Relator's Reply in Support of Rule 60 Motion for Relief from Judgment, United States ex rel. Stuart Hallam v. Brett Deuter, No. 1:23-cv-00348 (D. Idaho), Doc. 60 (December 29, 2025)

Summary

A reply filed December 29, 2025, as Document 60, in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, case 1:23-cv-00348, in United States of America ex rel. Stuart Hallam against Brett Deuter, Deuter Construction, LLC and Enlighten, LLC. Stuart A. Hallam, in pro per as Relator, replies in support of a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment, filed to void the consent agreement based on fraud and misrepresentations. The reply says the misrepresentations were made by both the Defendants and the Government's representative, Elliot Wertheim, Assistant United States Attorney, and that none of the Defendants filed a response. It quotes Wertheim using the phrase "run all accounts to ground." The filing also quotes allegations about Brett Deuter's certifications in a Second PPP Loan application.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 21 of 21 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 21

Stuart A. Hallam

PO Box 210996

Auke Bay, Ak 99821
Telephone: 907.209.8587
stuart@ltdalaska.net

In pro per as Relator

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
Stuart Hallam,

Plaintiff.
VS.

BRETT DEUTER, an individual; DEUTER
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Idaho limited
liability company; and ENLIGHTEN, LLC,
an Idaho limited liability company dba
Enlighten Construction Services and dba
EnlightenHome,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

Case No. 1:23-cv-00348

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT

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

Relator Stuart Hallam (hereafter Relator or pronoun) filed the underlying motion to void

the consent agreement based upon fraud and misrepresentations, pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3) and

(6), and the Court’s inherent power to grant remedies to prevent injustice. As plead, the

misrepresentations and fraud were by both the Defendants and the Government’s representative,

Elliot Wertheim, Assistant United States Attorney (hereafter Wertheim or AAG).

The stated intent of Congress in amending the FCA cannot be over emphasized: (a) create

incentives for individuals with knowledge of fraud against the Government to disclose the

information without fear of reprisals or Government inaction: and (b) and to encourage the

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 1
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 21

private bar to commit legal resources to prosecuting fraud on the Government’s behalf. Here, the
USA has treated the Relator as adversary, and aided Defendants by their inaction is an
understatement, all adding up to the opposite of encouraging Relators to commit resources to the
benefit of the Government.

None of the Defendants filed a response to the motion. The United States Attorney’s
(hereafter USA) response and objection is self contradictory and misleading. The response
attempts to evade or dismiss the specific misrepresentations and fraud, offers no meaningful
argument regarding the facts, and is not supported by an affidavit. The USA did find time to try
to dig up dirt on me, seeking to muddy waters with irrelevant speculation from decades old
litigation.

The USA attempts to portray Relator as “upset” due to Defendant’s inability to pay, and
that I knew or should have known/lacked due diligence in determining that Deuter could not pay.
This position is beyond self contradictory, and flies in the face of the record, and Candor to the
Court. The USA refuses to submit an affidavit by Wertheim refuting my specific allegations,
where as I have sworn that I signed off on the Consent Agreement only after being assured by
AAG Wertheim that the agreement would be pulled if Deuter had misled him, and that Wertheim
insisted my concerns were unfounded because he knew what I did not, and had “run all accounts
to ground.” The USA literally argues against itself here: Wertheim saying trust him because he
had information I do not and “ran all accounts to ground”, and the USA now arguing that I knew
based on my objections, or should have known but lacked due diligence.

I am indeed “upset”: upset that the AAG Wertheim’s used misrepresentations and fraud in
order to get me to abandon my objections, and dealt with me in bad faith, including trying to

unilaterally waive my statutory right to fees and costs.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 2
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 21

The USA’s attempts to dismiss communications directly between Wertheim and myself as
“hearsay” dishonestly states “Relator is interpreting something said by his attorney, which in turn
is an interpretation by his former attorney.” Dk!t. No. 57 at 15. No such happening occurred, or
was put forth in the motion. Regarding what was conveyed to my legal representative to get me
to sign the agreement, at a minimum I would assert it falls under Rule 801(d), Admission of
Party Opponent. Regardless, the following statements of fact are uncontroverted, including but
not limited to:

a. I signed off on the Consent Agreement only after being assured by AAG Wertheim

that the agreement would be pulled if Deuter had misled him;

b. Wertheim misled me;

c. Deuter misled Wertheim;

d. Deuter lied to secure the agreement, and had no intention of fulfilling his obligations
as evidenced by his refusal to make even the initial payment, and refusing offers on
the Hailey property that would have allowed him to do so;

e. Wertheim sought to negotiate away my rights to fees and costs without consult;

f. Wertheim made it clear to me, directly, that if I objected it would be made fiscally
costly to me.

