The Ethical Dilemma: Judge Jackson's Oversight of Her Niece's Case Raises Serious Questions

Exposing Conflicts of Interests and Judge Charlene Jackson's Family Connection in Court Cases


Maricopa County Family Court Judge Charlene Jackson is currently assigned to her niece's family court case but did not remove it from her docket after I lodged a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC). Paige Brianne Jackson-Moore, Judge Jackson's niece, has a well-documented history of living at the same addresses as Judge Charlene Jackson, even during periods when she had outstanding warrants related to various criminal cases. Given that Paige is often represented by Attorney Chris Love, a close associate of Charlene Jackson, it is reasonable to conclude that Judge Jackson was aware of the existence of multiple active warrants for her niece over the years.


Evidence of Judge Charlene Jackson and Paige Jackson's relationship.


The relationship between Judge Jackson and Paige is further evidenced by family photographs that show them together, highlighting their close familial bond. This connection adds another layer of complexity to the situation, especially considering the potential conflict of interest that arises when a judge oversees a case involving a family member. The implications of such a relationship in a legal context cannot be overlooked, as it appears to compromise the integrity of the judicial process and has significantly damaged Judge Jackson’s appearance of impropriety and judicial reputation.


The Commission on Judicial Conduct received a complaint about Judge Jackson overseeing a case involving an immediate family member, yet their investigation appears to have been inadequate. The response from the Commission suggests that Judge Jackson either did not cooperate with the investigation or was dishonest with the Commission regarding her relationship with her niece Paige Jackson-Moore. This situation raises serious concerns about accountability and transparency within the Arizona judicial system, particularly when it involves the appearance of bias and the concealment of relationships that influence legal proceedings.


An Arizona Judge presiding over a family members case is a direct violation of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct


Please consider supporting us by signing our Change.org Petition to Remove Judge Charlene Jackson from the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Location: Maricopa County, AZ, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arizona Family Court Judge has a history of violating parents rights

An investigation consisting of interviews with parents, family members, lawyers, and a review of legal documents reveal Judge Charlene D. Jackson has established a record of violating parents' rights during her short time on the bench.    On October 14, 2022, Charlene D. Jackson was appointed to serve as a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge by former Governor Doug Ducey. Two years later, litigants have had enough of being abused, tormented, traumatized, and retaliated against by Jackson.    Jacksons' controversial tenure reportedly devastated families, infuriated attorneys and calls the reputation of many into question including the Family Court Presiding Judge Ronda Fisk, Superior Court Presiding Judge Joseph Welty, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Arizona Judiciary as a whole.    Parents claimed their children were taken away from them before they even had an opportunity to address Jackson's court or present evidence to answer alleg...
Read more

The Silent Scandal: Judge Jackson's Controversial Practice of Muting FTR Recordings

Judge Charlene Jackson's Alarming Habit of FTR Muting Threatens Judicial Integrity in Maricopa County In several instances, Maricopa County Judge Charlene Jackson has inappropriately muted the For The Record (FTR) recordings to express opinions that she is aware violate legal standards and breach the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. These remarks, made during court sessions, should have been part of the official record. However, by muting the recordings, Judge Jackson has sought to shield herself from judicial scrutiny, thereby undermining the litigants' right to a complete and accurate account of the proceedings for potential review. The ability of litigants to access a complete record is essential for ensuring fairness and upholding the integrity of the legal system. In one particular case, Judge Jackson muted the FTR and disclosed that she had "personal motives" regarding the matter at hand. Attorneys present submitted sworn affidavits detailing what they heard Ja...
Read more