#Cary Donaldson | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mrepstein · 4 years

Photo

The Beatles pose with Maureen Donaldson (née Payne) [pictured left] and Val Sumpter at the Beatles Fan Club headquarters, circa 1963.

In 1989 Maureen published a memoir, An Affair to Remember, about her four-year relationship with Cary Grant. In the memoir she briefly mentions her time working in the Beatles Fan Club offices, and later for Brian Epstein’s NEMS Enterprises. You can read her account below:

Like millions of girls around the world, I had discovered the Beatles in 1963. I liked them all, but Paul McCartney was my favorite. His long lashes and sexy chestnut eyes stirred something within me that no real-life boy could hope to ignite.

The more I saw Paul on television and the more I saw his picture in the magazines, the more determined I was to meet him. I was convinced that once he met me, he would see I was unlike all the other girls who adored him. And he would marry me.

But turning that fantasy into reality was going to take some work. It took one bus and two train rides just to get me to the North End Music Stores (NEMS) offices in London. That was the company owned and operated by Brian Epstein, manager of the Beatles. Every day after school I’d embark on this long trip and arrive on the NEMS doorsteps. I asked anyone there for any kind of job. I wasn’t proud. Just so I could be close to Paul.

The girls in the front office took pity on me and let me stuff envelopes and do other assorted tasks. There was no pay, but I felt useful and somehow connected to Paul. I just knew I would meet him if I kept pushing in this direction.

My determination finally caught Brian’s eye. He gave me a job for about eighteen dollars a week at the Beatles Fan Club offices. I would answer the telephones and also help out sorting through the mail, which contained thousands of jelly beans, supposedly the boys’ favorite.

When I went home to share the good news with my parents, I didn’t quite get the reaction I had anticipated. I informed them (as well as a visiting neighbor, Elsie Grunsell) that I was leaving school at age sixteen to begin work the following Monday for the Beatles. The three of them had been sitting there enjoying their tea when I unleashed this particular bombshell. Rising slowly, my father stood ramrod straight and said firmly:

“You’re not going to work - I repeat not - for those... those yobos!”

I started crying. I had to take that job because that was my only route to Paul. When my parents saw how determined I was and what it meant to me, they relented. Years later they told me they hoped I would come to my senses and get bored with life with the Beatles. Actually, it was the beginning of an odyssey that would take me all the way to America.

I began work at the fan-club office on a Monday. Four days later I met Paul in the flesh. He had dropped by to take all us hardworking girls to a Chinese lunch. I was so awestruck being in the same room with Paul I simply couldn’t eat. I just picked at my plate. Besides, I didn’t know how to eat with chopsticks.

Instead I feasted on the sight of Paul, who actually had a bit of a shy streak. But when he kept talking about Jane this and Jane that, I poked one of my coworkers in the arm and said: “Who is this Jane?”

I was told all about Jane Asher, a pretty red-haired actress who was Paul’s steady. I was crestfallen at first. But I was too busy for disappointment. London in the early sixties seemed to be the center of the universe, and I was now part of it. Mary Quant was revolutionising fashion on Carnaby Street; the Beatles and the scruffier Rolling Stones were changing the sound of rock music; and a stick-thin fashion model named Twiggy was making thin “in.” Fortunately I had begun to lose all my baby fat and got swept up in the excitement and intensity of all the changes London was going through.

I had been at my new post in the fan-club offices for about three months when I answered the phone one day. It was Brian. “Who’s this?” he asked. “This is Maureen Payne,” I said shyly. “Well, I’d very much like to see you in my office tomorrow at ten o’clock.”

“Me?” I said, simply astounded.

“Yes, You!” he barked from the receiver. “I’ve got a job for you.”

It turned out Brian liked the sound of my voice and wanted me back at the NEMS offices, where there was an opening for a receptionist. There was not only a raise of approximately fifteen dollars a week but also the opportunity of assisting Brian in the press office with its blizzard of press releases and bulletins released almost daily to the media.

Brian was a mercurial man - one minute up, the next down. But he was always buzzing about the place like a hornet, trying to find some new way to keep the press interested in “the boys.” Then one day I helped to oil the publicity machine in my unique way.

Sometimes the girls and I in the NEMS offices would get restless, so we conducted elevator races. There was a rickety old elevator in dire need of repair; we would cram into it and push the buttons like crazy. It would take forever for the contraption to reach the next floor, but we didn’t care - we’d be laughing and screaming so hysterically we would hardly notice. Of course, this all happened when Brian was out of the office.

But one day some of Brian’s other clients - including Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, and another group called the Fourmost - dropped by, and we were especially bored. It was raining outside, one of those dark days that needed a little juicing up. So we girls invited the boys to get into the elevator with us. We wanted to see how many of us the silly thing could hold without expiring.

The answer: not many. About eight of us had gotten in when the elevator crashed. It fell down only a few feet, but a fire truck had to be called and firemen sent in to retrieve us. Since this occurred at the Beatles offices, it showed up on the evening news.

So there we were, being pulled out of the lift by the firemen and escorted in the pouring rain into a truck waiting to take us to the hospital to be checked for any possible injuries. Only our pride had been hurt. We were horribly embarrassed later, when the boys took special delight in telling us that the firemen had huge grins on their faces as they “rescued” us, because they could see up our miniskirts!

The next day Brian called us into his office and threatened to dock our pay because of the incident. He was just bluffing, though, we heard him laughing the minute we left his office.

- An Affair To Remember: My Life With Cary Grant by Maureen Donaldson and William Royce (1989)

#The Beatles #Maureen Donaldson #Maureen Payne #Val Sumpter

97 notes · View notes

transracialqueer · 3 years

Text

The Baby Brokers: Inside America’s Murky Private-Adoption Industry

by Tik Root

6/3/21

Shyanne Klupp was 20 years old and homeless when she met her boyfriend in 2009. Within weeks, the two had married, and within months, she was pregnant. “I was so excited,” says Klupp. Soon, however, she learned that her new husband was facing serious jail time, and she reluctantly agreed to start looking into how to place their expected child for adoption. The couple called one of the first results that Google spat out: Adoption Network Law Center (ANLC).

Klupp says her initial conversations with ANLC went well; the adoption counselor seemed kind and caring and made her and her husband feel comfortable choosing adoption. ANLC quickly sent them packets of paperwork to fill out, which included questions ranging from personal-health and substance-abuse history to how much money the couple would need for expenses during the pregnancy.

Klupp and her husband entered in the essentials: gas money, food, blankets and the like. She remembers thinking, “I’m not trying to sell my baby.” But ANLC, she says, pointed out that the prospective adoptive parents were rich. “That’s not enough,” Klupp recalls her counselor telling her. “You can ask for more.” So the couple added maternity clothes, a new set of tires, and money for her husband’s prison commissary account, Klupp says. Then, in January 2010, she signed the initial legal paperwork for adoption, with the option to revoke. (In the U.S., an expectant mother has the right to change her mind anytime before birth, and after for a period that varies state by state. While a 2019 bill proposing an explicit federal ban of the sale of children failed in Congress, many states have such statutes and the practice is generally considered unlawful throughout the country.)

“I will never forget the way my heart sank,” says Klupp. “You have to buy your own baby back almost.” Seeing no viable alternative, she ended up placing her son, and hasn’t seen him since he left the hospital 11 years ago.

Movies may portray the typical adoption as a childless couple saving an unwanted baby from a crowded orphanage. But the reality is that, at any given time, an estimated 1 million U.S. families are looking to adopt—many of them seeking infants. That figure dramatically outpaces the number of available babies in the country. Some hopeful parents turn to international adoption, though in recent years other countries have curtailed the number of children they send abroad. There’s also the option to adopt from the U.S. foster-care system, but it’s an often slow-moving endeavor with a limited number of available infants. For those with means, there’s private domestic adoption.

ANLC was started in 1996 by Allan and Carol Gindi, who first called it the Adoption Network. The company says it has since worked on over 6,000 adoptions and that it’s the largest law corporation in the nation providing adoption services (though limited publicly available data makes that difficult to verify). ANLC’s home page is adorned with testimonials from grateful clients. Critics, however, see the organization as a paradigm of the largely unregulated private-adoption system in the U.S., which has made baby brokering a lucrative business.

Problems with private domestic adoption appear to be widespread. Interviews with dozens of current and former adoption professionals, birth parents, adoptive parents and reform advocates, as well as a review of hundreds of pages of documents, reveal issues ranging from commission schemes and illegal gag clauses to Craigslistesque ads for babies and lower rates for parents willing to adopt babies of any race. No one centrally tracks private adoptions in the U.S., but best estimates, from the Donaldson Adoption Institute (2006) and the National Council for Adoption (2014), respectively, peg the number of annual nonrelative infant adoptions at roughly 13,000 to 18,000. Public agencies are involved in approximately 1,000 of those, suggesting that the vast majority of domestic infant adoptions involve the private sector—and the market forces that drive it.

“It’s a fundamental problem of supply and demand,” says Celeste Liversidge, an adoption attorney in California who would like to see reforms to the current system. The scarcity of available infants, combined with the emotions of desperate adoptive parents and the advent of the Internet, has helped enable for-profit middlemen—from agencies and lawyers to consultants and facilitators—to charge fees that frequently stretch into the tens of thousands of dollars per case.

