Subject : Breach of RCVS Education Standards and Record Falsification - Massey University (NZ)

------- Latest Reply Received -------

From: Registrar

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 11:14 pm

To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Cc: Registrar

Subject: Re: Statutory disclosure: breach of AVBC accreditation standards and record falsification - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Ms Kelly,

I write on behalf of the Registrar to acknowledge receipt of your emails of 2 March and 6 March 2026 and note that the email of 6 March has also been forwarded to the CEO, Executive Office and Education Department of the RCVS.

Yours sincerely,

Dawn Wiggins (Mrs).

Dawn Wiggins

PA to the Registrar / Director of Legal Services

Council Secretary

Executive Office

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

1 Hardwick Street

London

EC1R 4RB

--------------------------------------

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 4:11 pm

To: 'e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'education@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'education@rcvs.org.uk'

Cc: 'admin@avbc.asn.au' ; 'pcosecretariat@pco.gov.uk'

Subject: STATUTORY DISCLOSURE: Breach of RCVS Education Standards and Record Falsification - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Ms Ferguson (Registrar) and the RCVS Education Committee,

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 Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Standards Framework for Veterinary Education:  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 (RCVS) :  Paragraph 2.1 (Leadership and Governance)
• Standard 11 (RCVS) :  Paragraph 5.3 (Clinical Competency)

I am submitting this as a formal disclosure under Section 2.1 (Quality Management) of the RCVS Standards Framework, which requires accredited institutions to be open and accountable. As the regulator, the RCVS is obligated to incorporate stakeholder evidence of systemic failure into its quality assurance audits.

I have provided highly detailed, supported-by-documentation evidence of systemic record falsification (Breach of Requirement 2.1: Leadership and Governance) and lethal teaching standards involving 750% overdosings (Breach of Requirement 5.3: Clinical Competency).

If the RCVS 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 Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK) 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 RCVS 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 RCVS – as a statutory body with a Royal Charter – 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 RCVS 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 RCVS, under its Royal Charter and the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, has a statutory duty to ensure that the institutions it accredits maintain the highest standards of professional conduct and education. I am formally notifying you that Massey University has breached these standards. Your failure to investigate this documented evidence of record falsification would constitute a failure of your regulatory mandate to protect the integrity of the UK Veterinary Register.

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-file

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?

Yours Sincerely

Jordan Kelly

Masterton, New Zealand

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2026 8:15 pm

To: 'Dr. Samantha Morello' ; 'COE' ; 'generalcounsel@avma.org'

Cc: 'admin@avbc.asn.au' ; 'aslppu@ed.gov' ; 'oig.hotline@ed.gov' ; 'president@chea.org' ; 'ThirdPartyComments@ed.gov' ; 'oig.hotline@ed.gov' ; 'ceo@avbc.asn.au' ; 'aslrecordsmanager@ed.gov' ; 'Registrar'

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

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

Masterton, New Zealand

Tel: +64 6 657 0170

___________________

From: Dr. Samantha Morello  

Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2026 4:17 am

To: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com; COE ; 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

AVMA Council on Education Information 

___________________________

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:28 PM

To: Dr. Samantha Morello ; Dr. Karen Brandt ; COE ; generalcounsel@avma.org

Cc: admin@avbc.asn.au; aslppu@ed.gov

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 

Masterton, New Zealand

Tel:  +64 6 657 0170

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 5:40 pm

To: 'julie.strous@avbc.asn.au'

Cc: 'tamsin.gane@avbc.asn.au' ; 'admin@avbc.asn.au' ; 'coe@avma.org' ; 'l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'education@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'smorello@avma.org' ; 'education@avma.org' ; 'generalcounsel@avma.org' ; 'Cheryl_germono@nparks.gov.sg' ; 'kp@dvs.gov.my' ; 'enquiry@vsbhk.org.hk'

Subject: STATUTORY DISCLOSURE: Breach of AVBC Accreditation Standards and Record Falsification - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Dr Strous (Executive Director) and the AVBC Accreditation Committee,

It is my understanding that the Australian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), as the statutory body responsible for ensuring uniform educational standards in Australia and New Zealand, has a mandate to protect the integrity of the profession. 

