This was one of the main issues for the Nine.  Did the Archbishop ever make a statement saying it was not true? Or a clarification of the policy?  I see he responded to the issue over JXXIII's Missal of 1962, but I can't find his response to the issue of conciliar annulments. 

I just found this, which leads me to believe the annulment issue is simply bs:

The declarations of nullity given by post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunals are often doubtful. Do we have the right to supply for this deficiency, by the means of tribunals functioning within the Society of St. Pius X?

Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw the necessity of creating a Canonical Commission, in particular in order to resolve marriage cases after an initial judgment by the district superior. The following text from a letter that he wrote to the Superior General on January 15, 1991, is quoted in the Society’s Regulations:

Inasmuch as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecuмenism and modernism, and that their decision and the new law are as a whole influenced by these false principles, we must institute authorities to supply for these deficiencies, which faithfully adhere to the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic law. It is the only way to remain faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles and to the deposit of the Faith, transmitted to their legitimate successors, who remained faithful until Vatican II.

He continued indicating that these commissions ought to start modestly, according to necessity, and should be a service to help priests resolve difficult cases in their ministry. The central reason for our marriage tribunals is, consequently, that they are necessary for the souls of our traditional faithful.

So where did this come from? "a general policy whereby it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without investigation."

I just found this, which leads me to believe the annulment issue is simply bs:

The declarations of nullity given by post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunals are often doubtful. Do we have the right to supply for this deficiency, by the means of tribunals functioning within the Society of St. Pius X?

Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw the necessity of creating a Canonical Commission, in particular in order to resolve marriage cases after an initial judgment by the district superior. The following text from a letter that he wrote to the Superior General on January 15, 1991, is quoted in the Society’s Regulations:He continued indicating that these commissions ought to start modestly, according to necessity, and should be a service to help priests resolve difficult cases in their ministry. The central reason for our marriage tribunals is, consequently, that they are necessary for the souls of our traditional faithful.

So where did this come from? "a general policy whereby it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without investigation."

Dated 1991.  After the Nine.  Perhaps ABL saw the issue was valid and addressed it. 

Honest question:  Was there ever a written point by point response by ABL to that Letter in 1983? It certainly would be useful in this discussion.

Dated 1991.  After the Nine.  Perhaps ABL saw the issue was valid and addressed it. 

True, that's a possibility - if it is, then +ABL did a 180 on the issue, but I believe the accusation is fabricated bs.

But if so, then certainly he would have shouted that from the housetops, no?

Not if that was never an accusation. I am saying whoever said the Nine said that, that guy fabricated the accusation because they never said that. I could be wrong, maybe they did accuse +ABL of that, but first off, it makes zero sense - as long as I was there I never heard that was any policy, not ever, that idea is contrary to what I always understood was their policy, add to that, that policy does not make even a shred of sense.

1) a priest who was not conditionally ordained (he had refused conditional ordination) being allowed to offer Mass at SSPX chapels, 
2) acceptance of Novus Ordo marriage annulments, 
3) imposition of the 1962 Missal (these priests merely opposed being forced to use the 1962 Missal), and 
4) suppression of the freedom to question the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.

From an outsider looking in, I think point 1 is a legitimate, grave concern.  We see the slippery slope has led the new-sspx to use "bishop" Huonder.  

Point 2 is just impossible to fix, practically speaking.  There's millions of people with fake annulments and only God knows the answer.  The good news is, most of these people are not Trads, so (hindsight being 20/20), these people never came to Tradition and priests didn't have to mess with them.  But, at the time, I'm sure this issue needed to be debated.

Point 3 is just making a mountain out of a molehill.  Nothing wrong with the 62 missal, as many have pointed out.  I think this was a scrupulous addition to the list.

Point 4 sounds good, but I'm not sure there was actual suppression of freedom.  I wasn't there; don't know.  But it's not a major doctrinal issue.

I'm sure the "nine" had good intentions, but with hindsight, we now see that almost half of these men became bishops and the other half were very active in building Tradition (and still are).  I just think these guys were independent types, and wanted to do their own thing.  Nothing wrong with this, and it probably saved the sspx a lot of headaches by them leaving.  Too many cooks in the kitchen are bad, as they say.

The only negative out of this division was the lack of "moving on" and forgiveness, by both sides.  The growth that both groups experienced was good, and helped Tradition in different ways.  The long-term bickering and competition between groups is not good.

What are you talking about?  It was one of the issues the Nine spoke of in their Letter of 1983 to the Archbishop.  Have you even read it?

From the Letter:

In answer to an inquiry from a layman concerning the status of his second marriage (which we know to be invalid), the Secretary General of the Society responded as follows:

On behalf of His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre I thank you for your letter of July 23, to which he has given due attention. His Grace thinks that in spite of all, one should adhere to the decision taken by the Church. Although one may deplore that the Church declares marriages invalid too easily nowadays, we cannot affirm in a special case, without any serious reason, that a declaration of invalidity is not valid. Thus you may go on receiving the sacraments and have a Christian family life.

Since no investigation was made by Your Grace or by the Secretary General, and since no grounds for the conciliar annulment were mentioned in the original letter of inquiry, the meaning is clear both from the words and the context. And that meaning is that presumption is to be given in favor of the Conciliar Church's annulments until the contrary is proved.

As far as I can see, the Archbishop never denied it nor countered it.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

And yet initially it was the Archbishop who wished to go forward with a suit.

What was he supposed to do, just let them walk away with all the SSPX properties in the US?