The Ten Sins by Hopkins Law

Admitted serial liar Mark Hopkins, along with Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC continue their premeditated legal frauds and schematics.

Mark Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law PLLC

How Many Lies is Enough?

NOV 8, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: NOV 9, 2021


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:  On Nov. 7, 2021, the Burkes emailed a copy of this motion to Mark Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, PLLC (“Hopkins”) and also by USPS Priority Mail in compliance with the ‘safe harbor’ provisions. Askins v. Hagopian, No. 17-20531, at *2-3 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2018).

Sanctions and referral to the Bar is warranted, a mandatory duty of an ethical judge. Warrilow v. Norrell, 791 S.W.2d 515, 523 (Tex. App. 1990) (“”The practice of attorneys furnishing from their own lips and on their own oaths the controlling testimony for their client is one not to be condoned by judicial silence * * * nothing short of actual corruption can more surely discredit the profession.””); Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline v. Cantu, 587 S.W.3d 779, 784 (Tex. 2019).


With at least three harassment[1] motions, including a motion to deem the Plaintiffs as ‘vexatious litigants’ along with two premature 12(c) motions[2], admitted serial liar Mark Hopkins, along with Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC[3] continue their premeditated schematics by violating laws and rules in order to create chaos and false noise to amplify their ad hominem attacks on the elder, law-abiding Plaintiffs opposing them.

[1]Thomas v. Prof’l Law Firm & Corp. of Barret, Daffin, Frappier, Turner & Engel L.P., CIVIL ACTION No. 4:13-cv-2481, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2014)

[2]Doc No.’s 17-20 with responses; No.’s 21, 23 and 24. The Plaintiffs civilly ask the court to take judicial notice of the Plaintiffs responses listed as well as and other responses in relation to the 12(c) motions which will be available by the time this motion is submitted and thus form part of this motion for sanctions.

[3]“Defendants herein have at all times represented parties in an adversarial context with respect to Plaintiffs.” -Case 4:18-cv-04543 Doc, 13, 01/25/19 in TXSD, Page 1.

In Hopkins initial brief at the 5th Cir. (19-20267), they wrote;

“The Burkes fail to detail exactly how Attorney Appellees have taken action other than zealously represent Deutsche Bank and Ocwen”.

Hopkins definition of zealous advocacy is rejected, based on supporting case law.[4]

“The Ten Commandments  Sins by Hopkins”.


“Given its day in court, Deutsche Bank was content to risk its entire claim on a single problematic document. For reasons explained above, that gambit failed.”

[4]Ransmeier v. Mariani, 718 F.3d 64, 70-71 (2d Cir. 2013) (“What he is not allowed to do, however, is to let his misguided views cloud his judgment regarding what arguments may properly be made to this Court. In other words, we do not sanction him here for harboring anti-Semitic views. Rather, we impose sanctions against him because he allowed those views to prompt him to submit frivolous and grossly insulting arguments to this Court.”)

“Deutsche Bank asks to reopen the trial record to provide “the wet ink original of the Note or testimony affirming Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the Note.” (Dkt. 90, at 7). No authority or excuse is offered for this breathtakingly late request.”

“The time for such a deus ex machina maneuver has long since passed.” – Hon. Stephen Wm. Smith.[5]


Hopkins lied in another foreclosure case, PNC v Howard, mirroring the unlawful acts in the Burkes Deutsche Bank Fraud case. (Doc.45, p.3); “After trial, PNC discovered a piece of evidence (a proof of mailing of the Notice of Acceleration to Mr. Howard) which had previously been unable to be located. PNC therefore moved for the admission of the additional evidence (CR 818 – 894). The Trial Court denied the motion on September 18, 2017. (RR. Vol.3, page 40, line 8).” Hopkins also lied about the “accidental use” of a pre-merger name (p.2.). Note; The actual motion is found at Doc 45-2.[6]

PNC Mortg. v. Howard, 616 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex. 2021).[7]

On Sep 17, 2021 and while on remand from the Texas Supreme Court, the appellate court affirmed for the homeowners, John and Amy Howard.  On Nov 1, 2021, Hopkins appealed, once again, to Texas Supreme Court.


“The Burkes Wanted Certain Judges to be Shot.” – admitted liar Attorney Mark Hopkins stated in open court, intentionally repeated and then concluded by saying he – “wanted this to end, sooner than later…”[8]


Case 20-20209, Doc. 00515526917, 08/13/2020, ‘Appellants Motion for Reconsideration of Single Judge’s Order Dated 4th August, 2020’, reciting in part;

“As explained in the Burkes denied motion in this appellate court, Hopkins signed a Certificate of Conference which was willfully untruthful as he claimed to have reached out to the Burkes regarding his firm’s prepared motion and received no response. This is a lie.

