After years of writing about the AMGAR program, people are finally asking about this program. So here is a summary of the program. As usual I caution you against using my articles as the final word on any subject. Before you make any decisions about your loans, whether you are in foreclosure, collection or otherwise you should seek competent legal counsel who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the collateral is located. Also for those who think they would invest in such a program, you should seek both legal advice and consult with a person qualified and licensed as a financial adviser. And for full disclosure, this plan does include an equity provision and fees to the livinglies team.

The AMGAR program was first developed by me when I was living in Arizona where, after the 2008-2009 crash, the state was facing a $3 Billion deficit. The Chairman of the Arizona House Judiciary Committee invited me to testify about possible solutions to the foreclosure crisis, which at that time was just ramping up. So I developed a program that I called the Arizona Mortgage Guarantee and Resolution plan, which was dubbed “AMGAR.” Now the acronym stands for American Mortgage Guarantee and Resolution program. In Arizona it was mostly a governmental program with some private enterprise components.

For a while it looked as though Arizona would adopt the program and pass the necessary legislation to do it. All departments of the legislative and executive branches of government had examined it carefully and concluded that I was right both as to its premises and its results.

The objective was to tax and fine the various entities that were “trading” in loans improperly, illegally and failing to report it as taxable income, as well as failing to pay the fees associated with filing such transfers in the County records of each county.

The State would essentially call the bluff of the banks, which was already obvious in 2008 — they did not appear to have any ownership interest in the loans upon which they initiated foreclosures.

Thus the State and private investors would offer to pay off the mortgage at the amount demanded if the foreclosing party could prove ownership and the balance (it was already known that the banks had received a lot of money from both public and private sources that reduced the loss and thus should have reduced the balances owed to investors, which in turn reduces the balance owed from borrowers).

The offer to pay off the the money claimed due by the forecloser was on behalf of the homeowner who would enter into an agreement with AMGAR for a new, real, valid mortgage at fair market value with industry standard terms instead of the exotic mortgages that borrowers were lured into signing when they understood practically nothing about the loan. The State would levy a tax or enforce existing taxes against the participants in the alleged securitization plan for the trading they had been doing. The State would foreclose on the tax liens thus opening the door to settlements that would reduce the amount expended on paying off the old loan.

The AMGAR program would receive a mortgage and note equal to what was actually paid out to the foreclosing parties, which was presumed to be discounted sharply because of their inability to prove ownership and balance. Hence the state would receive a valid note and mortgage for every penny they paid and it would receive the taxes and fees that were due and unpaid, and then sell these clean mortgages into the secondary market place. Both the legislative and executive branches of Arizona government — all relevant departments — concluded that the plan would erase the $3 Billion Arizona deficit and put a virtual halt on foreclosures that had already turned new developments into ghost towns.

But the plan went dark when certain influential Republicans in the state apparently received the word from the banks to kill the program.

Not to be deterred from what I considered to be a bold, innovative program aimed at the truth about the hundreds of thousands of wrongful foreclosures, I embarked on a persistent plan of to raise interest and capital to put the program into use. This time the offer to payoff the old loan would come from (1) homeowners who could afford to make the offer and (2) investors who were willing to assume the apparent risk of paying $700,000 as a payoff, only to receive a mortgage and note equal to a much lower fair market value. But the new plan had a kicker for investors to assume that risk.

The plan worked for the few people who were homeowners, in foreclosure and who had the resources to make the offer. Unlike the buyback issue raised by Martha Coakley last week, the plan avoided any possible rule prohibiting the homeowner from getting the house back and in fact employed existing laws permitting the borrower to pay off the loan rather than suffer the loss of the property.

The offer specifies what constitutes proof for purposes of the offer and thus avoids varying interpretations by judges who might think one presumption or another carries the day for the banks. This plan requires actual transactional proof of payments for the origination and acquisition of the loan, and actual disclosure of the loss mitigation payments received by or on behalf of the creditors (investors).

As expected, the banks tried to say that they didn’t have to accept the money. They wanted the foreclosure. But nobody bought that argument. The myth that the bank was “reclaiming” the property was just that — a myth. The bank never owned the property. It was interesting watching the bank back peddle on producing proof that it MUST have had if it brought foreclosure proceedings. But they didn’t have it because it didn’t exist.

Banks claimed to have loaned money to the homeowner and thus were entitled to payment first, or failing that, THEN foreclosure. And what has resulted is an array of confidential settlements in which I cannot reveal the contents without putting the homeowner in danger of losing their home. Suffice it to say they were satisfied.

The reason I am writing about this again is that the latest development is a series of investors have approached me with a request for development of a plan that would put AMGAR into effect. They are looking for profit so that is what I am giving them in the new plan. This has not yet been launched but there are several iterations of the plan that may be offered through one or more entities. You might say this plan is published for comment although we are already processing candidates for which the plan would be used.

If I am right, along with everyone else who says the mortgages, assignments, transactions are all fake with no canceled checks, wire transfer receipts or anything else showing that they funded the origination or acquisition of the loan, then it follows that at the very least the mortgage is an unenforceable document even if it is recorded.

If things go according to plan, then the bank will be forced to either put up or shut up in court — either providing the reasonable proof required by the commitment or offer or suffer a dismissal or judgment for the homeowner. It would not be up to the Judge to state what proof was required. Instead the Judge would only be called upon to determine that the bank had failed to properly respond — giving information they should have had all along. The debt might theoretically exist payable to SOMEONE, but it wouldn’t be secured debt and therefore not subject to foreclosure. The mortgage encumbrance in the public records could then be removed by a court order. Title would be cleared.

Investors would be taking what appears to be a giant risk but obviously perception of the risk is declining.   If the bank comes up with verifiable proof of ownership and balance (according to the terms of the offer or commitment), then the investor pays the bank and gets back a note and mortgage for much less. If the bank loses and the mortgage encumbrance is removed as a result of the assumption of that risk, then the investor gets a fee — 30% of the original loan balance expressed in a new mortgage and note at market rates over 30 years.

So the payoff is quite large to the investors if their assumptions are correct. If they are incorrect they lose all the expenses advanced for the homeowner, all the expenses of selection and potentially the money they put in escrow or the court registry to show proof that the offer is real.

We are currently vetting potential candidates for this program both from the homeowner side and the investor side. This type of investment while potentially lucrative, poses a large risk of loss. People should not invest in such a program unless they do not rely on the money invested for their income or lifestyle. They should be qualified investors as specified by SEC rules even if the SEC rules don’t apply. No money will be accepted and no homeowner will be signed up for the program until we have concluded all registrations necessary for launching the program.

Homeowners who want to be considered as candidates for this program should acquire a title and securitization report, plus a review by our staff, including myself.

You should have a title and securitization report anyway, in my opinion. If you already have one then send it to If you don’t have such a report but would like to obtain one call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688 to order the report and review. If you already know someone who does this work, then call them, but a review by a qualified person with a financial background is important as well as a review by a qualified, licensed attorney.

11 Responses

  1. Think about this – can only bring an action ONCE. Dirty hands,

  2. Trespass
    In my case they actually ” won” the forcible detainer in the wrong court, should have been justice – HOW MANY more people were kicked out by this means via a foreclosure mill who’s name is plastered all over literally thousands of homes on the AZ county land records. I’m telling you 1. I was nit served 2. Wrong judge signed the prepared doc done by the foreclosure mill atty for a ” trust” 3. No hearing ( guess no need cause they knew I would not be there ! Well round 2 I’m challenging all of ot. I have right to possession still not the new ” owner” legally that is.

  3. Yeah, well I just spoke to NG. he is so confident this program will be successful – he is providing all homeowners with a free title and securitization report, and will be paid his fee contingent on the outcome!!

    Way to to step up Neal and put your money where your mouth is!!!

    Free reports for everyone – because the investors love this idea of maybe getting a 30% return on their investment.

  4. This whole thing is the biggest joke since the beginning of time. When did a Mortgage on a House, become such a complicated endeavor.
    It’s just a place to, sleep, eat, sh#t & shower, right ?
    I mean, it is no longer an investment so what it is it ?
    A Huge Fail, and who Loses the most, the Sucker who was working for Prosperity, Freedom, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, etc, etc.

  5. The agent bringing the foreclosure will never produce the note as they invoke the FDCPA. A secured lender is immune to the FDCPA . The FDCPA is used for collection purposes and unsecured obligations that were CHARGED OFF

  6. These alleged mortgages are confirmed related party transactions brought together by Mers Corp. The parties OWNERSHIP is OIE and OID by way of shared a common interest in title called an estate in the entirety …shared by co trustees ….a domestic bank and foreign national bank. This we learned from the opposing counsel in regards to the severed community interest at time of the origination and claims made by the decedents estate by the surviving spouse …

  7. Neil, couldn’t the homeowner use this program as proof of funds to compel the court to make the Plaintiff produce the note in court for authentication by experts for the purpose of the homeowner to buy back their note. The stipulation are that the Plaintiff must bring the note into court and not their councils office and the note must also be examined and authenticated by experts. If the Plaintiff cannot produce the original note the case should be dismissed with prejudice. If the note is authenticated than the homeowner can use this program. Is my thinking correct?

  8. I listened to this audio and wrote a transcript of the conversation before the first break. I posted an opinion afterwards.
    We can’t make this stuff up!
    Truth is stranger than fiction.

    You can’t make this up…so here’s a situation in an archive of a radio station that is having connection problems after someone posted at the site to get the audio before it is removed.
    So I will transcript it including how he restates or correct himself as he speaks but will take out the uh’s and repeated words to convey a point. I also will not transcript the side dialogue about Cinco De Mayo or celebrating it or not. Apologies for punctuation errors and mistakes. If it bothers you, stop reading because I can’t fix it after posting it and once I release something into the Universe, it’s there.
    It may benefit us to know the jungle is as bad as we say it is, and the fraud and deception is ‘ever ending, never ending’.
    Male speaker: I want to start off the show tonight by talking about my own experiences in court and with the banks. Uh, as many of the long time listeners know. I have uh, been fighting the banks over my house now for five (5) years. Uh, as a matter of fact, uh, May 5th of this year marks the five (5) year anniversary. We didn’t have a party or anything but, there are some (side dialogue about Cinco de Mayo)
    Male speaker: Just a little bit of factual background on my situation. I will tell you I am not going to get into my future defenses or offenses, but to catch you up on what has taken place so far.
    2009, and I would like to preface this, all of my statements are going to be an alleged foreclosure, an alleged mortgage, an alleged party, okay, everything is going to be alleged because, well there’s issues; imagine that. But it has been alleged that in 2009, on the steps of the Travis County courthouse, out in the back of the courthouse; my property was allegedly sold back to the claimant party. At that time it was National City Real Estate services and a whole bunch of other guys, successors and all that. But there’s issues, very, very, big issues with that here in The State of Texas, also known as the state of insanity we have statutes of limitations that cover certain aspects of foreclosures and evictions, uh, things of that nonsense. Four (4) year statute of limitations on enacting a foreclosure they did that within the four (4) year period, don’t have a problem with that.
    But when a cause of action accrues, we need to get into that as well, (repeats) when a cause of action accrues here in The State of Texas a foreclosing party has two (2) years to kick out the allege occupant. Now that is found in, Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 16.002 (double O 2), I’m sorry (double O 3) 003a, to be exact. Which states that the party, a suit to recover property has got to be filed in two (2) years after the day the cause of action accrues.
    Now, there are, let me go through two basically different ways that things are handled legally.
    I’m talking about a landlord / tenant relationship. In a landlord / tenant relationship created by a rent or lease agreement a cause of action can accrue once a month. But a landlord / tenant relations created under a Deed of Trust, that bell only rings one time.
    Now the attorneys for the foreclosing party would like to treat this situation or any mortgage situation as if it were a rent or lease agreement. Not so. If that were the case, there would be no need whatsoever for the two (2) year statute of limitations. It would actually vitiate 16.003 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. So, I’ve got a transcript here where a judge David Phillips, as much said so. He asked the question, “Then why have a statute of limitations on it at all”? That was a quote from transcript.
    So, Judge Phillips understands, he’s understood twice in my case. You might remember here a couple of months ago Randy that I was on the radio crowing that we had a victory! Well it didn’t stop them. They came after us again, and again, and again, and again.
    So, 2009 foreclosure happened. Come forward four (4) years, no come forward three (3) years, seven (7) months, they filed another forcible detainer! That was, they actually won in the justice court. I appealed that in a ‘trial de novo’ (emphasis mine since it has a legal meaning) before judge Philips. He decided that since the party named as Plaintiff had not been in business for over two years at the time of filing this forcible detainer that he was going to dismiss this whole thing.
    So, rather than that, the opposing party asked for an opportunity to brief out some kind of mess that he wanted to brief out and the judge said, “Okay, brief it out”. Instead of briefing it out, he offered us, my wife and I, an agreed order of dismissal. We agreed it should be dismissed.
    So that was dismissed.
    Months later, they filed another forcible detainer. This being the third forcible detainer they filed now. This time four (4) years and two (2) months from, after the day the cause of action accrued. The key question here is, “When does the cause of action accrue”? Well, in one of these hearings, at JP level. This was attacking the third forcible detainer. The judge at the JP level allowed both parties an opportunity to brief out when a cause of action accrues.
    The opposing party, the bank, bank’s attorneys, claimed in their brief that it accrues everytime they send a three day notice to vacate. And again, if they could convince the court of that, then the court has vitiated an act of the Texas legislature, 16.003 of the Practices and Remedies Code.
    My contention is that under a Deed of Trust, that bell rings one time, and it rang back in 2009. Therefore they are in violation. Now the judge decided that she didn’t have any jurisdiction over that matter, so she dismissed, granting a ‘writ of possession’ (emphasis mine) to the bank.
    We appealed.
    We won.
    But, (pause) We filed our appeal one……day………late.
    Keep in mind the bank’s attorney filed this forcible detainer two (2) years and two (2) months too late. But we filed our appeal one day late. Now I’ve went to the Civil Rules just today as a matter of fact, actually I didn’t my wife did and she found a statue in the rules that said that the time to appeal occurs, you got I think, five (5) days is it? It’s five (5) after the party learns of the judgement.
    Now, that’s paraphrased, but I filed the day after I learned of the judgement. I got a default judgment the day the deadline ran out for filing an appeal. So the best thing I could do was file it one day late. Well she didn’t want to hear it.
    We took that to appeal. The judge, we went back again to judge Phillips and he ruled in our favor. The other side was supposed to provide some certified documents because his evidence was kicked out, it was incompetent. His documents weren’t certified.
    So he promised the court, this is opposing counsel, promised the court he would return within a matter of an hour. Eighteen (18) days later, he filed a ‘motion to dismiss’ (emphasis mine) and challenged the jurisdiction because we filed our appeal a day late.
    The judge said, “Well”. “I guess I didn’t have jurisdiction”.
    So, the attorney that showed up for the other side, the judge was saying, “I can’t just dismiss the case”. Now keep in mind that this judge made a distinction between the appeal and the case. The case being the forcible detainer. He said, “I can’t just dismiss the case”. “They want me to dismiss the case”. “But you want me to dismiss the appeal”.
    Opposing counsel said, “Your honor, I can write an order with any language you like”.
    He said, “Well, if you all are happy to have your case go away; just give me an order dismissing the case”. That is the forcible detainer suit.
    That’s what happened!
    But, as soon as it was dismissed, they executed the ‘writ of possession’.
    Keep in mind, the dismissal of the case, also dismissed the writ of execution (I think he meant possession) (the show went to break)
    for the third and fourth hours replace Hr1&2 with Hr3&4
    For smaller file size download replace 64k with 16k (also). Notice 64k is shown twice so 16k would be replacing it twice.
    Earlier today I tried to access the site and it was locked but I figured out how to get to the audios and download them in case as the poster at mentioned, I wasn’t sure if it would be removed because of interest was a mother trying to save her daughters home in a foreclosure who posted some documents on her page and in her research she found out her 5 year old grandson has 470 warrants out for his arrest and the state makes 400,000 for each one

    We can’t make stuff this up. When the war happens here on the soil and people take up arms protecting someone they don’t really know, they may be protecting someone who is part of this system through some oath or agreement, yes, they’ll probably be married and have children and seem so nice (all sociopaths seem nice to their neighbors, too) because they love to hide within our communities and act like they care about us and act like they are like us when all the while devouring our life energy by their actions in the financial sectors, and they reveal their true selves in how they communicate with us and act against us. We know them by their deeds.

    Moral of the story,
    We never really ‘understand’ anything that is happening to us in court, even when it appears the people speaking are saying words we think we know the meanings of.

    The remedy is outside of the courts.

    IRS and taxes is a good one. I wonder if that’s why the IRS is under scrutiny for picking on exempt organizations. Could it be they have widened their scope and the banks and financial institutions are caught in their net, so they want to discredit them in the public so we’ll demand to get rid of them before they can clean house? Wishful thinking, I know.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, People, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  9. The testimony I provide will show without any doubt the failed mortgage industry’s conversion from fee simple encumbrances to lenders been allowed to transfer and convey title to their funding source at settlement

    Borrowers most substantive and prevailing claim is NOT a wrongful foreclosure but having been denies their reversionary right to repurchase back title transferred away at origination.

    Your deed of trust or mortgage is prima facie to claims for title transferred and conveyed into trust to trustee where it states “…subject to reversionary rights of the household

    Your deed clearly states the severalty among the borrowing entity from the mortgagor.

    Under GAAP and FAS 140 is cancellation of the debt. A foreclosure is by novation subject to tax payer enforced Auditor Reasonable Assurances, Auditor Attestation Reporting, SAS No. 55 and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, The FASB defines the related party transaction cyclical in which related transactions are conveniently grouped and for which specific polities and procedures are established by the entities management

  10. Another Big Hit. Washington AG investigation and TRO substantiates The Financial Revival Group analysis for homeowner in State v. Cal-Western Trustee
    Overview of AGO allegations
    The Deed of Trust Act requires a trustee to provide its telephone number in the Notice of Trustee’s Sale—the foreclosure document that schedules the trustee’s sale. This basic requirement ensures homeowners can communicate with the trustee to ask questions, obtain quotes for last-minute payments, or request a foreclosure be postponed. An AGO investigation found that from October 2013 to approximately March 20, 2014, Cal-Western provided an incorrect phone number in Notices of Trustee’s Sales sent to Washington homeowners. The AGO investigation found that over 70 homeowners in King County alone received incorrect notices suggesting many more homeowners were affected statewide.

    In addition, the AGO investigation found that after discovering the problem in March, Cal-Western did not send the affected homeowners amended Notices of Trustee’s Sales or letters informing them of a working telephone number at which the homeowners could reach Cal-Western. With no available website, homeowners’ only method to contact Cal-Western was to drive or fly to its Vancouver office, or send Cal-Western a letter through the U.S. Postal Service.

    This lack of access made it difficult or impossible for some homeowners to timely and efficiently ask questions, obtain reinstatement quotes, or request a postponement. The AGO alleges Cal-Western’s practice of providing borrowers with an incorrect phone number was an unfair and deceptive business practice and therefore violated the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of February, 2014 email I forwarded to AG’s Office and area housing attorneys:

    Hello XXXX,

    I am sending this email to fax number 619.590.9299. The Cal-Western phone number is 619.590.9200 so I left a VM there for Attorney Adams at 11:48 PST. Note that the purported phone number underneath Attorney Victoria E. Adams’ signature of 800.546.1351 goes to ASI — Advertising Specialty Institute, with a forwarding number of 215-653-4000. I am on the phone with them now.

    Next I am sending a copy of this email to the purported fax number of 619.590.9299, advising them that as of this moment Attorney Jeff Jared and Financial Revival Group were only engaged to the extent that we all have concerns about: [snip]

  11. Neil

    Can you present this plan to Paul Ryan and Wisconsin’s governor, also. On a nationwide basis, this could have massive correction effects on the economy as a whole … and even reinstitute confidence between homeowner-investor/worker-employer for a much needed jumpstart USA still lacks.

    Thank You!


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: