Amended Wilcox

8/3/2019 Amended Wilcox

1/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N

A PR O FESS I O N A L A SSO C I A TI O NA TTO R N EYS A T L A W

______________________

e Phoenix Plaza

st Floor29 North Central Avenueoenix, Arizona 85012-2793

O. Box 36379oenix, Arizona 85067- 6379

lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

Colin Campbell, 004955Kathleen Brody OMeara, 026331OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793(602) 640-9000

[email protected]@omlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,husband and wife; et al.

Defendants.

__________________________________Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and KathleenStapley, husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,husband and wife; et al.,

Defendants.__________________________________Susan Schuerman,

Plaintiff,

v.

)

))))))))))))

))))))))))))))))))))))

Lead No. CV 10-02756-PHX-NVW

(Applicable only inNo. CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW)

Consolidated with:

No. CV 10-02757-PHX-NVWNo. CV 10-02758-PHX-NVWNo. CV 11-00116-PHX-NVWNo. CV 11-00262-PHX-NVWNo. CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW

No. CV 11-00902-PHX-NVWNo. CV 11-01921-PHX-NVW

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(State law tort claims; Violations ofthe Arizona Constitution;

Claims under42 U.S.C. 1983)

(Jury Trial Requested)

Case 2:10-cv-02756-NVW Document 239 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 38


2/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

2 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,husband and wife; et al.,

Defendants.__________________________________

Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husbandand wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.__________________________________

Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man; etal.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband

and wife; et al.

Defendants.__________________________________

Stephen Wetzel and Nancy Wetzel,husband and wife;

Plaintiffs,

v.


Defendants.__________________________________

)))))))))))))))))

))))))))))))

))))))))))))

))))))



3/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

3 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox, wife andhusband,

Plaintiffs,

vs.


Defendants.__________________________________Barbara Mundell and Anna Baca,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Maricopa County, body politic of the Stateof Arizona; Joseph Arpaio, in his officialcapacity as Maricopa County Sheriff;Joseph and Ava Arpaio, a married couple;David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott,a married couple; Lisa Aubuchon andPeter Pestalozzi, a married couple; and

Andrew P. Thomas and Anne Thomas, amarried couple.

Defendants.

)))))))))))))))))

))))))))))))

))))

)

Plaintiffs Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox, for their First Amended Complaint

against Defendants, allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE1. The Wilcoxes bring this action for claims under the common-law of

Arizona, the Arizona Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

2. The Wilcoxes originally brought this case in the Superior Court of theState of Arizona, Maricopa County. Defendants removed the action to federal court.



4/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

4 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

3. With respect to state law claims, the Wilcoxes have satisfied theprovisions of A.R.S. 12-821.01 by timely serving a Notice of Claim on Defendants

more than sixty days before filing this First Amended Complaint. Defendants have

not responded to the Notice of Claim.4. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona because the parties are

residents of Maricopa County, Arizona and the events giving rise to the Wilcoxes

claims occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona. These consolidated cases and

surrounding circumstances have been the subject of numerous media articles and

opinions over several years, and Plaintiffs will seek a change of venue for trial.

PARTIES

5. Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox are a married couple residing in MaricopaCounty, Arizona. Mary Rose Wilcox, as a member of the Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors, is an elected public official.

6. Defendant Joseph Arpaio (Arpaio or Sheriff Arpaio) is the electedSheriff of Maricopa County and the head of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office

(MCSO). Sheriff Arpaio is named in both his official and individual capacities.

Ava Arpaio is the spouse of Defendant Joseph Arpaio and is a Defendant in this

action because the wrongful conduct of Sheriff Arpaio was engaged in for the benefit

of their marital community, rendering his marital community liable for such conduct

under state law.

7. At all times relevant to this First Amended Complaint, DefendantAndrew Thomas (Thomas or County Attorney Thomas) was the elected County

Attorney of Maricopa County and the head of the Maricopa County Attorneys Office(MCAO). Defendant Thomas is named is his official and individual capacity.

Anne Thomas is the spouse of Defendant Andrew Thomas and is a Defendant in this

action because Defendant Thomass wrongful conduct was engaged in for the benefit

of their marital community, rendering his marital community liable for such conduct

under state law.



5/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

5 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

8. At all the times relevant to this First Amended Complaint, DefendantLisa Aubuchon (Aubuchon or Deputy County Attorney Aubuchon) was a Deputy

County Attorney of Maricopa County. Deputy County Attorney Aubuchon is a

Defendant in both her official and individual capacities. Peter R. Pestalozzi is thespouse of Defendant Lisa Aubuchon and is a Defendant in this action because the

wrongful conduct of Aubuchon was engaged in for the benefit of their marital

community, rendering her marital community liable for such conduct under state law.

9. At all times relevant to this First Amended Complaint, Defendant DavidHendershott (Hendershott or Deputy Chief Hendershott) was the Deputy Chief of

the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office. Deputy Chief Hendershott is a Defendant in

both his official and individual capacities. Anna Hendershott is the spouse of

Defendant David Hendershott and is a Defendant in this action because the wrongful

conduct of Defendant Hendershott was engaged in for the benefit of their marital

community, rendering his marital community liable for such conduct under state law.

CONSPIRACY AND AIDING AND ABETTING: THE ACTIONS OF

THE DEFENDANTS

10. Arpaio, Hendershott, Thomas, and Aubuchon entered into one or moreagreements to do and accomplish all the acts alleged in this First Amended

Complaint. They conspired with each other and aided and abetted each other to

commit each of the State common-law torts and State and Federal constitutional

violations alleged in this First Amended Complaint.

11. Arpaio and Thomas set up a MCSO division called the Maricopa Anti-Corruption Enforcement team, commonly called MACE. MACE is a policeinvestigative unit and is not associated with the prosecutorial function. The MACE

unit became an MCSO division that Defendants Arpaio and Thomas would come to

use to target and conduct criminal and federal civil racketeering investigations against

their political enemies.



6/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

6 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

12. Arpaio assigned Deputy Sheriff Hendershot to the unit as itsinvestigative head; and Thomas assigned Deputy County Aubuchon to give legal

advice to the unit. Hendershott and Aubuchon at all times advised and briefed Arpaio

and Thomas on their activities, and Arpaio and Thomas authorized and agreed to allof their actions in conducting criminal and civil investigations by MACE as alleged in

this First Amended Complaint.

