Funny that while Pope John Paul was alive, Martin was never vilified or denounced by Rome, yet here you are doing just that.
You don't consider Martin's own papers, downloadable in PDF form from New York Public Library and signed letters from bishops and Church VIPs (among many other items) "supporting documents?" There are mounds of extensively researched documentation. Proof of the (at least) four pseudonyms he used during the council, proof of the payments he took from the AJC, proof of the affair with Kaiser's wife, proof that he had no priestly faculties after the mid-60s, proof that he was never an exorcist, proof that he forged a letter attributed to John XXIII. Proof of much more.
I'm sorry you missed it all, but it's there.
Funny that while Pope John Paul was alive, Martin was never vilified or denounced by Rome, yet here you are doing just that.
You don't know much about me, but if you're claiming the above, you honestly know nearly nothing about Martin - save for what you read in his books... written by him. Even so, if you don't consider Rome being "vilified" by his claim of black masses taking place at the Vatican, we may have a strong disagreement on the meaning of the word "vilify."
Your homework is to go back and actually read the ample documentation provided at the link. If you want to discuss Martin afterwards I'll be happy to do so.
This time however, you need to be more particular about exactly what you (think you) want to refute.