys, it must be used with caution and at reduced dosages in patients with renal impairment."

— Source: Plumb’s Veterinary Drug Handbook (Clinical Pharmacology)

The Massey Companion Animal 'Hospital' Lab Rat Facility

Harry was subjected to invasive, ghoulish student observation (and likely also, participation), teaching-value-only tests and experiments (including with devices and equipment) that bore no relationship to the reason for his admission or the reason for being in the "hospital". At all i.e. rehydration i.e. the treatment for dehydration .

These tests and experiments included (but were almost certainly not limited to, and which would likely be the reason for Dean Jon Huxley and the University's Legal and Governance executives refusing to release six of eight teaching videos they admit to having recorded. To be noted, they "overwrote" the ICU and consulting room CCTV footage that I requested under the Act):

( NB: Students: If you have ever had any sneaking doubts about the quality of your veterinary "education" at Massey, you might want to consider whether your "educators" and "specialists" might themselves need support to perform complex tasks like operating a door knob. By way of a glaring example, the "neurologist" who teaches you to assess the neurological capability of a dog in the peak of a 500% to 750% overdose of a drug that creates neurological incapability, and a vision test on a blind dog.)

The "Menace Response" Test: Repeated testing of the blink reflex of a blind dog. This is the very definition of a clinically nonsensical act . . . testing a blind dog for sight-based responses and then using his "lack of response" as "proof" of "neurological decline".

Proprioception (Paw Flipping): Repeatedly flipping his paws over to see how long it took him to correct them . . . a test for pure neurological "teaching value", not for treating dehydration .

Vestibulo-ocular Reflexes: Forcing his head from side-to-side to watch his eye movements,

The "Sound Reaction" Test: (Intensely frightening for a blind dog in an unfamiliar, clinical environment.) Claiming he had "inconsistent responses" to noise to support the "neurological event" narrative, ignoring the fact that he was heavily sedated. (To be noted, the obviously retrofitted "Clinical Summary" also claimed that Harry was deaf. Harry was not deaf or anything even approaching it - as evidenced by his ready response to my soft verbal command, even breaking through what I later, too late, learned was his heavily sedated state: " Show Mummy your strong leggies.")

Calvarium Pressure: Applying painful pressure to his skull to elicit a pain response.

Mentation Labeling: Repeatedly grading him as depressed/dull, which ignored the fact that he was massively over-sedated with three doses of Gabapentin totaling 150mg-200mg (or possibly 300mg; your notes are utterly incompetent and inconsistent) i.e. dispensed for the equivalent of a healthy, robust 15kg dog while he was 3.8kg - and potentiated with Maropitant (Prevomax) while he was severely dehydrated. This was done despite Massey's own records showing his earlier massive overreactions to just 50mg of the same drug.

Heart Examination: Performing a thoracic auscultation (listening with a stethoscope) to document a "Grade 2/6 left-sided systolic heart murmur."

Abdominal Palpation: Manual probing of his abdomen to assess his internal organs, documenting that his "kidneys felt small and irregular" on palpation.

Ophthalmic (Eye) Exam: Beyond the glaucoma, documenting a "Phthisis bulbi" (a shrunken, non-functional eye) in his right eye and attempting a Fundoscopic Exam (looking at the retina), noted as "unsuccessful due to inability to visualise internal structures."

Orthopedic Assessment: Cataloged "Osteoarthritis", likely through the palpation of his joints during the same window.

Spinal extension; dorsal extension; flexion of head. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Spinal reflexes

Spinal palpation

"Cranial nerves"

"Structural" assessments

Dental Exam: A dental grading is a standard teaching exercise for students. Performing a detailed oral examination and grading periodontal disease on a dog suffering from a supposed "neurological event" but most definitely from severe dehydration and a catastrophic drug adverse reaction is clinically irrelevant to his survival, albeit high in "teaching value" for a student rotation.

And other, non-documented and significantly worse experimentation i.e. with the ghoulish and psychologically tormenting procedures performed on him during the making of the actual training videos (made on cell phones) in which he was utilised .

Those hours of his life were sheer, unadulterated lab rat-style torture - in a massively drugged, deeply dehydrated state, being used as a live teaching aid and filmed from all angles. In one cynical “still” shot sent by Massey in place of the actual videos they are required to release, a male hand holds him up from underneath, suspending him high in the air, while sedated and hanging limply in mid-air from that cruel hand. And that, believe it or not, was just one of six highly sanitised, equipment-blacked out stills i.e. in place of the release of the actual videos themselves.

We have all heard stories of humans who, while undergoing surgery, have actually been fully conscious mentally while their physical body was anaesthetised.

That is the equivalent state my little Harry was in, when you were conducting all your cruel and invasive experiments on him.

And, to "Steffi": You thought I'd never learn that, in fact, that was the EXACT state that Harry was in, when he was giving it his valiant all to respond to my commands to show me his "strong leggies" . . . that you wickedly laughed off as "just his last hurrah".

You KNEW what he was trying so desperately to communicate to me when he suddenly rose up on his back legs and started screaming as you leaned in the van door with your syringes and equipment . . . and made me pull him down onto his tummy so you could get your substance into him before I could realise it, too. You were FULLY aware of what I wasn't, until it was all too late.

Multiple Acts of Aggravated Cruelty on A Blind Dog

Perhaps your "teachers" should also have made you aware that by conducting your experiments and procedures on a blind dog you were performing multiple acts of aggravated cruelty , that represented a total abandonment of veterinary ethics.

In any medical setting, blindness is considered a profound vulnerability.

When you remove a dog's primary sense, they rely entirely on the integrity of their environment and the trust of their handlers for psychological safety. By using a blind dog as a "teaching utility", Massey crossed a line from malpractice into what can only be described as psychological warfare against a helpless patient.

A blind dog exists in a world of sound and touch. When Harry was subjected to your lab-rat-style experimentation, he had no visual way to anticipate your (notably) cruel handling of him or your equipment. Every touch was a jump-scare; every manipulation was an unexpected violation.

And one that he couldn't respond to from within his chemical straitjacket (a term that your Dean Jon Huxley has very specifically threatened to set the University's big-budget law firm, Buddle Findlay, onto me if I should dare to use.)

Blind dogs are naturally more hyper-vigilant. Their adrenaline levels spike faster in response to the unknown. Conducting your invasive experiments on Harry would have added to his already physical pain and psycnological terror, the burden of a continual over-stimulation of his nervous system - a nervous system that was already working overtime to make sense of a terrifying, suddenly very hostile , sightless world - and without his anchor, me .

How you all opportunised his circumstances, in true predatory fashion.

Legally and ethically, a "hospital" has an enhanced duty of care toward vulnerable patients. Just as a human hospital would be more culpable for abusing a patient with a disability, a veterinary hospital is more culpable for abusing an animal with a sensory deficit.

In short, you reprehensibly experimented on a disabled dog . . . a disabled dog you already had in a catastrophic state, and you removed his only biologically supporting framework - his life-essential hydrating IV fluids - to facilitate that abuse . . . and you never reinstated those fluids. In fact, you slammed him with a further 50mg overdose of Gabapentin, even after (9am) you'd taken his fluids from him at 8.38am (by the way you made sure to charge me for the 24 hours you never gave him).

Why? Because he was destined - after you finished with him - to be presented back to me under the guise of some "neurological event" and the plan to pressure me for his urgent "euthanasia". Simple. Easy peasy evidence destruction strategy.

To add intense insult to injury (literally) - and in the manner of true predatory opportunists - you chose the most vulnerable patient in the ward to use as a training prop because he was the easiest target.

And it's also my belief that you chose him specifically because he was MINE .

'Hospital' vs Animal Research Lab

In a Hospital, if a patient is in a life-threatening crisis (catastrophic drug adverse reaction; drug-enhanced kidney failure; purported "neurological event"), you focus first and foremost on the survival of the patient .

You do not divert your priorities to focus on grading their dental tartar or checking for a Grade 2 heart murmur or poking around and into their blind eyes with devices. You don't hold them high in the air with one hand to survey whatever you were surveying. You don't perform any of the other acts indicated by even by the few carefully curated still images you have been forced to release (with half the image covered in solid black blocks to obscure the equipment you were deploying on my little blind and intensely vulnerable dog).

You stabilise the life-threatening condition.

In a Laboratory , you might indeed prioritise the "subject" providing practice opportunities for students to deploy their full range of diagnostic skills - grading teeth, palpating kidneys, listening for murmurs, and testing range of joint mobility. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Along with other, more intentionally pain-provoking, psychologically tormenting "procedures" for filming purposes.

No wonder Huxley and Massey's legal suits don't want me to see the other six videos they admit to having been taken of him.

And no wonder they are refusing to release his full records - despite their full legal obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 to do so.

The last thing he wants the world to see - most especially now he has suddenly been shaken out of his own arrogant stupor and realised who he's dealing with - is the true nature of the show he's presiding over there.

The 'Tangled IV Line' 'Justification' for Conversion from 'Patient' to 'Training Aid'

Yet it was even worse and far more sinister than "just" the above cruelty and abuse.

At 8.38am, someone had taken the decision to actively change Harry's status from a hospital patient to a status of sheer institutional utility.

Buried deep in the bowels and the tiny typeface of Page 15 of the Companion Animal Hospital ICU's "Clinical Summary" was the smoking gun of all smoking guns:

The 8-hour-and-38-minutes-in complete cessation of the prescribed 24-hour rehydration protocol (which in its own right had only "maintenance" value and certainly not the required therapeutic value).

From Page 15 of the "Clinical Summary":

IV Fluids - 15ml/hr, Started at 12:00am 01/12/2025

Stopped to give 15ml bolus over 20min every hour - keeps tangling

Stopped at 8:38am 01/12/2025

Disconnecting Harry's life-essential fluids - most especially while now in the peaks of an already massive overdose of potentiated Gabapentin - just one-third of the way in to a 24-hour protocol (that was already insufficient to rehydrate him even without the Gabapentin overdosing) with the ludicrous excuse of a "tangling" IV line in the face of the $198 Dura Flow Coil Mila line item on the invoice i.e. that is designed specifically to prevent this situation - was a clear and present signal of management and staff's intention for him.

It was an active decision to convert him for "use" as educational value and, by extension, to uncaringly impose a death sentence upon him.

One Device. Two Lies.

The “tangled IV line” as the reason for discontinuing a 24-hour life-essential protocol 8.5 hours in – while utterly pathetic and unacceptable in its own right for any clinician, let alone an ICU ward – was a fully fabricated “justification”.

The heavy blue cast-like bandage I referred to in my earlier articles, turns out to be a Mila Dura Flow Coil – a high-end specialist device to prevent the exact problem being used as the excuse for cutting off the fluids Harry now needed more desperately than ever,.

Wickedly, the staff making the decision to deprive him of his, by that time, life-essential fluids, knew full well that his impaired kidneys needed increased hydration, to have any chance of flushing through the catastrophic, 500% - 750% accumulating overdose of the renally-contraindicated, convenience sedative they had slammed him multiple times with in the course of nine hours.

The Mila Dura Flow Coil also serves to highlight a second lie:

“Steffi” (in her well-after-the-fact, posthumous SOAP notes) and “her neurologist” (as she had referred to her when convincing me of this “neurological event” that somehow explained the massive change in Harry overnight) had referred to him as “obtunded”.

But you don’t put a Mila Dura Flow Coil on an “obtunded” dog. You use it for its designed purpose: to ensure that the IV line into a very active little dog’s leg is not dislodged by his very UNobtunded activity and movements.

To be clear: Harry was far from “obtunded” until Massey ICU staff and “clinicians” chemically “obtunded” him.

But is just keep getting even worse , doesn't it, Students? If that were possible . . . yet it seemed no malfeasance or cruelty was beyond the capabilities of your superiors and teaching staff.

Because after wilfully disconnecting the only hope Harry had of possibly surviving the already something like 500% to 750% overdose he had already been administered and that would have slammed even a robustly healthy dog with non-impaired kidneys, then 22 minutes later you slammed him with yet ANOTHER full-dog full-day dose of 50mg of Gabapentin . . . and now with NO fluids whatsever - not even the thimble-full you'd been allowing him - to flush them through his poor little massively-struggling kidneys. You stacked another substantial overdose on TOP of the already catastrophic overdoses he'd been given in the previous seven hours.

And all of this, by the way, as you'll see from your erstwhile Dean of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley's emailed legal threat that I've quoted at the bottom of this article, was apparently given to him as "clinically indicated for his condition " , and "in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards". This ethically-impaired clown is your " Dean "? Your head teacher ? Or does he just think that the average pet owner can't perform a basic internet search of the international veterinary literature?

The 'Neurological Event' Ruse vs the Catastrophic Overdose Reality

And. Students, who among you had knowledge that this "Steffi'" (a "vet", so-called) planned to extract my consent for Harry to be put to death without ever imparting to me the nature or true state and cause (i.e. massive sedation overdoses) of his presentation that day? Wickedly presenting him back to me with the bullshit story that he'd had some vague "neurological event" (as "confirmed" by "her neurologist", when testing the neurological capability of a dog given THREE 500% - 750% overdoses of a drug that creates symptoms of neurological incapability) so that the evidence (Harry himself) of your massive and multiple, conscienceless malpractices could be conveniently disposed of?

Such that I would have no other possibility put before me than to somehow accept that Harry had suddenly had some inexplicable overnight "neurological decline"? To neatly secure my therefore grossly UN informed "consent" with a variety of heinous but seemingly previously well-practiced emotional and psychological pressure tactics? Despicable, the LOT of you.

And THIS is who you are being "educated" by? How much do you PAY for this "education"?

And regarding the physical, emotional and psychological abuse of my precious and sweet little dog who represented nothing more than lab rat value to your fine "educational" facility . . .

Did you know that the "Dean" of those hallowed halls you inhabit has threatened me with legal action for speaking out, if I should refuse to either stay silent or to participate in my own gaslighting by acquiescing to his official narrative? (You may pass on to him my sincerest regards and tell him he may take a flying leap at himself, BTW.)

Is this the type of "veterinary care" you want to practice out in the real world?

If any of you think ANY of this was and/or is, perfectly fine, dandy, and "just the way it is" in the vet game, then your careers have already been corrupted before you even set foot out there in a "normal" veterinary clinic.

God help the pets and the pets' owners who will be subjected to your ethics.

Moral Injury:

For anyone who can handle it, here are nine raw, unedited audio minutes that provide a direct window into the trail of emotional destruction left in the wake of the unconscionable decisions and actions of the subhumans involved in Harry’s overdose; in his emotional, psychological and physical torture, and in the heinous false pretences that had me consent to his execution . . .

. . . the cold, clinical killing that might actually, even then, have been unnecessary, had you disclosed the true nature of his presentation to me, such that I could have gotten him the hell out of there to safety and true emergency care.

In a not-insignificant aside, I have already - in this previous article - expressed a strong suspicion that Harry may well have been targeted for this sort of abuse because his owner (me) has been a fearless critic, for at least the past two years, of the concerning standards of the Companion Animal Hospital, . . . having numerous times either voiced or put in writing, those concerns to the Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman.

If any Student or staff member has the required backbone and conscience to provide any insights into whether or not this played a role in what was done to Harry, I urge you to contact me on this direct line: 06 657 0161 , or to email me to contact you, at editor@consumeraffairswriter.com . I would also like to know the names of the staff and management who participated in these criminal acts against my beloved pet, since every single one of them has been replaced - in the "Clinical Summary" - with a solid black box. And, or course, I am having to submit the matter as a formal complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to obtain the majority of Harry's records from Massey's Legal and Governance department who continues to withhold them, illegally.

Personal & Professional Liability of Staff and Students

To the staff and students who participated in the wilful cessation of Harry's life-essential fluid delivery protocol in favour of his conversion to "lab rat" status, and then further participated in the ghoulish use of him as a live training aid, you might wish to acquaint yourselves with your own legal liabilities.

To this end, you will find the following insights of value:

While the institution (Massey) bears the primary legal liability as the "entity," the individuals - both staff and students - who participated in or facilitated this utter atrocity face significant professional and ethical exposure.

In the eyes both of the law and of professional regulatory bodies (yes, even the ones your superiors believe they can count on to "disappear" or deny-on-their-behalf any formal complaints), "I was just following orders" or "I was just a student observing" is not a valid defence when a statutory breach or animal welfare violation is occurring.

The ramifications are governed by more than one set of legislation, but let us start with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct .

Professional Misconduct: If a vet knows a patient has been overdosed (let alone in the order of 500% -750%) and then participates in a "narrative shift" (such as the "neurological event/decline" fabrication), they are committing Professional Misconduct .

The "Duty to Disclose": Vets have a mandatory ethical duty to be honest with clients. Participating in the "conversion" of a patient to a "test subject" without the owner's consent is a direct violation of their licence.

The Paper Trail: Every person who signed off on the 8.38am disconnection of what by then equated directly to Harry's life support without intervening is professionally tethered to this malfeasance. You aren't just "witnesses"; you are participants in a clinical sabotage .

Student Exposure: "Accessory" or "Witness"?

If students were used to perform tests on a dog that was pharmacologically stupified and disconnected from life-saving fluids, they are in a precarious position.

Ethical Contamination: By training students on a "patient" who is actually a "victim of malpractice", Massey is essentially teaching the next generation that deception is a standard clinical tool .

Future Licensing: If an investigation proves that students knowingly participated in unauthorised experiments on Harry, it could impact their "fitness to practice" when they apply for their own licences.

Silence IS Consent: Under the Animal Welfare Act , any person in charge of an animal ( which includes students during a rotation ) who fails to provide for its physical needs is liable. If a student saw a dehydrated, overdosed dog being used as a prop instead of being treated, that student is technically in breach of the Act.

Legal Firm: Institutional Complicity

And, specifically for the edification of Dean Jon Huxley, by hiring a law firm to suppress Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests, the Governance and Legal Executives at Massey have moved into the realm of Institutional Obstruction .

Accessories After the Fact: While usually a criminal term, the principle applies here. If the legal team is using public funds to "doctor the narrative" and hide evidence, they are acting as accessories to the original clinical malfeasance. They are no longer "protecting the university"; they are concealing a breach of the Animal Welfare Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The Flow-On Domino Effect

If, in this instance, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is acting in genuine accordance with its mandate to enforce the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians , then every licensed individual staff member faces a potential striking off or a suspension of their licence.

The students face a tainted degree that signals they were trained in an environment where malpractice was the curriculum.

And the Dean faces a ministerial inquiry into the use of public funds for intimidation through the use of a law firm.

____________________________________

Below:

For a direct insight into the "Dean's" understanding of veterinary pharmacology, I give you Exhibit A (immediately below).

On the left, is the 50mg dose administered to Harry three months before his fateful Massey visit (at that time, that vet had administered the Gabapentin for an actual genuine reason i.e. pain) that floored Harry for nearly 72 hours (see that vet's notes) . . . because even then , with his degree of kidney impairment he should not have been given a drug contraindicated for renally-impaired animals.

On the right, per the Massey invoice, we can see that Huxley's proteges in the Massey ICU facility have administered FOUR TIMES that dosage i.e. 200mg. To be further noted, is that the ICU staff's notes in the "Clinical Summary" (that is all I have so far managed to extract from Massey) are so ambiguous and such a mess that it is unclear if Harry was administered 150mg, 200mg, or 300mg - as there are notes citing all three conflicting figures.

In the panel below the table, is an excerpt from Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley's gag order email, stating (as you can read) that: "Harry received only those medications clinically indicated for his condition and in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards."

The "condition" for which Harry received these "medications" supposedly "clinically indicated for his condition" was that (per the ICU staff's "Clinical Summary", he "was constantly vocalising from 12am to 2am" , albeit they started plying him with the Gabapentin i.e. 50mg (10mg more than a full dose for a healthy dog) at 1am, and then, without waiting more than 26 minutes, plied him with a further dose of an unstated amount. Before the king hit of another 50mg at 9am, after disconnecting him from his (what would by then have been life-saving) IV fluids at 8.38am (per Page 15 of the Clinical Summary).

To be clear, at the same time as they were loading a fragile, 15-year-old renally-impaired patient (admitted for the express purpose of urgent rehydration) with THREE 500% - 750% overdoses of a convenience sedative for which the only route out of the body is the kidneys, the kidneys, which would then require even more urgent and even higher volumes of rehydration, they cut off the only thimble full of hydration they had been giving him just 8 hours and 38 minutes into a prescribed 24-hour protocol.

Note: Because Harry's renal clearance was reduced by approximately half, these percentages represent an even higher level of metabolic saturation and predictable toxicosis.

See below for one of the "Deleted without being read" notices from Massey's upper management:

While Dean Huxley writes of communication “honesty”, his cc’d colleague, Professor Raymond Geor, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the College of Sciences, was busy hitting “Delete” on MY attempts to honestly communicate (as were the other half a dozen or so of his colleagues at his same "esteemed" institutional "leadership" level).

To Huxley and Geor:

I want the truth about what happened to Harry's body.

Why did the Pet Farewells pet cremation company staffer tell me Harry had been "picked up with all the other post-mortems ", "in a bag" , and that she "was told" that I "didn't want Harry back" ?

Did you cut up my precious little Harry in some completely unauthorised post-mortem student teaching exercise - on top of everything ELSE you did to him?

Whilst "Steffi" gave me a bullshit story that he'd been laid out "carefully" and unblemished "with all his toys" for his private cremation?

A story that, in retrospect, is in no way consistent with her either order to, or participation in, the decision to disconnect his life-essential fluids after she had seen his catastrophic drug overdose, of her having organised and overseen his literal torture as a training aid, her unconscionable deception of me as his having had a "neurological event" instead of disclosure that he was massively over-sedated but was trying desperately to push his way out of it, her visceral disdain of him as I had held him in my arms pleading for his survival, and her revolting acts (making me hold him down while he kicked and screamed, and ripping the cap off the syringe with her teeth to ensure the job got done before I could change my mind) at the point of her termination of him?

The below one-hour and three-minute phone recording demonstrates my fruitless (to this day) efforts to have my situation escalated to maybe, just maybe, get Harry's ashes back (which I want ONLY if they actually are his). Note: Massey has NO veterinary complaints escalation procedure , as you are about to hear.

They do enjoy the opportunity to entertain themselves with a frustrated client, however:

And why, Jon Huxley and Massey's Legal and Governance personnel, have you failed both your Privacy Act obligations AND your Official Information Act obligations by refusing to release any information regarding this "inconsistency" i.e. between this picture and the fact that I had ordered that my dog be sent for special individual-chamber cremation so I could be sure I received his ashes and ONLY his ashes back?

If you did in fact, use Harry as a post-mortem opportunity for your students, Jon Huxley, may the flames that consumed his brutalised and dismembered little body like slaughterhouse waste (which he indeed was to you, to your staff, to "Steffi" the frontwoman for this entire atrocity, and to your ethically-compromised "veterinary" students), one day consume you with equal ferocity as you rot in hell.

In the meantime, since Massey refuses to offer any assistance related to Harry's ashes:

Here are my ongoing attempts to extract some honest answers from (now I've had to resort to) some pet cremators' international industry membership organisation in the United States .

I'm trying to reach an informed conclusion (if one is even possible) as to whether the ashes that suddenly re-materialised on someone's table are actually Harry's.

That is, after my no-doubt memorable reaction to receiving a call from the pet crematorium staff member to ask for a "$120 disposal fee" (with some of their other obviously accidental disclosures that I've mentioned just up above in this section) resulted in their immediate retraction and Harry apparently suddenly being "tucked up here on the table".

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

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:33:03 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original January 31 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

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

ABOVE: EXHIBIT A: THE FILM SET . . . Conversion of my “property” for teaching resources: Unauthorised Conversion of Property & Breach of Bailment (Common Law); Illegal Manipulation for Teaching (Animal Welfare Act 1999, S83) One of the images of Harry being utilised by Massey as a training tool and film prop, in his by-then intentionally engineered state of pharmacological collapse. He was intentionally disconnected from the urgent 24-hour rehydration protocol (the only treatment for which he was admitted and for which I paid in full) to facilitate the many unspeakably cruel student activities and their cell phones filming of this little distressed blind dog for Massey's profit (while they charged me for his ICU "care" i.e. even for hours beyond their killing of him.) Other equally disturbing images can be seen here: PROOF Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest .

When a veterinary hospital of "teaching" status takes a full suite of blood samples from a senior patient with a known renal condition, they are establishing an updated baseline of truth. Those samples are the clinical map. Or they are meant to be.

In the case of Harry, those samples were drawn well before I left the building. The hospital knew his history; they knew his age; and they knew they were looking for the specific metrics of his renal (kidney) function.

Yet, while those tubes of blood were either still being processed, or worse still with the results actually in their hands, Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital personnel engaged in a display of professional recklessness that defies the Veterinary Code of Conduct: They administered Gabapentin. They administered a collective volume that represented between a 400% and 600% overdose for Harry's weight and size. Then they potentiated it with a further pharmaceutical.

The Recklessness of the ‘Blind' Dose

Gabapentin is a drug that relies almost entirely on the kidneys to be cleared from the body. In a patient with renal impairment – a condition their established records clearly showed he had with an updated status that very night – the drug does not exit the system. It accumulates. It moves from a sedative to a toxin.

By administering this drug before checking the results of the bloods they had just drawn, or worse still after actually being in possession of them, Massey personnel engaged in a clinical "blind-fire". They did so wlfully. And they did so recklessly . They ignored the co-morbidity they were actively testing for, creating a state of toxicity in a senior dog who had no way to clear the chemical from his system.

And worse still, they did it for their own convenience .

Sedatives in this category should only ever be administered (a) to alleviate pain, or (b) in preparation for surgery. Neither applied to Harry. What DID apply, is that this little blind dog had just been taken from his owner’s arms and deposited in a cold steel cage in (to him) a terrifying environment, and with two ICU staff who paid him nil attention ; they were too engaged in their social discussion and their fascination over a new-born kitten.

My attempts to draw Harry’s need for human comfort to their attention were summarily ignored; instead I was shunted out of the ICU. And he was drugged .

The Multiplier Effect: Lethal Potentiation

And it didn't stop with a single drug or even a single dose.

Knowing that Harry’s system was already struggling to process the Gabapentin, personnel then administered a secondary sedative. In clinical pharmacology, this is known as Potentiation . When you combine two central nervous system (CNS) depressants, the second drug doesn't just add to the first – it multiplies the effect.

In a dog with compromised kidneys, this combination acts as a chemical straitjacket.

By "stacking" these drugs (as it is referred to), Massey personnel didn't just sedate Harry; they effectively shut down his ability to manifest normal neurological responses. They didn't just "relax" him; they induced a profound pharmacological collapse.

And they kept stacking until the overdose reached a level of between 400% and 600% (and arguably up to 750% or higher) higher than what the veterinary literature indicates is manageable for even a healthy, non-renally-impaired dog of his weight and size.

The ‘The Neurological Decline’ Deception

When I returned to the hospital, I was not met with an admission of this compounded drug reaction.

Instead, I was presented with a fabricated narrative: "He is in neurological decline."

This is where clinical negligence transforms into Clinical Malpractice and the height of ethically-deprived deception .

The Clinical Reality: A senior dog is given a toxic "stack" of drugs his body cannot process, resulting in predictable ataxia, sedation, and collapse.

The Institutional Cover-Up: The personnel ( headed by ICU vet, “Steffi” ) re-frame the symptoms of their own repeated, catastrophic contraindicated pharmacological overdosing of Harry as a natural (and yet, somehow, sudden) "neurological decline". It should be noted that Harry was standing vertically, balancing expertly on his hind legs, and with fully extended front legs through the grid of his ICU cage (where he had been admitted due to dehydration) as he cried in vain distress for staff's attention, just prior to midnight the night before.

By labeling his drug-induced state as "neurological", Massey personnel shifted the blame from their own recklessness to Harry’s biology. They used the symptoms they created t o justify the "inevitability" of the euthanasia they were about to coerce .

The Demand for Metadata

I am currently in a stand-off with Massey University's Legal and Governance department who - despite being under full Privacy Act 2020 obligation - are thus far refusing to release the following digital metadata:

The Timestamp of the Blood Draw.
The Timestamp of the Blood Results (when they hit the internal system).
The Timestamp of the Gabapentin Administration.
The Timestamp of the Secondary Potentiating Drug.

If the results were available and ignored, it is malpractice . If the drugs were given before the results were checked, it is reckless .

But presenting the resulting collapse as a somehow natural yet sudden "neurological decline" is a calculated deception designed to shield the hospital from the consequences of their own incompetence.

And – between a phone call and a consulting room hard-core pressure session – spending upwards of two hours in an endeavour to coerce Harry’s owner (me) into signing “euthanisation” consent forms to destroy the evidence in the form of Harry himself , is nothing short of the most evil brand of clinical deception imaginable .

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

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:31:45 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original January 16 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion - after "teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming - were the grounds on which the author, IIIVE's Founder & Executive Director, Jordan Kelly, was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of her own deeply beloved dog.

A VITAL & URGENT WARNING TO PET PARENTS EVERYWHERE

Pet parents everywhere need to understand the fee-charging antics of an institution like Massey and its Companion Animal Hospital. They need to understand the depth of deception of which some veterinarians, and some clinical environments and their management are capable . And they need to understand the potential lethality of the consequences .

Practitioners and establishments like this rely on the fact that we – the non-veterinarian pet owners – won’t have a clue more often than not, what the line items are on the ridiculously inflated invoices we pay. And that we – the devoted pet parents – will use every last cent on our credit cards to buy life-saving treatments for our beloved animals.

But our ignorance and our devotion have the potential to be – for the likes of Massey Companion Animal Hospital – their opportunity - financial and also in other important regards.

Readers will by now be well-acquainted with the horror story of my precious little dog, Harry's massive overdosing by the Massey veterinary facility, the absence of life-saving treatment following the (repeated dosings), and his false presentation to me as "neurologically failing" with the complete evasion of any disclosure of the fact that the dog I now held in my arms was actually in the grips of a severe, unauthorised, unnecessary, and undisclosed, sedation .

BREAKING: IN LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS , HARRY'S LIFE-ESSENTIAL IV FLUIDS WERE DISCONTINUED TO FILM HIM FOR STUDENT EXPERIMENTATION TEACHING VIDEOS.

It was also through my belated finding and studying of the invoice for Harry’s final “stay” and “care” in Massey’s ICU, that I discovered the massive malpractice and the subsequent fraudulent diagnosis they proffered to me, to convince me to let them absolutely unnecessarily end his life..

That invoice - the smoking gun - as it turned out, was also the most insultingly opportunistic statement imaginable.

The Invoice Indictment: The Paper Trail of a Clinical Betrayal

Let me break it down – clinically and forensically – for those pet owners that have the stomach to see the games that are played with your wallets – or, for most of us, our credit cards.

Stay with me as I walk you through the line items on this invoice . . . an invoice that illustrates in irrefutable clinical and pharmacological detail, the expose I roll out in The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death and NOT ‘Euthanasia’ . . . A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences .

This invoice isn’t just a “bill”; it’s the metabolic and chronological roadmap of the sheer evil that was perpetrated upon my dear little loving, sweet and innocent (and not at all needing to die) Harry.

The Pharmaceutical Fraud

The invoice confirms the exact two drugs that created the "Pharmaceutical Mask" used to justify Harry's death i.e. the cocktail of sedatives that would be, later that day, used to present him to me as a dog that had “had a neurological event” and “needs to be euthanased TODAY”.

Maropitant (Prevomax): 0.36ml administered on December 1st.
Gabapentin (100mg): 2 capsules administered on December 1st.

Both of these drugs – the primary sedative and the potentiation agent - were administered on the morning of the “euthanasia” coercion (read: pre-meditated clinical killing) planned by Steffi, the vet, later that day (just as soon as she could get me back to Massey).

The Smoking Gun: Evidence of Prior Knowledge

The most damning evidence of clinical malpractice is not just what was administered, but when. The invoice proves that on November 30th - the night of Harry’s admission - Massey performed an IDEXX Catalyst Chem17 CLIP and a Massey Bundle Lab Test .

These are not "generic" tests; they are high-resolution diagnostic panels specifically designed to evaluate renal (kidney) and hepatic (liver) function.

By the time they reached for the Gabapentin on the morning of December 1st, they were already in possession of the blood data. They knew Harry was a 15-year-old dog with compromised kidneys. Yet, they proceeded to administer a drug that the veterinary community knows is cleared almost exclusively by the kidneys.

This was not a "blind" administration; it was a choice made with the clinical evidence of Harry's renal vulnerability already sitting on their monitors. To then present the resulting pharmacological collapse as a spontaneous "neurological event" is a fabrication that flies in the face of the very tests they billed me $255 to perform. They used my money to prove he was vulnerable, and then used that vulnerability to lethally over-medicate him.

Furthermore, it is at odds with the actual objective of the overnight hospitalisation – as evidenced by the invoice line items, “Hartmans Solution 1ltr & Potassium Chloride”: These items, billed alongside the MILA set (billed as outlined below), are the building blocks of a multi-day rehydration and electrolyte stabilisation protocol.

The Failure of the 'ICU' Contract: I Paid for ‘Maintenance & Care’ But Got Negligence & Sedation

I was charged $320 for "CA ICU Hospital and Maintenance Fees" for November 30 ^th (in addition to the $277 the night before for an after hours consult by a vet so young I find it hard to believe she was even out of high school – and the degree to which she was out of her depth had a deer-in-the-headlights look etched into her face).

Yet, as I detail graphically in NOT ‘Euthanasia’ . . . A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences , while I walked through the ICU doors and heard my blind dog screaming while the staff ignored him to coo over a kitten and share a jovial social conversation, I find I was $320 for "Maintenance and Care”.