13. The role of legal advisor to the MACE unit is not associated with theprosecutorial function. In addition to her role as legal advisor, Deputy Aubuchon also

became actively involved in the units actual investigations and acted as an

investigative co-leader with Deputy Chief Hendershot. For example, the report

prepared by Pinal County Sheriff into Deputy Chief Hendershot and the MACE unit

stated that Aubuchon was the investigative alter ego of Hendershot. Thomas was

aware of, authorized and approved Aubuchons role in conducting actual police

investigations and acting as an investigative co-leader.

14. Deputy County Attorney Aubuchon, in her role as legal advisor andinvestigator, and Deputy Chief Hendershott began criminal investigations without

probable cause, conducted fishing expeditions to find evidence of crimes, and, finding

none, falsified the law and evidence, and falsified the application of the law to the

evidence to justify an investigative report recommending prosecution against

perceived political enemies of Arpaio and Thomas, such as Plaintiff Mary Rose

Wilcox.

15. In her role as legal advisor to MACE, Deputy Aubuchon gave false andmisleading legal advice to the MCSO to support investigative reports recommendingcriminal charges against political enemies of Arpaio and Thomas, such as Plaintiff

Mary Rose Wilcox. For example, Deputy Aubuchon advised MACE and the MCSO

that if Mary Rose Wilcox guaranteed a business loan that was given to a limited

liability company, then the business loan, which did not have to be disclosed on a

financial disclosure statement, became a personal loan to Mary Rose Wilcox that had



7/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

7 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

to be reported on a financial disclosure statement. This is both a false statement of

law and of fact.

16. For political reasons, Thomas and Arpaio agreed to act together inconcert with respect to political and policy disputes with the Maricopa County Boardof Supervisors over budget, administration and operational issues. To further these

political and policy interests, Thomas and Arpaio agreed to use the investigative

powers of the MCSO and the MACE unit to target and investigate, harass and

intimidate their political enemies. These activities are not associated with the

prosecutorial function.

17. By reason of these agreements to act in concert with Sheriff Arpaio andDeputy Chief Hendershott, Thomas and the MCAO abandoned any role as acting

independent of the MSCO, Arpaio and Hendershott, or as a check on the power of the

MCSO, Arpaio and Hendershot.

18. Thomas and the MCAO abandoned any independent decision making asto prosecution of criminal charges against Arpaio and Thomas political enemies to

MACE, Arpaio and Hendershott. For example, when the Yavapai County Attorney

told Arpaio and Hendershott that there was no criminal case against Plaintiff Mary

Rose Wilcox, Arpaio and Hendershott told Thomas to take the case back to Maricopa

County and Thomas, pursuant to their request and their agreement, took the case back

after he had publicly disqualified himself from the case. Criminal charges were

subsequently brought on counts that the Yavapai County Attorney stated did not

amount to a crime. For example, Arpaio and Hendershott brought criminal charges

on a purported conflict of interest after the Yavapai County Attorney specifically toldthem that no such crime was committed.

19. Thomas and Arpaio sought to damage, destroy and even take away theability of the individual Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors to exercise

oversight over the MCAO or the MCSO, or make policy decisions that the MCAO or

the MCSO thought detrimental to their interests. For example, after Supervisor



8/38


9/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

9 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

25. Thomas was originally elected County Attorney on a political promiseto zealously enforce laws against illegal immigration.

26. In approximately 2007, Arpaio, in collaboration with Thomas andHendershott, and in anticipation of garnering favorable media coverage for Arpaioand Thomas, began a series of highly publicized immigration sweeps.

27. During the immigration sweeps, squads of deputy sheriffs and possemembers descended unannounced upon a designated area of Maricopa County,

typically with a large Latino population, to round up undocumented immigrants.

28. During the immigration sweeps, deputies and posse members primarilytargeted individuals who looked Hispanic. These people were singled out for

questioning and arrest because of their skin color and ethnicity.

29. The immigration sweeps were funded by federal and state moniesobtained by Arpaio, Hendershott, and the MCSO to assist in their anti-immigration

enforcement campaign.

30. The Wilcoxes, along with other members of the Latino community inMaricopa County, spoke out publicly against the immigration sweeps and accused

Arpaio, Hendershott, and the MCSO of racial profiling during the sweeps. Mary Rose

also spoke out against Arpaio, Hendershott, and the MCSO for creating a climate of

fear among the Latino community in Maricopa County.

31. The Wilcoxes public statements antagonized Arpaio, who, togetherwith Hendershott, the MCSO, Thomas, and the MCAO, began a retaliation campaign

against the Wilcoxes soon thereafter.

32.

On or about May 13, 2008, in response to public outcry over the illegalrace targeting tactics of Arpaio and the MCSO, then-Governor Napolitano issued an

executive order that resulted in the MCSO losing more than $1 million in state funds

for anti-immigration enforcement.

33. In response to the Governors actions, Arpaio stated at a pressconference that he was really angry because Governor Napolitano, Phoenix Mayor



10/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

10 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

Phil Gordon, Mary Rose Wilcox, and others had conspired to take away his money

to fight illegal immigration and human smuggling. Arpaio said he [didnt] like

politics getting into [his] operations. Thomas stood beside Arpaio at this press

conference.34. On or about June 19, 2008, Arpaio appeared before the Maricopa

County Board of Supervisors. The meeting of the Board was recorded.

35. At the Board of Supervisors meeting, Arpaio was visibly angry andrepeatedly singled out Mary Rose Wilcox for failing to support him in his

enforcement of the immigration laws. Arpaio again stated that there was a

conspiracy between Mary Rose Wilcox, the mayor of Phoenix, [and] the governor to

take away my money and your money.

36. Also at this appearance before the Board of Supervisors, Arpaioexplicitly criticized Mary Rose Wilcoxs political speech, stating:

Im sure that Mary Rose Wilcox, when supporting the mayor in front ofthe building, that said, I will do everything in my power to make surethe sheriff doesnt enforce the illegal immigration laws, including themoney, I guess thats what were talking about right now is the money.

