Dear Mr McCully

Embed from Getty Images

To my reader: above is a picture of the target. The mark’s name is Murray McCully. If you see this dupe anywhere, please let him know about this blogpost

Dear Mr McCully

Re: Letter of demand for an entirely reasonable sum of money, as compensation for all the dreadful things done to my client (Our ref: Prey/McCully/Extort/2)

I act for a Saudi businessman, Prince Alwah bin Alwaz bin Al Stephenson.

My client has invested significantly into the New Zealand economy over the last several years. His investments have included a 1993 Toyota Corolla (only three owners, manual, excellent condition), a frozen packet of Watties Choice Cut Green Beans, and the Otago town of Mosgeil.*

My client has also acquired a number of agricultural interests in the Hawke’s Bay region, including a Romney lamb, a book containing sheet music for Old McDonald Had a Farm, and a duck.

It is the duck to which this letter relates. My client acquired the duck in good faith, understanding that he would not be prevented from transporting the said duck to Saudi Arabia. The duck in question, Fluffy, was intended to be the central character in a vast water feature to be built by my client in the middle of the Arabian Desert. This water feature, to be entitled Fluffy, Lord of Arabia, would have drawn tourists from all around the world, except for those despicable Israeli scum (may Allah smite them!), and would have resulted in my client becoming the richest man in all of the East. Such riches he would have enjoyed! My client would have imbibed from jewel-encrusted goblets the finest ambrosia known to man, while plucking grapes placed delicately between the buttocks of the loveliest maidens. He would have known wealth and power unimaginable to mortal men. In short, he would have been more powerful than God.

However, my client’s plans were utterly destroyed as a result of the actions of certain officers of the Crown. When my client and Fluffy arrived at Auckland International Airport last Friday in order to board a plane bound for the Middle East, customs and border security staff refused to allow Fluffy to board the aircraft. This abuse of power by border officials has resulted in Fluffy being unable to travel, and the duck is now very sad. It has also resulted in my client being forced to cancel plans to build his water feature. It now appears that my client will not be richer than Croesus after all. My client has suffered a huge financial loss as a result of the arbitrary and unreasonable actions of border officials in refusing to allow Fluffy to leave New Zealand.

This loss, which cannot be easily quantified, but must surely run into billions and billions of dollars, has arisen as a direct result of numerous breaches of the law by Crown officials. These officials have breached the following laws:

  • the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003
  • the Property (Relationships) Act 1976
  • the Takeovers Act 1993
  • the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014
  • the Otago Foundation Trust Board Act 1992, and
  • the Copyright Act 1994.

So egregious and blatantly unjust were the actions of these officials, that it is not necessary for me to specify precisely which sections of these statutes have been breached. Suffice it to say that the general “feel” of the law tends to favour my client, even if the acts of the Crown officials complained of do not fall tidily within any particular legislative provision.

My client has also instructed me to investigate whether the outrageous and unjustified acts of these officials give rise to liability under the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Treaty of Waitangi, and the laws of cricket.

Moreover, I am confident that I can find any number of obscure and long-forgotten torts to throw at you, should legal action become necessary.

However, I am hopeful that such action will not prove necessary. Although my client’s loss arising from your government’s actions is stupendously and eye-wateringly staggering, such that no calculator in the world would be big enough to fit the entire number on its screen, my client is prepared to accept a lesser sum in full and final settlement of this matter.

Accordingly, please confirm that the Crown will immediately pay to my client the sum of one hundred million dollars (in cash, hundred dollar denominations, unmarked notes, handover venue to be notified shortly, do not involve the police or else Fluffy dies).

Finally, in the interests of disclosure, I should add that some of the facts alleged in this letter may or may not be fabricated. There may or may not be a person called Prince Alwah bin Alwaz bin Al Stephenson, and he may or may not have acquired a duck called Fluffy. However, despite these possible fabrications, I am confident that you will do the right thing and settle this matter and not risk further exposure for the Crown. What if there really was a lunatic plan to build a water feature? What if it is in fact a Saudi custom to issue letters of demand via obscure blogsites?

Mr McCully, do you want to be known as the man who failed to settle this entirely reasonable demand for a hundred million dollars?

Please respond in a timely manner. You have thirty minutes.

Yours sincerely

Hugo Chavez Johnson, Q.C**

PS Please don’t get Crown Law involved. Any unnecessary and protracted legal negotiations are likely to distress Fluffy even further, and may force my client to withdraw his generous offer to settle and instead issue legal proceedings.

* Not to be confused with the Otago town of Mosgiel

** Not to be confused with Scott Yorke, the lawyer whose blogsite this letter is published on. No, he would definitely not stoop to writing something this unprofessional.

*** Not to be confused with the footnote above.