As specified in the underlying motion, there were multiple financial accounts Deuter refused to
produce in the state court action, in violation of multiple orders. My point was simple: unless

Wertheim had those records and they proved the Deuter could pay, the “deal” was worthless.

! | was abroad when filing the underlying motion, thus did not have access to a notary, thus used
an electronic signature. To the extent the USA wants to dismiss the authenticity my affidavit due

to electronic signature, Rule 11 still applies.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 3
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 21

Wertheim told me he was confident in the deal, expressly stating his belief was based on having
“run all accounts to ground.” Relator’s direct communications with AAG Wertheim included:
Accordingly, I asked the AAG if he had those [withheld] records. He
refused to say. I pointed out that all the records I knew of precluded the
feasibility of the agreement. The AAG categorically stated, at least twice,
that he had “run all accounts to ground”, and that the agreement was
sound.
Based on AAG Wertheim’s words, at least one of the following must be
true:
(1) Wertheim did not “run all accounts to ground”; or
(2) The records showed the Deuter had no ability to turn a profit,
much less make the quarterly payments.
Dkt. No. 51 at 9.

The USA’s argument about additional benefits to the Government are specious. Whereas
the USA asserts Rule 60 is not appropriate for where a decision later proves to be unwise, unless
they are suggesting that trusting an United States Attorney’s word is “unwise”, that too is
specious.

Il. NO INTENT TO PROCEED PRO SE, CONDITIONAL ORDER

Relator has no illusions regarding the requirements of filing FCA claims, thus has no
intent to try to proceed pro se. The Court has within its power to issue a Conditional Order
voiding the Consent agreement, with that condition being Relator proceeding with counsel.

Unless and until the Court voids the Consent Agreement there is no requirement for
Relator to have representation of counsel, nor incurring its inherent costs. As detailed in my
motion, the USA has prejudiced me greatly financially, doing so in direct contradiction to the
FCA and its stated intent. As Relator, I am already invested >$40k to the benefit of the

Government. The bad faith actions of the USA in trying to sign away my right to fees and costs,

and to minimize my share of the recovery cost me thousands of dollars, needlessly.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 4
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60- Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 21

IW. INANUTSHELL: WHAT THE USA WAS HANDED

The USA’s response and objection makes light of my assertion that the complaint was
both fully formed and ready for formatting for submission as a summary judgment. For the
Court’s convenience, the following correspond to numbers 40 through 84 of the complaint.2

40. On March 23, 2020, Deuter Construction, through Brett Deuter, applied for an EIDL
from the Small Business Administration (“EIDL Application”). A true and correct copy of the
EIDL Application is attached as Exhibit A.

41. The EIDL Application contains a certification as to truthful information that states
“Tb]y signing this application, you certify that all information in your application and submitted
with your application is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, and that you will submit
truthful information in the future.”

42. In the EIDL Application, Deuter Construction Represented that it had twelve (12)
employees and that Brett Deuter had never filed for bankruptcy.

43. Brett Deuter had filed for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2007.

44. As part of the EIDL Application, Brett Deuter answered “No” to the question of
whether “[i]n addition to ownership in DEUTER CONSTRUCTION, LLC, does this individual
owner own more than 50% of, or is this individual owner a Managing Member or General
Partner of a corporation, partnership, limited partnership, or LLC?”

45. On April 10, 2020, Brett Deuter reinstated Enlighten after it had been

administratively dissolved by the Idaho Secretary of State.

2 | left the text verbatim, including the exhibit references. | do not wish to burden the Court by
including the scores of pages of exhibits here, as they are uncontested and readily available to
the Court. Additionally, the banking transfer references can be confirmed utilizing Exhibit B of
the underlying motion at Dkt. No. 51.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 5
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 21

46. On April 14, 2020, Deuter Construction received a $7,000 advance on its request for
EIDL funds.

47. On the same date it received the $7,000 advance, Deuter Construction transferred
$5,000 to Brett Deuter’s personal account.

