Your honor,
if it pleases, a short amicus brief:
The law does not address dual membership whatsoever; Omega points at the membership requirements for a party to be legally recognized which is a completely separate matter. As such, a court decision that disallows dual membership at this point could only be done by interpreting the proverbial "spirit", not the "letter". However, there are no cases of dual membership in parties (which can be shown conclusively due to the requirement of updated party rosters in the PP law), and drafting deliberations for the PPA do not reveal any prior discussions or mentions of this topic. As such, a ruling against dual membership would be significantly more activist than the precedence in this great court shows.