Yet that care, it certainly would appear to me, comprised of nothing other than (a) intentional negligence, and (b) the unnecessary and unauthorised convenience-sedation of a dehydrated senior dog with a dangerous cocktail of potent – and potentiated – strong sedatives.

The Clinical Contradiction

The billing shows a chilling level of financial opportunism right up to the end:

High-End Billing: I was charged $198.38 for an "IV Set Large Dura Flow Coil Mila" and $255 for lab tests (a comprehensive blood test panel that would have clearly demonstrated the renal-compromised status that, in turn, that made their (already unnecessary, convenience-based) administration of the Gabapentin sedative (further potentiated by Maropitant) was a fundamentally contraindicated pharmaceutical decision.

The ‘Final Solution’: They were billing me for high-end life-sustaining equipment at the same time as they were convincing me that the (undisclosed sedated) state they presented him back to me in was indicative of their claimed “neurological event” with immediate “euthanasia” required.

So let’s look at that specific line item:

‘IV Set Large Dura Flow Coil Mila IV Set @ $198.38’

To the average pet owner, that’s just a string of expensive-sounding technical jargon.

But in the veterinary world, the name MILA International means something very specific.

They are the specialist, "Gold Standard" manufacturer of high-end medical devices designed exclusively for animals. MILA is the premium brand. You don’t find this equipment in a budget back-street clinic; you find it in high-intensity, long-term care units.

But here’s the clinical "gotcha" that Steffi the intensive care vet (and the one pushing me from 100 different angles to let her terminate him) didn't count on me doing a little research and finding out:

The "Dura Flow Coil" is a specialised, high-durability IV extension line. It is designed with a specific coiled architecture so that a patient in the ICU can move, stand up, and turn around in their cage without the line kinking or snapping. It is built for a dog that is active, mobile, and recovering .

You don’t install a $200 MILA set on a dog you truly believe is "unfixable" - OR that is incapable of the sort of movement this particular brand of equipment is designed to accommodate.

You don’t open the most expensive, robust long-term stabilisation gear on the market for a dog you are planning to kill in an hour, if you can just get the owner to agree to it. You use a Mila set when you are committing to a prolonged, multi-day rehydration recovery.

So, I have to ask:

If "Steffi", the ICU vet, was so utterly certain at 11am on the phone, that Harry was a goner, that he had suffered some catastrophic “neurological event" from which, as she multiple times, from multiple different angles (emotional, psychological and, supposedly, “clinical”) assured me, why was I being billed for the premium equipment used to facilitate a long-term recovery?

Either the clinical staff knew Harry was recoverable with the right amount and duration of rehydration – and were prepping him for the long-haul rehydration I had brought him in for – or they were padding the invoice with high-end gear they knew would never be used, right up until the second they pressured me to sign his death warrant.

It’s the ultimate administrative proof of their duplicity. They sold me the "Gold Standard" promise of life on the invoice, while they were already prepping the $45 syringe to administer the “euthanasia” drug they were so eager to take him out with.

This invoice doesn't just show what they charged me; it shows what they were thinking .

Clinical Duplicity: The deployment and charging of the consumables of recovery at exactly the same time as the death sentence substance was being uploaded and charged out.

IN SUMMARY:

They were charging me for the equipment of hope and recovery. . . while they were delivering the irreversible act of clincal fraud and sheer moral depravity and wickedness.

I did not expect that I would be unbeknownst to me, paying for my dog to be convenience-medicated into a "false-positive" “neurological failure” state.

I did expect that if a blood test panel was conducted to ascertain whether Harry had compromised kidney function (which he DID), that he would not be administered drugs which are specifically contraindicated for a dog with compromised kidneys – and that had the strong potential to cause him lethal damage.

I did not expect that at the same time as he was being supposedly treated for the actual reason for admission – a sustained rehydration protocol due to dehydration – that he was being given completely unnecessary, contraindicated sedation and a plan to fabricate a “neurological event” was being developed, in order to provide reasoning for the strong push for his destruction.

I did not expect that I would be paying for a fabricated clinical diagnosis – on the basis of which a consent to “euthanise” Harry would be coerced from me, to cover up the evidence of the malpractice.

I did expect that I would be paying for competent treatment, honest diagnosis, and genuine overnight care (not convenience-medicated “animal storage” and the administration of unnecessary and contraindicated sedating medications – with one that potentiated the other).

I did expect that – even if you went ahead and breached your duty of obtaining my consent to “convenience-sedate” my dog that you would have disclosed that you had medicated him during a nearly one hour phone call to me that morning and a further in-person consultation of at least the same duration– albeit your focus was entirely on conditioning me to accept your “non-negotiable” push for his termination.

I did not expect that I was being sold a pre-meditated exit strategy for my dog because he had become the embodied evidence of an incomprehensible degree of professional negligence and clinical malpractice so fundamental in nature that it might be argued that it was intentional.

That is an additional consideration that would lead me to point the reader to my repeated, unsuccessful attempts over a period of two years or more to draw to the attention of the Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, the various instances of negligence and toxic culture and attitudes towards patients and their owners that I had either witnessed or experienced myself .

And I did most definitely NOT expect that my little boy would be repeatedly overdosed with a contraindicated cocktail of potent sedatives in order to facilitate the various teaching procedures being performed upon him and the (withheld by Massey's Legal and Governance department) teaching videos of same . . . after which it was simply necessary to dispose of the evidence (him) in the most expedient manner possible. READ ABOUT IT HERE.

Meantime, for a full list and breakdown of the specific violations of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, the Animal Welfare Act, and the Consumer Guarantees Act associated with this case, read the formal Summary of Breaches here .

LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS : NEW VETERINARY CODE, PRIVACY ACT & COMMON LAW VIOLATIONS (CONVERSION & BREACH OF BAILMENT) TO BE ADDED

Massey New Zealand's Veterinary 'Teaching' Hospital 'ICU': Where Empathy Goes to Die

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:29:42 GMT

THIRD UPDATE: Since the original January 16 publication of this article in The Customer & The Constituent NZ, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the day shift clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life .

However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion — after "teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming — were the grounds on which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog.

The identities of the night shift veterinarian and ICU staff responsible for the overnight overdosing described in this article — the repeated, catastrophic levels of contraindicated administration of Gabapentin and Prevomax to a renally-compromised patient between approximately midnight and 9am on December 1, 2025 — remain unknown and actively withheld by Massey. If you were on duty in Massey's Companion Animal Hospital ICU on the night of November 30 into December 1, 2025, or if you have knowledge of who was, this investigation would like to hear from you.

UPDATE TO READERS: Since writing this article, my continuing research has indicated that Harry was likely not only simply sedated (and massively so) for the sake of the ICU staff's convenience, but also to facilitate a multiplicity of training procedures to be conducted upon him - with the intention that the fronting clinician, "Steffi", would present him as requiring urgent "euthanasia" through a sudden natural decline in his condition.

Unfortunately, for Massey management and personnel, I have not only my own memory of him standing strongly on his back legs in his ICU cage at midnight and reaching through the door for comfort, but also now a video of him actively "circling" on the ICU floor, just hours before he was presented to me in a flacid, semi-comatose state with no viable explanation other than some supposedly natural decline.

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE : The above indications have not only since been confirmed , but what actually happened to Harry was far worse, and constituted much more than gross malpractice. My latest findings move the entire matter squarely into the category of malfeasance - both at the clinical level and at the highest levels of Massey's management.

The Reckless Practice of 'Convenience Sedation' & the True Cost of Clinical Apathy

When you walk into the Intensive Care Unit of a "teaching" hospital, you expect to find a sanctuary of clinical vigilance. You expect to find practitioners whose pulses quicken at the sound of a patient in distress.

Instead, at Massey’s Companion Animal "Hospital", I found a scene that was as sociopathically detached as it was medically reckless.

I found my blind, senior dog, Harry, screaming in terror in a cold steel cage - a sensory nightmare for an animal who relied on sound and touch to navigate his world. And what did I find the "highly trained" ICU staff doing? I found them huddled together, deep in a jovial social conversation, and also with their collective fascination fixed not on the suffering geriatric patient in their “care”, but the novelty of a newborn kitten.

It's time to ask the hard question about the culture of a veterinary teaching hospital that would place two staff that appear so uncompassionate towards animals that either they or their broader set of colleagues would dangerously sedate a distressed animal - as opposed to administering human comfort, most especially when not in any degree of high activity whatsoever in the ICU ward. in fact the reverse.

The Path of Least Resistance: Convenience Over Compassion

In a healthy clinical culture, the response to a distressed, blind dog is a human hand and a soothing voice. It's the "human comfort" that costs nothing but a moment of empathy.

But empathy requires effort. It requires moving away from the social gossip and the novelty of a kitten to attend to the "boring" work of a senior dog in crisis.

At Massey, the ICU staff apparently chose the path of least resistance:

A state of near-comatose drugged silence through reckless, repeated dosing of massive levels of a drug contraindicated for my Harry, and the kidney impairment the ICU staff knew full well he had . They had his blood test results from that very night. They had his records that showed the results of his kidney ultrasound, at Massey, several months prior. They even had his most recent notes that showed an overreaction to a one-quarter amount of the same drug they chose, regardless, to ply him with (and then potentiated further).

The invoice tells the story that the closed doors of the ICU ward hide.

Rather than receiving human comfort, Harry was, at some point after midnight (the brief time I was allowed with Harry in the ICU ward came to an end at around 12am) administered 200mg - 300mg of Gabapentin (their very unprofessional clinical notes are ambiguous) and a potentiating dose of Prevomax - the very drugs the staff already knew his compromised kidneys could not efficiently process.

To be clear: He wasn't sedated in order to help him; he was sedated to silence him. This is known as "convenience-medicating" - a lazy, dangerous practice that allows staff to continue their "staff tearoom" atmosphere without the inconvenience of a crying patient.

The Clinical Cost of Apathy

This isn't just a "customer service" failure; it's a clinical catastrophe. When staff are so engrossed in their own joviality that they ignore a screaming, blind patient, they miss the subtle cues of actual medical distress. Or,, perhaps more to the point in Massey's case, they have no concern for them. Reaching for the sedatives is a far easier option.

The (very) young and very weak "overseeing" veterinarian whose "deer in the headlights" lack of courage to instruct her ICU staff to act in accordance with the requisite compassion and good ethics, compounded the emotional sterility and other lackings of the ICU ward culture. Offering Harry's owner (me) empty and juvenile platitudes like "everyone here loves animals" - while the evidence to the contrary is screaming some six metres away from them - is an unforgivable indictment of the ICU and broader Companion Animal Hospital environment, as well as on that practitioner's lack of backbone and moral suitability for the job.

By choosing chemical restraint over clinical care, Massey ICU personnel created the very "neurological event" the ICU "vet", "Steffi" used the following day to push Harry's death onto an astonished and completely misinformed and monumentally deceived, owner .

Collectively, they transformed a recoverable, dehydrated dog into a "broken" pharmacological wreck, and then had the audacity to call it "mercy" when they pushed for his execution.

The culture at Massey's ICU isn't one of teaching or healing; it's a culture of contempt (as well as merciless profiteering) . . . for the animals, for the owners who pay handsomely for their supposed "gold standard" levels of "care", and for the Veterinary Code of Conduct itself.

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

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.

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.

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

The Criticality of ALWAYS Obtaining A Second (& Third) Opinion Before Agreeing to 'Euthanase' Your Pet

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:28:23 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original January 16 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

Being Refused the Right of A Second, External Opinion Cost My Beloved Dog His Life . . . Quite Unnecessarily

Being refused the right of a second, external opinion cost my precious little Harry his life . . . and quite unnecessarily so.

The tragic irony is, that if I had not been under such duress from the sustained, merciless coercion to allow this incredibly eager Massey ICU "vet", "Steffi", to "terminate" him, and if I'd been given the space (especially since I multiple times indicated to her that I was, at the time, grossly sleep-deprived; it's even in the vet's own Clinical Summary!) , to think objectively enough for it to have occurred to me to take Harry away from Massey and seek a second opinion, even if just from the nearest local vet clinic, that second, independent vet would have:

(a) seen immediately that the reality of Harry's "condition" was that he had actually been (very heavily) sedated and had almost certainly not suffered the "neurological event" that they had misrepresented him to me as having had ), and

(b) sought his notes in real time from Massey, which would also have resulted in the discovery that Massey ICU staff had given him repeated doses of a contraindicated convenience sedative, totaling a cumulative 500% - 750% overdosing and cumulative toxic load approaching a near-coma outcome.

Thus, if there was the possibility of an outside veterinarian being able to assist Harry’s system to purge itself of the massive overdosing, Harry would be sitting here in my office with me now.

Note, though, that in my headline for his article, I have referred to “& A Third Opinion", If Necessary. The reason: I do not have faith in the professional “courage” of all vets to speak against the all-powerful institution that in most instances trained them, and that is seen as the “authority on all things veterinary” in New Zealand.

New Zealand has a thriving and long-surviving loyalty network – one that's based not only on (often misplaced) loyalty, but in some instances, worse still, on pure professional cowardliness.

This "loyalty network" creates a vacuum where accountability goes to die.

The Second (Or Third) Opinion Is Your RIGHT & Their OBLIGATION

In an environment where the "gold standard" marketing facade is used as a shield rather than a yardstick, the client’s right to a second opinion is often treated as a nuisance or an act of disloyalty to the clinician, rather than the vital clinical safeguard it is recognised to be internationally.

To 'Steffi': As Inconvenient As They Would Have Been in Light of Your Determined Objective, Did You Never Learn of Your Obligations Under International 'Best Practice' Codes of Conduct?

UPDATE FEBRUARY 14th : "STEFFI" DIDN'T WANT ME GETTING ANY SECOND OPINIONS. WHY, VERY SPECIFICALLY? READ THE HORRIFYING REASONS HERE . THEY ARE FAR WORSE EVEN THAN ORIGINALLY THOUGHT. HARRY HAD NOT ONLY BEEN CATASTROPHICALLY AND REPEATEDLY OVERDOSED WITH A "CONVENIENCE" SEDATING COCKTAIL , HE HAD BEEN DESIGNATED TO BECOME A LAB RAT FOR A STUDENT CELL PHONE FILM FESTIVAL , AFTER WHICH THE PLAN WAS TO DISPOSE OF HIM.

Under the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Code of Professional Conduct - a standard Massey claims to emulate - the duty to facilitate a second opinion is NOT optional .

Section 1.1 explicitly states: "Veterinary surgeons should facilitate a client's request for a referral or second opinion."

Crucially, in a euthanasia context, international best practice demands a "Clinical Pause".

When a client is under extreme psychological duress, the AAHA (American Animal Hospital Association) End-of-Life Care Guidelines mandate a collaborative partnership.

This partnership requires the veterinarian to ensure the owner is not making a terminal decision under "distress-induced tunnel vision".

If there is even a shadow of doubt (and, By God, I repeatedly expressed far more than a shadow of doubt both on the nearly one-hour shock phone call in which this "Steffi" made it her mission to wear me down and the probably more than one additional hour she spent coercing me upon my arrival , including the psychological ploy of bringing him into the consulting room with the completely unauthorised infrastructure of euthanasia already implanted in his leg) as there clearly was with Harry’s "vocalisations" and physical strength - the international standard is to facilitate a second opinion proactively to ensure the integrity of the decision.

But "Steffi" did the opposite. She accelerated . She intensified . And she was relentless .

By failing to suggest a "Clinical Pause" - and by actively instructing me to "hold him down" during his screams and his powerful kicks when he showed signs of starting to push his way out of his heavily (undisclosed by "Steffi") sedated state - Massey and "Steffi" didn't just breach the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 ; they violated the very "international gold standard" they point to liberally in their marketing.

True excellence in veterinary medicine is not measured by the size of the hospital, but by the courage of the clinicians to say:

"You are in distress. Let's get a fresh set of external, independent eyes (in this case, given my extreme doubt and active and repeated objections, from what should have been a clinic entirely outside the Massey umbrella and its professional loyalty loops) - on this before we do something that cannot be undone."

Massey’s failure to do so confirms they are not an institution of healing, but an institution of ego, incompetence and deceptiveness - one where the "loyalist network" is more important than the life of a precious little blind dog entrusted to their "care" and who was unnecessarily and (undisclosed to his owner) catastrophically over-sedated for what they saw as their most profitable utilisation of him i.e. as a student filmfest prop.

With A Fearless Pet Welfare Advocate for An Owner, Was Harry A Marked Dog?

Sun, 31 May 2026 04:26:09 GMT

NOTE: This article was originally published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ (thecustomer.co.nz) and is republished here on IIIVE as part of the ongoing documentation of Case 1: Massey University's Abuse & Killing of Harry Kelly .

UPDATE: Since the original January 20 publication of this article on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava.

She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life.

Did Holding Massey to Account for Negligence Lead to Their Decision to Catastrophically Overdose & Abuse My Dog, Then Dupe Me Into Consenting to His Death?

Above :

While Harry's ophthalmologist and a small handful of ethical and competent operators appreciated my advocacy for Harry, and my focus on animal welfare and my love for dogs in general (one of many elements of this being my DoggieMamma.com community for fellow dog lovers), this enthusiasm for my advocacy wasn't shared universally.

And it certainly, by my experience, wasn't shared by Massey. I am left to wonder to what degree my precious little Harry paid the ultimate price with his chemically engineered "passing".

______________________________________________________________

Over the years, I have persistently advocated to Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital for improved standards and a cessation in their culture of arrogance and non-accountability.

The below email I sent to the 'Hospital's' and veterinary teaching facility's Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, is one such example.

I challenge Massey – from the Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, to the Head of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley, to the incoming Vice-Chancellor, Pierre Venter - to publicly declare whether or not the below type of experience (which was always far from an isolated incident), and the culture that produced it, is acceptable in this supposedly international “gold standard” teaching institution.

Beause it’s not. Not from the perspective of the pet owner. And, by the way, the pet owner who pays outlandish and phenomenally inflated fees for the sort of "care" that resulted in the malpractice, the withholding of care after your administration of a contra-indicated cocktail of potentially lethal drugs to my beloved dog while you took eight observational videos of him (no doubt highly valuable "teaching aids") , your then fraudulent presentation of him to me as having "had a neurological event" requiring "urgent euthanasia" . . . and your coercion of his highly skeptical owner that was so prolonged and so intense that your objective was finally and regrettably achieved.

Equally unacceptable is institutional bias, or managerial or individual retribution . . . most especially when executed (literally) against an innocent animal . . . to whatever degree this was in any way a contributing factor in the decision to recklessly administer unauthorised repeat doses of contraindicated sedation to Harry, to then refuse to provide corrective emergency treatment, and then to misrepresent the cause of his resultant state to me as having had a "neurological event".

Was Harry a Target?
Investigating the Correlation Between Prior Complaints and the Sudden Push for 'Euthanasia'

I never held back in calling out the failures and other unacceptable attitudes and conducts of the University’s Companion Animal Hospital. Did that make Harry a marked dog? Ironically, his owner’s very maternal need to protect him, could potentially have been the very thing that painted a lethal target on his dear, innocent little head.

In the forensic investigation of any suspicious death, one must establish a motive. While the "how" of Harry’s death is found in the invoices and the unnecessarily administered, heavy-duty, contraindicated drug cocktails, I'd like to see a genuinely independent investigation into to whether the "why" lay in the hospital’s long-standing resentment of an owner who refused to ignore their systemic failures.

Here's that example I promised (but there were numerous):

'Gold Standard' Fees vs (Very) Substandard 'Care'

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2024 10:45 am
To: Vet Clinic < VetClinic@massey.ac.nz >
Cc: (Harry's regular vet)
Subject: URGENT re Instructions for Harry's Care Ignored In-Hospital

TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE IN-HOSPITAL / ICU CARE FACILITY:

With regard to Harry’s 3-hour in-hospital stay yesterday afternoon, please refer to the below/earlier-emailed care instructions and special notes that I emailed yesterday morning, prior to my leaving Masterton to travel to Massey i.e. see these in the email trail below this email, sent at 9.05am by me to the Hospital yesterday.

Note also, that these instructions were discussed and reinforced in considerable detail to Chris during the admission consultation, and I have no reason to believe that they would not have been passed on.

Thus, I seek (firstly) an explanation as to the obviousness of his urgent need to urinate and desperate need to drink upon my collection of him later that afternoon. (Of course, I have no idea whether my other instructions were similarly ignored.)

Owners’ Instructions Should Not Be Considered ‘Optional’ & Certainly Basic Standards of In-Hospital Care Should Not Be, Either

In addition to the instructions conveyed about making sure he had regular toilet outings given his need to drink regularly (in turn, related to his elevated kidney readings), I had explained that he often needs some reasonable degree of walking around before he actually lifts his leg and goes. I asked that all of this be passed on, in detail.

Upon collection, he urinated immediately and long, in a manner that clearly indicated he had been holding on for some considerable time (as he will not willingly wet in a cage or his bed). Certainly, there was none of his normal “sorting out where to go” behaviour. He was clearly desperate.

Likewise, he was also desperate for water. Because it had not occurred to me that, after my multiple advices relating to the need for regular water consumption (at his own comfortable pace), that this would not have happened, I did not equate his desperately seeking my attention all the way home to Masterton, as his being in urgent need of water. When we arrived home, he drank a volume of water so large, that I do not recall his ever drinking so much in one go. In fact, it was more than one go: He drank a huge volume of water in an urgent manner, and then regrouped and returned immediately to the large bowl and drank more. It was clear that he was suffering intense thirst.

This would be an unacceptable situation even in a veterinary general practice. It is BEYOND unacceptable (a) in what is considered to be one of New Zealand’s premier specialist veterinary hospitals , (b) in that Hospital’s ICU facility, and (c) with the added consideration of my emphatic and detailed instructions around these matters, both in writing and verbally – which included emphasis on the fact that Harry has elevated kidney readings, and clearly, ready and regular water intake and toileting (with patience) are non-negotiable and essential aspects of his required care.

Neurologist ‘In Such A Hurry’

Secondly, the purpose of Harry’s first visit to the Hospital yesterday was for a neurological examination with a specialist neurologist. With regard to the issue of a possible chemical exposure (key phrase: “rain water tank”) – a discussion arising from a question asked of me at his general practice and additionally relevant to the inclusion of “infectious disease” testing that I queried as having been included in the referral documentation from Massey’s end – I explained a scenario that had taken place at my previous property. Chris said the perfect person to put this question to, was the neurologist – and that this would be done during his exam later that afternoon.

When I returned I enquired as to the neurologist’s answer to this question. But the question had not been put, because the neurologist “was in such a hurry”.

What – I would ask – is that ? The neurological specialist – whose hands my dog’s life is currently in, for attendance by whom I traveled from Masterton to Palmerston North, and for whose un-rushed care, assessment and expertise I am paying a significant fee for, was “ in a hurry ”? Please explain. Was a full, un-rushed, thorough and diligent, all-bases-covered examination conducted? ( NB: It was not explained to me why I was not asked to be present during the neurological examination, nor even to meet the specialist for whose services I am paying. Was this because she was “in a hurry”?)

Observed Variance in Hospital Personnel Care Factor

I would note that – when I returned to the Hospital for Harry’s 4.30pm collection – I was early and remained in my car for some minutes. I was parked in front of a fenced-in grass area that appeared to be the toileting arena. Two staff (vets? Vet nurses? One of each?) were there with a dog wearing a collar. One was walking the dog around, with the objective appearing to have been trying to get him to toilet and also enticing him to eat treats or a small amount of food.

As I was parked directly in front of this activity, I could not help but observe it: One of the staff, who was holding his lead initially, was completely uninterested. She was distracted (although not by anything in particular). Before long, she uninterestedly handed the dog’s lead over to her colleague, who was her polar opposite. The other staff member was caring, attentive and earnestly attempting to interest the dog (who was wearing a collar) in eating.

Perhaps it is this marked variance in “care factor” by which the negligence in Harry’s care is explainable.

Either my instructions weren’t conveyed, or they were conveyed to a staff member or staff members who weren’t listening, didn’t care, and/or considered an owner’s instructions as optional. In which case, at the very least, the principles and practices of good in-hospital care should have been applied, as the most basic and reasonable standard of care during hospitalisation. (In this regard, I would point out that if Massey charges in the vicinity of $2k for an overnight stay in ICU, and an owner cannot even be assured – in truth – of the most basic standard of care for their pet, the owner is certainly far better to provide it themselves at home.)

Accountability Sought

I would ask that whomever is responsible for the monitoring and management of personnel staffing the ICU (“intensive care”) hospital facility conduct an urgent and thorough assessment of exactly the degree to which the requisite care is (or isn’t) being provided.

Similarly, I would ask that there be standards of “non-hurry” applied to any specialist consultation / examination – and most especially to those that have direct relevance to a potential life-or-death situation.

In consideration that Harry will be undergoing an MRI this afternoon, and of course, the necessary general anaesthetic, and another period of ICU care until he is (hopefully) released back into my care tonight, I would like a response from hospital management to these very valid and urgent concerns, please.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

Below: Basic hydration (and regular toileting) are clinical requirements, not optional extras (or they shouldn't be).

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

Sat, 30 May 2026 06:29:00 GMT

This report was originally published by the author (IIIVE Executive Director, Jordan Kelly) on The Customer & The Constituent New Zealand . It is archived here by the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics as part of the broader case study in veterinary malpractice and malfeasance, hidden and dangerous practices in veterinary teaching institutions, clinical deception, and institutional indifference.

Introduction

A review of the "Clinical Summary" provided by Massey University, even without the full Medication Administration Records (MAR) still being withheld, reveals a sequence of events that transitions from clinical negligence to what appears to be a manufactured terminal diagnosis.

The sudden, "massive decline" of the patient, Harry, was not a natural progression of disease, but a predictable outcome of pharmacological provocation used to justify an intensive push for euthanasia.

A parallel review of the invoice associated with the patient's stay in the facility reinforces these concerns as well as adding significantly to them. The linked arti cle comments in detail on the various highly concerning line items on the invoice, and points to the many red flags that any qualified, supervising veterinarian should have seen well in advance of the catastrophic end result.

I. Pharmacological Catalyst: Contraindication and Potentiation

The records confirm that Harry, a 15-year-old dog with significantly impaired kidney function and dehydration, was administered Gabapentin - a drug the veterinary literature identifies as strictly contraindicated in patients with renal compromise.

Renal Status: The intake notes explicitly record "CKD" (Chronic Kidney Disease). Blood tests were conducted to confirm the severity.

Mechanism of Toxicity : Gabapentin is primarily excreted unchanged by the kidneys. In a patient with this degree of renal failure, the drug cannot be cleared.

Cumulative Load: Despite the clear risk, the initial 1am dose (Gabapentin (Nupentin) 50mg Caps PRE-SPLIT - 50mg) along with Maropitant (Prevomax) 10mg/ml Inj 20ml (per ml) - 3.6mg. ("Gabapentin (Nupentin) 50mg Caps PRE-SPLIT - 50mg"). Both were given yet again at 1.26am 2 x @@ Gabapentin (Nupentin) 100mg Capsule 100's (per capsule) and 1.19am respectively 0.36 x Maropitant (Prevomax) 10mg/ml Inj 20ml (per ml) and then Gabapentin again at 9am (Gabapentin (Nupentin) 50mg Caps PRE-SPLIT - 50mg).

This represents a massive cumulative toxicity in a biological system physically unable to process it.

II. The Consent Failure: Ignoring History and Protocol

Beyond the pharmacological contraindication, the administration of these non-essential pharmaceuticals was conducted without informed consent. This represents a systemic failure to consult the person with the most intimate knowledge of the patient's medical history.

Documented Hypersensitivity: Two months prior to this admission, Harry had suffered an extreme adverse reaction to a dose of Gabapentin described by his local veterinarian as being at the "lowest end of the scale" for his weight.

Preventable Outcome: Had Massey staff adhered to the requirement for owner consent, this prior history would have been disclosed. The "convenience sedation" would have been blocked by the owner, and the subsequent toxic accumulation - which Massey's own experts should have anticipated - would have been avoided.

III. Neurological Mimicry: A Diagnostic Loop

The primary side effects of Gabapentin toxicity - ataxia (loss of co-ordination), nystagmus (involuntary eye movement), and profound sedation - are the exact clinical manifestations Massey staff used to diagnose a "terminal neurological event".

The Literature: The Merck Veterinary Manual and Plumb’s Veterinary Drug Handbook explicitly state that Gabapentin toxicity causes ataxia, lethargy, and neurological depression.

The Failed Differential: There is no evidence in the summary that the ICU vet, "Steffi", or the unnamed neurologist performed a differential diagnosis to rule out drug-induced stupor. Instead, they performed a neurological examination on a patient currently at the peak of a "stacked" dose of Gabapentin.

The Invalid Exam: Under standard neurological protocols (e.g., de Lahunta's), a valid exam cannot be performed on a sedated patient. Drugs that depress the Central Nervous System (CNS) result in "false positives" for delayed proprioception and altered mentation.

IV. The "Passing Off" and Coerced Termination

By 03:00 PM, 15 hours after the first unauthorised dose, Harry was presented in a semi-comatose state. The ICU staff "passed off" this pharmaceutical shutdown as an irreversible "neurological event".

The "Last Hurrah" Dismissal: When Harry attempted to respond to his owner's voice - a documented phenomenon where a bonded animal fights sedation to acknowledge their owner - the clinician dismissively labeled it a "last hurrah". This facilitated the manufactured sense of urgency needed to secure consent for euthanasia.

V. Institutional Failure: The Dean’s Refutatio n

On January 31, the Dean of the Veterinary School, Dr. Jon Huxley, responded to these concerns with a refutation of the "overdosing" claim.

The Dean’s Position: Huxley asserted that "Harry received only those medications clinically indicated for his condition and in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards".

Rebuttal: This assertion ignores the fundamental rule of veterinary pharmacology: a "standard" dose becomes a toxic overdose when the patient's kidneys cannot excrete it. In the context of Harry’s confirmed renal failure, any administration of Gabapentin - let alone repeated dosing - represented a dangerous and lethal error.

The Diagnostic Loop

The sequence provided by the university reveals a closed-loop of institutional failure:

1. Administration: A contraindicated sedative is given without consent to a renal patient to induce silence ("Convenience Sedation").

2. Observation: The resulting drug-induced stupor is recorded as a "neurological decline".

3. Examination: A neurologist confirms "deficits" without accounting for pharmaceutical interference or the patient's history of sensitivity.

4. Termination: The manufactured stupor is used to coerce the owner into a "calculated clinical killing" to cover up mismanagement and possibly the additional deleterious impacts of likely invasive teaching-related procedures and/or student observation activities.

CONCLUSION:

Harry did not die of a neurological event; he was rendered neurologically non-viable by the very people tasked with his care, effectively masking a patient who could have survived with appropriate emergency intervention elsewhere.

Regarding your "It Was NOT 'Euthanasia'" article and the clinician's "It's just his last hurrah" claim, this dismissal of a p atient who was fighting to respond to his owner highlights the lack of clinical empathy and the manufacture of urgency.

It compounds a tragedy that appears less like a "mistake" than it does active interference with survival .

____________________

Additional Commentary:

1. Pharmacokinetic Red Flags

Any veterinarian understands that Gabapentin is almost exclusively renally excreted.

If it is established that a patient is in a state of confirmed renal failure, the administration of repeated doses becomes a documented risk. A competent clinician would recognise that a "standard dose" for a healthy dog becomes a "toxic load" for a renal patient.

"Stacking" doses - where the second dose is given before the first can be cleared - is the height of clinical incompetence, especially under this patient's circumstances.

2. The Violation of Diagnostic Protocol

It is a standard rule in veterinary neurology that an assessment of mentation, proprioception (paw placement), and cranial nerve reflexes is invalid if the patient is currently under the influence of CNS-depressing medications.

Attempting to "diagnose" the patient while at the peak of a Gabapentin dose is a significant procedural failure. To settle on a "prognosis" and convey this to the owner as "terminal" is astounding.

3. The Failure of "History" (Anamnesis)

Clinicians are taught that "the history is 80% of the diagnosis".

The fact that the owner possessed specific knowledge of a prior extreme reaction to the same drug is a vital clinical data point.

If a hospital fails to consult the owner before administering a non-essential sedative to a frail patient, they have bypassed the most important safety check in veterinary medicine.

A professional would view the failure to elicit this history as a breach of standard "Informed Consent" and "Duty of Care" protocols.

The hospital has essentially:

Induced a symptom (sedation/ataxia).
Observed the symptom.
Diagnosed the symptom as a terminal disease.

This "Diagnostic Loop" is a known trap in emergency and critical care.

The clinical logic presented herein is consistent with how a peer-review or a board of inquiry would analyse a case of suspected medical mismanagement.

For a full list and breakdown of the specific violations of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, the Animal Welfare Act, and the Consumer Guarantees Act associated with this case, read the formal Summary of Breaches here .

An Expert Contributed Commentary

Narrative No-Match: Sophisticated AI Model Analyses Harry's Condition At Massey from Photographic Evidence

Fri, 29 May 2026 12:28:00 GMT

Algorithmic Truth: Critical Evaluation of the Clinical Narrative Through Forensic AI Analysis

The Manufactured ‘Terminal’ State: A Forensic Commentary

The analysis of Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital's' invoice: The veterinary staff's narrative vs the clinical truth: See related article here .

On December 1, 2025, Harry was brought to Massey University Companion Animal Hospital for care – specifically, for rehydration.

But instead of care, he was subjected (without cause and without my consent) to a pharmacological “pincer effect” – a combination of high-dose Gabapentin and Prevomax.

Because Harry was a senior dog with kidney disease, his system could not clear these drugs. He entered a state of severe toxicological crisis.