48. On April 23, 2020, Deuter Construction was awarded an EIDL of $496,600. When
added to the $7,000 advance, Deuter Construction received a total of $503,600 in EIDL funds.

49. Almost immediately upon receiving the EIDL funds, Deuter Construction transferred
all of those funds into Enlighten’s account. Because the Deuter Construction account had an
account balance of negative $245 before the bulk of the loan funds were deposited on April 23rd,
only $496,355 was moved into Enlighten’s account.

50. After the EIDL funds were transferred to Enlighten’s account, the Deuter
Construction bank account ended April 23, 2020 with a balance of negative $70.

51. Also on April 23, 2020, Brett Deuter completed an application for a PPP loan on
behalf of Deuter Construction (“First PPP Application”). A true and correct copy of the First
PPP Application is attached as Exhibit B.

52. The First PPP Application contained several different documents, including a
promissory note executed by Brett Deuter, a borrower’s closing certification, a borrower’s
authorization to deposit loan proceeds, a certification of beneficial owners, a loan calculation
certification, and other statements and documentation relating to Deuter Construction.

53. The First PPP Application included several representations made on behalf of Deuter

Construction.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 6
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 7 of 21

54. The First PPP Application stated that Deuter Construction had seven (7) employees
as of February 15, 2020, and that Deuter Construction expected to have the same number of
employees by June 30, 2020.

55. The First PPP Application stated that the average monthly payroll for Deuter
Construction was $42,598.00, and that the annual wages and tips paid by Deuter Construction
were $458,448.

56. The First PPP Application also stated that of the loan amount sought, $1,500 was to
be spent on utilities, $70,000 on payroll, $7,500 on rent, and $9,000 on group healthcare.

57. The First PPP Application also contained several certifications that were agreed to
and initialed by Brett Deuter.

58. On the First PPP Application, Brett Deuter certified that he owned 100% of Deuter
Construction.

59. On the First PPP Application, Brett Deuter also certified that, as the applicant, he was
not “an owner of any other business, or [did not] have common management with, any other
business.”

60. On the First PPP Application, Brett Deuter certified “that the information provided in
this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and
accurate in all material respects,” and that he “underst[oo]d that knowingly making a false
statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law.”

61. On May 12, 2020, $106,400 in PPP funds requested in the First PPP Application
were deposited in Enlighten’s bank account (“First PPP Loan’) and the lender of record was
Customers Bank. On May 13, 2020, the $106,400 was transferred from Enlighten’s account to

Deuter Construction.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 7
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 8 of 21

62. On May 28, 2020, roughly a month after receiving Deuter Construction’s EIDL
funds, Enlighten purchased a five-acre residential property located at 206 Bannock Drive in
Hailey, Idaho. The purchase price was $150,000, and Enlighten would not have had sufficient
funds for closing on the purchase without Deuter Construction’s EIDL funds.

63. Deuter Construction ceased all business operations in December 2020.

64. On or about December 22, 2020, all of Deuter Construction’s employees became
employees of Enlighten. After December 22, 2020, Deuter Construction had no employees.

65. On January 26, 2021, Brett Deuter completed a second application for a PPP loan on
behalf of Deuter Construction by filling out a Paycheck Protection Program Second Draw
Borrower Application Form (“Second PPP Application”). A true and correct copy of the Second
PPP Application is attached as Exhibit C.

66. On the Second PPP Application, Brett Deuter signed and initialed several
certifications.

67. On the Second PPP Application, Brett Deuter certified that Deuter Construction “was
in operation in February 15, 2020, has not permanently closed, and was either an eligible self-
employed individual, independent contractor, or sole proprietorship with no employees, or had
employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes... .”

68. On the Second PPP Application, Brett Deuter certified that:
The funds will be used to retain workers and maintain payroll; or make payments for
mortgage interest, rent, utilities, covered operations expenditures, covered property
damage costs, covered supplier costs, and covered worker protection expenditures as
specified under the Paycheck Protection Program rules; I understand that if the funds

are knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, the federal government may hold me
legally liable, such as for charges of fraud.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 8
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 9 of 21

69. Brett Deuter also certified that, before receiving a Second PPP Loan, he would have
used the full amount of the First PPP Loan only for eligible expenses.

