[brief] In the interests of justice and the [...], it is time for this litigation odyssey to be put to its fitting end.  Fairly put, the [...]’ Brief on appeal reads as a Machiavellian fantasy.  To suggest that the Courts’ treatment of the [...] has been “unfair” or “unjust,” or that it has been [...]’s conduct which has resulted in a “cascade of errors,” is nothing short of unconscionable, if not immoral.  As established by Halpern’s counsel through years of grueling discovery and a 207-day trial, as found by multiple Judges of this Court – both at the trial and appellate level – and as documented at length herein, during the applicable SOL tort and NJRICO periods, the [...] engaged in a systematic and continuing campaign of theft, deception and concealment, resulting in the misappropriation of more than $50 million in partnership funds.  As previously found by [...] after trial and by [...] on remand, the [...]’ wanton, willful and malicious conduct justified the imposition of punitive damages equal to 2.5 times Halpern’s compensatory damages, whether measured by the entire length of the [...]’ criminal conduct, or limited to the eight-year period from October 1, 2003 through 2011, when it finally was enjoined.  Indeed, as established before the Chancery Court on remand, during the 8-year SOL period, the [...] engaged in even more egregious conduct resulting in greater damages to Plaintiffs than they had in the preceding 16-year period.  Similarly, after an exhaustive review of the substantial efforts undertaken and work performed by Halpern’s counsel, [...] and DeAngelis both found that the attorney’s fees and costs of investigation expended prior to the SOL period were “reasonably related” to establishing Halpern’s NJRICO claims and were “reasonably devoted” to that endeavor.  In fact, as concluded by both the Special Master and Chancery Court on remand, but for the work performed by Halpern’s counsel in investigating and establishing the pre-SOL facts, Halpern’s NJRICO claims could not have been proven.  Although many examples were given, perhaps the most compelling was the work performed by Halpern’s counsel in negating the [...]’ “claim of right” and “true-up” defenses, which were asserted with respect to their purported entitlement to take millions of dollars in management and other fabricated fees from the partnership.  Had the claimed basis for those fees not been eviscerated by discovery of the historical facts, the predicate NJRICO acts of theft could not have been established.  Tellingly, the [...]’ response to that rather basic proposition, whether before Judge Orlofsky, [...] or this Court, has been a deafening silence.  In a final, desperate attempt to obfuscate, delay and prolong this litigation, perhaps into the next decade, the [...]’ attack the character and integrity of both Judges Wilson and Orlofsky.  Although utterly shameful and proffered without even a scintilla of merit, it is significant to note that the [...]’ allegations of “conflict” and “appearance of impropriety” do not in any manner involve or affect the Special Master’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Halpern.  Consequently, although Halpern’s counsel joins in [...]’s and its counsel’s arguments with respect to the [...]’ baseless claims in this regard, as to Halpern they are a non-sequitur.  The Final Judgments below should be affirmed.