Simply put, Terminix vs. Virga was Terminix’s response to this web site and my refusal to succumb to their written threats.

As previously stated, before I developed this web site, I wrote a letter to Carlos Cantu, who was then CEO of Terminix® and its parent company, ServiceMaster®, to inform him of my intentions to go public on the Internet with what happened as a result of Terminix issuing an incorrect "clear" pest inspection report on our house before we purchased it.  In response, I received a certified letter from Terminix signed by W.B. Mallory, III, Vice President and General Counsel.  Mr. Mallory did not dispute one fact, threatened legal action if I proceeded, and accused me of:

• unauthorized use of the Terminix name.  Excuse me!  How could I tell what happened if I didn't tell who did it; and how could I provide the proof if I didn't provide the documents which were submitted by the company in question and bear the company's name?

• unauthorized use of Terminix's registered trademark, which to my knowledge, I did not do -- unless their name is their trademark.  (If that's the case, be careful that you don't say "Terminix" without first getting their permission.  It might get you into trouble, too!)

• unauthorized use of Terminix's business records. Excuse me, again!  The only records I used are the documents pertaining to my house or public documents paid for by California taxpayers.  The documents pertaining to Terminix that are referred to but not provided here (but that are available to anyone who requests them) are court documents, which are also public record.

Mr. Mallory stated:

Should you proceed with publication of these statements and accusations, for which you have shown no factual basis or credible evidence, Terminix will immediately seek to have you enjoined from continuing to publish such statements and accusations and to recover for all injuries and damages which it incurs as a result thereof.

In my opinion, this was just another example of Terminix once again doing whatever it takes to keep the truth from being exposed.  After all, what could be more of a "factual basis" and better "credible evidence" than the documents originated by Terminix themselves and by the State of California Structural Pest Control Board?

He closed his letter with:

I urge you to reconsider your stated intention to publish the contents of your letter on the Internet or anywhere else.  You should seek the advice of legal counsel before you take any such action as the consequences could be very serious.

I took Mr. Mallory's comments as very serious threats to intimidate me into silence -- an attempt, I believe, to deprive me of my freedom of speech through fear of potential repercussions. When did America become a society where people are threatened into silence; where people must have enough money to “seek the advice of legal counsel” before taking any action to try to right a wrong; or where people are afraid to tell the truth, afraid to question the actions of others, or afraid to share information?

After receiving Mallory’s letter, I refused to be intimidated into submission and became convinced the public needed more information at its disposal than what was currently being provided by paid corporate advertisements, media silence, and governmental inaction.  I decided to let the people see the irrefutable evidence Terminix's attorneys had successfully kept from being admitted in court, let the people decide for themselves whether or not they think Terminix did "any wrongdoing," and let the people decide if they want to do business with a company that insists there is nothing wrong with:  1) issuing a clear pest inspection report on a house with multiple damages they were required by law to report; 2) resolving its admitted mistakes by bankrupting its victims with legal expenses; and 3) threatening to take legal action to keep information from the public.  I published the web site -- and included Mallory’s letter.

The home page of this site states, “If you notice something incorrect..., please contact me at....,”  Terminix did not contact me and did not dispute any of the facts contained in the web site.

In January 1998, I received a letter from David Tennant, one of Terminix’s attorneys -- the one who represented them during our civil litigation, demanding that within two weeks I remove this entire web site and print a retraction or Terminix would seek injunctive relief and damages.  Not only did they have the gall to expect me to remove everything -- including information that had nothing to do with Terminix, but they also expected me to lie and say I lied!!!  Like Mr. Mallory, Mr. Tennant did not dispute any of the facts contained in the web site, and he also made unfounded accusations; such as, “Your ‘Consumer Alert’ publication contains many inaccuracies and false statements which are defamatory.”  If my publication contained “many inaccuracies and false statements,” why didn’t they help me out by letting me know even one of them so I could correct it?

I did not succumb to Mr. Tennant’s threats and did not remove anything as he demanded -- I added his letter to my web site.