I am, therefore, formally notifying you that Massey University has breached these standards. 

Your failure to investigate documented evidence of record falsification (Breach of Requirement 1.7) and lethal teaching standards (Breach of Requirement 11.1) would constitute a failure of your duty to the veterinary boards and the public across Australasia. Given the gravely serious nature of what is clearly evidenced in the coverage and materials I have already sent you (and am herewith sending you yet again), and the clear breach of AVBC 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.

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 Australasian Veterinary Boards Council’s Standards for Accreditation of Veterinary Schools.

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:  Governance (Specifically Requirement 1.7: Risk Management)

• Standard 11:  Assessment (Specifically Requirement 11.1: Assessment Strategy)

(For the sake of future pet owner readers, it should be understood that these requirements mean the following:

• The school must have an "assessment strategy" that ensures students meet "Day One Competencies" (the minimum safety skills needed to graduate). Massey is currently assessing students based on a "teaching standard" that includes the acceptability of overdosing private fee-paying clients’ pets repeatedly with 750% overdosings of unnecessary and contraindicated drugs, and also drugs unauthorised by the pet’s owner. It is further assessing them against the unauthorised use of over-sedated patients (sedated and over-sedated specifically for the purpose) in student activities and filming on cell phones. It is further assessing them against the acceptability of providing false diagnoses to pet owners and coerced “euthanasia” on the basis of false diagnoses and undisclosed sedation. That is a total and multi-faceted failure of any “assessment” strategy.

• Accreditation requires that assessments must be "valid, reliable, and fair". It is impossible to have a "valid" assessment of a student's competency if the clinical records being used for that assessment have been falsified – which, in itself, is a criminal act under law.)

I am, thus, submitting this as a formal disclosure regarding Massey's material and substantial non-compliance with the AVBC Accreditation Standards, which require accredited institutions to maintain transparency and integrity in their clinical and educational operations.

If the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council 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 repeatedly, it should be further noted).

I am thus providing this Final Notice to ensure that it is a matter of statutory record that the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council 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 will 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 Australian Veterinary Boards Council 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 AVBC – as the peak accrediting body for veterinary schools in Australasia – were fully informed of these breaches of your Accreditation Standards.

It is also 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 have 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.

As a pertinent aside:  

The Chief Executive of the New Zealand regulatory body, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, is currently under investigation by the professional industry organisation of which he himself is a member i.e. the New Zealand Law Society, for his inaction related to the complaint regarding my own specific case i.e. the VCNZ’s non-facilitation of the complaint and the non-disclosure of multiple points of direct conflicts of interest between the VCNZ and senior veterinary school teaching personnel at Massey University.

Also to be clear, this email and your response (or lack thereof) will be published – and it will be included in our future broader (general and specialist veterinary, pet, and animal-related) media distributions regarding this matter and all associated issues as they concern the world’s pet owners.

Meantime, the articles I have already supplied you with access to include, but are not limited to (and I herewith 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 

Masterton, New Zealand

Tel:  +64 6 657 0161

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 11:40 am

To: 'teo.boon.han@vettrustsingapore.com'

Cc: 'han.zi.yang@vettrustsingapore.com' ; 'denyse.khor@vettrustsingapore.com' ; 'jenna.kiddie@vettrustsingapore.com' ; 'chang_siow_foong@nparks.gov.sg' ; 'cheryl_germono@nparks.gov.sg' ; 'admin@avbc.asn.au' ; 'standardsreview@avbc.asn.au' ; 'qsm@nparks.gov.sg' ; 'avs_registry@nparks.gov.sg' ; 'qsm@nparks.gov.sg' ; 'enquiries@spca.org.sg' ; 'avs_registry@nparks.gov.sg'

Subject: URGENT: Disclosure of Clinical Malpractice and Record Falsification at Massey University (NZ)

Dear Dr Boon Han Teo and Dr Chang Siow Foong,

I read from the Association’s LinkedIn profile that “the Singapore Veterinary Association is the professional society representing the interests of veterinary surgeons & the veterinary community in Singapore. The objectives of the SVA are to: - promote and advance the veterinary art and the practice of veterinary and allied sciences in Singapore - support, protect and foster the character, status, interests, honour and dignity of the veterinary profession - inform and acquaint the government & public of Singapore on matters relating to veterinary science and the veterinary profession.”

