Understanding Admiralty Law and how we are tricked into a System that Enslaves Us.

Overview

The interview centers on Dr. Tom Wetland’s claims that modern U.S. (and other countries’) legal and administrative systems operate on “trust law” and “implied consent.” He argues that people are trapped through documentation processes—especially birth certificates and related registrations—into accepting government and financial obligations they are supposedly not truly liable for.

1) Vatican, baptism, and “citizenship of Vatican City”

• Wetland argues that baptism functions like a legal or administrative “claim” on a person, analogous to a citizenship tie to the Vatican.
• He frames legal presumptions (“color of law”) as assumptions treated as fact unless rebutted.
• Core mechanism: if a person does not deny or rebut the presumption, consent is treated as implied, turning the relationship into a trust/contract-like structure.

2) Birth certificates as the origin of a “straw man” and state control of identity

• Wetland claims birth registration evolved over the last ~130 years and that the Vatican and a U.S. corporate entity (“U.S.A., Inc.”) are behind the creation of birth-record systems.
• His core thesis: the birth certificate does not represent “the living person,” but instead creates or records a separate legal entity (the “all-caps” name).
• He argues the separation occurs at birth, using concepts like “born alive but presumed to die” to justify why an abandoned-property-like status allegedly triggers the state’s claim on an entity associated with the name.
• The “straw man” entity is described as a trustee-like vehicle for government commerce (IDs, banking access, etc.), while the state maintains authority over the name/entity rather than the natural person.

3) Social Security registration and implied tax liability

• Wetland claims that after 1981 babies/children were effectively enrolled into Social Security, and therefore into another trust-like registration.
• He argues that by participating/benefiting (even passively), people become “beneficiaries” with duties—especially lifetime income tax liability—without being clearly informed.
• He asserts that a parent can counter the state’s claim using legal paperwork (e.g., UCC-related forms) to assert a “superior claim” over the child’s name.

4) How to “fix” the system: jurisdiction switching and private trusts

He argues people can respond by:

• rebutting presumptions that they are the trustee/liable party,
• asserting they control their “name” as property,
• moving their identity/legal record out of the government’s jurisdiction through formal declarations and treaty/non-Hague authentication steps,
• using forms to recharacterize themselves as beneficiaries rather than liable persons.

He repeatedly describes documents (birth certificates, receipts) as “proof” of beneficiary status and as tools to indicate which jurisdiction applies.

5) Court process and “trust” interpretations of legal roles

• Wetland claims courtroom questioning of a person’s name is designed to make the person affirm the role of trustee/liable party; saying “yes” (or not rebutting quickly) is treated as accepting liability.
• He says the system provides multiple chances to rebut; if you do not, he argues you effectively volunteer to be bound.
• He argues “fraud upon the court” would occur if the government introduced certain evidence that contradicts the assumed roles—offered as a reason some evidence (e.g., tickets) might appear differently than he expects.

6) Traffic tickets, taxes, and employment withholding as “voluntary” commerce

Traffic tickets / speeding / cameras

• He claims the system relies on presumed contracts and volunteer acceptance.
• He suggests defenses involving:
  • corporate status,
  • lack of a contract,
  • hearsay/cross-examination issues.

Taxes

• Wetland claims the “taxable person” is the all-caps straw-man/entity, not the natural person.
• He claims deductions/benefits (standard or itemized) constitute accepting terms that make liability attach.
• He claims employment tax withholding can be stopped via written consent (W-4), including an “exempt from withholding” option, though he says proof must be provided to the IRS.

7) Federal Reserve and “reset” cycles as repeated debt restructuring

Wetland argues the U.S. is trapped in recurring bankruptcy/credit cycles:

• He describes earlier debt and constitutional/financial arrangements as mortgage-like structures.
• He claims the Federal Reserve system acts as a private intermediary that profits through charging interest and maintaining collateralized control.
• He claims major “resets” are preceded by national emergencies and crises that enable new legislation.
• He links later modern developments (e.g., post-1999/9-11) to restructuring and expanded emergency powers.
• He also argues wars and disasters distract the public while wealth and control are consolidated.

8) “Martial law” via national emergencies and executive power

• Wetland claims that since March 1933 the U.S. has operated under declared national emergencies empowering the executive branch to act beyond normal constitutional processes.
• He frames modern policies (including travel restrictions and other emergency authorities) as mechanisms of “soft martial law.”

9) International scope: admiralty/administrative law framing

• He concludes the approach can apply broadly across countries because systems are built using corporate administrative/legal frameworks.
• The remedy he promotes repeatedly: refuse the wrong jurisdiction/role, rebut presumptions, and assert beneficiary/mastery over the relevant trust/identity construct.

Presenters / Contributors

• Dr. Tom Wetland (interviewee)
• Unbroken Podcast host (interviewer; name not provided in the subtitles)