70. The Second PPP Application contained a borrower’s certification that was signed by
Brett Deuter.

71. On that borrower’s certification, Brett Deuter certified that Deuter Construction “‘is
and since February 15, 2020, has been duly formed, validly existing, operating, and in good
standing in the state of its formation and in all other jurisdictions where it is qualified to do
business... .”

72. Also on that borrower’s certification, Brett Deuter agreed that Deuter Construction
“will not, without Lender’s consent, change its ownership structure, make any distribution of
company assets that would adversely affect its financial condition, or transfer (including
pledging) or dispose of any assets, except in the ordinary course of business.”

73. Brett Deuter further certified that he understood knowingly making a false statement
to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, and that Deuter Construction,
as the borrower, was in compliance with all laws, rules, regulations, guidance, and orders
applicable to the PPP and PPP second draw loan program.

74. On January 27, 2021, the Second PPP Application was approved and $100,018.72
was deposited directly into Enlighten’s account (“Second PPP Loan’’). The Lender for the
Second PPP Loan was Idaho First Bank. That same day, Brett Deuter wrote a check for
$5,774.19, and the next day he transferred $5,000 to his personal checking account.

75. On May 13, 2021, Brett Deuter applied for forgiveness of the First PPP Loan.

76. When applying for forgiveness of the First PPP Loan, Brett Deuter certified that

Deuter Construction had nine employees as of May 13, 2021.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 9
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 10 of 21

77. Deuter Construction did not have nine employees on May 13, 2021; it had zero
employees on that date.

78. On May 26, 2021, the First PPP Loan was forgiven.

79. On June 15, 2021, Deuter Construction was administratively dissolved by the Idaho
Secretary of State.

80. On October 13, 2021, Brett Deuter applied for forgiveness of the Second PPP Loan
(“Second PPP Loan Forgiveness Application”). A copy of the Second PPP Loan Forgiveness
Application is included in Exhibit D.

81. When applying for forgiveness of the Second PPP Loan, Brett Deuter certified that
Deuter Construction had eight employees at the time of the loan application and eleven (11)
employees on October 13, 2021.

82. Deuter Construction did not have eight employees at the time of the loan application
nor 11 employees on October 13, 2021; it had zero employees on either date.

83. On the Second PPP Loan Forgiveness Application, Brett Deuter certified that
$101,246.53 of the Second PPP loan was spent on “Payroll Costs” for Deuter Construction
between the loan disbursement date of January 26, 2021 and October 13, 2021.

84. On the Second PPP Loan Forgiveness Application, Brett Deuter certified that “[t]he
Borrower has complied with all requirements in the Paycheck Protection Program Rules” and
that “[t]he information provided in th[e] application is true and correct in all material respects.”

85. The Second PPP Loan amount of $100,018.72 was forgiven on October 18, 2021.

The complaint does not include the fact that Deuter also fraudulently sought to have the EIDL

forgiven, including an email dated October 26, 2022 stating:
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 10
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 11 of 21

My company received a covid EIDL loan (#3331347207) in 2020.
Unfortuneately[sic] my company went out of business due to insolvency in
2021 and i’m not sure what to do. I believe i gave a personal gurarantee[sic] to
the loan so i think i still have to pay it back, but not certain and currently am
not in a position to afford the payments. Is there any relief available to people
in my position?

This was ten months into the state court action. The point here is the further verification of

Deuter’s zero remorse for his actions, and his unending stream of frauds and sense of

entitlement.

Also not included in the complaint are the trial admissions to the frauds detailed above.
The trial tapes had not been transcribed, and there was no cost benefit to having them done since
the admissions were also procured in Deuter’s two depositions.

The above speaks for itself as to the USA’s lack of veracity in the claims surrounding
applicability of summary judgment, and falsely claimed “additional benefits” of the consent
agreement.

IV. THE CONSENT AGREEMENT IS INHERENTLY UNREASONABLE

In one breath, the USA argues that the judgment amount is reasonable because it makes
the government whole and requires that Defendants pay a penalty. In the next breath, they argue
my motion is an empty exercise because Defendant’s can not pay. So how is the Government
made whole? Why were accounts not frozen, assets not secured, seized, or clawback
implemented?