A 2021 ANLC agreement, reviewed by TIME and Newsy, shows that prospective parents were charged more than $25,000 in fees—not including legal costs for finalizing the adoption, birth-mother expenses and other add-ons (like gender specification). The full tab, say former employees, can balloon to more than double that.

“The money’s the problem,” says Adam Pertman, author of Adoption Nation and president of the National Center on Adoption and Permanency. “Anytime you put dollar signs and human beings in the same sentence, you have a recipe for disaster.”

Even though federal tax credits can subsidize private adoptions (as much as $14,300 per child for the adopting parents), there is no federal regulation of the industry. Relevant laws—governing everything from allowable financial support to how birth parents give their consent to an adoption—are made at the state level and vary widely. Some state statutes, for example, cap birth-mother expenses, while others don’t even address the issue. Mississippi allows birth mothers six months to change their mind; in Tennessee, it’s just three days. After the revocation period is over, it’s “too bad, so sad,” says Renee Gelin, president of Saving Our Sisters, an organization aimed at helping expectant parents preserve their families. “The mother has little recourse.”

Liversidge founded the nonprofit AdoptMatch, which describes itself as a “mobile app and online resource” that aims to “increase an expectant parent’s accessibility to qualified adoptive parents and ethical adoption professionals.” She says the hodgepodge of state statutes invites abuse: “Anyone that knows or learns the system—it doesn’t take much—can exploit those loopholes very easily for financial gain.”

Thirteen former ANLC employees, whose time at the organization spanned from 2006 to 2015, were interviewed for this story. Many asked to remain anonymous, out of fear of retaliation from the Gindis or ANLC. (The couple has filed multiple suits, including for defamation, over the years.) “The risk is too great for my family,” wrote one former employee in a text to TIME and Newsy. But whether on or off the record, the former employees told largely similar stories of questionable practices at an organization profiting off both adoptive and expectant parents. “These are such vulnerable people,” says one former employee. “They deserve more than greed.”

The Gindis have long faced questions about their adoption work. In 2006, the Orange County district attorney filed a scathing complaint contending that while operating Adoption Network, the couple had committed 11 violations, including operating as a law firm without an attorney on staff and falsely advertising Carol as having nursing degrees. Admitting no wrongdoing, the Gindis agreed to pay a $100,000 fine.

Since around that time, the Gindis’ exact involvement with ANLC has been difficult to discern amid a web of other companies, brands and titles. They both declined interview requests, but Allan did respond to emailed questions, explaining that he plays what he termed “an advertising role” for ANLC, including for the company’s current president, Lauren Lorber (the Gindis’ daughter), who took over the law practice in 2015. Before that, an attorney named Kristin Yellin owned ANLC. Former employees, though, say that despite an outwardly delineated setup, Allan in particular has remained heavily involved in ANLC operations. As far back as 2008, even though Yellin was the titular owner, “everyone knew that Allan Gindi ran it,” according to former employee Cary Sweet. (Sweet and other employees were plaintiffs in a 2010 discrimination and unlawful business practices lawsuit against ANLC. The company denied the allegations and the parties settled for an amount that Sweet says she isn’t allowed to reveal but called “peanuts.”)

In an interview, Yellin bristled at the idea that Allan Gindi was in charge during her ownership period, saying, “I realized what the Gindis’ role was and how to put boundaries on that.” Lorber, who declined an interview for this story, wrote via email that Allan has been a “leader” in adoption marketing. He maintains, also by email, that over a 25-year period, each attorney for whom he has provided his “highly specialized marketing services” has been “more than satisfied.” In an earlier text message, Allan also characterized the reporting for this story as “an attack on the wonderful work that Adoption Network has done and continues to do.”

Sweet, who worked with both expectant and adoptive parents at ANLC from 2008 to 2011, says she wasn’t aware of Klupp’s experience but remembers a situation involving a staff member’s threatening to call child protective services on a mother if she didn’t place her child for adoption. In a 2011 deposition taken as part of Sweet’s lawsuit, Yellin stated that the employee in question had told her that they had conveyed to the mother that “if you end up not going through with this, you know social services will probably be back in your life.” Yellin said that she found the comment inappropriate in context but did not perceive it as threatening or coercive.

Lorber, who has owned ANLC since late 2015, wrote in an email that she’s unaware of any incidents in which birth mothers were told they would have to pay back expenses if they chose not to place their child. But Klupp isn’t the only expectant mother to say she felt pressured by ANLC. Gracie Hallax placed two children through ANLC, in 2017 and 2018. Although the company arranged for lodging during her pregnancy (including, she says, in a bedbug-infested motel), she recalls an ANLC representative’s telling her that she could have to pay back expenses if she backed out of the adoptions. Madeline Grimm, a birth mother who placed her child through ANLC in 2019, also says she was informed that she might have to return expense money if she didn’t go through with the adoption. “That was something that I would think of if I was having any kind of doubt,” she says. “Like, well, sh-t, I’d have to pay all this back.”

The experiences described by Klupp, Hallax and Grimm fit a pattern of practices at ANLC that former employees say were concerning. Many describe a pervasive pressure to bring people—whether birth parents or adoptive couples—in the door. This was driven, at least in part, they say, by a “profit sharing” model of compensation in which, after meeting certain targets, employees could earn extra by signing up more adoptive couples or completing more matches. Former employees say birth mothers who did multiple placements through ANLC were sometimes referred to as “frequent flyers.” (Lorber and Yellin both say they have never heard that term.)

“The whole thing became about money and not about good adoption practices,” says one former employee. As they saw it, ANLC made a priority of “bringing in the next check.”

Adoptive parents, former employees say, were sometimes provided inaccurate statistics on how often the company’s attempts to matchmake were successful. “They almost made it seem like birth mothers were lining up to give their babies away,” says one. “That’s not reality.” (Yellin says in the 2011 deposition that the data were outdated, not inaccurate.) Clients pay their fees in two nonrefundable installments, one at the beginning of the process and another after matching with a birth mother. As a result, former employees say, if the adoption fell through, there was little financial incentive for ANLC to rematch the parents, and those couples were routinely not presented to other birth mothers. “Counselors were being pressured to do this by the higher-ups,” claims one former employee, recalling instructions to “not match couples that are not bringing in money. Period.”

Some prospective adoptive parents whom the company deemed harder to match—those who were overweight, for example, say former employees—were given a limited agreement that timed out, rather than the standard open-ended contract. There was also a separate agreement for those willing to adopt Black or biracial babies, for which the company offered its services at a discount. (In her 2011 deposition, Yellin acknowledged that there were multiple versions of the agreement and providing staff with obesity charts. When asked if obesity was a reason clients got a limited agreement, she said, “Specifically because they were obese, no.” In regard to whether what a couple looked like was considered, she responded, “I can only speculate. I do not know.”)

Former ANLC employees also allege the company would encourage pregnant women to relocate to states where the adoption laws were more favorable and finalizations more likely. “I believe it’s called venue hunting,” one recalls. And while that former employee made sure to note that ANLC did produce some resoundingly positive, well-fitting adoptions, they say the outcome was largely a matter of luck, “like throwing spaghetti on a refrigerator to see if it’ll stick.”

Yellin acknowledges that when she took over the company in 2007, “there was a feeling that some of the adoption advisers had felt pressured just to make matches.” But she says she worked to address that and other issues. Yellin says she put an end to the use of the limited agreement, and denies that ANLC ever advised birth mothers to relocate to other states to make an adoption easier. She also says she wasn’t aware of any instances of birth mothers’ being coerced into placing their babies. Other practices, though, she defended. Charging lower fees to parents willing to adopt babies of any race makes business sense, Yellin says. “Their marketing costs were lower. That’s just the reality of it.” Lorber maintains that fee structure stopped in 2019. More broadly, she noted that of the thousands of parties that ANLC has worked with over the years, the complaint rate is less than half of 1% and “that is one track record to be proud of!”

But ANLC’s practices over the years could have legal implications. Experts say that reports of any organization’s putting pressure on birth parents to go through with an adoption would raise concerns about whether those parents placed their children under duress—which can be grounds for invalidating consent and potentially overturning adoptions. And ANLC may be violating consumer-protection laws with a clause in its agreement that makes clients “agree not to talk negatively about ANLC’s efforts, service, positions, policies and employees with anyone, including potential Birth Parents, other adoption-related entities or on social media and other Internet platforms.” The federal Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 makes contract clauses that restrict consumer reviews illegal, as does the 2014 California “Yelp” bill.

“It would certainly be unlawful,” says Paul Levy, an attorney with the consumer-advocacy organization Public Citizen, who reviewed the agreement. “If they put this in the contract, what do they have to hide?”

