The Weather in North Dakota

From: Steve Tetley
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:38 AM
To: _EVERYONE
Subject: FW: [Weather In North Dakota]

I just got off the phone with a friend in North Dakota.

He said that since early this morning the snow has been nearly waist high and is still falling. The temperature is dropping below zero and the north wind is increasing. His wife has done nothing but look through the kitchen window. He says that if it gets much worse, he may have to let her in.

From: Aaron Simon
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:45 AM
To: Steve Tetley
Subject: RE: FW: [Weather In North Dakota]

Dear Steve,

Thanks for sending that e-mail and sharing your concern with everyone.

I understand that, since your friend is living in North Dakota, he may have some issues to work out re: the government, civilized society, and anything other than bison and/or deer, but, frankly, I agree with you in that such behavior is unacceptable.

Would you care to pass along your friend’s address? I have some friends in the FBI who might be interested in talking to this man about certain laws regarding purposeful human endangerment.

Best,

Aaron Simon

From: Steve Tetley
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:01 AM
To: Aaron Simon
Subject: RE: RE: FW: [Weather In North Dakota]

No.

It was a joke I was forwarded on a list that I am on. Do not send anything to FBI. There is no need. No one is in the cold.

From: Aaron Simon
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:32 AM
To: Steve Tetley
Subject: RE: RE: RE: FW: [Weather In North Dakota]

Dear Steve,

I understand humor, and that was not humor. Spousal abuse is not a joking matter, and being sent out into the cold like that certainly does not qualify as humor. I understand that you’re concerned about the well-being of your friend in North Dakota, but you should also be concerned about the welfare of his wife—regardless of your potentially sexist views on marriage, though I’m not overtly calling you sexist.

Since I, too, care about my friends, I would go to the same lengths to protect them—however, I would not stoop to actions which would cause harm to another person. (I would recommend reading the thoughts and sayings of Guatama Buddha for further insight into other branches of philosophy; specifically those which condemn spousal abuse.) In such a vein, I have forwarded your e-mail to my friend in the FBI, Agent Danny Yudavitch. I would suspect that you would hear from him soon.

Regards,

Aaron

From: Steve Tetley
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Aaron Simon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: FW: [Weather In North Dakota]

Your joking, rite?

From: Daniel Yudavitch
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:48 AM
To: Steve Tetley

CC: Aaron Simon; Fred Yeats
Subject: Case: ND-SA-3291011

Dear Mr. Tetley,

Aaron Simon forwarded me your e-mail this morning. While he has the best of intentions, he never has possessed the best knowledge of how law enforcement works. Since this is not a federal case, I cannot directly be involved in it, as it is outside of my jurisdiction.

However, I have taken the liberty of copying in a friend of mine who is a sheriff in Burleigh County, North Dakota. I’m sure he will be more than interested in helping out with this case.

Regards,

Daniel Yudavitch

Field Agent

Federal Bureau of Investigation

From: Fred Yeats
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:48 AM
To: Steve Tetley

CC: Daniel Yudavitch; Aaron Simon
Subject: RE: Case: ND-SA-3291011

Dear Mr. Tetley,

Picking up from Danny’s e-mail: Deader than a dead dog out here, even despite the weather, so I figure I can get something rolling on your friend’s case.

What’s your friend’s address and phone number so I can help his wife.

Yours,

Fred Yeats

Sheriff

Burleigh County

From: Steve Tetley
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:51 AM
To: Fred Yeats
Subject: RE: RE: Case: ND-SA-3291011

I don’t have a friend in north dakota I don’t know anyone there. Please don’t email me again this is a waste of time

From: Fred Yeats
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:55 AM
To: Steve Tetley

CC: Tom McQueen
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Case: ND-SA-3291011

Boy, this ain’t something you screw around with. Give me the address or I’ll figure out a way to hit you with obstruction of justice.

Fred

Sheriff

Burleigh County

From: Tom McQueen
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Steve Tetley

CC: Fred Yeats
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Case: ND-SA-3291011

Dear Mr. Tetley,

This is Tom McQueen, Sheriff’s Deputy. At 11:32 AM, CT, we responded to help a local police department with a domestic abuse case.

By the time we arrived at the scene, the perpetrator was in custody and his wife was pronounced deceased due to extreme hypothermia resulting from prolonged exposure to the elements and is currently en route to Burleigh County Morgue.

We put two and two together and figured out that this was your friend and his wife. Currently, we are looking into options in prosecuting your friend for domestic abuse, obstruction of justice, assaulting a police officer, and first degree murder – and possibly yourself, for obstruction of justice and third-degree murder.

Sheriff Yeats wanted me to hold off alerting you to this, due to the severe nature of the crime, but I thought it was only basic decency that you should be told to prepare an adequate legal defense.

May God be with you, cause the state of North Dakota sure won’t.

Tom McQueen

Sheriff’s Deputy

Burleigh County

From: Steve Tetley
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:39 PM
To: _EVERYONE
Subject: A bad joke

Point has been proven. Wont forward jokes anymore.

From: Aaron Simon
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:39 PM
To: Steve Tetley; _EVERYONE
Subject: A bad joke

lol

The Piranha Plant

The object growing in Holst-Dulverton's back garden

So, one of my friends and I–Chris Flynn–created a couple of caricatures one day. The caricatures are two utterly mad English aristocrats completely caught up in their station in life and, by all accounts, living in the 19th century–they just happen to find themselves in the 21st. This is the first letter I’ve written in character, and am waiting for the response to jot down the second. I’ve recorded it (it’s 13 minutes), and will, if I remember, put a link to it alongside this.

Frederick Smythe-Tensington Rexley, B.A., Ph.D, M.D., J.D.
The Hedgerow
Yaxley-upon-Stour
Yaxleyshire
YX2 8IS

4 August, 2010

Dear Mr Rexley, B.A., Ph.D, M.D., J.D.,

In answer to your query posed the First of July: No, I am reticent to admit that I have not followed the current cricket contest between England (God save the Queen) and Pakistan. I find sport abhorrent in its very nature and something to be enjoyed by only the common folk in our country. As you are well aware, in my youth, I would make my way down Oxford Street upon my horse, Mercury, and trod upon those who I deemed common—so it is, of course, unlikely that I would have anything to do with those vagabonds. (Before you waste precious ink distilled from the fat of whales—as I know this is the only sort of ink you use—allow me to state two things: Firstly, I was never charged with a crime, for, as you know, I am related to every MP of note in the Southeast, Southwest, Midlands, and Greater London area. Secondly, no, I do not judge you for enjoying sport, I simply state my only preference.

In regards to your question about whether or not the recent election was favourable to those of us in, shall I say, higher positions, I need only turn your attention to the recent decrees put forward by the Prime Minister. I say, “eat shit,” as our American brethren would say, you dirty council house-dwelling proletariat. And I do not feel I must make a point upon the imminent dissolution of the Film Board—that amoral institution responsible for besmirching the name of Film. There are, of course, those rogues, the Liberal-Democrats working in supposed co-operation with the Conservatives, but I sincerely doubt they are making their presence known beyond flailing around Parliament, shouting and crying like some puppy squashed in the road. Rather amusing, I must say. Of course, we here in Fizzleshire are an admittedly removed lot—those whose income totals less than £300,000 per annum are removed to Kent. (I had briefly considered embarking upon a diatribe on the subject on that miserable excuse of a county, that stain upon England [God save the Queen!] but I am quite certain even you are beyond the point of hearing anything new I have to say on the subject.)

Continue reading