Thomas James thinks that Elon Musk is trying to get Boeing and Lockmart to pay the development costs for the Falcon series.

I don't think that Thomas James is making that assertion at all. I think that he's bringing up the fact that it's a rather happy coincidence that an anti-collusion lawsuit against LockMart might gross them the same amount as over-run development costs, but nowhere in the article do I see where James thinks that Elon is doing this just to get BoLockMart to pay for his development costs.

I'm also not too sure about this assertion that he DOES make: "So, SpaceX could turn a profit on the Falcon IX without ever having built it. Not bad. Not bad at all."

I don't think that could possibly be the case. To be able to win a lawsuit where you're alleging that you would have been able to compete, but for the collusionary actions of the competition, you need to be able to prove that you would have been able to provide said services. If you claim that the Falcon IX would have been able to provide the service you're suing over, but never build a Falcon IX... need I say more?

Another factor is the "meter speed" for Elon's lawyers compared with BoLockMart's lawyers. If the Plaintiff lawyers are working at a lower hourly rate with fewer lawyers billing on the file than is the case with BoLockMart, BLM might very well save money by giving Elon some Falcon development costs to settle the case.

"Selling" BLM an X% non-voting interest in SpaceX might help camoflage the appearance of extortion and support the customary denial of liability that accompanies most legal settlements.

It's a tactic that's worked well in the Tech industry - certainly there are plenty of examples of Microsoft paying off law suits which have funded potential competitors. Sendo, the now defunct UK cell phone company springs to mind.

Whether or not it is settled depends on the ultimate stakes. If they are as high as some here have occasionally indicated and BLM have a virtual monopoly to defend, it could go a long way.

Do BLM use outside lawyers or staff?

Unless "clever" is a euphamism for morally corrupt, I can't agree with his opinion.

I suspect this is the first flash of flame -
to be soon followed by a large and firey
explosion as SpaceX self destructs.

Nah, this is the Level Playing Field argument. This is the same legal argument and idea that SpaceX used in its' successful complaint to the GAO http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/07/05/story1.html after NASA awarded Kistler Aerospace Corp. (then, and IIRC still, in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy) a $227 MILLION contract without opening to biding.
And, at this point, over a year later NASA has yet to open up the contract for bids.