Stories of enticement and pressure tactics in the private-adoption industry abound. Mother Goose Adoptions, a middle-man organization in Arizona, has pitched a “laptop for life” program and accommodations in “warm, sunny Arizona.” A Is 4 Adoption, a facilitator in California, made a payment of roughly $12,000 to a woman after she gave birth, says an attorney involved in the adoption case. While the company says it “adheres to the adoption laws that are governed by the state of California,” the lawyer, who asked to remain anonymous because they still work on adoptions in the region, says they told A Is 4 Adoption’s owner, “You should not be paying lump sums. It looks like you’re buying a baby.”

Jessalynn Speight worked for ANLC in 2015 and says private adoption is rife with problems: “It’s much more rampant than anyone can understand.” Speight, whose nonprofit Tied at the Heart runs retreats for birth parents, worries that the industry sometimes turns into a cycle of dependency, as struggling women place multiple children as a means of financial support. (The same incentive may also encourage scamming adoptive birth parents, with purported birth parents who don’t actually intend to place a child for adoption or are never even pregnant.) Anne Moody, author of the 2018 book The Children Money Can Buy, about foster care and adoption, says the system can amount to “basically producing babies for money.”

Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy, a birth-parent advocate and birth mother who blogs extensively about adoption, says she routinely hears of women facing expense-repayment pressures. Some states, such as California and Nevada, explicitly consider birth-parent expenses an “act of charity” that birth parents don’t have to pay back. In other states, though, nothing prohibits adoption entities from trying to obligate birth parents to repay expenses when a match fails.

“How is that not blackmail?” D’Arcy asks, emphasizing that in most states, fraud or duress can be a reason for invalidating a birth parent’s consent. According to Debra Guston, adoption director for the Academy of Adoption & Assisted Reproduction Attorneys, conditioning support on a promise to repay or later demanding repayment if there is no placement is “at very least unethical.”

States are ostensibly in charge of keeping private-adoption entities in line. Agencies are generally licensed or registered with the relevant departments of health, human services or children and families. Attorneys practice under the auspices of a state bar. But even when misdeeds are uncovered, action may be anemic and penalties minimal. In 2007, Dorene and Kevin Whisler were set to adopt through the Florida-based agency Adoption Advocates. When the agency told the Whislers the baby was born with disabilities, the couple decided not to proceed with the adoption—but they later found out that the baby was healthy and had been placed with a different couple, for another fee. After news coverage of the case, Adoption Advocates found itself under investigation. In a 2008 letter to Adoption Advocates, the Florida department of children and families (DCF) wrote that it had found “expenses that are filed with the courts from your agency do not accurately reflect the expenses that are being paid to the natural mothers in many instances.” Although DCF temporarily put the organization on a provisional license, a spokesperson for the department says that after “enhanced monitoring for compliance,” it relicensed the company, and there have been no issues or complaints since. (When contacted, Adoption Advocates’ attorney replied that the company is “unable to respond to your inquiries regarding specific individuals or cases.”)

More recently, in 2018, the Utah department of human services (DHS) revoked the license of an agency called Heart and Soul Adoptions, citing violations ranging from not properly searching for putative fathers (a requirement in Utah) to insufficient tracking of birth-mother expenses. Rules prohibit anyone whose license is revoked from being associated with another licensed entity for five years. But a year later Heart and Soul owner Denise Garza was found to be working with Brighter Adoptions. DHS briefly placed Brighter on a conditional license for working with Garza but has since lifted all sanctions and never assessed any fines.

Enforcement is even harder when middlemen operate as consultants, facilitators or advertisers or under any number of other murky titles that critics believe are sometimes used to skirt regulations. There is little clarity on who is supposed to oversee these more amorphous intermediaries.

Jennifer Ryan (who sometimes goes by “Jennalee Ryan” or “Jennifer Potter”) was first a “facilitator” and is now a kind of middleman to adoption middle-men. Her “national online advertising service” refers expectant parents to lawyers (including her own son), facilitators and other intermediaries; as of November 2020, the company was charging these middlemen fees starting at $18,800 for each birth-mother match (with the idea that the cost is passed on to families). Ryan declined an interview but, in an email, she says she does approximately 400 matches annually. Among the websites Ryan operates are Chosen Parents and Forever After Adoptions, which both include a section that lists babies for adoption, sort of like a Craigslist ad. One example from last August: “AVAILABLE Indian (as in Southeast Asia India) Baby to be born in the state of California in 2021…Estimated cost of this adoption is $35000.”

Many advocates say they would like to see reforms to private adoption in the U.S. Even Yellin, a proponent of private-sector involvement in the adoption space, says there probably ought to be more regulation. But calls for systematic change have remained largely unheeded, and agreeing on exactly what should be done can be difficult.

Some believe the problem could be addressed with greater federal-level oversight—pointing to the foster-care system, which a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services helps administer, as an example (albeit an imperfect one). But Liversidge notes that family law has traditionally been a state issue and says that is where fixes should, and will likely need to, occur. She wants to see improvements such as an expansion of mandatory independent legal representation for birth parents, better tracking of adoption data and the reining in of excessive fees.

Illinois attempted to take a strong stand against adoption profiteering in a 2005 adoption-reform act, which barred out-of-state, for-profit intermediaries from engaging in adoption-related activities in the state. But Bruce Boyer, a law professor at Loyola University who championed the legislation, says, “We couldn’t get anyone to enforce it.” Only after much pushing and prodding, he adds, did advocates persuade the state to pursue a case against what Boyer called the “worst” offender: ANLC.

The Illinois attorney general filed a complaint in 2013 alleging that ANLC was breaking the law by offering and advertising adoption services in the state without proper licensing or approval. To fight the suit, ANLC retained a high-profile Chicago law firm, and within months, the parties had reached a settlement. ANLC agreed that it would not work directly with Illinois-based birth parents, but it did not admit any wrongdoing and called the resolution “fair and reasonable.” Boyer disagrees. “They caved,” he says of the state. “There were no meaningful consequences that came from a half-hearted attempt.” The attorney general’s office declined to comment.

What few changes have been made in adoption law are generally aimed at making the process easier for adoptive parents, who experts say tend to have more political and financial clout than birth parents. At the core of the inertia is lack of awareness. “There’s an assumption in this country that adoption is a win-win solution,” says Liversidge. “People don’t understand what’s going on.”

Many proponents of change would, at the very least, like to see private adoption move more toward a nonprofit model. “It’s a baby-brokering business. That’s really what it’s turned into,” says Kim Anderson, chief program officer at the Nebraska Children’s Home Society, a nonprofit that does private adoptions only in Nebraska (with a sliding fee based on income) and which rarely allows adoptive parents to pay expenses for expectant parents.

Whatever shape reform ends up taking—or mechanism it occurs through—advocates say it will require a fundamental shift and decommodification of how the country approaches private adoption. “A civilized society protects children and vulnerable populations. It doesn’t let the free market loose on them,” says Liversidge. Or, as Pertman puts it, “Children should not be treated the same as snow tires.”

Yellin kept working with ANLC as an attorney until late 2018. By then, she says adoption numbers had dropped significantly because of increased competition and a decreasing number of expectant mothers seeking to place their babies. But the company seems to still be very much in the adoption business. During the pandemic, Adoption Pro Inc., which operates ANLC, was approved for hundreds of thousands of dollars in stimulus loans, and its social media accounts suggest it has plenty of adoptive-parent clients. According to data from the search analytics service SpyFu, ANLC has also run hundreds of ads targeting expectant parents. For example, if you Googled the term “putting baby up for adoption” in January 2021, you might get shown an ANLC ad touting, “Financial & Housing Assistance Available.”

Meanwhile, Allan Gindi continues to play an advertising role for ANLC (and to use an “@adoptionnetwork.com” email address). Court documents connected to a bankruptcy case show that, in 2019, Gindi expected to make $40,000 per month in adoption-advertising income. (He says that number was not ultimately realized but did not provide any more details.) Lorber’s LinkedIn profile says that ANLC is a “$5 million dollar per year” business. “And that’s just one family in Southern California,” remarks Speight, who used to work for ANLC and who runs a birth-parent support nonprofit. “Think about all of the other adoption agencies where couples are paying even more money.”

Klupp’s Facebook feed still cycles through “memories” of posts she made when she was placing her son through ANLC. They’re mournful but positive, she says; in them, she tended to frame the decision as an unfortunate necessity that put her son in a loving home. “I thought everything was really great,” recalls Klupp, who has since immersed herself in the online adoption community. What she’s learned has slowly chipped away at the pleasant patina that once surrounded her adoption journey; such a shift is so common, it has a name, “coming out of the fog.”

“They take people who don’t have money and are scared, and they use your fear to set you up with an adoption that you can’t back out of,” Klupp says of the industry. “I’m sure even the parents that adopted my son … didn’t know half the stuff that went on behind the scenes. They probably paid this agency to find them a baby, and that’s what they cared about. And this agency takes this money from these people who are desperate.” Klupp isn’t anti-adoption; in fact, she’s been trying to adopt out of foster care. The problem, she says, is the profit. Today, she believes she has a better understanding of the extent to which ANLC influenced her and now views her decision as, at the very least, deliberately ill informed, if not outright coerced. She says she’s taken to deleting the Facebook posts about her son’s adoption as the reminders pop up—they’re too painful.

