iiive

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.

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

(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.

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

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 07:01:24 GMT

IIIVE’s Conclusion : Unsupervised. Unaccountable. Committing Unspeakable Cruelties. And Still Accredited.

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.

______________________________________________________________

If what I am about to reveal in this – the latest and most damning of all my coverage and revelations regarding the torture, repeated catastrophic overdosing (to levels equating to severe poisoning), conversion for use in live experimentation and filming, and subsequent misrepresentation to me with a false diagnosis to facilitate coerced lethal injection permission – does not result in the immediate withdrawal by the three international agencies providing New Zealand's Massey University’s veterinary facility accreditation . . . then the CEOs and boards of those agencies need to understand that knowingly maintaining accreditation in the face of documented, serious and notified breaches exposes each of them to personal liability for their own breaches of fiduciary duty.

Before I lay out my latest findings and Massey University’s latest serious misconduct and illegal actions, I want to make very clear who those heads of the three accrediting agencies are – because at this point, this matter goes far beyond the severe animal cruelty, multiple and serious breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians (issued by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand under the Veterinarians Act 2005) – and well into criminal territory. And to a degree that should concern any enterprise hiring a graduate of Massey’s veterinary “teaching” facility.

Those accrediting agencies are the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), the American Veterinary Medical Association's Council on Education (AVMA COE), and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) in the UK.

The AVBC’s Chief Executive Officer Kate Simkovic finally, after two months of ignored correspondence, sent an email only after I had cc’d her on all my Formal Notifications of March 6 to the collection of South East Asian stakeholder universities and institutions importing Massey veterinarian program graduates (with what I firmly believe was her bogus claim that she had intended to acknowledge my correspondence two months previously but someone forgot to hit Send).

Simkovic's March 12 reply was, in effect, a complete and disingenuous dismissal of all the findings I put to her . . . and it should be noted that, in fact, said “reply” came from an unnamed administration staffer (so that, when I published it, it wouldn’t come up in an internet search showing her name). It ended with the equivalent of "no further correspondence will be entered into".

The AVMA’s Council on Education (COE) replied via Dr Samantha Morello, its Associate Director, Education & Research . However, the actual CEO (and its Executive Vice President) is a Dr Janet Donlin and its President is a Dr Michael Q. Bailey.

Morello (like her Australasian colleague, Simkovic) ignored all cc'd notifications and finally, on March 7, sent a smart-ass 93-word dismissal of my multiple items of cross-referenced breaches and detailed evidence thereof.

She said my citings didn’t “align specifically” with the AVMA's 'Accreditation Policies and Procedures' manual. She sent me a link to this 207-page document, which I duly read and, also on March 7, replied to with an even more greatly detailed, 4000-word itemisation and commentary, "specifically aligning" for her, Massey’s now many more breaches, and counting.

Readers interested in this correspondence "exchange" can view it at the Harry Kelly case study page .

To be noted, the AVMA's 'Accreditation Policies and Procedures' manual states that Massey’s - as an accredited university's - annual fees paid to the AVMA for its accreditation and its financial hosting of AVMA staff, must be kept up to date at all times. It does not, however, disclose any specific amounts.

The RCVS has sent two skeletal acknowledgements of my correspondence through a departmental executive assistant. I was grateful for the additional response of, Ky Richardson, a senior solicitor within its Standards and Advice Team - Professional Conduct, who - among other insights - advised that " Chapter 11" should be referred to in the event of a veterinary surgeon "pressuring (a client) to make a particular decision i.e. a potential issue relating to informed consent."

"This Chapter," states the RCVS Code of Conduct, "is critical for ensuring legal compliance and building trust between veterinary professionals and clients."

To be clear, I cite these accrediting bodies upfront in this new series of revelations, because:

(a) Massey and its external legal counsel have shown themselves to have zero respect not only for the most fundamental of basic veterinary codes of conduct clauses or any aspect of veterinary ethics, but also

(b) Massey's "leadership" and veterinary personnel at all levels continue to demonstrate complete contempt for core New Zealand laws . . . from laws concerning the falsification of clinical records and associated fraudulent conduct, to the country’s hallowed Official Information Act 1982 requirements that every citizen believes they can count on. Apparently errantly, as they relate to Massey University.

Official Information Act 1982 :
Cornerstone of NZ’s Constitutional Framework for Public Sector Accountability . . . But Not for Massey

New Zealand's Official Information Act 1982 – known widely by almost every New Zealand citizen and referred to as the “OIA” – is a cornerstone of this country's constitutional framework.

Its guiding principle is immutable and understood by almost every New Zealand adult and certainly by every public servant / civil service employee:

Official information held by public bodies, including universities , must be made available unless there is (very) good reason to withhold it and in which case that reason must be clearly stated. Requests must be answered as soon as reasonably practicable and by no later than the 20th working day following the organisation receiving the requester’s correspondence. If an agency cannot meet that deadline (and it must have a legitimate reason for not being able to do so), it must notify the requester of the necessary period of extension within that same 20-working-day period.

The literally thousands of readers now following the atrocity that is “ The Killing of Harry Kelly ” case, and who have read my March 10 upload, WAITING, MASSEY: Are You Going to Comply with Your Legally Required Information-Release Obligations?, will have noted that Massey finally acknowledged my February 20 OIA on March 5 (that delay of acknowledgement being contemptuous in its own right in terms of normal expectations), and undertook to have the itemised information to me by the legally-required deadline of March 13.

But March 13 came and went. No response. No extension request. No partial release. No acknowledgement of any kind.

Thus, and to be very clear, Massey’s leadership, management, and Legal and Governance personnel have just committed a serious breach of the fundamental foundations of this country’s legal framework.

They haven’t done it unknowingly, either – and, considering also the new relevations I bring to you today in this update – I will lay out the only conclusion I or any other intelligent follower of this matter can realistically, even conservatively, arrive at.

That conclusion is this:

The various elements of information I have sought through the Official Information Act are so utterly damning, that Massey’s external legal advisors – as far as can be ascertained,such being high-profile New Zealand law firm, Buddle Findlay – have advised Massey “leadership” that, notwithstanding the apparent collusive posture of the three accrediting bodies, my publication of that information would be so explosive that the consequences would be publicly and legally catastrophic for Massey.

Every Client of Massey’s ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Will Want to Re-think Their Vets’ Referrals . . . with Urgency

And they certainly would be . . . based just on what I can, in today’s update, reveal to readers even without what Massey continues to withhold.

What I am about to reveal should be shocking to every current client of Massey’s “Companion Animal Hospital” , to every client whose pet any veterinarian might refer to Massey, to any referring vet or vet practice who can lay honest claim (which might actually not be many) to being unaware of what has been going on at Massey, to any accrediting body that was acting in genuine accordance with its mandate to apply its accreditation standards (which, as you’ve read has been demonstrated not to be the case), and to any importer of veterinary “training” services and/or veterinary program graduates into their own countries.

Above all, it should alarm this country’s own regulatory and disciplinary authority, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ). But it not only doesn’t alarm the VCNZ; the two bodies are essentially one and the same structure, in terms of the receiving and investigation of any complaint about Massey or Massey-related veterinarians — given that Massey is the only veterinary school in New Zealand and the sole domestic pipeline for the profession.

Not Just ‘Conflicts of Interest’ . . . Full. Agency. Capture.

In a classic illustration of "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" ', the Academic Program Director of Massey's undergraduate veterinary program, Dr Jenny Weston, is one of the seven members of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand itself - the governing body that receives and adjudicates all complaints about Massey's veterinary program. (She also co-authors papers with VCNZ CEO, Iain McLachlan.)

That goes way beyond a conflict of interest.

That’s full-scale, industrial-strength, structural, agency, and regulatory capture.

Even without this “one and the same” day-to-day interconnectivity, it would be an extraordinarily naïve individual who would believe that the VCNZ isn’t already in possession of the full knowledge of what has been going on at Massey’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka “Companion Animal Hospital”.

The VCNZ's CEO McLachlan has not only been in receipt of all my communications both to him and to Massey for the past three months, but so also has the second point of direct conflict of interest between his organisation and Massey . . . because, for most of that duration and unbeknownst to me, I was openly cc'ing my communications to McLachlan to the second direct point of conflicted interest i.e. Dr Seton Butler. Wait for it . . . Butler is on both the VCNZ payroll as its Professional Advisor on policy and standards, and on the Massey payroll - albeit whether it's a current or an immediate past appointment is unclear - as an Adjunct Lecturer at the School of Veterinary Science. Butler holds a BVSc from Massey University.

For perpetuating that active conflict by allowing me to keep cc’ing Butler without disclosing his conflicted position, and for his direct avoidance of any facilitation of my ability to put a complaint to the VCNZ , McLachlan (being a registered lawyer) now has an active complaint in motion against him with the New Zealand Law Society.

And the regulatory capture doesn't stop with the Massey / VCNZ incest, either.

The VCNZ itself is a member of the AVBC - the Australasian body that accredits Massey's veterinary program. The current Chair of the VCNZ, Dr Kylie Lawson, is herself a Massey University graduate.

The body that accredits Massey. With the regulator that polices Massey sitting inside it. And the regulator's own Chair a product of the institution both bodies are supposed to hold to account.

BEYOND DAMNING

Now to exactly why Buddle Findlay has advised Massey’s “leadership” – Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, “Dean” of the Veterinary “School” Jon Huxley, and “Dean” of Veterinary “Education”, Jenny Weston – to take the lesser evil of breaching New Zealand’s Official Information Act as opposed to responding to my OIA with the required information.

First, foremost and most damning of all, if the required information were released is this:

Given that the “clinical records” I have thus far managed to extract from Massey’s clutches have had every single name struck through with large black boxes to hide the names and position titles of all personnel, I asked for 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.

This included “ all staff, contractors, visiting specialists, locums, or other persons engaged by or associated with Massey University in any capacity”.

I included the note that, additional to their Official Information Act obligations, “Principle 11(e) of the Privacy Act 2020 allows this disclosure, in order to uphold a statutory regulatory process.

I pointed out what they well knew because they planned it that way: “Massey's current redaction is being utilised to subvert my right to file a VCNZ complaint.”

I also advised Massey, “that a Senior Standards and Advice Officer and Solicitor at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) – an organisation providing accreditation to Massey University – has confirmed in writing that, in the RCVS jurisdiction, veterinary surgeons are expected to provide their name to clients so as not to prevent them from raising a conduct concern , and that this obligation applies regardless of whether the individual is employed by a university or a private practice. Thus, Massey's blanket redaction of all clinician identities is entirely inconsistent with the international professional standard applicable to its own registered staff.”

The REAL Reasons for the Non-Disclosure of Who ‘Treated’ Harry

And now to the actual reason for the Massey Legal and Governance department’s redactions:

I had until now, assumed that Massey’s primary reason for the refusal to follow all professional veterinary norms (which dictate that any paying client and pet owner should, at all times, have full knowledge of the name, position and overall identity of those veterinarians and staff who treat or who have treated their pet) was to prevent the lodging of a complaint against any of them with the Veterinary Council.

However, given my subsequent realisation that the VCNZ was, in its own right, either going to prevent that happening or almost certainly, if it “accepted” any complaint – with the senior-most levels of VCNZ and Massey’s veterinary establishment being essentially one and the same organisation – was going to ensure that that complaint returned a “nothing to see here” outcome . . . the continued refusal to disclose the identities of the relevant staff required further investigation.

And here is exactly what my deeper investigation turned up:

It now appears that Rigg was actually a "rotating intern", and certainly one who was acting without the mandatory qualified supervision at any time when she "treated" Harry.

Or if , in fact, "Dr" Stephanie Rigg was acting under "qualified" supervision when she overdosed Harry, when she organised for his conversion from patient to university "teaching" aid resource, when she organised for “her neurologist” (as she referred to her) to collude in the intentional misdiagnosis of Harry as having suffered a sudden “neurological” event or decline and requiring urgent “euthanasia”, and during her subsequent intensive two-hour, unaccompanied, lone and self-directed coercion of me to get me to sign the termination authority form . . . the criminality of that "supervision" needs to be investigated along with her own.

Two obvious starting points would be the Practice "Manager", Pauline Nijman , and the two relevant "Deans" i.e. of the Veterinary "School", Jon Huxley (read about Huxley here and here ), and of Veterinary "Teaching", Jenny Weston (God help the pets she utilises to "teach', which included my Harry ).

At all times, including the instance of a previous consultation quite some months and possibly a year or more earlier, Rigg had presented herself to me as “the ICU day vet”. As in, a fully qualified - and even, by way of her self-description, a senior - vet. She is, however. listed on Massey’s website, “Stephanie Rigg – Companion Animal Rotating Intern” – albeit, upon clicking on the listing, her profile has now been removed from the site.

Rigg, in this junior "rotating intern" capacity , operated without any supervision whatsoever, including being totally alone with me during her protracted, heavy-handed "euthanasia" coercion based on her bogus "neurological" diagnosis.

She was the primary – or only – staff member whose account appears in Massey’s “Clinical Summary" and clearly takes the credit, alone, for her “advice” to me i.e. encouraging the immediate “euthanasia” of Harry, stating – in her own conceited and self-superior words, as indeed she had done verbally during her intensive, unsupervised coercion of me, that “I can’t fix him.” (To be noted, she had been the one to endeavour to ensure that he indeed needed some form of “fixing” and also to ensure that I would, to the greatest degree to which she could deceive me, consider him “unfixable”. This, she knew, was essential for her to get me to submit to her intense pressure to sign “euthanasia” forms. That is, to remove Harry's presence as evidence of what had been done to him by the night shift ICU attendants and then intentionally perpetuated – along with his conversion as a live experimentation and filming subject for “teaching” staff and students – by herself, Rigg.)

Will Rigg Go On to Kill Outside of Massey? Auckland Now, According to the VCNZ Directory.
But Is that Organisation's Directory No More Reliable than Its 'Complaints' Process?

Rigg's VCNZ registration states Auckland - although whether she has in fact left Massey or not, or just failed to update earlier location details, or has updated them in a way that reveals nothing more than "Auckland" . . . is for Massey to know, and like everything else, for me to have to find out.

If indeed she has left the death cult and all-round horror show that spawned her, I wonder if the pet owners of whatever constitutes her new employer's client base are aware of her "training" and her resultant demonstrated modus operandi.

