Listen to Article

The Ethics Implosion of Judge Charlene Jackson: Judicial Retaliation, Public Exposure, and the Fight to Protect Arizona’s Children

Maricopa County, AZ — Arizona’s family court system has seen dysfunction before, but Judge Charlene Jackson has turned judicial misconduct into an art form. Her March 2025 restraining order against a protective mother wasn’t a legal filing — it was a retaliatory manifesto dripping with bias, contradictions, and self-incrimination. It didn’t protect anyone. It exposed her.

Erin Gerlach exhausted every lawful avenue to protect her daughter, Brooklyn, from documented abuse. And what did she get? A judge who couldn’t even establish jurisdiction properly, yet issued ruling after ruling like she was above the Constitution.

Jackson ignored evidence like it was optional, tossed out procedure like it was inconvenient, and treated Gerlach’s case like a personal grudge match. Her courtroom wasn’t a place for justice , it was a stage for unchecked ego, where a mother’s attempt to shield her child was not only dismissed, but criminalized and weaponized against her.

According to Gerlach, this wasn’t a custody dispute. It was a legal ambush. The law wasn’t applied, it was twisted, weaponized, and used to silence a mother who dared to challenge the system. And the system? It didn’t just fail. It helped.

Meth, Molestation, and Misconduct: The Charlene Jackson Docket

Jackson’s rulings read like a dystopian script.

She awarded custody to a father indicted for molesting his own children in another state.

She granted sole legal decision-making to a parent who tested positive for several substances including methamphetamine, colluding with an attorney to conceal the drug test results from the other parent. The buried lab report only surfaced when a parent advocacy group reviewed the case file and discovered the concealed evidence.

In one of the most appalling and indefensible rulings to ever come out of Maricopa County’s family court, Judge Charlene Jackson granted unsupervised visitation to a man who was not the biological father of a non-verbal, special needs child, despite overwhelming evidence that the child was the victim of ongoing sexual assault. Law enforcement uncovered hundreds, possibly thousands, of sexually explicit images of this child and other minors in the man’s possession, triggering a criminal investigation. Yet, Jackson still forced the NON-VERBAL child into regular phone contact with his abuser, while forcing the child to have unsupervised visitation with him. This wasn’t just judicial negligence, it was cruelty. Jackson also denied a motion to continue a scheduled court date, despite being provided a letter from a doctor stating that the child required urgent medical attention. As a result of being forced to prioritize the court’s schedule over the child’s healthcare needs, the necessary medical procedure was delayed, leading to a long-term medical complication that could have been prevented.

There are dozens of similar cases we could list. This is just a typical Tuesday for Jackson, whose biased rulings reflect a documented pattern of ignoring credible evidence, disregarding child safety, and punishing protective parents who dare to challenge abuse. Her courtroom has become a place where due process is sidelined and vulnerable children are placed at risk.

This is not just misconduct. It’s institutional betrayal, an embarrassment to Arizona’s Judiciary and it’s happening in plain sight.

The Filing That Lit a Fire

On March 24, 2025, Judge Jackson filed a personal restraining order against Gerlach, citing eight alleged incidents of harassment between November 18, 2023 and November 12, 2024. That entire timeframe overlaps with Jackson’s active role as the judge presiding over Gerlach’s custody case. The case was finally reassigned November 12, 2024, within hours of Gerlach presenting evidence of Jackson’s misconduct to the Arizona Supreme Court.

If Jackson truly believed she was being harassed, judicial ethics required her to recuse herself, not continue issuing rulings, including one-word denials of Gerlach’s motions and an order requiring her to pay the opposing parties attorney’s fees while she was self-represented at that time.

In her restraining order application, Jackson acknowledged that Gerlach’s social media accounts had been deleted or made private as of November 2024. Yet, she waited until March 2025, four months later, to file the order. The delay in filing, combined with the fact that the restraining order was submitted on the same day and at the same location as the opposing party in Gerlach’s custody case, has added to speculation about Jackson’s true motives behind the filing. This timing has also intensified existing allegations that Judge Jackson and the opposing party may have acted as co-conspirators throughout the case to deprive Gerlach of her rights.

Judge Jackson didn’t just file a restraining order; she filed a confession. In her attempt to muzzle a protective mother, she made sworn statements under penalty of perjury that do more damage to her own credibility than any critic ever could. It’s like she walked into court, threw her own ethics into the trash, lit her integrity on fire, and said, “Here’s more proof I shouldn’t be on the bench.” She wanted to play victim, but instead she played herself. Filing in her personal capacity stripped her of judicial immunity, and now those statements are fair game.

She wanted to intimidate Gerlach into silence. Instead, she handed the public a smoking gun.

The restraining order isn’t protection, it’s projection. Jackson’s filing didn’t silence anyone; it lit a fire. Her own words, now on record, contradict her rulings, expose her bias, and validate the very misconduct she’s been accused of. She didn’t just tell on herself; she gift-wrapped the evidence and signed it under oath. The best part? She dragged her co-conspirators under the bus with her.

What Jackson characterizes as “harassment” is, in reality, lawful advocacy, protected by the Constitution, supported by public records, and rooted in lived experience. Gerlach’s actions reflect a civic duty to speak out against injustice and stand up for what is right, along with her duty as a mother to protect all children, including her own.

