Pavone wasn't a bishop.

So far as I can see, Strickland hasn't done anything that would rise to the level of excommunication, or laicization for that matter, not even by an ecclesiastical regime that is hostile to him.  He seems to be careful not to cross the Rubicon of sedevacantism (or outright Vatican II denial), which would be a horse of an entirely different color.

He didn't do anything to warrant getting deposed either.  You seem to underestimate the malice of Bergoglio 

Yes, I had thi same debate with him earlier.  This is a first for R&R, to claim that cuм ex supports R&R.    We used to hear all the time that CEA is a disciplinary rather than doctrinal docuмent, but this is a good one.

What the "judging" question refers to is a statement by Pope Innocent where he states that a Pope cannot be judged, except that a heretic Pope could be judged, or, rather held to have already been judged by God.

It's kinda like a BOD where the BODers see only the words: "the desire thereof" and ignore the rest. Sedes read the whole cuм ex docuмent, comprehend it in it's total clarity, all except for the opening paragraph. In fact if they read it at all, to them that opening paragraph is the only part of the whole docuмent that means something other than what it says.

No one disputes a heretic pope is already judged by God. But the pope in cuм ex, first and foremost and before anything else, clearly states that a pope can indeed be a heretic and what we are to do about it - which is the definition of R&R, always has been, even before this papal directive was given the label of "R&R" by sedes.

I am just thinking that to laicize or excommunicate a bishop is a horse of a different color, than doing likewise to a simple priest. 

Strickland is walking a fine line right now, between accusing the pope of manifest heresy and declaring the office vacant, and pulling his punches short of that.  Either one of those would indeed be Rubicons to cross, and Vigano has crossed both of those Rubicons.

Yeah, I don't think he'd laicize him, but then nothing Bergoglio does surprises me anymore.  If Strickland makes any more public accusations of heresy, he MIGHT get the letter to appear in Rome on charges of schism like +Vigano did.  Bergoglio weighs whether by excommunicating him they'd just give him more publicity and get more Conciliar conservatives in an uproar against him and tempted to follow +Vigano into sedevacantism.

I think that the "last straw" against +Vigano was when +Vigano accused him of having predated upon a young man some years ago.  Bergoglio knew that the secular media, unaware of the theological finer points of Catholicism, would construe any action he took against +Vigano as retribution for +Vigano having blown the whistle on the McCarrick crimes, so it took something like to get him so irritated that he took the chance of it backfiring on him.

Now, perhaps the reason they didn't "laicize" +Vigano is because ... how do you really laicize a schismatic anyway?  It would be like if a Catholic Pope laicized the Orthodox ... they're already suspended and prohibited from offering Mass, etc., by virtue of being in schism and/or excommunciated.  Laicization is actually typically done as a "mercy" to the offender, whereby they'd be freed up to marry, etc. ... but for someone who's already excommunicated/suspended, it doesn't really mean much.  It's not like they can actually REMOVE Holy Orders from the individual, where if he decided to ignore it and offer Mass anyway, it would be invalid, since he's now a layman.

“Pope Francis has abdicated ..."

He could stop right there.

IS Strickland even a priest?  I doubt it!  IMO he is just show and tell, nothing.  The world is a stage.