: ‘A Professional Corporation Peso Fregos, J 140 South Dearborn Sire, Suite 600 pfregoso@ancelsink. com *G Chica, 160603 | @sioasi80 7 J www aneelink com 1312782008, VIA E-MAIL & UPS OVERNIGHT vega@labodega.com CONFIDENTIAL / FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY March 11, 2015 Mr. Adolfo Vega La Bodega, Lid. 3225 South Western Avenue Chicago, Ilinois 60608 Re: Consulate General of Mexico, in Chicago v. La Bodega, Ltd, et al. (Settlement Demand) Dear Mr. Vega’ As a follow up to our February 10, 2015 meeting, and as promised, let this serve as the Consulate General of Mexico in Chicago's (hereinafter “Mexican Consulate”) settlement demand. As you know, we represent the Mexican Consulate relative to claims alleging you, La Bodega, Inc., Mr. Vicente Serrano and “Sin Censura” violated the Illinois Eavesdropping Act and publicly defamed the Mexican Consulate We have examined not only the illegally obtained audio recordings of the Mexican Consulate’s private telephone conservations but also the posted statements, and compared them with provable facts. This comparison shows without any doubt whatsoever that, not only did you violate the Illinois Eavesdropping Act but also assisted Mr. Serrano in making false defamatory statements about the Mexican Consulate. As you know, on September 4th, 2014, Alfonso Rosas of the Mexican Consulate called you to discuss a corporate sponsorship in support of Chicago’s annual Fiestas Patrias. Unbeknownst to Mr. Rosas and without his consent, you surreptitiously recorded his private telephone conversation. Afier recording his private conversation, you then provided a copy of this illegally obtained recording to Vicente Serrano, host of “Sin Censura”, the radio program. As you are aware, Mr. Serrano and “Sin Censura” share space in your office and are located just a few yards from your personal office. Subsequently, on September 4th, 2014, Ricardo Duran of the Mexican Consulate called you to thank you for your pledged corporate sponsorship.’ Just as with Mr. Rosas, * Although La Bodega pledged to donate money to the Fiestas Patrias, it never donated any money in support ofthe Fiestas PictrasANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNL& KRAFTHEFER, PLC. March 11, 2015 Page 2 without Mr. Duran’s knowledge or consent, you also secretly recorded his private telephone conversation. Once again, you then provided Mr. Serrano and “Sin Censura” with a copy of Mr. Duran’s illegally recorded private telephone conversation, On September Sth, 2014, with your assistance and at your direction, Mr. Serrano played edited portions of the illegal recordings of the Mexican Consulate’s private conservations on the Sin Censura Radio program. Critically, based on information and belief, you and Mr. Serrano edited the Mexican Consulate’s telephonic conversations so that large portions of the conversation were deleted, words were inserted and words were strung together so as to create statements never bespoken by Messer’s Rosas or Duran. For instance, on September Sth, 2014, Mr. Serrano (at your direction) declared on his radio program that the Mexican Consulate was improperly soliciting funds from business owners and “pasando la charola.” As purported proof of this (defamatory) assertion, he played a portion of illegally obtained recording, in which Mr. Rosas supposedly states, “hechanos la mano, estamos jodidos.” However, in fact, Mr. Rosas never made such statement It is well settled Illinois law that a person commits eavesdropping when he knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner for purposes of recording a private conversation unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private’conversation. See, 720 ILCS 5/14, et seg. A first offense for eavesdropping is a Class 4 felony punishable by a potential jail sentence in State Prison. /d. Further, civil remedies for a violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act include: a) actual damages against the eavesdropper; b) punitive damages which the Court or jury may award and c) an injunction by the Circuit Court probibiting further eavesdropping. Id. In addition to seeking relief under the Ilinois Eavesdropping Act and Federal Zavesdropping Act, the Mexican Consulate can also seek damages under Illinois’ defamation common law. A defamation action provides redress for false statements of fact that harm reputation. Hopewell v. Vitutlo, 299 Ill, App. 3d 513, 517 (1998). A statement is considered to be defamatory if it tends to cause such harm to the reputation of another that it lowers that person in the eyes of the community or deters third persons from associating with him or her. Dubinsky v. United Airlines Master Exec. Council, 303 Ill, App. 34.317, 323 (1999); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 (1977). A statement is defamatory per se if the words used are so obviously and materially harmful to the plaintiff that injury to the plaintiff's reputation may be presumed. Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299, 307 (1998). Illinois recognizes that defamatory statements are considered inter alia, actionable per se: (1) when they impute the commission of a criminal offense; (2) impute an inability to perform or want of integrity in the discharge of duties of office or employment; and (3) that prejuclice a CHICAGO * VERNONHILS ¢ NAPERVILLE © CRYSTALLAKE # —LOOMINGTONANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNL& KRAFTIIEFER, P.C. March 11, 2015 Page 3 party, or impute lack of ability, in his or her trade, profession, or bu: II, 2d at 88-89; Van Horne, 185 Ill, 2d at 307. ess. Bryson, 174 Here, with regards to eavesdropping, it is beyond factual dispute that the Mexican Consulate never consented to having its private telephone conversations recorded. deceitfully edited and defamatorily aired on a public radio station. Second, Serrano’s statements could easily be construed as defamation per se under Illinois law. These accusations regarding the Mexican Consulate’s supposed improper solicitation of funds, lack of transpareney and misappropriation of funds impute the Mexican Consulate lacks integrity in its official capacity, is unable to perform the duties of its office and impute the commission of a criminal offense. Further, there can be no question as to your foregoing statement’s defamatory nature. Each such statement purports to describe facts that, if accepted by a reader as true, injure the Mexican Consulate’s reputation “so as to lower its estimation in the community or to deter third- persons from associating or dealing with him.” Please consider this letter to constitute a demand for: a) an immediate retraction by you and Mr. Serrano/*Sin Censura” of the previous statements and b) $350,000 to settle the Mexican Consulate’s violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act and Defamation claims. The Mexican Consulate’s demand is considerably less than it believes it will recover at trial based on a likely award of punitive damages, actual damages and other damages allowed under Illinois and federal law. However, taking into account the benefits of resolving a case like this prior to lengthy discovery and trial, the Mexican Consulate has authorized a demand of $350,000.00 to fully resolve the case. This demand will remain open until March 25, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. In the event this demand is refused and we proceed to trial, the Mexican Consulate will seck a far greater award from the jury than it is willing (o accept now. We look forward to hearing from you. ce: Robert K. Bush, Esq. 18461148450, 1 CHICAGO # VERNON HILLS # NAPERVILLE # CRYSTALLAKE © @LOOMINGTON