Family Ties and False Denials: The Paige Jackson Cover-Up

One of the most brazen contradictions in Jackson’s sworn statements involves her own niece, Paige Jackson. In her restraining order, Jackson categorically denied ever presiding over a case involving Paige. But screenshots from the official Maricopa County Superior Court docket tell a different story, one that’s now fueling allegations of perjury and conflict of interest.

Supporting Evidence: A screenshot from the Maricopa County Superior Court docket lists the Judicial officer assigned to Paige Jacksons case as Judge Charlene Jackson, contradicting Jackson’s sworn denials.

maricopacountyfamilycourtjudgepresidingoverherneicescasepaigejacksonmoore.png

Screenshot of Maricopa County Superior Court docket listed Judge Charlene Jackson as the assigned judicial officer in Paige Jackson’s case.

The official Maricopa County Superior Court docket listed Judge Charlene Jackson as the assigned judicial officer in Paige Jackson’s case. That case was quietly transferred to a new judge on the exact same day Gerlach’s custody case was reassigned, mere hours after Gerlach submitted misconduct evidence to the Arizona Supreme Court. The timing suggests that Jackson may have been scrambling to cover tracks once her misconduct was exposed.

If Jackson knowingly denied this connection under oath, the misrepresentation constitutes perjury. If she was genuinely unaware that her own niece appeared on her judicial roster, it raises serious concerns about her competence, oversight, and the integrity of her case management practices. Either way, the contradiction between Jackson’s sworn denial and the public record demands scrutiny and further proves Jackson’s unfitness for the bench.

And rather than address the evidence, Jackson went on the offensive. She publicly labeled Gerlach a “liar” and a “conspiracy theorist” for exposing the connection, despite the fact that multiple individuals independently verified seeing the same thing on the docket of the official Maricopa County Superior Court website. The screenshot doesn’t lie. But Jackson did. And now, the cover-up may be worse than the conflict itself.

Muted Mics and Missing Minutes: The Pattern of Record Tampering in Judge Jackson’s Courtroom

A growing number of litigants are sounding the alarm over missing or manipulated audio recordings from hearings presided over by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Charlene Jackson. The common denominator? The For The Record (FTR) system — the official courtroom audio platform — was allegedly muted, trimmed, or mysteriously erased during pivotal moments of testimony and judicial rulings.

In her restraining order filing, Jackson tried to deflect from the accusation, stating:

“She accused me of intentionally muting the recording system in the courtroom even though I do not control the recording system in the courtroom.”

But that denial hasn’t held up under scrutiny. Motions, affidavits, and formal complaints from unrelated cases describe eerily similar incidents, suggesting that Gerlach’s experience wasn’t an outlier, but part of a broader pattern. Attorneys and litigants have documented instances where FTR recordings were incomplete, abruptly cut off, or missing entirely.

In one case, Jackson allegedly stated she had a “personal interest” in resolving the matter. When the litigant and their attorney requested the audio, the final two minutes, where Jackson’s statement was made, had been erased or trimmed.

Gerlach’s case is particularly damning. She accused Jackson of muting the FTR system at the start of a hearing in which Jackson openly stated she had intentionally placed a jurisdictional ruling in a non-appealable minute entry, effectively blocking Gerlach from challenging the decision. Jackson then proceeded with the hearing and issued orders, despite having already been served with a Notice of Appeal, which legally divested her of jurisdiction. That portion of the FTR record is missing. When Gerlach contacted court security, she was told the footage from the courtroom was unavailable. She documented the incident in pleadings filed directly into Jackson’s division. Jackson never responded to the allegations until she filed the retaliatory restraining order.

And the pattern doesn’t end there.

In another documented case, Jackson denied a motion to continue a contempt trial for a seriously ill attorney not based on law, but on what she described as a “gut reaction.” She dismissed the attorney’s documented illness as “fortuitous,” implying it was a delay tactic. The attorney was forced to represent a litigant for a contempt trial while visibly ill, taking multiple breaks during proceedings. Jackson refused to allow co-counsel to speak or participate, leaving the litigant without adequate representation and violating her right to due process.

When Gerlach publicly accused Jackson of issuing rulings based on “gut feelings,” Jackson denied this ever happening, called Gerlach a “liar” and claimed Gerlach’s accusation amounted to “harassment.” But public records, including a Motion for a Change of Judge (which was granted) filed by a well-respected attorney, confirm that Jackson did, in fact, cite her “gut reaction” as the basis for denying the continuance. The same motion documents Jackson’s refusal to accommodate the ill attorney and her decision to proceed despite clear medical evidence. That motion is a matter of public record which Gerlach obtained and submitted as evidence.

Supporting Evidence: Affidavit filed under oath confirming the final two minutes of an FTR recording were erased or trimmed.

maricopacountysuperiorcourtjudgecharlenejacksonexpressingapersonalinterestinacustodycasewhileconcealingthatstatementfromtherecordbymutingtheftr.png

Judge Jackson stated “she has a personal interest” in seeing the case through

anotheraccusationofjacksonmutingtheftrsystemjudgecharlenejacksonmisconductallegationsmaricopacountysuperiorcourt.png

The final two minutes of the FTR audio seemed to be erased or trimmed

Supporting Evidence: Motion filed in Jackson’s Court by a well-respected attorney documenting Jackson’s bias and quoting her “gut reaction” that counsel’s illness was “fortuitous.”

moreofjudgecharlenejacksonsmisconduct.png

Jackson stated she had a “gut reaction” that Petitioner planned for her attorney to contract COVID to delay proceedings and that counsel’s illness seemed “fortuitous” despite providing a Doctor’s Note.