Hopkins did not reach out to the Burkes. Furthermore and ratifying the Burkes arguments, Hopkins offered no counter-defense nor answer to the Burkes motion. Hopkins remained silent as they had no legal defense. They were clearly guilty as charged.”


“Commencing the audit  after the Burkes petition on Apr 13, 2021, the Burkes calculate they have submitted eight motions (on Apr 23, May 12, May 14, May 28, Jun 8, Jun 28, Jul 3, Jul 8, 2021). That’s 8 filings with zero replies from Hopkins.” And this is not the first time Hopkins has lied about conferring.”[10]


“To the extent the Burkes continue to publish falsehoods (including accusing Defendants of crimes and doctoring personal photos of Defendants) on their website, twitter and other social media outlets, Attorney Defendants will counterclaim for libel.”[12]

These false accusations were repeated in the ‘vexatious litigant’ motion (Doc. 17) as rejected in Plaintiffs Oct 30, 2021 response.


“I’ve had the benefit of reviewing that closing file, which wasn’t put in evidence before the Court because the allegations were raised by the Burkes.”[13]

Plaintiffs are in receipt of new incriminating evidence to add to the long list of Hopkins tyranny and fraudulence on parties, court(s) and the government (;


“On September 13, 2018, BONYM moved for a new trial and raised the settlement agreement as one of the basis for the new trial.  The motion essentially stated;   “Your honor we have this settlement agreement were The Rileys agreed to an uncontested foreclosure, our former counsel was unaware of the settlement agreement and The Rileys were dishonest and remained silent on the existent of this agreement. (paraphrased).” – Mark Hopkins.[14]


In a foreclosure case before Judge Bennett[15], and shortly after appearance by Shelley Hopkins as co-counsel, she would submit a doctored and perjured Affidavit for Attorney Fees (Document 25-9, 07/28/21) for recently sanctioned[16] Crystal Gibson of BDF Law Group.


“The company [Hopkins Law, PLLC] has reported itself as A FEMALE OWNED BUSINESS, and employed at least three people during the applicable loan loan period.”[17]

“There are 2 PPP loans for a total of $93,227 in our database for businesses with the name “Hopkins Law PLLC” in Austin, TX. This this is typically due to the same business receiving both first and second-draw loans.” (And to qualify for the second loan you need to show a 25% reduction in income.

Plaintiffs now respond herein and present the true, verifiable facts why sanctions are warranted.

[5]Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Burke, CIVIL ACTION 4:11-CV-01658 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2015).

[6]Case: 4:18-cv-04543, Docs 45, 45-1, 45-2, Mar. 13, 2019.

[7]“PNC stipulated that the note was properly accelerated in June 2009. “A sale of real property under a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust that creates a real property lien must be made not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.035(b).”.

[8]The above statement was made in this court in front of Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. The events are well-documented, (Case 4:18-cv-04543 Doc 49, Sep 10, 2021 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 9/10/2019. Written Order to be Issued; For Transcript see, Doc. 52, Sept 13, 2021) however, despite the Plaintiffs written formal complaints thereafter (see docket re clarification and subsequent responses) about Hopkins abhorrent conduct, it would never be acknowledged and would be blanked from the subsequent M&R (Doc. 65) issued by the Magistrate Judge.  Hopkins egregious actions were condoned by this court.

[9]In re Grodner, 587 F. App’x 166, 2-3 (5th Cir. 2014).

[10]Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267, 5th Cir., Motion for Sanctions, Jul 8, 2021).

[11]Coane v. Ferrara Pan Candy Co., 898 F.2d 1030, 1033 (5th Cir. 1990)

[12]Case 4:18-cv-04543, Document 60,  Page 7 of 9, Footnote 4 (7 Oct., 2019).

[13]Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burke, 4:11-cv-01658, SDTX, Doc. 126, P. 13, TRANSCRIPT re: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 1-27-17 before Magistrate Judge Stephen W. Smith.

[14]Fifth Circuit Case: 21-40383 Document: 00516057803 Page: 21 Date Filed: 10/18/2021.

[15]Hicks v. Cenlar FSB, Case: 4:20-cv-01661, SDTX.

[16]Schmitgen v. Servis One, Inc.,  2:18-CV-00074, Doc.46, Jan 16, 2020;  ORDER entered. The Court REPRIMANDS Gibson for her violation of Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle, SDTX).

[17]PPP Loan Fraud Section below in conjunction with the following citation; United States v. Crowther, No. 2:20-cr-00114-JLB-MRM, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2021).

(“Stated differently, Mr. Crowther’s alleged crime is not that he misspent the PPP funds, but that he purportedly lied to both his PPP Lender and his Mortgage Lender.” … “Nominee loans are not illegal per se. They are illegal, however, when the borrower and the bank officer fail to state the real borrower and recipient of the funds, thereby obtaining the loans by means of false pretenses.”)


