HMMMMMM ... One wonders if TUPOC's William Komer is accusing someone of criminal trespass. This would be interesting since, as I have explained on occasion, only the owner of a property or a person in control of that property can level such an accusation, which means that the instant TUPOC was officially evicted from St. Brigid's, they lost any ability to accuse anyone of trespassing. (Ironically, it appears that TUPOC are the ones currently trespassing, but that's just a side note).
HANG ON: Is TUPOC suggesting they've filed criminal charges against the owners of St. Brigid's? This could get exciting in a hurry.
STILL CONFUSED: Not sure how to parse this ... TUPOC's tweet is clearly designed to give the impression that a JP reviewed TUPOC's claims and "endoursed" them; as in, that the JP in some way approved them for actual prosecution. But Andrew suggests that all that means is that a JP has agreed to examine them (which I am assuming is legally required for all such claims, even the most absurd).
Can someone clarify? And how low a bar is it for such claims to be approved by a JP and passed on for prosecution? And even if the JP passes it on, is it open to the Crown to simply refuse to prosecute? So many questions ...