She Called It a Gut Reaction. We Call It a Due Process Violation.

If Jackson’s courtroom recordings are being selectively erased or muted, it raises serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of every ruling she’s issued.

And here’s where Jackson’s credibility further collapses.

Gerlach’s reference to Judge Jackson’s alleged “gut reaction” ruling isn’t harassment, it’s a direct citation from a public court record filed in Jackson’s own division. The phrase appeared in a formal Motion requesting a Change of Judge, submitted by a licensed attorney. That motion is part of the official case file and was granted, resulting in reassignment to another judge.

If Jackson believed the attorney’s statement was false, then under Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.15(A), she had a mandatory duty to report the attorney to the State Bar for knowingly submitting false information to the court:

“A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.”

Jackson did not report the attorney. She took no action, filed no complaint, and raised no objection to the motion’s contents. In fact, the motion was granted.

And that’s where Jackson’s credibility collapses — again. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot claim that Gerlach is lying by quoting a statement from a public record, while simultaneously failing to report the attorney who allegedly fabricated that statement under oath. Either Jackson lied when she called Gerlach a liar, or she failed to fulfill her ethical obligation to report attorney misconduct. Either way, she’s proving her own misconduct again, through omission, contradiction, and retaliatory filings.

Gerlach had every reason to believe the motion was truthful. Jackson’s silence, her failure to challenge the record, and her refusal to act under Rule 2.15(A) all reinforced that belief.

In fact, the same attorney filed additional disturbing allegations against Judge Charlene Jackson in a Motion for Change of Judge. Jackson never filed a rebuttal, never referred the attorney to the State Bar, and never contested the claims. The case was reassigned. In the absence of any denial or disciplinary referral, those allegations stand uncontested in the record and must be treated as credible.

Here are a few examples of claims made against Jackson that we must treat as credible:

In this instance, Judge Charlene Jackson is accused of knowingly leaving a highly controversial Therapeutic Interventionist (TI) on a case after acknowledging a conflict of interest. Rather than holding an evidentiary hearing or allowing the parties to present evidence, Jackson unilaterally issued an order declaring no conflict existed. No due process, just a ruling. As if Petitioner being called as a witness to testify in a Federal Lawsuit against the “TI” in an unrelated case isn’t a conflict.

This wasn’t an isolated lapse. The “TI” in question is one of several “experts” Jackson has been repeatedly accused of colluding with across multiple cases, raising serious concerns about impartiality, bias, and systemic abuse of discretion.

concernsofjudicialmisconductbyjudgecharlenejacksonmariopacountysuperiorcourtincludingfailuretodisqualifyprofessionalswithconflictsofinterest.png

Jackson is accused of leaving an infamous Therapeutic Interventionist (TI) on a case after acknowledging that there was a conflict of interest.

Jackson failed to hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to A.R.S. 25-411 which mandates that a modification to legal decision-making or parenting time requires an evidentiary hearing when contested by one party, ensuring that both parties can present substantial evidence. Judge Jackson failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before appointing a Therapeutic Interventionist. Further, Jackson assigned an individual conducting the Limited Family Assessment (LFA) and Parenting Time Facilitator without an evidentiary hearing.

familycourtjudgecharlenejacksonfailingtoholdamandatoryevidentiaryhearinginviolationofars25411.png

Jackson failed to comply with A.R.S. 25-406, which requires the court to allocate costs for court-ordered services based on the financial ability of both parties. Jackson ignored Petitioners affidavit of financial information.

judgecharlenejacksonfailingtocomplywithars25406again.png

Jackson unilaterally modified a stipulated order without due process in violation of A.R.S. 25-411 and A.R.S. 25-317. This is another common complaint in Jackson’s division.

maricopacountysuperiorcourtjudgecharlenejacksoninviolationofars25411andars25317.png

“Again, this is not a mere few disgruntled litigants, and the Court should not dismiss the serious nature of these allegations. The consistency of these complaints, particularly the references to Judge Jackson’s failure to protect children, her arbitrary decision-making, and her apparent personal motives in handling family law cases, mirrors her actions in the case as issue.”

consistencyofcomplaintsregardingjudgecharlenejacksonsfailuretoprotectchildren.png

“Again, this is not a mere few disgruntled litigants, and the Court should not dismiss the serious nature of these allegations. The consistency of these complaints, particularly the references to Judge Jackson’s failure to protect children, her arbitrary decision-making, and her apparent personal motives in handling family law cases, mirrors her actions in the case as issue.”

Gerlach quoting Jackson’s public track record isn’t harassment. It’s protected speech. And Jackson’s attempt to criminalize it is yet another abuse of power.

Tampering with Minute Entries

Jackson is accused of altering minute entries without notifying parties, and of manipulating the official court record, actions that compromise the integrity of the judicial process and may constitute misconduct and Tampering with Evidence. Jackson did not dispute this allegation when it was filed in her court. Notably, this case was also eventually transferred to a new Judge.

