I can see it now: "Unfairly rejected because of the jealousy of the other Apostles -- the story of Judas hanging himself was inserted into the Scriptures at Peter's insistence -- Judas repented of betraying the Lord (it was an accident, after all), and used the thirty pieces of silver to found a theological academy to oppose the revisionist heresies of Saul of Tarsus, the self-styled "Apostle of Jesus Christ" who, unlike Judas, never actually met Jesus in person."
Etc.
Interesting to see someone who claims to be Orthodox (in union with which canonical bishop, I wonder ... ??) claiming that canons of an ecumenical council are merely political, "Western-inspired," and therefore subject to question.
Considering the fact that it appears that Pelagius was acquited in the trials he was subjected to in the East while he was convicted in the West does show a degree of credence to the theory that, as you put it, the conviction of Pelagius was a "political, 'Western-inspired,'" enterprise.
Regardless of what we may think of his theology (and he seems to have been much-maligned on that), Pelagius was by all accounds a man who lived a truly Godly life and tried to call others to do likewise. Judas was a traitor who sold out Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
Do you truly not see the difference?