Are there instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution? Probably, but the reality of the agenda does not merit the vitriol expressed by some towards him and his institution from my point of view.
The problem is that we do not really know what the agenda is. And, while vitriol is something that none of us should use in any case, I do believe that some folks are painting with the broad brush of vitriol all those who have questions, who worry, and who are opposed this agenda or to "instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution." Here are some worrisome indicators.
Summary of an article by Archbishop Paul of Finlandhttp://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.php
"In our first issue of August 1980, Sourozh published a lengthy article by Archbishop Paul of Finland entitled 'Suggestions for Solutions to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora' (reprinted in Sourozh, No. 91, February 2003, pp. 3-19). In it the primate of the Orthodox Church of Finland reviewed the various submissions made by four regional autocephalous Churches to the Preparatory Commission for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church which has been in the planning stage for some forty years. In his conclusions Archbishop Paul strongly urged the Patriarchate of Constantinople to relinquish the theory of the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the whole diaspora
and to reject any talk of 'barbarian areas' as an anachronism." (My emphasis)
Letter of Patriarch Alexis II to Patriarch Bartholomewhttp://archive.ocl.org/?id=17679
"the statement by Your Holiness that as a result of Canon 28 of Chalcedon 'Western Europe and all the lands recently discovered in America and Australia belong to the area of responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch' seems completely fictitious and is without canonical foundation."
"Such is the authentic pan-Orthodox tradition in this matter, and the Very Holy Church of Constantinople always respected it until the moment when Patriarch Meletios IV developed the theory of the subordination of the whole Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople. It is precisely this theory, which is clearly non-canonical, that is quite obviously 'hostile to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, to Orthodoxy unity, and to canonical order'. It is itself, in fact, the _expression of 'an expansionist tendency that is without canonical foundation and is unacceptable on an ecciesiological level'. By claiming a universal spiritual power, it does not correspond to the Orthodox canonical tradition or to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, and represents a direct challenge to Orthodox unity. In fact, there is no reason to agree with Your contention that the whole of the Orthodox diaspora does not finds itself under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople solely because Constantinople 'tolerates this situation temporarily and for reasons of "economy".' This last _expression has particularly roused our incomprehension and disquiet, since it seems to point to an intention on the part of the Church of Constantinople to continue in the future to pursue a unilateral policy of expansion that is foreign to a spirit of brotherly love and conciliarity."
I am open to a more generous interpretation of the current stance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is more than "move along, there is nothing to see here" or "he must have meant something else; why are you so suspicious?"