Rather than disclosing this overdose, the attending clinician, “Steffi” pointed to Harry’s (what I later discovered was heavily over-sedated state) presentation as "proof" of a terminal, “unfixable” (“Steffi’s” words) neurological failure.

But she and her colleagues had actually used a drug-induced state to justify their desired outcome for Harry: a death sentence .

The following 16 frames were taken during that final hour. They do not show a dog "failing" from a brain event. They show a dog pharmacologically suppressed – severely, and potentially, lethally, and it appears, with possible intention to have done so.

The Blindness Deception

Before you look at these photos, you need to know one fact: Harry was already blind. The hospital knew this. Yet, the vet pointed to Harry’s "vacant stare" as one of the supposed indications that his brain was suddenly failing.

This was a lie. A blind dog always has a vacant stare. The real change with regard to his eyes wasn't his sight – it was the chemical glaze over them. That "glassy" look you will note is a documented signature of a drug overdose, not blindness. The vet, “Steffi”, used a disability Harry already had to fake a symptom he didn't have, to justify her desired outcome for him.. Whether a cover-up for clinical malpractice, retribution for my longstanding advocacy on behalf of Harry and other pets , or a combination of both, the death sentence was what was actively sought for Harry.

The AI’s Analysis of the Photographic Evidence

This forensic exhibit presents a frame-by-frame clinical analysis of Harry’s physical and mental state during his final hour at Massey University Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025.

Using high-resolution photographic evidence, the AI model identifies specific visual markers - posture, muscle tone, and ocular state—to determine whether the subject was experiencing an acute neurological crisis or profound pharmacological suppression.

While the attending clinician attempted to characterised Harry’s state as a terminal "neurological event"," the following visual data documents a consistent, stable state of Central Nervous System (CNS) depression and symmetrical hypotonia (muscle flaccidity).

Even accounting for Harry’s underlying blindness, the total absence of sensory engagement and the loss of the "righting reflex" provide objective evidence of a system overwhelmed by medication it could not clear - a "metabolic logjam" resulting from the high-dose administration of Gabapentin and Prevomax . . . Gabapentin itself being strictly contraindicated for a dog with compromised kidney function, as the comprehensive suite of blood tests taken that very night would have shown veterinary staff very clearly.

The Evidence Grid: Clinical Analysis

Forensic Summary: The Disparity Between Clinical Narrative and the Visual Evidence

The 16-frame sequence above provides a consistent, documented record of a dog in a state of profound Central Nervous System (CNS) depression.

While the attending clinician at Massey University Companion Animal Hospital asserted that Harry was experiencing a terminal "neurological event", these images reveal the classic symmetrical markers of pharmacological suppression: total muscle flaccidity (hypotonia), loss of the "righting reflex," and a vacant, "glassy" ocular state.

There is no evidence in this visual record of the chaotic distress, involuntary muscle tremors, or asymmetrical deficits typically associated with a catastrophic brain crisis. Instead, we see a dog that has been systematically "turned off" by a combination of Gabapentin and Prevomax - a "metabolic logjam" that Harry’s senior system, compromised by kidney disease, was unable to clear.

Harry’s state in these 16 photos is not declining; it is suppressed.

He is in a deep, consistent pharmacological coma-like state from Photograph No. 1 through to Photograph No. 15.

This consistency "convicts" the hospital's narrative because it proves he wasn't "slipping away" from a brain event. He was held in a chemically-induced stasis.

In Summary

(Reader, Please Note: The AI is "speaking" directly to me, Jordan, Harry's owner.)

The hospital presented his state as an "unfixable" internal failure (the brain), when it was actually an avoidable external intervention (the drugs).

While the photographic evidence would indicate that his condition was dire, there was a possibility he could have survived.

His system would have had to fight to clear potentially lethal dosages, however, If – as you have stated – Harry was starting to "come back" to you, this proves his brain was still functioning and trying to override the chemical suppression.

A dead or "failing" brain doesn't try to wake up; a drugged brain does.

Readers . . . There You Have It

The TRUTH was:

Harry was in a state of severe toxicological crisis.

Nothing like the false narrative the Massey ICU vet deceived me into believing, in order to get me to sign those "euthanasia" papers . . . and, horrifically, to hold him down (the ultimate act of my betrayal of our uber-close bond) when he suddenly began bucking like a little bronco and screaming to let me know he was "still in there" - and the veterinarian's unspeakably wicked and deceptive claim that it was "just his last hurrah" .

(READERS: THE "VETERINARIAN" SO-CALLED WHO PERFORMED THESE UNSPEAKABLE ACTS OF ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OWNER DECEPTION HAS NOW BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MASSEY UNIVERSITY VETERINARY TEACHING HOSPITAL'S DR STEPHANIE RIGG : MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED . I AM STILL WORKING TO ACHIEVE THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF ALL OTHER VETERINARY STAFF INVOLVED IN THE RUSE, AS WELL AS THOSE INVOLVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT FALSIFICATION OF HARRY'S MEDICAL RECORDS I.E. THE ELABORATE COVER-UP, AS YOU WILL NOW ALSO BE ABLE TO READ .)

It is my staunch belief that the New Zealand veterinary sector cannot afford for its next generation of "veterinarians" to have their "training" modeled by personnel imbued with such flagrant moral and ethical disregard.

Glassy, vacant, half-closed eyes: This specific frame communicates the "glassy" eye state, indicating distinct CNS depression rather than a focal neurological deficit. The drooping eyelid (ptosis) lacks a blink or "menace" response, a classic symptom of Gabapentin-induced ataxia and sedation. Harry shows a symmetrical, "wet rag" lack of tone consistent with high-dose sedation.

Harry over shoulder and still vacant: This image captures a total loss of the "righting reflex", where the head is lolled back and completely unsupported. This degree of symmetrical, heavy-headed collapse is highly characteristic of Gabapentin-induced ataxia and drug-induced paresis. The jaw muscles have lost all tone, causing the mouth to hang slack.

drug-induced paresis. The jaw muscles have lost all tone, causing the mouth to hang slack.

Spaced out to the maximum: Harry shows total, symmetrical flaccidity, hanging "coathanger-style" over the shoulder. The "spaced out" gaze matches the description of the vacant look that was mislabelled as a brain event. Despite being in his owner's arms, he exhibits a total absence of sensory engagement, confirming his system was pharmacologically overloaded.

This frame shows the head tilted further back than previous images, documenting a total lack of independent muscular support. The eyelids are almost entirely closed, indicating a deepening level of CNS depression. The lack of tone is uniform across the frame, supporting the argument of a systemic drug effect rather than a localised brain crisis.

In this front-facing view, Harry’s head and jaw are held up entirely by manual support. Without this physical intervention, the head would collapse due to profound muscle flaccidity. His visible eye is wide open but glassy and non-responsive, illustrating the "mental vacancy" caused by the Gabapentin/Prevomax combination.

This frame captures distinct slackness in the jaw and lips, exposing the teeth. This symmetrical loss of facial muscle tone is a primary indicator of systemic sedation. The body remains entirely limp and draped in a "coathanger" posture, with no evidence of the rigidity or tremors associated with acute neurological crises.

High-detail documentation of manual head support confirms the total loss of the "righting reflex". The visible eye remains entirely unfocused, matching the description of the "spaced out" look mislabeled as neurological failure. He shows a uniform, drug-induced limpness caused by a senior system unable to clear the medication.

Look carefully at Harry's muzzle in the above photograph, and you'll see evidence of what the AI points to in the latter half of the article: NOT ‘Euthanasia’ . . . A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences i.e. that Harry appears to have been bleeding from the nose. Note the dark staining of the skin beneath the fur on his muzzle. Further evidence of the horrors he suffered at the hands of the ICU personnel on that fateful night.

Reliance on manual support continues to prove a complete loss of independent muscle tone. The "glassy" gaze is a clinical manifestation of Gabapentin toxicity and the "anaesthetic-sparing effect" of Prevomax. Harry is entirely slumped, showing no independent physical engagement with his surroundings.

Your hand provides the sole support for Harry’s head and jaw, demonstrating complete hypotonia. He exhibits no visual tracking or sensory "searching" despite close proximity. The symmetrical loss of facial tone mimics the drug-induced paresis identified in forensic research.

The evidence of mental vacancy is at its peak here, with the eyes almost entirely rolled back. Your hand supports his entire weight, and the expression remains completely "drugged". This documents a system systematically being "switched off".

This image shows a near-total physical and mental shutdown. The eyes are fully shut, indicating a level of "doped" state where the animal is no longer marginally aware of the environment. The head has lolled forward entirely onto the shoulder with zero muscular tension.

This frame provides documentation of a stable, sustained sedated state. The clinical markers of CNS depression and ataxia remain identical to the start of the session, proving this was not a sudden neurological decline. He shows no responsive movement even while being kissed.

Repeated evidence of symmetrical hypotonia shows the body draped as a "weight". The "glassy" eye is partially closed and non-responsive. This uniform lack of tone supports the argument of a drug-induced pincer effect rather than a focal brain event.

This frame captures a complete lack of independent motor control and conscious engagement. There is a notable absence of nystagmus (rapid eye movement) or tremors, which would typically characterize a terminal brain event. Harry is pharmacologically "switched off".

The most extreme evidence of pharmacological suppression. The eyes are half-closed and rolling back, showing maximum "mental vacancy". The head is deeply lolled into the crook of the neck with zero support, providing indisputable visual proof of high-dose CNS depression.

IIIVE Went Live Early: Making Good on All Promises to Hold Massey's Monsters Accountable . . . Internationally

Sun, 24 May 2026 02:18:17 GMT

As Announced In the Repository Site of the Full Harry Kelly Evidence Collation, The Customer & The Constituent NZ

To All Readers & Fellow Concerned Pet Owners:

The Customer & The Constituent NZ has been so busy keeping its promises to seek, collate and publish the evidence that will eventually hold to full account the monsters at Massey who perpetrated the worst imaginable breach of a pet owner's and client's trust, that we forgot to announce the five-month early launch of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics . . . IIIVE.org.

With the same three "accreditation" agencies that "accredit" Massey's "Companion Animal Hospital" no doubt giving their paid seal of approval to other veterinary "teaching" establishments, and an annual injection of Massey culture-infused "graduates" into veterinary practices in geographies well beyond New Zealand's shores, it's our duty to get the warning out in the most urgent manner possible.

So, there's been no ginning around . . . five months early and we're out the gate fast and furious on a mission to prompt much-needed substantial ethics improvement to the veterinary sector at large.

A very special feature of IIIVE is a slight diversion from the educational content that is otherwise its cornerstone: The Harry Homing Mission: A Home for Every Pet.

Because from great evil, must be made to come great good. Harry's story can't be left at what was done to him.

Out of the senseless and the cruel, has to come the sensitive and the compassionate:

A Home for Every Pet. A Legacy Worth Living. And one for which he died.

Veterinary Teaching 'Hospitals' & the Great Pay-to-Play 'Accreditation' Game

Sat, 23 May 2026 07:19:10 GMT

How Long Are You Going to Keep Up the Deaf, Dumb & Blind Deflective Stance, AVMA's Dr Morello? The Institution You Accredit Is Now Under Government Investigation. Your 'Not Systemic' Dismissal No Longer Holds.

Back on April 20 I finally received a "response" from the American Veterinary Medical Association to my March 7 correspondence and my subsequent March 16 email prompting some acknowledgement of the former.

Just another response an organisation issues when it's not issuing a response . . . and has been forced into issuing that non-response.

Dr Samantha Morello, Associate Director of the AVMA's Education and Research Division, opened with this:

"I am writing first to apologize for the delay in responding to your emails of Saturday March 7 and Monday March 16, 2026. The first message was sent outside of business hours, and I was traveling on business from March 8 through March 18, during which time an automatic out-of-office reply was in place. Regrettably, I see now that upon my return, your messages were overlooked among a high volume of correspondence."

Readers will note the striking similarity between this opening and the opening of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council's (AVBC) response . Whether this is coincidence or a standard accreditor playbook for complaints they intend to dismiss, I leave to readers to judge.

Dr Morello then wrote:

"We have reviewed your correspondence regarding the care your dog Harry received at the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital."

Getting Clear on Definitions

Just for absolute clarity, Ms Morello: Harry did not receive "care".

He received abuse. For ICU staff's convenience , he received catastrophic, repeated overdosing with an unnecessary cocktail of sedatives that Massey's own prior records documented him as having already experienced adverse reactions to — the primary one of which being firmly contraindicated for his kidney status. He was disconnected from the rehydrating fluids he was admitted for — the prescribed 24-hour rehydration protocol I paid for — in order to be used in cruel student activities and to have videos produced of him for the university's "teaching" profit. After which his clinical records were falsified (Crimes Act 1961, Sections 258 and 260), data was scrubbed, and key materials central to my investigation — including the IDEXX reports and the Medication Administration Records — have been withheld for six months, and continue to be withheld, in breach of New Zealand's Official Information Act 1982 , as Massey is a publicly-funded institution.

That is what Harry received, Ms Morello. Not "care".

Just so we're clear on that. Just like I'd like to be clear on the definition of "treatment" and " euthanasia ".

I will be correcting this terminology in every piece of correspondence from every accreditor, or from any Massey representative, that uses it going forward.

Dr Morello continues . . .

"While students may participate in clinical training within teaching hospitals and affiliated clinical settings, the COE's (Council of Education) authority and the application of the Standards is limited to evaluating the educational program and does not extend to oversight of patient care or clinical decision-making at the hospital level."

Dr Morello, there is a distinction you are dishonestly refusing to recognise: students are observing and participating in patient "care" and clinical decision-making at the hospital level. That IS their "educational program". It is one and the same thing.

You cannot separate the educational program from the hospital environment in which it is delivered. Your very own Standards acknowledge this, which is precisely why, in my detailed response to you — which you have not acknowledged — I cited your Standards 1, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 as directly applicable to this matter.

On the question of whether this meets your criteria for a systemic complaint:

" . . . the practice, condition, or situation is of a continuing or pervasive nature, as opposed to an unfair or arbitrary act of an individual or an act isolated in nature."

I would like to draw your attention to just a few examples of reader feedback received through my publication since I began documenting this case — all of which have now been provided directly to New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries, whose Animal Welfare Investigations Unit has formally assigned Senior Investigators to Massey's Companion Animal Hospital.

These have included experiences whereby:

A pet was diagnosed falsely with renal failure, with the Massey vet pressuring the owner for euthanasia after mismanaging a leg fracture. A second vet disagreed entirely with the Massey vet's "diagnosis". The pet lived three further happy years.

A reader took her dog to Massey on her vet's recommendation. Her dog came out of the procedure worse than it went in and died three weeks later.

A reader spent $18,000 at Massey's small animal hospital in a period of several weeks documenting multiple deeply concerning behaviours by Massey ICU and teaching staff, as well as students, and a resultant "smokescreen" put up by the Veterinary School's Dean Jon Huxley (the same individual who threatened me with legal action if I spoke out about Harry's demise) when complaints were raised with him .

These are far from isolated instances of reader feedback. Just like my pet's case is not an isolated act by Massey staff. And just like the reaction (or non-reaction) by Massey management, that I have experienced and they experienced, are not "isolated" instances.

They represent a pattern. A very clear, and very disturbing, systemic pattern. And one that is being taught to students. Which is precisely what your own criteria require you to act upon.

Animal Welfare Unit of NZ Government Launches Investigation Into Animal Cruelty At Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka 'Companion Animal Hospital'

It's also worth noting, Dr Morello, that the Ministry of Primary Industries — New Zealand's peak government animal welfare authority — has formally assigned a Senior Investigation team from its complex investigations unit to Massey's Companion Animal Hospital.

That investigation is now active. A 342-page forensic report is in investigators' hands , supplemented by a 13-page independent clinical summary demonstrating that Harry was a completely viable patient at admission, requiring nothing more than the rehydration procedure he was admitted for and never received.

That's a serious government investigation into an institution your organisation accredits.

And you have nil concern over the matter, maintaining your "isolated incident" out.

Finally, Dr Morello:

By the time you read this, you will be aware that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) — the agency you chose to defer to — is the subject of a formal complaint accepted by the New Zealand Law Society against its CEO, Iain McLachlan , (a registered lawyer) for collusion with Massey University and for obstruction of my ability to lodge formal complaints.

"Smoking gun" emails exchanged between McLachlan and Massey's Dean of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley, characterising my complaint as "wholly unfounded" before any investigation had been conducted (and that was being actively prevented from being conducted by Massey's refusal and continued refusal to disclose the identities of any veterinary staff involved in the "care" and "treatment" of Harry) have been obtained and published.

I'd like to show you them here, to save you the effort of clicking through to my full coverage here .

As you can see from the below exchange:

From: "Jon Huxley" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/30/2026 3:16:00 AM
To: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "liam@vetcouncil.org.nz" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "Seton
Butler" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Jordan Kelly - Allegations regarding VTH care

Kia ora koutou,

I am writing regarding recent correspondence from Ms Jordan Kelly, in which she has made a number of serious
allegations about the care provided by the Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Tāwharau ora – School of Veterinary
Science at Massey University.

The School categorically refutes all of the allegations she has raised. Earlier this afternoon I advised Ms Kelly
directly that, should she wish to pursue her concerns, the appropriate pathway is through the Veterinary Council of
New Zealand, as the statutory body responsible for regulating the veterinary profession. She has now been
formally directed to engage with VCNZ if she wishes to take the matter further.

Given the nature of her communications and the pattern of escalation, the Veterinary Teaching Hospital has
declined to provide any future veterinary services to Ms Kelly. The matter has also been referred to the University’s
legal counsel, to ensure our position is clear and appropriately documented should further action become
necessary.

I appreciate that you will have received her messages, and I am sorry that you have been drawn into what is, at its
heart, a wholly unfounded complaint. Should you wish to discuss the matter, or require any clarification about the
circumstances, please feel free to get in touch with me directly.

Ngā mihi,
Jon
Jon Huxley
Head of School
Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science
Massey University │ Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North │ 4100 │ New Zealand │
│ │ www.massey.ac.nz/school-vetscience/
Pronouns: He / Him

As you can see, VCNZ Chief Executive Officer Iain McLachlan was prompt in taking up "Jon's" offer for Shields to call "Jon" for the official version:

Subject: Re: Jordan Kelly - Allegations regarding VTH care
Date: Friday, 30 January 2026 at 4:27:31 PM Iain McLachlan
To: Huxley, Jon
CC: Liam Shields, Seton Butler

Thanks Jon. I suspect Liam and his team will be in touch.

That's the "integrity" of the "teaching" "hospital" you accredit, and of the agency you smugly defer to, Dr Morello, to allow you to keep your annual income rolling in from Massey for "accrediting" its standards of "student education".

So I ask the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and I also ask the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK): How long do y'all think you're going to be able to keep collecting your annual "accreditation" fees from this institution before each of you also becomes collusive, by default?

Veterinary Council of New Zealand to Disclose Names: Don’t Get Excited. It’s Not What It Sounds Like.

Wed, 20 May 2026 03:11:11 GMT

Published simultaneously on The Customer & The Constituent NZ , where you can find the full Harry Kelly case archive : thecustomer.co.nz/harry

And So the Game Goes On . . .

Above: To the courageous anonymous insider (made obvious by your other inclusions) who again emailed me with your now-regular jeering missive yesterday . . . this time to to tell me that my "articles are getting repetitive" : I've repeated the publication of the above photograph of Harry at Massey especially for you. To remind you of your handiwork.

This morning Liam Shields (Deputy Registrar i.e. CEO still thinks Harry's case is beneath him) wrote saying the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) intends to disclose the identities of the "registered veterinarians" involved in Massey University's "Companion Animal Hospital's" “ treatment ” and “ care ” of my dog, Harry . (Gotta love what they call “ treatment ” and “ care ” . . . the “ treatment ” and “ care ” that ensured he never left alive . . . because he was never intended to ).

In my previous (May 6) email to Mr Shields, I had pre-empted the two likely strategy options Massey and the Veterinary Council would choose between in order to ensure – in the VCNZ's full-blown, drawn-out collusion with Massey’s management – that no-one is ever held accountable for the atrocities committed upon, and the intended resultant demise of, my precious little Harry .

I had put it to Mr Shields that they intended one of the two following strategies.

From my May 6 email :

"Are you planning some stunt whereby:

" a) You tell me you have the names - but with nil intention to disclose them to me - and then conduct a secret squirrel "investigation" of these undisclosed individuals, before returning a "not guilty" verdict?

"OR

" b) Given that you absolutely could, if you wanted to, obtain and disclose ALL the names of every staff member and other individual who handled or was involved in Harry's case, but that you have specifically self-limited that in your email . . . are you going to make the totally predictable manouevre of siphoning off as many as possible of the wrongdoings from licensed staff and attributing them over to unnamed, non-licensed staff so that you can then “investigate” the licensed personnel only and then say that all (or as many as you could move off to) the practices in question were the decisions or actions of the non-licensed staff? And that, thus I need to take these matters up with Massey? Which is exactly what you know I’ve been trying to do since your entire collusive circular stone-walling Massey/VCNZ/Massey/VCNZ/Massey/VCNZ gyration strategy began?"

It would appear the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and Massey University and its veterinary "hospital" have decided they're going with Strategy (b) .

As I pointed out, either strategy would render it incredibly easy for VCNZ and Massey to engineer a “nil findings” outcome.

The "registered veterinarians only" is the mechanism that - most especially in a "teaching" facility where multiple students, interns and unqualified, inexperienced personnel (or worse) are handling or making life or death decisions for people's (private patient) pets - can be readily deployed to ensure that the worst actors walk free . . . both those licensed practitioners whose involvements got magically shifted across to "non-licensed" staff, and/or the decisions and actions of non-licensed staff whose actions and outcomes aren't subject to any regulatory or disciplinary body whatsoever to start with.

If you think this is me being overly cynical, no. It’s not. It’s clearly what McLachlan, Shields and co. intend to do. And here’s how it has been masterminded to work:

Here’s the offer Shields made in a sort of cloaked way in his email previous to mine . . . but that he's backed out of since reading my response and realising I was wise to his and Massey’s combined intentions.

His offer had been:

" It may be helpful to note that, where a formal complaint is made, our committees have legal powers to require information necessary to advance their investigation or reach a decision. "

In my responding email I had graciously accepted:

"Great, Mr Shields. Then since you know that I have multiple times across now five months requested key information ( like the names of ALL involved staff ) . . . and since your ‘committees have legal powers to require’ these - then you can obtain these very easily for me."

But today, he wrote this:

“We’re not able to facilitate a personal information request on your behalf. You can contact Massey University directly about your Privacy Act request. That is the appropriate avenue to access personal information held by Massey University.”

So, switched-on readers will see clearly that, if you put those two “strategic” items together, they equal Strategy (b).

Now let’s move to Shields’s next paragraph:

“I mentioned a Complaints Assessment Committee (“CAC”) (sic) powers under the Veterinarian’s Act because the CAC will typically request relevant clinical records during its investigation. The purpose of obtaining this information is to assist the CACs (sic) decision-making.”

That sounds innocent and reasonable. But here’s the problem. In the main, he’s talking about the “Clinical Summary” document that I prised out of Massey originally, after its release had been the subject of a further delay (i.e. it had been caught belatedly by their Legal and Governance Department after someone at the Companion Animal “Hospital” almost released it to me without the editing and hygienising that the legal counsel found necessary . . . and goodness knows, it’s easy to tell that the undoctored version was already problematic enough for them).

This “Clinical Summary” has had every name and every position title redacted. Great. Big. Black. Boxes. Over every one of them.

So unless Massey “un-redacts" the numerous entries throughout every single page and puts the names and job titles back in, then who’s going to decide who did what in terms of the formal complaint I need to make to VCNZ for each name they finally release?

The answer to that is (drum roll) . . . the VCNZ Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC), of course! (The one featuring none other than Professor Jenny Weston herself — Academic Director of Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Program and ex officio member of the VCNZ Council — who sits on the body that reviews all CAC decisions, including any decision on complaints about Massey University, the institution whose veterinary academic program she directs . . . who also previously co-authored the 2019 New Zealand Veterinary Journal study that documented VCNZ's own 67.2% dismissal rate and 1.5% uphold rate over 24 years.)

And so we circle back to Strategy (b).

It’s on the one hand elegant, but on the other hand transparent and devious:

The Clinical Summary contains NO NAMES, NO ROLE TITLES, and thus NO ability for me to see who did what with regard to Harry’s . . . err . . . “ treatment ” and “ care ”; those who intentionally and catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed him , those who disconnected him from his IV fluids for use in student demonstrations and video productions , those who abusively “handled” him during those “activities”, the name of the “neurologist” who “examined” Harry in a collapsed and near-comatose state and in that catastrophically sedated state diagnosed him as “demented” which then became the foundational element in the falsified “neurological” diagnosis and “terminal” prognosis and the plan to deceive me into the apparent and non-negotiable need (with no second opinion allowed for) for his immediate “euthanasia”. and those who supported “ Dr” Steffi Jalava in this despicable ruse .

With those fundamental and complete set of identity, role and action redactions firmly maintained, who gets to decide who to apportion those decisions and actions to?

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The same “leadership” team who were colluding with Massey University , through its “Dean” of the Veterinary “School”, Jon Huxley , on how my complaints would be handled . . . or, more to the point, preferably, never handled.

As you can see from the below exchange:

Kia ora koutou,

Notably, despite my earlier Privacy Act information-release request, McLachlan's acceptance of "Jon's" kind invitation, has only just surfaced. I know exactly why. But I'll keep that up my sleeve for now.

Interesting to note that I also asked for what came next by way of communication between McLachlan, Shields, Butler and Co. and Massey's Jon Huxley and his legal team . . . but have never received any answer.

Can you just imagine how damning that subsequent communication would be. Because we’re not just talking emails. We’re talking the whole gamut of communication vehicles. Over the ensuing five months.

Readers . . . are you starting to see the depth of the collusion and the determination of Massey and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to absolutely ensure a “nothing to see here” outcome?

The Accountability Black Hole at the Heart of Veterinary Teaching Hospitals . . . and Why Your Pet Has NO Protection

Sun, 17 May 2026 07:39:08 GMT

This Was My Deeply Beloved Harry . . . Who Was A Completely Normal Little Dog Just 15 Hours Earlier When I Arrived At Massey's 'Companion Animal Hospital' With Him for A Straightforward Rehydration Procedure. Just 15 Hours Earlier, He Had Been Standing Up In His ICU Cage Crying for the Comfort Massey ICU Attendants Refused to Give Him . . . and Medically, Needing Nothing More Than the Urgent Rehydration He'd Been Admitted for . . . and That They Charged Me For But Didn't Give Him . . . Drugging Him (CATASTROPHICALLY) Instead, for A Student Filmfest . . . Which Was Easier for Them and More Profitable for the University.

This Is What Non-Accountability Looks Like . . . the Handiwork of New Zealand Massey University's ICU 'Nurses', Students, 'Teaching' Staff, and 'veterinarians' Stephanie Rigg and 'Dr' Steffi Jalava . . . Catastrophic, Repeat Drugging for Usage in Student Activities and Filming . . . and So - When 'Finished With' - Harry Could Then Be Deviously Presented to Me As Having Suffered from A Fabricated Sudden 'Neurological Decline' and Requiring Immediate 'Euthanasia'.

Note to international readers: This article references New Zealand's veterinary regulatory framework. However, the accountability gaps described here are not unique to New Zealand. The unregulated status of veterinary nursing, the diffuse supervision chains in teaching hospitals, and the closed-door (or, in Massey's case, non-existent) complaints processes that protect institutions over patients are features of veterinary systems in many countries. Check the regulatory framework in your own jurisdiction - you might find it closer to what's described here than you'd expect.

Here's something the veterinary industry doesn't want you to know. And something New Zealand's Massey University and its "Companion Animal 'Hospital'" and its management, " Dean" Jon Huxley and Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman , most certainly don't want its private fee-paying clients to know.

When you leave your pet at a veterinary teaching hospital - or any veterinary practice, for that matter — you assume the people handling him or her are qualified, registered, and individually accountable for what they do to it.

They're not. At least, not all of them. And in some cases, not any of them.

Don't believe me? Ask Google yourself . . . Here's what it says about New Zealand, specifically:

"New Zealand has no legal regulation of veterinary nurses or other allied veterinary professions.

"Professional titles for veterinary nurses/technicians and allied animal healthcare practitioners are not protected by law in New Zealand.

"You can legally work in a veterinary practice in New Zealand without a formal qualification."

To be clear - qualifications exist, and some practices prefer or require them.

But here's the point: none of it is required by law . The title is not protected. The register is voluntary. Anyone can call themselves a veterinary nurse. And if something goes wrong, there is no statutory body with the power to hold an unqualified or unregistered veterinary nurse individually accountable for what they did to your animal.

They could have been a cleaner or a receptionist the week before. And in the case of these bitches who slammed my precious little dog with repeated catastrophic doses of a convenience sedative - that their own recent records show he had previously suffered profound adverse reactions to (there at Massey itself) and that, additionally, is firmly contraindicated for the very kidney condition the blood tests they had that very night performed on him and could clearly see he had - there is no way I can believe they had qualifications. Or, if they did, Massey should be investigated for giving them to them.

Which, by the way, Massey is. Massey's Companion Animal Hospital is currently under active investigation by the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Investigations Unit . And reader feedback conveyed to me indicates it's been a long time coming. I've conveyed that feedback to the MPI investigation team, too.

Where Cruelty Starts . . . and Doesn't Stop

On the night of November 30, 2025, I walked into Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital ICU and found staff huddled in jovial social conversation, completely ignoring a screaming, blind, senior dog in crisis — my dog, Harry .

He was not only in emotional crisis and desperate need of human comfort - he was blind, acutely dehydrated following a short burst of very hot temperatures and our temporary accommodation crisis related to an insurance disaster - but he was also standing up strongly on his little back legs with his front legs stretched out fully through the grid of the cage door . . . and at any moment, being blind, if he'd have come down sideways from his standing position, he would have snapped his legs in the grid.

And they didn't give a shit . I was almost in tears of uber-frustration trying to get a completely impotent, deer-in-the-headlights, couldn't-wait-to-get-me-out-of-there-so-her-shift-could-finish Stephanie Rigg (whose name, fascinatingly, appeared on a pre-populated "euthanasia consent" form forced on me the next day , after a two-hour coercion session by her "colleague" " Dr" Steffi Jalava . . . whose dastardly deeds that next day you can read about here .

May she rot in the richly deserved state of hell herself, that she intentionally and wilfully induced Harry into before pulling off her "he's had a neurological" event and "needs to be euthanased TODAY" stunt . . . on confused, sleep-deprived me (as it was clear on the intake notes that I had declared myself as being) and that she finally achieved after emotionally blackmailing me (with what has now been proven to have been utter bullshit) for two long and intense hours (between a coercive, lengthy phone call she made to me earlier in the day and that she has conveniently written out of her 'Clinical Summary' but that phone records will clearly show she made, and an intensive "consulting room" session that I have requested but that Massey refuses to release their footage of).

But I digress, with apology to my readers . . . as this article isn't meant so much to be about Harry as it is a warning to you for the sake of your own beloved pets. Except that, clearly, the two topics are inseparable.

Yes, I'm still furiously angry (and I always will be) about what was done to Harry, and by extension, to me - and about the fact that, if not for this gaggle of psychopathic, unaccountable bitches and their supposed "management" and "teaching supervisors" (and you can see clearly exactly what students are being "taught" ), I would still have Harry beside me, here at home, right now. And yes, I'm furious about the intense suffering and cruelty they put him through (some of which can be seen clearly in certain images I've been able to extract , although most I haven't) from Massey under legal provisions, indicating there was a degree of real enjoyment by staff and students in the cruelty they inflicted upon him .

Proof Positive: As Always, I Come with Full Receipts

And before I move onto answering the question any loving pet owner will be left answering ( How can I protect my pet, proactively, if he or she ever ends up in an ICU, especially Massey's? ), let me press home two further facts. One a point of evidence that Massey's management has full understanding of what has been going on behind its closed doors all this while, and the other, absolute proof that, the complete non-accountability stretches from the cleaner-turned-"vet-nurse" scenario right through to the highest levels of the actually qualified :

Firstly, if Massey's management had nothing to hide, they wouldn't scrub and falsify hospital records . Because that's a crime with serious ramifications under a variety of different sections under the Crimes Act 1961 . . . but, in Harry's case, they did it anyway . And now they have a police filing as a result . . . with "Dr" Steffi Jalava's name attached . . . albeit, in reality, the gutless upper management who were no doubt also involved and/or directed it, should have their names attached to that police filing as well. And they will. Give me time and the benefit of my ongoing deep-dive investigative work. That they once thought I was just bluffing about. But don't think any more.

Secondly, the rigged system that is the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's "complaints process" has been its best-kept secret for years . And the collusive relationship between Massey and the Veterinary Council has been even more well-hidden.

Not any more .

How the 'Accountability' (or Rather, the 'Non-Accountability') Game Works

But in the meantime, here's what pet owners need to know about how the accountability - or, rather, non-accountability - game works:

Something goes wrong with your pet. You complain. The institution points you to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Perhaps, as in my specific case, even threatens you with legal proceedings if you dare speak outside of those closely-managed channels.

Which was a ploy that didn't go well for Veterinary School "Dean" Jon Huxley when he pulled it on me.

