The Church, pre-V2, ALWAYS presumes validity initially. There is no other possible way to defend and preserve the sacraments unless validity is first presumed. The only way this can be circuмvented is if the Church, through a pope, were to come out and condemn the NO sacraments, which is certainly not going to happen at this time in the Church.

The V2 sacraments (except for Baptism/Marriage) are already condemned by Quo Primum (and canon law).  How do you not understand this?  
.

It is one thing for someone or some "tribunal" within the Church, whether it be SSPX, CMRI,or etc., to investigate doubtful ordinations on an individual basis and find invalidating or doubtful flaws in the ordination itself. According to the law, someone must do this prior to any re or conditional ordination - period. That is what the pope said the law is.

The new rite of ordination changed the form.  The words of the new form are posted all over the Vatican website and in millions of new-rituals.  There's not much investigating to do.
.

It is another thing altogether different to decide that all NO ordinations are invalid - that is the Church's job, no one else and no other group of people can make that decision - period.

I'm not saying they are all invalid.  I'm saying they are all doubtful...also illegal and therefore immoral.  You keep equating doubtful with invalid.  These are 2 entirely different theological concepts.
.
It's the same argument Fr Wathen uses against the new mass, in one of your favorite books, "The Great Sacrilege".  We don't know if the new mass is 100% invalid, but we DO KNOW they are doubtfully valid, illegal and therefore immoral.
.
The difference is, one cannot "conditionally re-say mass" so we stay away from the doubtful, illegal new mass altogether.  But one CAN conditionally re-ordain" a priest and conditionally re-consecrate a bishop, so that's what is the safe step.  That's the entire reason conditional ordinations exist.  To erase doubt.

Some rogue group, the Church's enemies, who call themselves and believe they are Catholic used the Church's sacrament in a manner and form forbidden.

If the matter and form are not approved (i.e. forbidden) then this is the definition of invalid or doubtfully valid.  If the matter and form's changes are major/essential, then it is invalid.  If the changes are minor or borderline essential, then it's doubtful.
.

We don't know if the *consecration* is always 100% valid even when done correctly,

Right, that's called doubtful.  This is the same approach to new ordinations.  The major difference is there is no such thing as a "conditional mass" but there is a "conditional re-ordination".
.

Without first investigating the ordination, i.e. "due inquiry" as the pope puts it, even a conditional ordination is sacrilegious.

The "due inquiry" is written in black and white, in every new ordination process manual.  The fact that it has new prayers, is all the inquiry you need.
.
"Due inquiry" is meant to investigate improper usage of the OLD RITE, i.e. a when Fr Pfeiffer's consecration was flubbed up by Bishop Webster.  A conditional consecration was done (so they say) because the original was flawed.
.
But when a NEW rite is created, then there's really no need for an inquiry, because the changes are right there in ink.