Judge Elizabeth A. Karkula

Karkula feels she can do things her own way because she has paid her dues.[.] “If I can use my appearance in a subliminal way, I will,” Karkula says without blinking. “They look at me and think I won’t know anything, act patronizing, and then we get into court and I rip them to shreds.” August 30, 1998.


Karkula NOT Recommended

1998PrimaryGreenGuide-Karkula NOT RECOMMENDED

011516_2 Karkula Appointment  Order

Judge Elizabeth Anne Haneman Karkula was appointed to the bench on January 19, 2016 by IL Supreme Court Order. Karkula’s appointment will be terminated on December 3, 2018.

Paul and Elizabeth Karkula are husband and wife judges currently sitting in Illinois Cook County Court, Rooms 1404 and 1702, respectively.

Paul and Elizabeth Karkula are former Associates of well-known corrupt politician Edward Vdrolyak, former head of the Cook County Democratic Party, who earned the nickname “Fast Eddie” because of his skill in back-room deal-making.

Most of her legal career Elizabeth Karkula spent working as a Corporate Counselor either for a chemical company or ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOCIATION . It appears that the  most of her time  Karkula was pushing  legal paperwork for GENOVIQUE SPECIALTIES HOLDINGS CORPORATION (formerly VELSICOL CHEMICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION) and ISBA. So, her brags about “ rip [her opponents in court]  to shreds” seems  exaggerated. Successful trial lawyers usually  rarely work full time as a Corporate Law Departments Council in ISBA, after spending 8 years in a private practice.  It is usually chosen by less successful lawyers who want a  steady paycheck.

Elizabeth Karkula Resume

On February 20, 1998 Paul and Elizabeth Karkula created a “Joint Committee to Elect Paul and Elizabeth Karkula” for Judges. Both failed their election efforts. Paul, seeking to fill a vacancy, finished last in a Democratic field of seven with 18,240 votes. Elizabeth finished 11th in a 13-person Democratic field to fill another vacancy. She got 17,216 votes.

On March 3, 1998 both Paul and Elizabeth Karkula were “NOT RECOMMENDED” by Chicago Counsil of Lawyers.

Worth to mention, in 1988 Paul Karkula  had made another  unsuccessful run for judge, so in March 1998 it was his SECOND  election fiasco.


In 2000 Paul Karkula obtained an interim Appointment as a Judge . His Chairman was a well-connected Judge Edward Marsalek, whose daughter Diann Marsalek also lost election in 2011, but is currently sitting as a judge in Cook County Municipal Division because they are generous donors to IL Democratic party.

Elizabeth and Paul Karkula also donated substantial amounts of money not only to himself to get elected, (nearly $27,000.00) but also to IL Democratic Party, (at least 15,607.00) Committee for Retention of Judges (at least $1,800.00) and Friends of Lisa Madigan, whose father Michael Madigan often stack IL benches with his cronies through so-called “Madigan’s List”


In 2012 Paul August Karkula purportedly retired as a judge, but as of today he is still sitting in Room 1702, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St, Chicago IL 60602

Candidacies: Paul Karkula
Election Race type Outcome
2012 General Election retired
2000 General Primary open seat
2000 General Election open seat
1998 General Primary open seat lost
1991 Consolidated Primary challenger

On December 15, 2016 a blogger on lawyer Leyhane’s website stated that Paul Karkula “will likely do last-second retirement so she can file for it and try to avoid all of the challengers who like her (his) last name”.


While it is not clear HOW Paul Karkula came back to the bench after his FIRST retirement in 2012 (here is no information on his second election except a new Committee which does not show any activity), but it appears that he plans to pass his judicial seat to his wife and leave all competitors behind, while Illinois well-known “judge makers” will collect handsome $100,000.00 +++ from hundreds other applicants for judicial positions, who will never have a chance to be a judge. This basic “bait and switch” tactic helps to support budgets of certain Families&Friends in Illinois who are responsible for judicial selections.

On August 30, 1998 Nancy Millman published  that “Elizabeth Karkula, who works as a sole practitioner and in association with another lawyer, has a style that is aggressively feminine. Karkula, 36, feels she can do things her own way because she has paid her dues.” “If I can use my appearance in a subliminal way, I will,” Karkula says without blinking. “They look at me and think I won’t know anything, act patronizing, and then we get into court and I rip them to shreds.” But Karkula’s style is nonconformist, to say the least.”


In other words, Elizabeth Karkula thinks she can do anything as she wants; uses deception to achieve desirable results;  and refuse to follow any rules.

I experienced Elizabeth Karkula’s corrupt and unprofessional Court behavior first hand (as well as Diann Marsalek’s  several years ago).

Karkula appeared at her 9:30am hearing about 7 minutes late, while the Court room was full  with litigants waiting for the Judge. Worth to mention, Cook County business hours are  from 8:30am to 4:30pm and judges expected to be at work on time, which they often fail to  do. Some judges like Orville Hambright, Jr. , also  under Presiding Judge Kenneth Wright’s supervision, regularly appear 30-40 minutes late, which cost IL taxpayers at least $10,000-$15,000 annually, while litigants not only waste their personal time, but often lose their wages, incur excessive parking fees, ect., not talking about the additional stress from waiting for your name to be called.