And that has continued not to go well for him ever since - with The Killing of Harry Kelly expose series now extending well past the shores of New Zealand and reaching all corners of the globe (and into places I never even knew existed), and with the campaign now having given rise to the establishment of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org ). All outcomes for which I've been called a range of names by courageous anonymous emailers (who appear to very clearly be) affected Massey insiders, of the intellectual ilk of "Hugh Janus". (Bring it on. You are serving to provide graphic warning to my readers as to the level of ethics, compassion, and intelligence possessed by those who are handling their pets behind closed doors at Massey's "Companion Animal Hospital " - from the lowest rungs of the ladder to the "highest" . . . and above .)

But back to the system.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand, very conveniently for the sector, deals only with registered veterinarians — it has no jurisdiction over veterinary nurses, students, technicians, or any other staff. (And, by the way, the Veterinary Council's "uphold rate" for complaints across the past 24 years, has been 1.5 percent . . . that's one point five percent . . . and that's only of those pet owners who thought it was worth the frustration of trying to complain. And, it's worth additionally noting that Jenny Weston, Massey's Academic Program Director of the BVSc program, is ex officio member of the very Veterinary Council of New Zealand committee that reviews all complaints assessment decisions — including, potentially, yours.

So if the person who actually harmed your pet wasn't a registered vet, you can't even go there . . . for whatever it might have been worth going there for at all. And if the registered vet who was nominally "supervising" (example being the young intaking whatever-her-qualification-might-have-been, Stephanie Rigg on the night of Harry's sadly and totally unnecessarily fatal admission ) can credibly claim they weren't directly involved in the specific act that caused harm — well. Good luck proving otherwise.

Side Announcement: Don't give them all the benefit of this cunningly-engineered non-accountability system. If your pet has been hurt, or if you have been severely wronged, by anyone at or associated with a veterinary practice, whatsoever, including "after care" cremation companies and the like, by the way, whose industry, and its "ethics" are set up to be equally unaccountable . . . please use the easy contact mechanisms at the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) website.

How Massey Gets Away with (What, In A Human Hospital Would Actually Be) Outright Murder

At a teaching hospital, add another layer.

Students aren't registered. Interns might or might not be fully registered.

At Massey, the chain of supervision on the night Harry was admitted was so diffuse that the clinician on duty — who I later established was almost certainly still an intern — either had no, or was too scared by the Hospital's culture to exercise any, authority over the ICU nurses who were ignoring a patient in distress .

So . . . on Massey's heavily-redacted records ( with a black box over every single name and role ), "nobody" specifically decided to sedate Harry into near-comatose collapse . "Nobody" specifically disconnected his IV fluids eight and a half hours into a prescribed 24-hour protocol (which even in its own right had been highly inadequate and clearly prescribed by someone with no specific or detailed knowledge of rehydration requirements). "Nobody" specifically filmed him in that state for multiple student training videos , in direct contravention of my repeated written and verbal instructions.

It was a team effort - and that "team" remains comprised of totally unnamed players.

When I stood in that ICU watching my precious little blind dog scream in terror with his legs outstretched through the steel grid of his cage door, the person nominally in charge told me, impotently (and at a volume that ensured the two cackling ICU "nurses" wouldn't hear her, such appeared to be her fear of them): "I can assure you everyone here loves animals" . . . while the distinct evidence to the direct contrary was right beside me .

Six months later, not one of those people has (YET) been named, charged, or held accountable by any regulatory body.

A Protection Racket With A Letterhead & Funding It Shouldn't Have

Now here's the part that applies to every pet owner who does know the name of the vet involved and lodges a formal complaint.

You lodge it. You name the vet. And then the process disappears behind closed doors. The assessment panel is not disclosed to you. The outcome — if there is one — is typically a private reprimand that the public never sees. You are not told what was decided or why. And across 24 years, VCNZ upheld just 1.5% of complaints.

That's not a regulatory body. That's a protection racket with a letterhead and funding it shouldn't have .

Massey University has gone one further. By redacting every single name from every document provided under Privacy Act and OIA obligations , they have made it impossible for me to even get to the starting line of the normal complaints process.

You can't lodge a Veterinary Council complaint against a person whose name you don't know. Massey knows that. That's why the black boxes exist.

Six months of Privacy Act-obligated information-release requests. Six months of redacted names. Six months of black boxes over every individual who had any involvement with Harry's admission, his treatment, his filming, and his death.

Despite all accepted international veterinary profession protocols and standards, Massey's OIA response received this week advised that Massey intends to release staff names only to the Veterinary Council (Readers: The expose on that specific issue is coming very shortly.) Being pressed from all directions now, and probably knowing those names are going to be compelled by an external source sooner or later, they have finally said the names will be released.

Except not in reality. Because they're only going to be released to their mates over at the collusive Veterinary Council . Released to t he closed-circuit with jurisdiction over registered vets only — rather than released to Harry's owner, who is entitled to know the identity of every person who handled her property without authorisation . . . as clearly declared by Senior Standards and Advice Officer & Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) Ky Richardson, with whom I confirmed standard international practices on identity disclosure.

Not that the average pet owner would want to know the names and roles of personnel handling their precious pets anyway, and for which they're usually paying astronomical fees, of course.

And . . . Back to the Second, Back-Up Accountability Trap Door

Meanwhile, any staff member who isn't a registered vet disappears entirely from the accountability architecture.

No register. No complaints body. No individual liability. Just an employer with every incentive to keep their name out of the public record.

Here's what all this means for you.

The next time you leave your pet at a veterinary teaching hospital — or any overnight veterinary facility — remember this:

You have no way of knowing who will handle your animal during the hours you're not there. You have no way of knowing their qualifications, their registration status, or their individual accountability if something goes wrong. You have no way of knowing whether they were the cleaner last week. Or maybe still are.

Your local vet is not going to tell you this.

The teaching hospital is most certainly not going to tell you this.

And the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is not going to tell you this.

So I am .

Before you leave any veterinary consultation — every single time, no exceptions — insist on being given a print-out of, and check the detail of, the clinical record for that visit.

Make sure the name, position and role of every person who made a decision for your pet, carried it out, or handled your pet in any way, is recorded in there. Every time. Before you walk out the door.

Actually, given the self-interested practice of presumptuously handing you the EFTPOS terminal when you approach the counter after a consultation, with the total (often into the high hundreds and even thousands of dollars) already entered and a flippant "Do you need the invoice emailed to you?", to which you're meant to respond, "No, it's OK, don't worry about it" . . . GET AND CHECK THE RECORDS FIRST. READ THE RECORDS FOR THAT CONSULTATION. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, IF EVERYTHING LINES UP , PAY.

That's how it works in any other service provision industry, and that's how it should be working in this one, too.

LOOK WHAT HAPPENED (READ ABOUT IT HERE) WHEN I DIDN'T. They make you feel like a heel, untrusting, holding up the queue.

And because I fell for the clinical attire and the "stethoscope hung around the neck" authority/"expert" image.

Because I trusted the very last people that I should have ever trusted with the most precious thing I owned. And I use "owned" very deliberately. Because Massey doesn't see it that way. They think THEY own your pet and can do what they want with "it". And, unfortunately, unbeknownst to you, they DO .

And one last critical point of warning - m ake sure you read this article - and that, if a vet or a staff member of a veterinary practice is the one pointing you towards euthanasia of your pet, and it's not your idea and especially if it comes out of the blue - ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, SEEK A SECOND, FULLY INDEPENDENT, OPINION . That's a right you have and an obligation they have . Just like the many, many others Jalava and her "colleagues" breached . (Very, very serious breaches that I alerted the Veterinary Council senior leadership team to way back as early as January 7, just a month after Harry's demise, as I was beginning to piece together the truly horrific truth and its multiple horrifying components . . . and that the Council's CEO Iain McLachlan has not only done nothing to indicate his concern over, he's worked actively to protect Massey and its staff from any accountability - and, as a result, has now found himself the subject of an active Law Society of New Zealand investigation. )

If "Dr" Steffi Jalava had not engineered the logistics of that fateful day (pummeling me with her " this has to be done today, and before I leave" strategically fabricated urgency ) and prevented me from being able to leave Massey with Harry and seek an independent external assessment of Harry's presentation . . . any vet I'd been able to leave there and take him to see in that condition, would have immediately seen what I didn't - as a non-vet and in a heavily stressed and sleep-deprived state:

That the reality was, Harry was catastrophically overdosed with sedatives and other potentiating substances .

A little dog who - just 15 hours earlier - had performed the complex moves and fine motor co-ordination of standing up on his hind legs, and even while blind and in a foreign, caged environment, outstretched his front legs through the tight grid squares of an ICU cage . . . and directed his cries straight at me, despite his blindness, as I walked through those ICU doors . . . that was NOT a "brain failing" animal.

What he was (when the ICU "nurses" and Rigg, Jalava, "teaching" staff and co. - almost certainly with the blessing of Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman , to whom I had already, for some time, been a thorn in the side for my flagging to her of the woeful standards of her "ICU" staff , finished drugging him and using him for astoundingly cruel student "teaching" purposes and film productions) was a piece of inconvenient evidence that they were NOT going to let me leave with, alive.

And they didn't. (And in my view, they were glad to see the back of me, and if they did what they did to Harry, and derived the multiple benefits from it - including financial fraud (and the many components thereof ) and student training activities and productions - that they did, that was a real bonus for them. And they did. And it was. Until now. (Now . . . not so much. They should have done the background check of me that their high-profile lawyers have been doing ever since . . . and found that I'm a tenacious investigative journalist bent on accountability of publicly-funded institutions.)

In closing, my final two recommendations are this:

NEVER allow yourself to be in a situation like I was taken full advantage of having been in i.e. where you are totally alone and are placed under intense pressure to make an irreversible decision.

And ALWAYS trust your intuition. To the last. Because you may be in a situation - as I was - where "the last" wouldn't have been "the last" for Harry, if I had have trusted mine.

NOTE TO READERS : You may also be interested in reading those articles relating to Harry's case that are specifically germaine to educational and ethics topics, over at the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE.org) and the specific Harry Kelly Case Study section there .

STILL WAITING, MASSEY: Five Months of Stonewalling . . . And Counting

Thu, 07 May 2026 10:01:10 GMT

Here's Why Pet Owners Need to Stick to Their Guns When It Comes to Massey's Evasion of Accountability . . . Because Unless You Do What I'm Doing, This Is How Pets Will Continue to End Up After A 'Stay' in Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital'

ABOVE . . . the Graphic Result of 15 Hours in Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital' under the 'care' of one Stephanie Rigg and 'Dr' Steffi Maja Jalava:

Harry was admitted for nothing other than a 24-hour course of urgent rehydration . . . and had looked like a perfectly normal (albeit somewhat dehydrated) dog when I walked through the doors of this inaptly-named veterinary "hospital" with him.

Fast forward 15 hours under the "care" of ICU staff and a "Stephanie Rigg " , and then, most lethally of all , under a "Dr" Steffi Maja Jalava as he was opportunistically converted to a student "teaching" resource and "educational" video content.

The above photograph is what extreme pharmacological suppression of the Central Nervous System looks like . . . the result of multiple, catastrophic-level doses of totally unnecessary and specifically contraindicated Gabapentin and other substances, and the intentional disconnection from IV fluids , and having been used as a prop for multiple student "educational" activities and videos leading up to the fabricated "terminal neurological" diagnosis that Jalava used to coerce an otherwise totally unnecessary "euthanasia" high-pressure outcome .

For more photos of the combined handiwork of the November 30 ICU staff (or students or whatever they were ), of "Dr" Jalava, and of Stephanie Rigg, go here . For comment on the bogus "neurological" examination conducted by Massey's anonymous "neurologist" go here. For the ghoulish "educational" filming practices consented to by Academic Program Director at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science Jenny Weston and organised by Practice Manager Pauline Nijman, go here . For Practice Manager Pauline Nijman's client billing practices, go here.

____________________________________________________________________________

The following article was published May 7, 2026 on The Customer & The Constituent NZ as the third in a three-part series documenting Massey University's ongoing refusal to comply with its statutory information release obligations.

It is republished here as part of IIIVE's coverage of the systemic obstruction tactics deployed by Massey University against a complainant seeking basic accountability for the atrocities the institution's staff inflicted in Harry Kelly - with his tortured and unnecessary death being the ultimate result - and the actual intended outcome.

This article publishes a formal reminder to Massey of nine critical Official Information Act-required items —filed as long as five months ago — that remain either entirely unanswered or inadequately answered, including the identities of all staff involved, the Controlled Drugs Register, the full ICU video footage, and the missing December 1 IDEXX diagnostic data (the day the catastrophic overdosing of Harry hit its peak and laid the ground for their use of him in student experiments and videos and Jalava's then-fabricated sudden "neurological" decline diagnosis to coerce his "euthanasia ".

________________________________________

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2026 6:48 pm
To: 'OIA Requests' <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'R.L.Ferguson@massey.ac.nz' <R.L.Ferguson@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: RE: REF#02/2026 - Outstanding OIA Items - Formal Reminder

Dear Ms Ferguson / Governance and Assurance Office

I write to formally remind you that the following items from my OIA request REF#02/2026 – due for response by March 13, 2026 – remain either entirely unanswered or inadequately answered, now nearly two months past the statutory deadline.

Items that have received no response whatsoever:

Identity of Clinicians and All Other Involved Parties

The unredacted names and professional roles of all staff, contractors, visiting specialists, locums, students, interns, academic staff, or other persons employed or engaged by, or associated with, Massey University in any capacity who were involved in the "care", "treatment", handling, observation, filming, recording, or any procedural, instructional, or educational interaction with Harry Kelly during November 30 and December 1, 2025 and subsequent days (i.e. following his forced death) – including but not limited to any individual who was present in the ICU or any other area of the Companion Animal Hospital and who had any involvement with, interaction with, observation of, or proximity to Harry Kelly during his admission, for any purpose whatsoever, whether clinical, supervisory, observational, educational, or administrative – and all staff and other persons involved in the handling of his body following his forced December 1, 2025 death.

Further to this, the role and involvement of each individual and the reason for it.

December 1 IDEXX Diagnostic Data

All machine-generated diagnostic monitoring data, IDEXX reports, and automated vital signs logs for Harry Kelly for December 1, 2025, including explicit confirmation of whether any such data was recorded and, if so, its current location within Massey's records management system.

The absence of this data from the records provided to date is noted. Any confirmation that no such data exists will itself be treated as a significant finding requiring further explanation, given that Massey's own Clinical Summary claims active patient monitoring during this period. Harry was documented in that Clinical Summary as "obtunded" and "limp" during December 1 – a period during which he was, in fact, catastrophically over-sedated.

The December 1 IDEXX data would confirm what was actually happening to him during that period, which is precisely why its absence from the records released to date is so significant.

Controlled Drugs Register

All entries in the Controlled Drugs Register pursuant to the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as they relate to the dispensing, administration, or recording of any controlled or prescription substance administered to Harry Kelly during November 30 and December 1, 2025, or to his remains.

Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail

The unredacted Field-Level Audit Log and all associated system access logs identifying the names, position titles, and login credentials of every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, "updated" or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of response.

Instructional Content Authorisation

All internal documentation, ethics committee approvals, funding agreements, timetabling records, course or module materials, staff or student instructions, and any other records related to the production of "instructional content", clinical demonstrations, procedural training exercises, or clinical studies of any kind conducted in the ICU or any other part of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal “Hospital” during the period of Harry Kelly's admission – including but not limited to any activity involving the observation, handling, filming, recording, or use of Harry Kelly for any educational, training, or research purpose, whether formally authorised (and who by) or otherwise – and also including all such activity conducted while his body was in Massey's possession following his forced death on December 1, 2025.

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 (past or present) and his professional advisory role at the Veterinary Council of New Zealand – and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Jenny Weston)

All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Dr Jenny Weston's dual role as Massey University Academic Program Director and her ex officio VCNZ membership – and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

Items answered inadequately:

ICU Video Footage

Your statement that "that is all you are entitled to" with regard to the single “still” shot from each of at least six remaining unreleased videos of my pet , in response to my request for full video footage, is insultingly insolent and NOT accepted.

Actually, since he was a private paying patient, YOU weren't entitled to overdose him (unnecessarily and repeatedly) with a contraindicated sedative and disconnect him from his by-then life-essential fluids that you billed me for a full 24 hours of (even though you'd killed him long short of that timeframe) so that you and your students could film his agony on your cell phones for your entertainment and the university's "educational material" profit.

The footage remains requested in full.

Pet Farewells Communications

Noting that the veracity of claims regarding the whereabouts of Harry’s ashes remains in strong and highly justifiable contention (Pet Farewells having been told that I “didn’t want Harry back”), your response that "no records were kept" because Pet Farewells is not your usual supplier, is not accepted as either adequate ethics, operational sufficiency, or standard protocols compliance.

The absence of records is itself a significant finding requiring explanation, given that Massey recommended and dispensed Harry’s body – i.e. the property of a private fee-paying client – to Pet Farewells, under your recommendation.

I require a response to all outstanding items without further delay. These matters will be referred to the Ombudsman if not addressed promptly. They will also continue to be kept at the top of the coverage being published on The Customer & The Constituent .

Also hereby be advised that this OIA request – and your response to it, or lack thereof – will be forwarded to the Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Inspectorate, which is currently conducting its investigation into the Harry Kelly matter at your Companion Animal "Hospital".

Yours sincerely
Jordan Kelly (Ms)

NZ's Massey Evades Disclosure Obligations on Legal Fees: What Are You Hiding, and Who's Paying?

Thu, 07 May 2026 09:36:34 GMT

Massey's Latest Sleight of Hand: SO Tiresome. They Expect Us to Believe they Haven't Spent A Dime on Legal Fees. They Just Tweaked the Scope of the OIA. SO Transparent.

The following article was published May 7, 2026 on The Customer & The Constituent NZ as the second in a three-part series documenting just one of the many ongoing elements of a co-ordinated Massey University and Veterinary Council of New Zealand accountability evasion strategy.

It is republished here as part of IIIVE's coverage of how publicly-funded institutions deploy statutory information request processes as instruments of obstruction rather than transparency.

This article documents Massey University's response to three successive OIA requests regarding its external legal expenditure in the Harry Kelly matter — and the scope trick at the heart of that "response".

___________________________________________________________

In February 2026, I filed an Official Information Act request asking Massey University four straightforward questions about its external legal expenditure in the Harry Kelly matter.

The key question was: How much has the University spent on Buddle Findlay and other external advisors (with the other questions being, what work in progress costs were accruing, what the letters of engagement covered, and which budget was funding the spend)?

I since submitted a further request because the first one wasn't particularly convincing. I asked for the University's legal spend on the Harry Kelly matter since February 14.

Massey's April 24 response, signed by Chief of Staff Jodie Banner, evaded the core question (which, as you will see, rendered all the others moot), in predictable keeping with Massey's trademark dishonest modus operandi.

Here was my core question:

"All invoices and fee notes

"All invoices, bills, fee notes, and statements received by Massey University from any external legal counsel or specialist advisors, litigation support providers, communications advisors, public relations consultants, or any other external advisors engaged in connection with the death of Harry Kelly at the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital on December 1 2025, and any complaints, correspondence, investigations, media inquiries, or proceedings arising from that matter."

Here was Massey's Jodie Banner's "answer" (the answer you have when you're not having the answer to the question you actually asked):

"There have been no invoices, bills, fee notes, or statements received by the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital from external legal counsel, specialist advisors, litigation support providers, communications advisors, public relations consultants, or any other external advisors. As noted in our previous response to you on 16 March 2026, we confirmed that the university engaged the services of Buddle Findlay in relation to this matter and that all costs were paid for from a centralised university professional services budget centre."

See the sleight of hand? They changed the scope. That is, they changed the question from " invoices . . . received by Massey University", to "invoices . . . received by the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital".

No, of course there haven't been any invoices received by the Companion Animal "Hospital", Ms Banner. Because that's NOT the entity being billed by Buddle Findlay and/or other legal etc services providers with whom I remain wholly unconvinced you're not racking up substantial ongoing fees for a matter - with the multiple component matters - of this gravity. Especially when you've already engaged Buddle Findlay long before the hot mess you've created for yourselves both before and ever since your venerable "Dean" Jon Huxley's January 30 legal threat to me, cc'ing that very expensive national law firm.

The entity being billed is the overall entity i.e. Massey University itself - or some strategically worded cost centre thereof. Or maybe even some convenient subsidiary somewhere.

So back to the ol' drawing board and let's see how you get around OIA Number Three on the exact same topic:

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2026 4:53 pm
To: 'OIA Requests' <oia@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: 'R.L.Ferguson@massey.ac.nz' <R.L.Ferguson@massey.ac.nz>
Subject: RE: 05/2026 - Request from Ms Kelly - 16.03.2026 - Response

Dear Ms Banner / Governance and Assurance Office:

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I write in response to your April 24, 2026 reply to my OIA request REF#05/2026, and submit a third request on the same subject matter.

In your April 24 response, you answered my question regarding invoices and fee notes by reference to "the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital" – a deliberate and transparent narrowing of the scope of my question, which asked about Massey University .

I therefore request, for the period December 1, 2025 to the date of this request :

All invoices, bills, fee notes, and statements received by Massey University – NOT the Companion Animal Hospital specifically, but the university as a whole , including any centralised budget centre, professional services cost centre, or any other financial vehicle through which the likes of external legal, advisory, communications, or public relations costs are processed – in connection with the death of Harry Kelly, and any complaints, correspondence, investigations, media inquiries, or proceedings arising from that matter.

All unbilled, accrued, deferred, or work-in-progress costs currently recorded or held in any form in Massey University's financial systems in relation to this matter – including any arrangement whereby invoices are held, batched, or issued on a periodic or retainer basis rather than per engagement, or subject to any form of delayed arrangement, or billed to alternative sources or atypical cost centres, sources or subsidiaries, and the total value of any such costs accrued to date regardless of whether a formal invoice has been issued or received.

The name of every external firm engaged by Massey University in connection with this matter from December 1, 2025 to the date of this request, regardless of whether invoices have yet been received.

A copy of the scope of engagement, letter of engagement, or instruction brief issued to Buddle Findlay and any other external firm engaged in connection with this matter – specifically the described scope of work, the fee structure or billing arrangement, and the name of the Massey University officer who authorised the engagement. (Note: Detailed legal strategy may be redacted under s9(2)(h), but the scope of engagement and fee structure are requested in the public interest of financial accountability of a publicly funded institution.)

I would also remind you that you have a large number of items from previous OIA requests – including but not limited to one particular and especially crucial OIA request with multiple information requirements that you have ignored in its entirety – that are now many weeks or months overdue. These will be the subject of a reminder email shortly.

I look forward to your response within the statutory time frame. And I indeed do ask that it actually BE within the statutory time frame.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

Slippery BIrds of A Feather . . . New Zealand's Massey Vet 'School' & Vet Council Flock Together

Thu, 07 May 2026 09:19:27 GMT

Oh Gosh . . . What A Coincidence . . . Same Date, Same Slippery 'Strategy', Same Low-Character and Totally Transparent Category of Ploy

The following article was published May 6, 2026 on The Customer & The Constituent NZ as the opening piece in a three-part series documenting the co-ordinated evasion strategy deployed simultaneously by Massey University and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand on April 24, 2026 — the same date, the same flavour, the same purpose.

It is republished here as part of IIIVE's ongoing coverage of the structural relationship between these two organisations and the effective capture of the industry regulator, and its direct consequences for veterinary accountability in New Zealand.

The two detailed exposés that follow this piece — one dissecting the VCNZ's response and its built-in accountability escape hatch, and one examining Massey's evasion of its legal fees OIA — are also published on both platforms.

__________________________________________________

There's a particular kind of coincidence that quite transparently isn't one.

On April 24, 2026, two pieces of horribly belated correspondence dropped into my inbox on the same day. One from Massey University. One from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Both were insultingly late. Both were equally insultingly evasive. And both deployed the same essential strategy — the appearance of movement carefully constructed to ensure nothing actually moves.

(Sloppy, sloppy Massey and VCNZ . . . it would have been worth date-staggering them for less transparency . . . not that it really would have fooled anyone, of course.)

Frankly, though, in either case, I don’t believe their woefully transparent "strategies" took them as long as their correspondences took. My strong suspicion is that it was more than just the same ol’ same ol’ "strategic" dragging-out-the-nothingness-for-as-long-as-legally-possible playbook. I think these two slippery birds of a feather are getting their respective legal "strategies" - or the sign-off of them - from the same source. That's my theory and for now, I'll stick to it.

The Slimy Relationship That Accountability Simply Slides Off

I've already written - now in several articles - about the slimy relationship between these two organisations before:

About the conflicts of interest that make the VCNZ's independence from Massey not merely compromised but structurally impossible. About the private email from Massey's Dean of "School" of "Veterinary Science", Jon Huxley , to VCNZ "leadership", characterising my complaint as "wholly unfounded" before any investigation had been conducted (or has still ever been conducted, because both Massey and the VCNZ are in diligent cahoots to make sure it hasn't ). About the code of professional conduct administered by a VCNZ advisor who holds a simultaneous role at Massey itself . And about Massey's Dean of Veterinary Education who sits on the same committee of the VCNZ as will be ruling on any complaint about her own facility's conduct.

What arrived on April 24 was perhaps the tidiest illustration yet of why I have described these two organisations as one and the same beast in different institutional clothing .

Two letters. Same day. Same flavour. Same purpose.

I'll be publishing a detailed analysis of each in the coming days — one examining VCNZ Deputy Registrar Liam Shields' long-awaited response (the response you have when you're probably not having a response at all) and one examining Massey's devious and intelligence-insulting, yet disappointingly predictable , response to my Official Information Act request regarding its legal expenditure to ensure they remain unaccountable for their atrocities .

Both will be worth reading carefully . . . because they're going to represent the kind of forensically-detailed attention that both organisations should jolly well have mentally registered by now that they're going to get.

But hey, when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, you just have to go with whatever you've got, right Massey? Right Shields? Really, what ARE you paying these external legal advisors . . . because you're throwing money down a very big pit that Massey should also be accountable to your students, your funders and taxpayers for having dug for itself.

Shame on You, 'Vice-Chancellor' Pierre Venter . . . Really, I Wholeheartedly Mean It: SHAME ON YOU

On that note, SHAME ON YOU, Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter .

You were brought in to straighten out a big mess . Yet -as far as the Harry Kelly case goes . . . and more broadly, the entire Veterinary "School" and "Companion Animal Hospital" go . . . all you've done is presided over an out-of-control sprawling, immoral and totally inept mess .

You fool . You could have used this as an opportunity to finally address what has been going on for years at this disastrous institution and its "treatment" of dogs in particular , and its attitude towards their owners (who you have no concept of as "clients"). But you chose the easy route . . . perpetuate the pattern, the incompetence , the disastrous culture , the cover-ups . . . and the consequences to pet owners .

Why? In my view, probably four reasons:

You come from a protected corporate background where institutional shielding of management and employees is the norm (just another day in the office). Maybe you weren't told the full truth by Huxley , Weston , Nijman and Co. You didn't have either the spine or the will to do anything other than what your external legal advisors are making a great deal of money telling you to do.

And fourthly, you underestimated this little bird . Just like Huxley, you thought a scary letter with "Buddle Findlay" cc'd would see the owner of this particularly precious little dog reduced to cowering in foetal position in a corner somewhere. (By the way, the anonymous emailers - "Hugh Janus" & Co - who appear very clearly to originate from the bowels of your despicable institution, can go right on ahead and entertain themselves by ridiculing the pet/owner bond. But in my case, you and they have served only to incentivise me to rub your faces in exactly what a live-and-well pet/owner bond means in action.)

So your strategy hasn't gone well so far, has it, Venter, Huxley and legal "advisors"? You inept, strategically inferior, utterly morally bankrupt lot. The lot of you combined - and individually .

Stay tuned, readers. Neither of these two latest pieces of intellectually insulting shit from either of these two Teflon-coated institutional birds that are structurally designed to flock together so that accountability can slide straight off their combined feathers, will surprise you.

And my dissection and exposure of them won't disappoint you, either.

Quest for Accountability In Massey Cruelty, Falsification & Deception Case: How Conflicted Industry Regulators Roll When Protecting those They Should Be Prosecuting

Thu, 07 May 2026 00:34:11 GMT

Five Months In, and the First Hurdle — Getting the Names — Still Hasn't Been Cleared. That Tells You Everything About What Lies Ahead.

The following article was published today on The Customer & The Constituent NZ as the latest in the ongoing public correspondence trail documenting the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's continued failure to genuinely and honestly facilitate a formal complaint in the Harry Kelly case – and its CEO's conspicuous personal absence from a matter of this gravity. It is republished here simultaneously as part of IIIVE's parallel coverage of the broader international systemic veterinary regulatory failure this case continues to expose.

As this accountability quest continues, readers will clearly see something that will also be familiar to many pet owners who have attempted to navigate veterinary complaints processes anywhere in the world: an industry regulator that controls both the information required to lodge a complaint, and the transparency (or otherwise) of the process by which that complaint would be assessed.

Readers will also see the mercilessly - and entirely unnecessarily - drawn-out nature of the process . . . which, in most cases, appears to be designed to exhaust the pet owner complainant such that true accountability is lost in the passage of time and that (arguably very intentional) emotional exhaustion.

Can I Have A Straighter Answer, Please, Vet Council's Liam Shields? Do I Get the Names or Not?

READERS: As per my immediately prior article published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ - ' Slippery Birds of A Feather . . . Massey & the Vet Council Flock Together' - here's the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's Deputy Registrar Liam Shields's latest exercise in circumlocution as he and his advisors mastermind yet another "undertaking" when they are, as I strongly suspect, not committing to any undertaking at all.

The full correspondence trail is here in this article, so those readers interested in observing the dogged determination of an "industry regulator" to shield its mates and members, can see the full evolution of that playing out.

___________________________________________________________

Dear Mr Shields

I would thank you for your email but I have waited more than three weeks for something you could have answered by return email.

Once again, you engage me in a drawn-out, ongoing and agitating cat-and-mouse exercise as I seek to obtain simple and straight answers from you and the invisible, cowering-behind-his-deputy "Chief Executive Officer", Mr Iain McLachlan.

You wrote:

'I confirm that we will contact Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital (“MUVTH”) for names of the veterinarians who were involved with the treatment and care of Harry Kelly. Our remit is over individual veterinarians. The scope of our request will be limited to the names of the registered veterinarians. From there, we will send you information about how to raise a formal complaint, how the process works, and what information we’ll need from you. If you have questions in the interim, please do let me know."

Yes, Mr Shields, I DO have questions, so I am now (again) letting you know (again) what those questions are.

Just as I asked you on March 29 and multiple times before that:

Are you going to furnish ME - Jordan Kelly, directly - with the full list of names, position titles and specific involvements ?

Because, of course, I will NEED the names of those individuals, and their job titles , if I am to - per your email - " raise a formal complaint" about each of them, won't I, Mr Shields. I will need that information FROM YOU, before I am able to meaningfully give any further information TO YOU.

Or are you planning some stunt whereby:

a) You tell me you have the names - but with nil intention to disclose them to me - and then conduct a secret squirrel "investigation" of these undisclosed individuals, before returning a "not guilty" verdict?

b) Given that you absolutely could, if you wanted to, obtain and disclose ALL the names of every staff member and other individual who handled or was involved in Harry's case, but that you have specifically self-limited that in your email . . . are you going to make the totally predictable manouevre of siphoning off as many as possible of the wrongdoings from licensed staff and attributing them over to unnamed, non-licensed staff so that you can then “investigate” the licensed personnel only and then say that all (or as many as you could move off to) the practices in question were the decisions or actions of the non-licensed staff? And that, thus I need to take these matters up with Massey? Which is exactly what you know I’ve been trying to do since your entire collusive circular stone-walling Massey/VCNZ/Massey/VCNZ/Massey/VCNZ gyration strategy began . . . five months ago?

OR BOTH (a) AND (b)?

Both of these devious but predictable strategies are incredibly easy for you and Massey to engineer together.

The "registered veterinarians only" is the mechanism that - most especially in a "teaching" facility where multiple students, interns and unqualified, inexperienced personnel (or worse) are handling or making life or death decisions for people's (private patient) pets - you can deploy to ensure that the worst actors walk free. Both those licensed practitioners whose involvements got magically shifted across to "non-licensed" staff, and those non-licensed staff over whose actions and outcomes you have nil concern.

You also wrote:

"You have asked about accessing clinical information held by MUVTH, and I understand that you made a Privacy Act request for this information. We are unable to facilitate a Privacy Act request or an Official Information Act request on your behalf. The information holder is best placed to provide you with access to the information. It may be helpful to note that, where a formal complaint is made, our committees have legal powers to require information necessary to advance their investigation or reach a decision."

Great, Mr Shields. Then since you know that I have multiple times across now five months requested key information like the Controlled Drug Register, the withheld video footage, the missing (i.e. December 1) IDEXX read-out reports and, of course, the personnel names and position titles - and since your "committees have legal powers to "require" these - then you can obtain these very easily for me.

I look forward to receiving them all, via the VCNZ, Mr Shields. May I have them in the same correspondence as that in which you will shortly be including the names of the staff in question? It would be handy to have it all in one neat information package. As you point out, that is well within your powers.

You forgot to write anything in answer to my question as to why your March 19 Privacy Act response makes no reference whatsoever to the VCNZ's reply to Massey Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley's private email to you , Mr McLachlan and Seton Butler, calling you off and discrediting my complaint - that I hadn't even made yet, and still haven't been able to - as "wholly unfounded" . . . and asking you to, you know, give him a call.

You wrote:

"Please let me know if you have any questions."

I do. And there you have them, Mr Shields, as above.

My very plain, very clearly laid-out questions . . . yet again.

I would greatly appreciate your very clear, very plain, and some very honest this time, answers. Complete ones, if you would be so kind.

