AmJur on Personal Guardianships is Wrong By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Coif Copyright (2012 C.E.) by Anthony J.

Fejfar and Neothomism PC (PA) AmJur (the American Jurisprudence Legal Encyclopedia) section dealing with personal guardianships is dead wrong on the topic. First, the AmJur section of

personal guardianships has no citations to case law or statute at all. Also, it is not well reasoned. A Personal Guardianship, to the extent it is valid at all, should just be a guardian who is a sort of guide, having no legal powers in relation to the ward at all. You see, Magna Charta, Grotius, the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 all state that a personal guardianship is illegal, immoral, unethical, unreasonable, a violation of Constitutional Law, and is a violation of natural law. A personal guardianship is a

badge of slavery and as AmJur puts it, it totally antithetical to the common law principles of Fiduciary Duty which are found in Partnership Law, Trust Law, Corporate Law, and Financial Guardianship Law. AmJur absurdly states that a personal guardian

can order the ward about like a slave and even can to irrational and unreasonable things like giving the wards money away to strangers or even enemies of the ward. The AmJur section on personal guardians also violates the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Moreover, there are no objective tests stated as to when a person

guardianship might be appointed and what a just court procedure would be to do so. Thus, a guardian is a state actor for purposes of Section 1983 Tort Liability (Cf, Lugar

vs. Edmundson Oil (1982) United States Supreme Court). If any type of guardianship is valid, and I doubt it is, the guardian has a fiduciary duty to act reasonably in the best interests of the ward.