Supporting Evidence: An affidavit filed in Jackson’s Court, accusing Jackson of tampering with minute entries.

judgecharlenejacksonallegedlytamperingwithminuteorders.pngMaricopa County Judge Charlene Jackson allegedly tampering with minute orders

The Warrant Lie: Jackson’s False Claim Under Oath and the Trauma She Authorized

In her restraining order filing, Judge Charlene Jackson made a bold and verifiably false statement — under penalty of perjury and while identifying herself as a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge:

“She claims I have issued warrants for arrest which is untrue as I have issued 1 warrant in my career as a superior court judge.”

That wasn’t just a distortion. It was a flat-out lie, delivered under oath, while portraying herself as a victim of harassment in order to commit harassment herself.

Court records directly contradict Jackson’s sworn statement. Not only has she issued multiple warrants in unrelated cases, but she signed more than one warrant specifically in Gerlach’s case. Gerlach has produced a redacted copy of one such warrant bearing Jackson’s signature as proof that Jackson’s denial isn’t just inaccurate, it’s a documented falsehood.

And the consequences weren’t theoretical. One of those warrants was executed over Christmas break, resulting in the violent removal of children from their home. SWAT officers arrived with guns drawn. Children were ripped from their parents in what Jackson knew was not a true emergency. The trauma inflicted in that moment will last a lifetime.

What makes this even more egregious is that in this particular case, Jackson had already been served with a mandate from the Arizona Court of Appeals divesting her of jurisdiction. She was legally barred from issuing further orders. But she did it anyway, including issuing warrants, continuing hearings, and ignoring appellate authority as if the law didn’t apply to her.

This isn’t just judicial overreach. It’s a judge operating outside her legal bounds, lying under oath, and inflicting irreversible harm on families. And she did it using taxpayer-funded resources, diverting law enforcement from real emergencies to enforce retaliatory orders that lacked legal standing. That’s not just misconduct. It’s abuse of power with public consequences including egregious waste of taxpayer funds. And now, thanks to the paper trail she tried to deny, the evidence is catching up.

Supporting Evidence: A redacted copy of a warrant issued by Judge Charlene D. Jackson with her signature

anotherwarrantissuedbymaricopacountyfamilycourtjudgecharlenejackson.png

Warrant issued by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Charlene Jackson

judgecharlenejacksontraumatizingmorechildrenwithherwarrants.png

One of the warrants Jackson claims under oath does not exist, was in fact executed, and children were traumatized over Christmas break.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Charlene Jackson stated — under oath, under penalty of perjury — that she issued only one warrant during her time on the bench, and that it was for Erin Gerlach.

That statement is demonstrably false.

And when a sitting judge lies under oath about her own judicial actions, the consequences shouldn’t be optional, they should be immediate and disqualifying. It’s a willful misrepresentation of judicial conduct. And the fact that the State of Arizona continues to allow Jackson to preside over cases involving vulnerable children is not just irresponsible, it’s a liability. Every day she remains on the bench, the state risks harm to families and further erosion of public trust in the judiciary.

At this point, Jackson’s conduct doesn’t just raise questions about her fitness to serve as a judge, it calls into question whether she meets the ethical threshold to practice law at all. A trail of documented dishonesty, retaliatory rulings, and sworn falsehoods should disqualify her from any role in the legal system.

The bench demands integrity. Jackson has forfeited hers, at the expense of the public.

Surveillance, Speculation, and Jackson’s Obsession with an Anonymous Article

In her sworn restraining order filing, Judge Charlene Jackson claimed, under penalty of perjury, that a fellow judicial officer had called to alert her about an online article referencing her name. Without citing a specific platform, Jackson accused Gerlach of authoring the piece. The only article we could find that fit Jackson’s vague description was a piece written under the pseudonym “Blaine Baldwin” she claimed was published on a “pay-to-publish” site similar to NewsBreak. But Jackson never named the actual site, immediately casting doubt on the credibility of her claim.

Independent searches revealed only one article matching Jackson’s description and it wasn’t hosted on a pay-to-publish site. It appeared on Medium, a free and widely accessible platform that does not charge for publication, does not verify user identity, and does not collect or display residential addresses. Yet Jackson went further, alleging under oath that the account used to publish the article was registered to Gerlach’s home address.

That claim is demonstrably false.

Medium does not link user accounts to physical addresses, nor does it collect such data for publication. Gerlach, for her part, has used a P.O. Box for all legal filings for the past two years. So the question becomes: how did Jackson obtain Gerlach’s home address and why did she claim it was tied to an anonymous online article?

Jackson’s own sworn statements raise serious concerns about potential misuse of private data. Speculation now centers on her husband, who reportedly serves as a liaison at a regional fusion center, a multi-agency intelligence hub with access to sensitive personal information. If Judge Jackson exploited that connection, or any other law enforcement connections to identify or target a critic, it would constitute a serious abuse of state resources and a direct violation of privacy laws. Any individual who assisted her in accessing a litigant’s personal data would themselves be complicit in unlawful conduct. This isn’t just unethical, it’s criminal.

And what was in the article that triggered this reaction? Jackson succeeded in having it removed, but an archived copy revealed no threats, no defamatory content, and no unlawful material, just constitutionally protected speech and publicly available records. The piece criticized Jackson’s rulings and cited publicly available documents. That’s not harassment. That’s civic engagement. If no laws were broken, then how would Jackson legally obtain an address linked to the writer of an article? Again, Jackson proved her misconduct in writing.