If that is truly the mandate of your Association, you will no doubt wish to be alerted to the following gross misconducts, malpractices, malfeasances, and clinical record falsification behaviours occurring at Massey University’s Teaching Veterinary Hospital in New Zealand. 

As Massey University currently holds AVBC (Australasian Veterinary Boards Council) accreditation - which Singapore relies upon for licensing - I am formally inquiring whether the SVA will remain silent on a teaching hospital that codifies the 750% overdosing (of a contraindicated, client-unauthorised sedative) for the group student filming (on personal cell phones) of a private client’s pet, and the falsification of diagnoses and clinical, administrative and financial records (resulting in a Police report), and the coercion of termination of pets on the basis of false diagnoses. 

Silence, in this instance, is a direct endorsement of those standards for the Singaporean public – and my publication is keen to see how you respond to this notification.

I am currently working on a public awareness campaign for Singaporean pet owners such that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to take the associated risks of having their pets “cared” for by graduates of this institution.

P.S.  For the Attention of the AVBC Executive Office:  I am formally putting the AVBC on notice that the facts and evidence included in the coverage available at our publication demonstrate a failure of Standard 1 (Organisation and Governance) and Standard 3 (Facilities and Clinical Resources) of the AVBC Accreditation Standards. Specifically, the use of an undisclosed 750% overdose as a “teaching standard” and the subsequent falsification of records to cover said event represents a total collapse of institutional oversight. I look forward to your confirmation that this will be reviewed in the context of Massey University’s current accreditation status.

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

• 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-in-Chief 

www.thecustomer.co.nz  

(coverage also via DoggieMamma.com)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 12:21 pm

To: 'enquiry@vsbhk.org.hk' ; 'mary_chow@afcd.gov.hk'

Cc: 'admin@avbc.asn.au' ; 'mailbox@afcd.gov.hk' ; 'complaint@afcd.gov.hk'

Subject: URGENT: Disclosure of Clinical Malpractice and Record Falsification at Massey University (NZ)

Dear Members of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong and AFCD Leadership,

I read from the Veterinary Surgeon’s Board of Hong Kong website and your Mission Statement there, that:

“The mission of the VSB is to safeguard the health and welfare of animals and interests of animal owners through the development and improvement of professional standards, regulation of ethical standards, registration of veterinary surgeons, and diligent exercise of disciplinary control of the professional activities of registered veterinary surgeons.”

If that is truly the mandate of your organisation, you will no doubt wish to be alerted to the following gross misconducts, malpractices, malfeasances, and clinical record falsification behaviours occurring at Massey University’s Teaching Veterinary Hospital in New Zealand. 

As Massey University currently holds AVBC (Australasian Veterinary Boards Council) accreditation - which Hong Kong relies upon for licensing - I am formally inquiring whether the VSBHK will remain silent on a teaching hospital that codifies the 750% overdosing (of a contraindicated, client-unauthorised sedative) for the group student filming (on personal cell phones) of a private client’s pet, and the falsification of diagnoses and clinical, administrative and financial records (resulting in a Police report), and the coercion of termination of pets on the basis of false diagnoses. 

Silence, in this instance, is a direct endorsement of those standards for the Hong Kong public. My publication is keen to see how you respond to this notification.

I am currently working on a public awareness campaign for Hong Kong pet owners such that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to take the associated risks of having their pets “cared” for by graduates of this institution.

I and my publication put it to you that Hong Kong should be seen as importing the best of the West – not allowing itself, simply through no other perceived options, to become the "dumping ground" for sub-standard Western veterinary training.

P.S.  For the Attention of the AVBC Executive Office:  I am formally putting the AVBC on notice that the facts and evidence included in the coverage available at our publication demonstrate a failure of Standard 1 (Organisation and Governance) and Standard 3 (Facilities and Clinical Resources) of the AVBC Accreditation Standards. Specifically, the use of an undisclosed 750% overdose as a “teaching standard” and the subsequent falsification of records to cover said event represents a total collapse of institutional oversight. I look forward to your confirmation that this will be reviewed in the context of Massey University’s current accreditation status.