It's a worry . . . if this lethally dangerous individual is not under any form of supervision in a new and unsuspecting work environment and, unbeknownst to that new employer, she imports the Massey ICU culture into it.

Frankly, according to my - and Harry's - experience, " Dr" Stephanie Rigg shouldn't be anywhere near animals .

But, regardless of her actual whereabouts, Massey's catalogue of the unsupervised - or unqualified - doesn't end with her.

According to the geographic listings of veterinarians on the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s online directory – the (very) young intaking vet also named “Stephanie" according to information given to me by a fellow Massey client.– has no qualifications . . . or certainly no-one readily identifiable as her appears in the VCNZ directory.

Yet young “Stephanie” gave me her distinct and absolute assurance that she was a fully qualified veterinarian. NB: I am, and have always been, extraordinarily closely bonded with and protective of Harry and there is simply no way I would have left Harry in her “care” had I been truthfully advised that she was not a graduated vet. She appeared not only inexperienced but also well out of her depth, and certainly appeared to have no authority over, and in fact to be intimidated by, the openly negligent two female ICU attendants .

Leaving Harry there that night, as he stood up on his little hind legs, crying, and with his paws outstretched to me through the cage, with the two attendants blatantly ignoring him . . . was the second worse decision of my life. The one that takes first place is falling for Rigg’s subsequent bogus “neurological event/decline” diagnosis and being bullied into signing to end my precious little boy’s life. Yes, they and she had indeed engineered him into a horrendous state . . . but as I’ve pointed out in previous articles, such was his determination to reach me through what I w ished I’d known then was actually his heavy sedation , that I fully believe our bond and a competent veterinary practice would have been able to pull him through.

As I work my way further through the items of Massey’s OIA breach and withheld information, readers will come to what appears to be the only obvious conclusion, which is that:

According to my now-repeated experiences, Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital appears to be staffed either exclusively or primarily by inexperienced and/or unsupervised juniors and students, who are left to run the facility as they please, to administer drugs in accordance with their own desires and purposes, to convert private clients' pets to University "teaching" resources, and to make life or death decisions for, those private fee-paying clients’ pets.

ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly

I also sought “the release in full of all video footage taken of Harry Kelly during his admission to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital ICU on November 30 and December 1, 2025 – and also any taken after his death.

I reminded Massey’s Legal and Governance department and Buddle Findlay that “this request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and I note that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has specifically and proactively advised me that this material is releasable under the Official Information Act and has recommended that I request it accordingly.

“Massey's previous refusal to release the footage in full – including the offer of still-frame extracts in substitution for the actual footage, and the requirement that I attend the premises to view footage rather than receive it electronically - is not considered adequate compliance with my request and is not accepted.”

I’ll take this opportunity to remind readers of the twisted and intense cruelty – and the volumes it speaks of Massey University’s culture – that saw staff mock me in my trauma and my grief by sending me those stills in the same circular format that I had used, for the information of my readers, in my display of Harry’s (unbeknownst to me at the time) drugged state while being abused and filmed by students.

To be clear, these twisted individuals - assumedly under some degree of direction from the Companion Animal "Hospital's" Practice Manager, Pauline Nijman (who shall we just say, never "appreciated my standards" ), put Harry's poor, dear, contorted little face or body from their "still" shots inside small circles in outright mockery both of me and of him.

For the record, I do indeed utterly dread seeing the full and protracted horrors to which the staff and students subjected my beloved, drugged, and poor little blind Harry( SEE THEiR “SANITISED” STILLS HERE ..)

Unspeakable cruelties – most especially for a blind animal – that included, by way of example, precariously holding him high up to the ceiling with one hand, digging fingernails into his scalp to pull his eyes open while a camera was aimed at close range into them, forcing him to stumble around in drugged circles for the camera, and filming him from above while he appeared to be propped up vertically but collapsing from the torso over backwards or sideways. You can get a feel for the subjected him to here , here and here .

But put myself through it I must. Harry was my dog (not that Rigg or Massey's "teaching" staff saw it that way), my precious little blind boy and the equivalent of no less than a child to me , and if he went through it physically and emotionally, then it is incumbent upon me to put myself through at least the emotional equivalent of what was done to him – as unspeakable, as inconceivable, and as fully evil as it all was.

And as traumatised as I have already been by these subhumans .

Instructional Content Authorisation

I also sought “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, or department of Massey University and/or its Companion Animal Hospital during the period of Harry Kelly's admission, (expanded from original request) and including while his body was in Massey’s possession.”

My purpose in requiring this was to determine whether any ethics committee approval or funding agreement existed that authorised his use as such – noting that:

(a) my own permission would also have been required (without which Massey staff were committing conversion of property under New Zealand common law, breaching their duty of care under Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and acting in fundamental breach of their contractual obligations to me as a fee-paying client ,

(b) repeatedly overdosing him with a contraindicated sedation cocktail for the purpose would certainly not have met any ethics standards if I had (as clearly I would NOT have) given any such authority, and

(c) disconnecting him from his hydrating IV line, by-then, his only hope of evacuating the accumulated Gabapentin poisoning from his kidneys, would certainly not have met any veterinary or ethics standards in any developed country anywhere.

Again, if instructional content was produced using Harry without my consent, that constitutes a serious breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, and of the fundamental obligations of informed consent owed to any client of a veterinary facility.

And if no ethics approval existed for the use of a private fee-paying patient as a teaching subject, the absence of that approval is itself a matter for prosecution and legal action.

In either instance, Massey's abhorrent, "law unto themselves" actions constituted serious illegalities. Illegalities, and associated animal cruelty, that does not belong in any "veterinary teaching hospital" anywhere.

Missing IDEXX Vital Signs Monitoring Records Post-Overdosing & During and After Filming Utilisation of My Pet

I also drew the attention of Massey Legal and Governance’s Frances Mullan, Rachel Fergusson and Jodie Banner to their critical omission from my earlier Privacy Act request:

“In response to my request for Harry Kelly's full clinical records, I received machine-generated IDEXX diagnostic monitoring data and automated vital signs logs for November 30, 2025 – that is, ONLY November 30.”

Thus, I reiterated, I require “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.”

I duly pointed out what they would themselves be uncomfortably aware of: that “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 records active patient monitoring during this period.

“The significance of this data omission, and the contrast between the November 30 data provided and the December 1 data withheld, is documented in detail at: https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/smoking-gun-finding-harry-was-a-marked-dog.

“ No equivalent data was provided for December 1, 2025 - the most critical period of Harry's admission, during which he is documented in Massey's own Clinical Summary as ‘obtunded’, ‘limp’, and (apparently) in a worsening ‘neurological’ state (he was, of course, actually massively over-sedated).”

Controlled Drugs Register

Directly related to all of the above, I required Massey to provide – as is my right – “all entries in the Controlled Drugs Register maintained by Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital 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.”

Among the reasons, is that I do not for one moment, believe that Massey’s “Clinical Summary” is a complete record of all the drugs – and/or the number of times these were – forced into Harry.

Because Massey would not release six of the eight videos its students took of him (and I believe there were likely far more, given especially that these were apparently taken on cell phones), Massey sought to “satisfy” my legal request with their own selected “still” shot from each video. One, with a 10.41am timestamp, shows him being forced by staff to stumble around, heavily sedated, in circles, for their entertainment.

The point being, that while he was stumbling and clearly subjected to cruelty by the students and teachers involved, he was still – at that point in time – able to stand upright . . . albeit just . (PS to Readers: When contemplating the immense cruelty of being forced to do that in his heavily and grossly over-sedated state, consider also that Harry was blind, that he would have been stressed beyond measure being separated from me, and that he was in a completely foreign and terrifying environment).

The “Clinical Summary” states that the final administration of the contraindicated Gabapentin overdose was at 9am. Yet, when I arrived at approximately 3.30pm and he was handed over to me at around 4pm (amidst Rigg’s intense coercion to sign “euthanasia” forms i.e. she warmed me up with the "neurological" fairy tale first), he was alternating between almost coma-like limpness and unable to hold his upper body upright , with sudden bursts of vertical motion to reach my face to kiss me, and also to recoil in fear from Rigg and the sound of her voice.

I am in little to no doubt that Harry was administered even further, undocumented doses – each one a massive overdose in its own right, as each of the previous administrations had been – to ensure he appeared as suddenly and severely “neurologically declined” and unrecoverable as possible, when I arrived at the facility.

While Massey management and staff, and assumedly therefore also students, have demonstrated that the falsification of records is standard practice at this Companion Animal “Hospital”, I nonetheless still sought – and still seek (as I do all the information requirements listed herein) – the Controlled Drug Register, nonetheless.

Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail / Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)

I also sought “ the unredacted Field-Level Audit Log (Patient Change 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 Massey's response to this request. This request specifically includes but is not limited to the metadata audit trail of the clinical records management system used by the Companion Animal Hospital.”

As those following this horror story will be well aware, I have filed a detailed police report against Massey management and staff related to the following Crimes Act 1961 Sections i.e. Section 258 (Altering a document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) - attracting jail time of up to 10 years.

There is no need to elaborate on why Buddle Findlay would have advised against the disclosure of the names of these staff.

Pet Farewells Communications

Next, “as per previous requests: all communications (written, verbal, electronic, through systems or manually prompted) with Pet Farewells regarding Harry Kelly and Jordan Kelly. Specifically, not a general commentary.”

Harry was killed (followers of this series will understand perfectly why “euthanased” is not an accurate term and why I refuse to use it) by Massey on December 1. As of March 15 – i.e. the publication of this article – I am still trying to ascertain exactly what happened to Harry’s remains and his ashes.

(NB: I cannot tell you how intensely it PISSES ME OFF BEYOND ALL MEASURE to be referring to “Harry’s remains” and “Harry’s ashes”, when HARRY SHOULD STILL BE VERY MUCH ALIVE AND IN HIS BED BESIDE MY DESK AS I TYPE THIS, WERE IT NOT FOR “DR DEATH” STEPHANIE RIGG and whatever she had against him . . . albeit it's no secret what her Practice Manager had against me . The Practice Manager, that is, who had a responsibility to ensure that junior "rotating interns" operate with some degree of actual SUPERVISION. No, Pauline Nijman? Not even when they're coercing "euthanasia"? Not even when it's to cover up their overdosing, abuses, and conversion to "teaching" utility, of the owner's pet?)

Post-Mortem Activity

I further sought, “ as per previous requests: disclosure of whether or not an unauthorised post-mortem (cosmetic or full) was performed on Harry Kelly."

In my fully unsuccessful communications with the utterly despicable pet cremation company that Massey recommended, “Pet Farewells” of Wellington and Hamilton i.e. in trying to determine what really happened to his ashes – given that someone told someone that I “didn’t want Harry back” - I was told (although it was later declared to be a slip of the tongue that I should disregard having heard) that Harry had been “picked up with all the other post-mortems”.

I have been supplied with a photo of what I’m told is Harry’s body wrapped inside the blanket I myself wrapped him in when I finally allowed “Dr Death” Rigg to take him from me on that fateful day . . . and it shows the blanket, assumedly with his precious little body in it, in the back of what I can only describe as a “yuck truck”.

There are buckets in the back of said yuck truck containing bags of what, to me, look like probable dissected bodies or body parts.

This is the final insult Massey, Rigg and staff delivered to me and to Harry, after everything else they had done both to me and to him. To say nothing of the tens of thousands of dollars I have channeled into their coffers, including related to Harry’s also beloved predecessor – who, it should be noted, didn’t make it out of there alive, either.

Conflicts of Interest & Expenditure on Buddle Findlay

I also required copies of all communications in any form between the at least two identified points of direct conflict between Massey’s leadership and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand i.e. the VCNZ’s Professional Advisor (on "policy and standards", if you please) Dr Seton Butler, who is also Adjunct Lecturer at Massey University’s School of Veterinary Science (and holds a BVSc from Massey) . . . and Dr Jenny Weston, VCNZ Council member and the Academic Program Director of Massey University’s undergraduate veterinary program.

I further required the expenditure to date that Massey has shoveled into the no-doubt rapidly expanding coffers of Buddle Findlay . . . who would appear – according to the analytics tracking of The Customer & The Constituent – to have multiple personnel monitoring the site daily for new uploads.

NEXT ACTIONS:

Formal notification of these latest findings and developments will be additionally sent to the three accrediting agencies – the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) and their respective leaderships. This latest notification will add to the list of their own Standards that I have previously advised each accrediting body Massey is in direct and severe breach of.

I will also send warnings to those universities in other countries who are directly associated with Massey and also to the government bodies in the South East Asian jurisdictions which rely primarily on Massey-trained graduates to staff the veterinary clinics of their own countries.

Of concern to the pet owners of New Zealand specifically, I will send urgent notices to the veterinary clinics of this country. This correspondence and all that sent to international parties will be published on the Harry Kelly Case Study page of IIIVE.

That is, the notices will, right here on IIIIVE , be permanently and readily accessible to the legal counsel of any pet owner whose pet has been harmed or killed either by Massey University's veterinary "hospital" directly following a referral by that veterinary clinic or by any Massey graduate in their employ.

Finally, I will alert each of the authorities currently involved in this matter.

Within the domestic i.e. New Zealand jurisdiction, these include but are unlikely to remain limited to:

Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Inspectorate.

New Zealand Police.

Public Service Commission.

Commerce Commission.

Law Society (with regard to the conduct of the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Council, Iain McLachlan).

Australasian Vet Education Accreditor Says It’s Improving Its Standards . . . It’s NOT

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 03:57:14 GMT

'Advancing Education by Ensuring Standards'. Yeah, right :

Will Kate Simkovic, AVBC CEO, Put Her Money Where Her Mouth Is?

The Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) held a Special General Meeting in Melbourne last December, unanimously voting to restructure itself as a company limited by guarantee.

This move, according to the AVBC’s media statement, marked “a significant milestone in the organisation’s evolution as the peak body for veterinary education standards across Australia and New Zealand”.

The decision to “transfer AVBC’s incorporation from an incorporated association to a company limited by guarantee under Commonwealth legislation . . . reflects a strategic alignment with contemporary governance expectations for national organisations operating across multiple jurisdictions” , the media statement went on to say.

Referring to the move as a “strategic evolution”, it continued on: “The new corporate structure will enable AVBC to apply for registration as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) under the charitable purpose of advancing education. This designation recognises AVBC’s fundamental role in safeguarding the quality and consistency of veterinary education in the public interest .”

