As previously stated:

Since both Mr. Peterson and the SPCB had told me our complaint was "automatically" being forwarded to the California Attorney General's Office for action to be taken against Terminix's license, I contacted the California Attorney General's Office regarding the status of our complaint against Terminix. I spoke with "Mike," who stated he couldn't find any complaint against Terminix and that he would contact the Structural Pest Control Board for some answers and get back to me.

"Mike" telephoned late that afternoon and informed me the Structural Pest Control Board stated they had NO prior complaints against Terminix since 1981. I told him something wasn't right, that the SPCB told me Terminix had numerous complaints against them, that they were on probation for two prior offenses, and that my complaint was forwarded to the Attorney General's Office.  I told him I would telephone the Structural Pest Control Board to find out what was going on and call him back.

I telephoned the Structural Pest Control Board and was told Terminix had "thirty settled complaints, thirty-six dismissed complaints, four violations, and our Administration has more complaint history."

After speaking with the Structural Pest Control Board, I telephoned the Attorney General's Office and asked to speak with "Mike." Robert Raimer answered the call and did not forward me to "Mike." Mr. Raimer was very brusque and told me the Attorney General's Office does not represent consumers; they represent the Structural Pest Control Board.

It was obvious we were not going to be rescued by the SPCB or the California Attorney General's Office.

I received a copy of a Memorandum dated October 18, 1993, to Joel Primes, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, from the Structural Pest Control Board, signed by Charles Peterson -- on the date he was supposedly out of the state and unavailable to testify. The memo stated:

The Structural Pest Control Board has requested this case be submitted to your office for administrative action. Subject’s license to practice structural pest control may be subject to disciplinary action as provided for by the following section(s) of the Business and Professions Code regarding the property located at....

The case had been turned over to the Attorney General’s Office!!!

I sent a copy of the February 24, 1994, letter from Ms. Yamada of the Structural Pest Control Board; my response letter with all its attachments; and a cover letter to Daniel Lundgren, California Attorney General, that stated:

The Structural Pest Control Board and its employees are not protecting the consumers they are funded with taxpayer dollars to protect.  As proof of that declaration, transmitted herewith is a copy of my letter with attached supportive documentation sent to Ms. Gayle Yamada of the Structural Pest Control Board in response to her letter.

The response letter from the Attorney General's Office was from Gloriamalia Perez of the Public Inquiry Unit, who made it clear that justice for individuals is not their concern -- their concern is with protecting State agencies -- even when the State agency is not conducting the State's business with the purpose for which the agency was implemented:

The Attorney General’s Office is unable to assist or comment on your complaint regarding this agency. The Attorney General is required by law to provide legal representation to many state agencies in disputes arising from their actions.  This duty precludes the Attorney General from representing individual citizens in their disagreements with this state agency or providing any advice to individuals regarding the disputed activity.

Under these circumstances, we can only suggest that you rely on the advice of a private attorney in matters involving yourself and the above agency.

The response from Ms. Perez was extremely frustrating. My letter had clearly indicated we could not afford an attorney, which was why I was turning to the Attorney General’s Office for help. We could not possibly afford to legally pursue a dispute with the Structural Pest Control Board, nor did we want to endure any more time in court! What I wanted was an investigation into the matter and disciplinary action taken against Terminix so that they could not do to anyone else what they did to us.

We received information the Structural Pest Control Board withdrew their own request to the Attorney General’s Office for an enforcement action against Terminix (which they had submitted after their own investigation of our complaint).

On June 15, 1994, I sent another letter to the Attorney General's Office, apologizing for taking their time due to my mistaken perception they were concerned with assuring justice for California's citizens, taxpayers, and consumers and stated:

It is bizarre that the SPCB withdrew its request that the Attorney General file an enforcement action against Terminix when it was the SPCB that determined Terminix violated the Structural Pest Control Act and gave Terminix thirty days to bring the property into compliance, which Terminix did NOT do. It’s bizarre that even though our complaint was admittedly justified by the SPCB and Terminix violated the Structural Pest Control Act while already on probation, the SPCB withdrew its request -- even though the SPCB informed me any complaint automatically goes to the AG’s Office if a company is already on probation.

I received no response from the California Attorney General’s Office.

At the taxpayers’ expense, the Attorney General’s Office took action at least three times which resulted in Terminix receiving probation three times. When there was evidence Terminix violated its probations, why didn’t the Attorney General’s Office take any action?