Correct. I should have said "friends".

Fr. Marshall Roberts was at our chapel in York, PA for almost 1 1/2 years (2005-6) during which time, Fr. Pfeiffer was his frequent visitor until Fr. Roberts was removed for cause.  

In our due diligence investigation regarding his background there was discovered several problems that would have ended any possibility of bringing him to Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission. Our Mission was helped at its foundation by sound priests from whom we relied upon for advice in such matters all of whom are now deceased.  Fr. Arthur DeMaio, a former professor of Thomistic theology at St. John University in New York who helped the SSPX  at the chapel in Pittston, PA acted as our representative by contacting priests that knew Fr. Roberts.  There were two recommendations that swayed our decision in favor of Fr. Roberts.  I will address the most important and essential without which Fr. Roberts would never have been accepted.  It came from Fr. John Fullerton who was then the district superior for the SSPX in the U.S.  His recommendation, through Fr. DeMaio, was fulsome.  

We were contacted by a Catholic attorney from New York City accusing us of gross irresponsibility for bringing Fr. Roberts to our chapel.  She was told about Fr. Fullerton’s recommendation and then confronted Fr. Fullerton in public on this matter.  Fr. Fullerton denied ever having recommend Fr. Roberts and we received a letter from this attorney accusing us of having fabricated the recommendation. That letter is also available.

We had nothing but trouble with Fr. Roberts from the first week he arrived.  He demonstrated a level of immaturity that can only be called puerile.  He had no convictions whatsoever and changed his direction all over the map sometimes in a matter of weeks always looking out for what he thought would be in his immediate interest. If there is any interest in the details I will provide several examples. There is also a letter written to Fr. Fullerton and +Fellay on our files.

The immediate cause for which he was removed followed upon a meeting he called for with our board.  At this meeting Fr. Roberts delivered an ultimatum from Fr. John Fullerton.  We were told that we had three choices: 1) Become and indult community, 2) turn our property over to the SSPX through Fr. Roberts, or 3) continue as we were.  The first two choices were acceptable to Fr. Fullerton but we were threatened that if we choose the third option, we would enter a “desert of spiritual desolation” and he would insure that no priest would help us.

Fr. Roberts was told to leave our chapel immediately and given two weeks to clear his apartment and return the car.  He left sooner than that completely trashing the apartment which took a full day for three persons to clean which included purchasing a new rug.  I have kept picture of the apartment as evidence.

As for Fr. Roberts, he left immediately and went directly to Richfield CT where Fr. Gonzales and Fullerton received him.  Fr. Gonzales immediately contact Fr. DeMaio and asked him to never help us again.  Fr. DiMaio declined.  Fr. Roberts then went to the independent chapel in Jacksonville, Fl.  He was received there on the recommendation of Fr. Fullerton.  The board only asked from us if we had any evidence of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ predatory behavior of Fr. Roberts.  We did not.  They were not interested in any other information regarding Fr. Roberts behavior at our chapel.

Someone from Jacksonville recently visited the Mission in York and I shared some of these facts with him.  He did not look surprised, and seemed interested in hearing it.

What do you mean by that?

In a lengthy letter to Fr. Fullerton after Fr. Roberts was told to leave, there are things detailed that even we had forgotten about.
 
To begin with, Fr. Roberts came here with the full understanding that the Mission had formally adopted the pre Bugnini Missal from its inception. It is in its by-laws. In fact, it was one of my husband's (D.Drew) three conditions for getting involved in it and agreeing to accept the position of chairman of the board of directors. Fr. Roberts enthusiastically agreed saying that this Missal was his preference.
 
After a few weeks, he announced that he will no longer offer the pre-1955 Missal  after being told by an SSPX priest that "only sedevacantes" use that Missal. He was told by my husband that the Mission's bulletin will continue to reflect the pre-1955 Missal.
 
At that time, (now) Fr. Mackin, as a young seminarian and his family used to attend Mass in York. The first summer the young seminarian was home on vacation, the Mackins were not coming to the Mission. Fr. Roberts went to their home to ask the reason. He was told that bishop Fellay had forbidden the seminarian to come to SS. Peter and Paul Mission under Fr. Roberts. We were told this both by Fr. Roberts and Mrs. Mackin.
 