“It seems like the agencies have some universal handbook on how to convince doubtful moms,” she says. “I know in my heart that I would have kept my son if I had had the right answers.”

[Link in the notes]

#adoption #adoptees #human adoption #adopt #private adoption #domestic adoption #tq posts #long post

6 notes · View notes

doubleattitude · 3 years

Text

NUVO Dance Convention, Detroit, MI: RESULTS

High Scores by Age:

NUbie Solo

1st: Stella Brinkerhoff-’Fly’

2nd: Penelope LeMieux-’These Boots’

3rd: Sylvie Win Szyndlar-’Rainbow Connection’

4th: Naomi Harper-’Speechless’

5th: Hadlee Young-’Mr. Sandman

6th: Kora Jacobs-’Papa’

7th: Ariceli Huembes-’Queen Bee’

Mini Solo

1st: Ellary Day Szyndlar-’Light Gathers’

2nd: Zoe Swope-’That Face’

3rd: Annabelle DeWitt-’Tears of an Angel’

4th: Annabel Schoolmeesters-’Broken’

5th: Mya Lanigan-’Halo’

6th: Brooklyn Ward-’Here I Am’

6th: Addison Prichard-’Swing It Like Roger’

7th: Kinley Barnes-’Like That’

8th: Madeleine Shen-’The Bridge’

9th: Azarrah Fair-’B.E.A.T’

9th: Madelyn Nicholson-’Clay’

10th: Ella Palmer-’Somewhere Only We Know’

Junior Solo

1st: Mya Tuaileva-’Can’t Unhear’

2nd: Daniela SanGiacomo-’Infinite’

2nd: Maura Matuska-’LJ’

3rd: Lacie Mollahan-’All Cried Out’

3rd: Victoria Johnson-’Genius’

3rd: Eliza Mercer-’Goetia’

3rd: Vivienne Mitchell-’Metamorphosis’

4th: Ariel Cai-’Clear Water’

4th: Blakely Bell-’Shifting’

5th: Nily Samara-’Dot 2 Dot’

5th: Campbell Clark-’I’ll Be Seeing You’

5th: Bree Curtis-’One Grain’

6th: Campbell Bas-’Alice’

6th: Joli DuQuenne-’Found’

6th: Preslie Lopez-’Freezing Point’

6th: Londyn LeMieux-’Human Touch’

7th: Haydyn Jackson-’Dex’

7th: Claire Wise-’Listen’

7th: Piper Leddell-’Sunrise Sunset’

7th: Julianna Harris-’The Mask’

7th: Marlow Makarewicz-’Tomorrow’s Song’

8th: Gabby Donaldson-’It’s About That Walk’

8th: Morgan Schwarze-’Runaway’

8th: Madison Music-’Two Thousand & Two’

9th: Dani Sherman-’Broken Prayers’

10th: Raeka Martonez-’I Have Never Loved Someone’

10th: Paige Lenard-’Like You Used To’

Teen Solo

1st: Peyton Price-’All We Know’

1st: Cydney Heard-’I’m Going In’

1st: Hailey Bills-’You’

2nd: Macy Orvis-’Look At Me’

2nd: Isabella Pinkston-’Speaking Of The End’

2nd: Benjamin Graham-’Straighten Up and Fly Right’

2nd: Chance Phelps-’The Garden’

3rd: Zoe Ridge-’A Thousand Eyes’

3rd: L.A Gee-’Botn’

3rd: Brianna Hicks-’Epilouge’

3rd: Kendall Best-’For Loving You’

3rd: Cambry Bethke-’How Insensitive’

3rd: Brielle McCoy-’Twist’

4th: Camryn Lanigan-’False Confidence’

4th: Caris Beurkens-’Human Nature’

4th: Mikaela Zarsky-’Lullaby’

4th: Lainey Bliss-’Orange’

4th: Lynlie Ferrin-’Visnaga’

4th: Mya Imbrock-’You’re Mine’

5th: Carlee Alicea-’Crazy’

5th: Samantha Grana-’Fragment Me’

5th: Kieran Holmes-’Hear The Bells’

5th: Addison Gutow-’Without You’

6th: Evelyn Shymanski-’33 God’

6th: Emersyn Dickson-’Plans We Made’

6th: Alexis Schueller-’Somebody’

6th: Macy Such-’What Dreams Are Made Of’

6th: Kimberly Sigloch-’Years of Suffering’

7th: Olivia McIntyre-’Thinking About You’

8th: Marissa Brunner-’On Then and Now’

8th: Shanyce Washington-’Sunday Kind of Love’

9th: Violet Lopiccola-’#88′

9th: Lily Poynter-’Cellophane’

9th: Jiya Janwani-’Nemesis’

9th: Marin Akkashian-’Shotgun’

10th: Emily Ferguson-’Cellophane’

10th: Dilyn Bray-’Faced’

10th: Alexia Munger-’Miss Kiss’

Senior Solo

1st: Kamryn Funk-’5,6,7,8′

2nd: Anna Miller-’Godspeed’

2nd: Zoe Carpenter-’Opus 22′

3rd: Peyton Winsett-’Distortion’

3rd: Jonah Tran-’Involution’

3rd: Madison McDonald-’Shining’

4th: Chase Phelps-’All I Have Left’

4th: Christian Whan-’It’s Still Rock & Roll’

4th: Alyssa Griffith-’Voyage’

4th: Kaityln Babich-’You’re My Thrill’

5th: Seanna DeWitt-’Consequence of Sound’

5th: Trinity Malgay-’Somthing Short and Sweet’

5th: Isabella Nixon-’Stand Alive’

5th: Kendall Schmidt-’Take Me To The River’

5th: Ashley Smith-’The First Time’

5th: Jessica Babich-’Ubiquitous’

5th: Jessica Welch-’Whoever You Are’

6th: Bria Mayes-’Angel By The Wings’

6th: Lily Freebery-’A Wish’

6th: Madison Harvell-’Getting Older’

6th: Quinn Davis-’Like’

7th: Brianna Haith-’Alarm’

7th: Zoey Cappatocio-’Another Lifetime’

7th: Isabelle Ranger-’Leave A Light On’

7th: Kate McCollum-’Now That I’m Older’

7th: Anjali Petrucci-’Satellite’

7th: Cade Person-’Skalbrekka’

7th: Emily Popa-’Vienna’

8th: Kendra Fereshetian-’I Don’t Know Anything Yet’

8th: Camryn Humpert-’Supermarket in California’

9th: Jadyn Terry-’Must Change’

9th: Olivia Papa-’The Lakes’

10th: Kacey Howley-’Doomed’

10th: Leah Rieger-’Memories’

NUbie Duo/Trio

1st: Haja Dance Company-’You Better Work’

2nd: Nye Dance Productions-’Diamonds’

Mini Duo/Trio

1st: Just Off Broadway-’I Will Carry You’

1st: Poirier Productions Dance Studio-’The Forest Queen’

2nd: Body Language Dance Company-’A Shine On Your Shoes’

3rd: Haja Dance Company-’Fall On Me’

Junior Duo/Trio

1st: Haja Dance Company-’I’ll Stay’

2nd: Studio 4-’Slights and Trespasses’

3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’When I Grow Up’

Teen Duo/Trio

1st: Center Stage Performing Arts Studio-’Not That News’

2nd: The Dance Kollective-’Sax’

2nd: Haja Dance Company-’Together Again’

3rd: Dean/Black School of Performing Arts-’The Show’

Senior Duo/Trio

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Get Happy’

2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Back, Baby’

2nd: Haja Dance Company-’Static’

3rd: Haja Dance Company-’The Turning Page’

3rd: Academy of Dance Arts-’Words Are Not Enough’

NUbie Group

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Bon Appetit’

2nd: Dean/Black School of Performing Arts-’Friend Like Me’

3rd: Nye Dance Productions-’Dancing Fool’

Mini Group

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Quake’

2nd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’HSKT’

3rd: Body Language Dance Company-’Bei Mir Bist Du Schon’

3rd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Let The River Run’

Junior Group

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Distant Sures’

2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Solace’

3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Marathon (In Roses)’

Teen Group

1st: Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Can You Hear That’

2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Laura’

2nd: Haja Dance Company-’These Women’

3rd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’I’m Rising’

Senior Group

1st: Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Minus 60′

2nd: Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Herd of Defense’

3rd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Fancy’

3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Ricochet’

NUbie Line

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Reflection’

Mini Line

1st: Haja Dance Company-’First Class’

2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Gonna Catch You’

3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Above The Clouds of Pompeii’

Junior Line

1st: Haja Dance Company-’For A Second’

2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Forget You’

3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Danke Schoen’

3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Shine’

Teen Line

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Pa’lante’

2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Beacon’

3rd: Powerdance Company-’Freedom’

Senior Line

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Night’

2nd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Hallucinations’

NUbie Extended Line

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Can You Feel It’

2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Ordinary Miracle’

Junior Extended Line

1st: Haja Dance Company-’Haven’t You Heard’

2nd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Trust’

Teen Extended Line

1st: Haja Dance Company-’We Are Nothing’

2nd: Haja Dance Company-’Start Walkin’