Plaintiffs filed a new meritorious civil action in this court on August 9, 2021, five days after the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released their void judgment and mandate, to prevent wrongful foreclosure and the illegal takings of the Plaintiffs homestead and as amended on Sep 24, 2021.

It’s a Lawsuit Directed at the Judicial Machinery Itself

Plaintiffs did not request a jury trial, as the facts of the case are based on a question of law.[18]  As sensitive as it may be, the complaint was directed ‘at the judicial machinery itself’. It appears from Plaintiffs legal research this matter is also “one of first impression”.

Certainly, Plaintiffs could find no such case where a Clerk of a Court has been caught impersonating plaintiffs in the entire history of nationwide judicial opinions. And furthermore, committing such blatant and unlawful acts wherein those fraudulent acts were condoned and ultimately approved by the Circuit Court itself, despite formal objection including affidavits from the Burkes.  Without doubt, the Courts judgment/mandate is void ab initio.

The Plaintiffs have submitted a case management plan to the court indicating discovery and depositions of the staff and/or Circuit Judges named at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is anticipated, to proof-up the Plaintiffs already incriminating evidence before this court.

It’s a Lawsuit Which Does Not Require Hopkins Input, Because They Do Not Have Sufficient Knowledge nor Information to Rebut the Plaintiffs Claims

This civil action does not involve the ‘merits’ of any prior lawsuits, nor does it require the constant conclusory and/or irrelevant diatribe from the named Defendants.

Hopkins Contradictions

In the latest response to the Plaintiffs amended complaint, they repetitively state ‘they are without sufficient knowledge…’ and ‘without sufficient information…’  or ‘unclear…” to respond.[19]  VALENZUELA v. KEHL, No. 3:05-CV-1764-BF (B), at *6 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2006) (“The motion for a judgment on the pleadings only has utility when all material allegations of fact are admitted in the pleadings and only questions of law remain.”).

Yet, Hopkins contradicts these responses by claiming there is sufficient information to support their baseless motion for judgment on the pleadings. That is absurd.

Clerk Christina Gardner Submitted a ‘Textual’ OPPOSED Motion Without Hopkins Knowledge

It is evident from Hopkins responses Clerk Gardner (the imposter), never discussed the OPPOSED motion for reconsideration with Hopkins and so they were not privy to the surrounding events which control this lawsuit. Without doubt, Hopkins wasn’t on the phone call with Gardner, nor did Gardner mention OPPOSING parties or counsel at any time during the phone conversation being invited to discuss this OPPOSED motion, or that Hopkins knew she was filing an OPPOSED motion unlawfully.

The Subsequent Void Acts of The Circuit Court and Panel Judges

This lawsuit pertains to the actions of the officers of the court at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Circuit Judges. Specifically, Clerk Christina Gardner impersonating the Plaintiffs, filing an OPPOSED motion for reconsideration and backdating the same; Clerk Rebecca Leto also backdating documents and the other shenanigans by other staff (for example, Clerk Jan Wynne) as detailed with particularity, including relevant citations, in the amended complaint.

Inappropriately, the Fifth Circuit panel would act on the void and fraudulent OPPOSED motion for reconsideration as ‘textually’ submitted by their own staff member and Deputy Clerk Gardner (impersonating the Burkes) including striking the Plaintiffs Petition for Rehearing and issuing the judgment/mandate(s).

Without doubt, Circuit Judges should not have relied upon a fraudulent and void motion as submitted by a Deputy Clerk and not the Plaintiffs. The rules are strict and clear.[20] To do so is prohibited in law, considering what is at stake for the elder Plaintiffs, their homestead.

As a result, any, and all acts performed after the fraudulence by Gardner, when the court was formally on notice by the Plaintiffs filed objections in compliant motion(s) can only be deemed irrefutably void.[21] This includes issuance of the judgment and mandate(s) to this court.

Plaintiffs do not accuse Defendants, nor does it involve any acts by the Defendants. It was purely the unlawful actions of those persons, as identified at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ‘the judicial machinery itself’ who created this “ClerkGate Scandal” which has resulted in what must be a very embarrassing civil action for the judiciary.

Resheduling the Initial Conference Infers Collusion and Corruption

Patently, those involved, including the judiciary, wish to have this case dismissed quickly, and evidently by deceptive means[22]. On September 17, 2021, Hopkins attempts to make that possible by submitting a motion (Doc. 10) requesting to reschedule the initial conference, in bad faith. The claim Hopkins  asserted when asked by Plaintiffs why it would be necessary to reschedule, the emailed response was ‘counsel will be out of town that day’. (Exhibit B). However, Hopkins would be ‘available’ to file a ‘joint case management plan (Doc. 24) on that day (Doc. 4).  Based on the subsequent events, as recorded on the docket, this was not the real reason for the delay.