And if you wouldn't mind addressing me as "Ms Kelly", I would be grateful for your refraining from the assumption that I wish to be on first-name terms with any of the characters involved in this entire torrid affair. From those who planned and oversaw the abuse , torture , conversion to institutional "teaching" property and the deception to achieve the otherwise unnecessary chemical killing of my catastrophically overdosed precious little dog when they had finished with him, to the multiple instances of records falsification by way of staff and management misfeasance cover-up (all the way to the top ) . . . along with those who are actively working to ensure these actors are never held to account and indeed never even have to face the public's gaze (which I will most certainly achieve one way or the other, Mr Shields and Mr McLachlan).

As well as refraining from the above unwelcome familiarity (or is it just your patronising attitude to pet owner complainants?), I would welcome a response which also refrains from your standard circumlocution and drawn-out time frame.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly (Ms)

From: Liam Shields <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2026 4:42 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: Re: Your Privacy Act Response of March 19, 2026 - Jordan Kelly

Dear Jordan,

Thank you for your email.

I confirm that we will contact Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital (“MUVTH”) for names of the veterinarians who were involved with the treatment and care of Harry Kelly. Our remit is over individual veterinarians. The scope of our request will be limited to the names of the registered veterinarians. From there, we will send you information about how to raise a formal complaint, how the process works, and what information we’ll need from you. If you have questions in the interim, please do let me know.

You have asked about accessing clinical information held by MUVTH, and I understand that you made a Privacy Act request for this information. We are unable to facilitate a Privacy Act request or an Official Information Act request on your behalf. The information holder is best placed to provide you with access to the information. It may be helpful to note that, where a formal complaint is made, our committees have legal powers to require information necessary to advance their investigation or reach a decision.

You have made comments about how we manage conflicts of interest at the governance level. As I mentioned in my letter, where a Council member has a conflict of interest in relation to a veterinarian or clinic, they are expected to declare that conflict and recuse themselves from any decision-making. The Council maintains an interests register to support this process.

You’ve also asked about our response to your Privacy Act request. I thought it would be helpful to clarify that the Teams message that you reference was sent on 12 December 2023 (which you’ll note from the timestamp). The Teams correspondence was between myself and Jamie Shanks, a previous employee of the Veterinary Council. The message relates to an email that you the Veterinary Council in late-2023. We've included the correspondence, including Jamie’s email to you, in our Privacy Act response to you.

We will be back in touch shortly, once we have contacted MUVTH. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Liam Shields

Deputy Registrar

Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Date: Sunday, 29 March 2026 at 4:55 PM
To: Liam Shields
Subject: Re: Your Privacy Act Response of March 19, 2026 - Jordan Kelly

Dear Mr Shields,

Please find below my formal response to your letter of March 19, 2026.

This response has been published in full at The Customer & The Constituent NZ: Yes, Please, VCNZ's Liam Shields, I WILL Have the Names You Have Been Obligated to Extract from Massey for the PAST THREE MONTHS

Jordan Kelly

Dear Mr Shields

Thank you for your letter of March 19, 2026 and the accompanying Privacy Act disclosure.

On your offer to assist with the provision of names and position titles:

In response to your offer to source the names and position titles of all involved parties, I accept – with the requirement that this be a complete and unredacted list, not a partial or selective one.

Specifically, and as a matter of primary urgency, I require the unredacted names and professional roles of every individual at Massey University who had any involvement whatsoever with Harry Kelly – including but not limited to:

Every clinician, intern, student, and support staff member involved in his "care", “treatment”, handling and any and all associated decision-making processes, during the period of November 30 and December 1, 2025.

The above category of requirement must include the licensed veterinarians that (a) the rotating intern, "Dr" Stephanie Rigg ( who misrepresented herself to me as a seasoned, senior veterinarian ), should have been supervised by, and (b) the licensed practitioner that was or should have been responsible for the intaking staff member (who I am advised by another aggrieved client of the facility - but whom is too frightened to speak out themselves because of Dean Jon Huxley's legal threat to me for doing so )also bears the name of "Stephanie".

It should be noted that I was almost certain at the time that she (the very young "Stephanie" i.e. her name was not known to me at the time) was lying when she assured me she was a graduated and fully qualified veterinarian in her own right. Given what I know now about the lack of experience and ethics with which the Companion Animal "Hospital" is staffed, I am even closer to being fully convinced that she was not a qualified vet, but rather, still a student. As I had commented in my published article , 'Massey Vet Teaching Hospital: Where Empathy Goes to Die' , this staff member looked barely old enough to have been out of high school, was clearly out of her depth, and not only had no authority over the two ICU attendants (who were engaged in social conversation and refusing any attention to Harry as he stood up in his cage screaming in terror with his legs dangerously, especially for a blind dog, outstretched through the grid of the cage door ), and despite my pleas, refused to exercise any authority over these ICU staff. In retrospect, it would seem now that this very young woman was not in a position of qualified authority to do so.

Clearly, Practice Manager Pauline Nijman has at least conjoint responsibility for staffing rosters, but there must also be - in a veterinary teaching establishment - present, direct reporting chains in place at all times. If this was not the case during Harry's admission and time in the "ICU" facility, then the two licensed practitioners bearing ultimate responsibility for this failure (including its obvious systemic nature) would be Jon Huxley, the Dean of the Veterinary School , and Jenny Weston, the Dean of Massey's Veterinary Teaching Program.

I place particular emphasis on this point purely because - given the Veterinary Council's already-demonstrated protectionism towards, and degree of collusion with, Massey University, its leadership and its staff - I firmly believe that you will take the opportunity to disingenuously optimise every possible technicality to avoid accountability for as many staff as you can.

Every individual involved in the selection or administration of any drug or substance to Harry Kelly during that period, whether authorised, and whether documented / recorded, or otherwise.

The "undocumented" and "unrecorded" element of this requirement is especially important, given Massey's continued refusal to release the Controlled Drugs Register and, in fact, its outright breach of the complete Official Information Act request of which this was a key part.

To be noted, and as I made clear to Massey, I have asked for this critical document due to the demonstrable difference in Harry's condition showing between the multiple covert student videos taken of him on cell phones that morning (in outright contempt for my firm verbal and written instructions to Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, and on forms, that Harry should NEVER be used as a training tool ) and when he was presented to me some six hours later with the ( what I now know to be just an intern's ) demand that he be "euthanased" (and the fact that the "Clinical Summary" records his last (unnecessary contraindicated sedative over)dose as having been at 9am (i.e. 1.5 hours prior to the student activity for which he was obviously further catastrophically sedated and permanently disconnected from his critical IV fluids).

Every individual involved in, present during, or who authorised or participated in any filming or recording of Harry Kelly during his time in the Massey facility.

Every individual involved in making, documenting, or communicating the bogus “neurological” diagnosis (that has been clearly demonstrated to have been bogus ) used to coerce his “euthanasia ”. (So as to avoid my inadvertently creating a opportunisable loophole either for you or for Massey, you should include the alternative term that will have been used in the official narrative no doubt framed for your benefit and for his, by the compromised Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley i.e. "recommended" "euthanasia".)

Every individual involved in the decision to push for the “euthanasia” of Harry Kelly, and in the carrying out of that “euthanasia”.

Every individual involved in the handling of Harry Kelly's body following his death ( achieved by way of abuse, scheme and deception ) on December 1, 2025.

Every individual involved in the creation of, adding to, alteration of, falsification or scrubbing of Harry Kelly's clinical and financial records , specifically including but not limited to:

· The Clinical Summary ( the broader contents and claims of which, it should be noted, are inconsistent with (a) the facts, (b) prior records, and (c) logic (including between one part thereof and another, and have clearly been altered and added to posthumously) – in which a false neurological diagnosis narrative was constructed to justify the coerced "euthanasia" . (To be noted, this is not the only false inclusion in this "Summary" document .)

· The Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) – in which the recorded time of death (false in its own right) was subsequently manually overwritten with 0:00, in a deliberate act of forensic scrubbing to eliminate the timestamp from any future audit or investigation.

· The Euthanasia Authorisation form – pre-typed before my arrival at the facility and prior to any decision I was prepared to make, bearing timestamps inconsistent with the Patient Change Log.

· Billing Record 636969 – in which a billable quantity was manually inflated from 1.6 to 4.0 units at 16:56 on December 1, 2025 – two minutes after the falsified time of death – and further manipulated through to approximately 19:20 on the same date.

· The simultaneous triggering of both "Deceased" and "Discharge" status entries in the clinical records management system – mutually exclusive administrative statuses whose concurrent activation constitutes a documented administrative collision revealing the fraudulent closure of a live patient's file i.e. in a frenzied rush to avoid the new incoming night shift staff from questioning or investigating the day's events.

· The manual "data scrub" of December 3, 2025 – performed two days after Harry Kelly's death by an individual with high-level system access, deliberately overwriting forensic evidence to obstruct any future audit, investigation or legal proceedings.

All of the above conduct is the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N and engages Sections 258 (altering a document with intent to deceive), 260 (falsifying registers) and 219 (theft by conversion) of the Crimes Act 1961 (updated as part of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003).

I note that Privacy Act 2020 Principle 11(e) permits this disclosure in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process, and that Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint . I further note that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) - an accrediting organisation of Massey - has confirmed in writing that veterinarians are expected to provide their names to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern. This is an obligation that applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice.

On the Apparent Glitch In Your Correspondence

I note that the Privacy Act disclosure includes email correspondence between Massey University and the VCNZ — specifically, a private email from Massey's Dean of Veterinary Science, Jon Huxley, to VCNZ leadership, characterising my complaint as "wholly unfounded" before any investigation has been conducted, and ending with a friendly invitation for you to contact him for his, i.e. the apparently official, version.

Your letter makes no reference whatsoever to the VCNZ's response to receiving that email, either at the time of receipt or in the period since. Quite frankly, it would be a naive individual who would believe that you and/or your CEO, Iain McLachlan, and/or your point of direct connectivity between the two organisations, Seton Butler, didn't respond to - and, far more likely, enter into communication with - Dean Jon Huxley as a result of receiving that emai l ( signed "Jon" ) from him.

I require a full account of the actions the VCNZ took upon receiving Dean Huxley's private communication, who else received it, and all subsequent communications and related discussions and decisions - which, I suspect, included the two anonymous parties with whom you and your VCNZ colleague, Jamie Shanks, discussed me and the matter, but refuse to disclose any details thereof.

On the Redacted Microsoft Teams Message:

I challenge your refusal to disclose the content of, and the parties to or discussed during, the Microsoft Teams message/s between yourself and Jamie Shanks.

You have redacted the names of two individuals on the basis of section 53(b)(i).

However, given that at the time of that communication you had not assisted me with the provision of names (and still have not) nor in any other way helped me with submitting a complaint (and still have not) - and therefore had no complaint formally before you (and still have not) - I require to know: who were you discussing me with, in what capacity, for what purpose, and on whose instruction?

I would appreciate the full name, role, purpose and nature of the communications involving those undisclosed individuals and the undisclosed content of the associated discussions.

I am considering a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner regarding your refusal to disclose what is likely a communication or communications central to the likely compromised and collusive nature in which you intend to avoid, refuse, frame, conduct or dismiss my forthcoming complaints.

On the Internal Contradiction In Your Letter Regarding Conflicts of Interest

Your letter contains a direct contradiction.

In your paragraph 11 you state that Professor Jenny Weston "has no involvement with CAC (Complaints Assessment Committee) investigations and decision-making."

Yet, in your paragraph 12 you state that "the Council are legally required to review all CAC decisions".

Professor Weston sits on the Council. Therefore Professor Weston is involved in reviewing CAC decisions - including any decision relating to my complaint about Massey University i.e. the institution whose veterinary academic program she directs.

Just saying, Mr Shields.

On Your Suggestion That I Contact Massey University for Assistance:

Am I to interpret this as outright contempt, or gaslighting, or both, Mr Shields?

I do not believe that, at this stage, you are ignorant of Massey’s refusal to provide the names of the parties required for me to lay complaints with the Veterinary Council.

I do not believe that, since you have been copied in on two months of repeated, multi-angled, fervent requests to Massey, which - as you know, and as you know I know - is obligated legally, morally, and by international “best practice” standards to provide these (and not to have blacked them all out, in the first instance, from the subset of records I have managed to extract), as well as in accordance with New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020 and the Official Information Act 1982 . . . the instruments of our country's law through which I have so far unsuccessfully sought their release.

I also do not believe you are ignorant of all the associated coverage on this website that details every minute aspect of this situation and its current status, Mr Shields. And if you are, it is to your shame, Mr Shields, given the gravity of the matter, including each and every individual, reported aspect thereof.

Further, I do not believe I need to explain to the Deputy Registrar of the VCNZ why directing a complainant back to the demonstrably obstructive source entity of their complaint for assistance is entirely inconsistent with VCNZ's stated mandate of "having timely and transparent processes" and "upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals".

On Massey University's Ongoing OIA Non-Compliance

Additionally, Mr Shields - since you are now, belatedly, offering - yes, there is something else you could absolutely assist me with.

As you know and further to the above, the Official Information Act 1982 is the cornerstone legislation governing the mandated release of information held by publicly-funded institutions in New Zealand.

It is an errant institution, contemptuous indeed of New Zealand law, that thumbs its nose at its OIA obligations . . . which, as you know, and as stressed above, is exactly what Massey University has done. I am still waiting for any communication regarding my OIA request that was due on March 13, 2026.

Given your close relationship with Massey, and your no doubt desire to assist me proceed in a timely manner with the laying of multiple complaints - in keeping with the VCNZ's own stated objectives of "upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals", "having timely and transparent processes", and its vision for "Aotearoa to have the world's most trusted veterinary profession" - I would expect you to be most amenable to urging Massey to act in a manner conducive to those objectives.

As a reminder of the information I await from Massey - all directly relevant to the content of the complaints that need to be formulated for your organisation - the outstanding OIA items include but are certainly not limited to (the below is excerpted from the OIA request also published here , as you’re of course, already aware):

1. 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, and also in the period following his death on December 1, 2025, including all staff involved in the handling of his body.

2. 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 - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly. (**I DO BELIEVE THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR OWN PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE PACKAGE TO ME, BUT WERE NOT.**)

3. 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 of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, and including while his body was in Massey's possession.

4. Pet Farewells Communications: All communications with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.

5. Post-Mortem Activity: Disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem was performed on Harry Kelly.

6. Controlled Drugs Register: All entries in the Controlled Drugs Register pursuant to the Medicines Act 1981 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as they relate to the dispensing, administration, or recording of any controlled or prescription substance administered to Harry Kelly during November 30 and December 1, 2025, or to his remains.

7. Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail: The unredacted Field-Level Audit Log and all associated system access logs identifying every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, "updated" or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of Massey's response.

8. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Jenny Weston): All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Dr Jenny Weston's dual role as Massey University Academic Program Director and her ex officio VCNZ membership - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

9. ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly: The release in full of all video footage taken of Harry Kelly during his ICU admission on November 30 and December 1, 2025, and any taken after his death. Massey's previous refusal to release the footage in full is not considered adequate compliance and is not accepted.

In Conclusion, Mr Shields:

I remain deeply concerned about the VCNZ's refusal to perform its mandated role, and about the appalling complaint uphold rate documented in the VCNZ's own published research - co-authored previously by Professor Weston herself - which recorded that, over a 24-year period, 67.2% of complaints were either not investigated at all or were dismissed outright, with a mere 1.5% upheld, and only then, on technical competency grounds .

Combined with the unashamed reticence you have shown with regard to facilitating this egregious complaint (and regarding which your March 19 email directs me to your website to fill out a form regarding), I intend to hold the Veterinary Council of New Zealand publicly accountable for a transparent process in this particular case.

When a veterinary "hospital" and its staff overdose , abuse, torture, conduct twisted student activities upon while in a state of the pharmacological collapse they have induced him into, intentionally engineer his most unnecessary death , and coerce me under false diagnosis to not only consenting to my dog's traumatic killing but having to equally traumatically participate in it , I tend to take the matter rather personally .

As quite a large proportion of pet owners, in fact, would.

Between The Customer & The Constituent NZ and the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics , this case is being read by a New Zealand audience spanning from Invercargill to Northland, and internationally across the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, the United States, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia and South Africa.

Regulatory bodies in several of those jurisdictions have been formally notified and are actively monitoring developments.

This will be your opportunity to demonstrate that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is capable of executing its regulatory duties in an ethical, honest and responsible manner.

Or not.

I look forward to receiving the complete list of names and position titles so that I can proceed with formal complaints against each relevant individual.

One Last Point of Note, Regarding VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer:

In closing, I note that your Chief Executive Officer, Mr Iain McLachlan, has had so little concern - other than what appears very much to be to protect Massey University, its veterinary facility and its personnel from accountability - that he has ignored the multiple communications on which he has been cc'd for months regarding this matter, and the many provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians in New Zealand ("administered" by your own organisation) that Massey's veterinary "teaching hospital" is in clear and in arguable breach of ( per my January 17 article on The Customer & The Constituent and the Open Letter to him that I published alongside it).

He initially endeavoured to avoid having to respond to my request for the (albeit incomplete and redacted) information you have now provided when I initially asked for it under the Official Information Act and chose to decline that request, apparently hoping I wouldn't know I had a right to it under the Privacy Act.

Now, in a statement of open contempt, he has flicked off to you the responsibility for "dealing" with me, which you are hoping to conclude by way of directing me to fill out a form on your website.

And so, I would ask, if a matter of such gravity as is represented by the Harry Kelly case, is not worthy of your Chief Executive's attention, just how bad does a set of circumstances have to be, and how obviously systemic does it have to appear within an organisation (New Zealand's only veterinary "teaching" facility, no less) before it is considered one of serious concern to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand?

Or is the answer to that reflected by the fact that only an inconceivable 1.5% of all complaints (notwithstanding those that are never made) to your Council are upheld . . . and only then, on grounds of "technical competency" . . . with no concern for any complaints where a compromise in ethics has played an obvious part?

If none of this is of any concern to Mr Iain McLachlan, as the head of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, it begs the question, what does Mr McLachlan do all day? Perhaps he spends his time drafting the Standards, aims and goals that your very actions and decisions are actively designed to ensure are never actually achieved.

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ
Executive Director, International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE)

From: Liam Shields
Sent: Thursday, 19 March 2026 5:47 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: 2026_03_19 Response to information request

Kia ora Jordan,

Please see attached a letter dated 19 March 2026 in response to your information request. Also attached are two bundles. There are three attachments in total.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I would be very happy to talk further about the role of the Vet Council or our complaints process.

Thanks,

Liam Shields

Deputy Registrar

Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand

Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011

New Zealand's Peak Government Animal Welfare Authority to Investigate Massey University's 'Companion Animal Hospital'

Wed, 06 May 2026 01:42:35 GMT

The Enduring Trauma & Human Pain Created by Vets & 'Teaching' 'Hospitals' When They Practice Animal Cruelty

The following article was published May 5, 2026 on The Customer & The Constituent NZ as the latest in the full, ongoing progression of investigative coverage documenting the abuse, death, and institutional cover-up surrounding the Harry Kelly case at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital. It is republished here in full as part of IIIVE's parallel coverage of the systemic veterinary ethics and regulatory failure this case continues to expose.

This commentary also demonstrates a key concern pet owners have with the veterinary sector in general, but most especially with veterinary "teaching" establishments like New Zealand's Massey University : that there is little to no recognition of the depth, breadth and enduring trauma caused to pet owners by negligence and malpractice . . . albeit, in the case of Massey University and the Harry Kelly case, the matter is far more serious yet, involving overt cruelty, deception and death.

Two months ago, the Ministry of Primary Industries' (MPI) Central Animal Welfare Investigations Unit issued a brief (to the author of this article i.e. IIIVE's Executive Director and pet parent of the now-deceased - thanks to Massey staff - Harry Kelly) to provide them with specific information so that they could commence their investigation into what happened surrounding the abuse, torture and death of Harry - a private patient in the inaptly named "Companion Animal Hospital" of Massey University.

It should be noted that the team being assigned is part of a special division of New Zealand's MPI that deals with especially complex investigations into serious animal cruelty .

342 Pages of Forensic Evidence . . . Two Months in the Making . . . And Now In the Hands of MPI's Animal Welfare Investigations Team.

(By Jordan Kelly)

My background is journalism and investigative research, among many other strings to my bow. Writing, though, has been central to them all.

All my life, since I commenced my reporting cadetship at age 16, the words have flowed off my pen with ease. And while the research aspects of many writing assignments may have been grueling, none were particularly emotionally challenging.

But when the MPI team head delivered me this brief, I had no idea just how gut-wrenching - all over again - that the task ahead would be. I mean, I knew, of course, that I'd have to go back through timelines and structure my immense amount of research into a report format versus the 50-plus articles (or more, if you include my new International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics initiative) that have thus far comprised the ongoing expose of Massey University's debauched conduct at its literal veterinary house of horrors .

My Gut Was Perpetually Knotted. My Heart Hurt Beyond Measure. I Was Literally Nauseous As I Relived the Deception & the Horror All Over Again. And I Had to Put Days of Emotional Relief Between the Bursts of Productivity.

I just didn't know that I'd experience a phenomenon completely without precedent at any time in my long and multi-faceted writing career: There were times when I couldn't go on with the compilations and the writing up of it all, all over again. My gut was too knotted. My heart hurt like . . . I don't have a descriptor. But it was to the point of physical pain. There were times when I had to study the photos of Harry and the horrendous state those monsters at Massey had rendered him into , that literally caused me to become nauseous - not a familiar state for me.

There were times when I woke at 2am all over again, as I had in the first three months after I first realised that the whole ruse to get me to consent to his unnecessary killing had been exactly that . . . and my brain would twist itself into knots trying to create a different ending than the actual, in-reality horrifying and - as it turned out - totally deception-driven final scene. Times when my hand would literally still be able to feel the fabric of his little blue coat as I was wickedly told his screaming in terror and standing up strongly on his little back legs as he sensed what was about to happen, was "just his last hurrah" .

I've Done It for All those Other Pet Owners Who Are Too Traumatised or Too Fearful of Repercussions to Speak Out Against Massey

And the anger was intensified when I thought about the goading and insulting emails I've had from anonymous but very obviously Massey insiders ("Hugh Janus" was one particularly memorable one) . . . the ones who should never, ever be anywhere near animals of any kind , let alone anyone's beloved pet .

There were moments that were a hybrid of comfort and horror all mushed in together, when I received sympathetic emails from readers who, among other traumatic outcomes, have also lost a pet to Massey's "Companion Animal Hospital's" questionable "care" and even more questionable "skill" levels .

And to those twisted Massey characters who wrote to ridicule me and let me know I should be "over it" by now . . . if they weren't on the psychopathic spectrum, I'd tell them of, for example, one devastated woman who grieved for several years after you performed some routine-sounding procedure on her "wee dog", as she described her, and died three weeks later. She, like me, will never have another dog. The horrific memory of what you did to her dog appears to have traumatised her to such a degree.

'Hugh Janus' . . . Time for You & Your 'Colleagues' to Re-evaluate Your Choice of Career

And others who were too worried that dogs they still had in "care" (that term used very loosely in their cases, too) or who might have to return (by the way, fellow pet parents, please read this article about the existence of alternatives nowadays) and the fact that their having spoken out might be weaponised against their pets . . . just as I'm more convinced than ever now (for reasons that make themselves clear without me having to, in my 342-page report to MPI) that Harry paid the ultimate price for my outspokenness with regard to the appalling "standards" of this veterinary "hospital" .

There were those who contacted me but were too scared to speak out because they read how Veterinary School "Dean" Jon Huxley threatened me with one of the most expensive law firms in New Zealand if I didn't, essentially, shut the fuck up.

So to those Massey insiders, let me say this: Your ridicule is not only a statement of your "character", but also a statement of your very ill-conceived choice of career.

And so an exercise I told the MPI team would take me a week or two, took nearly two months. I just couldn't face it as a continuum. That, too, is something - as a "tenacious finisher", a marathon type of operator, as I have often been described by clients - was a whole new, and very, very horrible, experience for me.

But anyway. I finally got it done. 342 pages of forensically detailed , methodically structured, evidence-supported documentation. Metadata analysis. Audit log examination . Billing records cross-referenced against clinical timestamps. Data fields that had been scrubbed — identified, documented, screen-shotted . Every claim supported. Every assertion evidenced.

Even without the benefit of the many types, tracts and components of Harry's information (that I have a legal right to) that Massey won't release . . . because it's just too incriminating, and because there are some formats of information that can't be falsified . Unlike the many that they have indeed either scrubbed or falsified , or that they have retrospectively added to and altered .

It's the digital version of a desk-thumper and it's now in the hands of people with statutory powers that no publication — however determined — possesses. People who can compel records. People who can compel testimony. People who can't be sent a letter from Buddle Findlay at the Veterinary School "Dean" Jon Huxley's behest and with the benefit of Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter's bottomless legal budget and scared into silence.

And a team that can't be stood in the way of by the collusive Veterinary Council of New Zealand . . . the industry "regulator", so-called, and its "leadership team", Iain McLachlan (who's the subject of a Law Society investigation regarding precisely that) and his right-hand evasion mechanism Liam Shields (stand by for my next article exposing his latest tactic).

Watch this space.

‘COMPLAINT DISMISSED’: Is Australia's Veterinary Regulatory System Rigged Against the Pet Owner Just As New Zealand's Is?

Sat, 02 May 2026 10:48:48 GMT

In One State Alone, the Research Shows A Non-Credible 72% Complaint Dismissal Rate

If you are an Australian pet owner who has tried to hold a veterinarian accountable for negligence, malpractice, or clinical misconduct — and found the process going nowhere — you’re not alone. In fact, you are far from alone. Very far from alone.

Just as in New Zealand, the “system” is set up to make sure of it.

In one state alone, New South Wales, research showed that, of a decade of complaints lodged with the Veterinary Practitioners Board of NSW (i.e. from 2007 to 2016), 72% were dismissed.

Nearly three quarters of all complaints - unbelievably - were what . . . wholly unfounded ?

The breakdown of what happened to the remaining 28% is equally telling:

Nineteen percent resulted in a “caution” to the vet, 3% in a “reprimand”, 4% were withdrawn by the complainant (those “withdrawals” would be worth an investigation in their own right), and in only 2% of cases was a vet removed from the register.

These figures were documented in a presentation by John Baguley, Registrar of the Veterinary Practitioners Board of NSW, and have been reported by the Australian magazine, ' Vet Practice' magazine.

In only two percent of complaints did an offending veterinarian have their practicing licence revoked. Really? YES. Two out of every 100 complaints.

What are the chances that 98 out of every 100 formal complaints weren’t worthy of the vet losing his or her licence, in the interests of not repeating their attitudes or actions with other clients’ pets?

Nil, we venture to say . . . and with good reason, as we demonstrate here , here , here , here and here . Albeit, these are New Zealand examples, the statistics alone demonstrate that the picture is the same on both sides of the Tasman.

The other key point is, that those 100 complaints would have represented nothing more than the tip of the proverbial iceberg in terms of those cases in which a complaint was well-justified but wasn’t laid. Or was obstructed and prevented from being laid.

In New Zealand, the equivalent “Complaint Dismissed” figure is 67.2% — as documented in the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's (VCNZ) own published research over a 24-year period. The report, ironically, was co-authored by a VCNZ council member who simultaneously holds a senior academic position at New Zealand's only veterinary teaching hospital, Massey University, as does or recently did the VCNZ's "Professional Advisor" . . . the "advisor" who advises the VCNZ's Complaints Committee (featuring Massey's Dean of Veterinary Education) on pet owner complaints . . . including against Massey.

You get the picture.

In short, and by way of notable understatement, whether in Australia or New Zealand, the overwhelming majority of complaints against veterinarians are dismissed . . . Veterinarians "investigated" by veterinarians for veterinarians . . . who investigated themselves and found they had committed no wrongdoing.

If you’ve clicked through to the above-cited articles and taken a read of any of them, you’ll see that the veterinary regulatory scene in both countries has been specifically architected to ensure exactly that.

A Fragmented System That Serves the Profession & the Profession Only

Australia's veterinary complaints sys tem is state-based — each state and territory operating its own board under its own legislation.

The Australian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) sits above them all as an accrediting body but directs complainants back to individual state boards. There is no national veterinary regulator with the power (or, we would argue, the will) to compel action (see the Correspondence section of this IIIVE Case Study ).

This creates the sort of circular “go nowhere” outcome for pet owners seeking accountability for malpractice or other adverse outcomes.

The AVBC accredits both Australian veterinary schools and New Zealand's Massey University — the institution currently under MPI investigation . ( Massey has no complaints function of its own .) Anyone who tries to lay a complaint with the institution directly will find themselves going around in an even smaller circular web of stonewalling and frustration. What's more, speaking out too widely, may bring legal threats from Massey management with a taxpayer-funded open chequebook for legal services to protect institutional reputations, student enrolment numbers, joint ventures and fragile egos .)

What Options Do Australian Pet Owners Have?

If your complaint has been dismissed by a state veterinary board, you are not without options — but they require persistence and often legal advice:

Your state Ombudsman can review how the board handled your complaint if you believe the process was flawed.

Consumer protection legislation — depending on the nature of the conduct, state consumer affairs bodies may have jurisdiction over misleading or deceptive conduct by veterinary practices.

Civil action — Australian courts are increasingly grappling with claims involving companion animal death and injury as pet ownership carries greater emotional and financial weight.

For examples of other laws and regulations under which dodgy veterinary practices and practitioners can be liable , take a read of this article – which again, references the Massey malpractice and malfeasance case . It also demonstrates, by way of the numerous breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians laid out in detail, exactly how intentionally “deaf” veterinary industry regulator organisations are prepared to wilfully be .

In terms of publicly funded veterinary teaching institutions, the staff of these — at all levels of their personnel hierarchy — are, in most cases, considered members of the public service. This matters significantly for pet owners seeking accountability, because it opens the door to a legal remedy that goes beyond professional misconduct complaints to a veterinary board of the complained-about veterinarians' peers and industry colleagues.

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office — well-established in common law jurisdictions including Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom — applies where a public officer acts in bad faith, knowing that their conduct is unlawful, or with reckless indifference to the likelihood that it will cause harm to an identifiable person or class of persons. In a veterinary teaching hospital context, this would apply across numerous instances, for example, where staff or management have knowingly falsified clinical records , coerced consent to a procedure under false pretences , or deliberately obstructed a client's ability to lay a formal complaint — all while being aware that such conduct would cause harm to the pet owner.

Critically, the tort does not require that a professional conduct complaint succeed — or even be accepted. It operates independently of any regulatory process, and can be pursued through the civil courts.

IIIVE is currently investigating the application of this tort in the context of the Harry Kelly case in New Zealand, where documented evidence of record falsification, a fabricated terminal diagnosis , and the deliberate obstruction of the complaints process by both the treating institution and its regulatory body is the subject of an active government animal welfare investigation .

IIIVE's Position & Ongoing Commitment to Regulatory Capture

The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) exists because these problems are not confined to one country.

The structural capture of veterinary regulation by the profession it is supposed to oversee, the protection of teaching hospitals from accountability, and the dismissal of the majority of complaints before any investigation, or any neutral or meaningful investigation, are patterns that repeat across numerous geographies and jurisdictions.

We will continue to document them — in Australia, New Zealand, and beyond. On this note, we welcome any pet owner to submit their concerns and cases to us.

The Harry Kelly Case Study, documenting the abuse, torture, and illegal conversion of a private pet for a teaching institution’s “educational” purposes and profit, is documented here , and in considerably greater detail, here .

When One Institution Holds All the Cards: Veterinary Monopoly, Regulatory Capture & Pet Owners Who Aren't Told the Options

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:19:49 GMT

The Pet Owner Who Believes They Have No Choice Has No Power

The article that follows this introduction was written for the readership of The Customer & The Constituent NZ — an investigative publication based in New Zealand — as an enlightenment piece for pet owners navigating a specialist veterinary referral and finding themselves directed, as a matter of apparent inevitability, to a single institution.

It is republished here on IIIVE because the issues it raises are not necessarily exclusive to the New Zealand veterinary environment. Wherever a single institution — whether a university teaching hospital, a government-affiliated facility, or a regionally dominant practice — holds a de facto monopoly on specialist veterinary care, the conditions described in this article exist.

The pet owner who believes they have no choice has no power. The institution that operates without competitive pressure operates without the most basic form of accountability that an open and fair market provides. And, as is the case in New Zealand's veterinary sector, when the regulatory body mandated to provide accountability for the upholding of veterinary standards cannot or will not provide that accountability because it is structurally entwined with the institution it is supposed to oversee — the result is a closed system that serves everyone within it, and no-one outside it.

New Zealand isn't an outlier in this regard. It's a case study . . . because the international "accreditation" and standards regulatory systems are essentially non-functional - which is the subject of a series coming soon to IIIVE (but one the reader can get the flavor of by reading the Correspondence sections of the Harry Kelly Case Study here on this site , with further correspondence items to be uploaded later this week. Harry's case is also documented in deep forensic detail in a much larger Series of articles on The Customer & The Constituent NZ ).

The institution that has held the unhealthy monopoly in this market for far too long, is currently under active investigation by the New Zealand government's Ministry for Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Central Investigations unit, following Harry's death at this, the country's only veterinary teaching hospital, on December 1, 2025 . . . a death that the evidence now overwhelmingly demonstrates was the product of repeated unauthorised overdosing, institutional misappropriation of a private client's pet for undisclosed and grossly cruel student activities, a fabricated "terminal" diagnosis, and a coerced and unnecessary "euthanasia", followed by a systematic falsification of clinical records (the subject of a Police filing).

The uninformed pet owner is the unempowered pet owner. And the pet of the unempowered pet owner is a vulnerable pet.

