Judge Quickly Fed Up with Sovereign City Lady!

#CourtHearing #CourtroomDrama #LegalNews #CriminalCase #judge During this courtroom hearing, the judge addressed Janetta Pew regarding the status of her legal representation. The court noted that Ms. Pew had previously claimed that her family hired a private attorney. However, no attorney had officially filed an appearance with the court, and the judge stated that the person Ms. Pew identified could not be found as a licensed practicing attorney in the state bar records. Because Ms. Pew remained in custody and her case needed to move forward, the judge confirmed that court-appointed attorney Mr. Lewis would continue representing her unless she either hired private counsel or chose to represent herself. Ms. Pew objected, arguing that appointed attorneys have a conflict of interest because they owe their first duty to the state. The judge rejected that argument and explained that her legal options were limited to accepting appointed counsel, hiring a qualified private attorney, or proceeding without an attorney. Throughout the hearing, Ms. Pew repeatedly challenged the court's authority, questioned the indictment, demanded proof of the claims against her, and requested immediate release, citing insufficient evidence and an inability to obtain proper legal counsel. The judge responded that the indictment served as the formal legal claim against her and informed her that her petition for a writ of habeas corpus had already been denied. As Ms. Pew continued interrupting the proceedings, the judge warned that repeatedly speaking over the court was disrespectful and overruled each of her objections. To provide additional time, the judge postponed further proceedings for two weeks, allowing Ms. Pew to decide whether she would retain private counsel, continue with the appointed attorney, or represent herself. Until then, Mr. Lewis would remain her attorney of record to ensure the case could proceed without unnecessary delay. Subscribe My Channel-[‪@GAVELTIME-c2t‬ ] Disclaimer: This summary is based solely on the courtroom transcript provided and is intended for informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, represent the complete case record, or determine the guilt or innocence of any individual. Viewers should consult official court documents for the full context.