Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.

Then you shouldn't be questioning the validity of a rite given to the Church by the Pope.

While I completely agree about #4 and have lived that conviction my whole life and I personally believe there are many invalid NO priests and bishops etc. out there, there are two other trains of thought to consider.

1) The Church, by divine right being the only safeguard, holder and defender of the sacraments in this world, has always and everywhere presumed validity of all the sacraments until or unless proven otherwise. This includes NO consecrations/ordinations, which are of course, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

To presume invalidity without first proving invalidity, is denying the divine prerogative given to the Church to defend, protect and preserve the sacraments till the end of the world. IOW, presuming automatic invalidity means the Church is not defending, protecting or preserving anything at all, not even thin air.

2) If we presume validity as does the Church, then the valid NO consecrations / ordinations are exponentially (infinitely?) more sacrilegious and damaging than if they were invalid. It is this fact, in and of itself, which gives us the right, nay the duty, to completely avoid the entire NO. I know some will not grasp this reality, hence won't understand it this way and instead will insist positive invalidity as if such a thing can even be known, but that is not how it works.

In the grand scheme of things it (validity/invalidity) is actually an academic point because as long as the NO priests and bishops etc. continue in their abominations, we can have no part of it, and this is true whether they are valid or invalid.  

I disagree with you here just like I disagree with +Williamson that satanic mass consecrated hosts are "certainly valid".  I cannot muster up proper intent, because the church never intended for laymen to administer those sacraments granted even with proper form and matter, which is also a stretch.  Therefore I cannot muster up proper intent.  Because, the church requires the sacrament of orders.  Valid minister falls under the criteria category of intent.  

At any rate, I don't know where the idea comes from that the SSPX do not investigate or conditionally ordain any NO priest converts any longer. 

Once again we get more crass “third-rate theology” that only the Johnson can provide.

Let’s take a look at the Angelic Doctor and Eugenius’ Bull to the Armenians:

"In each Sacrament there is required a minister, who confers the Sacrament with the intention of doing that which the Church intends. If any one of these three requirements is lacking, the Sacrament is not brought into being, viz., if there is lacking the due form of the words, or if the matter is not present, or if the minister does not intend to confer the Sacrament." De Articulus Fidei (part ii), St. Thomas Aquinas.

"All Sacraments require three things - the things as matter, the words as form, and the person of the minister to confer the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does."Exsultate Deo, Eugenius IV

So it is clear that there is an intrinsic link between minister and intent which is why they’re both considered together as one. It is not possible to have a valid intention – of doing what the Church does – without a valid minister; valid intention necessarily indicates a valid minister (the reverse, however, is not true).

Given that there are readers here who know the Johnson frequents an SSPX Church in St. Paul’s, MN, and there are faithful from that Church who also read CathInfo, and the suggestion in the opening post of a level of ignorance on the part of the priest and his abilities perhaps the Johnson may like to offer an apology for his falsehood and innuendo.

The Johnson Slayer ™

In each of these examples it is clearly stated that the third requirement contains two elements: a minister and a proper intention. Whether you take these two together and call them one, or whether you list them separately and call them two is really beside the point, which you obviously missed: either way, the minister has to be part of the list. If he's not, then your list is not complete.

So, if you want to challenge a man you really ought to do a little better than that. A good place to start is to reveal your own identity so the man knows whether he is fighting another man or a troll.