If Jackson accessed private data without legal justification, she violated privacy laws. If she fabricated the claim that the publishers account was registered to Gerlach’s home address, she committed perjury. Either scenario points to unlawful conduct. And when a sitting judge uses institutional power to retaliate against critics engaged in lawful expression, it’s not just unethical, it’s an abuse of authority, a violation of her oath, and a criminal breach of public trust.

This isn’t just about Gerlach. It’s about every litigant whose private information may have been compromised by a judge who appears more interested in silencing dissent than upholding the law. Jackson’s actions demand immediate investigation — not just into her restraining order, but into her access to sensitive data, her use of judicial authority, and her fitness to remain on the bench.

What taxpayer-funded resources are being used to surveil litigants and former litigants? If this is how justice is administered in Maricopa County, then the system isn’t just broken — it’s weaponized at the expense of taxpayers.

Speculative Accusations and Judicial Retaliation: Jackson’s Package Theory Falls Apart

In one of the more bizarre and troubling claims in her sworn restraining order filing, Judge Charlene Jackson absurdly accused Erin Gerlach of anonymously sending packages to the private residences of other judicial officers. According to Jackson, the contents included materials exposing corruption within the Maricopa County Family Court system, some referencing Gerlach’s case, other cases and naming multiple judges, including Jackson herself.

Jackson admitted the packages weren’t sent to her. They were sent to other “Judicial Officers.” So why did she single out Gerlach as the culprit? And why did she insert herself into a controversy she wasn’t a recipient of?

Gerlach has publicly denied any involvement and stated she had no knowledge of the deliveries. There is no publicly available evidence linking her to the act. Yet Jackson, while actively presiding over Gerlach’s custody case, admitted to participating in a criminal investigation into Gerlach’s alleged connection to the packages. That alone is a glaring conflict of interest and a direct violation of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.

But it gets worse.

The investigation Jackson referenced was conducted by the same law enforcement department where the opposing party in Gerlach’s case is employed. Jackson admits to meeting with investigators from that department — despite the fact that it has no jurisdiction over Jackson’s residence, Gerlach’s residence, or the courthouse. And she did so while still assigned to Gerlach’s case.

That’s not just unethical. It’s retaliatory, defamatory, and legally indefensible.

Jackson’s accusation rests on the absurd assumption that Erin Gerlach is the sole source of every criticism directed at her, ignoring the fact that dozens of other litigants and attorneys have filed formal complaints, published damning accounts, and launched petitions demanding her removal from the bench.

Many have gone further by submitting affidavits and motions stating they filed complaints with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, the FBI, the DOJ, and other government agencies. Jackson is well aware of this. She’s received the filings. She’s read the motions. And she’s seen the growing mountain of recusal requests and change-of-judge petitions tied to her courtroom.

Her reckless decision to pin the blame solely on Gerlach isn’t just retaliatory, it’s defamatory. In a public legal filing, Jackson paints a protective mother as a criminal, accuses her of a crime she did not commit, and does so while identifying herself as a Superior Court Judge, without presenting a single piece of corroborating evidence.

This isn’t judicial conduct. It’s judicial retaliation.

And when a sitting judge uses her authority and perceived credibility to target a litigant based on unverified suspicions, while simultaneously presiding over that litigant’s case, it’s not just a breach of ethics. It’s a criminal breach of public trust.

Apparently, Jackson does not believe Gerlach is entitled to DUE PROCESS and does not have Constitutional Rights in Arizona.

Judge Jackson’s Restraining Order Reads Like a Confession — And Critics aren’t Backing Down

In her restraining order filing, Judge Charlene Jackson rattled off a laundry list of accusations she claims Gerlach made against her, ranging from destruction of evidence and witness intimidation to election fraud, impersonation, and conspiracy to commit child abuse.

Jackson’s exact words:

“Defendant accused me of destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, extortion, perjury, violation of civil rights, conspiracy to commit child abuse and child endangerment, collusion with court-appointed providers, allowing litigants to submit fraudulent evidence, election fraud, election interference, colluding with the judicial nominating committee and judicial performance review, destruction of or concealing public records, filing false disclosures, lying on her application for appointment, providing false instruments for filing, numerous conspiracy charges, stealing someone’s LinkedIn profile and impersonating them online, issuing warrants knowing the affidavits were falsified, and abusing her power over gut feelings and misconduct in office.”

It’s a dramatic list, but here’s the problem: Gerlach has never denied making those accusations. In fact, She stands by every one of them — and she’s backed them with a growing body of corroborating evidence, including sworn affidavits, court filings, victim testimony, courtroom recordings, and public records that paint a damning portrait of Jackson’s conduct on the bench.

These weren’t offhand remarks. Gerlach submitted her accusations formally, through motions and affidavits filed directly in Jackson’s courtroom over the course of nearly two years. Jackson read them. She presided over the case. And she responded with nothing more than blanket denials.

And that’s where Jackson’s credibility collapses. If she truly believed Gerlach’s accusations were harassing, defamatory, or improper, why did she allow them to continue for nearly two years? Why did she wait until after the fact, then reframe those same accusations as “harassment” in a retaliatory restraining order?

Jackson’s attempt to retroactively criminalize protected legal speech isn’t just hypocritical, it’s procedurally indefensible.

And Gerlach isn’t alone. Letters submitted to Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes and a petition for federal investigation have echoed Gerlach’s claims. These sources cite Jackson’s pattern of issuing rulings without hearings, suppressing critical evidence, placing children in the custody of their abusers, demonstrating bias, retaliating against litigants who file complaints, failing to follow Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, violating Constitutional Rights, and enabling custody outcomes based on perjury and fraud. One affidavit even documents Jackson issuing warrants despite knowing the supporting affidavits contained false statements.

