Lawful means to express concerns

In a secret letter written to Judge Margaret Nagle, Probation Officer Karenina Legg wrote:

It is hoped a brief period of confinement will cause the defendant to reconsider his plan to disregard federal regulations and to choose lawful means by which to express his political concerns.

Karenina Legg was not there when I was arrested for distributing political literature on a public sidewalk. She was not even present at my trial. She says that I had a “plan to disregard federal regulations” because she heard this from Pedro Castillo who says that the officers said that I had said. I did not know that Officer Legg had written this letter until 6 years after my release from prison. Pedro Castillo was paid to prove to the judges that I had no such plans to disregard any federal regulations. In court, Mr. Castillo put on a big Hollywood show about how I had no intentions to disregard any laws, or regulations. But secretly, he took a document (see pages E12 and E13 of The Mother of All Evidence) that I had given to him to prove that I had no intentions to disregard any regulations and secretly gave it to Karenina Legg. He told her to use it to prove to the judges that I was going to do a serious crime unless the judges put me in prison for as long as possible. If you read this document, you will see that on the first page on the very first line it reads: GOAL: to get Carl Sanchez arrested WITHOUT DOING ANY CRIME. The 6^th Amendment guarantees that I have a right to confront all witnesses against me. But how could I confront Karenina Legg when she was not there at my trial and I didn’t know that she had written such a letter against me until 6 years after I got out of prison? And how can I confront all witnesses against me if nobody told me that Pedro Castillo, my “lawyer,” was one of these secret witnesses against me? When I asked Mr. Castillo to write a letter about why my eyewitnesses were forbidden to testify about the truth, Mr. Castillo said, “I’m not going to write such a letter because I didn’t want your eyewitnesses to tell the truth. I didn’t want you to distribute any literature and I wanted you to go to prison.”

Karenina Legg says that if I spend a “period of confinement” (i.e., prison) I will “choose lawful means by which to express my political concerns.” Okay, what “lawful means” is she talking about? Does she mean suing Pedro Castillo or suing the judges? Supposing that I had a ton of money to sue Judge Hillman and pay my witnesses for all those days of missing work to show up to all the hearings, motions, depositions, stipulations, demurrers, status hearings, etc., etc., that it takes in any normal civil case, what guarantee do I have that the next judge won’t rule again that all my eyewitnesses are all irrelevant? So if Judge Verdugo or Hugo or Dego rules that all my eyewitnesses are all irrelevant, then what? Do I sue Judge Verdugo? Then what do I do if Judge Tanner rules that my eyewitnesses are irrelevant? Do I sue Judge Tanner? How many judges do I have to sue until I find a judge who wants to hear the truth? What does Karenina Legg mean by “lawful means?” Two judges refused to listen to my eyewitnesses: Hillman and Nagle. At Del Amo Behavioral Health Canter, the judge refused to look at the evidence that would prove that I had more than $8 to my name. At El Centro, Judge Jack Staton refused to let me subpoena my passport from the State Department to prove that I am a U.S. citizen. What does Karenina Legg mean by “lawful means?”