3rd: Haja Dance Company-’Don’t Cry’

Senior Extended Line

1st: Haja Dance Company-’That Stuff’

Mini Production

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Steam Heat’

Teen Production

1st: The Turning Pointe-’Earth Girls’

High Scores by Performance Division:

NUbie Jazz

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Can You Feel It’ 2nd: Dean/Black School of Performing Arts-’Friend Like Me’

NUbie Tap

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Bon Appetit’ 2nd: Nye Dance Productions-’Dancing Fool’

NUbie Contemporary

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Ordinary Miracle’

NUbie Lyrical

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Reflection’

Mini Jazz

1st: Haja Dance Company-’First Class’ 2nd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Quake’ 3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Gonna Catch You’

Mini Tap

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Big Band Sound’ 1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’HSKT’ 2nd: Body Language Dance Company-’Bei Mir Bist Du Schon’

Mini Contemporary

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Above The Clouds of Pompeii’ 2nd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’You’ve Got A Friend’

Mini Lyrical

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Let The River Run’

Mini Musical Theatre

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Steam Heat’

Junior Jazz

1st: Haja Dance Company-’Haven’t You Heard’ 1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Danke Schoen’ 2nd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Trust’ 3rd: Haja Dance Company-’The Glow’

Junior Hip-Hop

1st: Dean/Black School of Performing Arts-’Throwin It’

Junior Tap

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Forget You’ 2nd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’My Blue Heaven’

Junior Contemporary

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Distant Sures’ 2nd: Haja Dance Company-’For A Second’ 2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Solace’ 3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Marathon (In Roses)’

Junior Lyrical

1st: Haja Dance Company-’Unbroken’

Junior Musical Theatre

1st: Dean/Black School of Performing Arts-’Forget About The Boy’

Teen Jazz

1st: Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Spell’ 2nd: Haja Dance Company-’Start Walkin’ 3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’One Night Only’ 3rd: The Turning Pointe-’Babylon’

Teen Ballet

1st: Body Language Dance Company-’Scheharazade’ 2nd: Dean/Black School of Performing Arts-’Le Chance’

Teen Hip-Hop

1st: The Turning Pointe-’Earth Girls’ 2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Ransom’ 3rd: Artflux Dance Lab-’Screenagers’

Teen Tap

1st: Spotlight Dance Works-’Try A Little Tenderness’ 2nd: Body Language Dance Company-’For All We Know’ 3rd: Body Language Dance Company-’Another Sad Love Song’

Teen Contemporary

1st: Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Can You Hear That’ 2nd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Pa’lante’ 3rd: Haja Dance Company-’We Are Nothing’

Teen Lyrical

1st: Haja Dance Company-’Don’t Cry’ 2nd: Haja Dance Company-’Change Will Come’

Teen Musical Theatre

1st: Nye Dance Productions-’Wizard of Oz’

Teen Specialty

1st: Powerdance Company-’Freedom’ 2nd: Powerdance Company-’If I’ 2nd: Powerdance Company-’Run’ 3rd: Powerdance Company-’The Chain’

Senior Jazz

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Fancy’ 2nd: Haja Dance Company-’That Stuff’ 3rd: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’That’s Life’

Senior Tap

1st: Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Superstitious’

Senior Contemporary

1st: Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Minus 60′ 2nd: Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Herd of Defense’ 3rd: Spotlight Dance Works-’Ricochet’

Best NU Groups:

NUbie

Spotlight Dance Works-’Ordinary Miracle’

Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Can You Feel It’

Mini

Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Quake’

Spotlight Dance Works-’Gonna Catch You’

Haja Dance Company-’First Class’

Junior

Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Trust’

Haja Dance Company-’For A Second’

Spotlight Dance Works-’Distant Sures’

Teen

The Turning Pointe-’Earth Girls’

Powerdance Company-’Freedom’

Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’I’m Rising’

Haja Dance Company-’We Are Nothing’

Spotlight Dance Works-’Pa’lante’

Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Can You Hear That’

Body Language Dance Company-’For All We Know’

Senior

Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Fancy’

Spotlight Dance Works-’Ricochet’

Haja Dance Company-’Come Back to Me’

Artflux Dance Lab-’Akvaryum’

Kim Massay Dance Productions-’Minus 60′

Studio Pick:

Dean/Black School of Performing Arts-’An Evening I Won’t Forget’

Body Language Dance Company-’For All We Know’

Powerdance Company-’Freedom’

Spotlight Dance Works-’Ricochet’

Noretta Dunworth School of Dance-’Fancy’

Haja Dance Company-’We Are Nothing’

#2021 #dance #nuvo #detroit #michigan

9 notes · View notes

pamphletstoinspire · 5 years

Photo

We Have a Holy Queen on Our Side

Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end

(Luke 1:30-33)

Catholics are often accused of inventing theology, of making things up that have no basis in Scripture. And few Biblical people draw as much non-Catholic ire as Mary and her place in Christian theology.

There are four dogmas relating to Our Lady: her Immaculate Conception, her perpetual Virginity, that she was the Mother of God, and that she was Assumed bodily into heaven. In addition to those four dogmas, there are a number of doctrines which have not been elevated to dogmatic status, but nevertheless are understood to be part of divine revelation. One of them is the focus of today’s feast — the Queenship of Mary.

The accusation that Catholics “make up” theology is easily dismissed. One simply has to look at the path Salvation history in the Old Testament to see that it took time — sometimes many, many generations, for aspects of the unchangeable Will of God to be understood by humanity. Look at the protoevangelium. Look at the understanding of the Passover as a prefigure of the Last Supper (and, to us Catholics, of the Eucharist). Marian dogmas are no exception. Consider the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that, through a singular grace, Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin. While the dogma was declared in 1854, the Church had been slowly perceiving its existence since at least the 400s. The intervening 1400 years were filled with a slow understanding of the nature of Original Sin, its transmission, and the cleansing thereof. Far from some piece of novelty theology, created out of air on the whim of a pope, the truth of Mary’s Immaculate Conception existed from all time, and is Biblically based.

The Queenship of Mary is even more clearly spelled out in Scripture. The angelic greeting at the Annunciation clearly refers to Christ’s Kingship, as the Catechism states, “Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it” (CCC 964). Throughout space and time mothers of monarchs have themselves been known as queens. There are a number of places in the Old Testament, for example, where the mother of the king is referred to not only as a queen, but is honored as a valued councilor of the ruler. Our Lady’s behavior at the wedding in Cana, particularly in light of her Son’s response to it, echoes the Old Testament relationship between kings and their queen mothers.

Contrary to non-Catholic suspicions, Marian doctrine is not idol worship with a thin veneer of Christianty slapped on it. What lies at the heart of all theology involving Mary is a deeper understanding of Christ. The Immaculate Conception helps us better understand Christ’s salvific work on the Cross. The Assumption teaches us about the Resurrection and the Ascension, about the great desire God has to be united with all of us in Heaven. So too can we learn lessons about Our Lord from honoring the queenship of His mother. We see the dignity and glory Christ longs to bestow upon us as His disciples. We see the boundless generosity of God, to call us His children and offer us a share in His inheritance. We see that, just as Mary’s queenship is entirely dependent on Christ, so are we dependent on Him for all things.

And we see how in Christ, all things are made new, and even a humble young woman from a tiny village in an occupied nation can cooperate with grace to change the entire world.

So today, take a moment to straighten your crown, you prince or princess in the Royal House of God, and remember that your queen is there to intercede for you. But be warned — her answer is like to be identical to the one she gave the servants at the wedding in Cana, “Do whatever He tells you”.

BY: CARI DONALDSON

From: https://www.pamphletstoinspire.com/

#we have a holy Queen on our side

20 notes · View notes

citizenscreen · 2 years

Text

Cary Grant, Ted Donaldson, and Janet Blair in Alexander Hall’s ONCE UPON A TIME, released #OnThisDay in 1944

#cary grant #ted donaldson #janet blair

24 notes · View notes

105nt · 3 years

Text

There may be spoilers ...

We watched 2.2 and 2.3 of Modern Love.

The Night Girl Finds a Day Boy was lovely (what a relief) and I find out there's a fairy tale inspiration which is a massive bonus. Well, extra reading, but I am about to have a week off.

I don't see how it's going to encapsulate the story better than Julia Donaldson, but I am going to give it a try.

Strangers on a (Dublin) Train was mixed for me. I am not in Kit Harington's thrall so I could take it or leave it on that level, the scenes on the train were good, but then I got a bit distracted by my phone. There's a good story of the old-fashioned romantic, spanner-in-the-works, Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant kind to come out of this pandemic, I am sure, but this wasn't it, for me.

#modern love #kit harington #the night girl finds a day boy #strangers on a (dublin) train #The Day Boy and Night Girl #George MacDonald #my tv

0 notes

larryland · 5 years

Text

by Barbara Waldinger

In Time Flies and Other Comedies, Barrington Stage Company draws from the canon of David Ives, a playwright crowned by The New York Times as “maestro of the short form,” owing to the quality of his one-act plays. The evening features six sketch comedies, varying between silly and clever, brought to life by a cast of formidable comic performers.

