You all are not going to believe this one….

Just when you thought they couldn’t be more outrageous, we have this…


Foreclosure Review Services (FRS), Industry Veterans to Lead Review of 4.5 Million Foreclosure Cases

Foreclosure industry veterans to provide foreclosure review services in response to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s “Independent Foreclosure Review” program.

Miami, FL (PRWEB) November 21, 2011

Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) provides contract attorneys who diligently review cases to determine whether a homeowner may have suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process.

FRS’s Director of Operations and Training, Miriam Mendieta, Esq.,is a nationally recognized industry expert with over 15 years of hands-on experience. Miriam served as the managing attorney for one of the largest creditor’s rights firms in the country where she was responsible for the oversight of all the aspects of foreclosure and bankruptcy related services.

FRS’s team of contract attorneys are extensively trained to properly review and analyze each case. FRS will review each foreclosure case to determine if the homeowner suffered financial injury as a result of errors made during the foreclosure process.

The reviews are part of a series of compliance actions initiated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

FRS has facilities in Dallas and South Florida and also provides consultants onsite.

FRS: Foreclosure Review Services
1395 Brickell Ave., Ste. 800
Miami, FL 33131


Now, brace yourselves for what comes up next on Ms. Miriam Mendieta, Esq.

Fro m the Deposition of TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA

12:11 p.m. – 1:58 p.m.
September 22, 2010
Office of the Attorney General
110 Southeast 6th Street, 10th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

19 A So at that point there was a huge meeting in
20 the building by Beverly McComas and Miriam Mendieta who
21 were the controlling attorneys there. Basically we were
22 told if anyone sent out an assignment with the dates not
23 being the same on them that they would be fired
24 immediately.
25 Q Why would the dates on the other ones have
1 been three different dates? What would cause that?
2 A Poor practice, not paying attention, not
3 knowing that it was supposed to be that way from the
4 initiation. Basically they didn’t train us to do it.
5 You have people just typing in. Their being honest and
6 tying in this date as the date as being assigned but it
7 was executed six months ago. The dates would be
8 different for that. The issue became then the notary
9 would sign it tomorrow and date it tomorrow.
10 Q So those attorneys knew this was going on?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Can you give me the names of the attorneys
13 that knew?
14 A Every attorney in the firm.
15 Q What do you mean every attorney in the firm?
16 A Well, Beverly McComas.
17 Q Can you spell that, please.
18 A M-C-C-O-M-A-S, I believe and Miriam Mendieta
19 were the controlling attorneys.
20 Q They were the controlling attorneys?
21 A Correct. They controlled the attorneys and
22 Cheryl controlled the paralegals and anybody else.
23 Q Okay.
24 A So they would inform the attorneys what they
25 wanted. They happened to be at the meeting for the
1 assignments. They pulled us in by team since there were
2 so many of us and told us this is what it needs to be.
3 They got in trouble for it and this is what needs to be
4 happening now. Make sure that the date that it was
5 supposed to be executed is the same date that you’re
6 signing it even though it could have been six months ago
7 and Cheryl is signing it today.
8 Q But make the dates match?
9 A Correct.
10 Q Regardless of the date it is today?
11 A Correct.
12 Q Okay. And that’s the same for the notary?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And the date printed on it?
15 A Correct.
16 Q And the date that’s actually typed in?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Make sure they’re all the same no matter what
19 day it is?
20 A Correct.
21 Q The two lead lawyers, what was their title?
22 Were they senior attorneys?
23 A No. They didn’t really have a title. Most
24 people were just afraid of them.
25 Q Why is that?
1 A Because they were mean and nasty. They were
2 very mean.
3 Q In what way?
4 A They would demean you. They would yell and
5 scream at you.
6 Q Condescending?
7 A Oh yeah. They would make you look like an ass
8 in front of the entire firm.

22 When it got really sticky there were a lot of us that
23 weren’t here.
24 Q What does really sticky mean?
25 A They wanted us to start changing the documents
1 and stuff and doing stuff that we weren’t supposed to be
2 doing as far as service.
3 Q What documents did they want you to change?
4 A Manpower documents. A lot of judges started
5 requiring, because of the Jane and John Doe issues,
6 required that you have a military search for all the
7 defendants. If you named a Jane and John Doe as an NKA
8 you had to pull a military search on them. Unless you
9 have somebody’s social security number technically you
10 can’t pull a military search supposedly.
11 The program that we used for the program that
12 we used, you could put in the main defendant’s social
13 security and John or Jane Doe’s name and it would give
14 us a military search saying that they were in the
15 military.
16 Q You would get their social security number
17 because the bank documents contained it?
18 A Correct. The lenders, the referrals had the
19 socials.
20 Q Did you put the social in on everybody to find
21 out their address for service?
22 A Not everybody. I personally did not do it
23 because I refused to do it. I wasn’t going to falsify a
24 military document. I was told that that’s fine,
25 somebody else on your team will do it.
1 Q What do you mean falsify a military document?
2 A Well, I’m using the main defendant’s social
3 security number on somebody else’s name, not his name.
4 John Doe and the main defendant was James, I was taking
5 James’ social security number and putting John Doe’s
6 name in there. I wasn’t but that’s what the practice
7 was. The judges started saying we’re not going to
8 consider service completed until —
9 Q There’s a miliary search?
10 A Correct.
11 Q So why wouldn’t they use the right social
12 security number for the right person?
13 A Because you don’t have a social for an NKA or
14 unknown tenant. They wouldn’t enter a final judgement
15 unless the military doc was there.
16 Q So you just used anybody’s?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Did Stern know about that practice?
19 A Do I know if he knew personally, no. I can
20 tell you that Beverly and Miriam sent emails to the
21 attorneys telling them that that is what to be done and
22 if the paralegals would not do it then they are
23 responsible for doing it. That wasn’t an option.

Full Deposition below…

And this just in from Michael O…

It gets better…

One of the ways we find inter-connections between parties is through addresses.  They’ll often use different company names, different titles, but the same address.  Nobody works at the office of “Foreclosure Review Services.”  It’s a “virtual office”  a mail-stop with some conference rooms and/or offices you can rent by the hour.

Not only did they hire the head of Stern’s law firm to review foreclosure files, the “firm” is based in the corporate equivalent of a no-tell motel.

UPDATE: Email from FRS’ Founder

Please note Miriam Mendieta is NOT leading the review of 4.5 million review cases. The headline was not crafted as it should be. The press release was an accouncement for the company offering its services. I’m sure your readers will appreciate the distinction.



Jonathan Broder

20900 NE 30th Avenue, 8th Floor
Miami, FL  33180
(305) 767-3744- Office
(305) 402-3744- Fax



Full Deposition of Tammie Lou Kapusta Law Office of David J Stern

[scribd id=38890568 key=key-24i0fee1xl7ny3svnyj2 mode=list]