37. Arpaio also criticized Mary Rose Wilcoxs political activities by statingduring that Board of Supervisors meeting that a flyer comparing him to the KKK and

to Nazis was found in Mary Rose Wilcoxs restaurant:

I dont want to give Mary Rose restaurant any plugs, but this is herrestaurant, with certain elected officials thats been going after me. Inthe restaurant with her, compare me with Nazi. Okay, this has beengoing on. Isnt this disgusting?

38.

On or about October 5, 2009, Napolitano, then Secretary of HomelandSecurity, revoked Sheriff Arpaios and the MCSOs federal funding for enforcement

of the federal immigration laws over concerns that Arpaio and the MCSO were

engaged in racial profiling.



11/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

11 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

39. On or about October 6, 2009, Arpaio and Thomas appeared together at anews conference where Arpaio was again visibly angry over the loss of his federal

funding.

40. During this news conference, Arpaio again stated that Mary RoseWilcox was part of a conspiracy to prevent him from enforcing immigration laws.

Arpaio suggested that this alleged conspiracy had political motivations: I dont like

to get into politics; they all happen to be Democrats.

41. Also during the news conference, Arpaio acknowledged his andThomass disagreement with the Board of Supervisors over the immigration issue,

saying, Im sure that the County Attorney and I will not get any Christmas cards

from the Board of Supervisors, but they better forget all the political and do whats

right for this county and the people of Maricopa County. He also stated, This is all

a conspiracy. It started two years ago, calculated little by little to reach todays

decision.

42. During the October 2009 press conference, Thomas stated, Today,unfortunately the empire struck back. And we have suffered a setback in the fight

against illegal immigration because of Washington politics. That is the reality. But

the fight goes on.

43. On or about February 12, 2010, Hendershott was deposed as part of afederal lawsuit against Arpaio and the MCSO. Hendershott testified that there was an

organized conspiracy to muzzle Sheriff Joe Arpaio and to take away the Sheriffs

funding to enforce the immigration laws. On information and belief, like Arpaio and

Thomas, Hendershott believes that Mary Rose Wilcox was part of this allegedconspiracy.

Thomas and Arpaios Power Struggle with the

Board of Supervisors and Mary Rose Wilcox

44. Arpaio and Thomas had other reasons to retaliate against the Wilcoxes.



12/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

12 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

45. In 2006, Thomas filed a lawsuit against the Board of Supervisorsseeking a declaratory judgment regarding the rights and responsibilities of the Board

and the County Attorney with respect to retaining private counsel to represent the

County in civil matters. The lawsuit was resolved through a Memorandum ofUnderstanding, which by its terms ended on December 1, 2008.

46. On or about November 20, 2008, Maricopa County Supervisor DonStapley was indicted by a grand jury. Supervisor Stapley was served with the

indictment on December 2, 2008. This case is referred to as Stapley I.

47. The Stapley Iindictment contained 118 felony and misdemeanorcharges against Stapley for alleged violations of the laws that require public officials

to make financial disclosures. The investigation leading to the indictment was done

by the MACE unit. On the same day the indictment was served, Thomas and Arpaio

announced that their investigation was continuing and involved other county

employees.

48. On or about December 5, 2008, the Board of Supervisors voted toconduct an inquiry into whether there was a conflict of interest that was preventing

the County Attorney from ethically representing the Board of Supervisors in civil

cases.

49. After receiving legal advice from private attorneys Tom Irvine and EdNovak, the Board voted on December 23, 2008, to delegate management of civil

litigation to the County Manager, who thereafter set up a legal department answerable

to the Board of Supervisors, removing that responsibility from the MCAO Attorney.

The MCAOs budget for civil attorneys was transferred to the new County civillitigation unit. Thomas and Arpaio challenged this action in another lawsuit, filed on

December 31, 2008.

50. With the economic collapse of the United States financial markets inOctober 2008, Maricopa County, like other governmental agencies in Arizona and

across the country, faced declining tax revenues and resulting budget cuts.



13/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

13 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

51. At the same time, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors was readyto begin construction of a new Criminal Court Tower, which the County had planned

and saved for over several years.

52. Arpaio and Thomas opposed going forward with building the CriminalCourt Tower and instead wanted to use the money that would be saved by abandoning

the project to make up for the financial cuts to the MCSOs and MCAOs budgets.

53. Despite Arpaios and Thomass protests, the Board of Supervisorsnevertheless decided to go forward with the construction of the Criminal Court

Tower. This was a policy decision supported by the need for a new Criminal Court

building, the lowered cost of construction and the jobs it would create. Arpaio and

Thomas disagreed with this policy decision.

54. In retaliation for the Boards decision and without any probable cause orjustifiable basis, the Defendants started a criminal investigation into the Criminal

Court Tower project in an effort to halt the project and also to target their political

enemies, including the Wilcoxes.

55. On or about December 12, 2008, the County Attorney served theMaricopa County Administration with a grand jury subpoena duces tecum

demanding production of all documents related to the Criminal Court Tower.

56. The County, the Board of Supervisors, and the County Management,represented by attorney Tom Irvine, moved to quash the subpoena and to disqualify

the County Attorney from conducting a criminal investigation involving the Criminal

Court Tower because the MCAO had advised the Board on issues related to its

funding and construction.57. Maricopa County Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe was assigned

to hear this grand jury matter (Court Tower Matter).

58. The MCAO moved to disqualify Judge Donahoe and assign a judgefrom outside Maricopa County to hear the matter. That motion failed.



14/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

14 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

59. On or about February 6, 2009, Judge Donahoe quashed the grand jurysubpoena and disqualified Thomas and the MCAO from further involvement in the

criminal investigation of the Court Tower Matter.

60. Thomas and the MCAO challenged Judge Donahoes ruling at the Courtof Appeals and the Supreme Court. Both courts declined to review the ruling.

61. As a result of that ruling, Thomas and the MCAO could not lawfullycontinue their criminal investigation into the Court Tower Matter.