These sources cite Jackson’s pattern of issuing rulings without hearings, suppressing critical evidence, retaliating against litigants who file complaints, and enabling custody outcomes based on perjury and fraud. One affidavit even documents Jackson issuing warrants despite knowing the supporting affidavits contained false statements.

Jackson’s strategy appears to be simple: deny everything, label critics as conspiracy theorists, and hope the paper trail disappears. But it hasn’t. And the more she tries to discredit Gerlach, the more her own rulings, filings, and contradictions validate the allegations.

This isn’t just a he-said-she-said. It’s a judge under fire, facing a chorus of documented complaints, and trying to rewrite the narrative and silence a protective mother with a restraining order. But the evidence isn’t cooperating. And neither is the public.

Arizona Judges Are Public Officials. Their Misconduct Is Not a Private Matter.

Gerlach had every right to believe and publicly reference the Phoenix New Times article dated December 22, 2022, which quoted Judge Charlene Jackson directly. In that piece, Jackson identified herself as both a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge and an attorney representing the Hualapai Tribe near Kingman—confirming her dual roles in her own words. This wasn’t hearsay. It was a public admission.

Here is a screenshot from the article:

jacksonadmittingtopracticinglawwhileonthebench.png

said Charlene Jackson, an attorney representing the Hualapai Tribe near Kingman and a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge.

Upon reviewing Rule 3.10 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, Gerlach reasonably concluded that Jackson’s conduct violated judicial ethics:

A judge shall not practice law. A judge may act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.

The rule is unequivocal: sitting judges are prohibited from practicing law, no exceptions for side work, tribal representation, or consulting. The restriction exists to preserve impartiality, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain public trust in the judiciary.

Jackson’s decision to engage in legal practice while holding judicial office was a breach of the very code she’s sworn to uphold. And because she disclosed it in a public article, she cannot accuse Gerlach, or anyone else, of “harassment” for citing it. Gerlach’s statements were based on publicly available facts and a reasonable interpretation of the law.

Judges Are Public Officials Under Arizona Law

Under the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution, criticism of a judge’s conduct, especially when based on public records, court filings, or published articles is not defamation or harassment, but protected speech.

As public officials, they are subject to greater scrutiny, reduced expectations of privacy, and broader protections for public criticism under the First Amendment.

Calling out misconduct backed by public record and ethical rules is not harassment. It’s protected speech. It’s accountability that’s long overdue.

She Didn’t Recuse — She Retaliated

Judge Charlene Jackson later claimed that a social media post allegedly posted by Gerlach in October 2024 amounted to “ex-parte communication.” But let’s be clear: Jackson never raised the issue in court, never entered it into the record, and never recused herself. Instead, she waited five months, until March 2025, and cited it in her restraining order application, retroactively reframing protected public speech as improper contact. In doing so, Jackson admitted to violating her own judicial ethics.

If she genuinely believed the article constituted “ex-parte communication,” she had a legal and ethical duty to disclose it immediately and step off the case. Her silence at the time tells one of two stories: either she didn’t consider it ex-parte when it happened, or she knowingly violated judicial ethics by continuing to preside over a case where she believed she’d been improperly contacted. Jackson continues proving her misconduct in her own words she filed under Penalty of Perjury.

Either way, her own timeline exposes her. It undermines her credibility, calls her impartiality into question, and reveals a disturbing willingness to weaponize her title to punish a litigant who dared to speak out. Jackson didn’t recuse. She retaliated. And now, the record, in Jackson’s own writing reflects it.

She Called It Harassment. The Constitution Called It Accountability

Erin Gerlach’s efforts to hold Judge Charlene Jackson accountable have been lawful, and thoroughly documented. She’s filed formal complaints with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, the Maricopa County District Attorney, Presiding Judges Ronda Fisk and Joseph Welty, and former Presiding Judge Bruce Cohen — who notoriously was caught on recording dismissing concerns about Jackson’s fitness for the bench by calling her a “DEI-hire” and telling parents to “give her a break” because she had no trial court or family law experience.

Gerlach also submitted a recall petition to the Maricopa County Board of Elections and contacted federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI and other relevant government agencies. Her filings include substantial evidence of misconduct, procedural violations, intimidation, retaliation and civil rights abuses. Jackson, meanwhile, appears to be actively interfering with judicial proceedings.

But instead of addressing the substance of these complaints, Jackson chose to reframe them as “harassment” in her restraining order. She wrote:

“The commission on judicial conduct dismissed the petition as it has all petitions filed by the defendant directly, anonymously, or on her behalf.”

She went further, accusing Gerlach of filing a public records request via email to the Judicial Performance Review board (JPR) requesting Jacksons Performance Reviews. Jackson ridiculously claimed Gerlach requesting public records constituted harassment.

Let’s be clear: requesting public records and contacting oversight agencies are not harassment. They are protected civic actions under Arizona law and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Jackson’s attempt to criminalize transparency is not just manipulative, it’s authoritarian and has no place in Arizona’s Judiciary. That alone should be enough to drag her off the bench in handcuffs.

