This complaint is a follow up to CFPB Complaints # XXXX ; XXXX ; and XXXX submitted against XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX, respectively. Attached to said complaints was an affidavit of XXXX XXXX ( " Affiant '' ) Asseveration and Declaration of Mortgage Fraud ( also attached herewith ). 
In XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX letter from XXXX office in XXXX, Ohio, to Affiant, XXXX referred to a Note which they admitted to be in XXXX possession as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, i.e. " the original note which will remain in our possession in accordance with applicable retention requirements. '' However, XXXX reported the Note to be " lost '' as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX per XXXX XXXX, XXXX VP from XXXX, Louisiana, in her affidavit supplied in support of XXXX foreclosure complaint initiated XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The " loan number '' was redacted on her affidavit attached to the Shaprio Dicaro & Barak LLC Complaint with XXXX signature. Moreover, the XXXX affidavit does not comport to the requirements of UCC 3-309, Enforcement of Lost, Destroyed or Stolen Instrument. The signature was notarized by XXXX XXXX also from the State of Louisiana. " Loan numbers '' were also redacted on copies of the HELOC Credit Agreement submitted to the Court as part of the Complaint filed by XXXX attorneys Shapiro, Dicaro & Barak LLC of XXXX, New York. Affiant disputes the veracity of the XXXX affidavit and all documents proffered in the complaint. In contravention to the documents supplied in the Complaint by XXXX attorneys, copies of documents mailed to Affiant in response to QWR, by XXXX, XXXX affidavit was presented with ( un-redacted ) Loan Number XXXX. Copies of the HELOC agreement supplied to Affiant by XXXX show two other numbers : ( un-redacted ) Account # XXXX and Ref # XXXX. Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX, of Shapiro, DiCaro and Barak LLC submitted a Certificate of Merit dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, based upon his review of the facts of the case and as a result of his consultation with a XXXX representative identified as XXXX XXXX, Vice President of XXXX. No sworn affidavit is supplied for XXXX XXXX whose personal knowledge of the facts of the case has not been alleged or verified. Affiant is aware of three different loan numbers XXXX established in connection with the subject HELOC : 1 ) # XXXX ; 2 ) # XXXX ; 3 ) # XXXX. Insofar as the Complaint filed by Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, a motion to dismiss is on file in the matter of case XXXX filed in New York which addresses document deficiencies and questionable administrative procedures on the part of XXXX and its counsel. It is undisputed that the Loan Number referred to in the Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak Notice dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX to Affiant is not the Loan Number on the original application, or on the documents filed with the XXXX County Clerk. Affiant alleges the law firm of Shapiro, Dicaro and Barak LLC has committed fraud upon the court by submitting false documents. Their copies of the XXXX affidavit and supporting papers were presented with multiple different loan numbers completely redacted in an attempt to mislead the court as to the existence of a valid mortgage, note and default, as required by law. Shapiro, DiCaro and Barak 's documents cite Control Number XXXX recorded in the XXXX County Clerk 's office as the basis of the complaint. However, the mortgage numbers recorded with the county clerk under that Control Number are different from the loan number cited by the attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX, who supplied a Certificate of Merit of the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of XXXX, under penalty of perjury pursuant to CPLR XXXX.