Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox filed a 12-count lawsuit in Superior Court on Friday against Sheriff Joe Arpaio; his chief deputy, David Hendershott; former County Attorney Andrew Thomas; and his former deputy, Lisa Aubuchon.

The long-expected suit alleges abuse of process, malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional distress, defamation and several constitutional violations. And although her attorneys did not state what they would like a jury to award in damages, the notice of claim that Wilcox filed as a precursor to the suit demanded $4.75 million.

Wetzel's lawsuit | Wilcox's lawsuit

It was one of two lawsuits filed this week related to the county battles of the past two years.

Maricopa County chief information officer Stephen Wetzel filed in federal court a suit alleging multiple counts of constitutional breaches, defamation and racketeering.

Wetzel asserts he was wrongfully targeted for an investigation into the hiring of a security firm to sweep county offices for illegal listening devices. Wetzel also has filed a notice of claim against Arpaio, Thomas and others regarding state-law-based claims. He is demanding $2 million.

So far, judges, past and present county employees, and others have filed or threatened to file 11 suits. If the county and state were to settle the claims for the amounts demanded, it would cost more than $132 million.

Among the claimants: Supervisor Don Stapley and his administrative assistant, Susan Schuerman; retired Superior Court Judges Anna Baca, Barbara Rodriguez Mundell and Kenneth Fields; sitting Judge Gary Donahoe; Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson; and developer Conley Wolfswinkel.

Even Thomas, Hendershott and Aubuchon have filed notice that they intend to file countersuits against the county - and in Thomas' case, against the state of Arizona as well. So has Bob Rampy, commander of the sheriff's technology bureau.

Most of the lawsuits so far have been transferred from Superior Court to federal court, and Wilcox's suit likely will be moved there as well.

The Wilcox case may be the strongest filed yet, because of legal rulings and investigations in her case: a Superior Court judge threw out an indictment against her, alleging political intent on the part of Thomas and Arpaio, and the elected county attorneys in three other Arizona counties, brought in as independent prosecutors, refused to file or refile the charges for lack of credible evidence.

Wilcox and her husband, Earl, claim that their reputations have been tarnished and their business affected by persecution and prosecution at the hands of the four. They say that neighborhood projects they were working on and awards that were to be presented to them fell by the wayside.

A statement released by Mary Rose Wilcox's attorneys, Colin Campbell and Kathleen O'Meara, referenced the plethora of lawsuits filed out of the disputes: "The media and the public are now engaged in a public debate about whether it is proper for elected officials to sue other officials for misconduct, however egregious. As the Wilcoxes' complaint states, in this case, and in other cases, the individual defendants went so far in their misconduct that some remedy must be available to compensate for the injuries caused and to serve as a caution should other public officials be tempted to misuse their powers in the future."

The 54-page document details five years of animosity, stemming, Wilcox's attorneys claim, from Wilcox's opposition to the immigration policies of Thomas and Arpaio and from the supervisors' efforts to cut the budgets of their offices.

The lawsuit chronicles news conferences and public statements by Thomas and Arpaio against Wilcox, the two indictments filed against Wilcox alleging conflict of interest on business loans, and of undercover informants sent to her restaurant to secretly tape-record people there.

But it also describes how the allegations fell apart, how a Superior Court judge threw out the indictments, claiming the charges were politically motivated, and how a subsequent investigation into Thomas and Aubuchon by the State Bar of Arizona and a county attorney's investigation that preceded Aubuchon's firing confirmed the political load of the charges.

Later, the suit points out, independent prosecutors from Gila and Navajo counties refused to pick up the cases, ruling there was insufficient evidence.