IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

PAUL GRATTON

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-cr-00043
JUDGE CAMPBELL

GOVERNMENTS COLLECTIVE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

PAUL GRATTONS OCTOBER 7, 2016 PLEADINGS
The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for
the Middle District of Tennessee, respectfully files this collective response to documents filed by
defendant Paul Gratton on October 7, 2016. In support of this response, the government sets forth
as follows:
1.

On March 9, 2016, a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee indicted

the defendant on federal firearms and obstruction of justice charges. Those charges stem from a
trip the defendant took to the United Kingdom in June 2015, during which he is alleged to have
purchased silencers in the United Kingdom and smuggled them back to the United States in his
checked baggage and via DHL, and after which he is alleged to have ordered the destruction of
emails related to his acquisition of those silencers.
2.

On October 7, 2016, the parties appeared before this Court for a status conference.

Just prior to that status conference, the defendant, who is represented by counsel, filed the
following documents with the Court:

A document entitled Notice: (Search) Warrant (ECF Doc. 57), in which the defendant
requests indemnification information related to a federal search warrant that was
executed in connection with his case, because the defendant wishes to make a claim
for injury and (financial) loss to his property during the execution of that warrant;

Case 3:16-cr-00043 Document 66 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 265

A document entitled Notice Breach of Trust (ECF Doc. 58), in which the defendant
instructs the Court to explain how the defendants possession of property was and/or
is a causal source of harm, injury, or loss to others or to the United States;

A document entitled Notice: Rule 26.1 (Common lore [Law]) (ECF Doc. 59), in
which the defendant provides notice to the Court that, during the defendants last trip
to England, he created a video in which he asked the English distributor to explain
the English lore [Law] of the land from whence [he] hail[ed];

A document entitled Emergency Immediate Motion: Damages (ECF Doc. 60), in

which the defendant instructs the Court to provide him with a list of persons who shall
appear at trial to lie their claim of damages due to [the defendants] [in]actions; and

A document entitled Emergency Immediate Motion: Parties (ECF Doc. 61), in which
the defendant appears to contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant,
and instructs the Court to answer the question, What is the nature of the Parties that
appear before this Court?
3.

With respect to Doc. 57, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate any civil claim

the defendant may seek to raise in connection with the execution of the federal search warrant at
his residence in this case. This Court should therefore deny the pleading for lack of jurisdiction.
4.

With respect to Doc. 58, and even when construed liberally, see Martin v. Overton,

391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004), the defendants pleading, to borrow a phrase from civil
procedure, fails to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court should deny the
pleading on that basis.
5.

With respect to Doc. 59, and even when construed liberally, the defendants

pleading fails to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court should deny the
pleading on that basis.
6.

With respect to Doc. 60, the defendant appears to be requesting a list of the

witnesses that the government intends to call at trial in this case. It is settled law, however, that
the names . . . of government witnesses are not discoverable under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 910 (6th Cir. 1970); see also United States v. Annoreno,

-2-

Case 3:16-cr-00043 Document 66 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 266

460 F.2d 1303, 1310 (7th Cir. 1972) (While we cannot deny that the production of [a list of
prospective government witnesses] might have facilitated the preparation of the defense, we do
not believe that this information was so essential to that defense as to warrant the circumvention
of the well-established rule that the government is not required to disclose the identity of its
witnesses.); Rosenzweig v. United States, 412 F.2d 844, 844-45 (9th Cir. 1969) (The
Government is not required to disclose the names of its witnesses.); United States v. Chase, 372
F.2d 453, 466 (4th Cir. 1967) (Only in a capital case is the government required to furnish a
pretrial list of government witnesses.). The Court should deny the pleading on that basis.
7.

With respect to Doc. 61, the government construes that pleading as a motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over this case, however, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 3231 and 3232. The Court should deny the pleading on that basis.
8.

Finally, the government notes that, at the October 7, 2016 status conference, the

Court found that the defendants pleadings and conduct raised questions about the defendants
competency, and ordered the defendants attorney to obtain an evaluation of the defendant in order
to determine whether the defendant was competent to proceed in this case. The government
respectfully suggests that, generally speaking, the defendants pro se pleadings lack coherence and,
as noted, fail to set forth claims upon which relief can be granted.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons above, the Court should DENY the defendants pleadings.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID RIVERA
United States Attorney

By:

/s/ Ben Schrader

BEN SCHRADER
Assistant United States Attorney
110 9th Avenue South, Suite A-961

-3-

Case 3:16-cr-00043 Document 66 Filed 10/21/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 267

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

(615) 401-6615

Dated:

October 21, 2016

-4-

Case 3:16-cr-00043 Document 66 Filed 10/21/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 268

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

PAUL GRATTON

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-cr-00043
JUDGE CAMPBELL

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the governments Collective Response to Defendant Paul
Grattons October 7, 2016 Pleadings, the Court DENIES defendants pleadings.

____________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-

Case 3:16-cr-00043 Document 66 Filed 10/21/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 269

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 21, 2016, I electronically served one copy of the United
States Collective Response to Defendant Paul Grattons October 7, 2016 Pleadings with the Clerk
of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a Notice of Electronic Filing to counsel
for the defendant. I also mailed a copy of this Response to Mr. Gratton at the following address:
Paul Gratton
5297 Asbury Road
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37129
s/Ben Schrader
BEN SCHRADER
Assistant U.S. Attorney
110th Avenue South, A96l
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Phone: (615) 736-5151

-6-

Case 3:16-cr-00043 Document 66 Filed 10/21/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 270