Let's step back a moment. As far as I can tell you've offered three fundamental assertions confused by contradictory and confusing side quests. Frankly, your apparent weaknesses in writing and the way you improperly phrase things in such a way that you are saying something very different than you claim to intend has repeatedly derailed the discussion.
Regardless, the three fundamental assertions I've gathered are:
1. Law does not perfectly define or control human action.
This is really the only element for which you have provided supporting arguments. I mostly agree with it, but I'd note that in many cases human action does tend to follow certain paths, especially when confronted with extremes such as threat of force ... which is typically the enforcement mechanism for law. So this is literally true, but in practice often not as clear-cut.
2. Law is malicious, evil, hateful, rapacious and doubleplus ungood.
Again, there is no real support for this assertion, but I'll agree partially. Like all exercise of power, law has the capacity to be misused and abused. On the other hand, law has the capacity of carrying forward historical practices that worked well. Law has the ability to (imperfectly) protect people, to set guiderails on their behavior and to punish people who do evil. The "law=EVIL" schtick is absolutely comically lacking in nuance. As has been noted, there are plenty of places where law does not exist. I do not choose to relocate to those places with my family.
3. If people become educated by Bosco1 they will become as peaceful as lambs and there will be nothing but rainbows and buttercups and daisies.
Hogwash. Utter hogwash. Your only defense for this assertion was the old "But, but, but, real communism responsible anarchy has never been tried!"
So, in short, the Sartre deviation is really a non-issue as Sartre doesn't progress your argument past the first point. You've made two unsupported assertions which I largely disagree with. Do you think I'm missing something important?