Noticeably, the court would grant the motion on Sep 11, 2021 (Doc. 11), not by a week or so, but several weeks from the initial date of Nov 5, to Dec 10, 2021.

The Plaintiffs are convinced, based on motions filed by Hopkins in the interim, it confirms the true purpose of the rescheduling, which was to allow Hopkins to file these three premature and baseless motions to enable a rapid dismissal. The additional time granted is too perfectly timed[23], and which will allow the conspiracy to take effect. Namely, the assigned federal judge will rule on Hopkins three premeditated motions before the initial conference. Of course, the Plaintiffs are certain any order issued would dismiss the complaint and/or grant the pre-filing restriction, including the false recordation and labeling of vexatious litigants. The Plaintiffs further predict this will be completed without any hearings.

However, the real position is irrefutable, namely Hopkins judgment on the pleadings motions fail, as they are without sufficient information, nor standing to object to the claims presented in the operative complaint and the vexatious litigant motion is also frivolous, as detailed in Plaintiffs response to the court (Docs 20, 21 and 23).

[18]Eilert v. Turner, CIVIL ACTION No. H-13-3758, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2016) (“”[P]arties may not stipulate to the legal conclusions to be reached by the court. . . . Issues of law are the province of courts, not of parties to a lawsuit, individuals whose legal conclusions may be tainted by self interest.”).

[19]Docs. 16, p. 5, No.’s 6, 8, 9, 10,  11, 29, 31, 32, 33, 37, 65, 66, 68, 69. 70, 71, 79(17), 84, 87. 91, 106, and 107.

[20]In re Hector M. Roman, 601 F.3d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (“We also are disturbed by Roman’s mis-representations to this Court when he (a) permitted others to sign his name to pleadings that he failed to review prior to their filing in this Court, and (b) permitted materially inaccurate information to be submitted to the Court in those pleadings. Although Roman stated that he “wasn’t very aware of what was going on,” Hearing Tr. at 27:25, we believe that he either knew of the misrepresentations, or was guilty of reckless disregard, since he knew that the cases existed and knew that they could not proceed to briefing and decision without the input, and signature, of counsel of record. See Fed.R.App.P. 32(d) (“Every brief, motion, or other paper filed with the court must be signed by the party filing the paper or, if the party is represented, by one of the party’s attorneys.”).”)

[21] Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267; CORRECT OPINION; RESPONSE TO STRIKE CLERKS’ DOCKET ENTRY DATED 9TH JULY, 2021 AND OTHER RELIEF; citing Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 971 (5th Cir. 1983).

[22]The Burkes have stated in court filings that they are preparing a dossier for any criminal complaint. As such, the Burkes are being transparent in their writings and declarations which will  (uncomfortably) assert findings of judicial corruption, conspiracy and collusion against the pro se, elder citizens and abuse of their legal rights to the point of criminality.

[23] Crockett v. United States, 234 F.2d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 1956) (“But here the circumstances establish a chain of events which go far beyond the suspicion and conjecture stage. ”).

Hopkins Red Herring

Despite all these facts, Hopkins has decided to present continual obstacles in their harassing motions and responses, a complete red herring[24], including their malicious attempts to restrict the Plaintiffs access to courts.

It started immediately, with Hopkins; (i)refusing to waive service; (ii) refusing to communicate sincerely with the Plaintiffs[25] while in litigation since at least April 2021; (iii) claimed once again to have conferred by email regarding the ‘vexatious litigants’ motion, when this is patently false and which is repetitive behavior.[26]  Indeed, the two judgment on the pleadings motions just state Hopkins sent a copy of the filing by postal mail.

Hopkins submitted three baseless, frivolous and bad faith motions shortly after this civil action was accepted by this court. The first, to declare the Plaintiffs as ‘vexatious litigants’. Shortly thereafter, Hopkins submitted two premature 12( c) motions[27] for Ocwen and Hopkins, requesting judgment on the pleadings.

It is without doubt, this is  another premeditated scheme, a course of harassment which is  willful, wanton, malicious, and intended to inflict mental anguish[28] and bodily harm, the permanent loss of access to the courts (vexatious litigants motion) and the unlawful theft, search and seizure of  Plaintiffs homestead (see amended complaint).

History of Process of Service Abuse by Hopkins

In the 2018 law suit styled Burke v. Hopkins et al, Case 4:18-cv-04543, Hopkins would accept the state issued personal service for Mark D. Hopkins and Shelley L. Hopkins, but deny service for the law firm Hopkins Law, PLLC, in bad faith (Doc. 8).

Hopkins would also refuse to respond to the Plaintiffs Friday morning email requesting waiver of service or where service could be executed. Instead, over the weekend, Hopkins would prepare and then file on the Monday morning a notice of removal of the state court case(s) to SDTX federal court. While in federal court Hopkins refused to waive service. Despite the Plaintiffs formal motion regarding fulfilling process of service, the court did not respond to the motion (Doc. 22).