The words chosen by AVBC’s Chief Executive, Kate Simkovic, to elaborate on that decision and the reason for it, are worth examining carefully (because IIIVE has a problem with the gap between Ms Simkovic’s terminology and the reality our Institute has uncovered inside at least one of the institutions AVBC has issued accreditation to i.e. Massey University. Keep reading):

"This decision reflects the collective commitment of (AVBC) members to strong, contemporary governance that supports AVBC's critical role in safeguarding veterinary education standards. Transitioning to a company limited by guarantee positions the organisation for long-term sustainability, enhances regulatory credibility, and enables us to operate with greater clarity and accountability in the public interest."

“Regulatory credibility.” “Clarity.” “Accountability.” “The public interest.”

These are not small words. They are words that carry weight – or that ought to. Hold on to them. They are precisely the words that make what follows so important.

Continuing on with the media statement:

“The revised Constitution clarifies AVBC’s principal purpose as advancing education by ensuring and maintaining the standards, curriculum, training, and assessment of veterinary education . This articulation directly supports the organisation’s charitable objectives and reflects its long-standing quality assurance role .”

Yet Here Are the Standards the AVBC Is Currently Accrediting . . . And Is It Aware?

A resounding YES . . . the AVBC is aware.

For over a month, IIIVE Executive Director, Jordan Kelly, has been regularly reporting on the latest – and increasingly disturbing – findings of Massey’s conduct in the case of Harry Kelly .

Ms Simkovic has neglected to acknowledge any of these communications.

On Friday, March 6, 2026, IIIVE sent the formal notification to Kate Simkovic personally at ceo@avbc.asn.au , that you can read under the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council tab in the Correspondence section of the Harry Kelly Case page .

We also sent formal notice of what has gone on at the Massey veterinary facility to other international accreditors and to key stakeholders in Asian geographies as they relate to the impacts upon them of continuing to import Massey graduates trained in, to put it euphemistically, “questionable” practices. We cc’d Simkovic on each of these emails. She has acknowledged none of them.

The substance of that notification includes documented evidence that Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital repeatedly administered catastrophic overdoses of a sedative, purely for the convenience of staff , of Gabapentin, potentiated with a further drug , to Harry Kelly – being not only unnecessary but also specifically contraindicated for his documented condition – that his IV line was (permanently) disconnected for unauthorised student experiments and observation in his distress and state of pharmacological collapse , that his veterinary records were falsified to disguise all these facts, and that his owner, Jordan Kelly (before resultantly becoming the Executive Director of IIIVE), was subjected to a coerced “euthanasia” on the basis of a false “neurological event” diagnosis i.e. with the fact of any sedation never having been disclosed i.e. as the true reason for Harry’s state on that day. Harry Kelly indeed died that day , with his owner left to her own devices to subsequently uncover the truth, and the completely unnecessary nature of her pet’s death.

The named veterinarian responsible for Harry's care and for conducting that termination is Dr Stephanie Rigg . Others were also involved, and at this time, Massey has redacted all their names from the limited veterinary records it has released.

Massey’s overly liberal redactions constitute a breach of both the New Zealand Privacy Act, and also of international veterinary medical records standards – a position confirmed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK), which has stated that there should be no basis for a clinic to redact the names of a patient's treating clinicians from their medical records.

A formal complaint is before the New Zealand Police related to the falsification of records , which constitutes a criminal act under New Zealand’s Crimes Act 1961.

The New Zealand Law Society has accepted a formal complaint against the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's Chief Executive, Iain McLachlan , which has been referred to the Standards Committee – a process the Law Society advises may take many months.

And New Zealand’s Ministry of Primary Industries’ National Animal Welfare Inspectorate has confirmed an impending investigation of animal welfare standards and related conduct at Massey’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital aka “Companion Animal Hospital”.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) (RCVS) and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) have all been formally notified. So have veterinary regulatory authorities in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. The correspondence with these organisations – demonstrating their concern or absence thereof – can be found at the Harry Kelly Case page .

What Accreditation Is Supposed to Mean

AVBC's own program accreditation documentation states that its standards place great emphasis on the attributes of veterinary graduates and how veterinary schools develop and deliver the veterinary curriculum to ensure graduates have developed those attributes.

The standards are reviewed annually. Site visits occur at least every seven years. Annual reports are required in the intervening years.

What the standards are supposed to guarantee – what accreditation is supposed to mean – is that an institution is producing graduates who meet the ethical and clinical benchmarks required to practice safely. That the institution itself upholds those benchmarks internally. That when something goes wrong, there are accountability mechanisms that function .

At Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital, those mechanisms did not function. An animal in acute distress, caused by intentional staff actions, was filmed repeatedly. His records were falsified. His owner's informed consent was compromised. A coerced termination was conducted. And the university management's response - on the public record - has not only been denial but the issuing of legal threats to gag the owner from disclosing the matter .

Moreover – and as if the case in its own right were not sufficiently horrific – the component issues the case has brought to light indicate that the compromised ethics and practices that allowed it to occur at all – are systemic and that students are being trained in precisely these “ethics” and “practices” . . . and will be importing them into veterinary clinics both around New Zealand and around the world, upon their graduation from this compromised training ground.

The Questions Before Ms Simkovic

Kate Simkovic has now committed her organisation – in her own words, in her own issued press releases, in her own revised constitution – to “advancing education by ensuring standards”, to “operating with greater clarity and accountability in the public interest”, and to “enhancing the AVBC's regulatory credibility”.

Those are commitments, not aspirations. They have a specific meaning in the context of what has been reported to her.

IIIVE is now asking these straightforward questions . . . and we’d appreciate equally straightforward answers (to date, we’ve had none at all):

· Will AVBC CEO Kate Simkovic put her money where her mouth is?

· Will the AVBC act on the information it has received?

· Will it initiate a formal inquiry into whether Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital continues to meet AVBC accreditation standards? (Clearly it does not .)

· Will her accrediting organisation address the structural conflict of interest created by the also-compromised VCNZ's membership of the very body charged with providing independent oversight of Massey?

Or will the language of accountability remain exactly that – language?

We will be watching. And we will be reporting whatever answer comes – including the answer of silence.

But Wait There’s More : ‘Separation Between Governance and Management Functions’

The AVBC media statement claims that the accreditor has “a Board appointed by Members to provide strategic oversight and maintain appropriate separation between governance and management functions”.

The IIIVE begs to differ on this key point. Substantially.

To be clear: The Australasian Veterinary Boards Council is the peak body responsible for veterinary education standards and accreditation across Australia and New Zealand. Its membership comprises the veterinary statutory authorities of every Australian state and territory – plus, critically, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ).

That is, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) is one of AVBC's constituent members . It sits inside the Council of Members. It participates in AVBC governance.

Apart from the obvious baked-in conflict of interest, there’s the not insignificant current matter that the VCNZ has, in the view of IIIVE and a growing body of evidence, failed comprehensively in its oversight of Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital.

The VCNZ’s CEO, Iain McLachlan, is currently the subject of a formal complaint to the New Zealand Law Society relating both to that failure and to the intersection of it with the fact of multiple points of conflicts-of-interest between the VCNZ and Massey . . . and McLachlan’s apparent habit of not being overly upfront about these.

It’s very much worth noting, therefore, that when the AVBC conducts accreditation oversight of Massey University, VCNZ is simultaneously a member of that oversight body and the domestic regulator responsible for veterinary professional standards at Massey.

These roles cannot be cleanly separated. At all.

Yet, legally, ethically, and realistically – even without the current compromises evidenced both at the VCNZ and Massey – a body cannot conduct any genuinely independent accreditation review of an institution when its own member organisation is the compromised domestic regulator of that same institution.

Ms Simkovic said the restructure would enable the AVBC to operate with "greater clarity and accountability in the public interest."

We are watching to see whether that clarity extends to confronting this structural problem directly.

IIIVE — the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics — was founded following the horrifying death of Harry Kelly at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025. IIIVE's formal documentation of the Harry Kelly case , and the full record of correspondence with accrediting organisations, can be found here .

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

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 06:33:42 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.

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

Each year, Massey University and its veterinary faculty draws – through the students it pulls in from countries all around the world and most especially from its increasingly pivotal Asian and Southeast Asian marketplaces – large (almost bottomless) buckets of funding from government scholarship and student loan agencies.

Some of these are short on veterinarians and have almost no other option but to staff their countries’ veterinary clinics with Massey graduates. It’s a lucrative scenario indeed for Massey and its management (whose immediate past Vice-Chancellor, Jan Thomas, was in 2021/22 reported as earning a healthy annual salary of NZD 586,000).

But do these geographically removed recipients of Massey’s supposedly gold standard educational standards know what they’re really getting when they hire a Massey vet school grad?

Do they know of the sort of practices that apparently form acceptable operating principles within the walls of its Veterinary Teaching “Hospital” aka “Companion Animal Hospital”?

Do they know, for example, that the “school” is about to be investigated by the Animal Welfare Inspectorate of New Zealand’s Ministry of Primary Industries at the instruction of the Ministry’s Director General?

That’s no mean feat. With universities historically treated as the quintessential “law unto themselves” in New Zealand public service culture, readers might want to consider just how bad things have to be before a Ministry will actually break the unspoken “hands-off code” and step in to find out what the hell is going on with the way Massey treats its private fee-paying clients’ pets.

(For the record, the Inspectorate’s Team Manager – Compliance Analysis and Co-ordination Animal Welfare, is on the case, and has added the Police filing (OR-2484821N) regarding Massey veterinary staff’s breaches of Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) and the formal complaint to the New Zealand Law Society against Veterinary Council CEO Iain McLachlan, to its case files. )

New VC's Window of Opportunity to Be the Clean-Sweeping New Broom . . . MISSED

Massey’s management recently switched at the top: Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas handed over to new blood, Pierre Venter, who hails from a research and scientific background in New Zealand’s high-profile dairy industry.

But does Venter represent the much-needed “new broom” approach . . . or is he just a new broom to sweep the old dirt under the institutional rug? Read my experience of him here . . . . and note that no , there was not only nil response, but instead an apparent upscaling of the moral filth and cover-up to which my Open Letter to the Vice-Chancellor pertains.

Any of the many items of coverage I’ve produced here on The Customer & The Constituent are evidence not only of the malpractice, malfeasance, clinical cruelty and deceit that saw the demise of my own precious pet and the ongoing resultant traumatisation of the human involved in it (me) . . . but also of the obviously ingrained, institutionally systemic nature of the rot .

The new VC had the ideal moment, albeit a short one, to spot that rot and turn things around forthwith. But – as you’ll read here – he chose to support his deans in the intimidation-over-integrity approach.

It’s a shame, because Pierre Venter was pretty clearly brought in to achieve what his predecessor couldn’t i.e. a turn-around in Massey’s substantial, and substantially publicised, financial woes, with the Tertiary Education Commission classifying the institution as “high risk” for its financial management, a 20 percent decline in domestic students between 2021 and 2024 (perhaps they know something the overseas student markets don’t), the reduction of over 500 courses, and the elimination of more than 60 science roles back in 2023.

Notwithstanding Massey’s urgent and ongoing need for a financial recovery plan, the markets into which it shovels large numbers of its graduates each year still deserve veterinarians not only trained in competent, rightful and honorable principles of veterinary medicine and “care”, but also graduates imbued with functioning ethics . . . which, according both to my experience and the systemic behaviour it has uncovered, is currently an area in which Massey is substantially challenged -at the senior academic level and at the level of the Veterinary Teaching “Hospital” and a concerning proportion of its individual staff.

What Massey's Triple Accreditation Is Actually Worth . . . And to Whom

These geographically-removed importers of Massey veterinary graduates are entirely reliant on one thing to be sure of the standards their own veterinary sectors are resultantly being built upon: the regulators and the accrediting agencies.

Massey holds simultaneous accreditation from all three bodies: the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education (AVMA COE) in the United States, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) in the UK, and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), covering Australia and New Zealand.

What does that actually buy Massey? In blunt commercial terms: everything .

Because of that accreditation, Massey graduates can practice not only in New Zealand, but without additional or jurisdiction-specific qualifications in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, South Africa, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

In markets that are chronically short of veterinarians - and Malaysia, for instance, has been formally identified by its own government as still significantly short of vets - a Massey degree is not just an education. It is a passport to markets that have few other options.

International students pay between NZD 350,000 and NZD 400,000 (BEFORE still-substantial additional and, in New Zealand, particularly substantial living expenses) for that five-year degree passport.

Financially speaking, Massey’s veterinary school is a load-bearing part of the institution. No wonder the Tertiary Education Commission didn’t want to know when I reported any of my experiences – including the Crimes Act breaches for records falsification – to them.

Strip the accreditation, or place it under probation, and the international enrolment pipeline — and with it Massey's entire financial recovery strategy — collapses.

That’s what's at stake. For Massey.

What's At Stake for the Accreditors

But this shouldn’t be about Massey. It should be about the animals and the pet owners . . . and the “care” and ethics they’re going to be paying for, when they entrust their pets to a Massey-qualified veterinarian. Which, according to my experience and what I’ve had reported to me by those scared of the legal threats I myself don’t actually give a stuff about, is not who you want to be entrusting your precious pets to. At all. Not if you want any guarantees they won’t be catastrophically sedated without cause with contraindicated drugs for use in student training videos and then presented back to you for apparently immediately required “euthanasia” – under the guise of a supposedly overnight “neurological decline”.

So who’s meant to make sure an institution like Massey doesn’t operate in this manner and do this sort of thing with its fee-paying clients’ pets? Who’s meant to be making sure it doesn’t need to be investigated – as it apparently does – by our Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare inspectorate, under order of the Ministry’s Director General?

Well, according to my correspondence (published further down in this article) with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) , no-one in that organisation, at least.

I’m now waiting to see how the other two accrediting agencies in question – the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) (RCVS) and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) – respond to the similar correspondence I’ve sent to them. I’ll be publishing that, too, and then all the stakeholders in this rather disturbing picture will get a direct window into what’s really going on . . . who cares, who doesn’t, and who intends to do what (if anything) about it.

Now let’s take a moment to follow the money flow from the other direction.

The AVMA Council of Education (COE) confirms in its own published policies that accredited institutions pay an annual administrative fee to the AVMA, plus all costs associated with site visits. The exact figures are not publicly disclosed — a point worth noting in itself — but the structure is unambiguous:

Massey pays to be accredited. Every year. So, the AVMA has a direct financial interest in retaining Massey as an accredited client.