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

• 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-in-Chief 

www.thecustomer.co.nz  

(coverage also via DoggieMamma.com)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 1:02 pm

To: 'registrar@mva.gov.my' ; 'mvc@dvs.gov.my' ; 'mvc@dvs.gov.my' ; 'mvcsecretary@dvs.gov.my'

Cc: 'akma@dvs.gov.my' ; 'mva.sec@gmail.com' ; 'admin@avbc.asn.au' ; 'kp@dvs.gov.my' ; 'pro@dvs.gov.my'

Subject: URGENT: Disclosure of Clinical Malpractice and Record Falsification at Massey University (NZ)

Dear Dr Akma Ngah Hamid and Members of the Malaysian Veterinary Council,

I read from the Malaysian Veterinary Council’s (MVC) website that:

“The Council's primary objective is to ensure the highest standards of practice in veterinary medicine, through fair and effective administration of the Act, in the interest of patients, public and the profession.”

Moreover, I specifically note this comment in your “MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT” (https://www.dvs.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/2509):     

“The involvement of veterinary surgeons in human-animal interaction is becoming more relevant in our daily life.”

If that is truly the mandate of the MVC, you will no doubt wish to be alerted to the following gross misconducts, malpractices, malfeasances, and clinical record falsification behaviours occurring at Massey University’s Teaching Veterinary Hospital in New Zealand. 

As Massey University currently holds AVBC (Australasian Veterinary Boards Council) accreditation - which Malaysia relies upon for licensing - I am formally inquiring whether the MVC will remain silent on a teaching hospital that codifies the 750% overdosing (of a contraindicated, client-unauthorised sedative) for the group student filming (on personal cell phones) of a private client’s pet, and the falsification of diagnoses and clinical, administrative and financial records (resulting in a Police report), and the coercion of termination of pets on the basis of false diagnoses. 

Silence, in this instance, is a direct endorsement of those standards for the Malaysian public – and my publication is keen to see how you respond to this notification.

I am currently working on a public awareness campaign for Malaysian pet owners such that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to take the associated risks of having their pets “cared” for by graduates of this institution.

P.S.  For the Attention of the AVBC Executive Office:  I am formally putting the AVBC on notice that the facts and evidence included in the coverage available at our publication demonstrate a failure of Standard 1 (Organisation and Governance) and Standard 3 (Facilities and Clinical Resources) of the AVBC Accreditation Standards. Specifically, the use of an undisclosed 750% overdose as a “teaching standard” and the subsequent falsification of records to cover said event represents a total collapse of institutional oversight. I look forward to your confirmation that this will be reviewed in the context of Massey University’s current accreditation status.

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

• 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-in-Chief 

www.thecustomer.co.nz  

(Coverage also via DoggieMamma.com)

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 6:46 pm

To: 'jianma@nufe.edu.cn' ; 'admission@njau.edu.cn' ; 'moe@moe.edu.cn'

Cc: 'ceo@avbc.asn.au' ; 'coie@njau.edu.cn' ; 'wmche@stnet.cscse.edu.cn' ; 'bzhou@cscse.edu.cn' ; 'beijing@enz.govt.nz' ; 'enquiry@vsbhk.org.hk'

Subject: OFFICIAL DISCLOSURE: Massey University Record Falsification / 官方披露：梅西大学记录造假

To Director Jian Ma and the Leadership of Nanjing Agricultural University and the Ministry of Education:

I am providing this formal disclosure to you as a primary joint-venture partner of Massey University (New Zealand). 

Please find below the Statutory Disclosure sent today to the CEO of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC) regarding documented institutional record falsification and material breaches of international accreditation standards at Massey.

This information is provided for your immediate Institutional Risk Assessment.

In the interests of administrative transparency, it is vital that the Chinese Ministry of Education and Massey’s partner institutes are aware of this detailed evidence regarding Massey’s clinical, governance and serious ethics failures, as these directly impact the reputation and accreditation of your own joint programs.

Please see the below Statutory Disclosure email to the key international regulators, including the Australian Veterinary Boards Council’s Chief Executive, Kate Simkovic.

