Author’s analysis / Author’s analysis

Genetic and Historical Origin of Milivoj Miletić: Evidence of Illegal Adoption and Forced Assimilation

The author’s six-page analysis argues that his Croatian-Hungarian parentage and known paternal and maternal family relationships were erased through illegal adoption and forced assimilation. He sets out haplogroups, ethnicity estimates and four DNA matches, explains who the relatives are, and links restoration of identity to his settlement objective.

The author presents this report as evidence of illegal adoption, forced assimilation and administrative falsification of his identity. Its full text preserves his legal, historical, ethnic and genetic arguments. He names Cvita Miletić as his Croatian mother from Dalmatia and Pavle/Pal Lakatoš as his Hungarian father, recalls the father’s care and acknowledgment and the later probate proceedings, and insists on his right to his true identity and Hungarian language. The report sets out I-S17250 and HV6a, five autosomal percentages and two embedded figures. Its family-matching description identifies the paternal Lakatos relative as his father’s brother; Kučić as the son of his maternal uncle’s daughter; Nowak as the son of his paternal grandfather’s sister; and Kamber as a relative from his maternal grandmother’s family. Shared DNA is shown as 17.7%, 4.9%, 3.7% and 3.1%. The full reader preserves the platform’s probable-relationship labels and other visible matching numbers separately from his family descriptions. First names of those relatives and account managers are redacted; surnames remain. In a separate later clarification, the author explains that the same profile matches the known paternal Lakatos and maternal Kučić/Kamber branches; his maternal grandmother’s maiden surname was Kamber. He has personally met some of the shown relatives, without identifying here which ones. The report’s conclusion demands recognition of his true identity and the rights arising from it, with court proceedings and international human-rights approaches if the settlement is not accepted. It is an undated author’s analysis incorporating screenshots, not a separately supplied STR laboratory report. The 3 March 2025 email names an attachment with the matching report title; acknowledgment of receipt of the message does not establish that its attachment was opened.
Back to documents Open PDF Open annotated text

Related evidence

Settlement proposal: nullity, paternity and original identity — CSR receipt confirmed on 3 March 2025
Why this source is linked
Related source

The email names “Genetsko i Istorijsko Poreklo Milivoja Miletića.pdf” as a companion explaining the author’s biological identity. The linked six-page analysis preserves his genetic, historical and identity arguments, two figures and family descriptions. The email establishes the named connection; the office acknowledgment does not state that the analysis was opened or accepted.

**NOTE:** The complete contents of this email are in the attached PDF entitled **“Predmet - Nagodba.pdf”** [“Subject — Settlement”]. I also attach another document, **“Genetsko i Istorijsko Poreklo Milivoja Miletića.pdf”** [“Genetic and Historical Origin of Milivoj Miletić”], which further explains and proves my biological identity, relevant to this case. Please confirm receipt of this email and the attached documents within **24 hours**.
Open supporting passage
The plaintiff’s final submission: void adoption, violent assimilation and the continuing breach — 12 January 2026
Why this source is linked
Related source

The submission recalls the genetic and family material presented with the settlement attempt. The linked author’s supplement preserves the surnames and family relationships with the previously agreed first-name redactions.

## Source page 18 #### 2. Substance of the settlement offer In that email, the plaintiff clearly set out what he sought and what he offered: - Acknowledgment of the nullity of the unlawful full adoption in 1979, which would: - open the way to restoring the original identity — Milivoj Miletić, the son of Cvita and Pal Lakatoš; - enable commencement of paternity-establishment proceedings before the competent court in Kragujevac; - remove the obstacle created today by the unlawful entry “Milan Petrović”. - The plaintiff’s biological identity is defined as: - Croatian through his mother, Cvita Miletić; - Hungarian through his father, Pal / Pavle Lakatoš; - supported by DNA evidence from 23AndMe and MyHeritage and kinship with paternal and maternal families in Croatia, the United States, Canada and Australia. - Legal facts concerning 1979: - the proceedings were conducted contrary to the law then in force — the six-month period for locating the mother had not been fulfilled; - full adoption was finalized seven days before the fifth birthday, to exploit the last opportunity for a permanent change to civil-register data; - such “injection” of identity into civil registers has the character of a legal forgery from today’s evidentially demonstrable standpoint. The plaintiff explicitly stated: - that his origin was “immeasurably important” to him; - that he was not someone “whose origin should be played with, rewritten or insisted upon remaining falsified”; - that he was proud of and sensitive about his national origin through both his mother and father. Concerning the possibility of agreement, the plaintiff offered: - that, if the Centre acknowledged the adoption’s nullity, he would direct his energy towards paternity-establishment proceedings and not open a new front against the Centre; - that prolongation of the proceedings, additional costs and consequences for employees would thereby be avoided; - that, if the settlement were accepted, “he would no longer have any legal or other contact with the Centre, nor would it have any obligations towards him”. In other words, the plaintiff offered a solution that: - corrects the unlawful adoption; - saves the resources of the Court and Centre; - protects present employees from further involvement in the act begun in 1979. #### 3. Clear warning about the consequences of rejection In the same email, the plaintiff warned the Centre that rejection would result in:
Open supporting passage