Fair enough.  Would you receive sacraments from him?

No.  I'm not saying I think you're lying.  I'm saying this post is the first time I've read that anyone has directly said that Bishop Williamson actually told them that he conditionally consecrated Vigano.

If you don't mind me asking how is it that a laymen was given the authority to demanded anything form the clergy at all especially if it doesn't involve you in any capacity. 

Nor can a doubtfully ordained/consecrated priest or bishop just stop practicing as a priest for a while. He can't just exist in limbo, or the equivalent of "live as brother and sister until the marriage is rectified". How exactly is a cleric supposed to support himself, while his priestly ministry is "on hold", hmmm?  Is he supposed to get a job at Starbucks? He HAS given his whole life for the Church thus far; he has no other marketable skills. And even if he was a software developer (or something) before he joined the Seminary, CANON LAW prohibits a Cleric from working jobs for money.

This is not the case.  Nowhere does Canon Law prohibit a cleric for working a job for money.  In fact, Canon 139 (1917 Code) lays out certain professions that clerics either cannot engage in at all (secular notaries, being one) or they need an indult for (surgery and medicine).  Simply because the SSPX requires some oath against this before tonsure does not make it "canon law".  That is just something the SSPX does.

There was also the worker priest movement in France in the 1950s, that had some problems, yes, but was eventually allowed to continue in a certain form.  There are still Novus Ordo priests in France that belong to this original movement.  Not to mention, a large amount of Eastern Catholic priests also work secular jobs. 

There are priests that are also taxi drivers, bus drivers for disabled children, network engineers, high school teachers, antique dealers, college professors, etc.  Some chapels are in between being too small to support a priest full time but at the same time have a large enough group of faithful to need a priest close by and have Mass regularly.  Some of these "worker priests" are able to fulfill this role, and these priests take no money for their priestly ministry.  In fact, many of them put quite a bit of their own money into these chapels. 

You're a priest, correct?

It's because these things CAN'T be expedited. Are you insane? What trained, formed, qualified candidates exactly is +W turning away?

You just have to have patience -- and trust in God. When you take matters in your own hands, FAILING to trust in God, is precisely what causes things like Fr. Joseph "Santeria warlock for a right hand man" Pfeiffer.

Taking away the doubtful validity of Orders for an existing priest or bishop is a COMPLETELY different matter. That is all upside, no downside. He's already practicing as a priest/bishop -- it's best to rectify his Orders so there is no longer a doubt. But you're not MAKING a priest or bishop where there wasn't one. It's not like +Vigano was going to sell cars if +W refused to conditionally consecrate him.

Nor can a doubtfully ordained/consecrated priest or bishop just stop practicing as a priest for a while. He can't just exist in limbo, or the equivalent of "live as brother and sister until the marriage is rectified". How exactly is a cleric supposed to support himself, while his priestly ministry is "on hold", hmmm?  Is he supposed to get a job at Starbucks? He HAS given his whole life for the Church thus far; he has no other marketable skills. And even if he was a software developer (or something) before he joined the Seminary, CANON LAW prohibits a Cleric from working jobs for money.

This is a major issue, since you seem to think he has to be tried in the court of Public Opinion and win people over en masse before he can "have his marriage rectified and live happily ever after" (to use a marriage analogy again). What is required by each person for "forgiveness" will vary widely -- for some, it will require his death (i.e., no forgiveness). Others have already forgiven/accepted him.

But you see, all the priest HAS to do is get conditionally ordained (or consecrated, for a bishop) and he's good to go. He doesn't have to convince YOU first -- or anyone else -- that he's truly converted, or is a good guy now. That's not how it works.

And we are required by Charity to assume the best about human beings. You're not allowed to presume the worst about a person by default, when there is no evidence one way or the other. That's something you should be confessing in the confessional. When someone converts, you must PRESUME it's genuine unless forced to conclude otherwise. I'm talking forced by EVIDENCE here, not just gut feelings or emotional baggage you're carrying from past scars.