Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Saturday, June 15, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Scientology Ties at Base of $33,000 Complaint

CLEVELAND (CN) - A consulting firm lied about its connections to the Church of Scientology, a veterinarian claims in court, and he wants his $33,000 back.

Jeffrey Peacock, owner of the Crossroads Animal Hospital, sued Clear Advantage Business Solutions, in Cuyahoga County Court.

Clear Advantage is the only defendant.

Peacock claims Clear Advantage and its representative Roger Harrison offered consulting services for his animal hospital and presented a contract, which stated "that defendant 'uses some secular administrative technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard,' but that defendant is 'a privately owned company, separate from and not a part of any Church of Scientology,'" according to the complaint.

It continues: "After reviewing paragraph H.2 of the agreement, plaintiff inquired of Mr. Harrison regarding the nature and extent of the connection between the Church of Scientology and defendant and its representatives, and, in response to said inquiry, Mr. Harrison represented and assured plaintiff that defendant was not connected to the Church of Scientology."

Based on these assurances, Peacock says, he signed the contract and "also paid the defendant the sum of $33,450.39 (the 'deposit'), representing a deposit toward the full contract price for defendant's performance of the agreement."

However, "Subsequent to plaintiff's signature and delivery of the agreement to defendant, and subsequent to plaintiff's payment of the deposit to defendant, plaintiff discovered that defendant and its representatives were, in fact, connected with and/or members of the Church of Scientology," Peacock says.

Peacock says he canceled the contract and demanded a refund from Clear Advantage, which "asserts that the deposit was expressly made 'non-refundable,' per the terms of the agreement, and, accordingly, defendant has refused to return the deposit or any portion thereof to plaintiff."

Peacock seeks a judgment declaring the contract null and void, refund of his deposit and damages for fraud and deceit.

He is represented by David Ledman, of Willoughby Heights, Ohio.

Follow @@kkoeninger44
Categories / Uncategorized

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.