Under the laws of California, adult adoption is a legal procedure in which an older adult adopts a younger adult. Once an adult adoption is complete, the parties assume toward each other a legal parent-child relationship, with all associated rights and responsibilities of such a relationship, including inheritance rights. An adult adoption severs all existing parent-child relationships.
The petitioner, Joe Mathews, is an adult, 39 years of age and residing in Los Angeles County.
Petitioner loves his natural parents. They provided him a loving home and no small amount of wisdom. They paid for his college education at an elite and expensive university, and to this day pick up petitioner’s older child from preschool. Unfortunately, petitioner must declares here that this is not nearly enough.
Petitioner declares that his parents have failed to provide him with the basics for full participation as a citizen and voter in California. As a result, petitioner has been disenfranchised.
Petitioner stipulates that under California’s governing system, only those with the millions necessary to qualify a ballot initiative, prosecute a campaign for that initiative, and afford Ace Smith’s fees can be fully enfranchised.
Petitioner has studied the small population of Californians who are so enfranchised, and found that the most fully enfranchised citizens of the state are in fact siblings.
As a result of this study, the petitioner asks this court to declare him, immediately and unconditionally, an adult child of Charles Munger Sr., 88 years of age, born in Omaha, Nebraska.
Under this adult adoption, petitioner will have full rights to qualify and pursue ballot initiatives, even those that have no chance of passage, and also to burn money in the street if he so chooses.
Petitioner recognizes that adult adoption usually takes place with the consent of the older adult doing the adoption, and petitioner admits that Mr. Munger Sr. has not responded to his pleas for adoption — made by petitioner in public speeches and in plaintive wails while watching Prop 30 and 38 commercials on his TV.
But the petitioner declares that the matter of his disenfranchisement represents an emergency situation. He asks that the court immediately grant his adult adoption request, along with any similar adult adoption requests made by any of California’s 18 million voters who are also disenfranchised by their failure to be children of Mr. Munger Sr.
While the petitioner awaits the court’s answer, he would be willing to entertain a settlement that includes Mr. Munger Sr. funding a constitutional convention.
Filed in all seriousness, this 31st day of October, 2012.