These statements only reinforce Gerlach’s central concern: Judge Charlene Jackson is unfit for the bench. A competent, impartial judicial officer would understand that public oversight is a cornerstone of democracy, not a personal attack. Jackson’s framing of lawful complaints and records requests as harassment is a blatant abuse of power, designed to silence a litigant and discourage others from exercising their constitutional rights.

Everything Gerlach has shared publicly is rooted in court filings, public records, and her lived experience. She has never made threats, nor has she posed any danger to Jackson. In fact, she’s gone out of her way to avoid direct contact. Her advocacy is not only lawful, it’s necessary. And Jackson’s attempt to label it as harassment is a grotesque misuse of judicial authority aimed at suppressing dissent, concealing misconduct, and evading accountability.

Again, the ethical breach becomes undeniable: if Jackson genuinely believed Gerlach’s actions constituted harassment, she had a legal and ethical obligation to recuse herself from the case. Instead, she stayed on and continued weaponizing her bench against a litigant she retroactively claimed was targeting her.

This isn’t just retaliation — it’s a threat. A calculated strike against every protective parent, every whistleblower, and every citizen who dares to challenge a broken system. Judge Charlene Jackson’s abuse of power isn’t just unethical. It’s dangerous. It’s an attack on transparency, accountability, and the very foundation of our democracy.

And that’s exactly why she must be investigated, removed from the bench, and held fully accountable. Because when a judge weaponizes her authority to silence dissent and punish lawful advocacy, she’s not just violating ethics, she’s undermining democracy itself.

Judge Jackson’s credibility collapses under its own contradictions

Judge Charlene Jackson’s restraining order against Erin Gerlach was reckless, defamatory, unethical, and self-incriminating.

In her sworn filing, Jackson accused Gerlach of “pretending” to be a victim of domestic violence. A bold claim that collapses under scrutiny. According to Jackson’s own words, she is not permitted to speak publicly about cases, but here she is making bold claims, proving her bias, and showing a concerning personal interest.

Jackson admitted in a minute order that she disposed of Gerlach’s exhibits without reviewing or admitting them into evidence. So how could she possibly determine the legitimacy of Gerlach’s claims? She didn’t. She made a sweeping accusation without ever weighing the evidence. And then she put it in writing, under penalty of perjury.

Meanwhile, Gerlach submitted extensive documentation from law enforcement agencies in both Arizona and California.

These include:

Police reports from several agencies in Arizona and California with attached photos and videos

Victim rights forms from Maricopa County listing Brooklyn as a victim of child abuse and disorderly conduct, with her father named as the suspect

Victim rights forms listing Gerlach as a victim of assault and disorderly conduct, again naming Brooklyn’s father as the suspect

A charging worksheet from the Los Angeles District Attorney confirming that the only reason Brooklyn’s father wasn’t charged with domestic battery was the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations

They are official records. For Jackson to claim Gerlach fabricated her victimhood is to imply that multiple law enforcement agencies and prosecutors across two states are all lying. That’s not just arrogant — it’s dangerous.

Supporting Evidence: Victim’s Rights forms issued in Maricopa County and a Charging Worksheet from the Los Angles County District Attorney

brooklynvictimsrightsform.pngBrooklyn listed as a victim of CHILD ABUSE and DISORDERLY CONDUCT

eringerlachvictimsrightsformwithshawnfreemanlistedasthesuspectofassaultanddisorderlyconduct.png

Erin listed as victim of DISORDERLY CONDUCT and ASSAULT

And in Los Angeles, the District Attorney’s charging worksheet confirms that the only reason Brooklyn’s father wasn’t charged with domestic battery was because the one-year statute of limitations had expired. So unless Jackson is suggesting that law enforcement agencies in both Arizona and California, plus the L.A. District Attorney’s Office, are all lying, her claim collapses under its own weight.

losangelescountydistrictattorneychargingworksheetforshawnfreemanfordomesticbattery.png

Shawn — Domestic Battery Charging Worksheet

And it gets worse.

In the same filing, Jackson admits to discussing Gerlach’s case with outsiders. That’s a direct violation of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, which explicitly prohibits judges from publicly commenting on pending or impending cases. Jackson herself has acknowledged that such commentary is unethical. Yet she did exactly that, and admitted to it, in writing, under oath, in a civil filing she submitted personally.

But Jackson didn’t stop at violating confidentiality. She went further.

She inserted herself into Gerlach’s custodial interference case, a matter she was not assigned to, and admitted to possessing sensitive information about it. Then, in a stunning breach of judicial ethics, she disclosed portions of that information in a public record — while actively serving as a sitting judge. That’s not just inappropriate, its another violation of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judge Charlene Jackson actively conspired with Gerlach’s opposing party and law enforcement to escalate punitive action. While Gerlach is awaiting trial for custodial interference, Jackson has worked behind the scenes to influence prosecutorial decisions, urging authorities to raise Gerlach’s bond or detain her based on fabricated claims of “harassment” against a Superior Court Judge.

These allegations were a strategic maneuver to criminalize dissent and silence a mother who had exposed judicial misconduct. Jackson used her title to manipulate the system against a litigant she personally targeted. It is collusion. It is retaliation. It is a conspiracy against Gerlach’s Constitutional Rights. And it is a gross abuse of judicial power.

And then came more retaliation.