The USA portrays the Consent Agreement as reasonable, and wants the Court to believe

that setting it aside would be an “empty exercise”, citing Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen

& Helpers Union, Local No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., Inc., 953 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1992);

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 11
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 12 of 21

accord Justus v. Clarke, 78 F.4th 97, 105 (4th Cir. 2023). Dk*t. No. 57 at 7-8. It is not an empty
exercise to Relator, as detailed below, which are interconnected with the USA’s contentions
regarding claimed additional benefits to the Government that could not be obtained through
summary judgment are meritless.

USA goes on to argue “Additionally, and independently, voiding the Consent
Judgment is an empty exercise because a larger judgment will provide no added benefit.
Defendants cannot even pay the Consent Judgment.” Jd. Wertheim and the present Assistant
United States Attorney William Humphries can not agree amongst themselves whether
Defendant’s have the capacity to pay. Yet Wertheim appears to have gone out of his way to
ensure I would never so much as recover my fees and costs, while openly stating his concern that
Deuter not be “left destitute.” Stated otherwise, Wertheim was more concerned that Deuter be
left in a better condition than before committing his frauds. It is not Relator’s word versus
Wertheim’s, we can play the tapes for the Court.

The reasons proffered by the USA fail as well. Firstly, if the USA believed Defendant’s
could not pay, why did they argue the opposite to Relator to get me to sign? Why not freeze
accounts and secure assets? Why not condition lesser amount do upon timely payments? To
listen to the USA now, they say I should have known Defendants could not pay, so should have
expected immediate default. As a result of USA’s failure to secure assets in the consent
agreement or after, the costs of trying to recover the judgment through default collections greatly

exceed any funds they have recovered to date.

3 I was abroad when filing the underlying motion, thus did not have access to a notary, thus used an
electronic signature. To the extent the USA wants to dismiss the authenticity my affidavit due to
electronic signature, Rule 11 still applies.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 12
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60 Filed 12/29/25 Page 13 of 21

A. The amount of the judgment is not reasonable and encourages fraud.

The USA now appears to argue it knew the judgment was uncollectible. Per my sworn
statements, this is the opposite of what they argued to me to sign the agreement as opposed to
making them justify it to the Court. It also highlights the malfeasance of not securing as many
business and personal assets as possible. The agreement is all carrots, no stick.

Collectability aside, the amount is not close to reasonable for a variety of reasons, which I
have detailed more than once in various communications with the USA’s office, including both
Wertheim and Humphries. Foremost amongst the reasons is that there is supposed to be a
deterrent to fraud against to Government, not rewarding it. This agreement very much rewards
fraud, thus encouraging it. Defendants have profited more in saved interest costs than the
underlying >$700k. Defendants profit by thousands of dollars a week by being in default. That is
hardly a deterrent. The fact that Defendants have five repeated frauds, and sixth attempted,
shows the opposite of remorse, further illustrating this reality.

The USA misrepresents my points regarding the state action throughout their response. My
point is that this case did not come cheaply, and that the USA was indeed handed what was
described by Holland and Hart as a fully formed complaint, ready for summary judgment.

B. The claimed additional benefits of the consent judgment are disingenuous.

1. The agreement did not save resources.

Predictably, Deuter/Defendants never made even one payment. Additionally, they did not
even try to make the initial payment, which would have required the sale of the Hailey property
procured with EIDL funds. In fact, Deuter rejected offers made on the property.

Claims of saving the costs of protracted litigation do not pass a sniff test, especially since

I handed the USA Deuter’s sworn admissions and conclusive documentation in hand. I was also

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 13
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 14 of 21

more than willing to have my former attorneys handle the summary judgment motion. All were
submitted by Deuter in violation of the FCA after he closed Deuter Construction, and that he
declared it insolvent to dead beat numerous debts, further detailing the overtness of his
repetitive frauds:

(1) the Second PPP application;

(2) Forgiveness application for First PPP;

(3) Forgiveness application for Second PPP;

(4) Request to SBA in effort for relief from EIDL.
The time and effort the USA spent in negotiating with Deuter and trying to convince me to waive
my right to fees and cost easily surpass what the drafting of the summary judgment motion
would require. As noted above, the facts were not simply indisputable, Deuter was forced to
admit the frauds under oath already. There are are no possible genuine issues of material fact to
be offered. I hold that section HI, above, speaks for itself and do not wish to belabor the point.
The USA’s assertion in citing “the government would continue to incur enormous internal staff
costs” is not credible. Dkt. No. 57 at 10.