The following article, 'The NZ Veterinary Sector's Best-Kept & Most Dangerous Secret: That There ARE Competing Options in the Specialist Space', was first published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ on April 27, 2026.

The New Zealand Veterinary Sector's Best-Kept & Most Dangerous Secret: That There ARE Competing Options in the Specialist Space

For most of New Zealand's history as a country with a serious pet-owning culture — and make no mistake, with 64 percent of New Zealand households owning at least one pet, many with several, we are absolutely that — the answer to the question of where a complex or specialist veterinary case gets referred has been, in effect, one word: Massey.

New Zealand's only veterinary teaching hospital. The only domestic institution with the specialist staff, the equipment, and the mandate to handle the cases that your local vet isn't equipped to manage. The end of the referral road. The place you sent your pet and hoped for the best, because there was, quite literally, nowhere else.

That picture is changing. Not fast enough, and not completely — but it is changing. And every New Zealand pet owner needs to know it.

Across Auckland and Wellington in particular, the past decade has seen a quiet but significant growth in private veterinary specialist services. Internal medicine specialists. Veterinary oncologists. Soft tissue surgeons. Cardiologists. Neurologists.

Increasingly, these disciplines — once the exclusive domain of Massey's Companion Animal Hospital in Palmerston North — are available through private specialist practices in New Zealand's main centres.

For a pet owner in Auckland or Wellington facing a complex diagnosis, this matters enormously. It means that when your vet says "your pet needs specialist care", the next question you are now entitled to ask is: "What are ALL of our options?" — not just "When can we get an appointment at Massey?"

Purely By Way of Example of the Growing Number of Alternatives & Much-Needed Competition
(No Specific Endorsement Implied)

In Auckland, pet owners now have access to Veterinary Specialists Aotearoa (VSA) — operating across multiple Auckland locations and Christchurch, offering internal medicine, oncology, surgery, cardiology, imaging and 24-hour emergency care.

The Animal Referral Centre (ARC) provides internal medicine, specialist surgery, dermatology, oncology, neurology and emergency care at Auckland and Wellington clinics.

In Wellington, a feline specialist operates independently.

In Christchurch, a specialist surgical referral centre exists. VSA now offers phone and Zoom consultations to veterinarians across all of New Zealand — meaning geographic isolation is no longer the insurmountable barrier it once was.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand itself maintains a Find A Specialist register - a useful starting point for pet owners seeking specialist options. (It should be noted, however, that database sits within a captured regulatory architecture whose complaint dismissal record ensures there exists, effectively, almost nil accountability for their registrants. Thus, in the view of the author, names on this source necessitate every ounce of research a pet owner can reasonably perform before blindly entrusting your pet into their care.)

Important Note: References to any specific business are not in any way an endorsement of these organisations, their services or their staff. Their inclusions in this article are purely for the purpose of making the point that, increasingly, options exist outside the traditional Massey monopoly . . . and hopefully, with the correspondingly increased likelihood that your pet - unlike that of this author - will not be catastrophically sedated for the convenience of lazy, negligent and incompetent ICU staff , abused, tortured, misappropriated for use in student “educational” activities and filming on cell phones , before then being presented back for shock urgent “euthanasia” under the false pretences of a sudden “neurological decline ” (when being admitted 15 hours earlier for a simple rehydration procedure).

That said, a significant percentage of the specialists within non-Massey options will still be Massey graduates. So again, the diligent pet owner will perform the most responsible degree of prior research of which they are capable – before handing over their beloved pet and their credit card (which sometimes sees its negative balance added to by into the five figures).

While the Massey pipeline is unavoidable given that institution’s historic monopoly on domestic veterinary education, choosing a separate entity entirely does ensure the pet owner of an unrelated clinical culture, different supervisory structures, and at least some degree of internal accountability framework (one would hope). At the very least , if a practitioner had a record for harming pets and - by extension - their owners, at some point commercial reality would necessitate their removal from that practice.

Also, avoiding a teaching environment means the pet is not being submitted to an institution that requires a certain amount of pets for utilisation in student educational practices , dramatically lessening the chances of a pet being subjected to clinically and ethically irresponsible, undisclosed research and educational activities without owner consent – which, in the case of the author’s pet, had a fatal (albeit unnecessarily so) outcome .

A Massey graduate practicing in a well-run private specialist facility operates in a completely different professional environment to one operating within Massey's own institutional walls — where, as has now been documented in forensic detail , unsupervised junior staff have been left to both engineer life and death outcomes .

The issue of choice matters for reasons that go well beyond geography, travel stress for your animal, or convenience.

It matters because monopolies — even well-intentioned ones — are dangerous.

In any industry, the absence of competition produces, at best, complacency. At worst, this author has experienced not once but twice in her own deeply personal and devastating history with New Zealand's only veterinary “teaching” “hospital”, it produces something far more serious: arrogance , unaccountability, and a culture in which standards are not merely allowed to slip – they are allowed to collapse entirely, behind closed doors , with no competitive pressure and no meaningful consequence . And also a culture that bullies pet owners into submission and silence, through whatever means possible .

The most recent of those two experiences – the unnecessary, fraudulent, and institutionally protected killing of her beloved vibrant little 15-year-old papillon, Harry Kelly , at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025 — is now the subject of processes including a formal police complaint under the Crimes Act 1961 (for records falsification ), an MPI Animal Welfare Inspectorate investigation, and a Law Society complaint against the CEO of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand for his role in facilitating the continued cover-up of this monumental collapse in veterinary ethics.

The full and confronting detail of what was found at Massey's Companion Animal Hospital — unsupervised junior staff making life and death decisions without qualified oversight , massive overdosing with contraindicated drugs administered without owner consent or clinical justification, records falsified , and a co-ordinated institutional cover-up managed by external legal counsel at taxpayer expense — is laid out in an ongoing series of investigative exposes here: The Killing of Harry Kelly.

Read it. Then ask yourself whether the absence of a competitive alternative to Massey for specialist veterinary care in this country has served New Zealand's pets and their owners well.

The Problem Isn't Just the Lack of Competition.
It's the Capture of the Bodies That Are Supposed to Ensure Accountability.

If a growing private specialist sector represents one part of the answer to New Zealand's veterinary accountability deficit, it is emphatically not the whole answer.

Because the deeper and more structurally dangerous problem isn't just that Massey has operated without meaningful competition. It's that the bodies mandated to hold Massey — and New Zealand's veterinary profession more broadly — to account, have been so thoroughly and so structurally compromised by their relationships with the very institution they're supposed to regulate, that the concept of independent oversight has become, in practice, largely fictitious.

Consider the architecture.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand — the statutory body established under the Veterinarians Act 2005 to protect the public by ensuring veterinary standards are upheld — has among its seven Council members, the Academic Program Director of Massey University's own undergraduate veterinary program. The same body that receives and adjudicates complaints about Massey's veterinary program has, sitting at its own table, a senior Massey academic whose entire professional identity is bound up in the institution being complained about.

That's not a conflict of interest. That's structural capture .

And it doesn't stop there. Not by a long shot.

The VCNZ's own Professional Advisor on policy and standards holds — or has held — a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at Massey's School of Veterinary Science.

The VCNZ CEO, a registered lawyer , is the subject of a formal and active complaint to the New Zealand Law Society for his handling — or more accurately, his deliberate non-handling — of a complaint against Massey, having received a private briefing from Massey's Dean characterising the complaint as "wholly unfounded" before making a promise of assistance to the complainant that he never kept and never intended to keep. That is, assistance by way of compelling Massey to disclose the names of the veterinary staff involved with Harry Kelly's case . . . since the VCNZ neatly ensures that an institution or practice can't be complained about, only individual practitioners. And since Massey has carefully redacted all names from the deceased's records (or those that it has so far been forced under the various Acts to release), no complaints can be laid. (It should also be noted, that Massey has simply ignored many Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests , albeit these are considered the holy grail of information accessibility to the public in New Zealand.)

When 'Accreditation' Is More A Con than A Guarantee of Anything

I'll write extensively about this in upcoming articles - both here on The Customer & The Constituent and on IIIVE.org i.e. the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics . But for now, a briefer commentary, purely for the purposes of the implications of this (in the view of this author) pay-to-play marketing exercise.

Upstream from the above sits the national and international "accreditation" structure.

The VCNZ is itself a member of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council — the body that accredits Massey's veterinary program. The current Chair of the VCNZ is a Massey University graduate. The body that accredits Massey, with the regulator that polices Massey sitting inside it, chaired by a product of the institution both are supposed to hold to account.

This is not a system with conflicts of interest. This is a system that is the conflict of interest.

Atop of all that, at the international level, is - again, according to the investigations to date of this author - a truly farcical structure of turn-a-blind-eye, just-keep-your-fees-paid, multi-year, rubber stamping.

Any pet owner or other reader who wants to get the flavour of this old boys and old girls network in operation, should follow the Correspondence trails in the Harry Kelly Case Study page of IIIVE.org .

What This Means in Practice . . . And How Often It Happens

The uncomfortable reality is this:

The average New Zealand pet owner who experiences veterinary negligence, malpractice, or misconduct ( or worse ) has almost no realistic prospect of a successful complaint outcome through the existing regulatory architecture. Their complaint, is, in fact, unlikely to even make it to a hearing.

The numbers tell their own story. According to a peer-reviewed study published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, of the 1,218 complaints and notifications received by the VCNZ between 1992 and 2016, 818 — 67.2% — were not even investigated or were dismissed outright . A mere 18 complaints — just 1.5% of the total — were upheld on the basis of technical competency concerns.

Read that again. Eighteen complaints upheld in 24 years.

The study — co-authored, with considerable irony, by J.F. Weston of Massey University's School of Veterinary Science, the same Dr Jenny Weston who currently sits on the VCNZ Council — explicitly acknowledges its own limitation:

"These data should not be interpreted as an accurate indicator of the prevalence of misconduct in practice, as the proportion of dissatisfied clients who did not raise a notification or complaint is unknown."

In other words, Weston's own published research concedes that the true scale of veterinary misconduct in New Zealand is unknowable — because most pet owners never complain at all. The 67.2% dismissal rate and the 1.5% uphold rate therefore represent not the ceiling of the problem, but its floor.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The Academic Program Director of the only veterinary school in New Zealand co-authored the peer-reviewed study documenting her own regulator's 67.2% complaint dismissal rate — while sitting on the council that produces that dismissal rate.

The VCNZ CEO whose Law Society complaint is currently active was her colleague at that same council throughout. And the VCNZ's Professional Advisor on policy and standards held a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at the very institution whose complaints this council was supposed to be independently adjudicating.

That isn't irony. That's the whole story in three people.

The Pet Owners Who Never Knew

What the data doesn't show — because it can't — is how many New Zealand pet owners experienced something that warranted a complaint but never made one.

Because they didn't know they could.

Because they were too grief-stricken to fight.

Because the process was too opaque, too intimidating, or too clearly tilted against them to seem worth the effort.

Because they were, as one pet owner described her own experience, "sent around in circles" until they gave up.

But the largest category of all — dwarfing even the pet owners who knew they had grounds to complain but didn't pursue it — is the category that no statistic will ever capture: the pet owners who never knew .

Who left a veterinary facility believing what they had been told.

Who accepted the diagnosis, the prognosis, the explanation for why their pet didn't make it.

Who had no invoice to forensically examine months later .

Who had no background in investigative journalism .

Who had no reason to question what the vet had written in a clinical summary they never thought to request — or wouldn't have known how to interpret if they had.

Who simply went home, grieved, and tried to move on. Even when things hadn't seemed at all right.

Not because nothing went wrong. But because they had no way of knowing that it had. Or what had.

This author came within a hair's breadth of being in that category. It wasn't professional training alone that saved me from living in very unblissful ignorance . . . it was the chance discovery of an invoice I strategically had not been given at the time of payment, and - with the feeling that nothing had ever been right about Massey's whole story - my forensic instinct to read the line items of that invoice and uncover the real story behind the cover-up that had actually played out . And that had cost my beloved little dog his life - with all the extraordinary cruelties that had been inflicted upon him leading up to it and in the service of the despicable end-goal of that cover-up .

Most pet owners don't get that chance. Or don't take it. Or don't know to take it.

So, how often does this happen? Undoubtedly, far more often than the official complaint statistics will ever reflect.

And in a regulatory environment as captured as New Zealand's veterinary oversight currently is, that gap between what happens and what gets recorded is not a flaw in the system. It's the system working exactly as those who benefit from it have designed it to work.

Harry Homing Mission International Directory Growing . . . Keep ‘Em Coming

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 02:42:08 GMT

Growing . . . So They Can Keep Going (Out the Door with Brand New, Loving Pet Parents)

This week the IIIVE team added a further 18 pet rehoming organisations to the United Kingdom and seven organisations to the Singapore sections of the Harry Homing Mission’s International Directory .

Thank you for your help. IIIVE is barely a few weeks old and right now we’re just a tiny team of two.

When you send us your submissions and your suggestions, it helps us massively.

We check all submissions, recommendations and suggestions, of course . . . but your taking the time to send them to us, means the Directory keeps growing faster and more steadily than if we were doing all the searching out of rehoming options by ourselves.

Keep ‘em coming.

Bad News for NZ Veterinary Teaching Hospital Staff Who Harm Our Pets: The Institutional Legal Shield Has A Crack Right Down the Middle

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 01:29:39 GMT

Reader Feedback About New Zealand's 'Premier' Veterinary 'Teaching' Institution:
‘Imagine If These Massey "Vets" Had Become Doctors’ . . . And Some VERY Bad News for those ‘Vets’ (And Those Who Aren’t Licensed, Too)

(By Jordan Kelly, IIIVE Executive Director . . . and Pet Parent of Harry Kelly (above), a private fee-paying patient who was catastrophically overdosed by staff at Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital', with a contraindicated sedative, tortured, abused, filmed by students on cell phones during that abuse, and later presented under the guise of an unexplained 'neurological event' with a demand that he be immediately "euthonased". Full article series here .)

__________________________________________________________________

'(I knew) a human doctor of medicine who also used to be a vet . . . and when I hear stories like this, I think, "Imagine if these people (had) become doctors, rather than vets . . ." '

- Excerpt from reader's feedback email

This particularly thought-provoking comment is excerpted from one reader’s larger feedback email received this week.

It represents a piece of logic I pointed out in one of the early articles in this ongoing series – The Killing of Harry Kelly – about the infamous New Zealand veterinary "teaching" facility, Massey University "Companion Animal Hospital", and its staff's torture, abuse and fraudulently coerced killing of my precious, vibrant and deeply loved little papillon, Harry .

That is, literally, if what was done to this animal species patient had been an act (or, more accurately, a series of acts) committed in a hospital for humans, it would without question be the subject of a murder inquiry if discovered.

(Readers following my ongoing investigation will know that Harry was entrusted into this facility’s "care" on the night of Sunday, November 30 last year for a simple rehydration procedure after the late November heat had finally gotten to both him and to me during a horrible two weeks in a small sleeper van . . . a situation he and I had been forced into when an insurance repair job on my property went badly pear-shaped. Readers coming in cold to this series of articles, can find the full collection here .)

So this reader’s particularly thought-provoking observation – excerpted from his more extensive feedback email – really hit home for me . . . before continuing on, as it very relevantly did, with observations about institutional accountability, and the accountability of the individuals that operate within them. Or rather, lack thereof, in both contexts.

The reader – actually someone I've interviewed previously – wrote, as his observations relate to the veterinary sector:

"It didn't surprise me that they don't have any formal complaints procedure. That's one way to keep (their) mistakes under wraps. I think vets have it too easy, obviously the patient can't complain for themselves and we too often put blind faith in them . . . I've heard too many stories of people who have questions about the treatment of their animals but no one who can answer them. As in, the vets won't criticise each other, probably for fear of future employment prospects being quashed if they do so."

The reader who wrote that is Graeme Axford. And when it comes to calling out and taking to task powerful government agencies and other institutions funded by the public purse – including those gone completely rogue (which I would argue is an apt and deserved description of Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka "Companion Animal Hospital") – Axford has written the book on it. Literally. Now, in fact, he's written his second and even more enlightening book on it .

And his targets aren't impressed.

On the note of not impressed, let me share with readers who else isn't impressed . . . if I'm right that some "reader feedback" from three “brave” anonymous senders this past week or so originated from the keyboards of Massey staff / insiders (one, in my view, couldn't have originated from any other source, and the other two bear the telltale hallmarks of the low-grade intellect I have previously observed regarding a concerningly large percentage of the staff I’ve dealt with there and which is evident in both their now revealed and subsequent behaviours).

All were also childishly insulting. All were cryptic. One was from “Hugh Janus” – a recognised internet prank name (say it aloud). All had in common, the evasion of any substance. And I firmly believe that all originated out of the fear generated within Massey’s staff circles by my most recent article, which has accepted the otherwise- collusive Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s (VCNZ) Deputy Registrar Liam Shields’s offer to secure the names of the personnel that Massey has redacted from Harry’s records and also the other names that I seek . . . albeit Shields’s offer is three months late and definitely not made with any degree of enthusiasm.

One (or rather, two, because these reader “feedback” emails came from the same unnamed person, the second as a frantically added PS) arrived in at 9.56pm on Sunday, March 29 . . . just minutes after I had published the above-mentioned article i.e. Yes, Please, VCNZ's Liam Shields, I WILL Have the Names You Have Been Obligated to Extract from Massey for the PAST THREE MONTHS .

His/her/its frantic "PS" addition arrived in at 10.01pm.

Classic monitoring, panicked response, and transparent gaslighting and intimidation strategy behaviour in full flight.

And all appeared very, very rattled by that most recent article . . . obvious also by the fact that the only other reader feedback I’ve had up to that point had been either emails of support or emails regarding other (very) bad experiences at this Massey facility.

I’ll write more about these in a forthcoming article. Stay tuned.

So why were these Massey insiders (again, as I believe they so obviously are i.e. with one hinting at knowledge they had regarding the roles of two specific staff members) so rattled?

Because up until now, they've been coddled by Massey's in-house and external legal counsel into a false sense of institutionally-protected legal security.

What none of them, I believe, has ever realised is the inherent errancy lurking inconveniently behind their assumptions.

Those inherently errant assumptions being that:

(a) Massey and its access to the public purse will prevent any private pet owner client from ever going up against them in the courts, and

(b) even if any pet owner did, they (Massey staff), as individuals, are completely insulated by the institution of which they are "just an employee".

I have news for them. None of it good. For them, at least.

News that – if they're reading this as I publish it, as Massey and its external legal counsel seem always to be (and goodness knows what that's doing to Massey's budget, which would be far more productively invested in educating their own veterinary staff, most especially in their obligations around ethics) – will flag very clearly to them that they're in for an uncomfortable time up ahead.

The news is this:

They can – and, in fact, they WILL – be held accountable, at the individual level.

Here is how. And here is why it is not only possible, but how the mechanisms are already established in New Zealand law.

Personal & Individual Accountability: Misfeasance in Public Office

Misfeasance in public office is a tort established in New Zealand common law – confirmed in Garrett v Attorney-General (1997) – that holds individuals exercising public functions personally liable in their own name, not their employer's.

It applies where a person exercising a public function, acting in that capacity, either deliberately acts unlawfully, or acts with reckless indifference as to whether their conduct is lawful and whether it will cause harm to the party or parties affected.

I n plain terms: It's the legal mechanism that removes the institutional shield and places personal liability on the individual who made the decision.

Now, some of those reading this will be thinking: "I'm not a public official. I'm just a vet / clinic staff / support staff. I work at a university. That doesn't apply to me."

More bad news for more Massey staff.

Massey University is a Crown-funded institution operating under the Education and Training Act 2020. Its Veterinary Teaching Hospital exercises statutory functions under legislation governing veterinary education and practice in New Zealand.

The staff who work within it - including those who administer drugs, make clinical decisions, authorise procedures, and manage records (big shout-out there to Practice Manager Pauline Nijman ) - are exercising public functions in the legal sense that matters. Not because of their job title. Because of the nature of the function they are performing and the institution within which they perform it.

The elements that must be shown are straightforward: A person exercising a public function. Who knew of their obligation to the person (and/or animal) they were dealing with. Who proceeded regardless, in a manner likely to cause harm.

Unlike ordinary negligence – where damages are limited to what was actually lost – misfeasance in public office can attract exemplary damages. Damages designed not merely to compensate the victim, but to punish the wrongdoer and deter others. This is what gives the tort its real teeth.

Now consider who, in the Massey situation, might meet the above test.

Hmm . . . let us consider the question carefully, and with the benefit of the extensive legal and forensic detail with which I have thus far documented so many of the elements of the Killing of Harry Kelly matter . And that I will continue on with my detailed coverage of (much to the likely terror and certainly chagrin of the afore-mentioned brave anonymous keyboard warriors).

For Those Who Like A Cliffhanger Ending

Actually no . . . let me end this article in true cliffhanger style.

Let me let those that know damn well they meet those criteria sweat for another few days before I rub their nose in what I’ve got to rub their noses in, and what I absolutely WILL be rubbing their noses in, in a court of law.

That day will be a day none of them - in all their unspeakably cruel and low-intellect arrogance - ever thought they’d face.

A day that, even if the notion had crossed their mind, of their malpractice and misfeasance ever being exposed, they assumed they’d be fully protected from by Massey’s publicly-funded, big-budget, top-shelf legal counsel-provided institutional shield.

I wish I was a fly on the wall tonight as I hit Publish on this latest upload so I can see their respective faces when they realise that their assumed legal shield has a crack right down the middle of it . And, in due course (one of Massey’s favorite terms), I’m about to drive right through it.

Oh, and my own PS:

To the anon’s and any others tempted to shore up their efforts. You don’t threaten me. And you don’t intimidate me. Well, you try, I suppose. But as you can see, you have quite the opposite effect of deterring me or shutting me down.

Because exposing what you’re doing to our pets is far too important to me and to many others to ever let that (shutting me down or shutting me up, that is) happen.

FAR. TOO. IMPORTANT.

'From Great Evil, Must Be Made to Come Great Good' . . . Announcing the Harry Homing Mission

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 02:36:47 GMT

Harry's Story Can't Be Left At What Was Done to Him. Out of the Senseless and the Cruel, Has to Come the Sensitive and the Compassionate: A Home for Every Pet. A Legacy Worth Living.

When the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) was founded in the aftermath of the cruelties suffered by treasured pet, little Harry Kelly, at the hands of Massey University's "Companion Animal Hospital" staff and the unnecessary and senseless death they premeditated for him , its purpose was clear: to document, expose, and drive improvement in veterinary ethics internationally.

Aside from the obvious need for an overhaul in the way veterinary teaching facilities apparently view private clients' pets as teaching resources to do with as they please , the need for improvement becomes more and more evident every day . . . in multiple ways across the veterinary landscape:

Large purely profit-driven commercial groups, for example, are buying up small, independent, vets all over the Western world, resulting in significantly increased prices and, at the same time, lower and genericised standards of "care". Vets working for the big chains are being asked to be salespeople first, vets second, recommending high-end and often unnecessary, or unnecessarily frequent, procedures.

Pets Before (Obscene) Profits . . . NOT (Obscene) Profits Before Pets

Vet bills are rising out of all proportion to the commitment to genuine "care" . . . which is one of (although far from the only) key drivers of animals being surrendered to pounds and rehoming centres all over the world.

At the same time as new generations of veterinarians are being trained in profit maximisation , including outright fraudulent billing practices , IIIVE is committed to tackling the problem from both ends: campaigning for vastly improved ethics in veterinary practices (used here both as a noun and a verb, by the way) to greatly reduce the number of pets surrendered regretfully by their owners simply because they can no longer afford the often quite unjustifiable fees across the sector at large . . . and then at the other end, where the problem has already manifested by way of new homes needed. And usually, urgently.

No Hypocrisy Here

Every pet IIIVE's founder and Executive Director, Jordan Kelly, has owned in her adult life has been been a "re-home" . . . a better term for which is probably, an "adoptee".

Harry was, arguably, the exception . . . in that he did come from a breeder, but was that breeder's "own dog", and had never been bred from. One day Harry (then called Harris) needed a new home. And he found his new home waiting eagerly for him at the Kelly household, where he joined his big brother, Vette, an earlier adoptee - a cheeky papillon / border collie cross who lived to be 19.5 years old.

Massey's Companion Animal "Hospital" and its staff had plans to ensure Harry, however, didn't have the opportunity to experience similar longevity .

' . . . Out of Great Evil, Great Good Must Be Made to Come . . . '

Harry's legacy has to be more than just a case study . His death was senseless, cruel and without justification or excuse.

It was without truth and it was without compassion . . . not withstanding the very institution that "trains" each new generation of veterinarians it dispatches into veterinary clinics around the world should, conversely, be a bastion of high ethical standards - not the reverse .

It is out of the spirit of genuine compassion that the Harry Homing Mission is born, to bring light into the darkness that prevailed when New Zealand's Massey University veterinary teaching hospital (aka "Companion Animal Hospital") decided to teach their students in the lowest level of "ethics" imaginable .

The Harry Homing Mission will start small - it's a big pet rescue world out there - but IIIVE aims to gradually build up a substantial international directory of rescue and re-homing organisations across the globe.

Because every pet deserves the love and care of their own pet parent.

Someone who will love them as Harry was (and still is) loved and cared for.

This is to be Harry's legacy . . . for all the good things that can be given out of what was taken.

If you know of an organisation that should be listed, you can suggest it directly through the directory page. If you are a rescue organisation that would like to be included, we welcome your submission .

You'll find a dedicated form at the bottom of the Directory section.

What Does Singapore's Newest University Partner Know About What Happens Inside Its Veterinary 'Hospital'?

Sun, 29 Mar 2026 06:58:07 GMT

Massey Sells 'Gold Standard' Veterinary Education to Singapore . . . But Does Singapore Know What It's Bought?

In November 2024, New Zealand’s Massey University opened a branch campus in Singapore in partnership with PSB Academy, one of the island state's largest private education providers. While touted as a premier option for students who want to stay in their own home domain to study, the question this article poses is whether the arrangement fosters issues arising from a lack of transparency for those students and those who rubber stamp their studentship to and of New Zealand-centred Massey.

Massey's veterinary qualifications – its brand, its accreditation status, its claimed gold standard of clinical care – are actively being sold to Singaporean students and Singaporean institutions as the basis for a significant and growing commercial relationship.

But would those students and their funders choose Massey if they knew what went on, on the ground back at Massey Central in New Zealand ?

Massey has been operating in Singapore since 2008. Its partnership with PSB Academy – formalised in April 2024 in the presence of New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon – is described by the university as a "first of its kind" for a New Zealand institution. It set an ambitious target of enrolling 5000 offshore students by 2026.

The Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), another of Massey's Singaporean partners, specifically promotes Massey's expertise in veterinary medicine as a key offering of its joint programs.

But do these partnering organisations – PSB Academy, SIT, their students, and the Singaporean government bodies overseeing these arrangements – know what’s going on inside the Palmerston North-based veterinary “teaching hospital” (branded “Companion Animal Hospital” for the New Zealand public)?

It’s all too easy, from across oceans, to buy the marketing hype and the relationship lobbying. But, in the interests of (a) students paying significant fees for a supposedly "premier" education, (b) the standards being imported into the Singaporean veterinary ecosphere, and (c) most of all, the pet owners of Singapore, those commercial partners have an obligation to monitor the standards of this institution at a deeper and more realistic, every day level.

IIIVE suggests they might start with the Harry Kelly Case Study , and the full and ongoing series of coverage published on the New Zealand consumer publication, The Customer & The Constituent NZ .

The Numbers Behind the Brand

In terms of the broader institutional picture behind the University’s veterinary facility, while Massey has been positioning its veterinary credentials as a premium export product to Singapore's education market, its own financial position hasn’t quite aligned with high levels of competence in terms of fiscal responsibility.

The university recorded a deficit of NZ$41.4 million in 2023 – a figure Massey itself confirmed, though internal reporting had placed the loss as high as $50 million as of October that year. It cut hundreds of New Zealand jobs – including 56 positions in the College of Sciences alone, with a further 20 slated to go in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences – while simultaneously funding its offshore expansion.

Staff and students described the cuts as "brutal". Radio New Zealand reported fears the plan was putting the university into "a death spiral".

New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Union described the move as “a classic example of public education being inappropriately run as a business instead of a public good.

“It is disturbing to witness Massey setting up shop in another country while cutting hundreds of jobs in Aotearoa (New Zealand). It shouldn’t need to be said but apparently it does - instead of building empires abroad, the university should be keeping staff it already employs, and serving the students and the communities it is funded by our government to serve and has a responsibility to first and foremost.”

Meantime, The Times Higher Education described the Singapore venture as "delusional" for a cash-strapped institution.

And, in terms of the intersection between standards, integrity and fiscal priorities, it is indeed noteworthy that the taxpayer-funded external legal team retained to manage, suppress, and where possible extinguish the documented evidence of what happened to Harry Kelly in December 2025, is being paid from the same constrained institutional budget and by the same leadership team that is simultaneously telling Singapore it represents world-class veterinary standards.

Every dollar spent on legal monitoring of these publications and associated advice to Massey's leadership on how to avoid the release of incriminating evidence (which appears to have been either to recommend or to condone its intentional breaches of New Zealand’s holy grail of public body information release, the Official Information Act 1982 , its Privacy Act 2020 breaches, to say nothing of the multiple breaches of the Veterinary Council of New Zea;land’s Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians ) has been a dollar that would, demonstrably, have been far better deployed into higher standards of training – most especially in ethics – for those “educating” its students.

The Reality Behind the Hype

The full documented record of what occurred inside Massey's Companion Animal Hospital - unsupervised junior staff making life and death decisions without qualified oversight , contraindicated drugs administered without owner consent or clinical justification , records falsified , and a co-ordinated institutional cover-up - is laid out in forensic detail across the Harry Kelly Case Study on this site and the full investigation series at The Customer & The Constituent NZ .

Most recently, a private email from Massey's own Dean of Veterinary Science — sent to the leadership of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand before any investigation had concluded — characterising the complaint as "wholly unfounded" and signed simply "Jon," has been published in full. That letter, obtained through a Privacy Act disclosure, is now part of the permanent public record.

The VCNZ's structural conflicts of interest - including a senior Massey academic sitting on the Council that adjudicates complaints about Massey — are documented in detail here .

What Singapore's Veterinary Professionals Need to Know

In the week of March 17–20, 2026, IIIVE completed a formal notification exercise to veterinary practices across New Zealand - from Northland to Southland - formally advising the New Zealand veterinary sector of the documented findings in the Harry Kelly case .

That notification is permanently published on the Harry Kelly Case Study page of this site, together with a geographic summary of recipients, so that any pet owner whose animal has been harmed or killed either by Massey's Companion Animal Hospital directly, or by a Massey graduate in a referring clinic's employ, has documented evidence that the sector was formally placed on notice.

IIIVE will be conducting an equivalent notification exercise directed at Singapore's veterinary sector in due course.

Also See: Massey's Misrepresentation on the World Stage Aided & Abetted by ' Accreditation' Bodies that Don't Enforce Their Own Accreditation Standards . . . Examples here (Australian Veterinary Bo ards Council) and here in the Correspondence (American Veterinary Medical Association) section of the Harry Kelly Case Study .

New Zealand's Veterinary Council Makes Begrudging Offer to Extract Names Involved in the Massey / Harry Kelly Case. Is It A Genuine Offer?

Sun, 29 Mar 2026 04:32:37 GMT

They Should Have Done It Three Months Ago . . . They Don't Want to Do It Now, Either . . . But They Have A Rapidly Growing International Audience Watching Them . . . Will New Zealand's Veterinary Council Do the Right Thing?

The story of how unspeakably cruel, unaccountable, intentionally unnamed staff at Massey University's Companion Animal 'Hospital' repeatedly overdosed, abused, tortured, covertly converted private property (my pet) to a University "educational" resource to produce twisted student films on cell phones , while plotting to deceive me, Jordan Kelly, into believing a false sudden "neurological event/decline" diagnosis to coerce me into signing papers for my beloved little papillon, Harry's, immediate "euthanasia" , has now reached all corners of the globe and every shore and region of New Zealand.

So too has the corrupt relationship between the national industry "regulator" (so-called), the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, and Massey University, as the two interlinked organisations have scrambled to rely on the same old tactics and strategies that have worked seamlessly for them for decades . . . to see them arrogantly and summarily dismiss complaints from pet owners - one after the other, after the other, after the other.

Neither organisation nor the broader cast of characters involved in this sordid ordeal bargained on coming up against Harry's owner, however. None of them bargained on this owner's love and dedication to her beloved little Harry. None of them bargained on this pet owner's unwavering tenacity and investigative chops. And certainly none of them bargained on the entire series of articles this owner has now produced (and is yet to produce) - both across this public ation and in the newly-launched International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics.

But most of all, none of them bargained for the international, and full-scale national, deep-dive readership I'm sure, by now, they've heard through their various channels, they're receiving.

Daily. Increasingly. Obsessively.

Those readers - the ones that aren't monitoring institutions, regulators and veterinary sector participants, but rather are my fellow pet parents - care deeply about what happened to Harry (because they've expressed it in submissions through this website), and they most certainly care about their own pets and educating themselves to ensure against any fate even approaching Harry's, from befalling them.

It's for me, for them, and for Harry, that I hereby publish my response to the belated, buried, and begrudging Veterinary Council of New Zealand's (VCNZ) offer to source the names of those involved in the matter, from the recalcitrant Massey University.