Wrongful Criminal Investigation against Mary Rose Wilcox

62. In or around 2008, through the MACE unit, the Defendants initiated andparticipated in a criminal investigation into the Wilcoxes activities with no probable

cause and with no reason to believe that any crime had been committed by the

Wilcoxes. The sole purpose for the initiation of the criminal investigation was to

retaliate against the Wilcoxes for their political beliefs, public statements, and public

votes.

63. After he was served with the indictment in Stapley Iin December 2008,Supervisor Stapley moved to disqualify Thomas and the MCAO from prosecuting the

case because of a conflict of interest, arguing that, in the past, Thomas and members

of the MCAO, as legal advisers to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, had

advised Stapley regarding the financial disclosure forms.

64. Facing an impending evidentiary hearing on Stapleys disqualificationmotion, in April 2009, Thomas and the MCAO publicly announced that they were

transferring Stapley Iand any other current or future investigations or prosecutions

involving the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors or county management toYavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk.

65. The then-pending investigation involving the Wilcoxes activities wasamong the matters transferred to the Yavapai County Attorneys Office (YCAO).



15/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

15 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

66. Arpaio and the MCSO remained the police investigative agency in theWilcox investigation, but the MCAO was to have no further participation in the

matter.

67. Despite the public announcement that the MCAO was stepping out ofthe Maricopa County cases, Aubuchon, with the knowledge of Arpaio, Hendershott,

and Thomas, secretly continued to work on the investigations both as a legal advisor

and as an investigator for the MCSO, and continued to report to Arpaio, Hendershott,

and Thomas about the cases.

68. Yavapai County Attorney Polk hired a special assistant county attorney,Mel Bowers, to handle Stapley Iand assigned her chief deputy, Dennis McGrane, to

handle the other investigations, including the Wilcox investigation.

69. Soon after the YCAO took over the Maricopa County investigations,Hendershott and MCSO detectives began pressuring the YCAO to obtain grand jury

subpoenas without probable cause or a justifiable adequate legal basis against Plaintiff

Mary Rose Wilcox. The MCSO detectives wanted authorization to conduct an illegal

fishing expedition targeted at the Wilcoxes, among others.

70. The YCAO refused to authorize fishing expeditions by the MCSO andadvised the MCSO that, in order to get a grand jury subpoena, they would have to

present some evidence that a crime had been committed and that the grand jury

subpoenas might reveal evidence of the crime.

71. On August 24, 2009, McGrane sent a letter to Hendershott explainingthe YCAOs legal threshold for grand jury subpoenas.

72.

A few days later, Hendershott expressed his disagreement withMcGranes letter in a three-page letter containing quotations from United States

Supreme Court cases. On information and belief, Hendershott consulted with

Aubuchon about his disagreement with Polk on the issue of grand jury subpoenas, and

Aubuchon assisted in composing this letter, even though she was not supposed to be

working on these investigations at all.



16/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

16 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

73. Arpaio, Hendershott, and the MCSO never made the required showingto the YCAO to obtain grand jury subpoenas because there was no evidence that Mary

Rose Wilcox had committed any crimes. The YCAO never issued a grand jury

subpoena in the Wilcox criminal investigation.74. On or about August 31, 2009, Arpaio, Hendershott, Aubuchon, and the

MCSO prepared an investigative report recommending felony charges against Mary

Rose Wilcox for forgery, perjury, false swearing, and violations of the conflict-of-

interest laws. The conflict-of-interest charges were based on votes by Mary Rose

Wilcox as a member of the Board of Supervisors to grant federal pass-through

funding for HIV/AIDS-prevention and tobacco-use prevention to Chicanos Por La

Causa, Inc. (CPLC), around the same time that the Wilcoxes received business

loans from Prestamos, CDFI, L.L.C., a subsidiary of CPLC. On or about September

11, 2009, this investigative report was delivered to Polk and McGrane.

75. Polk and McGrane advised Arpaio, Hendershott, and the MCSO that theYCAO would not file conflict-of-interest charges against Mary Rose Wilcox because

there was no evidence that she had gained or lost anything by reason of her votes to

grant federal pass-through funding to CPLC. Further, in their view, the investigative

report did not show evidence of any crimes.

76. On or about September 24, 2009, angered that the YCAO would notassist Defendants in their wrongful and vindictive investigation of the Wilcoxes,

Arpaio, Hendershott, and the MCSO had County Attorney Thomas take back the

Wilcox investigation to the MCAO.

77.

Also, on or about September 24, 2009, Aubuchon admitted to Polk andothers that she had given information and direction to Arpaio, Hendershott, and the

MCSO detectives regarding how to conduct their investigations, revealing her and the

MCAOs continued involvement in the Maricopa County and Wilcox cases.



17/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

17 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

78. Thomas took the Wilcox case back to the MCAO so that the Defendantscould follow through on their plan to retaliate against the Wilcoxes for their political

speech, political beliefs, and public votes.

79. In or about October 2009, at the direction of Thomas and Arpaio, theMACE investigation against Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox continued with the purpose

of finding any basis to charge Plaintiff with crimes.

The Federal Civil RICO Action

80. On or about December 1, 2009, Thomas and Arpaio sued Plaintiff MaryRose Wilcox, all the other members of the Board of Supervisors, Judge Donahoe,

three other Superior Court judges, three county employees, and two private attorneys

in a federal civil racketeering suit in federal court. See Arpaio and Thomas v.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors et al., United States District Court for the

District of Arizona Case No. 2:09-cv-02492-GMS (RICO Action).

81. Aubuchon signed the complaint in the RICO Action as the attorneyrepresenting the plaintiffs, Sheriff Arpaio and County Attorney Thomas.

82. Aubuchon, Arpaio, Hendershott, and Thomas actively participated inwhatever civil investigation was done in advance of filing the RICO Action and in

drafting the RICO Action complaint before it was filed.

83. As the plaintiffs, Arpaio and Thomas authorized the filing of the RICOAction.

84. The caption for the RICO Action states that Thomas and Arpaio weresuing in their official capacities. The RICO Action asserts, however, that Arpaio and

Thomas have a personal stake in the lawsuit and that they suffered personal harm.The original action seeks civil damages.

85. The RICO Action alleges that Mary Rose Wilcox and the others sued inthat Action are racketeers and that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is a

racketeering enterprise.