A review of the docket will show neither US District Judge Hittner, nor Magistrate Judge Bray (“MJ”) addressed the pending service and ultimately the M&R issued. The MJ recommended dismissal with prejudice[29], with all parties, including Hopkins Law, PLLC, still named as a party. The MJ also stated all remaining motions were ‘moot’.

Judge Hitter, without de novo review, approved the M&R without any edits, as such dismissing Hopkins Law, PLLC with prejudice. This error was raised on reconsideration[30] and on appeal. Williams v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 176, 196 n.13 (S.D. Tex. 2007) (“The dismissal of a defendant named in the complaint but not served with process results in the dismissal without prejudice. Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir. 1987).”)

In summary, this court would ultimately dispose of the Plaintiffs case against Hopkins without; (a) de novo review (Doc. 69), (b)  without a hearing which was cancelled by Hopkins (unopposed) due to the coronavirus and (c) and included the unserved party – Hopkins Law, PLLC, in the order dismissing the case with prejudice. Bond v. Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP, C.A. No. G-12-188, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2013) (“Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendant Barrett Should Be Dismissed For Failure To Effect Service of Process Pursuant To Rule 4 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure.”); Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Vantage Energy Servs., 954 F.3d 749, 757 (5th Cir. 2020) (“The Supreme Court’s decisions in Edelman and Holowecki were designed to accomplish fair and efficient resolution of [discrimination] complaints filed more often than not by pro se individuals. That a plaintiff represented by counsel benefits from the Court’s leniency is unfortunate.”).

This Leads Back to the Current Civil Action and Repetitive Process of Service Abuse by Hopkins

Hopkins have continued their habitual conniving by refusing to timely waive service[31] at the start of this case. Garcia v. Gene’s Machine, Inc., CIVIL ACTION No. V-10-77, at *2-3 (S.D. Tex. May 19, 2011).

It was only after the Plaintiffs amended complaint Hopkins would finally, but not definitively, concede to waiving service in their response(s) as docketed on 12 October, 2021. However, due to the vagueness of the response in relation to defendant Hopkins Law, PLLC[32] and for evidentiary purposes, the Plaintiffs pursued with physical service on all Hopkins named Defendants by retaining the services of CODEX Process Service. Amanda Maxilom of CODEX coordinated service with Hopkins paralegal Kate Barry.

Both Mark and Shelley Hopkins were present to accept service at their current office address, 3 Lakeway Center Ct, Suite 110, Austin, Texas, 78734[33] not only personally, but importantly, for the law firm, Hopkins Law, PLLC.  The law firm (company) address at the State of Texas Registered Office, was the 3809 Juniper Trace, Suite 101, Austin, Texas 78738 address at the time of the operative complaint, had been surreptitiously changed to the office address at 3 Lakeway Center Ct on October 12, 2021. (Exhibit A).

Returning to Doc. 17, Hopkins response to the amended complaint, discovery, depositions and/or affidavits can, if necessary, affirm these facts as true. By employing CODEX process servers, the Plaintiffs independent investigation conclusively confirms the 2018 refusal by Hopkins to timely accept or waive service, was in bad faith.

As such, fees should be recoverable by the Plaintiff for the 2018 and 2021 costs for service incurred by the Plaintiffs per Rule 4 and/or this courts’ inherent power.

[24]Johnson v. United States, 238 F.R.D. 199, 200 n.2 (W.D. Tex. 2006) (“A red herring is defined as ” an irrelevant legal or factual issue.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1282 (7th ed.1999).”).

[25]“Commencing the audit  after the Burkes petition on Apr 13, 2021, the Burkes calculate they have submitted eight motions (on Apr 23, May 12, May 14, May 28, Jun 8, Jun 28, Jul 3, Jul 8, 2021). That’s 8 filings with zero replies from Hopkins.” – Fifth Circuit Appeal, No. 19-20267, July 8, 2021, Rule 38 Motion for Non-Monetary Sanctions.

[26]“As explained in the Burkes denied motion in this appellate court, Hopkins signed a Certificate of Conference which was willfully untruthful as he claimed to have reached out to the Burkes regarding his firm’s prepared motion and received no response. This is a lie.” – Fifth Circuit No. 19-20267, July 8, 2021, Rule 38 Motion for Non-Monetary Sanctions.

[27]Hairston v. Geren, CIVIL ACTION No. C-08-382, at *5 (S.D. Tex. July 21, 2009).

[28]McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A., 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015).

[29]Case 4:18-cv-04543, Document 65, 02/24/20, Page 17.

[30]“Here, reviewing DJ’s Order of Adoption (Doc. 68, 18 Mar., 2020), there is no mention of “de novo” review, nor in the final judgment (Doc. 69). A clear error and manifest injustice.” – Doc. 72, Apr. 14, 2020.

