I'd be happy to donate $, but in this day and age, ordinations must be proved, especially when they occur outside of a formal seminary.  This is not an attack on the bishop or the seminarian - it is a matter of both justice and church law.  Justice, because the laity has a right to know who's a priest and who isn't.  Church law, because the church is a VISIBLE organization, whose members are VISIBLE and so are its priests.  You can't get ordained in secret.  And even if it wasn't secret, if it happened irregularly (i.e. outside a seminary) then that's not exactly public, which I would say is a requirement, on some level...especially in our crazy days.

Nobody realizes that its uncanonical to reveal in  public, affairs of the internal forum of seminary life, as OLMC has done. Its up to them to deny anything untrue publicly said about them, but not reveal things about seminarians.

.
You are a piece of work, or at least the script you've been given is!
.
You're not using the expression "internal forum" correctly.  "Internal forum" isn't a synonym for "what happens behind closed [seminary] doors."
.
And whatever the matter, there's nothing "uncanonical" about revealing... whatever it is you think they've revealed about their seminary life, mainly because their seminary isn't canonical in the first place!  But also because there aren't canonical laws about that type of thing anyways.

.
Do you/your handler think that it suffices for you to be contra-Pfeiffer and tangentially "pro-resistance?"  That the combination of these facts will overcome the faithful and set aside any legitimate concerns about Francis' fitness for the priesthood and validity of orders?  Interesting strategy, and it unfortunately it may be enough for some to commence kissing hands.  All the more reason for skeptics to rally and demand proofs which shouldn't have to be asked for in the first place.
.
It's not difficult.  Just get a free blog (there are loads out there) and upload all the docuмentation. 

Quote from: SeanJohnson on Today at 06:35:43 AM

Quote

Now, apparently, it comes to light there are two independent "Bishop Adamsons."
Is there some reason this new "priest" is content not to prove his "ordination" and set the record straight?

There are not two Bishop Adamson's.  [not two Bishop Adamson's what? Cassocks? Records? Phone numbers?]
.
Someone in the anonymous forum posted a link to a Reverend Thomas Anderson, who is a disagraced child-molesting priest who resides in south-east Minnesota.  https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/rev-thomas-adamson/msg579054/?topicseen#msg579054
.
Reverend THOMAS Anderson doesn't even claim to be a bishop, has not had an active ministry in years, and is probably at least ten if not twenty years senior of Bishop Merrill Anderson.
.
It is beyond me how the OP in that thread could have confused the two, except and unless he just wanted to find the most salacious information that could be found and then pull out an enormously broad brush soaked in mud to smear all those involved.
.
There's not a care in the world for truth when doing that type of thing.  Someone can be a priest, not a priest, a priest not worth going to, a bishop, not a bishop, a "bad" bishop, or whatever else without needing to bring child rape into the equation.  
.
This is a confusion that should never have happened.  Even a modicuм of honest research would have very clearly distinguished a Reverend from a Bishop, a Thomas from a Merrill, a midwesterner from a wanderer, a child-molester from a non-child molester, an eighty-something year old man from a sixty-something year old man, etc.  The OP in that thread just wanted to throw a grenade and run.  Shame on them.

.
Does everyone simply ignore the fact that Anderson and Adamson are not the same names?
.
Or are which letters to use in spelling a name as unimportant as whether to use a possessive case apostrophe or not?
.

There are not two Bishop Adamson's.  [not two Bishop Adamson's what? Cassocks? Records? Phone numbers?]
.
Someone in the anonymous forum posted a link to a Reverend Thomas Anderson, who is a disagraced child-molesting priest who resides in south-east Minnesota.  https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/rev-thomas-adamson/msg579054/?topicseen#msg579054
.
Reverend THOMAS Anderson doesn't even claim to be a bishop, has not had an active ministry in years, and is probably at least ten if not twenty years senior of Bishop Merrill Anderson.
.
It is beyond me how the OP in that thread could have confused the two, except and unless he just wanted to find the most salacious information that could be found and then pull out an enormously broad brush soaked in mud to smear all those involved.
.
There's not a care in the world for truth when doing that type of thing.  Someone can be a priest, not a priest, a priest not worth going to, a bishop, not a bishop, a "bad" bishop, or whatever else without needing to bring child rape into the equation.  
.
This is a confusion that should never have happened.  Even a modicuм of honest research would have very clearly distinguished a Reverend from a Bishop, a Thomas from a Merrill, a midwesterner from a wanderer, a child-molester from a non-child molester, an eighty-something year old man from a sixty-something year old man, etc.  The OP in that thread just wanted to throw a grenade and run.  Shame on them.