18/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

18 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

86. The RICO Action further alleges that Mary Rose Wilcox conspired withthe others sued in that Action to accomplish all the aims set forth in the complaint.

87. The RICO Action also alleges a broad-based conspiracy to illegallyblock criminal investigations and prosecutions, particularly the investigations into theCriminal Court Tower project and Supervisor Stapleys activities.

88. Among the allegations in the RICO Action is that the allegedconspirators actions deprived plaintiff Arpaio, a consumer of civil legal services

from the Maricopa County Attorneys Office (MCAO), of these services, to which he

is entitled by state law.

89. The RICO Action also alleges that the conspirators actions deprivedplaintiff Thomas and MCAO of authority and funds required to provide civil legal

services to plaintiff Arpaio and other county agencies.

90. Further, the RICO action alleges that the conspirators actionsdeprive[d] plaintiff Thomas and MCAO prosecutors of a cognizable property

interest, namely their license to practice law in Arizona. The RICO Action also

alleged that the conspirators had made threats against Maricopa Countys chief

prosecutor and his wife if he challenged the unlawful actions of certain defendants in

court.

91. There is no probable cause or justifiable basis for the federal civilracketeering action. The Defendants wrongful and negligent investigation leading up

to the filing of the RICO Action and the filing of the RICO Action was motivated by

the Defendants desire to retaliate against the Wilcoxes for their political beliefs,

political speech, public votes, and public disagreements with the Defendants.The First Indictment Against Mary Rose Wilcox

92. On or about December 7, 2009, the MACE unit and the MCSO initiatedand caused a criminal prosecution against Mary Rose Wilcox to be returned (the

First Indictment) based upon investigative reports prepared and supervised by

Defendants.



19/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

19 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

93. The First Indictment charged Mary Rose with twelve felony countsrelated to alleged conflicts of interest and twenty-four felony counts related to alleged

failures to disclose information in financial disclosure filings.

94. There was no probable cause for the First Indictment.95. The conflict-of-interest charges in the First Indictment were the same

charges that Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk told the Defendants were legally

and factually insufficient to state a crime.

96. The financial disclosure charges in the First Indictment were based ondocuments obtained through an unlawful fishing expedition into the Wilcoxes

private affairs and also rested on knowingly faulty factual and legal premises.

97. In order to obtain the First Indictment, the MACE unit and the MCSOwithheld relevant and exculpatory evidence from the grand jury, submitted false

testimony about the facts of the case, and misled the grand jury about the law

governing the case. Deputy County Attorney Aubuchon, in her role as legal advisor

and co-investigator for the MACE unit, participated in the wrongful activities of the

MACE unit and the MCSO.

98. The Defendants purposes for seeking and obtaining the First Indictmentwere to publicly humiliate Mary Rose Wilcox, to retaliate against her for her political

speech, political beliefs, and votes as a member of the Board of Supervisors, to

intimidate her, to ruin her reputation and harm her political career, and to harm her

emotionally and economically.

The Second Indictment Against Mary Rose Wilcox

99.

On or about January 25, 2010, recognizing that the First Indictment wastoo flawed to survive in Court, the MACE unit and the MCSO, based on its still faulty

investigation, sought and obtained a second criminal indictment against Mary Rose

Wilcox (the Second Indictment). The Second Indictment charged Mary Rose with

eighteen felony counts related to alleged conflicts of interest and twenty-four felony

counts related to alleged failures to disclose information in financial disclosure filings.



20/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

20 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

100. There was no probable cause for the second indictment.101. The Second Indictment again charged Mary Rose Wilcox with conflict-

of-interest charges that Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk told the Defendants

were legally and factual insufficient to state a crime.102. The financial-disclosure charges in the Second Indictment were based

on documents obtained through an unlawful fishing expedition into the Wilcoxes

private affairs and rested on faulty legal and factual premises.

103. In order to obtain the Second Indictment, the MACE unit and MCSOwithheld relevant and exculpatory evidence from the grand jury, submitted false

testimony about the facts of the case, and misled the grand jury about the law

governing the case. Deputy County Attorney Aubuchon, in her role as legal advisor

and co-investigator for the MACE unit, participated in the wrongful activities of the

MACE unit and the MCSO.

104. The Defendants purposes for seeking and obtaining the SecondIndictment were to publicly humiliate Mary Rose Wilcox, to retaliate against her for

her political speech, political beliefs, and votes as a member of the Board of

Supervisors, to intimidate her, to ruin her reputation and harm her political career,

and to harm her emotionally and economically.

The Defendants Other Actions Taken to Harm and

Humiliate Mary Rose Wilcox

105. Along with initiating a wrongful investigation without probable cause,preparing a false investigative report recommending the filing of criminal charges

without probable cause, maliciously filing the civil RICO Action accusing Mary Rose

Wilcox of being a racketeer without probable cause, and wrongfully initiating

indictments against Mary Rose Wilcox without probable cause, the Defendants

engaged in other actions to retaliate against and harm the Wilcoxes both economically

and emotionally.



21/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

21 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

106. For instance, the MCSO instructed and arranged for MCSO deputies tostop and park near the Wilcoxes residence and place of business to intimidate and

harass them.

107. In addition, undercover informants were sent to the Wilcoxes restaurantto surreptitiously tape record the Wilcoxes. The MCSO then leaked information

about these actions to the news media in order to discourage customers from going to

the restaurant.

108. Furthermore, the Defendants investigated other aspects of the Wilcoxesbusiness and political activities without probable cause and in order to intimidate and

harass them. The Defendants leaked false information about these investigations to

media contacts they knew would publish defamatory articles.

Judge Leonardos Ruling

109. Mary Rose Wilcox moved to dismiss the criminal indictments againsther on the ground that Thomas and the MCAO had disqualifying conflicts of interest

and that, therefore, the grand jury proceedings, the indictments, and the criminal

prosecution of Mary Rose Wilcox violated the due process principles of the United

States and Arizona Constitutions (Disqualification Motion).

110. On February 16, 2010, the Honorable John Leonardo, Judge of the PimaCounty Superior Court, presided over an evidentiary hearing on the Disqualification

Motion. Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew

Thomas, and others testified.

