1. He is refuting a man who supposedly tried to bribe him.  If true, should we take this man as the spokesman of sedevacantists?  What is the likelihood that he is going to offer the best arguments in favor of sedevacantism?

2. He refused a man access to Holy Mass - not merely the sacraments, but Holy Mass - just because he is "an avowed sedevacantist".  This is contrary to the laws of Holy Church regulating such matters.
 
Note: Atheists, Jєωs, etc., are welcome at Holy Mass.

Btw, he did the same thing to me a few years ago.  He violated Church law that time as well.

The day anyone can demonstrate the "harmony" between V2 and the teachings which preceded it, all will be mere insanity anyway.

Addendum: The supposed briber was trying to get in for Mass, yet he also supposedly said that Bp. Fulham's naming BXVI in the canon is heresy.  Why was he trying to bribe him in order to assist at the Mass of a bishop he takes to be an heretic, who is naming a public heretic in the canon?  

I am not agreeing with the man's principles here, just wondering how these two "facts" line up.