I haven’t been able to confirm whether the same applies to the RCVS and the AVBC – but it would be a reasonable assumption. Over to anyone with the appetite to dig further into that for the specifics. (If any reader finds a verifiable figure and wants me to add it here, please send it in.)

The Singapore Problem: Why the Financial Stakes Just Got Much Higher

In November 2024, Massey University opened a branch campus in Singapore in partnership with PSB Academy. This Singapore campus is the centrepiece of Massey's plan to have had 5000 offshore students enrolled by 2026, and was hailed by Massey's then-Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas as a key plank of the university's international expansion and financial recovery strategy.

On March 6, i.e. Friday of last week, I formally notified the Singapore Veterinary Association, Singapore's national parks veterinary registry, and its SPCA, of the documented records falsification and malpractice at Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital.

They were not the only ones. I have also notified the Malaysian Veterinary Council and Director of Veterinary Services, the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong, the Nanjing Agricultural University, and the Chinese Ministry of Education - all of them accreditation-dependent markets for Massey graduates, and all of them now formally on notice.

If Massey hasn’t notified these organisations of the MPI's intended formal animal welfare investigation it certainly should have.

It’s in the AVMA rules, for example. If the accreditors, their joint venture partners and other stakeholders in its primary graduate markets are finding out about it here for the first time, Massey has even further explaining to do when it comes to its ethics and its ability – or inability – to follow the rules.

That omission in itself would constitute a powerful – and powerfully negative – statement.

The Regulator That Is NOT Independent of What It Regulates

Closer to home, the financial and institutional entanglement is not abstract. It’s structural and it’s got some specific names attached to it.

The Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) is the domestic regulatory body charged with investigating complaints against Massey veterinary staff. It’s the body to which Massey's own Dean of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley, directed me as my only “allowed (by him)” option when threatening me with legal action for publishing my evidence.

By the way, for an institution plagued with big-time money problems, the funds they’re shoveling in their high-profile national law firm’s – Buddle Findlay’s – direction would, I’m pretty sure, not be insignificant. It’s just a pity the Dean’s scary letter cc’d to the Buddles Findlay didn’t do the trick with me. And that nor will it.

EVER. I’m not just a pissed-off pet owner (or WAS a pet owner before Massey's “veterinarians” got their hands on my precious pet, who they clearly didn’t view as being as precious as I did). I’ve been an investigative writer and reporter of the truth for a very long career to date . . . and maybe Massey should have done as much checking on my background before they did what they did to my pet, as their expensive legal counsel has done since.

What Dean Huxley knew, and what I subsequently documented, is this:

One of the VCNZ's seven Council members (ex officio) is the Academic Program Director of the undergraduate veterinary program at Massey University - one Dr Jenny Weston. She sits simultaneously on the body that would assess complaints about Massey's veterinary staff, and on Massey's own academic leadership.

Weston represents New Zealand on the Veterinary Schools Accreditation Advisory Committee (VSAAC) - the very body that accredits schools in Australia and New Zealand. It’s a closed loop . The person responsible for the "quality" of the Massey degree is the same person who sits on the Council that would "assure the public" if that quality fails.

Under the Veterinarians Act 2005 , the VCNZ is structured to ensure that the only veterinary school in the country has a permanent, guaranteed voice in how the profession is regulated. No Election Required: the Massey Academic Lead has a reserved seat as an institutional proxy for Massey University and its Veterinary Teaching Hospital i.e. on the body that’s supposed to independently audit Massey University and its Veterinary Teaching Hospital.

You see the problem.

Meantime, the VCNZ's Professional Advisor - the person who advises the Council on professional standards, including in complaints matters - is one Dr Seton Butler. Dr Butler is a Massey University graduate who taught at Massey as an adjunct lecturer at the School of Veterinary Science, before taking the VCNZ advisory role. He is simultaneously a director of Panacea, a veterinary practice management software business with commercial interests in the veterinary sector he advises on.

You see the problem.

Fun Fact: Of particular interest to me since my discovery of Massey vets’ falsification of my dog, Harry’s, records both pre- and post the death they were determined for him to have, has been the whole integrity of clinical and medical records issue. On which note, I have just finished reading a piece Butler wrote for the industry journal, Vetscript, back in May 2020 in which he opines how important correct clinical records are: “Clinical Records Under the Microscope”, Vetscript, May 2020 . Such a pity he never instilled his values in Massey's staff while he had the ready opportunity to do so.

But the AVMA Doesn't See All this Head-Spinning Conflict of Interest As A Problem. At All.

It’s a "Conflict of Interest" (COI) map that SHOULD make any U.S. or UK regulator’s head spin. In the U.S., under CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) and U.S. Department of Education standards, "institutional integrity" requires a clear separation between the regulator and the regulated.

The American Veterinary Medical Association’s Standard 1 (Organisation) is being utterly mocked by this structure . . . that is, the one the author of the AVMA's response to my concerns said weren’t concerns for her. Read on.

Meantime, the VCNZ's CEO and Registrar is Iain McLachlan, a practising lawyer registered with the New Zealand Law Society.

McLachlan is currently under formal investigation by the Law Society - initiated by a complaint I lodged - for his conduct in relation to the Harry Kelly matter, including the VCNZ's non-facilitation of my complaint and the non-disclosure of its multiple conflicts of interest with Massey (including allowing me to unknowingly cc Dr Seton Butler in on all my emails to him, McLachlan, while I was still sufficiently naïve as to believe the VCNZ would act as the industry regulator it is mandated to act as).

Moving to the complaints mechanism itself . . . which contains a structural trap: Under New Zealand law, VCNZ complaints can only be lodged against individually named, registered veterinarians .

But Massey has redacted the names of the individuals involved in Harry's case from the records it has released. The VCNZ could , but will not, compel disclosure of those names.

You cannot lodge a complaint against someone whose name you are not permitted to know.

No names. No complaint. No accountability. By design.

Dean Huxley knew exactly what he was directing me towards when he told me to take my concerns to the VCNZ and nowhere else.

What Has Actually Happened . . . and What Hasn't

Here is what has happened since I began documenting the atrocities surrounding the abuse and demise of my dog, Harry Kelly (and the stink-ridden, broad-scale, multiple-party cover-up thereof) at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025:

New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has formally tasked its Animal Welfare team with investigating conduct at Massey's veterinary hospital.

A police report has been filed under Sections 258 and 260 of the Crimes Act 1961 for the falsification of clinical records. Victim Support has been engaged.

The VCNZ's CEO is under Law Society investigation.

The veterinary regulatory bodies of Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China have been formally notified – by me.

The AVMA, RCVS, and AVBC have all received formal third-party disclosures – from me.

Here is what hasn't happened:

The AVMA responded to my detailed, documented, section-by-section disclosure with 93 dismissive little words, telling me that my citations "do not align" specifically with their Policies and Procedures Manual - a claim that the 4,000-word response I sent back has comprehensively dismantled (and the compilation of which required me to study the specific clauses and associated specific wording in the AVMA's 207-page Accreditation Policies and Procedures document. Dry stuff.)

That response (printed in the email exchange hereunder), and this article, are now part of the permanent public record.

Meantime, Down Under, the AVBC has not acknowledged any of the multiple disclosures I have sent over past weeks.

The RCVS has responded in an interim manner.

I am assuming that none of them have told Massey's Asian partner institutions, joint-venture partners, or graduate licensing jurisdictions that they have received documented evidence of clinical record falsification and a government-level animal welfare investigation at the institution they accredit.

It should be noted, that each of these three accrediting bodies has certainly known for many weeks about every component of this whole murky picture (because I've told them, in detail), except, possibly, for the impending Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Inspectorate’s investigation.

Read It and Weep

What follows is the correspondence that has put all of them formally on notice.

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2026 8:15 pm
To: 'Dr. Samantha Morello' <smorello@avma.org>; 'COE' <COE@avma.org>; 'generalcounsel@avma.org' <generalcounsel@avma.org>
C c: 'admin@avbc.asn.au' <admin@avbc.asn.au>; 'aslppu@ed.gov' <aslppu@ed.gov>; 'oig.hotline@ed.gov' <oig.hotline@ed.gov>; 'president@chea.org' <president@chea.org>; 'ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov' <ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov>; 'oig.hotline@ed.gov' <oig.hotline@ed.gov>; 'ceo@avbc.asn.au' <ceo@avbc.asn.au>; 'aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov' <aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov>; 'Registrar' <Registrar@rcvs.org.uk>
Subject: RE: AVMA Response of 7 March 2026 (and the procedural failure it has now created)

Dear Dr Morello

I have read your below, March 7th, 93-word dismissal of my correspondence and my multiple items of cross-referenced and detailed evidence.

I have also read, in detail, the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Council on Education (COE) 207-page Accreditation Policies and Procedures manual, per your link and as you appeared to have required me to do (albeit you appear to have read nothing of my correspondence or referred evidence as sent to you).

You advised me that my disclosure "does not align specifically" with your Policies and Procedures, offering this 207-page document by way of explanation.

Those 207 pages represent a more instructive document than you may have intended. They are also a document which, with all due respect, you may wish to re-acquaint / acquaint yourself with at your earliest opportunity . . . because what I will take the time and care to lay out for you here is a precise accounting of where, in fact, we do align.

Ministry of Primary Industries’ Animal Welfare Team to Investigate Massey’s Veterinary Teaching ‘Hospital’ (aka Companion Animal ‘Hospital’)

Before I do so, however, I note for the formal record of every party copied on this correspondence that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) has confirmed in writing that its Animal Welfare team has been formally tasked with investigating conduct at Massey University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital as a result of my documented evidence. That is, to be clear, the same documented evidence I have already presented to yourself, Dr Morello, as AVMA’s Associate Director, Education & Research.

I have been advised by the Animal Welfare team’s national leader to expect communication shortly from the assigned regional investigators.

The MPI's Animal Welfare Act mandate covers the very conduct I have documented: the administration of substances to animals in ways that cause unnecessary suffering, the practice of cruelty and endangerment (including intentional) of life (e.g. in order to conduct experiments and invasive practices upon a client’s overdosed and IV-disconnected pet) and, generally, the treatment of animals in a manner inconsistent with their welfare.

The fact that New Zealand's primary agricultural and animal welfare regulatory authority has independently determined that the conduct at Massey warrants formal investigation is not a peripheral detail. It is a statement-in-action, from a respected government ministry, that the threshold for institutional intervention has already been reached - by a body with no connection to, or interest in, my personal situation.

On What Your Own Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual States - and Massey University’s Multiple Points of Contravention

Section 1.1 of your Policies and Procedures is unambiguous: accreditation "assures the public and licensing bodies that graduates of accredited programs meet a defined level of competency."

Section 1.2.2 states that the COE is "fully dedicated to protecting the rights of the students ... and assuring the public that accredited programs provide a quality education."

Your document also sets out the formal mandate of the AVMA COE. The COE is charged to "meet the needs of society by promoting active programs in veterinary medical education by, among other things, encouraging and assisting schools and colleges of veterinary medicine to meet the requirements for accreditation." Section 1.2.4 states that " it is vital that the accreditation process is conducted in a manner of utmost integrity."

I am the public.

This is what I have provided you with documented evidence of, at an institution whose graduates your organisation assures me are competent:

The deliberate, repeated administration of a renally contraindicated sedative at 750% of the indicated therapeutic threshold (to him) to a 3.8kg, 15-year-old, renally compromised patient - as documented in detail here: CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey - including two administrations within 26 minutes of each other, by which point the consequences of the first were already a clinical certainty, not an unknown risk. The third administration, at 09:00 hours the following morning - by the day-shift veterinarian who arrived to find this patient in the state the night shift had produced - requires no characterisation from me. The metadata speaks to the decision-making, and the metadata has already been provided to you: MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED – and to the New Zealand Police. ( Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 - Altering document with intent to deceive) and Section 260 (Falsifying registers) .

The utilisation of this catastrophically over-sedated, IV-fluid-deprived patient as an institutional teaching specimen: a calculated act of property conversion under New Zealand common law (Bailment), and one that constitutes multiple instances of animal cruelty under Section 12 of the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 - which mandates that any person in charge of an animal must take reasonable steps to alleviate pain or distress. Instead, Massey ICU staff and students filmed this massively over-sedated patient on at least eight occasions, including on personal cell phones, subjecting him to forced physical manoeuvres, vice-like cephalic restraint, and dramatic and dangerous one-handed overhead suspension while in a state of pharmacological collapse - all while withholding the emergency corrective care his condition demanded, and while his life-essential IV fluids remained deliberately disconnected to facilitate that utilisation (and even stayed permanently disconnected thereafter). This is documented in detail, including (sanitised) photographic evidence from Massey's own records: ( UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It and The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. Repeated Unrelated, Invasive 'Observational' Tests .

The subsequent alteration of those clinical metadata records, for which a formal police report has now been filed under Section 258 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 (Altering a document with intent to deceive ): MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

The presentation (and misrepresentation) to me, the owner, of my dog's catastrophically over-sedated condition as an overnight "neurological decline" - a fabricated diagnosis, the forensic dismantling of which is documented here: NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences - used to coerce my consent to his immediate “euthanasia” (which cannot be rightfully deemed “euthanasia” because it was a clinical life termination under false pretences), thereby destroying the primary body of evidence.

The totality of the above - the “pharmacological” decisions, the conversion of a client’s property and the associated multiple acts of severe animal cruelty, the record falsification, the false diagnosis, the coerced life termination - is not the result of a series of unfortunate errors. It is a documented sequence of decisions, each made with full knowledge of what had preceded it. I note that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has reached a sufficiently similar conclusion to have tasked its Animal Welfare team with a formal investigation.

I anticipate you may prepare to invoke the language in Section 1.7.3 i.e. that limits the COE's jurisdiction to matters that are "of a continuing or pervasive nature, as opposed to an unfair or arbitrary act of an individual or an act isolated in nature." I will hereby address that directly . . . and at some length, because the breadth of what your own document requires, and what Massey is currently failing to deliver, warrants it.

I am not alleging a single act by a single veterinarian. That goes well beyond any need for “allegation” and clearly applies to multiple thereof. I am alleging an institutional pattern: deliberate and repeated pharmacological decisions resulting in the clearly INTENDED death of a patient, followed by multiple acts of multiple student-involvement in direct contravention of animal welfare laws, by falsification of records as the institutional response, followed by the deployment of external legal counsel to suppress disclosure by the owner. This sequence did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred in an active teaching hospital, in front of students who are being trained in clinical practice. What is modelled in that environment is, by definition, what is being taught.