111. On February 24, 2010, Judge Leonardo dismissed the indictmentsagainst Mary Rose Wilcox and ordered that Thomas and the MCAO were disqualifiedfrom prosecuting Mary Rose Wilcox because of conflicts of interest, including

a. [Thomass] efforts to retaliate against members of the [Board of

Supervisors], including [Mary Rose Wilcox], for actions they allegedly

carried out in concert with each other against his office and against him

personally as alleged in the civil RICO complaint;



22/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

22 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

b. [Thomass] attempts to gain political advantage by prosecuting those

who oppose him politically, including [Mary Rose Wilcox];

c. [Thomass] political alliance with the Maricopa County Sheriff who

misused the power of his office to target members of the [Board ofSupervisors] for criminal investigation; and

d. [Thomass] duty to provide confidential, uncompromised legal advice

to members of the [Board of Supervisors], including [Mary Rose

Wilcox], on matters forming the basis of charges in the indictment.

112. After Judge Leonardos ruling dismissing the Wilcox Indictments andsending the case back to the grand jury, the Defendants then dismissed the federal

civil RICO action and the criminal prosecutions of Judge Donahoe and Supervisor

Stapley.

An Independent State Prosecutor Finds That the Criminal Charges Against

Mary Rose Wilcox Are Without Merit

113. After Judge Leonardo disqualified Thomas and the MCAO from theMary Rose Wilcox prosecution and dismissed the criminal indictments, Thomas and

the MCAO transferred the Wilcox investigation to Gila County Attorney Daisy

Flores.

114. On or about January 14, 2011, after her office conducted an independentinvestigation of the Wilcox matter, Flores declined to prosecute the charges in the

Second Indictment, finding that there is insufficient evidence to go forward with the

prosecution of Wilcox.

115. Regarding the conflict-of-interest charges in the Second Indictment,Flores wrote, There is no evidence to even suggest such a thing occurred. Therefore,

these charges have no factual or legal foundation and there is no likelihood of a

successful prosecution.



23/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

23 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

116. Regarding the charges in the Second Indictment for perjury related toMary Rose Wilcoxs financial disclosure forms, Flores concluded, The charge of

perjury is simply not applicable to the facts of this case.

117. Regarding the few inaccuracies on Mary Rose Wilcoxs financialdisclosure statements, Flores wrote that no evidence showed a criminal mens rea, and

intent to defraud, a motive, or an unlawful benefit with respect to these mistakes.

118. Flores concluded that there is insufficient evidence to go forward withprosecution of Wilcox for any crime as there is no likelihood of successful

prosecution. . . . [I]n making the decision to decline this matter we set aside all

peripheral concerns to focus solely on the facts at hand to make a fair assessment of

whether this matter could be successfully prosecuted.

Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox Have Suffered Damages

as a Result of Defendants Actions

119. As a result of the Defendants unwarranted investigations, civil andcriminal charges, harassment, and prosecution of Mary Rose Wilcox, she and her

husband, Earl Wilcox, have suffered harm and incurred damages in numerous ways.

120. The Defendants wrongful conduct damaged the Wilcoxes reputationsand interfered with their ability to pursue their redevelopment plan of the Grant Park

neighborhood.

121. In addition, the Defendants wrongful conduct has caused humiliation,anguish, mental and emotional distress, resulting in physical maladies and

manifestations.122. Also as a result of the Defendants wrongful actions, the Wilcoxes have

suffered lost business profits and have had to close the El Portal restaurant, which was

specifically targeted for economic harm by the Defendants.

123. Furthermore, Defendants conduct has deprived the Wilcoxes of theirconstitutional rights, including



24/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

24 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

a. Their right to due process under Article II, 4 of the ArizonaConstitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution;

b. Their right to freedom of speech under Article II, 6 of the ArizonaConstitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

c. Their right to privacy under Article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution.d. Their right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Arizona

Constitution.

COUNT ONEWrongful Institution of Civil Proceedings

124. Paragraphs 1 to 123 are realleged and incorporated herein. This count isbrought by Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox against Defendants Thomas, Arpaio,

Hendershott and Aubuchon.

125. Defendants Thomas and Arpaio wrongfully instituted a federal civilracketeering claim against Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox. Defendants Hendershott and

Aubuchon actively participated in instituting the lawsuit and aided and abetted in the

filing of the lawsuit. The specific actions of the Defendants are set forth above in

paragraphs 10 to 22, and 80 to 91.

126. Defendants Thomas, Arpaio, Aubuchon and Hendershott, when filing,actively participating in the filing, or aiding and abetting in the filing of the federal

civil racketeering action, acted without probable cause.

127.

Defendants Thomas, Arpaio, Aubuchon and Hendershott, when filing,actively participating, or aiding and abetting in the filing of the federal civil

racketeering action, acted primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the

proper adjudication of the claims in which the proceedings were based. The

Defendants took these actions primarily for the purpose of publicly humiliating Mary

Rose Wilcox, retaliating against her for her political speech, political beliefs, and



25/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

25 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

votes as a member of the Board of Supervisors, intimidating her, ruining her

reputation and her political career, and harming her emotionally and economically.

128. Defendants filed the federal civil racketeering action even though anoutside law firm, Olgletree Deakins, examined the possibility of a RICO complaint inOctober 2009 and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to file. MCAO

lawyer Peter Spaw also advised Defendants Aubuchon and Thomas that there was

insufficient evidence to file a federal civil racketeering complaint.

129. Other parties also advised against filing a federal civil racketeeringaction. MCAO supervisors Barnett Lottstein and Phil McDonald advised Defendant

Thomas that the federal civiil racketeering action was not an appropriate civil action

to file.

130. The federal civil racketeering action terminated in favor of PlaintiffMary Rose Wilcox.

131. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants wrongful institutionof the federal civil racketeering case, Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox suffered harm and

sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

132. The acts of the Defendants acting in their individual capacities andofficially under the color of law were malicious, intentionally designed to punish and

harm the Plaintiff, and in retaliation for the Wilcoxes exercise of constitutional

rights.

COUNT TWO

Malicious Prosecution

133.

