Some thoughts:
* Your veil, as currently written, is also a violation of the sixth law (moving against the flow of time), either when you turn it on or when you turn it off.
* I'm a little uncertain about your robe that grants 3 armor and 3 refresh worth of refinement for one point. The "It Is What It Is" rule is intented to provide mundane item abilities for no cost, and a robe that protects like full plate or SWAT armor is a bit beyond this. If you had Plate Armor of the Dark Path, that would be different. A non-supernatural robe made of metallic threads would probably be Armor:1 (similar to a bullet-proof vest, and less than true mail armor which would be Armor:2)
* I'm also a little uncertain about being able to getting a +5/+1 Refinement bonus from an IoP. Refinement is required to follow the column rules similar to skills. Even if Refinement was allowed for an IoP (and it falls under the "GM should examine closely" part of the allowed capabilities for IoP) I think you would be limited to a +3/+2/+1 at best.
* I think you need to more thoroughly define what your source of power, the outsider known as the "Darkness that eats all things" is. When I see that description, it does not strike me as compatible with "Elena uses her powers for the betterment of mankind" and "She is still cute and cuddly". Keep in mind that magic is very much about who you are, and the way you use magic actually molds who you are. Making regular use of a power that has as its reason for existence the destruction of all that exists seems unlikely to lend toward fluffiness and bluebirds chirping on one's shoulder. Perhaps you had something very different in mind that actually makes these aspects consistent, but it isn't clear to me.
* "Technically not breaking the Laws" would be -- at the very, very best -- a very hard sell to most Wardens. Wardens don't follow courtroom rules, nor is there any "innocent until proven guilty" policy.
* Regarding the argument about sending wardens into hostile dimensions, it's not entirely clear to me where the line is. But it seems to me that banishing someone with the clear expectation that doing so will result in their death is *morally* if not legally the same as killing them. Think of it in these terms: if I tossed someone into a pit filled with hungry lions, I would be convicted of murder. Defending myself by saying that I really only pushed them into the area above the pit -- and that the fall was entirely coincidental -- wouldn't convince any judge (well, any sane judge who hadn't been bought off). Nor would arguing that I expected my victim to be competent enough to fend off the lions, and that it was therefore their fault. I get that your character is using that as a justification in an attempt to RP rules-lawyer the situation, and that's fine. But convincing the jury (warden) will be difficult, if not entirely impossible. It is, however, impossible to fast-talk the metaphysical Laws themselves. So porting someone into a nice hotel room across town would be fine, even if by some coincidence they happen to be run over while crossing the street on the way back. But porting someone into a deadly portion of the Nevernever strikes me as borderline at best, and as I mentioned, I'm not entirely sure where the line is, exactly.
One thing you might want to consider, which would simplify most of the above issues: make the character an Emissary of Power, rather than a mortal wizard with outsider connections. To my understanding, the Laws of Magic (both in terms of Warden enforcement and metaphysically-enforced Lawbreaker stunts) only apply to practicioners of mortal magic, not to Emissaries who have spellcasting abilities of different types (or Changelings, or Vampires, etc). Of course, killing Wardens might still piss them off, but that's a different issue.