Jackson had Gerlach served with the restraining order while she was in court — not once, but twice — in what can only be described as a calculated attempt to interfere with active proceedings. She escalated further, having Gerlach served seven separate times, including while Gerlach was in jail, in an effort to manipulate her treatment and intimidate her. That’s not just unethical, it’s judicial harassment and a gross abuse of power.

The entire filing is an ethical implosion in real time. She documented the violation and submitted it as evidence against herself. Jackson built a paper trail of misconduct and signed her name to every page. And it’s now part of the public record.

Community and Legislative Response: The Backlash Is Loud — and Getting Louder

More than 2,400 citizens have signed a public petition demanding the investigation or removal of Judge Charlene Jackson, citing a disturbing pattern of judicial bias, reckless custody rulings, and procedural violations that have endangered children and punished protective parents.

And the public isn’t the only one sounding the alarm.

On February 7, 2025, the Arizona Capitol Times reported that State Representative Rachel Keshel (formerly Jones) sent a formal letter of concern directly to Judge Jackson. Writing on behalf of her constituents, Keshel outlined her intent to submit formal requests to the Arizona judiciary committees for a comprehensive review of Jackson’s conduct.

The letter referenced widespread complaints involving:

Judicial bias

Rulings inconsistent with Arizona law and Procedural Requirements

Collusion with court-appointed experts

Appointment of forensic experts and financial hardship

Adverse custody orders placing children at risk

Jackson knew full well that Gerlach’s case was among those cited. And instead of addressing the concerns, she retaliated — filing a restraining order that only poured gasoline on the fire.

Jackson even referenced Keshel’s letter in her restraining order filing, claiming she couldn’t be investigated by the Legislature due to “separation of powers,” as if to tell the State Representative to back off. She also refused to meet or speak with lawmakers, citing judicial ethics and her inability to comment on pending cases.

But here’s the hypocrisy: Jackson had no problem publicly commenting on Gerlach’s case in the very same restraining order. She made false accusations, disclosed sensitive details, and inserted herself into matters she wasn’t assigned to, all while claiming she was ethically barred from discussing the case with elected officials.

Rather than engage with the substance of the complaints, Jackson weaponized her bench again — this time against a mother whose case had already drawn legislative attention. Her response wasn’t judicial. It was retaliatory, arrogant, and laced with contempt for accountability.

How Is Judge Jackson Still on the Bench?

Let’s call it what it is: a systemic failure of accountability.

The evidence against Jackson includes false statements under oath, abuse of judicial authority, retaliatory filings, and constitutional violations affecting children and families. So why is she still presiding over cases involving vulnerable litigants?

How does a judge who fabricates allegations, weaponizes restraining orders to silence lawful dissent, and disregards due process still hold a gavel?

The answer is as disturbing as the question: Arizona’s judicial oversight mechanisms are broken. And every day Jackson remains on the bench, the risk to families grows and so does Arizona’s liability.

Attorneys, advocates, and affected parents are demanding a transparent, independent review of Jackson’s fitness to serve. The calls for disciplinary action, and independent criminal investigation are growing.

Retaliation in a Robe: Erin Gerlach’s Op-Ed Shreds the Illusion of Judicial Neutrality

In her searing Davis Vanguard op-ed, Erin Gerlach doesn’t hold back. She accuses Judge Charlene Jackson of weaponizing her judicial authority to silence dissent, writing:

“Rather than address her misconduct, Judge Jackson tried to silence me with a civil restraining order… forfeiting any claim to judicial immunity.”

And she’s absolutely right. By filing the restraining order in her personal capacity, Jackson stepped outside the protections of judicial immunity, making every contradictory statement she submitted fair game for scrutiny. She didn’t just expose herself to legal consequences. She documented them. And in doing so, she opened the State of Arizona to civil liability.

Gerlach’s story isn’t just compelling — it’s a wake up call for lawmakers. She fled Arizona to protect her daughter from a SWAT officer with a documented history of domestic violence, a man the court continued to empower. Instead of protecting Gerlach and her child, the state turned its prosecutorial power on Gerlach, charging her with felony custodial interference. Her alleged crime? Choosing safety. Protecting her child.

And if this is what passes for judicial conduct in Maricopa County, then the system isn’t just broken — it’s rigged. Rigged against protective parents. Rigged against vulnerable children.

Retaliation Backfired: Now the Receipts Are Rolling In

Judge Jackson may have thought her restraining order would silence scrutiny. Instead, it detonated it.

Gerlach and other parents aren’t just speaking out, they’re armed with receipts: documentation, transcripts, sworn affidavits, and evidence that hasn’t even been made public yet. What’s already out there is just the tip of the iceberg.

Her attempt to silence victims has backfired spectacularly, drawing critical attention not only to her own conduct but to the broader dysfunction of the Maricopa County Family Court. The floodgates are open. And the public is watching.

If Jackson thought this was the end of the story, she’s about to learn it was only the prologue.

Fortunately, due process still exists in courts beyond Judge Jackson’s. Gerlach intends to challenge the restraining order head-on — and she’s prepared to subpoena every one of the so-called “anonymous” individuals Jackson referenced in her filing. Under the law, Gerlach has the constitutional right to confront her accusers. If Jackson insists on naming unnamed sources, Gerlach will demand they appear in court and testify under oath.

The days of shadow allegations and sealed retaliation are over.

Please Sign the Petition to Investigate or Remove Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Charlene Jackson

Do you have information about Misconduct in Arizona Family Courts? Send it to us at k3xhyc4@proton.me