Judge Torches Matt Grant’s RICO Lawsuit: Case on Life Support Before Sept. 15 Deadline

Matt Grant’s so-called “landmark” federal RICO lawsuit is unraveling under the sharp eye of U.S. District Judge Joshua Divine. Grant, a 49-year-old St. Louis lawyer, filed a 170-page complaint accusing judges, lawyers, and even his ex-wife of running the “largest courthouse corruption scheme in Missouri history.”

But on September 3, Judge Divine issued a blistering show-cause order. He called the filing “scattershot,” “plainly deficient,” and possibly “vindictive.” The judge warned that unless Grant radically amends the complaint by September 15—or explains why it shouldn’t be dismissed—he faces dismissal and sanctions.

Grant’s sprawling allegations include shadow networks of Republican politics conspiring to strip him of custody. His demands include removing state judges from the bench, a remedy the judge declared absurd. Divine slammed the suit for violating Rule 8’s requirement of a “short and plain statement” and for suing Missouri directly despite sovereign immunity.

On The Unknown Podcast, co-hosts Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe skewered the complaint. Volpe said Divine “took a flamethrower” to the case, while Luthmann compared it to a “Beautiful Mind” conspiracy board. The hosts questioned whether Grant has lost touch with reality, especially after he ignored media questions and a detailed fact-checking email disputing his claims.

That email, sent by [email protected]
, a source connected to his ex-wife, alleged Grant has a history of delusions, filed over 160 custody motions in nine months, and once passed out while his children filmed a TikTok playing with his guns. It also accused him of fleeing to Mexico after claiming a judge was trying to assassinate him.

Grant has not replied to requests for comment, including direct outreach to his email, [email protected]
. Luthmann says he’s giving Grant until September 15 to let his pleadings do the talking. But credibility, he warns, may already be lost.

This high-profile case, once touted as groundbreaking, may end as a cautionary tale of overreach, legal recklessness, and personal vendetta masquerading as a federal corruption crusade.