Well, first of all let me say that I am very fond of MauricePinay and his writings. I think he does a good job exposing the Judeo-Masons that infiltrated the Vatican.
However, he and I got into a debate over on Ignis Ardens about Fr. Malachi Martin a few weeks ago, and with all due respect to MauricePinay, I don't think his arguments againt MM prove that he was a phony.
Hugh Akins, author of the book "Synagogue Rising", said that he knew Fr. Malachi Martin personally and that he was once a liberal, but after Vatican II he rejected liberalism and converted. So all MauricePinay has proven is what Hugh Akins confirmed: that Martin WAS a liberal. But he doesn't understand that he converted.
The poor man isn't even alive to defend himself, so I don't think we should be grinding an axe against him. There is no proof that he was a "double agent".
You're all entitled to your opinion, and I'm not going to down you for it. I just don't think there is any sufficient evidence against him, other than him being a liberal at one time, but as Hugh Akins said, he converted.