CathInfo.com

Ladislaus has mentioned that he views the Kozik and Fernandez conditional consecrations as highly suspect.

In looking at the post #738 above "Are They All Legit"?
I noticed that I left out the fact from the Boyle list that Fernandez claims to have been conditionally consecrated on 10-19-1978. His claim "is but a reported consecration by Magr. Thuc. It may never have occurred" according to Boyle- so extremely doubtful.

But, I didn't notice until after that post, that Kozik's date of conditional consecration is the same exact date: 10-19-78.  Not only is there no docuмentation, but also they were both already consecrated by Palmerian bishops, and since the supposed conditional consecration date is the same for both- if one is doubtful- that does not bode well for the other.
 
If Fernandez and Kozik are not in fact legit then we can add one more doubtful (conditional) consecration, from the total of 14 consecrations by Abp. Thuc, for a total of 10 that look legit and 4 that are extremely doubtful.

Correct.  +?Fernandez and +?Kozik both reportedly went together to visit Archbishop Thuc in Italy ... thus the exact same date.

Here was the problem for Kozik / Fernandez.  It was on August 6th, 1978 that Clemente Dominguez declared himself pope.  Now, that was viewed so negatively in France, where those two were operating (having broken away earlier from the Palmar group), that the stigma of their association with Dominguez was putting the credibility of their apostolates on the line.  That's why about 2 months later they (allegedly) went to see +Thuc.  So, a conditional consecration made no sense from the standpoint of validity, since they had already been validly consecrated.  While Dominguez and Corral might be suspect due to lack of sufficient training, one of the co-consecrators in the early years was Bishop Puga, who had been a properly trained priest before Vatican II, and so his participation in the consecration would have lent it a presumption of validity.  If anything, they might have doubted the validity of their ordination if the had not been ordained by +Puga .. but there's no word of a conditional ordination from +Thuc in late 1978.  So their visit or purported visit wasn't so much about validity of Orders as it was about attempting to shake the stigma of their association with Palmar de Troya.  There's no independent verification of their visit, nor that a conditional consecration had been performed.  +Kozik did produce a docuмent that appeared to have been signed by +Thuc, but he could simply have presented a certificate for +Thuc to sign by telling him some story about how they broke from Palmar but as a result the group had not issued them ordination certificates and thyus presented something along those lines for +Thuc to sign ... IF of course the entire story hadn't been entirely made up.

I used to be rather native, but we've seen over and over again now various charlatans making up lies ... such as Ambrose Moran, and many others, that I really can't rule out that these types are a simply liars and conmen.

Are They All Legit?
1) - 5)  Palmerian's, verified with Photographic proof, 1976

I thought Boyle had that one wrong and that 4-5 were followups made by the first 3 a few days later.