however, having looked back on the site from time to time, i noticed, i never did get a response to the post, not one, not even, what a silly question to ask.

so in spite of the naivety and that of the question, i am going to leave it in its original format and i ask that the fmotl community will offer some light on my these concerns.
ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS..................................................................................................
I have a few thoughts that I want to get clear and would appreciate some feedback from the community.
I have been trawling through lots of posts, mainly to get a feel on how other people have come to understand the freeman principles; I have quickly got the concept of freeman status and through the aid of forum posts on this site and others have found assistance pointers and directions and some useful audio\video material.
as I understand it, common law seems to be the bedrock in which freeman status is rooted augmented by the magna carta, bill of rights etc.
I have appeared to have reached a point where I want to do my first notice of intent & claim of right, this I have come to understand is an instrument, one of many that facilitates the freeman on the land.
I won’t claim to fully comprehend them all, however it’s time to have a go; for the format of the notice I have decided to use this one found on the youtube site:
‘Deconstructing the Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right used in the UK/Great Britain’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ft_Qbx84rw
after which I will tweek and then attempt to get it notarised ( I am aware this bit seems to be hard as notaries don’t seem to want to notarise)
In the short time I have been doing this I have come to 2 points of understanding:
1: it’s a heck of lot to assimilate\comprehend and although I have a lot of information & read a lot, it only starts to make sense to me when it gets experiential.
2: I don’t fully comprehend the aspect of sending an affidavit to the queen within the remit of lawful rebellion, I have read that:
(Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern) however a dictionary definition of sovereign reads as:
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sovereign)
whilst blacks law dictionary 2nd edition reads:
a chief ruler with supreme power.
I really could do with some feedback on this point, as I am of the understanding that each individual is sovereign; I have been struggling to reconcile this aspect for a while, beneficial feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks
“namaste”
update: i feel so confused at the moment, but i'm going to carry on until i get this figured.
ORIGINAL POST ENDS.......................................................................................................
i am now in the process of comprehending (erm, no) finding an acceptable answer, however your thoughts, comments and knowledge would, as always, be appreciated.
peace & love
"namaste"