[31]As admitted by Hopkins, Doc. 16, p. 2, No. 4, Oct 12, 2021.

[32]In response to Plaintiffs amended complaint, pages 7-14, and which had to be expanded to entice some kind of  response, Hopkins still refuses to confirm 3809 Juniper Place as the business address for Hopkins Law, PLLC. See Doc. 16, p.’s 2-4, No.’s 8-19. However, Hopkins are willing to confirm the office address for personal service. The plaintiffs are convinced and relying upon the documented responses and evidence, this admission is avoided as ‘moot’ solely because Hopkins know they intentionally avoided service, as in 2018.

[33]The door nameplate, photographed by the process server, Exhibit A, shows that Hopkins Law shares office space with a solo accounting firm, namely Heath B. Stafford, CPA. His bio is available on his website; His registered office is the exact same as Hopkins, the Juniper Trce address, right down to  the same suite no. as Hopkins Law, PLLC.


Forcing the Plaintiffs to serve the Hopkins parties, including Hopkins Law, PLLC for the aforementioned reasons has uncovered what appears to be blatant PPP Loan Fraud by Hopkins. The Federal Pay website (which is not affiliated with the government) scrapes the SBA website (official government website for PPP loans/datasets) and lists all PPP payments ever made. Their website discloses Hopkins Law, PLLC, received two such payments, one in 2020 for $41k and second disbursement in 2021 for $52k.

Federal Pay website: also clarifies the reason for the loan:

“The company has reported itself as A FEMALE OWNED BUSINESS, and employed at least three people during the applicable loan loan period.”

Three people employed tallies, as Plaintiffs assume Mark and Shelley Hopkins are drawing paychecks (albeit there are restrictions, not addressed here) and the third person is paralegal Kate Barry. The statement that it’s a FEMALE OWNED BUSINESS conflicts with the history of the law firm. Plaintiffs are intimately aware of Hopkins Law, PLLC formation and director, as confirmed by the Texas Secretary of State filings. The Plaintiffs have included an updated search performed on Nov. 3, 2021 (Exhibit A). Mark D. Hopkins is 100% owner of Hopkins Law, PLLC.

What is the definition of a female owned business?

“Your company must be 51 percent owned by women who are U.S. citizens.”


Additionally, the registered address recorded for the PPP Loan is quite revealing, as it confirms (again), the Juniper Trce address is the correct address for service. Disingenuously, Hopkins would file a change of address on October 12, 2021, after the Plaintiffs filed this complaint on August 9, 2021 and first amended complaint (Sep 24, 2021).


Motion to Label Plaintiffs as Vexatious Litigants

Hopkins filed a motion seeking to have Plaintiffs labeled as vexatious litigants; (Doc. 17). Plaintiffs submitted a response to this court on Oct. 30, 2021, opposing the baseless, frivolous, and bad faith motion. Hopkins started the ‘vexatious litigant’ claims shortly after the 2018 Plaintiffs lawsuits commenced, despite the Fifth Circuit (a) suggested a new lawsuit to prevent foreclosure in their opinions[34] (b) issued a new precedential opinion in Riddle[35] which stated the banks (in the Plaintiffs case, Deutsche Bank) could not be held vicariously liable and that the mortgage servicer was legally responsible, and any action would be against the servicer to obtain meaningful relief. That is exactly what the Plaintiffs did.

However, Hopkins claims the lawsuits against PHH/Ocwen and Hopkins are barred by res judicata. As detailed above, and in the Riley opinion (and where Hopkins was also counsel for the Bank), the Plaintiffs new 2018 lawsuits were distinct from the prior lawsuit initiated by Deutsche Bank, and as such not barred by res judicata.

[34]See; Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 871 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2017))

[35]Christiana Tr. v. Riddle, 911 F.3d 799 (5th Cir. 2018)

Additionally, Hopkins incorporated unfounded, unsubstantiated, libelous lies (as referred to in the Plaintiffs response, dated Oct 31, 2021, p. 42) re Blog.

Redd v. Fisher Controls, 147 F.R.D. 128, 133 (W.D. Tex. 1993) (“Again, not only is it impossible for Mr. Babcock to prove most, if not all, of his allegations against Defendant’s counsel, but the time, required by Rule 11, for conducting such an inquiry is before, not after, including them in documents signed and filed with the Court.”).

Hopkins conduct warrants Rule 11 sanctions.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

In keeping with Hopkins standard harassment tactics, they filed the above motion directly after filing the ‘vexatious litigants’ motion. It is  premature and in defiance of Federal Court judges’ prior warnings.

