Keeping abreast of the deception of the "Law Industry" and the courts receiving Pension and Bounty (i.e., hush money)* in maintaining that the United States is a nation internally under the 14th Amendment, the following is observed...

It has been said that there is no such thing as Federal Common Law. Let us take a brief look at this subject...

To start, take a quick look at what the common thought is on the subject of Federal Common Law:

In 1938, the Supreme Court decided Erie Railroad v. Tompkins.  Erie overruled Swift v. Tyson, holding instead that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive laws as the courts of the states in which they were located.  As the Erie Court put it, there is no "federal general common law", the key word being "general."   source...
[ NOTE: Diverstity jurisdiction has to do with two different states' laws/rulings ]

As the common law maxim states, "A deceiver deals in generals." Simply, 'nough said about the courts.*

Further, Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3rd edition), citing American Jurisprudence (15 Am J2d Com. L. Sec. 4), stated:

Federal Common Law. A concept intriguing to legal theorists. Strictly speaking, a nonentity.

Of course that was from the late nineteen sixties period. That authority has seemingly been covered-up as of late.

Being there are many facets of "Common Law", the facet in issue here is having a settled decision on a certain matter that may be applied to everyone in all cases that surround such matter. In example, stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. All well and good in most cases, but the common law principle in regard to precedent is a factor that applies to men and women, not legal entities (as corporations are considered). There must be a separation. As the 14th Amendment treats people as legal entities, some instances may warrant a different status on a man thus causing stare decisis to be disregarded.

Wherefore one could say :

Applying federal "case law" on someone who may have a whole certain set of facts that encompass his matter is like making him wear someone else's underwear... Probably won't fit and may even be dirty.

Saying it another way, case law is case law because someone had probably made a mistake. The mistakes from other cases may not apply to someone else's matter. It violates due process of law to apply such case law to another.

Further your study...

The "law industry" thinks the United States is a nation (internally), thus thinking that the federal government is a national government. Ergo, their thinking is skewed. Keeping that in mind, more here : A Theory of Federal Common Law

---

* Notes

See, The Red Amendment for information on the hush money issue. In general, the courts receive funds to NOT tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in their decisions. Coining the popular phrase/idiom of the American Indians, "White man speak with forked tongue." In other words, the courts are talking out both sides of their mouths in order to cover-up the Dual System of Law caused by the 14th Amendment.