Laserfiche WebLink
not have to be concerned that the same arguments rejected in Ft. Collins will be weighed on <br />anything other than their merits by every member of the Court. <br />Golden reiterates that it means no disrespect to Justice Hobbs. The problems outlined <br />above flow primarily from the presence of Justice Hobbs' two former clients, and the arguments <br />they and the State assert to overturn the Golden water rights at issue, including the argument that <br />the Court should repudiate or limit Ft. Collins. Justice Hobbs did not create this situation, and <br />regrettably, it falls on Golden to bring these issues to the Court's attention. Nevertheless, Justice <br />Hobbs' participation could appear to some as an opportunity to vindicate his old arguments, or <br />support his former clients. Whether either of these things would actually occur is not the issue, <br />and Golden makes no representation that they will. The problem remains, however, that there is <br />in fact the appearance of a conflict of interest, and that is enough for disqualification. <br />Conclusion <br />Golden very much regrets that it was compelled to file this motion, but respectfully <br />requests that Justice Hobbs not participate in this appeal. <br />Respectfully submitted this -e-day of /V%-1-42002. <br />PORZAK BROWNING & BUSHONG LLP <br />Glenn E. Porzalc ( #2-793) <br />Steven J. Bushong ( #21782) <br />P. Fritz Holleman ( #21888) <br />929 Pearl Street, Suite 300 <br />Boulder, CO 80302 <br />303 - 443 -6800 <br />Attorneys for the City of Golden <br />Ph0438 11 <br />