Rendon v. Bank of America, N.A. (5:12-cv-00154), District Court, W.D. Texas, Doc. 16, Dec. 17, 2021, Judge Xavier Rodriguez (“This Court has warned Bank of America and other mortgagees that their continued practice of filing Rule 12 motions rather than summary judgment motions merely leads to delay, motions to amend pleadings and additional Rule 12 motions, and other procedural complexity.”);

McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A. (2:11-cv-00351), District Court, S.D. Texas, Doc. 29, Apr. 22, 2013, Judge Hilda G. Tagle. (“This is the Defendant’s fifth attempt to summarily terminate this action… Presentation of obviously—and admittedly—repetitious arguments is harassing to the parties in this case and unnecessarily increases the cost of litigation in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11…”).

Mark D. Hopkins, a Lawyer and a Vicious Liar

The McCaig case was appealed by the bank to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit who would affirm[1] the ‘mental anguish’ awards to the McCaig’s.

The material difference in this case is unlike McCaig,  John Burke did suffer a heart attack, stroke, required triple-bypass surgery and as a result of these and other injuries, was left permanently disabled during litigation of the Deutsche Bank case. Furthermore, both the Burkes health over this decade long debacle[2] has become more debilitating, and a substantial amount of this injury has occurred because of unnecessary and malicious prosecution, inexcusable personal attacks, libelous statements, and fraudulent actions by Hopkins.

This includes many atrocious acts and continual lies by Mark Hopkins. For example, Mark Hopkins admitted to withholding evidence, ‘the closing file’ (full mortgage loan file) at the Deutsche Bank status conference, Jan. 27, 2017. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs would have to commence the new 2018 civil actions against Hopkins and PHH/Ocwen in order to recover the full mortgage loan file. However, this proved fruitless, as did secondary attempts via intervention(s), either by discovery or requested release of the said mortgage loan file, would ultimately be unjustly denied.

In the Matter of BONYM v. Riley, Witness Hopkins Contradiction (NEW)

However, compare the Plaintiffs lack of success in the judiciary to obtain minimal, but extremely important discovery which would prove lender application fraud (the full mortgage loan file), with seasoned trial lawyers Hopkins and the result is quite the opposite and determinative.

In the matter of BONYM v. Riley, now on appeal[3], Plaintiffs discovered (on Monday, 1st Nov., 2021), the initial brief of the Riley’s at the Fifth Circuit (filed on Tuesday, 28th Oct., 2021). This is another foreclosure case, where Hopkins appeared after the Bank lost its arguments and case. During his expected and standard request for a new trial, and then subsequent appeal, Mark Hopkins called out the pro se litigant(s) for withholding evidence in 2018 in Riley’s case. Hopkins refers to Riley’s silence as dishonest as transcribed in The Ten Sins by Hopkins, No. 4.

This is ironic and extremely agonizing, considering Hopkins statement is made the following year after Mark Hopkins admitted to the same act in this court, namely remaining silent and withholding evidence (the mortgage loan file/closing file) in order to appeal the case for a favorable result by the Fifth Circuit and/or limit the case on remand. That is exactly what happened, as the case was remanded with only a narrow review permissable. However, with Hopkins silence and deceptive withholding of the mortgage loan file would allow the Plaintiffs to invoke Riddle after the Fifth Circuit opinion in Hopkins second appeal.

It is also very troubling to note Mark Hopkins immediate appearance and actions in Riley would, once again, obtain favorable reversal(s) and/or judgment(s) in both State Appellate Court and Federal Courts.

[36]McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A., 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015).

[37]Litigation which should have ended after the correct decision in law was rendered by Hon. Stephen Wm Smith in 2015, with final judgment in favor of the Burkes.

[38]Bank of New York Mellon v. Riley, (5th Cir., Case 21-40383)

Hopkins System of Fraud

The Plaintiffs have witnessed the same deceptive acts in PNC v Howard case and where Plaintiffs supplemented[39] the record.

Mark Hopkins appeared in Howard’s case after the homeowners had defeated PNC at state court level. Once again, Hopkins would seek a new trial along with his cohorts at BDF Law Group, and once again Hopkins would introduce ‘newly found, post trial’ evidence (letter of acceleration, Doc. 45-2, p.20) and ‘PNC simply misidentified itself’  (Doc. 45-1, p.8) would be rejected by the sitting judge and this part of the ruling affirmed in favor of Howards on appeal (Doc 45-1) and the Texas Supreme Court.

In summary, Mark Hopkins dishonest acts are transparent. He lies persistently, and he always appears to evade accountability for his fraudulence in Texas courts, to the detriment of the homeowner and/or other parties. It is time Hopkins is finally sanctioned for his malicious, premediated schemes and bad faith actions and the Plaintiffs have provided the necessary proof to substantiate sanctions under Rule 11.

False and Perjured Affidavit where Shelley Hopkins is Co-Counsel

Plaintiffs have also witnessed in the case of Hicks v. Cenlar FSB (4:20-cv-01661), District Court, S.D. Texas a false and perjured affidavit for attorney fees, with a photocopied signature[40], purportedly that of Crystal Gibson of BDF Law Group, as assumed to be submitted by the only other listed ‘co-counsel’[41], Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, Doc. 25, July 28, 2021.