2. The admissions to the frauds were already in hand, not procured by USA.

The following precludes candor: “Defendants admit to wrongdoing in the Consent

Judgment, which has repercussions for Defendants, including public embarrassment (press
release).” Dkt. No. 57 at 11. Firstly, the state court judgment was already public knowledge.
Secondly, Deuter’s embarrassment does not make the tax payer whole. Thirdly, from the USA’s
handling of the matter, it would appear that the press release was their goal, not recovering funds

for the tax payer. The USA put more effort into the press release than securing Deuter assets,

verifying Defendants’ ability to make the quarterly payments, or verifying the value of the Hailey
property.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 14
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 15 of 21

3. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) does not require Defendants’ agreement

Being pro se does not make me incapable of reading. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) already
precludes discharging debts from fraud, and the binding precedent of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley,
598 U. S. 69 (2023). Proffering to the Court that “In sum, the Consent Judgment provides
important and advantageous bankruptcy nondischargeability provisions that may not have been
obtained through summary judgment” is contemptuous. Jd.

4. The USA offers smoke and mirrors regarding collections.

The USA offers obfuscations versus genuine argument in its section on collections. Dkt.
No. 57 at 12.

A possible advantage to a Consent Agreement is the ability to have the Defendant
surrender assets. Otherwise, the collection methods are the same as those available to other
judgments, be they through summary judgment or trial.

My explicit point was that the USA refused to freeze accounts, or secure assets other than
the Hailey property, by way of the Consent Agreement. Yet it gave Defendants every opportunity
to dispose of assets, and refused to seek clawback or disgorgement. It also ignores what Deuter
transferred to his ex-wife in the divorce, let alone the “generous offer” he referred to in those
proceedings, after the consent agreement was signed.

5. USA’s double talk on ability to pay.

It remains uncontroverted that: (1) Wertheim explicitly told me he would not seek to
secure Defendants assets because he wanted Deuter in business to pay back the government; (2) I
told Wertheim that the records I had showed no such ability to pay, that asset seizure was the
wise course, and (3) that Wertheim told me that his information showed the deal was viable,

including the line that he knew better because he had “run all accounts to ground.”

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 15
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 16 of 21

It is uncontroverted that Wertheim tried to force me into a deal that would leave me at
well under 5% of recovery if Wertheim’s plan to deprive me of seeking fees and costs was
included. He tried to low ball my contributions to the “finders fee” standard of 15%, which is for
those simply bringing FCA frauds to the Government’s attention, not those who bring sworn
admissions to the frauds, including all necessary documentation. If the USA believed recovery
was so limited, why did Wertheim put up such a fight, including telling me I was taking money
from the tax payer? Wertheim’s argument for attempting to shortchange me on the relator
percentage was that a higher percentage was for instances such as where relators had to wear
wires. That is cognitive dissonance at a minimum: a wire gets you evidence you hope will lead to
a confession or be otherwise conclusive. In this case, I handed the Government Defendants’
sworn admissions, and corresponding conclusive evidence.

V. FRAUD BY DEFENDANTS AND WERTHEIM IS REASON FOR RULE 60
APPLICABILITY, NOT UNWISE DECISION BASED ON SAID FRAUD

The USA conveniently neglects to mention it refused to share pertinent information with
me regarding the fiscal reality of Defendants. Additionally, Wertheim plainly lied to me about
what he knew, and/or did not perform the due diligence he assured me he had. Further still,
Wertheim’s stated concern about not leaving Deuter “destitute”, or or his refusal to freeze
accounts or seize business assets so Deuter could stay in business, preclude a good faith
argument here that I knew, or should have know, Deuter could not pay. Again, it was Wertheim
who told me he had information showing Deuter could pay, yet refused to tell me what that
information was. That puts the lie to the USA’s knowingly false assertion now that “Second,
Relator was fully informed of all material facts.” Again, let the USA play the tapes for the Court.

Dkt. No. 57 at 16.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 16
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 17 of 21

Wertheim then stating he was going to force the agreement upon me anyway, to my great
expense, can easily be described as fiscal coercion. This is the opposite of the FCA’s stated
intent to create incentives for individuals with knowledge of fraud against the Government to
disclose the information without fear of reprisals or Government inaction, and to encourage the
private bar to commit legal resources to prosecuting fraud on the Government’s behalf.

VI. CONCLUSION

Based on the facts above and the intent of the FCA, the Consent Judgment should be
conditionally voided, with the condition being that Relator procure counsel within 90 days to
then file a motion for summary judgment, and seeking the full 30% of any recovery.