In this article specifically - CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey - I document in detail, some of the many breaches of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct that students not only had modelled for them, but were expected to participate in, as this intentionally lethally debilitated dog was utilised as a live training aid and ghoulishly filmed on cell phones. Please refer to the section of the article under this subheading, Personal & Professional Liability of Staff and Students , for the details.

The Standards Your Own Accreditation Policies and Procedures Manual Requires - and Massey's Performance Against Each

Standard 4: Clinical Resources

Your Standard 4 states that "medical records must be comprehensive and maintained in an effective retrieval system to efficiently support the teaching, research, and service programs of the college. Students must actively participate in the use of an electronic medical records system within a clinical setting during the care of patients."

At Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital, students are certainly “actively participating” in an electronic medical records system - but one in which the records have been subsequently altered to conceal the sequence of decisions that gave rise to a police complaint under Section 258 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961. The students are, therefore, being educated in record management that has been formally identified as potentially criminal: MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

I would further note that Standard 4 requires client-owned animals to be receiving "veterinary medical care" – which is indeed what their owners are paying richly for . The evidence I have published documents that the patient admitted for rehydration was instead subjected to at least eight video recordings, repeated invasive procedures unrelated to his admission diagnosis, and the deliberate withholding of his life-essential IV fluids to facilitate his use as a teaching specimen: The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. repeated, unrelated, invasive and objectively severely cruel “observational” tests . That is not "veterinary medical care". It is the conversion of a paying client's animal into institutional property - a matter that is also the subject of formal complaints under New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020, for which 75% of the predatory and opportunistic video footage taken of this patient remains withheld: UPDATED 20.2.26: WAITING, MASSEY . . . What's Hiding In the 75 Percent of Video Footage You Refuse to Release? (Note: This article is about to be updated with the addition of further breaches.)

Standard 6: Students

Your Standard 6 states that "the program must be able to demonstrate, using its outcomes assessment data, that the resources are sufficient to achieve the stated educational goals for all veterinary students engaged in its programs."

The outcome data I have provided is itself outcomes assessment data. It demonstrates that the resources at Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital are not producing the educational goals your Standards require.

They are producing their inverse.

I would be interested to understand whether this data has been incorporated into Massey's outcomes assessment reporting to you, or whether it has been omitted. Given that I have documented evidence of record alteration, and given that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has independently determined that the conduct at Massey warrants formal animal welfare investigation, the latter would not surprise me. It would, however, constitute precisely the category of conduct covered by Section 2.5.2 of your own Policies and Procedures i.e. that states accreditation may be withdrawn if “provides incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the Council.”

Standard 8: Faculty

Your Standard 8 states that "instruction in the pre-clinical and clinical setting must be delivered by faculty who have education, training, expertise, professional development, or a combination thereof, appropriate for the subject matter."

I have published a detailed analysis - drawing on expert contributed commentary - of the decisions made by Massey's ICU veterinarian, the attending “neurologist”, and the Dean of the Veterinary School, Jon Huxley: ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous ?

The question raised by that analysis - and which I now formally put to you - is whether faculty whose decisions result in the repeated 750% pharmacological over-sedation of a patient, and whose institutional response to the subsequent disclosure is legal intimidation rather than clinical review, meet your Standard 8 requirement of "education, training, expertise ... appropriate for the subject matter ."

For your information, the nature of that legal intimidation is documented here: Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me

Your document further states that "the dean and other administrative officers should be knowledgeable in the definitions of the various levels of accreditation status and the impact of the failure to meet one or more of the Standards." The written communications from Dean Huxley's office that I have published suggest that this threshold is also not being met - a matter of some relevance given that it is Dean Huxley who is responsible for the institution's compliance with the Standards you are declining to investigate.

Standard 9: Curriculum

Your Standard 9 requires the curriculum to provide students with "opportunities to learn how to acquire information from clients (e.g. history) and about patients (e.g. medical records), to obtain, store and retrieve such information, and to communicate effectively with clients and colleagues." It further requires "opportunities throughout the curriculum for students to gain an understanding of professional ethical, legal , economic, and regulatory principles related to the delivery of veterinary medical services ."

What Massey students are currently being shown, with regard to client communication, is this:

Massively and repeatedly (including 26 minutes apart) overdose a paying client’s pet for the express convenience of ICU night staff ( Massey Vet Teaching Hospital ICU: Where Empathy Goes to Die ), double down on it yet again the next morning for the purpose of converting the client’s pet for the utilisation of Massey for “teaching” videos by students , tell the owner their animal has suffered a sudden neurological decline. Do not disclose the fact of the sedation. Do not disclose that IV fluids were disconnected . Do not offer a second opinion or any alternative to immediate euthanasia - the denial of which is itself a breach of international best practice standards, as documented here: The Criticality of ALWAYS Obtaining A Second (& Third) Opinion Before Agreeing to 'Euthanase' Your Pet . Present the animal for immediate lethal injection on the basis of that false account: NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences .

This is the "communication with clients" and "professional ethical and legal principles" being modelled in Massey's veterinary “teaching” hospital. I invite you to assess its alignment with you Standard 9 - and I note again that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries, in formally tasking its Animal Welfare team with investigating this conduct, has obviously reached its own assessment.

Standard 11: Outcomes Assessment

Your Standard 11 requires that graduates demonstrate competency in record management (Competency 1 ), anaesthesia and pain management and patient welfare (Competency 3 ), emergency and intensive care case management (Competency 6), and ethical and professional conduct (Competency 8 ).

(To elaborate on Competency 8 - ethical and professional conduct, including the knowledge, skills, and core professional attributes needed to provide culturally competent veterinary care in a multidimensional society; communication skills; including those that demonstrate an understanding and sensitivity to how each individual’s circumstances impact veterinary care – it should be noted that the pet’s owner had multiple times expressed to the “veterinarian” that she (the owner) was acutely sleep-deprived and not in a position to make a decision of such irreversible gravity on the day; the fact of the sleep deprived state even being documented by the preceding veterinarian in the patient’s intake notes).

The full catalogue of breaches across each of these competencies - including the multiple breaches of New Zealand's own Veterinary Code of Professional Conduct - is documented here: Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital Commits Multiple Breaches of New Zealand's Veterinary Code (And More)

At Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital, each of these competencies is currently being modelled in direct violation of what your Standard requires. These are not isolated acts. These acts, practices, policies and modus operandi are being modelled by senior veterinarians and teaching staff as part of the students’ curriculum, and are being overseen by the Practice Manager, the Dean of the Veterinary School, and the Dean of Veterinary Education.

Standard 1: Organisation

Your Standard 1 requires that the officers responsible for "the professional, ethical, and academic affairs of the veterinary medical teaching hospital" carry "overall budgetary and supervisory authority necessary to assure compliance with accreditation standards."

Massey University’s documented institutional response to these matters has been legal threats against the person who reported them. That is what "supervisory authority to assure compliance" looks like at this institution. I seek your comment on how that satisfies Standard 1 in your assessment.

Standard 1 also requires that "any secondary employment or activities must be approved and monitored by the parent institution and must not conflict with the CEO/dean's commitment to, or the interests of, the college." Your Appendix D - Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest - sets out in detail the conflict of interest obligations that apply to COE members and site visitors. I note that your document states "the Council must conform to the AVMA Conflict of Interest Policy at all times, not just during site visits," and that "no member of the COE who has an identified conflict of interest shall participate in any way in accrediting decisions."

I ask whether the AVMA holds its accredited institutions to equivalent conflict of interest standards - because the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ), which is the domestic regulatory body charged with investigating complaints against Massey veterinary staff - has multiple cross-organisational relationships with Massey University at its most senior academic and advisory levels. I have documented these in detail here: (UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest . The short version is this: the body charged with independently regulating Massey is not, in any meaningful sense, independent of Massey. When a complaint is lodged with the regulator, the university and the regulator are, at senior levels, effectively the same institution in different hats – and at the same time. This is a structural failure of Standard 1's organisational integrity requirements - and it is directly relevant to your accreditation of this institution, since there is no functional complaints system either within Massey or outside of it as concerns the national industry’s regulator.

On the Procedural Failure Your Response Has Now Created

Section 1.7.3 of your own Policies and Procedures states:

"Any written complaint by a third party (individual such as faculty, staff, public, or organisation) relating to an accredited college of veterinary medicine will be received by staff, who will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within seven (7) working days. AVMA staff will make a preliminary investigation of the initial complaint and report to the COE Executive Committee within 30 days."*

My original correspondence was by a member of the public, alleging that an accredited college of veterinary medicine is not in compliance with the Standards of Accreditation. It met your definition precisely.

But your response did not acknowledge it as a formal complaint under Section 1.7.3. It did not initiate a preliminary investigation. It did not indicate referral to the COE Executive Committee. It referred me to a site visit in 2028 and a link to a 207-page document.

Section 1.7.3 does not provide for that substitution. The mandatory complaint procedure exists independently of any site visit schedule. The 30-day Executive Committee referral is not at your discretion. The word your document uses is " will ".

I would also draw your attention to Section 2.3.2 of your Policies and Procedures, which provides for a focused site visit that "can be ... initiated by the COE based upon the contents of the college's annual interim report or third party (faculty, student, or public ) comment , or other applicable information (as determined by the COE)."

My disclosure constitutes third-party public comment of precisely the type your Section 2.3.2 contemplates as grounds for a focused site visit . The 2028 comprehensive site visit is entirely beside the point.

I would further draw your attention to Section 2.5.2 , which provides that accreditation may be administratively withdrawn where a college "makes misrepresentations or engages in misleading conduct in connection with consideration of the College's status by the Council , or in public statements concerning the College's approval status," or "provides incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the Council." The alteration of clinical metadata records - for which a police report has been filed - is precisely the category of conduct Section 2.5.2 describes.

Whether Massey has provided complete, accurate, and non-misleading information to you in its accreditation reporting is now a question I formally put on record.

Section 2.5.5 provides that the Council may reconsider and alter the classification of a college when "conditions affecting compliance with one or more Standards have deteriorated sufficiently so that the college fails to meet one or more of the Standard requirements."

I have provided evidence that conditions at Massey's Veterinary Teaching Hospital meet that threshold across multiple Standards simultaneously . New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has obviously reached sufficient independent agreement with that assessment to have formally tasked its Animal Welfare team with an investigation.

Section 2.5.8 states that the COE "monitors programs throughout the accreditation cycle via annual reports, third party comment , and site visits" and "will respond to any program not meeting the Standards." I have provided third-party comment. I am waiting for the response your own document mandates.

Finally, Section 3.2.6 provides that "a college that has one or more major deficiencies in one or more Standards will be placed on Probationary Accreditation. Major deficiencies have more than minimal impact on student learning or safety."

Deliberate and repeated, lethal levels of pharmacological over-sedation of a patient, followed by falsification of clinical records, followed by institutional suppression of the disclosure - across Standards 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 simultaneously - constitute major deficiencies with more than minimal impact on both student learning and patient safety. That is the Probationary Accreditation threshold, stated in your own document. It is also, as I have noted, the threshold that New Zealand's Ministry of Primary Industries has independently determined warrants formal regulatory investigation under its Animal Welfare Act mandate.

On Your U.S. Federal Mandate

This entire situation is now compounded by your obligations under your own country’s Federal law.

As a Federally-recognised accreditor, the AVMA COE operates under 34 CFR § 602.19, which requires that an accrediting agency demonstrate it "has, and effectively applies, monitoring and evaluation approaches that enable the agency to identify problems with an institution's or program's continued compliance with agency standards."

And under 34 CFR § 602.23(c)(1), the agency must "review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner any complaint it receives against an accredited institution or program that is related to the agency's standards or procedures."

Referring a complaint about active criminal record falsification to a 2028 calendar entry satisfies neither of those requirements. I am ensuring that the U.S. Department of Education Accreditation Group and the Office of Inspector General, both of whom are copied on this correspondence, have a formal record of that fact.

I also note that accreditation under the AVMA COE is a condition of Massey University students' eligibility for U.S. Health Profession Student Loans, as your Section 1.1 confirms. Any institution that maintains accredited status while its clinical staff falsify records and its administration deploys legal counsel to suppress that fact is one whose accreditation is being used to facilitate access to US federal funds on a fraudulent basis. That is a matter for the Office of Inspector General, and I have ensured they are aware of it.

What I Require

I am formally restating this as a complaint under Section 1.7.3 , and I require written confirmation of the following:

1. That this complaint has been formally logged under Section 1.7.3;
2. That a preliminary investigation will be conducted and reported to the COE Executive Committee within 30 days of this communication;
3. That I will be informed of the status of the complaint, as your own procedures require, and
4. That the COE will advise whether it intends to initiate a focused site visit under Section 2.3.2, given that this disclosure constitutes precisely the category of third-party public comment your document identifies as grounds for one.

This correspondence, and your response or lack thereof, will be published on the website of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) as a case study in the conduct of international accreditation bodies when presented with documented evidence of institutional misconduct.

Yours sincerely
Jordan Kelly
Editor & Reviewer-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ
New Zealand

From: Dr. Samantha Morello < smorello@avma.org >
Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2026 4:17 am
To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com ; COE < COE@avma.org >; generalcounsel@avma.org
Cc: admin@avbc.asn.au
Subject: RE: External: FORMAL DISCLOSURE: Breach of Accreditation Standards 1 & 11 - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Jordan,

This is to confirm receipt of your email and to inform you that there is no upcoming scheduled site visit for Massey University. Massey University is not scheduled to receive a site visit from the AVMA Council on Education until 2028. Information about future site visit dates for all accredited veterinary schools is available publicly from our website:

https://www.avma.org/education/center-for-veterinary-accreditation/accredited-veterinary-colleges

Additionally, the items cited in your email do not align specifically with the AVMA Council on Education’s Policies and Procedures, including referenced aspects of Standards of Accreditation. The Councils policies and procedures are available here:

https://www.avma.org/education/center-for-veterinary-accreditation/accreditation-policies-and-procedures-avma-council-education-coe

Thank you,

Samantha L. Morello, DVM, DACVS-LA

Associate Director, Education & Research
American Veterinary Medical Association

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com < editor@consumeraffairswriter.com >
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:28 PM
To: Dr. Samantha Morello < smorello@avma.org >; Dr. Karen Brandt < KBrandt@avma.org >; COE < COE@avma.org >; generalcounsel@avma.org
Cc: admin@avbc.asn.au ; aslppu@ed.go
Subject: External: FORMAL DISCLOSURE: Breach of Accreditation Standards 1 & 11 - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Members of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Council on Education (COE):

I am formally submitting this as a Third-Party Comment to be included in the permanent accreditation file for Massey University’s upcoming site visit.

