That was a pretty brilliant analysis of the Court’s words, Technical Editor. Well Done.
I personally found the following to be the most important phrases in the Court’s decision:
“Thus, Mr. Craig’s claim is sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous that the district court’s dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) was not in error.
See Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 965; see, e.g., Kroll v. Finnerty, 242 F.3d 1359, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that plaintiff’s sole basis for alleging federal jurisdiction was so unfounded and devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).”
Thanks for the kind words, jamese777. I was trying to express to Red Steel and others exactly what my thought processes were and why I reached the conclusions I reached. But I must disagree with you — it was hardly “brilliant.” I almost went to law school (many years ago, of course), but I decided against it.
I also appreciate your highlighting of that statement in the decision. I hadn’t actually been acquainted with Craig’s claims, so it didn’t immediately strike me in the same way as it did you.
I am definitely relieved, though, to hear that I am not totally alone here in my interpretations!!