When I read the post from Matthew, I am reminded of all the supposed secret, un-traditional, and incredible claims of Malachi Martin. A lot of traditional Catholics seemed to love him in spite of the fact that he wasn't traditional, didn't wear clerical garb, and claimed to know all kinds of things that would shock us if we only knew (but, of course, he was not at liberty to disclose).
The only difference I can see in the two is that Malachi Martin was more credible than this fellow who seems to have found a niche with a group of traditionalists who "need" a bishop and are willing to overlook any facts to get someone who claims to be one.