[via Certified Mail #Z 428 484 460]
October 7, 1996.
Mr. Daniel S. Goldin
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
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
THE BURNELLI COMPANY, INC.
CHALMERS H. GOODLIN
Chairman & President
Committee of Science, Space & Technology