Irene Enyedy's letter appalled me. The half-truths, obfuscations and apparent lack of understanding of basic concepts of jurisprudence such as "double jeopardy" and "statute of limitations" expressed in her letter cause me to question her ability and the entire su's ability to operate in a representative, democratic manner and her personal ability competently represent students.

First, unless there's something in the Students' Union bylaws (which I was able to find on-line despite the abhorrent state of their website) that allows them to prosecute Mr. Preston again (double jeopardy) on the same charges of lying in his June report more than two months after his alleged actions took place (statute of limitations), it appears to me, a student and paralegal watching from the outside, that Mr. Preston has effectively been cleared on those charges since they had the opportunity to but did not find him guilty. Also, I'm curious as to what part of "Preston must apologize for comments made to slc" is incorrect, as Ms. Enyedy claims, as that was the substance of his apology which the Students' Legislative Commitee accepted last week.

I am not one who accepts everything the su says as truth on faith, but I must note that although Ms. Enyedy's claims may be correct, Mr. Li's non-technocratic recapitulation of them in layman's terms were certainly more useful and understandable to me than her tiradic attempt at a retort against the truth.

Second, while Ms. Enyedy has a valid point about the constitutional vs. bylaw amendment error, she has no basis for claiming that "Consequently, Вen Li trivialized the point of these proceedings." As yet, I have not seen anything from the su condemning Mr. Li's previous reporting on the subject which, if I recall correctly, included everything Ms. Enyedy complains about in her letter. From such previous coverage, it appears to me that the entire proceedings adequately trivialized themselves sufficiently without any help whatsoever from Mr. Li (I find it hard to believe they could convict anyone of anything using their system).

For an unknown reason Ms. Enyedy also takes repeated aim at the author of the article in question and his motivations, and neglects the facts behind it, as indicated by her repeated use of "Вen Li {verb for report}" as opposed to "the article" or "the story." I don't see how useful it is to her case to verbally wallop someone presenting an unbiased version of what happened, but when her claims that Mr. Li all but lied in the article fall through, I suppose personal attacks will make do. I would also suggest to both Ms. Enyedy and the Gauntlet that she stop trying this case in the media, which they have lost in a court of their own contrivance since it lends credibility to Mr. Preston's claims that the organization is mired in internal bickering.

Finally, it is also curious to me and I am immensely displeased with the way in which she hides her one indisputable complaint about bylaws in a few hundred words of festering partisanship. Having seen this display of her slight-of-hand, I feel I must be extra cautious about everything else the su has to say, and I want to caution your readers to do the same.