While I am the directly affected party in the abuse and death of my pet by Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital (aka Companion Animal “Hospital”), I am submitting this disclosure as a Formal Third-Party Comment regarding Massey University’s systemic failure to meet the AVMA Council on Education (COE) Policies and Procedures’ Standards of Accreditation : You are now on notice of institutional record falsification and also of the other associated matters outlined in my coverage of the matter - representing multiple material breaches of your clinical and ethical, and also of your governance, standards.

Standard 1: Organisation - Paragraph 1.1 (Organisation) The University must ensure the "integrity of the program". Falsified records represent a total failure of organisational integrity.

Standard 11: Outcomes - Paragraph 11.3.1 (Clinical Competency) Graduates must demonstrate clinical competency. A 750% overdose (let alone repeated overdoses thereof) as a "teaching standard" is a failure of educational outcomes.

Third-Party Comments - Section 14.6 (Third-Party Comments) That is, the specific rule that requires the AVMA’s COE to solicit and review comments from "interested stakeholders" regarding a school's compliance.

I have provided highly detailed, supported-by-documentation evidence of systemic record falsification (Breach of Standard 1: Organisation) and lethal teaching standards involving 750% overdosings (Breach of Standard 11: Outcomes Assessment).

If the COE chooses to re-accredit Massey without investigating these specific, documented breaches, it does so with full knowledge of the data provided here: THE KILLING OF HARRY KELLY

A Case Study In A Lethal Dose of Malpractice & Malfeasance By Massey University’s Companion Animal 'Hospital' (and that I have already provided to you, it should be further noted).

I am thus providing this Final Notice to ensure it is a matter of statutory record that the American Veterinary Medical Association has been provided with detailed evidence of clinical record falsification and systemic malpractice at Massey University. Again, I am formally submitting this as a Third-Party Comment to be included in Massey’s upcoming accreditation site visit file.

This notification, and your response (or lack thereof) will be published and appear permanently on the currently-in-progress website of the new international pet owner advocacy organisation, the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) . (Please note: this website is not yet complete; the formal launch of IIIVE is scheduled for June this year.)

The purpose of the publication of this notice to the AVMA will be to assist the legal counsel representing any pet owners whose animals have been harmed by Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital (aka Companion Animal Hospital) OR ANY OF ITS GRADUATES IN ANY JURISDICTION, by providing proof that both Massey and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) – as the accrediting body of that institution and its veterinary facility – were fully informed of these breaches of your Accreditation Standards.

It is my understanding that, upon your next on-site audit (which, actually and ethically, should now be immediately, following these disclosures to you), your auditing-and-accreditation team must refer to the information I am hereby (and that I have already) provided.

Further, it is my understanding that if the individuals on that audit team do not do so and do not act appropriately in accordance with their associated findings, that these individuals become personally and professionally liable for any future deaths or significant harms caused by Massey graduates.

Given the gravely serious nature of what is clearly evidenced in the coverage and materials I have sent you, and the clear breach of accreditation standards, should you choose to continue to remain silent with regard to your own legal and moral obligations as a recognised accrediting agency, then your right to accredit the school is hereby contested.

It is my understanding that the AVMA is recognised by the U.S. Department of Education and has a legal, statutory duty to ensure the schools you accredit are not engaging in fraudulent activity. Yet, I have provided you with evidence that one of them is i.e. Massey University’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital and School. Your ignoring evidence of the fact of these falsified records at Massey is, arguably, already violating your own mandate from the U.S. Government. By cc'ing the U.S. Department of Education (Accreditation Group) on this disclosure, I am ensuring there is a formal record of your notification. Any failure by the COE to investigate these documented breaches of Standard 1 (Organisation) and Standard 11 (Outcomes) will be reported as a failure of the AVMA’s own mandate as a recognised accrediting agency.

Also to be clear, this email and your response (or lack thereof) will be published – and it will also be included in our broader (general and specialist veterinary, pet, and animal-related) media distributions regarding this matter.

Meantime, the articles I have already supplied you with access to include, but are not limited to (and I hereby include a section of them yet again):

For your urgent information, the fully indexed coverage is here:

The Customer & The Constituent OR
THE KILLING OF HARRY KELLY: A Case Study In A Lethal Dose of Malpractice & Malfeasance By Massey University’s Companion Animal 'Hospital' :

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED : https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/massey-vets-falsify-records-police-report-filed
CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSE & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey
PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest
NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences
UP NEXT: How Massey 'Training' Produces the Low Vet Care Standards & Outright Contempt NZ Pet Owners Have to Tolerate
ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous?
Catching Massey In A Lethal Lie: Forensic Study of Invoice
The Gabapentin Gamble That Didn't Pay Off & the Cover-Up That Necessitated Death
The OPC Complaint the 'Head of Veterinary School' Doesn't Want Me to Make: Why Massey Is Terrified of Full Disclosure
Is Massey's Companion Animal ‘Hospital’ Running Potentially Lethal Experiments on People's Pets In ICU?
Massey’s Companion Animal Hospital Commits Multiple Breaches of New Zealand's Veterinary Code (And More)
The Cruel Way Massey's ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Uses Your Pet As A Training Aid Behind Closed Doors e.g. Repeated Unrelated, Invasive 'Observational' Tests
Massey Vet Teaching Hospital ICU: Where Empathy Goes to Die
Massey Sends In the Legal Big Guns to Silence Me: Guess What? You Silenced Harry But You Won't Silence Me
With A Fearless Pet Welfare Advocate for An Owner, Was Harry A Marked Dog?
Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They?

Jordan Kelly

Editor & Reviewer-in-Chief

The Customer & The Constituent

New Zealand

Are These Harry's Ashes? Or Aren't They?

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 13:30:13 GMT

A Chain-of-Custody Breakage of the Worst Possible Kind

UPDATE : As of January 31, 2026 - two full months to the day since Massey terminated Harry's life (heinously obtaining my consent under false pretences after having catastrophically and repeatedly overdosed him for use in student activities and filming) - the true whereabouts of Harry's ashes have still not been established. Additionally, there is further concern over whether, in fact, Harry's body might have undergone a strictly forbidden post-mortem, with the pet cremation company's staff member having referred to him as being "collected with the other post-mortems" and having taken receipt of him "in a bag" (as opposed to specially packaged in his blanket and with his toys, as the Massey vet claimed to have done but with no evidence ever provided).

_____________________________________

When New Zealand's Massey University Companion Animal "Hospital" recommended a specific cremation provider for Harry, they were initiating a clinical and ethical chain of custody. They vouched for the provider's integrity in the final act of care.

What followed was a horrific collapse of professional standards involving what appeared to be either a complete screw-up, a complete lapse, or a total absence in communications of my requirements by the hospital to the provider, pet cremation company Pet Farewells of Hamilton . . . and/or the total disarray of internal communications within the cremation company itself, along with a refusal to provide the authentication of the remains (after having themselves created significant doubt).

The shameful, unprofessional and quickly terminated communications by Pet Farewells first involved a phone call to collect a "$120 disposal fee" for Harry's ashes (having been told by someone, somewhere, that I "didn't want Harry back" - a nonsensical claim since I was prepared to pay for his body to be taken from Palmerston North to Hamilton for individual (rather than group) cremation. It then morphed quickly into a contradictory email claiming that "Harry is tucked up on (someone's) desk" waiting for me to place an order through the Pet Farewells website.

From 'Disposal' Status to 'Ashes Are on the Desk' Status in the Course of Ten Minutes. Suspicious Much, Anybody?

It then began descending into total degeneration when I asked for some form of verification that the ashes actually were Harry's - since they had gone from "disposed" status to "on the desk" status in the course of approximately 10 minutes.

My suggestion that authentication would be simple by virtue of a photograph of the remnants of the gold cross and chain that Harry had been sent to them with, was met with terse, scientifically impossible metallurgical claims and those regarding the physics of cremation.

Where Was Massey In All This? Their Response: 'Not Our Problem.'

In all of this, Massey University's Companion Animal Veterinary Hospital (the recommender of this cremation company and the despatcher of Harry's precious little body) responded to my cc'ing them in to all the emails with . . . nothing .

They washed their hands of it with the proficiency that would have been better employed in the proper management of the chain of custody to start with. In other words, a complete institutional refusal by Massey to take responsibility for any part of the patient journey that they initiated . . .despite not only their moral obligation, but also their legal obligation under the Common Law of Bailment and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s Code of Professional Conduct Clause 1.13 I, obligating the hospital to ensure the safe and verifiable return of the patient remains whose transfer they facilitated, recommended, and oversaw.

In fact, if you would like to see just how contemptuously the Massey machine treats those who have paid it many thousands of dollars over the course of their pet's lifetime, and tens of thousands over the course of all their pets' collectively - here's a sample i.e. an audio recording of a more than one-hour phone call I made to follow up all my ignored emails:

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 . . . and in the case of the subject matter of this article, the practices of associated industries e.g. the pet cremation industry.

The Pet Farewells Thread – Shifting Narratives and the Authentication Failure

Meanwhile, here are the cold and evasive emails from Pet Farewells. The following timeline captures the exchange between myself and the management of Pet Farewells (Gavin and Lyn Shepherd / Kathy).

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Monday, 22 December 2025 4:13 pm
To : 'Lyn Shepherd' lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'
Subject : 2ND NOTICE: Transfer of Custody Required & Invoice for Same - Jordan Kelly

Attn: Lyn Shepherd / Management

I am writing to formally note that my written instructions regarding the transfer of custody of the item currently held by you (my email as below i.e. sent Friday, 2.21pm) have been ignored to date.

Current Situation:

I have provided clear instructions on the vessel (Scatter Tube) and the delivery method (Track-&-Trace, Signature-Required Courier to my home address, as below).
I have requested the final invoice so that I can make immediate payment.
You have failed to provide that invoice or any indication of intention to act on my instructions.

By refusing to issue the invoice or provide advice of your intention to follow my instructions, you are effectively refusing to release the item.

Action Required: Please email the invoice immediately upon receipt of this email so that payment can be made and the courier booking secured before the holiday shutdown.

To Massey University (CC'd): Please note that despite my readiness to pay and facilitate this logistical step, this provider is refusing to release the item entrusted to them via your hospital.

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Friday, 19 December 2025 2:21 pm
To : 'Lyn Shepherd' lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE + ORDER DETAILS

Attn: Lyn Shepherd / Management:

To ensure the physical security of the remains, I am proceeding with the order as follows:

Vessel Selection: I require the Scatter Tube.
Delivery Instruction: Courier strictly with full tracking and SIGNATURE REQUIRED to my home address (address provided)
INSTRUCTION: The courier must NOT leave the package unattended. If no one is home, it must be taken to the local collection point for secure holding.
Payment: Please reply with the final invoice covering the cremation, the Scatter Tube, and the courier fee so that payment can be made.
Legal Notice: My payment for these services is made strictly to secure the custody of the remains; whether Harry’s or not. It does not constitute a retraction of my previous correspondence regarding the lack of authentication (the missing gold chain) nor the issues surrounding the other statements made and associated communications, nor does it waive my right to pursue the matter further.

From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Sent : Tuesday, 16 December 2025 2:4 6 pm

Correspondence from Pet Farewells with a third party at my end, regarding return options (i.e. their tone was quite different with me, the owner):

The scatterbox has the ashes inside sealed in a paperbag with a double sided tape, the box itself has a tape to keep it shut and we bubblewrap for transport/courier. The scattertube is a sealed unit, that has it’s own lid, we also bubble wrap.
We usually drop to the vets involved when they are ready, but we could courier with owners permission, we would need address to check charges. We obviously can order a courier with signature if going to a home address, not clinic.
Harry is tucked in a cardboard box and bag, the one he was given to me in initially and waiting to go home, let us know the know next move.
Kind Regards, Kathy

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 12:49 pm
To : 'Lyn Shepherd' lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE

Mr Shepherd:

I do not accept your position. Your reliance on vague assertions from "other operators" is contradicted by the existence of the global post-cremation metal recycling industry (which recovers gold and titanium from human cremations).

If gold "vanished" as you claim, that industry would not exist.

Your refusal to provide the temperature logs confirms you cannot support your claim with data. Regarding the ashes: Retain them in storage.

You are strictly instructed NOT to dispose of them. I will advise regarding collection in due course.

Note that my instruction to store them is to preserve potential evidence; it is not a confirmation that I accept the contents are authentic.

From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 12:11 pm
To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'

Your research is still incorrect, as other human cremator operators will confirm my position.

Don’t email again as I am not interested in further communication.

Advise if you wish Harry’s ashes returned or we will just hold them in storage.

Regards Gavin Shepherd

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 12:02 pm
To : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE

Re: Gold Survival – The Facts

Mr Shepherd:

I HAVE done my research, and my research indicates as follows:

Melting Point: Gold melts at 1,064°C. Most pet crematoriums operate between 760°C and 980°C.
Physics: Even if it did melt, gold is a dense, noble metal. It does not "seep into the bones" or "vanish" into the hearth like water. It puddles. It forms a glob. That is physics.
Industry Proof: If gold "disappeared" during cremation, the entire global industry of post-cremation metal recycling would not exist.

Therefore, your "science" is invalid.

Unless you can produce time-stamped temperature logs for this specific cremation proving your furnace exceeded 1,064°C, your claim that the gold 'vanished' is physically impossible.

To be clear: My objective is the authentication of the remains. If you cannot demonstrate the gold mass, you cannot prove these ashes are Harry’s.

Jordan Kelly

From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Sent : Friday, 12 December 2025 9:35 am
To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'

Hello again

Your assertion regarding gold surviving cremation and being identified post cremation is incorrect.

Gold will melt and seep into the hearth, bedding and the bones.

After cremulation there is no lump of gold to see. There is nothing to send you a picture of.

You can either believe us or not, but feel free to do your research.