Elizabeth Karkula’s look suggested that she planned to attend a night club party rather than preside in the public office as a judge: with huge yellow wig-like hair style and very visible makeup. Worth to mention, black litigants in Cook County Court who made a bad fashion choice and appeared  in Court in saggy pants go to jail for contempt.


A 55 y.o JUDGE who looked beyond inappropriate for the Court room– is perfectly fine.

Elizabeth Karkula appeared to be not familiar neither with my  Motion to vacate a Void Order entered by Judge John Curry without jurisdiction which I presented in her Court after Curry’s departure; or with the applicable  law, including but not limited to the United States Constitution. If Karkula was familiar with the law and binding precedents, she would know that void Orders can be attacked at any time and in any court.

Void judgment is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and without legal effect.  In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N.E. 2d 509 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1994).

Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity. People v. Rolland, 581 N.E.2d 907, (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).

Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amed. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 n.e.2D 1383.(Ill. App. 5 Dist. 1983). 

When jurisdiction and validity of the Order is challenged, this is the COURT’S responsibility to PROVE IT.

The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.Rosemond v.Lambert,469 F2d 416.

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

  1. “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits” Melo v.US, 505 F2d 1026.
  2. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
  3. “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.
  4. “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
  5. “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215
  6. “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

Elizabeth Karkula not only ignored my argument about Court’s lack of Jurisdiction and other deficiencies in Judge Curry’s Order (which can be attacked at any time in any Court), but showed absolutely no intent to proceed with any review on the merits of my request when she  instantly denied my Motion without explanations.

Exactly the same experience I had in a different case in judge Marsalek Court (whose father Edward helped Karkula’s husband to obtain a position of public trust). Marsalek instantly denied a ProSe litigant’s Motion claiming that it was “not prepared in accordance with IL Rules of Civil Procedure and filed without Sworn Affidavit in Support. If Marsalek would open the next page of the Motion, she would find that the Affidavit was attached. But Marsalek who failed to do her job, wanted a ProSe litigant to take another day off work (non paid, of course), go to see legal Assistance, come back another day (one more day off work without pay) just because Marsalek failed to do her job as a judge and did not review the Motion. Lawyer in the same case who made false statements to Marsalek, and failed to attach ANY affidavits, was treated absolutely differently.

I will  demand  Elizabeth Karkula to leave my case via  Motion to Recuse since a corrupt judge does not create any appearance of Justice; and from the bench, so ethical lawyers could ethically (if it is ever possible in Illinois)  compete for this position and  provide me HONEST SERVICES.

Judge Elizabeth Karkula has no respect neither to the Constitution; or the law, binding precedents, Rules of this Court when she appeared 7 minutes late to her 9:30am; or ProSe litigants like myself whom she  sent to see  legal help office instead of doing her direct JOB: prove Court’s Jurisdiction; review my Motion on merits and in accordance with the Law.

It tells me that Karkula (1) does not want to do her job since I doubt if she actually opened and read my Motion; (2) does not know how to do her job if she needs another lawyer to tell her which law she needs to apply.

Elizabeth Karkula is a text book example of an unethical lawyer who obtained a judicial seat in corrupt manner, and now serves her own interests as well as her preferred parties. She does not want to do her job as a judge for ProSe litigants – review pleadings and evidence, provide proof of jurisdiction when challenged , apply correct laws and otherwise serve citizens, but barely look at the documents while tried to force ProSe litigants to use additional legal representation and pay handsome legal fees to licensed  lawyers.

Bear to repeat, EACH JUDGE IS A LAWYER so, he/she should be familiar with applicable laws. I found repetitive  judicial demands to hire a lawyer to represent me as ridiculous as if a medical doctor would refuse to serve me unless I will bring along a pharmacist who will  tell the doctor which medication he shall prescribe. I doubt if such doctor would keep his medical license. But  judges’ constant  refusal to provide honest  for  ProSe litigants is a common practice in Cook County Court.

Worth to mention, Judge Karkula’s bias against me encouraged already highly unprofessional lawyer Patrick Hart  who felt support from Karkula, to  completely unwind his unethical Court practices when he drafted the Order which he refused to handle to me for review but held it in his hand, waiving in front of my face and suggested me to read it while he is holding it.

When I pulled the Order from his hand to review in the civilized  manner, Hart demonstratively turned around to write another Order which he passed to the Judge without giving me for  review. I had to follow him to the bench and ask the clerk to give me this new copy for review.

Lawyer Hart, who is absolutely confident that Judge Karkula will cover for all his malpractices,  including TWO times failures to file Appearances, which Hart  magically produced on the THIRD hearing, while on December 22, 2016 Judge Curry denied Hart’s verbal request to file it, by his Order; refused to communicate with me about the information I am entitled to have, and instructed his clients to do the same.

Elizabeth Karkula not only enabled  fraud and embezzlement and all other violations of the law in her court;  deprived me from my Civil Rights under 18  USC 242 and 42 USC 1983, 85, 86; stole from me honest services under 18 USC 1346 as well as deprived me from Honest Services of Ethical Lawyers when she obtained her Judicial position in the most corrupt manner; and enabled extortion under Color of Law under 18 USC 1951;  but encouraged lawyers in her Court to violate all applicable laws and rules of ethics in her court.

Paul and Elizabeth Karkula must be removed from the bench for their lack of professional and personal integrity and corruption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s