Douglas Whaley. Law professor, gay rights advocate, atheist, heart transplant recipient, actor, director, novelist, playwright, bridge player, husband, father, cat owner, storyteller. Much humor and, since the writer is a teacher, advice on many topics.
Opening in Another Play: The Pulitzer Prize Winning “Proof”
John Sorenson and Me
night we opened in “Proof” for a three week run at Little Theater Off Broadway
in Grove City, Ohio (a suburb on the south side of Columbus). It's a drama
with some very funny parts and involves a woman's search for identity in the
shadow of her brilliant but mad father, a titan in the world of mathematics. Her problem is that she had to care for him during much of his later life, slowing her own
pursuit of mathematics. After his death
she produces a brilliant new mathematical proof that amazes everyone who sees
it. She explains that she wrote it, but
even those close to her believe it is really the work of her father and she is
either (a) lying or (b), like him, crazy.
The terrific play by David Auburn not only won the Pulitzer Prize for
Drama in in 2001, but also the Tony Award that same year.
are four characters: Catherine, the young woman in question, her sister Clare,
a young mathematician named Harold Dobbs (who is romantically involved with
Catherine), and the father, Robert. The
very talented young actors playing the younger roles: Megan Freeman has the
lead as Catherine, Katie Wenzel is Clare, and John Sorenson (who I was pleased
to act with in the Albee drama “Seascape” in 2014) is Harold.
With Megan Freeman and Katie Wenzel
play the father, and it’s a great part, though the smallest of the four. He is in three scenes and appears in very
different lights in each: as a happy healthy man, as someone who is clearly crazy, and
as a ghost! All these scenes are interesting
to play, and the mad scene is frankly disturbing. Much of the time there is a light tone, and even
some major laughs, but there are also major profanities (Robert uses the word “fuck”
like a sailor) and two arguments, one almost violent.
Challenging work for an actor. It’s
a role I've longed to play for years.
Our director is the wonderful Kathy Hyland, with whom I have worked often in the
past. She directed me in my first show when
I retired from teaching and went back to doing theater: “George Washington
Slept Here”(2005), then I directed her “The Curious Savage” (2008), and
subsequently she was the stage manager for two shows I directed, “Who’s Afraid
of Virginia Woolf?” (2009) and “Art” (2013).
Our stage manager is the terrific Lauren Wong.
With Lauren and Kathy
play for three weekend, including Thursdays and three Sunday matinees. Contact information is below. Come see us!
Since I graduated from law school in 1968 I've always had some sort of legal practice which varied from extensive in the early years, to these days when I'm retired and mostly just doing consulting work for a hefty fee.In this period I've written a lot of letters threatening legal action on behalf of my client (or, on the rare occasion, myself—see Related Posts below).In the classroom I've passed on my advice on how to create an effective letter, and now I offer it to you, blog reader.
A letter threatening legal action almost always discombobulates a recipient who is not him/herself routinely involved in legal actions.I tell my law students that in their coming practices they will often receive such letters (or nowadays even emails), and they will calmly evaluate what to do about them depending on the legal issues involved and the wisdom of litigating them.But the non-legal recipient of such a letter is in a very differen…
Having a dispute with a creditor? One way to win it (and fast) is to send that creditor a "payment in full" check [hereafter "PIFC"] and end it things in your favor. How does this bit of legal magic work? Read on.
It's always been the law that if you and I have an existing contract, either one of us can propose a modification to that contract, and if we both agree, the contract changes accordingly. There are technical names for this. Say, for instance, that I owe you an undisputed amount of $500. I send you an email and ask if you would take my horse Dobbins is settlement of the debt, and you reply in the affirmative. My offer of something different than what was originally owed (the horse for the money) is called the offer of an "accord." Your agreement to take Dobbins is the "satisfaction." Thus an "accord and satisfaction" in our law is nothing more than a fancy name for a modification agreement. I no longer owe you $500; I owe…
For the last few years I have been crossing the country giving lectures on what I now call the "Golden Rule of Mortgage Foreclosures," which is that such foreclosures cannot proceed without production of the original promissory note signed at the closing. A symposium at Western State University Law School last year at which I gave the keynote address turned into a law review article on point, and that law review article is reprinted below in full. The correct citation for the printed version is 39 W. St. U. L. Rev. 313 (2012). As subsequent developments occur I will add them in red to the original article below. Any corrections or suggestions may be sent to me at email@example.com.
Mortgage Foreclosures, Promissory
Notes, and the Uniform Commercial Code By Douglas J. Whaley*
Introduction As is true
of many things in life the Uniform Commercial Code’s statutes concerning the