If this matter were continued under cover of darkness, as both the VCNZ, and the " leadership " and staff of its veterinary teaching facility (the facility they have the gall to misname "Companion Animal Hospital") would vehemently prefer it was, it would get no further than the 1.5% (not a typo, that's one point five percent) of complaints that ever make it through the VCNZ "process" to any form of resolution (which probably isn't much, anyway).

So in the interests of shining light into dark and seedy corners of New Zealand's veterinary sector, here's my March 29 letter to Liam Shields, the VCNZ's Deputy Registrar, in response to his March 19 cover letter that accompanied the Privacy Act information disclosure he and his CEO, Iain McLachlan, gave up only through legal obligation . . . and that, as you will read is, even so, both redacted and incomplete.

March 29, 2026

To: VCNZ Deputy Registrar, Liam Shields

Dear Mr Shields

Thank you for your letter of March 19, 2026 and the accompanying Privacy Act disclosure.

On your offer to assist with the provision of names and position titles:

In response to your offer to source the names and position titles of all involved parties, I accept – with the requirement that this be a complete and unredacted list, not a partial or selective one .

Every clinician, intern, student, and support staff member involved in his "care", “treatment”, handling and any and all associated decision-making processes, during the period of November 30 and December 1, 2025.

The above category of requirement must include the licensed veterinarians that (a) the rotating intern, "Dr" Stephanie Rigg ( who misrepresented herself to me as a seasoned, senior veterinarian ), should have been supervised by, and (b) the licensed practitioner that was or should have been responsible for the intaking staff member (who I am advised by another aggrieved client of the facility - but whom is too frightened to speak out themselves because of Dean Jon Huxley's legal threat to me for doing so ) also bears the name of "Stephanie".

It should be noted that I was almost certain at the time that she (the very young "Stephanie" i.e. her name was not known to me at the time) was lying when she assured me she was a graduated and fully qualified veterinarian in her own right. Given what I know now about the lack of experience and ethics with which the Companion Animal "Hospital" is staffed, I am even closer to being fully convinced that she was not a qualified vet, but rather, still a student. As I had commented in my published article , 'Massey Vet Teaching Hospital: Where Empathy Goes to Die' , this staff member looked barely old enough to have been out of high school, was clearly out of her depth, and not only had no authority over the two ICU attendants (who were engaged in social conversation and refusing any attention to Harry as he stood up in his cage screaming in terror with his legs dangerously, especially for a blind dog, outstretched through the grid of the cage door ), and despite my pleas, refused to exercise any authority over these ICU staff. In retrospect, it would seem now that this very young woman was not in a position of qualified authority to do so.

Clearly, Practice Manager Pauline Nijman has at least conjoint responsibility for staffing rosters, but there must also be - in a veterinary teaching establishment - present, direct reporting chains in place at all times. If this was not the case during Harry's admission and time in the "ICU" facility, then the two licensed practitioners bearing ultimate responsibility for this failure (including its obvious systemic nature) would be Jon Huxley, the Dean of the Veterinary School , and Jenny Weston, the Dean of Massey's Veterinary Teaching Program .

I place particular emphasis on this point purely because - given the Veterinary Council's already-demonstrated protectionism towards, and degree of collusion with, Massey University, its leadership and its staff - I firmly believe that you will take the opportunity to disingenuously optimise every possible technicality to avoid accountability for as many staff as you can.

Every individual involved in the selection or administration of any drug or substance to Harry Kelly during that period, whether authorised, and whether documented / recorded, or otherwise .

The "undocumented" and "unrecorded" element of this requirement is especially important, given Massey's continued refusal to release the Controlled Drugs Register and, in fact, its outright breach of the complete Official Information Act request of which this was a key part.

To be noted, and as I made clear to Massey, I have asked for this critical document due to the demonstrable difference in Harry's condition showing between the multiple covert student videos taken of him on cell phones that morning (in outright contempt for my firm verbal and written instructions to Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, and on forms, that Harry should NEVER be used as a training tool ) and when he was presented to me some six hours later with the ( what I now know to be just an intern's ) demand that he be "euthanased" (and the fact that the "Clinical Summary" records his last (unnecessary contraindicated sedative over)dose as having been at 9am (i.e. 1.5 hours prior to the student activity for which he was obviously further catastrophically sedated and permanently disconnected from his critical IV fluids).

Every individual involved in, present during, or who authorised or participated in any filming or recording of Harry Kelly during his time in the Massey facility.

Every individual involved in making, documenting, or communicating the bogus “neurological” diagnosis (that has been clearly demonstrated to have been bogus ) used to coerce his “euthanasia ”. (So as to avoid my inadvertently creating a opportunisable loophole either for you or for Massey, you should include the alternative term that will have been used in the official narrative no doubt framed for your benefit and for his, by the compromised Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley i.e. "recommended" "euthanasia".)

Every individual involved in the decision to push for the “euthanasia” of Harry Kelly, and in the carrying out of that “euthanasia”.

Every individual involved in the handling of Harry Kelly's body following his death ( achieved by way of abuse, scheme and deception ) on December 1, 2025.

Every individual involved in the creation of, adding to, alteration of, falsification or scrubbing of Harry Kelly's clinical and financial records , specifically including but not limited to:

· The Euthanasia Authorisation form – pre-typed before my arrival at the facility and prior to any decision I was prepared to make , bearing timestamps inconsistent with the Patient Change Log.

I note that Privacy Act 2020 Principle 11(e) permits this disclosure in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process, and that Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint . I further note that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) - an accrediting organisation of Massey - has confirmed in writing that veterinarians are expected to provide their names to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern. This is an obligation that applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice.

On the Apparent Glitch In Your Correspondence

I note that the Privacy Act disclosure includes email correspondence between Massey University and the VCNZ — specifically, a private email from Massey's Dean of Veterinary Science, Jon Huxley, to VCNZ leadership, characterising my complaint as "wholly unfounded" before any investigation has been conducted, and ending with a friendly invitation for you to contact him for his, i.e. the apparently official, version.

On the Redacted Microsoft Teams Message

I challenge your refusal to disclose the content of, and the parties to or discussed during, the Microsoft Teams message/s between yourself and Jamie Shanks.

You have redacted the names of two individuals on the basis of section 53(b)(i).

However, given that at the time of that communication you had not assisted me with the provision of names (and still have not) nor in any other way helped me with submitting a complaint (and still have not) - and therefore had no complaint formally before you (and still have not) - I require to know: who were you discussing me with, in what capacity, for what purpose, and on whose instruction?

I would appreciate the full name, role, purpose and nature of the communications involving those undisclosed individuals and the undisclosed content of the associated discussions.

On the Internal Contradiction In Your Letter Regarding Conflicts of Interest

Your letter contains a direct contradiction.

In your paragraph 11 you state that Professor Jenny Weston "has no involvement with CAC (Complaints Assessment Committee) investigations and decision-making."

Yet, in your paragraph 12 you state that "the Council are legally required to review all CAC decisions".

Just saying, Mr Shields.

On Your Suggestion That I Contact Massey University for Assistance

Am I to interpret this as outright contempt, or gaslighting, or both, Mr Shields?

I do not believe that, at this stage, you are ignorant of Massey’s refusal to provide the names of the parties required for me to lay complaints with the Veterinary Council.

I do not believe that, since you have been copied in on two months of repeated, multi-angled, fervent requests to Massey , which - as you know, and as you know I know - is obligated legally, morally, and by international “best practice” standards to provide these (and not to have blacked them all out, in the first instance, from the subset of records I have managed to extract), as well as in accordance with New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020 and the Official Information Act 1982 . . . the instruments of our country's law through which I have so far unsuccessfully sought their release.

Further, I do not believe I need to explain to the Deputy Registrar of the VCNZ why directing a complainant back to the demonstrably obstructive source entity of their complaint for assistance is entirely inconsistent with VCNZ's stated mandate of "having timely and transparent processes" and "upholding veterinary standards to protect people and animals".

On Massey University's Ongoing OIA Non-Compliance

Additionally, Mr Shields - since you are now, belatedly, offering - yes, there is something else you could absolutely assist me with.

As a reminder of the information I await from Massey - all directly relevant to the content of the complaints that need to be formulated for your organisation - the outstanding OIA items include but are certainly not limited to ( the below is excerpted from the OIA request also published here , as you’re of course, already aware):

2. 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 - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly. (**I DO BELIEVE THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR OWN PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE PACKAGE TO ME, BUT WERE NOT.**)

3. 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 of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, and including while his body was in Massey's possession.

4. Pet Farewells Communications: All communications with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.

5. Post-Mortem Activity : Disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem was performed on Harry Kelly.

7. Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail : The unredacted Field-Level Audit Log and all associated system access logs identifying every staff member who accessed, viewed, created, amended, "updated" or deleted any entry in Harry Kelly's electronic patient record from November 30, 2025, to the date of Massey's response.

8. Conflict of Interest Disclosures (Jenny Weston) : All internal records, disclosures, and management plans regarding Dr Jenny Weston's dual role as Massey University Academic Program Director and her ex officio VCNZ membership - and all communications of any type relating to Jordan Kelly or Harry Kelly.

In Conclusion, Mr Shields

When a veterinary "hospital" and its staff overdose , abuse, torture, conduct twisted student activities upon while in a state of the pharmacological collapse they have induced him into, intentionally engineer his most unnecessary death , and coerce me under false diagnosis to not only consenting to my dog's traumatic killing but having to equally traumatically participate in it , I tend to take the matter rather personally .

As quite a large proportion of pet owners, in fact, would.

Regulatory bodies in several of those jurisdictions have been formally notified and are actively monitoring developments.

This will be your opportunity to demonstrate that the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is capable of executing its regulatory duties in an ethical, honest and responsible manner.

Or not.

I look forward to receiving the complete list of names and position titles so that I can proceed with formal complaints against each relevant individual.

One Last Point of Note, Regarding VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer

In closing, I note that your Chief Executive Officer, Mr Iain McLachlan, has had so little concern - other than what appears very much to be to protect Massey University, its veterinary facility and its personnel from accountability - that he has ignored the multiple communications on which he has been cc'd for months regarding this matter, and the many provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians in New Zealand ("administered" by your own organisation) that Massey's veterinary "teaching hospital" is in clear and in arguable breach of ( per my January 17 article on The Customer & The Constituent and the Open Letter to him that I published alongside it ).

Yours sincerely

Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ
Executive Director, International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE)

Nothing to See Here Boys, Massey's 'Dean of Veterinary School' Jon Huxley Assures New Zealand's Collusive Veterinary Council

Sun, 22 Mar 2026 23:23:37 GMT

Conflicted and Collusive Government 'Regulators' and Industry 'Watchdogs' Are As Much the Rule As the Exception In New Zealand. But This One Might Just Be the Worst of Them All.

NOTE TO READERS:

This report - the latest in a series of revelations detailing the appalling and ongoing discoveries regarding what happened to little Harry Kelly (the author's own pet, sadly the inspiration for IIIVE) - provides alarming insights into the almost total unaccoutability of errant veterinarians in New Zealand. Future investigations by IIIVE's founder and investigative reporter, Jordan Kelly, will look into the regulatory and accreditation realities in other countries. In the meantime, while today's coverage (the original having just been published on The Customer & The Constituent NZ ) has been provided primarily for a New Zealand audience, explanations have been included (e.g. of New Zealand-specific legislation) for the orientation of IIIVE's international audience. We look forward to deep-diving into the situation in other jurisdictions, shortly.

____________________________________________________________________________

The thought that a vet to whom they have entrusted their pet's health, wellbeing, and physical treatment (whatever the case may be) could harm their pet – let alone intentionally – is a thought a pet owner doesn't want to think. And if they did ever entertain that thought, the average pet owner would be of the assumption that there would be somewhere they could go to report, complain about, or achieve some degree of accountability regarding, the offending veterinarian's conduct.

Technically speaking, there is. It's called the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ). However, in reality, and in the actual, real-world experience , there actually isn't. Unfortunately, my being in a position of knowledge to write about it for the sake of my fellow pet parents, is something I wish I wasn't.

But here I am. And before any more of you find yourselves here too, let me roll out the reality in New Zealand, using the unfortunate "case study" of my precious little Harry .

Just briefly, one of the VCNZ's core mandates – aside from the licensing of veterinarians in New Zealand - is to ensure that those that hold the licences they have granted, actually uphold the required standards and, assumedly, the honorability of the profession.

Here are a few choice claims from the Councll's website (you'll want to hold on to these as you read through today's article):

"Our vision is for New Zealand to have the world's most trusted veterinary profession."

Yeah, right. I'd hate to see the least trusted. So will those readers who have been following this ongoing series of articles about Harry Kelly .

The above "vision" is going to be the one you'll – unfortunately – not only find the most dubious, but also the most laughable (not that any of the abuse, torture or killing of my precious little boy was in any way funny, notwithstanding Massey staff's mocking supply to me of their special "cameo" photos of his horrific suffering during their multiple cruel and twisted student videos; evil bastards who shouldn't be anywhere near animals of any description, a fact of which I'm quite certain the "Practice Manager", Pauline Nijman, is acutely aware a nd was almost certainly well aware when she must have approved the multiple atrocities that were covertly performed upon my pet with their clearly intended lethal outcome. )

But back to the VCNZ. You're going to see just how this outfit's actions contradict its stated intentions . . . and how it colludes directly with those ensuring that, in fact, Massey produces some of the most dangerous veterinary graduates in the world . . . and, worryingly, exports the graduates steeped in the culture that did what they did to Harry and enjoyed it, into a number of other countries.

Continuing on quoting from the VCNZ website:

"What we do

"The Veterinarians Act charges us with protecting the public interest by ensuring vets are competent to practise. We do this by:

Registering vets who are properly trained and qualified
Setting and monitoring the standards vets must meet
Promoting high standards of veterinary education and conduct
Accrediting and monitoring training institutions for vets
Issuing vets with annual practising certificates
Dealing with concerns about vets' performance, professional conduct or health and taking action where necessary
Advising and making recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture and Massey University on things related to vets, veterinary education and veterinary science."

Let me now go through all of the above – in my view, completely bogus claims (with the exception of "issuing vets with annual practising certificates") – and disprove the VCNZ's performance in every single one of these regards.

In my experience, this organisation is one of the most bought-out, despicable, compromised industry "regulatory", "watchdog" and "complaints" bodies in New Zealand. Quite an achievement to be sure, since we have more than a few. In my very direct experience and observation, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand is about as far from being qualified, motivated, or structured to achieve any degree of neutrality or effectiveness in carrying out any of these mandates, as it could get.

Regular readers by now, all know how Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital" (aka Veterinary Teaching "Hospital") ICU staff catastrophically and repeatedly (some 750% overdoses just 26 minutes apart) overdosed my utterly treasured and beloved little 3.8kg blind papillon, Harry, with not only a completely unnecessary ( because he cried for me after I left him for an overnight rehydration procedure) with a contraindicated (for the kidney condition they knew full well that he had) convenience sedative (potentiated further with another), which was then repeated (rather than acted on as an emergency) by the day shift staff , who drugged him up further for usage in a series of student-filmed videos in his state of pharmaceutically-induced collapse , removing him from his by then life-essential rehydrating IV fluids, before calling me back to the facility and – in a lengthy and coercive session with (what turned out to be just) an intern – delivering a false diagnosis of his having suffered some sudden and inexplicable "neurological decline" and demanding that I sign a form for his immediate "euthanasia" .

It also involves some horrifying scenes and practices by the "vet" (the one that turned out to be the "rotating intern" and who fronted the entire fraud in a solo mission i.e. " Dr" Stephanie Rigg , whose identity I have had to seek out for myself, with Massey blacking out the names and titles of all staff in the "Clinical Summary" they released, and refusing all legal obligations to disclose them.) And thereafter the fact that Massey managed to lose any track of what happened to Harry and his ashes .

(It utterly nauseates and infuriates me to use the words "remains" or "ashes" in conjunction with Harry. Harry shouldn't even be dead. He should, and would, be sleeping peacefully in his little office cot here beside me here tonight, if not for the utter evil perpetrated upon he and I by this dangerous institution and the equally dangerous staff they allow to do as they please with their private, richly paying and unsuspecting clients' pets – including overdosing, filming, abusing, manhandling, torturing and then killing them under the guise of false and engineered "diagnoses" and "prognoses".)

My regular readers will also recall that when I returned to my home two weeks later (Harry and I had been living in a small camper van when an insurance repair project had gone pear-shaped at my property and were both heat-affected and sleep-deprived) that – always knowing that something had been very off with the whole story, somehow – I studied the invoice that they had failed to hand me when I paid on that fateful day. Readers will also know that – notwithstanding the hell I've been through trying to extract Harry's "records" from Massey, which I only have a small and falsified subset of thus far – I've been progressively putting the real and truly awful picture together of exactly what they had done to Harry in those 15 horror story hours between the time I left him for a simple procedure and was subsequently called back to find an unrecognisable little Harry and an at-moments smirking, full-on pressure-cooker Rigg (the intern, NOT the senior vet she presented herself as) demanding I allow her to "euthanase" him - right away, without delay, that afternoon.

But new readers – of which there are tens and sometimes into the hundreds, every day, from all over the world, according to The Customer & The Constituent's analytics - won't know any of that, if you're landing on this latest article of coverage, first. So, for the purposes of your background briefing, the full set of articles is here on the Expose: Killing Harry Kelly summary of links page .

Three & A Half Months of Trying to Rouse the VCNZ Management from Its Collusive Slumber

I first alerted the three key operatives within the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, back on January 6, having gotten nowhere with Massey except for a legal threat if I continued to speak out, and the near-complete stonewalling of all communications . . . with (in terms of my attempts to secure Harry's records to start putting the picture together retrospectively) either nil response, evasive responses, or ongoing breaches of my Privacy Act 2020 requests (in New Zealand, we have legal access to any records held about us or our children or pets, through the information-release provisions of the Act, and these are viewed by the New Zealand public, public servants, and most competent legal practitioners as the serious legal obligations that they indeed are. That is, unless you're Massey University or the Veterinary Council of New Zealand).

New readers can acquaint themselves with the fact that, contrary to any accepted legal obligation, public service, or institutional standard in this country, Massey has not only thumbed its nose at most of my (very necessary and legitimate) information requirements, but – worse still – when advised by a senior investigator at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to upscale the compelling of the information releases – that is, to use the even more legally serious Official Information Act 1982 – Massey thumbed its nose not even just partly, but in totality, at my requirements . They simply let their legally obligated date pass, at first belatedly stating that they would provide the information, and then not actually doing so at all .

The Seedy Goings-On In the Background . . .

Now for my readers existing and new alike, let me acquaint you with what was going on in the background at Massey and at the collusive VCNZ's management team, the entire time.

For context, I had first begun alerting the VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer, Iain McLachlan (a registered lawyer, hold onto that for a bit later), its Deputy Registrar Liam Shields, and its Professional Advisor on Policy and Standards Seton Butler, way back on January 6. So as not to interrupt the flow of this article, I'll publish evidence of that at the end of this piece.

You'll see from the various evidentiary emails I've included below today's revelations, that it was abundantly clear to these three senior parties – each of whom is at the helm of responsibly for, let us remember, "Setting and monitoring the standards vets must meet; Promoting high standards of veterinary education and conduct; Dealing with concerns about vets' performance, professional conduct or health and taking action where necessary; and Accrediting and monitoring training institutions for vets" – that the gravity, severity and multiplicity of the multi-faceted situation at Massey was exactly that i.e. grave, serious and spanning multiple areas of misconduct, malpractice and malfeasance.

Not even arguably. Quite clearly and overtly.

From the emails and experts I've included, you'll also see how – after waiting for more than six weeks with no substantive response – I then wrote and published an Open Letter to McLachlan, in his position as the VCNZ's CEO . He ignored that, along with all my emails. I also published a lengthy and detailed article in which I itemised and laid out all the clauses within his organisation's own Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians - or the already numerous of these that I was aware of at the time. Of course, with my subsequent and continuing findings, there are many more. But McLachlan also saw fit to ignore my publication of the multiple breaches of his own agency's Code. (At some point, I should, and will, update this list and this article, with all the additional breaches relating to what has since been discovered.)

On February 19, 2026, I wrote to VCNZ McLachlan seeking again his very specific assistance to extract the names and position titles of the licenced staff involved in the whole affair, because – without them – a complainant cannot lodge a complaint in the first place. To be clear (and because the average pet owner would not know this), you can't lodge a complaint against an institution or a veterinary clinic. The system has been neatly set up such that the only way to lodge a complaint is against the individual veterinarian. And what the vet clinic in question – especially those with dodgy staff, records and practices – will often or even typically do (as Massey does), is not tell a client the name of the veterinarian but just have them introduce themselves by their first or informal names. If you've read my coverage leading up to the most recent few articles, you'll see that the only name I had been given for the (what turned out to be just an) "intern" (ironically, the woman who killed my dog) was "Steffi". Believe me, I did NOT use that name for her out of any affection . . . I used it because that's how Massey protect their own i.e. by not disclosing their identities. I guess there's always been a reason for it. Pity pet owners don't put two and two together.

But back to McLachlan. So I wrote to him asking, very specifically now, for his assistance in compelling Massey to release the names . . . so that I could go forward and lay the complaint that, for more than six weeks, McLachlan, Shields and Butler, could all clearly see more than warranted it:

"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. ."

Let's be clear about two things:

If what I had disclosed and was progressively providing them with evidence of didn't even warrant a response from them, what would they consider worthy of their attention?
It was absolutely within the power of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to compel Massey to release the names of the staff involved in the complaint that I was trying to lay, but could not, without. Absolutely, fully within their remit.

Any pet owner would be, and should be, utterly dumbfounded in trying to understand their complete lack of interest, absence of any response . . . and refusal to act on their publicised and legal obligations.

But look no further than the following three reasons.

Let's start with this friendly email, signed " Jon " (as in Dean Jon Huxley, Massey University's "Head of Veterinary Science / School"), to the three above-named VCNZ individuals on January 30 . . . the same day he issued me with a legal threat if I continued to speak out about the matter .

From: "Jon Huxley" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/30/2026 3:16:00 AM

To: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "liam@vetcouncil.org.nz" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "Seton Butler" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz
>Cc

:Subject: Jordan Kelly - Allegations regarding VTH care

Kia ora koutou,

I am writing regarding recent correspondence from Ms Jordan Kelly, in which she has made a number of serious allegations about the care provided by the Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Tāwharau ora – School of Veterinary Science at Massey University.

The School categorically refutes all of the allegations she has raised. Earlier this afternoon I advised Ms Kelly directly that, should she wish to pursue her concerns, the appropriate pathway is through the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, as the statutory body responsible for regulating the veterinary profession. She has now been formally directed to engage with VCNZ if she wishes to take the matter further.

Given the nature of her communications and the pattern of escalation, the Veterinary Teaching Hospital has declined to provide any future veterinary services to Ms Kelly. The matter has also been referred to the University’s legal counsel, to ensure our position is clear and appropriately documented should further action become necessary.

Ngā mihi,
Jon
Jon Huxley
Head of School
Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science
Massey University │ Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North │ 4100 │ New Zealand │www.massey.ac.nz/school-vetscience/
Pronouns: He / Him

(NB: For my response to Huxley's "wholly unfounded" claim (in which I point out his absence of pharmacological knowledge and his equal absence of any understanding of "informed consent", and that, unless I would wish a THIRD pet to come to a grizzly end at his "school", there is no way in hell any pet of mine will ever enter that godforsaken and wicked place ever again, see here) . With reference to Huxley's strategic but laughably insulting use of "care" as a substitute for more accurate descriptors i.e. intentional catastrophic overdosing ; physical, pharmacological, psychological and emotional abuse; intention to induce unnecessary death; unauthorised student filming in a collapsing state ; withdrawal of treatment admitted for and fully charged and paid for ; false diagnosing; misrepresentation and coerced and wrongly-termed "euthanasia" ; disgusting and cruel execution thereof; multiple records falsifications ; and illegal withholding of full clinical records and associated diagnostics, and breaches of the Privacy Act information-release and Official Information Act obligations . . . where do I start? Perhaps. for simplicity's sake, just with the multiple breaches of his mate's, VCNZ CEO Iain McLachlan's own Code of Conduct for Professional Veterinarians .)

With regard to Huxley's email, and just in case there's any lack of clarity among readers with regard to the warm and friendly little piece of correspondence you've just read:

You have just read an email from the head of the facility about which I am still trying to lay a multipllcity of complaints, each of which is as serious as it gets (and that have been recognised as such by, for example, the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries' Animal Welfare Inspectorate, with a planned investigation) to the head of the regulatory organisation that is legally obliged to at least look into what the hell is going on at his facility.

The boys' club in action: Hey mates, nothing to see here. I've organised for our lawyers to shut her up. No worries. See you at the next industry do.

But – as you'll readily see from the examples and excerpts of my multiple prior, and fully ignored, communications to the Three VCNZ Amigos – Huxley's email wasn't necessary, anyway. The VCNZ boys had nil intention of doing anything Massey wouldn't want them to do.

It's All One Organisation, In Reality

Which leads directly to the other two reasons they won't do anything: Namely, VCNZ Council Member and Academic Program Director of Massey University's undergraduate veterinary program, Jenny Weston, and Professional Advisor on Policy and Standards and Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science, Seton Butler.

Weston sits on the very VCNZ Council that receives and adjudicates complaints about Massey's veterinary program - while simultaneously serving as the Academic Program Director of that same program. Meantime, Butler draws a salary from the VCNZ as its Professional Advisor on policy and standards while holding - or having very recently held (it's unclear) - a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science.

But back to "Jon's" (that is, Jon Huxley, but it's all first names basis with the boys over at the VCNZ) January 30 nothing to see here, but give me a call if you want any official narrative email to McLachlan, Shields and Butler.

I hadn't known until quite some time in, that Butler wears / wore / whatever his two interesting hats: Professional Advisor at VCNZ and Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University's School of Veterinary Science.

And, since January 6, I'd been cc'ing him on the same emails that McLachlan, the VCNZ CEO had been in receipt of, and that McLachlan could, therefore, readily see I'd cc'd to Butler i.e. an individual with a clear and present conflict of interest. And until I was advised by an external party of this "one foot in each camp" status of Butler, Butler had benefited from every single (and there were many) emails of which McLachlan had been in receipt. And McLachlan had never advised me of that convenient little fact.

That convenient little fact has since turned into a most inconvenient little fact for McLachlan, with my having lodged a formal complaint to the Law Society of New Zealand . . . who have formally advised of the acceptance of that complaint, which will now be working its way through their system. My complaint is two-fold i.e. that McLachlan has acted in a manner so as to bring ill-repute to his profession as a lawyer by knowingly allowing me to correspond with conflicted parties under his jurisdiction, and for direct evasion of his legally obligated duty to assist me in the laying of complaints to his organisation against his licensed members.

Do They Think I Am Stupid, Naive, or Both?

Now . . . in the meantime . . . and for readers wondering how I got hold of the "Jon" nothing to see here, boys, email:

In conjunction with lodging the Law Society complaint against McLachlan, I lodged a Privacy Act (information-release) requirement to McLachlan. I asked for all communications related to me, my dog Harry, the case, between the VCNZ amigos and Massey, and between Butler and Massey, and Weston and VCNZ, and with any other party, internal or external. Actually, I initially asked for the information under the Official Information Act, whereby McLachlan had written back to me telling me the VCNZ wasn't subject to that Act. I had countered by then requiring the same information under the Privacy Act 2020.

On the eve (after-hours, just for a serving of added contempt) of the final day of the 20-working-day legal requirement, I finally heard from Liam Shields. What they served me up was almost entirely just my own emails that I had sent to them.

But they did serve up the Huxley email. Did they do it out of honesty and transparency?

In my view? Of course not. They did it for two reasons:

(1) McLachlan has an active, serious Law Society complaint against him. If he needs, ultimately, to throw Huxley under the bus, to save his skin he'll do it . . . albeit, with his degree of "loyalty" to Massey, it certainly isn't his natural preference.

And (2) they know where this is all ultimately heading: to the courts. They know that, with the "discovery" process, they'll need to release it anyway . . . when their withholding of it now, will look a whole lot worse for them, then.

But here's the thing: In handing over Huxley's email, they've created an obvious gap in the communications trail. Because there's no reply. Not even an acknowledgement of Huxley's invitation to give him a call for "clarification" of "the circumstances".

I doubt I have any readers who would be willing to believe that no such subsequent communication was had. Which would mean that, in addition to everything else they should be being held accountable for, McLachlan, Shields and co. are in breach of their Privacy Act obligations. I'd also be utterly naive to believe they haven't withheld a whole lot more. And I"m not naive.

If, however, McLachlan himself is so naiive, or so arrogant, or both, that he thinks I either wouldn’t have noticed the absence of any emails or notation of phone calls or text messages in response to Huxely’s invitation to call him for the official version of my “wholly unfounded allegations” . . . then McLachlan is as deluded as was Huxley, when he assumed without question that his January 30 Buddle Findlay “legal action” threat would have me trembling in foetal position under my desk.

Two other things of note:

Shields disclosed that there had been a meeting held about me but he wouldn't disclose anything about it, because "this information is withheld on the basis that it is identifiable information about a person, and that disclosure of the information would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual". So let's just investigate that for a moment. They didn't have a complaint on their books from me because they wouldn't help me get the names of the associated Massey staff so that I could lay a complaint. So with whom, and with regard to what, were they in communication about me? And, regardless, since they are a supposedly neutral industry policing (so to speak) body, why can't I know what they're discussing about me and with whom?

In the manner of prize gaslighters, Shields' final paragraph (see it at the end of this article) tells me, "I understand that you have been in contact with Massey and they can assist you in the first instance." (Shields was cc'd for two months on emails, and would absolutely have read all my coverage on this publication, that laid out that NO, Massey was NOT "assisting" me with information about anything. Very much the polar opposite, as he was acutely aware. He was in receipt of two prior months' emails about the very fact that Massey won't release the names and have redacted all trace of them from the already-incomplete records that have been the minimal amount of material I have managed to date to extract from them. Although – in his next paragraph (in my view, for the benefit of McLachlan's Law Society situation) – he added, "However, we can request this information on your behalf, if helpful" . . . which is exactly what I had written to them, TWICE, a full month earlier asking them to do. A belated and not exactly warm invitation, and most certainly, not one I would trust him to act on, or fully or ethically, either. Neither he nor his CEO have done anything but convey complete untrustworthiness.

Before I leave you with a taste of some of the correspondence additional to "Jon's" friendly wee email to Iain and the boys over at the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, let me acquaint you with some sobering facts, just in case you're tempted to hang onto any hope that somehow, somewhere, some way, there is any accountability for errant vets in New Zealand. And, when reading these, consider that Massey graduates, who are clearly well-steeped in the Massey culture by the time they "graduate", are exported to multiple countries around the world, but most especially into the unsuspecting Singaporean and Malaysian markets.

According to a peer-reviewed study published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, of the 1,218 complaints and notifications received by the VCNZ between 1992 and 2016, 818 - that is, 67.2 percent - were not investigated or were dismissed outright. A mere 18 complaints — just 1.5% percent of the total — were upheld on the basis of technical competency concerns. Eighteen complaints upheld in 24 years. Tell you anything, much?

The study's authors were careful to note that even these figures almost certainly understate the true scale of the problem:

In other words, the 67.2 percent dismissal rate and the 1.5 percent uphold rate represent not the ceiling of the problem - but its floor.

Here's the best part: A co-author of this peer-reviewed study documenting the VCNZ's own complaint dismissal record? One J.F. Weston - of Massey University's School of Veterinary Science. The same Dr Jenny Weston who currently sits on the VCNZ Council. Who co-authored the study proving her own regulator dismisses two-thirds of all complaints. While sitting on that regulator's council. The study is published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal , 2019, Volume 67, Issue 3, pages 117-125.

Source for your reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30786825/

It would be funny if it weren't funny.

Isn't There Some Accountability Somewhere . . . Maybe Internationally?

Now, Readers. I know what's going through your mind. Because it was going through my mind for the longest time while all this was playing out: But isn't there some upper-level, perhaps international, body that the VCNZ or Massey is accountable to?

Dealing with the Massey situation, yes, there are. Three of them. And at least two of those are as collusive as the Veterinary Council is with Massey.

These bodies are the accrediting authorities to which Massey is responsible for maintaining a series of very clear Standards that – just like the VCNZ's farcical Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians – in turn, these accrediting agencies are responsible for ensuring complete and uninterrupted compliance with.

Except they don't. Not at all. If you're interested in just how many such "Standards", and how badly, Massey and its "Companion Animal Hospital" aka "Veterinary Teaching Hospital" are in direct and serious breach of . . . and just how much the heads of those accrediting agencies are determined to ignore it . . . you can read my detailed communications to the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council's Chief Executive Officer, Kate Simkovic, and the American Veterinary Medical Association's Associate Director of Education and Research, Dr Samantha Morello and their smart-assed dismissals and subsequent complete ignorance - which readers can view in the Correspondence section of the Harry Kelly Case Study page (much as it puts a dagger through my heart to be referring to my precious little Harry as a "case study") at the newly-formed International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) i.e. www.iiive.org - which now exists in Harry's honour .

READERS:

I have laid out all my attempts for a response or some show of assistance, or even acknowledgement, prior to the immediately below email, in chronological order. I want readers to clearly see that I have been endeavouring to draw this to the attention of the senior management of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand since January 6 this year i.e. one month and five days (but who's counting) since "Dr" Stephanie Rigg, the "rotating intern", took it upon herself to front the ruse to ensure that the objective she and her colleagues had to see Harry die, and also to die in utter agony, was achieved.