Regards Gavin Shepherd

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Thursday, 11 December 2025 3:35 pm
To : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'
Subject : RE: URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE

Mr Shepherd:

I am not interested in your deadline or "logging in to pay" until you answer my specific question.

I sent Harry into the cremator with a solid gold chain and cross (inscribed "Mummy" on both sides).

Gold does not disappear in a cremation; it melts or remains.

Please send me a photo of the metal/gold recovered from his chamber.

Once you provide proof that the ashes you have are actually Harry's, I will arrange payment and collection immediately.

Jordan Kelly

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Sent : Wednesday, 10 December 2025 2:47 pm
To : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz
Cc : 'vethospital@massey.ac.nz'
Subject : URGENT: Harry (Owner: Jordan Kelly) - DO NOT DISPOSE

OF COURSE I “want Harry back” , with regard to your absolute and defensive statement that “We were told you didn’t want Harry back.” (I quote you word-for-word, noting that I am a journalist of more than 40 years’ experience and know how to hear, retain, and record a direct, verbal statement made to me).

Now, however, I have NO idea what I will actually receive i.e. after your call to ask me for a $120 “disposal fee” (your opening statement in the call i.e. you clearly were NOT “intending to discuss other options”).

Imagine if a human crematorium made this sort of screw-up (and then lied about it)?

From : Lyn Shepherd lyn@petfarewells.co.nz

Sent : Tuesday, 9 December 2025 9:28 am

To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Subject : Pet Farewells

Hi Jordan,

Just following up on our phone call, I never got to finish.

I will have the ashes this am on my table for Harry. Harry is waiting here for you to communicate your wishes, he is cremated and safely tucked up.

Massey has said we are dealing with you, not through them.

Jordan Kelly

The International Accreditation Layer – A Breach of Ethics?

Pet Farewells markets itself as a member of the International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories (IAOPCC) .

This membership implies a commitment to a strict Code of Ethics and transparent record-keeping.

However, as noted in the following excerpts and key points from correspondence sent to me by an independent senior consumer affairs advisor (from Consumer New Zealand), Pet Farewells’ conduct appears to be in direct conflict with the very international standards they promote as a key aspect of their accreditation by this "IAOPCC" organisation (also headed by a husband-and-wife team - in the United States, and who are the operators of a multi-generational network of pet crematoria ).

From : (Consumer Affairs Advisor - Excerpt)
To : Jordan Kelly Subject: Pet Farewells / IAOPCC

The matter is a straightforward Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act issue.
However, the problem is that, for you, this isn't about money, it is about the return of the remains of a beloved pet.

Pet Farewells promotes itself as a member of the International Association Of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories (IAOPCC), that has a specific Code of Ethics.

There appears to have been a breach of Point 8 (which requires members to maintain thorough and accurate records of every cremation).

Unfortunately, it does not seem that the IAOPCC has a complaints process. However, Pet Farewells should be able to show you Harry's burial and cremation records.

The Point:

If Pet Farewells cannot provide the burial and cremation records or the forensic remains of the gold chain, they are failing not just New Zealand consumer law, but also the international ethical standards they use to market their business.

The Ultimate Behind-the-Scenes, Invisible Industry: Pet Cremation

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 13:30:11 GMT

‘Internationally Accredited’ Pet Cremation Company Can’t Even Authenticate Remains & Accreditor Has No Complaints Process

When Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital recommended a specific cremation provider for Harry (who they had prior abused, literally tortured and then achieved my "euthanasia" authority for under false pretences) , they were initiating a clinical and ethical chain of custody.

They vouched for a provider that markets itself under the shield of international accreditation.

However, as documented in my core investigation, Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They? that chain of custody didn't just break; it vanished.

The response from Gavin and Lyn Shepherd of Pet Farewells has been a study in shifting narratives, beginning with an initial phone demand for a "disposal fee" because they were "told I didn't want Harry back," followed by a sudden reversal claiming the ashes were "tucked up safely on (the) table", and culminating in a refusal to provide any records or tracking (as required by their "accrediting" body, or even any authentication by way of the remnants of the solid gold cross Harry wore - claiming, against all laws of physics, that the metal simply "melt(ed) and seep(ed) into the hearth, bedding and the bones".

According to Maggie Edwards, Senior Adviser at Consumer New Zealand , this is a straightforward Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act issue where services must be provided with reasonable care and skill. If a consumer feels they are being misled about the remains being returned ( Readers: Please do see the email exchange with Lyn and Gavin Shepherd, reproduced here ) , Edwards notes the matter can be lodged with the New Zealand Commerce Commission on the grounds of misleading conduct. (I still intend to do so. International readers will need to research the relevant authorities in their own geographies.)

Edwards further identified that while Pet Farewells promotes its membership in the International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories (IAOPCC) , there appears to be a clear breach of Point 8 of their Code of Ethics, which mandates that members maintain accurate and up-to-date burial and cremation records available for client inspection.

What the International Membership Promises

To understand the weight of this apparent breach, one must look at what the IAOPCC tells the public they should expect from a member.

According to their own website, choosing a member means that pet owner has specifically selected a provider committed to:

"Strict Adherence to Ethics and Standards: Members follow a comprehensive Code of Ethics and Standards of Business Practices established by the IAOPCC.
"Full Disclosure and Tracking: Members provide clear, documented information about their pet identification and tracking procedures throughout the aftercare process ."

"Honesty and Accountability: Members are prohibited from misrepresenting services or engaging in fraudulent or deceptive practices.

"Compassionate, High-Quality Care: Services are delivered with dignity, respect, and the utmost care for both the pet and the family."

Yet my experience - as their customer and the owner of my beloved Harry - was very, very different.

According to the United States-based IAOPCC's website, its accreditation program is a "globally recognised and industry-approved initiative," outlining established procedures for each step of the pet cremation process.

This includes guidelines for transportation, varying types of pet cremation, record-keeping , and facility standards. It also openly recognises that "in an industry with minimal regulatory oversight beyond environmental and business licensing, pet aftercare has largely been self-regulated." Concerning, much?

It further claims that their program "provides pet owners and the industry with a reliable assurance of integrity in pet aftercare practices, offering protection through its comprehensive standards and inspection process."

Yet as the Consumer New Zealand advisor noted: "Unfortunately, it does not seem that the IAOPCC has a complaints process regarding its members and any breaches of the Code of Ethics.

"However, Pet Farewells should be able to show you Harry's burial and cremation records."

Except that they won't . . . and maybe that's because they can't .

In my email below, you will see that I am inquiring of the Executive Director, Donna Shugart-Bethune , and the President, Doyle L. Shugart , as to when the IAOPCC last inspected Gavin and Lyn Shepherds' Pet Farewells Hamilton or Wellington facilities, or any other pet crematoria their associated NZ Pet Cremate Limited entity owns and operates under the claim of IAOPCC accreditation.

_____________

To: Donna Shugart-Bethune , Executive Director, IAOPCC

Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Ethical Breach & Inquiry Sought: Member - Pet Farewells (NZ Pet Cremate Limited)

Dear Ms Shugart-Bethune

I am an investigative and consumer affairs journalist in New Zealand currently publishing a dossier regarding a catastrophic failure of chain-of-custody protocols involving and/or between Pet Farewells (NZ Pet Cremate Limited), a registered member of your association, and Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital.

I write to you not only in the capacity of Editor-in-Chief of The Customer & The Constituent NZ , but also as the Executive Director of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) , which is launching globally this coming week.

Please read the full account of the matter to date, along with the email exchanges with Pet Farewells directors and shareholders Gavin and Lyn Shepherd here .

Following consultation with Consumer New Zealand (a national consumer advisory organisation), I specifically draw your attention to a documented failure by your member to adhere to (at least) Point 8 of your International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories' (IAOPCC) Code of Ethics, regarding the supposed requirement of your "accredited" members to maintain tracking and records.

Despite formal requests, Pet Farewells has been unable and/or unwilling to provide the "accurate and up-to-date records" required to verify the chain of custody for my dog, Harry. Furthermore, they have provided scientific claims regarding the disappearance of gold during cremation that contradict established metallurgical facts.

As the leadership of the IAOPCC, and as owners of your own multi-generational pet funeral business, you understand that your accreditation is used by members to project a level of trust that justifies premium fees. If a member cannot produce a "Point 8" audit trail, and also communicates with an owner in a manner that breaches your requirement of them that they treat pet owners with "dignity, respect, and the utmost care", then that trust is illusory.

Accordingly, I am seeking your official position on whether such a failure warrants an investigation into their status.

Additionally, I am specifically requesting confirmation of the date on which your association last inspected the facilities operated by the Shepherds and NZ Pet Cremate Limited - as your website would indicate is part of your accreditation process.

Meantime, my team at The Customer & The Constituent and IIIVE are currently finalising an approximately 60-page forensic filing for the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner and a further set of filings for the Veterinary Council of New Zealand regarding the conduct of Massey University in the matter of the patient, Harry Kelly – who happens to be my own dog, and the treatment of whom (both pre-death and in the posthumous context) will form the foundational global case study for IIIVE.

A critical pillar both of the filings documentation and of the continuing investigation, along with the case study, is the Chain of Custody regarding the remains of Harry Kelly.

As you will read here, I have ground to a screeching halt with my communications and endeavours to authenticate the remains your member (Pet Farewells of Hamilton, New Zealand) holds and claims to be Harry’s : https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/are-these-harrys-ashes-or-arent-they

As you might imagine this has been, and continues to be, a matter of great distress for me, personally.

Meantime, obtaining an understanding and reporting on the international pet cremation industry is of considerable interest to my colleagues and I, given my own (if I may speak plainly) utterly horrendous experience regarding Harry’s remains, the unknown manner of his state and usage prior to and upon collection by Pet Farewells, who issued the instructions to “dispose” of his remains, and the stubborn refusal of the Pet Farewells staff and management to offer the very information that your own code of conduct mandates that members must provide to those entrusting their beloved pets’ bodies to them.

While my preliminary commentary to date has been published on The Customer & The Constituent only, with the Media, Investigations, and Education , sections of IIIVE (iiive.org) being added this coming week as we prepare for a much earlier launch than originally intended, the “after care” industry is firmly in our sights for detailed reportage.

Harry’s treatment, and mine as his loving “pet parent”, will be central to that reportage (both on The Customer & The Constituent and on IIIVE ), and to the broader case study and investigative and educational materials that will be an important component thereof.

To that end, I would ask – in accordance with the International Association Of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories’ (IAOPCC) Code of Ethics and Professional Standards, as can be found at the IAOPCC’s website: https://www.iaopc.com/page/code-of-ethics - for your intervention in this matter to ensure the following:

Verification of Remains : That Pet Farewells produces the verifiable furnace logs, digital timestamps, and individual cremation certification associated with patient Harry Kelly.

Property Hold : That you issue an immediate directive to the facility to preserve all physical remains and related digital/physical records. Given the very justifiable "credible doubt" I have documented regarding the chain of custody, these must be treated as evidence in an active malfeasance investigation.

Transparency : That the facility finally answers the specific questions regarding who issued the "disposal" instructions and why the mandatory standards of your organisation’s membership requirements have been, to date, disregarded in this case.

I would prefer to report on a "gold standard" response from the IAOPCC in resolving this failure of its member, rather than documenting a systemic lack of oversight within the international pet cremation sector. To that end, I sincerely hope you will investigate your accredited member, to determine if they indeed meet your standards for continued accreditation.

And, of course, I now look to you to answer truthfully and transparently, in addition to the above questions, the central matter of whether or not the ashes in the “bag” really are those of my beloved Harry. If they are not, I would rather have a frank and truthful answer.

Further, was Harry, in fact, used as a post-mortem specimen by Massey viz a viz the slip of the tongue by the Pet Farewells staff member that Harry had been “collected with the other post-mortems” and viz a viz her email that states he was received “in a bag” (which was not how Massey staff told me they had despatched him at all) . . . and who issued the directive to “dispose” of his ashes because apparently, I “didn’t want Harry back”?

These are burning questions that not only I want the answers to, but which the readers of my 34 articles-to-date Special Harry Kelly Expose Series (a majority of whom are also loving pet parents) are keen to read your answers to.

If I may continue speaking frankly, it is my firm contention that you would be better served by retracting your organisation's accreditation of this member, rather than letting it soil the global reputation of the pet cremation industry. In the meantime, however, if there is any chance of getting Harry''s actual and true ashes back (along with honest and factual answers to the above questions), I urge you to facilitate this for me.

Most urgently of all, I look forward to your confirmation that a Preservation Notice has been communicated by you to your Pet Farewells member as a non-negotiable requirement.

Sincerely

Jordan Kelly
Executive Director, The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Standards (IIIVE)

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

The Question of Accountability

This inquiry reveals a striking symmetry in the pet cremation industry.

Locally, we have a husband-and-wife team in the Shepherds; while internationally, the oversight is governed by the Shugart family. We are observing a global commercial network where the regulators and the operators would appear to be the same collective.

The IAOPCC Code of Ethics represents a promise to the public, yet as Edwards noted, there appears to be no transparent complaints process for consumers when those ethics are breached. This creates a "regulatory hall of mirrors" where accreditation may function as a marketing shield for providers, but offers no functional protection for the grieving families who pay for it.

If the IAOPCC is to be seen as a legitimate regulatory body rather than a commercial guild, they must now decide if their standards are enforceable. A failure to hold their members to (at the very minimum) the "Point 8" requirement for record-keeping is not just a lapse in professionalism; it is a systemic failure of the very consumer guarantees they claim to uphold.

I, and The Customer & the Constituent team and its readers, await their response to see if these international standards have any substance, or if they are simply a premium-fee business model insulated from actual accountability.

Is Massey's Companion Animal 'Hospital' Running Potentially Lethal Experiments on People's Pets In ICU?

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 12:57:32 GMT

This series, ' THE KILLING OF HARRY', is a progressive investigative journey, diving into the very questionable actions and culture of Massey University's 'Companion Animal Hospital'.

It began as an inquiry into a tragic veterinary error (albeit I remain undecided as to whether or not it may have been more than an "error") - together with the resultantly lethal cover-up - and has evolved into a forensic examination of malpractice and ethics concerns, and institutional secrecy.

The following article represents the latest, and most disturbing (indeed, chilling), chapter of this investigation. It is presented as the foundational hypothesis of the series because, at this stage, it provides the only logical framework that reconciles all the conflicting evidence discovered to date.

