Federal Judge Divine blasts 170-page ‘shadow network’ complaint – warns: amend it, drop it, or face sanctions.
By Richard Luthmann
Outraged Dad Launches Epic ‘Courthouse Corruption’ Suit
Matt Grant, a St. Louis attorney and father, vowed to expose what he calls the biggest judicial scandal in Missouri history. In August, he filed a sweeping federal lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, aiming to take on the very family court system he blames for taking his children away.
Grant claims he has uncovered the “largest criminal courthouse corruption scheme in the history of the State of Missouri.” His 170-page complaint names 16 defendants – from his family-court judge to the State of Missouri – plus 100 unnamed “co-conspirators.”
It opens with 47 pages of narrative asserting that “shadow networks of Republican politics and power” secretly pull the strings in St. Louis County’s courts. A 21-year veteran of a top national law firm, Grant styles himself as a crusader for other parents wronged by this “corrupt” system.
The complaint’s tone is indignant and unapologetic. Grant admits his allegations “seem unbelievable” – so much so that many would assume he’s paranoid or delusional – but he insists the opposite is true.
He portrays the defendants as an organized “criminal enterprise” and himself as the sane whistleblower exposing it. The suit accuses a ring of judges, lawyers, and guardians ad litem of perverting custody cases into a pay-to-play racket. When these actors align, they form a “toxic combination” that withholds children to extort “money and power” from parents.
Grant says his once-amicable custody battle morphed into a nightmare of retaliation fueled by this scheme, and he’s now “focused on this lawsuit” full-time to fight back. As he bluntly told one interviewer, “it’s systemic… it’s been going on for years, which is why RICO applies”.
Matt Grant’s RICO Falters: Judge Slams Complaint and Threatens Sanctions
Grant’s crusade met a hard reality check in federal court. On September 3, U.S. District Judge and Trump appointee Joshua M. Divine issued a blistering show-cause order picking apart the lawsuit and questioning its very purpose.
Despite Grant’s legal pedigree, the judge found the complaint “plainly deficient many times over,” and suspected it was filed “for an unlawful purpose.” Divine noted that federal courts aren’t an avenue for disgruntled custody litigants.
As the judge dryly observed, they won’t entertain cases brought by “state-court losers” unhappy with state judgments. Moreover, judges have absolute immunity from suit for their rulings – “allegations of malice or corruption do not defeat judicial immunity,” Divine wrote pointedly.
The court also doubted Grant’s motives. Divine wrote that it was “not readily apparent” how responding to a custody loss with a 170-page, 100-defendant complaint (roping in everyone from Grant’s ex-wife to the State of Missouri) could serve any “proper” purpose. The nature of this filing – “from a seasoned attorney” – gave “serious concern” that Grant launched it to harass others out of vindictiveness.
Judge Divine put Grant on notice: by September 15, he must either drastically narrow and amend the complaint, voluntarily dismiss the case, or show cause in writing why it shouldn’t be thrown out and why he shouldn’t be punished. Any response must strictly obey court rules, the judge warned.
“Failure to do so may lead to sanctions or dismissal.”
Divine made clear Grant gets no leniency just because he’s representing himself – as a lawyer, he’s expected to know better, and his experience only “aggravates ” the complaint’s flaws.
In short, the federal judge has given the outraged father an ultimatum: put up a legally valid case, or face the consequences.
Matt Grant’s RICO Falters: Conspiracy or Accountability and a System Shielding Itself?
Tellingly, many of Judge Divine’s criticisms echo issues raised when Grant discussed his case publicly. In their August interview on The Unknown Podcast, co-hosts Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe forced Grant to confront the weak spots in his case.
Luthmann cut straight to the heart.
“Doesn’t this look like sour grapes by someone who lost in family court? Why isn’t this just a malpractice case against your lawyer instead of a federal RICO?” he asked.
Grant dodged, refusing to detail why the federal court was the right forum. Judge Divine made the same point, citing doctrines like Rooker-Feldman and Younger Abstention that bar collateral attacks on state custody rulings.
Volpe pressed on judicial immunity.
“Even if they took bribes, the orders are still immune. How do you get around that? Aren’t your allegations just about orders you don’t like?” Volpe queried.
Grant gave a long-winded answer about “exceptions” and injunctive relief, but he never explained how a federal court could override state custody orders. Divine’s ruling likewise emphasized that judicial immunity is nearly absolute. Volpe also highlighted Grant’s remedies.
“You want judges removed. Isn’t that asking a federal court to make state policy? Isn’t that a slippery slope?” the journalist asked.
Grant compared himself to civil rights crusaders, but Judge Divine noted his relief demands were extraordinary and beyond the court’s authority. At another point, Luthmann challenged the breadth of the case.
“Doesn’t this look like a red yarn conspiracy wall? How does this survive a motion to dismiss when it’s so sprawling?” he asked.
Grant admitted he worried about appearing like a conspiracy theorist, but then doubled down on claims of a systemic RICO conspiracy. Divine called the same complaint “scattershot” and far from the “short and plain statement” required by Rule 8.
Finally, Luthmann asked Grant for a simple media bite: “Give me the 30-second soundbite. What’s the big deal here, and why will you succeed?”
Grant leaned on broad claims of a “criminal enterprise” without pointing to concrete, irrefutable acts. Divine’s ruling showed the same frustration: plenty of anger, but not enough clear, legally cognizable claims.
These exchanges reveal the core dilemma. Grant insists the system is rigged. The judge insists the federal courthouse is not the place to prove it. Has the judiciary walled itself off from accountability?
What happens when no court will touch systemic family court abuse? Is the maxim “where there is a right, there is a remedy” now dead in America? Some suspect the courts have insulated themselves so completely that insiders are untouchable – the swamp protecting its own.
Others argue that Judge Divine is simply a cautious jurist overwhelmed by a sprawling, unfocused case. As Solicitor General, Judge Divine was widely portrayed as a high-profile conservative litigator with exceptional legal skill, singular focus, and a knack for leading major, impactful lawsuits. Is this Trump appointee part of The Swamp, or just doing his job?
For now, family court watchers are in a holding pattern until September 15. Will Matt Grant amend and focus or double down and defend his sprawling pleadings?