Paragraphs 1 to 132 are realleged and incorporated here. This Count isbrought by Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox against Defendants Arpaio and Hendershott.

134. Arpaio and Hendershott initiated and took active part in procuring theinstitution of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox. The specific

actions of the Defendants are set out in paragraphs 10 to 22, 62 to 79, and 92 to 104.



26/38


27/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

27 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

140. The acts and omissions of the Defendants in their individual capacitiesand under the color of law were malicious, intentional, punitive, and in reckless

disregard of the Wilcoxes rights.

COUNT THREEMalicious Prosecution

141. Paragraphs 1 to 140 are incorporated herein. This count is brought byPlaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox against Defendants Thomas and Aubuchon.

142. Defendants conduct is set forth in paragraphs 10 to 22, 62 to 79, and 92to 104.

143. Defendants Thomas and Aubuchon conspired with Defendants Arpaioand Hendershott to wrongfully investigate and prepare a false investigative report for

the purpose of initiating wrongful criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Mary Rose

Wilcox.

144. Defendant Thomas and Aubuchon are not immune from, and haveliability for, the acts of their co-conspirators Arpaio and Hendershott to maliciously

investigate and initiate criminal charges against Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox. The

actions of Arpaio and Hendershott in furtherance of the conspiracy is not associated

with the prosecutorial function and is not subject to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

145. Arpaio and Hendershott initiated and took an active part in procuringthe institution of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff Mary Rose Wilcox. They

directed the MACE unit to commence a criminal investigation without probable

cause, conducted a fishing expedition into the Wilcoxes lives, and had prepared an

investigative report recommending prosecution that was based upon false facts, andfalse application of law to facts. They had MCSO employees knowingly conceal

exculpatory information from the grand jury, and provide false facts to the grand jury,

and provided erroneous readings of the law and the application of law to facts.



28/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

28 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

146. Defendants Thomas and Aubuchon abandoned their roles asindependent prosecutors who are independent of the police, and gave up the

independent decision making to prosecute to the Defendants Arapaio and Hendershot.

147. The two criminal indictments returned against Plaintiff Mary RoseWilcox were terminated in her favor. The criminal prosecution of Mary Rose Wilcox

terminated in her favor when, on February 24, 2010, Judge Leonardo ordered the case

against her dismissed because of Thomass and the MCAOs conflict of interest, and

when, on January 14, 2011, Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores wrote to the MCAO

that she was declining to prosecute Mary Rose Wilcox because there is insufficient

evidence to go forward with the prosecution of Wilcox.

148. Defendants initiated or procured the criminal indictments primarily for apurpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice. The primary purpose of the

criminal indictments was to publicly humiliate Mary Rose Wilcox, retaliate against

her for her political speech, political beliefs, and votes as a member of the Board of

Supervisors, intimidate her, ruin her reputation and her political career, and harm her

emotionally and economically.

149. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants malicious conduct,Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox suffered harm and sustained damages in an amount to be

proven at trial.



COUNT FOUR

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

151. Paragraphs 1 to 150 are realleged and incorporated here. This count isbrought by Plaintiff Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox against all Defendants.



29/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

29 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

152. The Defendants conduct was extreme, outrageous, beyond all possiblerealms of decency, and shocking to the conscience. Defendants specific conduct is

described in paragraphs 10 to 22, 62 to 79, 80 to 91, 92 to 104, and 105 to 108.

153. The Defendants extreme and outrageous acts and omissions wereintentionally aimed at causing the Wilcoxes extreme emotional distress, physical

injury, and other harm, and were intentional and reckless with respect to causing the

Wilcoxes extreme emotional distress, physical injury, and other harm.

154. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants intentional conduct,the Wilcoxes have suffered severe emotional distress and other harm in an amount to

be determined by trial.



COUNT FIVE

Violations of the Arizona Constitution

156. Paragraph 1 to 155 are realleged and incorporated here. This count isbrought by Plaintiffs Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox against all Defendants.

157. The specific conduct of the Defendants is set forth in paragraphs10 to22, 62 to 79, 80 to 91, 92 to 104, and 105 to 108.

158. The Defendants Thomas, Arpaio, Hendershott and Aubuchon wereacting on behalf of Maricopa County and under the color of law at all times relevant

to this Complaint.

159. The Defendants actions against the Wilcoxes were shocking,outrageous, and contrary to any ordered concept of liberty, and were taken in order to

restrict their liberty and therefore violated their due process rights protected by

Arizona Constitution Article II, 4.



30/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

30 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

160. The Defendants actions against the Wilcoxes were taken to punish andretaliate against them for exercising their right to freely speak and therefore violated

their free speech rights protected by Arizona Constitution Article II, 6.

161. The Defendants actions against the Wilcoxes disturbed them in theirprivate affairs for the purpose of punishing and retaliating against them and therefore

violated the Wilcoxes right to privacy protected by Arizona Constitution Article II,

8.

162. The Defendants actions against the Wilcoxes were discriminatory,capricious, and unreasonable and therefore violated their right to equal privileges and

immunities protected by Arizona Constitution Article II, 13.

163. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants violations of theirArizona constitutional rights, Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox bring this direct action

under the Arizona constitution for damages under Arizona law, and they have

suffered harm and sustained damages by reason of these violations of their

constitutional rights in an amount to be proven at trial.

164. The Wilcoxes are entitled to recover compensation for the harm anddamages they suffered as a result of the Defendants violations of their Arizona

constitutional rights.

COUNT SIX

Negligent Supervision

165. Paragraphs 1 to 164 are realleged and incorporated here. This count isbrought by Plaintiff Wilcoxes against Defendants Arpaio and Thomas.

166.

The Defendants Arpaio and Thomas have both statutory and common-law duties of care to the Wilcoxes and all citizens when performing the functions of

their positions. The Defendants owe a duty of care to the Wilcoxes with respect to

conducting criminal and civil investigations.

167. The specific conduct of the Defendants is described in paragraphs10 to22, 62 to 79, 80 to 91, 92 to 104, and 105 to 108.