Jordan Kelly 

Editor & Reviewer-in-Chief

The Customer & The Constituent 

www.thecustomer.co.nz

International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE) 

www.iiive.org 

Masterton, New Zealand Tel: +64 6 657 0161

From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com  

Sent: Friday, 6 March 2026 5:40 pm

To: 'julie.strous@avbc.asn.au'

Cc: 'tamsin.gane@avbc.asn.au' ; 'admin@avbc.asn.au' ; 'coe@avma.org' ; 'l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'education@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk' ; 'smorello@avma.org' ; 'education@avma.org' ; 'generalcounsel@avma.org' ; 'Cheryl_germono@nparks.gov.sg' ; 'kp@dvs.gov.my' ; 'enquiry@vsbhk.org.hk'

Subject: STATUTORY DISCLOSURE: Breach of AVBC Accreditation Standards and Record Falsification - Massey University (NZ)

Dear Dr Strous (Executive Director) and the AVBC Accreditation Committee,

It is my understanding that the Australian Veterinary Boards Council (AVBC), as the statutory body responsible for ensuring uniform educational standards in Australia and New Zealand, has a mandate to protect the integrity of the profession. 

I am, therefore, formally notifying you that Massey University has breached these standards. 

Your failure to investigate documented evidence of record falsification (Breach of Requirement 1.7) and lethal teaching standards (Breach of Requirement 11.1) would constitute a failure of your duty to the veterinary boards and the public across Australasia. Given the gravely serious nature of what is clearly evidenced in the coverage and materials I have already sent you (and am herewith sending you yet again), and the clear breach of AVBC 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.

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 Australasian Veterinary Boards Council’s Standards for Accreditation of Veterinary Schools.

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:  Governance (Specifically Requirement 1.7: Risk Management)

• Standard 11:  Assessment (Specifically Requirement 11.1: Assessment Strategy)

(For the sake of future pet owner readers, it should be understood that these requirements mean the following:

• The school must have an "assessment strategy" that ensures students meet "Day One Competencies" (the minimum safety skills needed to graduate). Massey is currently assessing students based on a "teaching standard" that includes the acceptability of overdosing private fee-paying clients’ pets repeatedly with 750% overdosings of unnecessary and contraindicated drugs, and also drugs unauthorised by the pet’s owner. It is further assessing them against the unauthorised use of over-sedated patients (sedated and over-sedated specifically for the purpose) in student activities and filming on cell phones. It is further assessing them against the acceptability of providing false diagnoses to pet owners and coerced “euthanasia” on the basis of false diagnoses and undisclosed sedation. That is a total and multi-faceted failure of any “assessment” strategy.

• Accreditation requires that assessments must be "valid, reliable, and fair". It is impossible to have a "valid" assessment of a student's competency if the clinical records being used for that assessment have been falsified – which, in itself, is a criminal act under law.)

I am, thus, submitting this as a formal disclosure regarding Massey's material and substantial non-compliance with the AVBC Accreditation Standards, which require accredited institutions to maintain transparency and integrity in their clinical and educational operations.

If the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council 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 repeatedly, it should be further noted).

I am thus providing this Final Notice to ensure that it is a matter of statutory record that the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council 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 will 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). 

The purpose of the publication of this notice to the Australian Veterinary Boards Council 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 AVBC – as the peak accrediting body for veterinary schools in Australasia – were fully informed of these breaches of your Accreditation Standards.

It is also 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 have 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.

As a pertinent aside:  

The Chief Executive of the New Zealand regulatory body, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, is currently under investigation by the professional industry organisation of which he himself is a member i.e. the New Zealand Law Society, for his inaction related to the complaint regarding my own specific case i.e. the VCNZ’s non-facilitation of the complaint and the non-disclosure of multiple points of direct conflicts of interest between the VCNZ and senior veterinary school teaching personnel at Massey University.

Also to be clear, this email and your response (or lack thereof) will be published – and it will be included in our future broader (general and specialist veterinary, pet, and animal-related) media distributions regarding this matter and all associated issues as they concern the world’s pet owners.

Meantime, the articles I have already supplied you with access to include, but are not limited to (and I herewith 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

• 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 

Masterton, New Zealand

Tel:  +64 6 657 0161