After that, and a failed attempt to have the Mission formally adopt the 1962 Missal, Fr. Roberts began to secretly campaign to turn the Mission into an indult. He had even board members convinced. Only the three tenured board members didn't know about this campaign until the time came for an appointment with the Vicar General of the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg for his incardination.  A few days before the appointment with the V.G., Fr. Roberts met individually with the three tenured board members I believe on the same day. He came to my home to meet with my husband begging him to turn the Mission over to the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg in exchange for his incardination. My husband told him that the Mission had already rejected two offers by the Diocese to make us "the" indult community before they started the indult Mass in hαɾɾιsburg. My husband called the other two tenured members and agreed to send a letter immediately to Bishop Rhoades (which by the way, was charitable to Fr. Roberts all things considered). http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/letter_to_bishop_kevin_c_rhoades.htm
 
The Diocese of course cancelled their appointment with Fr. Roberts who became furious and in a sermon accused the Mission of being run like a Protestant church under a board of directors. He advised the people to leave and some left immediately, about 50% of the remaining left to the indult when he has told to leave York. I should add that he stole the Holy Oils which the Mission had obtained through a priest, now deceased who was very fond of it.
 
Fr. Roberts didn't tell the people he was going directly to another independent chapel run by a Board of Directors who voted his acceptance (also at the recommendation of Fr. Fullerton).
 
That Fr. Fullerton would recommend Fr Roberts to St. Michael the Archangel in Jacksonville after being informed on Fr. Roberts, says it all. I was told by someone in Jacksonville, that although the SSPX is helping them, the B.D.s is still in place. May God protect them.

I'm wondering why Fr. Pfeiffer would take this Fr. Roberts into his fold knowing that reputations of his seminarians are affected by Roberts' presence there?

In a lengthy letter to Fr. Fullerton after Fr. Roberts was told to leave, there are things detailed that even we had forgotten about.
 
To begin with, Fr. Roberts came here with the full understanding that the Mission had formally adopted the pre Bugnini Missal from its inception. It is in its by-laws. In fact, it was one of my husband's (D.Drew) three conditions for getting involved in it and agreeing to accept the position of chairman of the board of directors. Fr. Roberts enthusiastically agreed saying that this Missal was his preference.
 
After a few weeks, he announced that he will no longer offer the pre-1955 Missal  after being told by an SSPX priest that "only sedevacantes" use that Missal. He was told by my husband that the Mission's bulletin will continue to reflect the pre-1955 Missal.
 
At that time, (now) Fr. Mackin, as a young seminarian and his family used to attend Mass in York. The first summer the young seminarian was home on vacation, the Mackins were not coming to the Mission. Fr. Roberts went to their home to ask the reason. He was told that bishop Fellay had forbidden the seminarian to come to SS. Peter and Paul Mission under Fr. Roberts. We were told this both by Fr. Roberts and Mrs. Mackin.
 
After that, and a failed attempt to have the Mission formally adopt the 1962 Missal, Fr. Roberts began to secretly campaign to turn the Mission into an indult. He had even board members convinced. Only the three tenured board members didn't know about this campaign until the time came for an appointment with the Vicar General of the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg for his incardination.  A few days before the appointment with the V.G., Fr. Roberts met individually with the three tenured board members I believe on the same day. He came to my home to meet with my husband begging him to turn the Mission over to the Diocese of hαɾɾιsburg in exchange for his incardination. My husband told him that the Mission had already rejected two offers by the Diocese to make us "the" indult community before they started the indult Mass in hαɾɾιsburg. My husband called the other two tenured members and agreed to send a letter immediately to Bishop Rhoades (which by the way, was charitable to Fr. Roberts all things considered). http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/letter_to_bishop_kevin_c_rhoades.htm
 
The Diocese of course cancelled their appointment with Fr. Roberts who became furious and in a sermon accused the Mission of being run like a Protestant church under a board of directors. He advised the people to leave and some left immediately, about 50% of the remaining left to the indult when he has told to leave York. I should add that he stole the Holy Oils which the Mission had obtained through a priest, now deceased who was very fond of it.
 
Fr. Roberts didn't tell the people he was going directly to another independent chapel run by a Board of Directors who voted his acceptance (also at the recommendation of Fr. Fullerton).
 
That Fr. Fullerton would recommend Fr Roberts to St. Michael the Archangel in Jacksonville after being informed on Fr. Roberts, says it all. I was told by someone in Jacksonville, that although the SSPX is helping them, the B.D.s is still in place. May God protect them.

.
Yes.  I said this maybe two years ago, that Fr. Pfeiffer's only and singular condition is loyalty.  It's not the Catholic faith, not even in some weird "the Catholic faith reduces to exactly what we're doing" subjective type of way; Pablo the amateur exorcist, Moran the schismatic (in the most literal sense), Tetherow, Roberts, and all the rest have one thing in common.  If you'll lock arms and walk step in step with Pfeiffer, that's all that matters to him.  Sad, but true.