The plays have been selected from three of Ives’ compilations: All in the Timing, Lives of the Saints, and Time Flies and Other Short Plays. There were a couple of dozen plays to choose from but the basis for these six selections is unclear.

Two of the plays could have been replaced by stronger one-acts from the collections. The Mystery at Twicknam Vicarage, as the title suggests, is a parody of Agatha Christie murder mysteries, replete with a dead body at a formal dinner party, a Scotland yard inspector, multiple suspects. . . but the comedy goes off the rails with suggestions of copulation between the victim and various pieces of furniture and rugs. Enigma Variations is a real challenge for the actors, involving different combinations of doppelgangers, requiring each of four performers to mime the speech and gestures of his/her double. But aside from actorly acrobatics, the skit gets tired fairly quickly.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The four other plays are much more successful, unique and cleverly rendered. As a sample of Ives’ specialty: wordplay, Time Flies presents a mating dance between two mayflies out on a date, unaware that they only have one full day to live. Kudos to Costume Designer Elivia Bovenzi who dresses Horace (Cary Donaldson) and May (Debra Jo Rupp) in their fancy duds, with the addition of antennae, wings and tails. From their preferred after-dinner drinks (grasshopper, stinger or stagnant water) to their choice of movies (The Love Bug, The Fly, Travels with my Ant), these characters are funny and endearing, wonderfully embodied by Rupp and Donaldson, and we grieve with them when David Attenborough (Jeff McCarthy), dressed in safari jacket and binoculars, announces their impending demise.

Variations on the Death of Trotsky is just that: eight different versions of a conversation between Leon Trotsky (Carson Elrod) and his wife (Rupp) in Trotsky’s Mexican study, as they attempt to analyze an encyclopedia entry describing Trotsky’s imminent murder by a Spanish Communist posing as a gardener (Donaldson). The physical and verbal comedy is laugh-out-loud outrageous. Elrod, who has performed in All in the Timing and Lives of the Saints Off-Broadway, is the most brilliant comic actor gracing our Berkshire stages. Remember his incomparable portrayal of a robot in Williamstown Theatre Festival’s The Chinese Room (2016) and his bumbling lawyer in Taking Steps at Barrington Stage Company (2017)? Fortunately he is back to entertain us once again this season.

Debra Jo Rupp, following her remarkable tour de force in last year’s The Cake, is hilarious in Life Signs as a corpse who can’t seem to decide whether or not she’s dead, to the consternation of her son (Elrod) and his wife (a terrific Ruth Pferdehirt). With its pricelessly frank sexuality, from the confessions of the mother, to the lascivious doctor (in a go-for-broke performance by McCarthy), to the couple, whose marriage may not be as perfect as it first appears, this play never fails to surprise.

Finally, The Philadelphia features Donaldson and McCarthy as customers in a restaurant served by Pferdehirt as a bored waitress who suddenly bursts from her lethargy in a lightning-fast dialogue. The quirky concept is that the characters, for no apparent reason, find themselves caught in various moods engendered by specific cities that determine how they see and communicate with the world. A shrewd and wacky gem!

The multiple sets, moved by black-clad stagehands, change for each play (as do Bovenzi’s perfectly designed costumes), backed by scenic designer Brian Prather’s modern art construction, with its twinkling squares lit by Matthew Richards’ colorful illumination, to the tune of Eric Shimelonis lively compositions. Director Tracy Brigden, with the help of a dream cast, keeps the evening light and quick. One has the feeling that she encouraged her actors to dive into their roles with abandon, for the onstage performers seem to be enjoying themselves as much as the offstage audience.

Time Flies and Other Comedies runs from July 5—27. Tickets may be purchased online at barringtonstageco.org or call 413-236-8888.

Barrington Stage Company and Hal Kramer present Time Flies and Other Comedies by David Ives. Directed by Tracy Brigden. Cast: Cary Donaldson, Carson Elrod, Jeff McCarthy, Ruth Pferdehirt, and Debra Jo Rupp. Costume Designer: Elivia Bovenzi; Scenic Designer: Brian Prather; Lighting Designer: Matthew Richards; Wig Designer: Mary Schilling-Martin; Original Music/Sound Designer: Eric Shimelonis; Production Stage Maager: Richard Lundy.

Running Time: two hours including intermission. St. Germain Stage, 36 Linden Street, Pittsfield, MA., from July 5; closing July 27.

REVIEW: “Time Flies and Other Comedies” at Barrington Stage by Barbara Waldinger In Time Flies and Other Comedies, Barrington Stage Company draws from the canon of David Ives, a playwright crowned by The New York Times as “maestro of the short form,” owing to the quality of his one-act plays.

