It might. But the woman would have to file a claim that Ross deprived her of her property, her son. She would need evidence that would undeniably connect Ross's sales to her son. She would need to make her claim from the stand under oath. If she did it the right way, even if her claim wasn't substantiated by her testimony, the testimony of a witness, and other evidence, the jury might believe her, and condemn Ross anyway.
If she brings her case as a complaint, or if she brings it through an attorney or the government rather than attacking Ross directly, an informed Ross will win.
I have read up on common law and the "Karl Lentz" way but I still don't really understand how it works in real life.
I know very little about the law. But can Ross really use the common law since this is a federal case?
From what I know about the US justice system is that a federal court can set a much harsher penalty and overrule a state court... etc
Ross can use it. Here's basically why.
The government is paperwork. Paperwork doesn't do anything by itself. It is the people who exercise the writings of government that make things happen. So, it is people doing things to other people in court trials. If they can do it to you, you can do it to them when they are wrong.
Standard American law is, when you stand up as a man with your own claim in court, not represented by either yourself or an attorney, but rather present. There are certain things that must be done. The plaintiff (you) needs to appear and take the stand when necessary, it's your court (you make the rules of court; the judge is simply an administrator, the judge can't make rulings), witness and evidence must exist and be verified on the stand.
If you file your claim inside their case, they are the ones who must provide all that stuff, depending on how you state your claim.
There must be a man/woman complainant who gets on the stand and shows the harm or damage you did to him/her. There must be an eye (ear) witness. There must be evidence that could not have been faked. And they have to bring all this against you. Attorneys can't testify except that they are not testifying in their attorney capacity.
In Ross's case, the plaintiff can't get on the stand and testify, because it is not a man or woman. If it did get on the stand and testify, where is the harm or damage done to it? If there was harm or damage, where is the witness? If there was a witness, where is the non-tampered with evidence that clarifies how the harm or damage connects to Ross? We know that the government agents messed with the evidence all over the place, and at least could not verify on the stand that the evidence was always guarded 24/7 so that it could not be tampered with.
No brainer. Ross wins. Karl probably would help him. I don't think that Ross even asked.
I also need to say that they really rised a nice amount of money for him , seems like people are really helping them 