On its face, it is evident the signature has been manually affixed to the motion and the only reasonable explanation is that Gibson was not available and did not sign the motion. Someone had to submit the motion in the absence of Gibson and co-counsel, Shelley Hopkins, is qualified to be that person.

A review of Hopkins appearance(s) and filings shown on that  docket affirm she has been actively involved in this case.[42]  This violates Rule 11. A hearing,  discovery and/or depositions would allow these assertions to be easily affirmed, under the penalty of perjury.

[39]Case 4:18-cv-04543 Docs 45, 45-1, 45-2, Aug 13, 2019

[40]Case 4:20-cv-01661 Doc. 25-9, 07/28/21, SDTX.

[41]Case 4:20-cv-01661 Doc. 23, 05/10/21, SDTX.

[42]Doc 23, May 10, 2021, Notice of Appearance, Doc. 24, “Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alfred H Bennett. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 7/16/2021. Ms. Hopkins council for Cenlar FSB gave the Court a status update.”

Legal filings are behind PACER’s paywall and public citizens would normally be unaware of this filing and doctored signature. Subsequently, when this was publicly discovered, Hopkins moved to stay the case pending Judge Bennett’s summary judgment order, Doc. 26, Sep 21, 2021 which was granted the following day, Doc. 27, Sep 22, 2021. It would take a month to refer the case to Magistrate Judge Stacy. Currently, the M&R is pending.


Hopkins res judicata argument is meritless. First, it has been addressed in the Plaintiffs Oct 30, 2021 response  to Defendants frivolous ‘Vexatious Litigant’ motion [Doc. 17].

Second, Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988)  is a landmark cited opinion, establishing and adopting standards of litigation conduct to be observed in civil actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, including candor, diligence, respect, personal dignity, and professional integrity. It has been adopted in Southern District; In re Bradley, 495 B.R. 747 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2013); In re Stomberg, 487 B.R. 775, 811 n.39 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2013) (“In 2007, the District Judges of the Southern District of Texas voted to adopt these Guidelines for Professional Conduct…”).

Plaintiffs cited Dondi in their initial brief in Fifth Circuit appeal 20-20209, Burke v Hopkins et al,  however, to no avail. This courts’ adoption rate is practically zero. Plaintiffs could only find  the two cases above citing Dondi in SDTX,  compared with 72 cases in NDTX.

Third, Judge Truncale’s opinion in The Bank of New York Mellon v. Riley (1:19-cv-00279), District Court, E.D. Texas, Doc. 33, p.7-8, Feb. 12, 2020 in relation to ‘Res Judicata’ and where Counsel for the Bank is Hopkins. The judge denied res judicata for essentially the same arguments presented by the Plaintiffs in response to Hopkins ‘vexatious litigants’ motion.

The current lawsuit may have the same parties listed, and refer to ‘the same parcel of property’, but the similarity ends there. Plaintiffs claims and arguments are ‘separate and distinct’. In this case, the Plaintiffs are pursuing not Hopkins nor PHH/Ocwen, but rather the ‘judicial machinery itself’. However, to obtain meaningful relief (void the judgment and mandate(s)), the civil action has to name the same parties who have and/or will obtained benefit from this void judgment. Hopkins know this, but they have purposely pursued a deceptive claim of res judicata which distinctly fails in law.


United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 9 (1985) (“The kind of advocacy shown by this record has no place in the administration of justice and should neither be permitted nor rewarded; a trial judge should deal promptly with any breach.”).

The  motion for Rule 11 Sanctions should be GRANTED, including the reimbursement of service of process fees, and ‘non-monetary’ sanctions as pro se litigants. Plaintiffs civilly ask this court to (a) refer both Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins to the State Bar of Texas for their continued and repetitive [mis]conduct and (b) suspend these attorneys from appearing before this court for a period of one year, or a term this court deems appropriate, along with any and all additional relief, whether at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 7th  day of November, 2021. [43]

[43]Note: Motion will be signed and dated when safe harbor ends, and submitted to the court – reflecting date of submission to court.

Sen. Ron Johnson Cites ‘Malicious Poison’ But He’s Clearly Not Studied Texas Govt Nor Federal Judges in Texas

LIT: Senator Ron Johnson was an avid viewer of our social media account on Twitter leading up to this congressional nomination hearing.

Standards of Review in Texas Courts

What is a standard of review in Texas? It is a function of the allocation of judicial power between trial and appellate courts.

Federal Law: The Rights of Elderly Litigants to Be Heard At an Oral Hearing

Justice Frankfurter believed that no better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than the notice and hearing requirement.

The Ten Sins by Hopkins Law
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top