0 notes

bdscuatui · 4 years

Photo

Các giao dịch bất động sản ở Massachusetts cho các hạt Hampden, Hampshire và Franklin, ngày 19 tháng 4 năm 2020 AgawamBarbara J. Giordano đến Crystal Melloni, 698 Mill St., $ 157,400.Brian P. Machos và Christine M. Machos đến Cristina M. Cintron và Jonathan Santiago, 36 Juniper Ridge Drive, $ 370.000.Gary E. Suffriti và Thomas D. Suffriti đến John Phillip Moccio và Keri Ann Moccio, 27 Cleveland St., $ 219.000.Gloria R. Albano đến Nicholas J. Biuso và Alison C. Biuso, 4 Haskell St., 240.000 USD.Jamison J. Quist, người được ủy thác và JMQ Realty Trust, người được ủy thác của Christopher Quigley, 16 Lealand Ave, $ 225.000.Jay Passerini đến Antonio P. Liquori Jr., 95 Dogwood Lane, Đơn vị 95, $ 194,900.Jean Cleveland, đại diện, và John Andrew Cleveland, bất động sản, cho Brian W. Elliott và Sarah J. Elliott, 116 Edward St., 100.000 đô la.John P. Paquette, đại diện, và Viola A. Smith, bất động sản, đến Moustaha Ibrahim Tahoun, 805 River Road, $ 142.500.Karen M. Brown và William J. Bates gửi Ashley K. Brodeur, 60 Liberty St., $ 227.900.Kenneth Peters và Pamela Peters cho David S. Weaver và Wendy J. Weaver, 97 James St., $ 235.000.Lottie May Chase đến FF Quality Realty LLC, 20 Annable St., $ 110.000.Marlene P. Harlin, Marlene Harlin và Paul Harlin cho Steven D. Hitchcock và Pamela J. Hitchcock, 123 Robin Ridge Drive, $ 390.000.Michael J. Depratti Jr., và Amy E. Depratti cho Jason S. Donaldson, người được ủy thác và Etabav Realty Trust, người được ủy thác của, 157 River Road, $ 126,251.Richard G. Schreiber cho Eric W. Lottermoser và Linda J. Lottermoser, 35 Thuộc địa Ave., $ 185.000.Scott E. Skolnick, quản trị viên, và Paulene L. Paquette, bất động sản, đến Moustaha Ibrahim Tahoun, 805 River Road, 7.500 đô la.AmherstMaeve Howett và M. Howett đến Frederik Baumgardt và Stella Dee, 15 Eames Ave., $ 570.000.Grey Street LLC, đến J. Curtis Shumway và Jacalyn S. Sexton, 236 North Pleasant St., $ 475.000.Barbara Gravin Wilbur và Alfred Wilbur đến Daniel Cook, 41 Pine Grove, $ 230.000.BelchertownJ.N. Duquette & Son Construction Inc., đến Rheal Duquette và Suzanne Duquette, Magnolia Lane, 405.000 USD.Nicholas E. Bernard đến Douglas Sourdiffe và Brittany Lamotte, 11 đường Blacksmith, $ 224,900.Maurice J. Lalumiere và Kimberly A. Lalumiere cho Daniel Veratti và Breanna Wardwell, 248 Stebbins St., $ 278.000.Nicholas J. Moynihan và Megan L. Moynihan đến Megan L. Moynihan, 51 Barton Ave., 100 đô la.BlandfordHiệp hội thế chấp quốc gia liên bang và Fannie Mae đến Donald Arel và Patricia Arel, 125 Chester Road, $ 162.000.Richard J. Dame đến Christopher C. Gibbs, 19 đường núi Cobble, $ 162.500.Stephanie A. Fontaine đến William B. Hull LLC, Đường 54 Gibbs, $ 900.000.CharlemontCatherine H. Newell Estate, Susan M. Annear, đại diện cá nhân, đến Paul D. Klemer, 245 Main St., 50.000 đô la.ChesterfieldErin M. McEnaney và Nicolas A. Frischer đến David W. Stratton, Leah R. Stratton và Sylvie Jensen, Đường chính 409, $ 418.000.Chicopee4 Perkins LLC, đến Công ty sản xuất Dwight Mill # 12 & 13 LLC, 165 Front St., Bài 12, $ 100.73 Chapin LLC, đến Anthony J. Wheeler và Lauren L. Wheeler, 73 Chapin St., $ 227.000.Brian P. Patrick, Carrie A Patrick và Carrie A. Manya đến Timothy L. Allen, 18 Cadieux Ave., $ 189.000.Byron M. Garcia đến Melissa S. Sanchez, 110 Southwick St., 175.000 USD.Gladysh Capital LLC, đến Nolava LLC, 7 Charbonneau Terrace, $ 1,355,000.Công ty sản xuất Dwight Mill # 12 & 13 LLC, tới 4 Perkins LLC, 165 Front St., $ 100.Joseph H. Lang, Trung Định và Tai Do đến Joseph H. Land, 14 Sullivan St., 25.000 USD.Naz Naji và Samina Naz mông cho James St. Hilaire và Nicole Marie St. Hilaire, 8 Caddyshack Drive, $ 315.000.Norman G. Barree đến Theodore L. Chagnon, 190 Stebbins St., $ 152,700.Russell G. Centerbar và Lynne E. Centerbar đến DW Com Prop LLC, 1492 Drive Drive, $ 390.000.Ngân hàng U S, ủy thác và Ủy thác tham gia chính LSF9, ủy thác của Melissa Torres, 59 Wayfield Ave., $ 186,900.ColrainJo-Anne H. Sherburne và Phillips B. Sherburne đến Jessica L. Marden, Greenfield Road / Prolovich Road, 125.000 đô la.DeerfieldDonald J. Thorpe Estate, Darlene A. Thorpe, đại diện cá nhân, đến Amy Herfurth, 4 Porter St., 213.450 đô la.Donna Louise Blackney cho Robert D. Hallett và Debra A. LaBerge, 31 Thayer St., 270.000 đô la.Đông LongmeadowAmberly K. Matt đến Daniel Castro, 122 Triển vọng St., $ 252,900.Margaret A. Spinks đến Dominic Kirchner II, người được ủy thác và Kaydoke Realty Trust, người được ủy thác, 69 Lombard Ave., 74.000 đô la.Moltenbrey Builders LLC, đến Todd G. McCauley, 145 Porter Road, $ 390.000.Pandiarajan Gnanaprakasam và Anita Suriarajan cho Mario J. Tascon và Christina M. Gallagher, 202 Canterbury Circle, 392.500 đô la.TAScon Homes LLC, đến Jeffrey T. Hansen, 33 Lynwood Road, $ 163.000.Willam A. Townsend và Frances R. Townsend đến Cap Holdings LLC, 200 North Main St., Đơn vị 11, $ 130.000.William O. Kerr và Ebony Johnson đến John E. Chase, 6 Vòng hoa Ave., $ 225.000.Đông thànhMichael F. Huard đến Amy Kathryn Teffer và Mark Alexander Teffer, 57 Parsons St., $ 278.000.Eagle Home Users LLC, đến Rod Motamedi và Tonya Blundon, 14 Winter St., $ 285.000.Jessey Ina-Lee đến Donna M. Calacone, 25 Lazy D Drive, 385.000 đô la.Scott E. Wark và Carmen M. Wark cho Christopher Charles Barcomb và Kaitlin Estelle Barcomb, 42 Peloquin Drive, $ 224,900.XóaDonna L. Roy và Robert S. Roy đến Inge Breor và Richard T. Breor, 29 Forest St., $ 280.000.GranbyRobert T. Brisebois và Dawna Brisebois cho Martin Cepeda Jr., và Bethany Cepeda, 35 Lyn Drive, 240.000 đô la.Cánh đồng xanhAudredy McKemmie, bởi luật sư, hay còn gọi là Audrey McKemmie, bởi luật sư, David McKemmie, luật sư, cho Carl W. Johnson và Harriet Wilby, 5 Emily Lane, Đơn vị 5, $ 194.500.Denise Elwell và James Elwell đến Donna L. Roy, Sân thượng Princeton, Đơn vị 29, $ 100.000.Hayden T. Kanash và Emily R. Rowell đến Lorian A. Tonna Lamuniee, 11 Pickett Lane, 207.500 đô la.Meadows Café & Golf Centre Inc., đến Sheila Orecchio, 398 Deerfield St./Deerfield Street, 280.000 đô la.HatfieldJohn E. Ebbets đến Logan M. Ebbets, 140 Elm St., $ 265.000.Hà LanKeeley Hamblin, đại diện, và Jeanette Driscoll, bất động sản, cho Gregory T. Prentiss Sr., và Susan L. Prentiss, 55 Leno Road, 79.900 đô la.HolyokeAlbert E. Paone và Brenda A. Paone đến Blue Chip Building LLC, 101 Elm St., $ 1,080,000.Barry J. Lawlor, đại diện, và Brian J. Lawlor, bất động sản, cho Samuel Clement Gaskin và Elizabeth Ann Cashman, 44 Bay State Road, $ 185.000.Constance H. Reynold và Constance H. Lynch đến Raymond J. Lynch IV, 61 Harvard St., $ 100.Frances Irizarry đến Durand Đầu tư Bất động sản LLC, 97 Elm St., $ 80.000.Jenifer Gelineau và William I. Gussin cho Elizabeth Whynott, 256 Pine St., 112.900 đô la.Josue Andujar và Clarissa Fargas đến Durand Real Investments LLC, 95 Elm St., $ 67.500.Kendall J. Walsh đến Karen M. Nealon, Keith N. Walsh và Kendall J. Walsh, bất động sản, 71 Calumet Road, 100 đô la.Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., ủy thác, và Popular abs Inc. Series 2007-A, ủy thác của Zebunnis Haq và Nisar Ahmad Miakhail, 615 Hampden St., $ 65.000.HuntingtonKatie L. Boisseau, Philip W. Boisseau và Katie L. Boulanger cho Robert T. Brisebois và Dawna Brisebois, 25 đường Montgomery, 240.000 đô la.LongmeadowLiên minh các giáo đoàn chính thống đến Mohammad J. Bhuyan, 1197 Converse St., $ 235.000.James Grimaldi và Laurie J. Grimaldi cho Christopher Askins và Amber Nicole Berberich, 75 Maple Road, 307.000 đô la.Marcus Cary Imes và Priscilla Anne Kirt đến Marleigh Erin Felsenstein và Cody Richard St Eo, 379 Maple Road, $ 217.000.Ranadhir R. Beereddy và Nitisha Mekala cho Charles Goldblatt và Phyllis Goldblatt, 76 Deepwoods Drive, 405.000 đô la.LudlowDario M. Mercadante đến Mine Sema Kavlak và Dario M. Mercadante, 517 Làn đường lý tưởng, Đơn vị 205, $ 100.Fernando F. Nogueira, bất động sản, Fernando Nogueira, bất động sản, và Diane Moran, đại diện, cho Manuel Vital, Lower Brook Drive, 55.000 đô la.Gary M. Weiner, người được ủy thác, Jennifer A. Germain và Jennifer Germain đến Kenneth A. Butts, 38 Lyon St., 20.000 đô la.Trường hợp Howard William và Trường hợp Paul Edward cho Trường hợp Joanne Ruth, 62 Chapin Greene Drive, $ 82.000.NSP Cư dân LLC, đến Shawn N. Thompson và Kristina M. Thompson, 15 Victor St., $ 148,906.Shawn N. Thompson và Kristina M. Thompson đến NSP Cư dân LLC, 15 Victor St., $ 115.000.Nationstar HECM Acquisition Trust 2018-3, ủy thác và Hội Tiết kiệm Wilmington, ủy thác, đến Beth Ann Lemek, 183 Thuộc địa, $ 245.000.Trường trungElaine D. Gorham và Elaine D. McNealy cho Michael F. Huard, 45 Chester Road $ 232.500.Roger E. Pagerey, Catherine P. P. Gray, Roger E. Pagery và Catharine P. P. Gray đến John P. Waldheim và Rebecca A. Cachat, 139 Arthur Pease Road, 360.000 USD.MontagueMary E. Johnson và Shawn Johnson tới Crystalyn April Russell, 100 giây St., 250.000 đô la.Giáo dụcWright Builders Inc., đến Jamie Elkin và Virginia Elkin, 11 Ford Crossing, $ 693,472.Bệnh viện Hill Development LLC và Cơ quan tài chính phát triển Massachusetts cho Wright Builders Inc., 23 Ford Crossing, 80.000 đô la.Margaret Agatha Eakin, bất động sản, và Theresa Meckel, đại diện cá nhân, đến Pil-Won On, 705 Fairway Village, $ 212.000.Kinda Oberwager và Silas Peno cho Andrew J. Fleming, 34 Cahillane Terrace, 242.500 đô la.Patrick J. Joyce và Terry A. Joyce cho Julia Brown và Howard A. Eiland, 55 Winterberry Lane, $ 545.000.Patrick J. Melnik, người được ủy thác, Beaver Brook Nominee Trust và Patrick J. Melnik Sr., người được ủy thác, đến Nu-Way Homes Inc., 48 Chestnut Avenue Extension, 36.250 đô la.Nu-Way Homes Inc., đến Shawn Willey và Sandra Willey, 48 Hạt dẻ mở rộng, $ 490.000.Emerson Way LLC, đến Suzanne Allen và Arlene Duelfer, 193 Emerson Way, 132.500 đô la.Simon T. Pollock, Simon T. Pollock, đại diện cá nhân, và Barbara P. Tytell, bất động sản, đến Deirdre Sabina Knight, 99 Massasoit St., $ 490.000.Sturbridge Development LLC, đến Lana Gallagher, 19 Higgins Way, $ 599,750.Ethan Vandermark, Ashley Niles Vandmark và Ashley Niles đến Timothy Pitkin và Shaun S. McLean, 11 School St., 525.000 USD.Tadeusz J. Grygorcewicz, Sophie Grygorcewicz, Mary Laband và Zofia Grygorcewicz đến Ana Arregui và Maria Biezma Garrido, 17 Highland Ave., $ 299.900.Linda L. Adams và Linda A. Langlais đến Deryk X. Langlais, người được ủy thác và gia đình Langlais Không thể thu nhập chỉ có thể thu nhập, 72 Lake St., 225.000 đô la.trái camBrock P. Allen đến Newlife LLC, 31 Ball St., $ 110.000.Patricia Mendiola cho Chủ quyền Tập đoàn Von Buren Realty, Inc., 35 & 37 High St., 15.000 USD.PalmerEdward J. Smith đến Syed Hashmi, 15 Barlow St., 100.000 đô la.Karen King, đại diện, và Gordon H. Christiansen, bất động sản, đến Nicholas North, Mason St., $ 29.000.Ngân hàng U S, ủy thác và Tập đoàn chứng khoán tài sản có cấu trúc 2007-TCI, ủy thác của Alex Peterson, 3065 High St., $ 65,010.Bồ nôngElizabeth A. Blumgarten và Elizabeth A. Blumgarten Tin tưởng có thể hủy bỏ đối với Alison Annes và Todd Annes, 12 Harkness Road, $ 380.000.RussellCarla E. Gesek đến Travis Walker và Amy Walker, 170 South Quarter Road, $ 116.000.Scott S. Vanden-Bulcke đến Timothy Brewster, 678 đường General Knox, 242.000 đô la.ShelburneRichard L. Caldwell Ủy thác có thể hủy ngang, Richard Lloyd Caldwell động sản, hay còn gọi là Richard Richard Caldwell động sản, tạm biệt là Richard Richard Caldwell, Faith C. Caldwell, đại diện cá nhân và ủy thác, đến Hilltown Lodge LLC, 904 Mohawk Trail, $ 310.000.Nam HadleySDJ Realty LLC, đến Kevin Haczynski, 26 Lamb St., $ 155.000.Kevin Haczynski đến Michael Kuhn, 26 Lamb St., $ 182.500.Douglas N. Vanderpoel và Deborah A. Vanderpoel đến Douglas N. Vanderpoel, Phố Morgan, 100 đô la.Kathleen M. Cole và Paul D. Boudreau, luật sư thực tế, đến Lucy M. Conley và Christopher H. Conley, 1 Burnett Ave., $ 275,000.SouthamptonConstance C. Baron, Kathleen A. Archambeault, ủy thác, Bonnie M. Ledoux, ủy thác, Tuyên bố ủy thác của Armond J. Baron và Armond J. Baron Không thể tin tưởng đối với Joseph A. Baron và Janet E. Baron, 9 Pomeroy Meadow Road, 165.000 USD .Richard P. Gwinner, Edward H. Gwinner Jr., Ronald D. Gwinner, Karen Bowman, Paul Wagner, Lucille F. Metcalf, Lucille G. Metcalf, Susan L. Teffar, Phòng trưng bày Nancy, Robert L. Goyer, Barbara M. Laflam , đại diện cá nhân, và Robert E. Baker, bất động sản, đến Barbara M. Laflam, Cook Road và County Road, 148.313 đô la.NamwickLillian J. knowlton cho Robert Lee Evans Jr., và Heike Schmalstieg, 53 Rosewood Lane, Đơn vị E-4, 139.599 đô la.SpringfieldAlonzo Williams đến Delroy Gayle, 16 Pickett Place, 50.000 đô la.Angel L. Cartagena và Louis G. Lopilato-Cartagena đến Fallah Razzak, 1021 Carew St., 105.500 đô la.Burke St. LLC và Burke Street LLC, đến Round Two LLC, 28 Burke St., 105.000 đô la.Cig4 LLC, đến Roberto Rodriguez Pellot, 127 Massachusetts Ave., 155.000 đô la.Constance A. White to Hector Concepcion, 1333 Trang Boulevard, $ 137.500.Daniel Beauregard đến Payton Rawls, 62 Kensington Ave., $ 210.000.David E. Smith, người đại diện, và Kathleen M. Smith, bất động sản, đến Pamela J. O HãyNeil, 131 Hartford Terrace, 218.000 đô la.Công ty Đầu tư Đại lộ Đông, đến 162 Đông LLC, 162 Đông Ave., $ 425.000.Erica N. Alvarez đến Jevaughn McMillan, 16-18 Hampden St., 180.000 USD.Homestead Connections LLC, đến Miguel A. Mejia Polanco, 44 Melville St., $ 185,000.Janet E. Matusewicz đến Zakaria Saleh, 108 Silas St., 90.000 USD.Janet S. Crum, James E. Crum và Matthew L. Crum cho Gregory Charles Parrott, 27 Vail St., 135.000 đô la.Jeffrey L. Brown, Jeffery L. Brown và Christa Brown đến Christa Brown, 261 Greenaway Drive, 100 đô la.Josefina Forestier và Javier Vasquez đến Carlos M. Pena và Maria C. Pena, 218-220 Orange St., $ 171.500.Joseph S. Bruno đến Arelys Romero và Juan Romero III, 24 Warrenton St., 180.000 USD.Lachenauer LLC, đến Kevin D. Tran và Viet Trung T. Dang, 16 Nelson Ave., $ 140.300.Leon Woods đến Caleb M Mattsson-Boze và Colleen D. Mattsson-Boze, 21 Wellesley St., $ 189.900.Manuel C. Salgado và Maria H. Salgado đến Sun Flynn và Thomas Flynn, 51 Kosciusko St., $ 159.900.Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., ủy thác và HSI Asset Securization Corp Trust 2006-WMC1, ủy thác của Juan Santana, 84 Goodrich St., 84.900 đô la.Cho thuê Onota LLC, đến Elias Severino, 110 Gilman St., $ 185.000.Liên đoàn cho vay mua nhà liên bang Corp, đến Ahmed Al Jashaam, 33 Berkeley St., $ 85.000.Patriot Living LLC, đến Whitney L. Serrano, 12 Santa Barbara St., 164.800 đô la.Ravin S. Acharya và Dika Devi Karki đến Luis Figueroa-Ortega, 236 West Allen Ridge Road, $ 173.000.SA Capital Group LLC, đến Bretta Construction LLC, Seymour Avenue, 25.000 đô la.Stella L. Blakeborough đến Cig4 LLC, 782 Sumner Ave., $ 87.000.Tina M. Cordi đến Ibrahim Abdi và Rumbila Abdullahi, 15 Hazen St., 199.900 USD.Tony M. Taylor, đại diện, Charles Lester Taylor, bất động sản, và Charles L. Taylor, bất động sản, đến Alycar Investments LLC, 97-99 Norfolk St., $ 119.000.Ngân hàng U S, ủy thác và BCAT 2016-18TT, ủy thác của Emmanuel Tete-Donkor, 115 Rosewell St., $ 171.000.Virginai Ellis Golemba đến Harsh Ashokkumar Patel, 892-898 Main St., 350.000 USD.Ngân hàng Wells Fargo, ủy thác và Dòng tín dụng cho vay thế chấp Carrington 2006-NC3, ủy thác của Miles Alden Business Agency LLC, 240 Center St., 65.000 đô la.Ngân hàng Wells Fargo đến William Thomas Raleigh, 166 Garland St., $ 117,11.William R. Herman đến Jeffrey P. Bouyea, 89 Harrow Road, $ 215.000.Wolfpack Realty Corp, đến James McCarthy, 11 Penrose St., $ 159.900.Chủ nhậtPaul Stavropulos, Grace Stavropulos và Honeylyne Grace Teruel đến Chiu Sik Wu và Weiai Xu, 145 Plumtree Road, $ 590.000.Goodyear Family Revocable Trust, Joan E. Goodyear, ủy thác, đến Martha E. Lorantos và Thomas W. Partington, 22 North Silver Lane, 478.000 đô la.TollandỦy ban Tiêu đề Pháp lý ROF III Hoa Kỳ 2015-1, ủy thác và Ngân hàng Hoa Kỳ, ủy thác, đến Castle 2020 LLC, 272 Meadow Drive, $ 35,400.đồRuby Realty LLC, đến Joseph O. Critelli và Amanda L. Pare, 95 Babcock Tavern Road, $ 299.000.Công ty TNHH PJC Realty MA Inc., đến Walgreen Eastern Co Inc., 139 West St., $ 1,300,000.Walgreen Eastern Co Inc., và Walgreen Co., cho Ware Equity Partners LLC, 139 West St., $ 680,000.Hẻm núiErica Cooke và Kevin M. Cooke đến Jacob Cooke, 60 đường Athol, $ 188.000.Tây SpringfieldBrian S. Brady và Christina M. