DOES PRESENT CASE DEMONSTRATE THAT SUBPRIME MORTGAGE LENDERS IN EARLY TO MID-2000'S SYSTEMATICALLY ABANDONED. UNDERWRITING REGULATIONS AND ENCOURAGED LOW-LEVEL MORTGAGE BROKERS TO VICTIMIZE.UNSUSPECTI.NG HOME BUYERS BY INCORPORATING FALSE INFORMATION INTO THEIR LOAN APPLICATIONS, AND OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS EXPOSING THEM TO WRONGFUL PENAL LIABILITY FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD GIVING RISE TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE COURT AND ILLUMINATING NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO STOP SIMILAR CONDUCT NOW RENEWING?

DOES NEWLY DISCOVERED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, VIZ., LOAN APPLICATIONS, THAT DEFENSE 'COUNSEL.FAILED TO INTRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE, DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL INNOCENCE GIVING RISE TO AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE WARRANTING THE COURT'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF 'LAST RESORT?

Does present case demonstrate that subprime mortgage lenders in early to mid-2000's systematically abandoned underwriting regulations and encouraged low-level mortgage brokers to victimize unsuspecting home buyers by incorporating false information into their loan applications and other loan documents exposing them to wrongful penal liability for mortgage fraud giving rise to exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of discretionary powers of the Court and illuminating need for Congressional action to stop similar conduct now renewing?