October 7, 1996.

Mr. Daniel S. Goldin
Administrator
NASA
300 'E' Street, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20546

Dear Mr. Goldin,

I am attaching a copy of a letter from your General Counsel, Mr. Edward A. Frankle, dated September 25, 1996. I do not consider Mr. Frankle's letter a proper response either to my letter to you of July 9, 1996, or to any previous correspondence.

Since we first wrote to you on March 29, 1995, asking why NASA discriminated against the Burnelli Company and funded Burnelli competitors to pirate Burnelli rights, we have not received a single answer from you. As the enclosed copy of the correspondence file shows, you have deferred our correspondence to counselors who have been side-stepping the questions submitted either intentionally or through outright ignorance. In the last five letters to you or your staff, we addressed the issue of proprietary and intellectual property rights, and in every instance your counsellors ignored this issue and addressed only the issue of one patent. In other cases, your counselors have shown their ignorance of the subject matter, such as when Mr. Kennedy refers to the "flying wing airplane design". (See his letter of October 3, 1995, and my reply of October 6, 1995.)

In view of the above, we have no option but to conclude that you have no intention of dealing with this matter in a constructive manner, and you are trying to eliminate your personal responsibility by deferring correspondence to others.

You may imagine that requesting help from your counsellors on this matter will make it go away. I submit to you that this technique only further heightens suspicions regarding your determination to perpetuate the long established discrimination against the Burnelli Company by NACA/NASA administrators. Also, this appears to be an attempt to avoid fulfilling your moral duties.

It is my sincere hope that the nebulous NASA correspondence, mentioned above, is caused by your busy schedule, or other circumstances beyond your control, and that you will now take the time to address this matter in the proper context and in accordance with your moral obligations and professional duties.

As we told you in our letter of September 3, 1996, we have no wish to impede the development of superior products, based on Burnelli technology, but we feel it obligatory that appropriate credit be given Mr. Vincent Justus Burnelli and his company.

The question remains: Do you find it morally right to continue funding Burnelli competitors in the piracy and theft of Burnelli proprietary and intellectual property rights which were established by Mr. Burnelli in 1945, as demonstrated to you in the photo comparison of the 1951 Burnelli model with the 1995 McDonnell Douglas megajet and the 1996 X-33, referred to in material previously supplied?

We trust that additional material submitted to Mr. Whitehead with our letter of September 24, 1996, will now enable you to intellectually respond to my letters of March 29, 1995, and July 9, 1996.

Yours sincerely,
THE BURNELLI COMPANY, INC.

[signed]

CHALMERS H. GOODLIN
Chairman & President

Committee of Science, Space & Technology