You do realize that the minute these letters are sent, they're discarded right? I know PhD's take a lot of pride in the degrees on their walls, but simply having one doesn't mean anyone listens to you any more than they would anyone else. You're taking the wrong approach and have for quite some time. Writing Kaler a letter is about as lobotomized a tactic as you could take. He doesn't even read them. Especially one as long as this. And sending letters to the governor or AG is just as pointless - they simply call the U or M folks. They're all friends. If you don't want the lawyers and the PR teams to keep destroying you at every turn...find another way to go. These people are very, very good. But the truth is out there. You're too close to the issue to see it. And one last piece of advice - align yourself with U of M experts that people respect. Why would the U of M's leadership stop to examine this when the only people raising hell are considered tenure-protected malcontents? Same goes for the "international experts." What good does an expert from Britain serve your petition? You think Minnesotans care that some former such and such or bioethics expert from Germany finds this troubling? Find people of power among your own halls. Only then will anyone who matters truly listen. A petition is toothless if the only people signing it are people in no way connected to the issue.
What do you mean by "the truth is out there"?
The U of M continuously points to the numerous people who have investigated this case. So to much of the public (aside from your 2500 experts, most of whom no one locally cares about or has any idea who they are) the case is old news. And while you've tried unsuccessfully for years to poke holes in Rotenberg, you've never really looked at the leaders of the other investigations. Like the FDA or the board of medical practice. When I say you're too close, I mean you keep thinking the U of M is the problem. The U of M isn't the problem. It just does what it's told or follows protocols they don't themselves establish. But if the rules they follow are flawed, or the investigations themselves are being run by buffoons, then what happens then? Who else have those same investigators cleared? Any issues with those? Any similarities? Does the medical practice board leader at the time have a history of looking the other way? How about the head of the FDA investigation at the time. Who else did he let off the hook? If you want people to take this seriously you need to stop just attacking the U of M. Build a better case on the periphery. Make it more than about just the U of M.