CathInfo.com

They’re neither.  #1 Conditionally ordained by Bp. W. in late 2012.  He left and returned to FSSP.

Ok, so this priest may be the 1% exception of all FSSP priests.  So what?  You continually point out the exception, while downplaying the 99% of doubtful priests, which is the norm.  The exceptions prove the rule, which is that 99% of FSSP priests are new rite, which means they are doubtful.

#2 the same, only he went independent and kind of disappeared.

Ok, so he's not even part of the FSSP anymore.  Why did you mention him, in the context of the FSSP?

By what authority can we be certain you correctly interpret and apply Canon Law?

Oh, please.  Canon Law has been around for centuries.  Every major Traditionalist leader since the 70s (+ABL, Fr Wathen, Fr De Pauw, and many priests from France/Europe I can't spell...all of these holy men were the ones who rejected Vatican 2 and started the grassroots movement which we call Traditionalism.)  ...and all of them agreed (because they all went to pre-V2 seminaries) that one cannot go to doubtful sacraments.

Open up any moral theology book and they'll all say the same thing.  This is nothing new.

Let me remind you that this is a TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC forum; it is not an indult/FSSP/diocesan forum.  Your continual support of the indult irks me, because you are muddying the waters for those newbies on this site.  You can go to whatever chapel you like, but stop arguing against Traditionalism.  If you want to push the "glories" of the indult mass, or the FSSP, go to another site.

You know this because??? 
You have the authority to impose your conclusion on others on what basis?
 You may be right, but what if you’re wrong? 
Since you cannot possibly know the status of every FSSP priest, you cannot make a blanket statement for everyone. 
Pope Ladislaus I?  

How exactly am I "imposing" anything on anyone?  I obviously have no authority to do so.  And how am I making a "blanket statement for everyone", where it's obvious that my name is on the post and that I'm speaking for myself (and perhaps others who believe the same thing).  This constitutes detraction/calumny.  I've objected to various Traditional priests who impose their views about matters that have not been settled by the Church, saying that if I considered the priests invalid, I would warn the faithful, but not withhold the Sacraments for their decision since I couldn't impose my conscience on them, say, like the SSPV do vis-a-avis the CMRI.  But I'm every bit as entitled to opine on the matter and debate the subject as you are, Popessa.  This remark sounds like it's coming from someone who avails herself of the services of FSSP priests.  You're obviously entitled to do what you want, but I would risk my soul on receiving the Sacraments from FSSP priest (who weren't otherwise valid).  In fact, I've repeatedly said that there are some (and named some names) who are valid even in FSSP, and in fact made it clear even in the post to which you object that I was speaking about "most" of them, with some exceptions.