.
Does everyone simply ignore the fact that Anderson and Adamson are not the same names?
.
Or are which letters to use in spelling a name as unimportant as whether to use a possessive case apostrophe or not?
.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Neil, that's my bad.  Have Scandanavia on the brain.  [Do you drive a Volvo? HAHAHA]

There is no Anderson in the equation.  Thomas Adamson is the name of the child molesting priest who has nothing to do with the Thuc bishop Merrill Adamson.

I am surprised at how consistently I gave the name Anderson.

.
Congratulations, Mithrandylan, for the honest humility to own up to this glaring mistake. It takes a real man to take responsibility like that. (Not sure what that means for Trump!)  The two names had me running loops trying to figure out where the problem came from. 
.
You forgot to include Andersen -- but let's not even go there.
.

Mr. Maccabees is free to continue what he is doing. Father has clarified only what is necessary, not the whole story. The whole truth is known to God, who knows all things and his conscience bears him witness, that:
1. Father always told the priests of his intentions. There are reasons why he left when he did, mostly known to the priests, one being his family.
2. He never asked anyone for orders including the Bishop who ordained him nor made any form of pledge to anyone.
3. He was ordained in accordance with the will and at the time the priest who took charge of him decided.

 - Maccabees appears to know father, but does not consider it important to listen to the other side, but rather makes an analysis precisely on the premise he denies; ie that father never sought orders by himself. This is untrue.
- How can anyone ask to leave the seminary with the right to return ? Where does this happen ?
- His decision to leave OLMC does not mean disobedience, nor him seeking anything. This is unfounded. He has his reasons which I'm sure Maccabees will not like to hear.
The priest who made the decisions concerning father and did all the work in regard to his future knows all that.
On the contrary, father contacted Bp. Zendejas only after he left, who tried to help him find a solution to his situation. Finally, he decided to remain with the priest who took him in and was also willing to help him. This is the truth.

.
Re-reading it now I see ImmaculateHeart says Francis never asked anyone for orders, one minute, then says it is untrue "that father never sought orders by himself" the next. So it could be an innocent error but it reads like a self-contradiction. In any case it needs to become clarified.
.
Notice how "but rather makes an analysis precisely on the premise he denies" is an objectively meaningless phrase. It could equally apply to analyzing the premise (making an analysis on the premise) or to denying the premise upon which the analysis depends. The sentence later, "This is untrue," could apply to any of several propositions that preceded it. Is the reader left with the task of presuming to judge correctly as far as to which proposition the untruthfulness should apply?
.

- He threatened no one, but saddened by the falsifications after months of suffering from what OLMC tried to do to him, he stated he would be obliged to give the full account of his stay at OLMC.

Bishop Merrill Adamson, is a thuc [Thuc] line Bishop who was consecreted by Bishop José Urbina Anzar, who was consecrated by José Romon Lopez Gaston, himself a thuc [Thuc] bishop through Bishop Christian Datessen, consecrated conditionally by Archbishop Thuc.

.
"What OLMC tried to do to him" is never explained. Did OLMC try to do something to him? Like provide ordination from "bishop" Bill?
.

.
This whole topic is a quagmire of ambiguity. And the questions are just beginning. Imagine asking these questions after the new priest has heard about 50 sacramental confessions!
.
According to Church teaching a priest who is conditionally re-ordained needs to seek out all the penitents the confessions of whom he has heard before being conditionally re-ordained, so that he can tell them they need to repeat their confession as well as add any new sins committed after that time, including any Holy Communions received if there had been mortal sins confessed the first time which may therefore not have been properly absolved.
.

How does a priest figure out whose confessions he has heard?

As regards past confessions to an invalidly ordained priest, so long as the same penitent made a good confession to a validly ordained priest later, it is not necessary to revisit the previous matter from the invalid confessions ("ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis...").

But, think of the rock and a hard place one would be in who mistakenly confesses to an imposter, then dies:

Supplied jurisdiction only covers jurisdiction, not orders (i.e., that person's sins would not be absolved); perfect contrition would have been their only hope.