LUTHMANN NOTE: Matt Grant showed up. That matters. Volpe and I were critical of his RICO case because family court reform cannot survive sloppy lawsuits that hand ammunition to the machine. But Grant came prepared. He made a real argument that Judge Divine used Rule 8 to avoid the substance and failed to credit the Second Amended Complaint. I still want tighter pleading, cleaner pattern proof, and less noise. But Grant is right about one thing: St. Louis family court deserves sunlight. If he can sharpen the case and follow the money, the Eighth Circuit fight could become very interesting. This piece is “Matt Grant Fires Back.”
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
Matt Grant came onto The Unknown Podcast to answer the hard questions.
Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann had criticized Grant’s federal RICO lawsuit after U.S. District Judge Joshua Divine dismissed it. The ruling was brutal. The court viewed Grant’s case as a custody dispute dressed up as a federal racketeering action. Grant wanted to respond directly.
And he did.
Grant is not just a litigant. He is a longtime St. Louis lawyer, a father, a self-described family court victim, and now a Republican candidate for Congress in Missouri’s Second Congressional District. His federal case accused figures inside St. Louis County Family Court of operating or participating in a corrupt enterprise involving judges, lawyers, guardians ad litem, and others.
The lawsuit alleged that the system prolongs custody litigation, drives up attorney fees, GAL fees, evaluator fees, and therapist fees, and weaponizes children and parents for profit.
Volpe opened the interview by admitting he and Luthmann were critical of the lawsuit. Volpe said St. Louis County Family Court has serious problems and that he believes it operates like a criminal enterprise, but he pressed Grant on whether he could actually prove that in federal court.
Grant answered that Judge Divine dismissed the case by treating his claims as implausible instead of accepting the pleaded facts as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Grant said the court switched into Rule 8 analysis, criticized the complaint’s structure, and avoided the deeper question: whether the alleged facts stated a plausible RICO and civil rights claim.
Luthmann pushed the civil procedure issue harder, asking whether the court punished Grant for pleading too much detail in a case where RICO and fraud allegations require particularity. Grant said that is exactly the problem. He argued Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement must be read alongside Rule 9(b)’s demand for particularity in fraud-based claims.
Grant said his later proposed Second Amended Complaint was built after motion-to-dismiss arguments and was designed to answer the defendants’ criticisms. He called it “an impenetrable complaint” and said it should have been the real focus of the court’s analysis.
The episode turns on one central dispute: was Grant’s case “sour grapes,” or was it a flawed but serious attempt to expose a broader family court machine?
Grant rejected the “sour grapes” label. He said he reported Judge Bruce Hilton and others to state and federal authorities before receiving key adverse rulings. He argued that he was not asking the federal court to change his custody order, but to grant prospective injunctive relief and address alleged ongoing constitutional violations.
Grant said his case was not a state-court loser’s do-over, but a civil rights and RICO action aimed at stopping retaliation and exposing a broader enterprise.
The conversation also revisits the now-infamous “buying future litigation” email from an earlier St. Louis custody case. Volpe and Luthmann both questioned Judge Divine’s treatment of that phrase. Volpe argued the judge appeared to interpret the email’s meaning rather than give Grant the benefit of the inference at the pleading stage.
Grant said the email is part of a larger pattern and ties into his allegations that the St. Louis system profits from prolonged litigation.
Grant also described what he wants if the Eighth Circuit revives the case: tax returns, bank records, phone records, emails, GAL communications, and discovery into alleged ex parte communications and financial flows. He said he wants to “follow the money.”
The second half of the episode shifts from law to politics. Grant explains why he is running for Congress and discusses his proposed CHILD Protection Act of 2027. The bill would use federal funding leverage to force state family court transparency and oversight. It would create family court compliance structures, public complaint systems, oversight mechanisms, and consequences for states that fail to protect parents’ and children’s constitutional rights.
Volpe challenged Grant from a federalist angle, arguing family court is traditionally a state issue. Grant responded that he agrees with limited government in principle, but when federal money funds systems that violate civil rights, Congress can attach strings to that money. Luthmann compared family court failures to major public disasters that require federal investigation and oversight.
Grant framed his campaign as bigger than family court. He said he supports smaller government, lower taxes, federal hiring freezes, early retirement packages, term limits, and a broader Republican reform agenda. He said he is not a career politician and wants to go to Washington, get something done, and return to private life.
This episode is a collision of courtroom warfare, family court reform, federalism, RICO law, judicial immunity, and Republican politics. Volpe presses the proof. Luthmann presses the legal theory. Grant says he has the receipts—and he is taking the fight to the Eighth Circuit and the campaign trail.
Primary day is August 4. Grant says both Republicans and Democrats in Missouri’s open primary can request a Republican ballot and vote for him. His campaign website is MattGrantForCongress.org.
