Your Honor,

in response to Farengeto's amicus brief, I would like to note the following:

First, nowhere is it said that the court may not deal with confidential information. I posit that the court is permitted to receive and analyze evidence in private, i.e. evidence of a confidential or private nature, which I will show by contradiction: Suppose the court were not able to receive or analyze evidence in private. Suppose then also the court were to review an action by the Cabinet, which is its right (and even duty) as per III.6 of the Charter. The Cabinet could then simply declare the evidence needed to review the action as confidential, as per 1.3.c of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the Court could not fulfill its Charter-granted right of reviewing and, if necessary, striking down an action; furthermore, this is obviously absurd and therefore violates the golden rule of statutory interpretation. Therefore, it is shown that the court may receive evidence of a confidential nature.

Second, Farengeto notes a "lack of any specification in law for a judicial appeal of these decisions". That is false — the aforementioned III.6 of the Charter grants the Court the blanket power to "strike down any general law or action that violates any right or freedom found in this Charter". The right or freedom in question is contained in the Charter, in IV.5, being the freedom to attain legislator status through application. Furthermore, even if III.6 were to not apply here, the Legal Question procedure as per 3.1 of the Court Procedure Act grants the court to decide what is prohibited by law. Specifically in this case, through this mechanism the court may decide whether the Legislator Committee was prohibited from stripping the petitioner of Legislator status on the basis of the evidence presented. Finally, if everything that the court may review were to require explicit judicial appeal mechanisms to be built into the law, that would also be obviously absurd and, once again, violate the golden rule of statutory interpretation.

Finally, my concerns above are only for the process and to argue for the sanctity and sovereignty of the court. In no way should this brief be viewed as an intent to petition for or against justiciability or for or against a final ruling on this case if deemed justiciable; this brief only argues against Farengeto's specific reasonings for injusticiability.