However...as noted before to you....this is the opinion of a Roman Catholic Canon Lawyer.
Unless you're a RC Canon lawer, I'm going with what she says.
Your canon lawyer evidently commented on "judging" the pope--- right? Judging? --- as in a canonical tribunal or appellate process? --- which is not an available remedy; vs. advising, admonishing, questioning and correcting, which has been done through the ages right to the present day, and is presented in Canon Law (Canon 212) as not only a right but, in some cases, a duty.
Why don't you send my comments to this Canon Lawyer source, and see what s/he says? I am sure she will add that there is an explicit canonical duty to take advice, admonition and criticism to one's sacred pastors, and all the way to the Pope when souls are at risk. Canon 212.
Plus, I am sure it will be recognized that popes can be, and have been, judged by successor popes. Ask this Canon Lawyer.
I am sure a supposed "pope" can be found to be an anti-pope if they were elected by an illicit or defective conclave. It has happened approx. 37 times that anti-popes were deposed.
Your problem is that the Canon Lawyer apparently answered a specific question about "judging" a pope --- i.e. canonical trial of a present, sitting, valid pope --- which is not possible, but did NOT answer a question about admonishing a pope, or deposing an illicit anti-pope who is not, and never was, a pope at all.
If you don't ask the relevant question, you don't get a relevant answer.
Patiently I must repeat: on all things Catholic, don't tell us. Ask us. Otherwise you are, sad to say, quite OOWBAR: out of whack beyond all recognition.