If not for the misrepresentations and fraud by Wertheim, the USA would have had to
Justify this deal to the Court and explain how it was in the interest of the tax payer, and how it
furthers the FCA’s stated goal of creating incentives for individuals with knowledge of fraud
against the Government to disclose the information without fear of reprisals or Government
inaction, and to encourage the private bar to commit legal resources to prosecuting fraud on the

Government’s behalf.

///

///

///

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 17
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 18 of 21

If left to stand, the consent agreement works again each of those objectives, and
continues to reward the Defendants numerous frauds. Had AAG Wertheim’s words been true and
accurate regarding his access to facts showing Defendants’ ability to pay, the consent agreement
would be at well on the way to being fulfilled, and me able to have move on with my life. Had
Wertheim’s words regarding voiding the deal if Deuter had mislead him, summary judgment that
was not beneficial to Defendant’s would be in hand. Instead, Deuter continues his frauds, as

evidenced by at least three more cases against him in state court in recent months.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of December 2025,

By: /s/ Stuaxt A. Hallam

Stuart A. Hallam
Pro se.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of December, 2025, I submitted the forgoing via CM/
ECF system which sent a Notice of Electronic

Filing to the following person(s):

Michael Pogues

Gravis Law, PLLC (mpogue@ gravislaw.com)

Attorney for Deuter Construction, LLC and Enlighten, LLC

Justin D. Whatcott

Robert Firpo (robert .Firpo@usdo}j.gov)

William M. Humpries (bill. Humphries @usdoj.gov)

Assistant U.S. Attorney’s Office Attorneys for United State of America

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 60 MOTION (DKT. 51) 18
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 19 of 21

Stuart A. Hallam

PO Box 210996

Auke Bay, Ak 99821
Telephone: 907.209.8587
stuart@ltdalaska.net

In pro per as Relator
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
Stuart Hallam,

Case No. 1:23-cv-00348

Plaintiff. AFFIDAVIT OF STUART HALLAM

vs.

)

)

)

)

)

)
BRETT DEUTER, an individual; DEUTER )
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Idaho limited?
liability company; and ENLIGHTEN, LLC, )
an Idaho limited liability company dba )
Enlighten Construction Services and dba )
EnlightenHome,
)

)

Defendants.

I, Stuart Aaron Hallam, being first duly sworn, on oath, state:
1. [am Relator in this matter.
2. All factual assurances asserted in the attached reply memorandum are based on my
own personal knowledge.
3. What was communicated to me by Elliot Wertheim, through my counsel Christopher
McCurdy, was “Elliott said if Deuter misrepresented anything in their negotiations the deal is
Case 1:23-cv-00348-REP Document60_ Filed 12/29/25 Page 20 of 21

4. Also communicated by McCurdy, “I won’t try to justify Elliot’s actions, but based on
what he told us, the government was going to push through the settlement with the court, even
if it wasn’t the best deal.”

5. Wertheim specifically told me his refusal to seize or otherwise secure business assets
was because he wanted Deuter to be in business to pay back the government.

6. When I told Wertheim that all records I saw showed Deuter had no hope of paying his
existing debts, let alone making the quarterly payments, Wertheim responded that it was
feasible based on what he had obtained.

7. I specifically asked Wertheim if he had procured records for a number accounts Deuter
never produced in the state court action, in spite of numerous orders to due so.

8. Wertheim refused to confirm receipt of the documents from those accounts.

9. When I pressed Wertheim on those documents, pointing out that all other accounts
showed Deuter had no ability to make quarterly payments, thus asking what made him so sure
Deuter could pay, he responded that he had everything and “ran all accounts to ground.

10. Wertheim refused to state what records he was provided to conclude the quarterly
payments were feasible.

11. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), I did not ask for copies of the records he
referred to, just what accounts they were.

12. Following this Court’s Order for Fee and Costs, Deuter’s counsel asked to set up a
payment schedule.

13. Based upon the fact that Deuter had already failed to make any of the payments to

the government that already well overdue, I refused.


File and source

File

60.pdf

Size

956,390 bytes

SHA-256

42e862d1b2e57ea5cc61521770ed04117eb8654ad122ae01d6a2e1d65f4d65a9

Our copy

60.pdf

Original

archive.org