Let's make it clearer (in case you don't know):

1.  The new-sspx is accepting novus ordo priests (i.e. have been ordained in the 'new rites').  Just like they accepted "bishop" Huonder.
2.  The new-sspx is NOT conditionally ordaining these "priests". 
3.  The new rites are doubtfully valid.  These "priests" are doubtful. 
4.  Canon Law prohibits using/saying/attending doubtful masses/sacraments under penalty of mortal sin (i.e. except in danger of death).
5.  Anyone who accepts or attends masses/sacraments of doubtful priests commits a grave sin (if there's not a danger of death).
6.  The new-sspx is committing grave sins by introducing doubtful priests into their chapels.
7.  These doubtful priests also have doubtful seminary training and doubtful views on Tradition and doctrine, being they were trained in the novus ordo.
8.  This site is meant to identify such doubtful priests so that Trads can avoid them and also to obey canon law, and avoid grave sins.

You have made a lot of statements. Firstly, the Resistance has also accepted Novus Ordo clerics; one of which has a background in child abuse and was officially laicized. He was put on the traditional circuit here in Ireland by Bishop Ballini only three months after his liacization as a Novus Order deacon. It isn't just a SSPX problem; Novus Order priests coming into the Resistance also needs to be monitored and checked out too. Secondly, are you certain that the SSPX are not conditionally ordaining these priests? Word on the ground is that they are, but keeping it very low key. I agree it is a worry - I would certainly be nervous of a Novus Ordo priest with regards to background and training, but I'm curious as to why you are so adamant that they are not conditionally ordaining them. More info?

I'm not arguing what the SSPX is doing, although you are wrong on some of your points. 
So based on all that, you figure that those points justifies you putting a satanic NO priest as being representative of the SSPX? It's a terrible, even scandalous first impression on newbies.
 
Since when have two wrongs made a right?

 
 

Thanks for this. I'm from Ireland and I intend to inquire about this.

The new-sspx using doubtful priests is a damnable offense before God.  It's a grave sin, for all involved (the "priest", the laity, the new-sspx leadership).  This is a MAJOR problem.

If the Resistance isn’t conditionally ordaining, they are wrong too. 

+ABL comparison isn’t fair because there were still old rite bishops in new-Rome in the 70s/80s.  Their ordinations would’ve been valid. 

The main problem is the new rite of episcopal consecration.  New rite bishops aren’t real.  New rite bishops who ordain using the OLD rite (ie in indult communities) are still doubtful. 

Then according to you the current occupants of the Apostolic See since Ratzinger would not have been valid bishops. Unlike classic sedes, your last Pope would have been John Paul II.