31/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

31 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

168. At all material times, the Defendants were legally responsible for themanagement of the civil and criminal investigation system in Maricopa County, and

the establishment and implementation of policies, procedures, and protocols that

govern the investigation, processing, handling, and management of civil and criminalinvestigations and prosecutions under their control. Their responsibility included

making certain that such policies, procedures, and protocols satisfy all federal and

state standards.

169. At all material times, the Defendants were legally responsible forscreening, hiring, training, retaining, and supervising all employees and agents who

have responsibility for the investigation, processing, handling, and management of

civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions under their control. This

responsibility includes making certain that such screening, hiring, training, retaining,

and supervising of such employees and agents satisfy all federal and state standards.

170. The Defendants breached their duties owed to the Wilcoxes, as allegedin this Complaint, by, among other things, failing to supervise and control the actions

of their subordinates Hendershott and Aubuchon; failing to conduct the duties of their

positions with reasonable care; failing to establish and implement proper policies,

procedures, and protocols governing the investigation, processing, handling, and

management of civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions under their control;

and failing to properly screen, hire, train, retain, and supervise employees and agents

who have responsibility for the investigation, processing, handling, and management

of civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions under their control.

171.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants breaches of theduties they owed to the Wilcoxes, the Wilcoxes suffered harm and sustained damages

in an amount to be proven at trial.





32/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

32 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

COUNT SEVEN

42 U.S.C. 1983:

Free Speech, Law Enforcement Retaliatory Conduct,

Abuse of Process, and Abuse of Power

173. Paragraphs 1 to 172 are realleged and incorporated here. This claim isbrought by Plaintiffs Earl and Mary Rose Wilcox against all Defendants.

174. The specific conduct of all of the Defendants is set forth in paragraphsparagraphs10 to 22, 62 to 79, 80 to 91, and 105 to 108. In addition, the specific

conduct as to Defendants Arpaio and Hendershot only is set forth in paragraphs 92 to

104.

175. At all times material to this Complaint, the Defendants were actingunder the color of law and in their capacity as officials and agents of Maricopa

County.

176. The wrongful conduct of Arpaio, Hendershott, Thomas, and Aubuchonalleged in this Complaint violated the United States Constitution, including, but not

limited to, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments: Mary Rose and Earl

Wilcox were deprived of privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens of the

United States, were subjected to law enforcement retaliatory conduct, invasion of

privacy, malicious, vindictive, and selective prosecution, and were criminally and

civilly charged without proper cause, with an unconstitutional motive and malice, and

without equal protection or due process in an attempt to chill Mary Rose Wilcoxs

free speech, to affect her vote as a public official on matters affecting the Maricopa

County Attorney and Sheriff, and to intimidate, harass, and exact revenge for her

public conduct.

177. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants wrongful conductalleged in this Complaint, the Wilcoxes constitutional rights were violated and they

have suffered harm and have been injured.

178. The wrongful conduct of Arpaio, Hendershott, Thomas, and Aubuchonalleged in this Complaint was undertaken with malice and with improper and



33/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

33 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

unconstitutional motives in an attempt to interfere with conduct protected by the

United States Constitution. Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox were investigated,

prosecuted, intimidated, harassed, and retaliated against by and at the behest of the

Defendants for improper unconstitutional motives, were treated differently than otherssimilarly situated, and were subjected to improper abuse of process and power for

improper motives, without proper or probable cause, and with malice.

179. Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox were subjected to the Defendants wrongfuland unconstitutional conduct as alleged in this Complaint in a particularly egregious

and conscience-shocking manner.

180. The acts and omissions of the Defendants in their individual capacitiesand under the color of law were malicious, punitive, and in reckless disregard of the

Wilcoxes rights.

181. As a result, punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a juryshould be awarded against Arpaio, Hendershott, Thomas, and Aubuchon to punish

them for wrongdoing and to prevent them and others from acting in a similar manner

in the future.

COUNT EIGHT42 U.S.C. 1983:

Unconstitutional Policies, Customs, and Failure to Train

182. Paragraph 1 to 181 are realleged and incorporated here. This count isbrought by Plaintiffs Earl and Mary Rose Wilcox. This count is brought against

Defendants Thomas and Arpaio.

183. The specific conduct of the Defendants is set forth in paragraphsparagraphs10 to 22, 62 to 79, 80 to 91, 92 to 104, and 105 to 108.

184. Sheriff Arpaio is an official policymaker for the MCSO and MaricopaCounty. Arpaio has the authority and responsibility to establish policy for the MCSO

and Maricopa County, and to properly supervise and train the officers, agents, and

employees of the MCSO. His actions are the actions of Maricopa County.



34/38


35/38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

35 3915043

O S B O R N

M A L E D O N


______________________

e Phoenix Plaza



lephone 602.640.9000csimile 602.640.9050

accepting formal and informal policies, procedures, practices, or customs condoning

indifference to the rights of the subjects of civil and criminal investigations and

prosecutions under their control.

191. Arpaio and Thomas, independently and in concert with one another andas official policymakers of Maricopa County, knew and should have known that

unconstitutional policies, practices, customs, and training existed with respect to the

screening, hiring, training, retaining, and supervision of officers, employees, and

agents who have responsibility for the investigation, processing, handling, and

management of civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions in their control, yet

failed to properly address them and failed to establish and implement appropriate

policies, procedures, protocols, and training to remedy them.

192. Arpaio and Thomas, independently and in concert with one another andas official policymakers of Maricopa County, permitted the implementation of

inappropriate, unconstitutional, de facto policies which authorized, approved,

condoned, and ratified unconstitutional civil and criminal investigatory and

prosecutory practices, and failed to adequately train and supervise their personnel in

these and other relevant areas.

193. The wrongful conduct of the Defendants, acting independently and inconcert with one another and as official policymakers of Maricopa County, deprived

the Wilcoxes of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to them by the

Constitution and laws of the United States and their wrongful conduct was the moving

force behind the violations of the Wilcoxess rights by their agents, employees,

officers, and personnel.194. The wrongful conduct of the Defendants, acting independently and in

concert with one another and as official policymakers of Maricopa County, constitutes

violations of the United States Constitution, including but not limited to the First,

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, in that Mary Rose and Earl Wilcox were

subjected to

Documents

Amended Wilcox