___________________________

Clinical Malpractice Is One Thing. Cold Observation of Its Unmitigated Consequences Is Quite Another. And Intentional Continuation of It for 'Teaching Prop' Value . . . then Manufacturing A 'Diagnosis' Necessitating 'Euthanasia' . . . That's Quite Another Thing Again

Clinical malpractice is a tragedy of error.

But the evidence being uncovered in this investigation suggests the possibility a more deliberate institutional "teaching" practice: the unconsented use of a private pet for the serial observational documentation of an unnecessarily-administered lethal combination of sedating agents contraindicated to the recipient's specific, known condition.

In trying to uncover what really happened to my deeply loved pet papillon, Harry, in the face of a diagnosis that made no sense at the time, and a clinical path that my research has demonstrated was a case of fundamental malpractice, it is now incumbent upon me to look at the most plausible clinical explanation for the evidence at hand.

The central question of this investigation has become:

Was Harry a victim of an error (albeit so fundamental as to be incomprehensible), or the subject of "teaching opportunity", one "interesting" enough to have withheld the life-saving treatment the Massey University Companion Animal Hospital could still have provided after their atrocious and potentially lethal "convenience-sedation" of him?

The current evidence suggests a chilling possibility: that once the "error" of administering drugs well-known as contraindicated to a kidney-compromised dog (with fresh test results on hand confirming his status as exactly that) was made, the institution may have chosen to document the results for teaching purposes rather than intervene to save him.

The Evidence of Observation

Massey University has been forced to respond to a formal Privacy Act request for Harry's records.

In doing so, they have admitted to the existence of EIGHT videos taken of Harry during his 15-hour stay. They have released only two. The remaining six are withheld, with the claim that I must view them only on-site due to "privacy concerns" regarding staff - despite the fact that their own IT and Digital Media Department could easily pixelate such details.

One must ask: Why were eight videos taken of a small dog admitted for a routine rehydration procedure? Hardly a subject or procedure of fascination.

In the absence of a transparent explanation, the most logical clinical conclusion is that Harry was being used for the Serial Observational Documentation of a progressive drug reaction . . . with the related plan put in place to convey a false diagnosis (one mimicked by the drug in question) to the owner, as the justification for the sudden need for the urgent "euthanasia" of her beloved dog.

A dog she had delivered just 15 hours prior for a straightforward rehydration procedure.

The Evidence of Reclassification

This "observational" theory provides the first clear explanation for the many anomalies surrounding Harry’s remains.

If you have read the previous articles in this series, you will know that the cremation company, Pet Farewells, made two startling admissions:

They were told by Massey that I " didn't want Harry back ". (Stunning, in the face of my having been prepared to have him transported long distance for cremation in an individual chamber cremator to ensure I received his, and only his, ashes back.)
They "picked him up with all the other post-mortems".

Both were rapidly retracted as "slips of the tongue". And while I couldn't connect either to any semblance of logic at the time, my continuing research into what really befell Harry in what I can only now view as a veterinary house of horrors - Massey University's inaptly named Companion Animal "Hospital" - they would suggest a very likely unthinkable reality.

By moving Harry from a "Private Client Stream" to an "Institutional Stream", his status would have changed from a beloved pet to a clinical specimen. One of the many and varied anomalies that would explain is hat of the "bag" vs the "burrito".

While a staff member provided me with a comforting story of Harry being "burrito’d" in his blanket with his toys, Pet Farewells confirmed in writing that he arrived " tucked up in the bag he was given to us in ." That revelation would suggest that he was not placed in a bag by the courier ; rather, that he was handed over as a bagged specimen - the standard protocol for institutional batch processing.

A Total Collapse of Institutional and Professional Ethics

The reclassification of a living pet into a "drug reaction observation" status(subsequently presented to his owner under the false pretences of a false diagnosis requiring urgent "euthanasia" ) , followed by a "discarded data point" for batch collection, constitutes a massive failure of clinical, institutional, and - for all management and staff privy to it - individual ethics.

It also breaches the most basic of professional standards, including but not limited to:

Breach of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ) Code of Professional Conduct Clause 2.4 (Second Opinions and Referrals):

The Code explicitly states that veterinarians must recognise a client's right to a second opinion.

By creating a sense of "massive urgency" to euthanise based on a false narrative, the institution effectively obstructed the opportunity for an independent assessment, which is a fundamental right of the animal's owner.

Breach of VCNZ Code Clause 1.4 (Honest and Effective Communication):

This clause requires veterinarians to provide information that a reasonable person would need to make an informed decision.

Coercing a client into a euthanasia decision while concealing the fact that the animal was suffering from an unmanaged reaction to an unconsented, strictly contraindicated drug (not once, but repeatedly administered to him, with a potentiating agent) - rather than a natural decline - is a total collapse of this duty and fundamental ethic.
Breach of VCNZ Code Clause 1.1 (Animal Welfare as the First Consideration):

Choosing to document a terminal reaction for "teaching" purposes rather than enabling a second opinion or taking immediate, aggressive clinical action to reverse a known error is a fundamental betrayal of the veterinary oath.
The Communication of a False Diagnosis:

Providing a misleading narrative to the owner that obscures the reality of the contraindicated drug administration and subsequent "observation" status, rather than providing the honest disclosure required for informed consent.
Failure to Administer Life-Saving Treatment:

The intentional choice to prioritise "Serial Observational Documentation" over either (a) life-saving intervention, or (b) the stabilisation of the patient, in order to allow the owner to obtain an independent second opinion.

Consumer Guarantees Act Violation:

A failure to provide veterinary services with "reasonable care and skill", and a total failure to maintain a transparent, professional chain of custody.

Privacy Act Breach:

The ongoing obstruction and withholding of the six (6) videos that document this "observation" period.

My investigations and my questions - much to the unexpected dismay of the parties - will continue.

Every stonewalled communication only serves to reinforce the necessity of this investigation.

My precious little boy died a horrible death, and an unnecessary death.

If the only way to honour him now is to dig out the dark truth hidden in the Massey University veterinary teaching hospital's back-of-house operations, then that is a mission to which I am tenaciously committed.

Massey sacrificed Harry. So Massey can now look forward to sacrificing its undeserved, marketing-based "gold standard" image with unsuspecting pet owners . . . in the interests of ensuring that if they allow their own beloved animals through those ICU doors, they know exactly what the risks are.

POSTSCRIPT 1:

As Harry's deeply devoted "Mummy", I feel absolutely beyond nauseous writing this. But I owe it to Harry, I owe it to my readers, and I most certainly owe it to other pet owners who would want the informed ability to make an educated "risk-to-reward" judgement when faced with Massey's veterinary teaching hospital as an ICU option.

POSTSCRIPT 2:

While the primary evidence suggests they opportunistically observed Harry's suffering after a fundamental and catastrophic error was made , I am forced to remain open to an even darker possibility: that given Harry’s age, his comorbidities, and my history as a "persistent thorn" in the side of the Companion Animal Hospital's management ( for my having multiple times documented their negligence ), his "selection" for this catastrophic "error" may not have been an error at all, but planned from the moment he entered the ward - or very shortly thereafter.

UPDATE : YES, THEY DID. THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OBTAINED CONFIRMING THIS AND IS HERE , HERE AND HERE .

Behind Closed ICU Doors :
Did Massey Sacrifice My Precious Harry to Enable Opportunistic Clinical Observations?

Narrative No-Match: Sophisticated AI Model Analyses Harry's Condition At Massey from Photographic Evidence

Mon, 09 Feb 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.

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

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 06:29:00 GMT

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 .

iiive

STILL WAITING, MASSEY: Five Months of Stonewalling . . . And Counting

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'

NZ's Massey Evades Disclosure Obligations on Legal Fees: What Are You Hiding, and Who's Paying?

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. ﻿

Slippery BIrds of A Feather . . . New Zealand's Massey Vet 'School' & Vet Council Flock Together

Oh Gosh . . . What A Coincidence . . . Same Date, Same Slippery 'Strategy', Same Low-Character and Totally Transparent Category of Ploy ﻿

The Slimy Relationship That Accountability Simply Slides Off

Shame on You, 'Vice-Chancellor' Pierre Venter . . . Really, I Wholeheartedly Mean It: SHAME ON YOU

Quest for Accountability In Massey Cruelty, Falsification & Deception Case: How Conflicted Industry Regulators Roll When Protecting those They Should Be Prosecuting

Five Months In, and the First Hurdle — Getting the Names — Still Hasn't Been Cleared. That Tells You Everything About What Lies Ahead.

Can I Have A Straighter Answer, Please, Vet Council's Liam Shields? Do I Get the Names or Not?

New Zealand's Peak Government Animal Welfare Authority to Investigate Massey University's 'Companion Animal Hospital'

The Enduring Trauma & Human Pain Created by Vets & 'Teaching' 'Hospitals' When They Practice Animal Cruelty

342 Pages of Forensic Evidence . . . Two Months in the Making . . . And Now In the Hands of MPI's Animal Welfare Investigations Team.

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've Done It for All those Other Pet Owners Who Are Too Traumatised or Too Fearful of Repercussions to Speak Out Against Massey

'Hugh Janus' . . . Time for You & Your 'Colleagues' to Re-evaluate Your Choice of Career

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.

‘COMPLAINT DISMISSED’: Is Australia's Veterinary Regulatory System Rigged Against the Pet Owner Just As New Zealand's Is?

In One State Alone, the Research Shows A Non-Credible 72% Complaint Dismissal Rate

A Fragmented System That Serves the Profession & the Profession Only

What Options Do Australian Pet Owners Have?

IIIVE's Position & Ongoing Commitment to Regulatory Capture

When One Institution Holds All the Cards: Veterinary Monopoly, Regulatory Capture & Pet Owners Who Aren't Told the Options

The Pet Owner Who Believes They Have No Choice Has No Power

The New Zealand Veterinary Sector's Best-Kept & Most Dangerous Secret: That There ARE Competing Options in the Specialist Space

Purely By Way of Example of the Growing Number of Alternatives & Much-Needed Competition (No Specific Endorsement Implied)

The Problem Isn't Just the Lack of Competition. It's the Capture of the Bodies That Are Supposed to Ensure Accountability.

When 'Accreditation' Is More A Con than A Guarantee of Anything

What This Means in Practice . . . And How Often It Happens

The Pet Owners Who Never Knew

Harry Homing Mission International Directory Growing . . . Keep ‘Em Coming

Growing . . . So They Can Keep Going (Out the Door with Brand New, Loving Pet Parents)

Bad News for NZ Veterinary Teaching Hospital Staff Who Harm Our Pets: The Institutional Legal Shield Has A Crack Right Down the Middle

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)

'(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 . . ." '

Personal & Individual Accountability: Misfeasance in Public Office

For Those Who Like A Cliffhanger Ending

'From Great Evil, Must Be Made to Come Great Good' . . . Announcing the Harry Homing Mission

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.

Pets Before (Obscene) Profits . . . NOT (Obscene) Profits Before Pets

No Hypocrisy Here

' . . . Out of Great Evil, Great Good Must Be Made to Come . . . '

Because every pet deserves the love and care of their own pet parent.

What Does Singapore's Newest University Partner Know About What Happens Inside Its Veterinary 'Hospital'?

Massey Sells 'Gold Standard' Veterinary Education to Singapore . . . But Does Singapore Know What It's Bought?

The Numbers Behind the Brand

The Reality Behind the Hype

What Singapore's Veterinary Professionals Need to Know

New Zealand's Veterinary Council Makes Begrudging Offer to Extract Names Involved in the Massey / Harry Kelly Case. Is It A Genuine Offer?

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?

On the Apparent Glitch In Your Correspondence

On the Redacted Microsoft Teams Message

On the Internal Contradiction In Your Letter Regarding Conflicts of Interest

On Your Suggestion That I Contact Massey University for Assistance

On Massey University's Ongoing OIA Non-Compliance

In Conclusion, Mr Shields

One Last Point of Note, Regarding VCNZ's Chief Executive Officer

Nothing to See Here Boys, Massey's 'Dean of Veterinary School' Jon Huxley Assures New Zealand's Collusive Veterinary Council

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.

Three & A Half Months of Trying to Rouse the VCNZ Management from Its Collusive Slumber

The Seedy Goings-On In the Background . . .

It's All One Organisation, In Reality

Do They Think I Am Stupid, Naive, or Both?

Isn't There Some Accountability Somewhere . . . Maybe Internationally?

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

IIIVE’s Conclusion : Unsupervised. Unaccountable. Committing Unspeakable Cruelties. And Still Accredited.

CORRECTION - MAY 7, 2026:

Official Information Act 1982 : Cornerstone of NZ’s Constitutional Framework for Public Sector Accountability . . . But Not for Massey

Every Client of Massey’s ‘Companion Animal Hospital’ Will Want to Re-think Their Vets’ Referrals . . . with Urgency

Not Just ‘Conflicts of Interest’ . . . Full. Agency. Capture.

BEYOND DAMNING

The REAL Reasons for the Non-Disclosure of Who ‘Treated’ Harry

Will Rigg Go On to Kill Outside of Massey? Auckland Now, According to the VCNZ Directory. But Is that Organisation's Directory No More Reliable than Its 'Complaints' Process?

ICU Video Footage of Harry Kelly

Instructional Content Authorisation

Missing IDEXX Vital Signs Monitoring Records Post-Overdosing & During and After Filming Utilisation of My Pet

Controlled Drugs Register

Patient Record Access Log and Audit Trail / Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)

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.

Oh Gosh . . . What A Coincidence . . . Same Date, Same Slippery 'Strategy', Same Low-Character and Totally Transparent Category of Ploy

Purely By Way of Example of the Growing Number of Alternatives & Much-Needed Competition
(No Specific Endorsement Implied)

The Problem Isn't Just the Lack of Competition.
It's the Capture of the Bodies That Are Supposed to Ensure Accountability.

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)

Official Information Act 1982 :
Cornerstone of NZ’s Constitutional Framework for Public Sector Accountability . . . But Not for Massey

Will Rigg Go On to Kill Outside of Massey? Auckland Now, According to the VCNZ Directory.
But Is that Organisation's Directory No More Reliable than Its 'Complaints' Process?

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

Behind Closed ICU Doors :
Did Massey Sacrifice My Precious Harry to Enable Opportunistic Clinical Observations?

Additional Commentary:

1. Pharmacokinetic Red Flags