However, I want to run the immediately below email first, despite it being my most recent, because I want to show readers exactly what VCNZ CEO has wilfully ignored for the past, now approaching, three months:

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 2/19/2026 3:38:34 PM
To: "'Iain M cLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Cc: e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz, t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz, a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz,
s.reti@ministers.govt.nz, n.willis@ministers.govt.nz, "'Enquiries'" <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject: URGENT: Guidance on Formal Complaints & Disclosure of Redacted Identities - Massey University
Companion Anima l Hospital

Dear Iain

You were cc’d on many of my recent, progressive correspondences regarding the collapse of clinical and ethical
standards at Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital.

I am writing to you now for specific guidance on how to progress a series of formal complaints against the various
involved parties – and with the urgency this situation clearly demands.

Currently, I am faced with a significant barrier to justice: Massey University has redacted all names and
professional titles from the Clinical Summary provided to me.

I do not have the identities, nor the professional / role titles, nor do I even have a confirmed count of the
parties involved in the numerous atrocities documented in my extensive coverage of the broader matter -
from the 750% overdose to the intentional withdrawal of care for cruel “instructional” and selfie-style content
filming, to the coerced “euthanasia” to destroy the actual bodily evidence (i.e. my dog), and now (as you will see
from the latest coverage), the evidence tampering / withholding / obstruction.

As the VCNZ is the body responsible for professional standards and licensing, I am asking for your assistance in
sourcing these identities. I cannot effectively file against individuals who are being shielded by institutional
redactions designed to obstruct accountability.

I have today formally briefed the Ministers of Education, Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Science, and Finance
(see below). While my full report to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is pending, I wish to move immediately
on formal VCNZ complaints.

Please advise on the process for filing under these circumstances and how the Council intends to compel the
disclosure of the clinicians involved.

The full Ministerial Briefing (with coverage and evidence links) are below.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

Overview of Core Issues

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

NOTE : With reference to the above plea to the VCNZ for assistance (that they are actually obligated to provide) and the CEO's extraordinarily belated undertaking below, no communication nor any assistance ever resulted .

From: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: 2/20/2026 2:41:15 AM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Cc: "Liam Shields" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: URGENT: Guidance on Formal Complaints & Disclosure of Redacted Identities - Massey University
Companion Animal Hospital

Hi Jordan

I have copied in my colleague Liam here. He and his team will do their best to assist you and will be in touch as
soon as they can.

Kind regards
Iain McLachlan
He | Him
Kaiwhakahaere Matua me Pouroki | CEO & Registrar
Te Kaunihera Rata Kararehe o Aotearoa | Veterinary Council of New Zealand
Level 6, Midland Chambers, 45 Johnston Street, Wellington 6011 | New Zealand
P 04 473 9600 | DDI 04 894 3705 | W www.vetcouncil.org.nz

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/6/2026 10:54:14 AM
To: "'Pauline Nijman'" <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>, "'Vet Clinic'" <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>, "'Jan Thomas'" <J.B.Thomas@massey.ac.nz>, "'Paul Gillespie'"
<P.Gillespie@massey.ac.nz>, "'Jon Huxley'" <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>, privacy.officer@massey.ac.nz
Cc: kevin.bryant@nzva.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, iain@vetcouncil.org.nz
Subject: RE: Vet Records Request Remains Unacknowledged: Formal Request for Veterinary Records: Patient Harry Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/7/2026 2:05:34 PM
To: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Identification of Systemic Custodial Risks at Massey University (Harry Kelly Case)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/9/2026 5:54:11 AM
To: p.gillespie@massey.ac.nz, j.b.thomas@massey.ac.nz, r.geor@massey.ac.nz, j.huxley@massey.ac.nz,
p.a.nijman@massey.ac.nz, privacy@massey.ac.nz, oia@massey.ac.nz, vethospital@massey.ac.nz
Cc: iain@vetcouncil.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz, seton@vetcouncil.org.nz
Subject: Formal Notification: International Regulatory Escalation & Disclosure of Clinical Breaches (Harry Kelly
Case)

From: Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2026 12:56 pm
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; Pauline Nijman <P.A.Nijman@massey.ac.nz>; Vet Clinic <VetClinic@massey.ac.nz>; Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: Iain McLachlan <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; Seton Butler <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: URGENT SUPPLEMENT T O DATA REQUEST: CCTV PRESERVATION & MEDICATION TIMINGS - HARRY KELLY

From: "Privacy" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Sent: 1/25/2026 9:53:27 PM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <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

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/27/2026 4:17:02 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>, e nquiries@privacy.org.nz, editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Subject: URGENT: VISUAL EVIDENCE OF CRUELTY AND ILL-TREATMENT : RE: Privacy Request: Kelly 01
2026 - For mal 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
Sent: 1/27/2026 3:47:35 PM
To: "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'"
<seton@vetcouncil.or g.nz>
Subject: FW: Formal Complaint - Interference with Privacy (Principle 6) - Massey University - Refusal to Provide
Complete Video Records

Please find below a copy of the formal complaint filed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner this afternoon following Massey University’s final refusal to provide the digital records for Harry Kelly (Ref: Kelly 01 2026).
_________________________
NOTICE OF FINAL REFUSAL BY MASSEY UNIVERSITY: On January 27, 2026 at 12.14pm, Massey University issued a final refusal to provide the digital video files requested, explicitly citing Section 53(b)(i) and Section 56(2)(c) of the Privacy Act 2020. This communication confirms that all internal avenues for resolution have been exhausted.

Dear Commissioner:

1. Background

This complaint concerns Massey University’s persistent refusal to provide the full digital record of eight (8) videos taken of my dog, Harry, while he was a patient in the University's 'Companion Animal Hospital' on the night of November 30 and the morning and afternoon of December 1, 2025.

Following a formal request for these records, the university released only two (2) videos. After weeks of delay, they claimed "privacy concerns" for third parties as the basis for withholding the remaining 75% of the footage.

2. Evidence of Cruel Handling and Unexplained Physical Trauma

Upon reviewing the two released videos – specifically the recording titled “testing of vestibulo-ocular reflexes” – I have witnessed overtly cruel and unnecessary manhandling of a small, blind, distressed patient.

The footage documents a vice-like grip, with a strong hand (with woman’s fingernails) driving hard into Harry’s tiny scalp as his eyes are forced open for the camera and he is moved around, apparently on display.

Furthermore, detailed observation of "goodbye photos" – taken a few minutes before the lethal injection – reveals blood-coloured skin staining under the fur on Harry’s muzzle. This likely indicates that Harry had been bleeding from the nose – an occurrence entirely unrelated to his primary reason for admission (rehydration) and one that is absent from the clinical records provided.

The withholding of the remaining six videos prevents a necessary investigation into when and how this bleeding and the associated physical distress occurred, as well as also preventing all other elements of the investigation clearly needed for the numerous other clinical and professional failures I have identified.

3. Objective Contradiction of the Clinical Record

The second video provided – titled “circling” – documents Harry moving easily and at speed (normal baseline behaviour for him, as a blind dog with a head tilt, when under stress-induced disorientation).

This physical vitality stands in direct, objective contradiction to the contemporaneous clinical notes and the Hospital's recommendation for euthanasia, which characterised Harry as being in a supposedly rapidly progressing, non-recoverable vegetative state.

I contend that the university is withholding the balance of the footage because it likely contains further visual proof that the clinical justifications provided for the termination of Harry’s life were inaccurate and false.

4. Inadequacy of the "Privacy" Justification

Massey University is a premier, highly resourced teaching institution. The technology required to pixelate or blur the faces of third parties is standard and readily available.

Their refusal to utilise this technology to fulfill a Principle 6 request – while instead offering "supervised viewing" (which prevents independent forensic analysis) – constitutes a wilful obstruction of my right to access the full record.

5. Secondary Victimisation and Constructive Denial of Access

The University’s restrictive offer of on-site, in-person-only, supervised viewing is inherently coercive and constitutes a profound act of secondary victimisation.

It would require me to return to the literal scene of the crime – the site where I was deceived and actively coerced into consenting to the unnecessary termination of Harry’s life (over whom I was immensely protective and with whom it was well-known that I was extremely closely bonded as my only “family” member).

On that day, I was made to physically restrain my own dog for the lethal injection under the false clinical pretence that his struggle was merely a "last hurrah” (in the directly quoted words of the Massey vet), when detailed posthumous analysis of the records has subsequently revealed that he was fighting through a haze of undisclosed heavy sedation to respond to me.

To compel a deeply traumatised and grieving owner to return to the environment of such a traumatic and ethically compromised event in order to exercise a basic right to information is both cruel and untenable.

Furthermore, as neither I nor the required independent experts reside in proximity to Palmerston North, this condition represents an insurmountable logistical barrier. This in-person, on-site requirement serves as a constructive denial of access and a direct obstruction of the primary reason for my request: to allow for independent, expert forensic analysis of the records in the pursuit of justice.

Conclusion

I am requesting that the Privacy Commissioner compel Massey University to release the remaining six videos in their original digital format, with third-party faces pixelated (and NOT “clipped” or “edited”) as required, along with the original metadata for all eight recordings.

The withholding of these records appears to be a strategic move to avoid accountability for documented mistreatment and clinical misrepresentation.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
9 Coradine Street
Masterton 5810
Ph: 06 657 0170

NOTE: The above videos have been continually refused by Massey. A Senior Investigator from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner advised me to alternatively compel them under the Official Information Act. However, Massey ignored my "OIA". (For international readers, this is almost unheard of for a New Zealand publicly funded institution. New Zealand's Official Information Act is considered the"holy grail" of information release obligations. NOT optional.) Meantime, the below questions were also fully ignored, and needless to say, no acknowledgement of them, nor any of my other correspondence, was ever forthcoming from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/29/2026 1:11:31 PM
To: "'Frances Mullan'" <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: RE: Harry Kelly - Personal Information Access & Institutional Policy Disclosure Request (Privacy Act / OIA)

Ms Mullan:

The link should be maintained in place with all materials accessible, in order to provide ready access (and avoid any possible transfer issues) to other parties investigating, or yet to investigate, the case.

In the meantime, I have further information requirements, as follows.

Request for Descriptive Itemisation Regarding Recorded Materials & Withheld Materials (Official Information Act / Privacy Act)

This inquiry is prompted by the significant discrepancies between the clinical logs provided and the footage released thus far, as well with regard to my explicit, documented instructions (both verbally and in writing, and on more than one occasion) to Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital’s Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman, that Harry was not to be used as a training tool.

Please provide the following:

1. Digital Metadata and Recording Personnel (To be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)

For the two videos released, I require the original metadata and a detailed identification of the procedure being performed or the situation being observed, along with the roles, function, and reasons for participation of all personnel involved:

Timestamps: The precise date and time that each recording commenced and concluded.

The Recorder: The institutional category of the person recording the footage (e.g., Attending Vet, Resident, Student, Nurse, or Instructor).

Monitoring: Who was responsible for monitoring Harry’s vital signs and sedation depth at the specific moment the recording was being taken?

2. Descriptive Audit of the Six Withheld Videos

Regarding the six withheld videos, provide an individual descriptive summary for each separately. (That is, to be answered per individual recording, NOT as a collective overview.)

Clinical Activity: What specific clinical manoeuvre or handling is being performed?

Participants’ Role Identifications: The Institutional Role, Function, and Specific Reason for Participation for every individual present, visible, or audible in the room.

Instructional Context: Does the footage depict instructional speech? Is Harry being used to demonstrate a physical trait or response to a group?

Clinical Justification: What was the medical necessity for the objective of the procedure and the recording thereof, and of the handling depicted, and how does it correspond to the agreed-upon rehydration protocol?

3. Correlation of Sedation and Instructional Activity

Administration Logs: Provide the exact dosage, route, and timestamp for every sedative or analgesic administered within the four-hour window of each of the eight recordings.

"Top-Up” Sedation: Was any additional sedative administered shortly before or during the arrival of a student group or the commencement of student-led "handling"?

Apparent Manufactured Decline: Provide the clinical justification for why Harry’s sedation depth increased significantly between the video’d "circling" event and the time of his being presented to me, rendering him semi-comatose.

4. Standards of Care

For the following three points/questions are also provided for the assistance of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) in the detailed investigation of this case (which the Council will shortly be formally asked to perform):

a. “Handling" vs "Observation" Distinction: If a student is merely present in the room, that constitutes observation. However, the moment a student lays hands on a sedated patient to perform manoeuvres – such as the severe head-restraint and eye forcing-open seen in the released footage – they are performing a clinical manoeuvre. Under VCNZ requirements, any manual interaction with a patient for educational purposes is a "teaching procedure". If it required the
patient to be sedated to facilitate that touch, it falls squarely under the requirement for explicit, recorded consent .

b. "Clinical Notes" Requirement: The VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct mandates that explicit consent for a student to perform a procedure under sedation "must be recorded in the clinical notes". As the provided clinical notes for Harry are entirely silent on these manoeuvres and the participation of students, please identify the specific document or entry that satisfies this professional obligation. Failure to produce this record constitutes a documented violation of the VCNZ Code.

c. Definition of a "Procedure": A medical "procedure" is any act performed on a patient for a diagnostic, a therapeutic, or an educational purpose.

If these manoeuvres were "diagnostic", they should have been performed by a qualified veterinarian and the findings recorded in the logs.

If they were "educational", they required my explicit, prior consent. The University cannot have it both ways; if the handling was not recorded as a diagnosis and was not consented to as education, it stands as unauthorised handling of my property.

5. Digital Security, Non-Massey Devices, and Ethical Exploitation

Massey has previously claimed that the 75% of unreleased footage cannot be provided because pixelation of the participants' faces is not possible or too difficult.

By your own admission in previous correspondence, these recordings were captured on a cell phone.

This admission suggests a catastrophic breach of the Privacy Act 2020, the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, basic clinical standards and basic, well-accepted digitised information security protocols.

Allowing Harry to be recorded on non-secure, personal devices that are not under the University's direct data control amounts to having permitted my private property (Harry) to be treated as "content" rather than clinical data.

Therefore, I require immediate clarification on the following:

Inventory of Non-Massey Devices: Were any other recordings (video or photographic) made or permitted of any other time or aspect of Harry’s stay – regardless of whether they were for "official" hospital use, and that are stored on non-Massey devices?

"Exploitation" Audit: Please state for the record how Massey University monitors and prevents the unauthorised digital exploitation of patients by personnel using personal hardware. If students and staff are permitted to record what they want on their own phones, how does the University track, secure, or delete that data once those individuals leave the premises?

Chain of Custody and Data Breach: Who owns the cell phone(s) used to record (a) the released, (b) the still-withheld, and (c) any as-yet to be admitted-to, videos (per further disclosure required above)? How was the security of this personal information (my property) guaranteed once it left the clinic floor, and where is the audit trail confirming that these original files have been deleted from those private devices?

Breach of Digital Ethics: Does Massey University policy specifically permit the recording of sedated patients on unencrypted, private mobile devices for student study or "observation" notes? If so, please provide the policy document that justifies this practice under the Privacy Act 2020.

Disclosure re Points of Distribution: Have any recordings of Harry been shared, uploaded, or transmitted to any private cloud storage or social messaging platforms (e.g., but not limited to, WhatsApp, iCloud, or Google Photos) by the individuals who recorded them? Are they downloadable from the Massey data storage facility? If so, to whom, and why, and with what specific limitations? And are any such limitations enforced?

Legislative Facta

The following legislative facta are provided for both the edification of Massey executives, clinical staff, and ethics committee members, and also so that, Ms Mullan, you can address your adherence to them in your reply to the email I am sending you today:

Breach of the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC): While this primarily applies to humans, the VCNZ and Massey’s own ethics should mirror these standards.

Using a cell phone fails the Storage and Security rule, which requires that information be protected by such security safeguards as it is reasonable in the circumstances to take against loss or unauthorised access.

Institutional Negligence: Failure to provide professional recording equipment for clinical/educational purposes indicates a failure of the Consumer Guarantees Act standard of "reasonable care and skill". A professional veterinary hospital utilising a student’s or a staff member's private phone as a recording device constitutes a failure of institutional infrastructure and a breach of professional standards.

Breach of "Bailment" via Digital Misappropriation: As the "bailee" (the party holding my property), Massey had a duty to protect Harry. By allowing unauthorised digital copies of him to be made on private devices, the University has "misappropriated" the likeness and clinical state of my property for its own purposes. This is a direct violation of the terms of bailment under which Harry was admitted for medical care.

Legal Framework and the Limitation of General Consent

To be noted: Any general acknowledgment of Massey’s "teaching status" does not constitute Informed Consent for specific deviations from a clinical treatment plan, nor does it override my explicit instructions that Harry NOT be used as a training tool. It is also to be noted, that on more than one occasion – including in writing and on intake forms (or similar documentation) – I specifically forbade the use of Harry as a teaching tool. One (but not the only) reason for this was my
observation of the inexperience and inaccuracy (e.g. inadequate listening skills and compromised note-taking ability) of some of the vet staff I had encountered there, and the “specimen” vs sentient being attitude of other personnel towards Harry and also particularly towards my previous pet (who died at your facility).

Meantime, this request is issued with reference to:

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 : Regarding the delivery of services as per the agreed-upon clinical consent and the requirement of “reasonable care and skill”.

Animal Welfare Act 1999 : Regarding the ethical justification for sedation and the avoidance of unnecessary distress.

VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct: Regarding the requirement for explicit consent for student-led procedures under sedation.

Property Law (Bailment): Regarding the unauthorised use of private property for institutional gain .

Breach of Duty and Strict Liability

Deviation from Terms: A bailee is bound by the terms of the bailment, whether express or implied. If a bailee uses a chattel in a way not authorised by the owner, they are liable for any loss or damage.

Conversion: Using bailed property for personal or institutional gain without permission is typically considered "conversion" – a tort that occurs when a bailee acts in a manner inconsistent with the owner's title.

As I did not authorise the sedation of Harry – and had specifically forbidden his use as a 'training tool' – any administration of sedatives constitutes a fundamental deviation from the terms of bailment . Under the principles of strict liability, Massey is liable for the unauthorised “use”' of my property and the subsequent clinical decline that occurred while the terms of our agreement were being breached.

I await your timely provision of the required information, with the appropriately detailed response to all the questions laid out herein.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 1/29/2026 5:22:00 PM

To: "'Frances Mullan'" <F.Mullan@massey.ac.nz>, "'Privacy'" <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Cc: "'Iain McLachlan'" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Liam Shields'" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>, "'Seton Butler'" <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>, enquiries@privacy.org.nz

Subject: RE: Harry Kelly - FINAL NOTICE regarding Non-Compliant Disclosure & Demand for Primary Clinical Records

Ms Mullan:

I have been formally advised that Massey University has failed to act in accordance with my specific request for Harry’s personal information.

The "Clinical Summary" provided is a subjective narrative produced after the fact. It is not a clinical record. Under the Privacy Act 2020, I am entitled to the raw, contemporaneous, and complete data held by the hospital. I require the immediate disclosure of the following Primary Records:

Medication Administration Records (MAR): The original, timestamped logs showing the exact dose, time, and administrator for all medications, specifically the Gabapentin and any other sedatives.

Nursing Observation & ICU Flow Sheets: The hourly raw data charts recording vital signs (HR, RR, Temp) and "mental status" notes.

Raw Laboratory Data: The original machine-generated result printouts for all bloodwork and diagnostics, not the transcribed summaries.

Contemporaneous Progress Notes: The original, unedited notes made by clinical staff at the bedside during Harry’s admission.

Audit Trails: The digital metadata for the clinical file showing when entries were made, by whom, and if any retrospective edits were performed.

To be absolutely clear, and for the avoidance of this request again being passed off with a high-level summary rather than the provision of the actual data I am requesting:

I require the granular digital metadata for the clinical file, including View Logs (who accessed the file and when), Field-Level Deltas (the "before and after" values for every modification), and precise system timestamps to verify the contemporaneity of all entries and edits.

To tell you what you already know, Ms Mullan:

A "Summary" (i.e. your provided “Clinical Summary”, is a subjective curation of facts (or claimed facts); I am demanding the facts themselves.

As you and your veterinary school personnel and your legal team would well know, the 101-page “Clinical Summary” and the “Change logs” you provided to date are secondary, processed narratives and metadata. They are not the primary clinical records.

My request specifically encompasses the missing Medication Administration Records (MAR), the original ICU Flow Sheets containing hourly vital sign data, and the raw, machine-generated laboratory printouts. The absence of these primary documents means Massey University remains in breach of its disclosure obligations.

Which is also something you are all well aware of, but obviously had hoped that I would not become aware of, I wish to express my further disgust at the Massey institution for yet again attempting to take advantage of a pet parent’s lack of specific clinical and related administrative knowledge for the obvious purposes of obscuration.

One would have thought the fact that this imbalance in the clinic/institution vs per owner relationship – having already resulted in the fraudulent diagnosis and coerced, otherwise unnecessary “euthanasia” of my dog as a cover-up for your multiple instances of malpractice – would have been enough lying and dishonesty to be recorded against you by one pet owner.

Seemingly not. My intelligence has not appreciated being insulted yet again.

Please confirm by the Close of Business tomorrow that these raw records (in their entirety) are being prepared for urgent release, in order to avoid the need for me to file a second formal complaint with the Privacy Commissioner.

Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: 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 your 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

NOTE : With regard to VCNZ CEO's February 20 undertaking that his 2IC, "Liam and his team will be in touch as soon as they can to progress your complaint". that never happened. No communication was received, except for the 11th hour (i.e. March 19 and incomplete) response to my Privacy Act information-release request, in which Shields gaslightingly directed me, in the first instance straight back to Massey (!) for the redacted names that he has been, for two months, well aware they will not disclose. He's also well aware that Massey has gone as far as having breached its legal obligations under the Official Information Act, regarding this and the other information I have asked for under the Act. He also directed me to use his website's "notification" form if I wanted to lay a complaint. A far cry from McLachlan's already minimal and very belated response and undertaking (below) - which, as you will see from the cc'd parties, he made purely for the benefit of his reputation in front of the listed government Ministers. In my opinion, the breaking of this February 20 undertaking represented the absence of any genuine intention in the first place.

From: "Iain McLachlan" <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Sent: 2/20/2026 3:20:53 AM
To: "editor@consumeraffairswriter.com" <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Cc: "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>, "Liam Shields" <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>
Subject: Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Regulatory Obstruction & Conflict of Interest (Harry Kelly Case)

Dear Jordan

I believe our emails must have crossed each other as I responded to you this afternoon. I have passed on your email
to our legal team and they will assist you with your complaint.

I can assure you that Dr Butler plays no role in the complaints process and will have no direct involvement in this
matter. All decisions in our complaints process are made by independent committees following robust conflict of
interest checks, which you will have the opportunity to comment on.

Liam and his team will be in touch as soon as they can to progress your complaint.

The following is a reminder to VCNZ CEO McLachlan of the multitude of serious, and now forensically-detailed evidence - across many my published articles for his attention:

Overview of Core Issues

1. 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 inprogress pharmacological collapse.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. 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.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent: 2/20/2026 4:54:54 PM
To: OIA@massey.ac.nz
Cc: iain@vetcouncil.org.nz, liam@vetcouncil.org.nz , e.stanford@ministers.govt.nz,
t.mcclay@ministers.govt.nz, a.hoggard@ministers.govt.nz, s.reti@ministers.govt.nz,
n.willis@ministers.govt.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:

1. 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:

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

On 25 Feb 2026, at 10:16, editor@consumeraffairswriter.com wrote:

Dear Mr McLachlan

I am formally requesting all information held by the VCNZ regarding myself and the Harry Kelly matter.

Although I have not yet submitted a formal complaint - as I am still identifying the specific clinicians involved - I am concerned by the potential for there having been pre-investigation collusion, as well as collusion once my complaint has been formally submitted to you.

A key point of interest is as follows (although my investigations and concerns are not limited to):

Given that Dr Jenny Weston holds the concurrent roles of Dean of Veterinary Education at Massey and Statutory Council Member of the VCNZ, there exists a profound structural conflict of interest.

I request all correspondence (incoming, outgoing, or sent/received by third parties/staff acting on her behalf) where Dr Weston has discussed my case, my published investigation into the matter and any aspect thereof, or the "summarisation" of Harry's records with VCNZ staff or other Council members.

This request specifically also includes all forms of informal or verbal communication, including records of the occurrence of any such communications, including but not limited to:

File notes or summaries of telephone calls, in-person briefings, SMS/text messages, WhatsApp or other instant messaging platforms, and internal MS Teams chats. (Here I am seeking the literal record of any "informal advice" or "background context" provided by Dr Weston or her delegates that sits outside formal email channels.)

I am specifically seeking to identify if Dr Weston has used her "Ex Officio" status to provide "informal context" or "background briefings" that might prejudice the regulator’s eventual receipt and handling of my formal complaint regarding:

- The 750% pharmacological overdose and unauthorised filming of Harry;
- The cessation of his treatment and fluids protocol;
- The false diagnosis and the coerced termination of Harry.

Yours Sincerely
Jordan Kelly

NOTE TO READERS :

IIIVE invites tips, insights and requests from our international readers regarding how the regulatory system is working - or not working - in your jurisdictions. Please email us through our Contact page, and take a moment to subscribe below, so that we can keep you updated with our latest investigative developments, education-related uploads and other important coverage.

iiive

WARNING TO VETS REFERRING TO NZ'S MASSEY ICU FACILITY . . . AND TO ALL PET OWNERS BEING DIRECTED TO VETERINARY TEACHING HOSPITALS BY THEIR VETS

The Multiple Hidden Liabilities in Every Massey Referral: What Vets and Pet Owners Need to Know . . . And the Points of Awareness Critical to ANY Pet Owner Being Referred to ANY Teaching Establishment

The Core Risks in Massey's Companion Animal Hospital ICU Policies & Practices

The Transfer of Legal and Insurance Liability

Bypassing the VCNZ: Direct Insurer Correspondence

Options for Owners

Conclusion: Deconstructing Traditional Trust & Naivete

AVBC, AVMA & RCVS DIRECTORS: Is It OK With You That Pet Owners Can No Longer Trust the Veterinary 'Profession'?

Bypassing Managerial Stonewalling at AVBC, AVMA & RCVS to Alert Accreditors' Directors of their Directorial Liability Obligations ﻿

MEDIA RELEASE: Massey Veterinary ICU's 'Wild West' Practices & Covert Use of Clients' Pets As Live Teaching Specimens

Entering New Zealand's Massey University Companion Animal 'Hospital' Is A High-Risk & Potentially Lethal Proposition for Your Pets . . . THINK TWICE

Broader Implications

Information Withholding & Evasion

Records Manipulation & Falsification

‘After-Care’ Atrocities

Late-Night Trolling by Anonymous Senders with Apparent Direct Access to Massey’s Clinical Records

SUMMARY OF CORE COMPONENT & KEY BACKGROUND ISSUES:

FORTHCOMING RELEASES:

IIIVE Founder Demands Direct Answers from NZ's Massey University Over Covert & Lethal 'Teaching Stock' Utilisation of Clients' Pets

The Happy Little Dog They Tortured, Overdosed and Killed. My Commitment to New Zealand's Dog Owners: The rest of my life is now dedicated to stopping this veterinary house of 'teaching' horrors doing the same to YOUR beloved pets.

CHECKMATE, Vet Council of NZ: You Can't Answer This Now Without Exposing Either Massive Operational Negligence by Massey or A Dual Cover-Up

Is VCNZ Running A Protection Racket to (a) Cover for Licensed Staff It's Mandated to Hold Accountable, or (b) Cover for A Major Veterinary 'Hospital' Operating Its ICU with NO Qualified Veterinarians on its Evening Shifts and Night Shifts, or (c) BOTH? ﻿

Is VCNZ Running A Protection Racket to (a) Cover for Licensed Staff It's Mandated to Hold Accountable, or (b) Cover for A Major Veterinary 'Hospital' Operating Its ICU with NO Qualified Veterinarians on its Evening Shifts and Night Shifts, or (c) BOTH?

Your Deliberate Omissions

Massey’s and VCNZ’s Mutual Active Evasion & Disablement of Proper Complaints Submission

The CAC Trap I Will Not Be Entering

Structural Conflicts of Interest

The VCNZ's Own Authority

A Direct Question for Your Chief Executive

My Requirement

UPDATED: Huxley’s House of Veterinary ‘Teaching’ Horrors: OIA Asks Who Authorises Massey's Lab Rat Use of Private Clients’ Pets?

Come Clean, Massey Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley:

Clients Have NO Idea You're Using Their Pets for Unethical, Unauthorised, Lethal Student Activities and Filming

UPDATED: The Conflicts-of-Interest Web Spins Wide . . . And Catches All (As Did the Trap Expressly Set for Them)

____________________________________________

UPDATED 9.6.26: The Web Spun Wide Again. And Caught All. Again.

All Three 'International Accreditors' Have Failed the Test . . And Spectacularly

'International Accreditation': Does It Represent Any Real-World, Ground-Level Currency At All?

That Core 'Ethics' Question Is This . . .

The Ultimate Assassination of the Academic Ego

Oh, and PS to Jon Huxley:

UPDATED: Calling Veterinary Council of NZ CEO Iain McLachlan: You've Been Hiding In the Shadows for Too Long. NO MORE.

The Spotlight Is Back on You, McLachlan. Where It Should Have Stayed.

Massive Legal Minefield for NZ's Massey University: Unauthorised Data Leaks & Late-Night Trolling Expose Complete Lack of Control at Companion Animal Hospital

Panicked Rearguard Action: Exposing the Toxic, Uncontrolled Culture Operating Inside Massey’s Veterinary ICU

A Little Gone-Rogue State-Within-A-State . . . In Control of YOUR Pet's Life & Outcome

The Spectacularly Stupid Poking of the Wrong Bear

More Total Ineffectiveness & Wasteful Budget Evisceration by Massey's High-Flying Legal Eagles

1. Evidence of Management’s Complete Lack of Administrative & Staff Control

2. High-Risk Exposure Under the Privacy Act

3. Contaminating An Active Government Investigation

4. Creating Massive Public Liability

Of course, there’s one other possibility:

Pet Parents' Collective Experiences Reveal Pattern of Dangerous Clinical & Cultural Failure at NZ's Massey Companion Animal 'Hospital '

As I've Warned in Previous Articles, It Didn't Start with Harry and, If Something Isn't Done About Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka 'Companion Animal Hospital', It Won't End with Him, Either. ﻿

The ICU Ward Where Empathy Goes to Die . . . and the Template Accusation

When 'Euthanasia' Is the Easy Go-To Cover-Up Strategy

'Of Course He's Been Outside to the Toilet', Students Assured the Owners of A Dog So Sedated It Couldn't Stand

When 'Urgent' Means Nothing

'Some of Our Students Don't Like Noisy Dogs'

The Ethics Committee Member Who Walked Away

'We Regret It to This Day'

The Cocked-Up Chemotherapy

The Pattern Is the Point: It Evidences A Toxic Environment. And for Your Pets . . . Literally .

This Is A CULTURE. And A Very, Very Dangerous One for Owners to Entrust Their Pets To.

But Wait. There's More.

The Sadism, the Nastiness & the Psychological Cruelty (and the Clinical Cruelty) Is Right On Brand

Fully Viable & Requiring Nothing More from Massey than the Rehydration for Which He Was Admitted: Clinical Proof Now with NZ Govt Investigators

Undoctoring Massey's Not-So-Masterful (& Substantially Fabricated) 'Clinical Summary' ﻿

Imagine If They Realised I'd Find Out: 'We Are Sorry for Your Loss.' Bullshit. You Were All Delighted & Relieved That It Went According to Plan

The 'Euthanasia' that I Later Learned Was NOT A 'Euthanasia' At All . . . But the Flawless, Final Execution of An Utterly Evil Pharmacologically-Engineered 'Strategy' by 'Dr' Steffi Jalava . . . and An Assistant . . . But WHO Was That Assistant?

The 'Euthanasia' That Went Exactly According to Plan . . . Except that It WASN'T A 'Euthanasia' (As I Later Learned). It Was the Flawless Execution of A Plan that Required the Execution of My Dog.

Unlike Your Determination that Harry Was Going To Have An Abrupt End Date, this Accountability Mission I’m on Has NO End Date . Tell Your 'Colleagues' that From Me, Will You?

Wicked. Wicked. Wicked.

A Taste of What's Coming Up . . . Sneak Previews

The Veterinary 'Teaching' 'Hospital' that Thought It Could Wait Out This Determined Pet Parent . . . And Is Learning Otherwise

A Rare Live-and-in-Real-Time Case Study In Institutional Crisis & Ethics Management Gone Utterly Pear-Shaped . . . A Learning Opportunity for International PR & Marcoms Students

She Knew EXACTLY What She Was Doing . . . And That Made It 100X More Wicked

Massey's 'Companion Animal Hospital': The Upfront Promotional Spiel vs The Backroom Reality

Bypassing Managerial Stonewalling at AVBC, AVMA & RCVS to Alert Accreditors' Directors of their Directorial Liability Obligations

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

The rest of my life is now dedicated to stopping this veterinary house of 'teaching' horrors doing the same to YOUR beloved pets.

Is VCNZ Running A Protection Racket to (a) Cover for Licensed Staff It's Mandated to Hold Accountable, or (b) Cover for A Major Veterinary 'Hospital' Operating Its ICU with NO Qualified Veterinarians on its Evening Shifts and Night Shifts, or (c) BOTH?

As I've Warned in Previous Articles, It Didn't Start with Harry and, If Something Isn't Done About Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka 'Companion Animal Hospital', It Won't End with Him, Either.

Undoctoring Massey's Not-So-Masterful (& Substantially Fabricated) 'Clinical Summary'

Compassion vs Cruelty . . . Spot the Difference

Off-the-Charts Evil:
New Zealand's Veterinary House of Horrors . . A Pet Parent's Victim Impact Statement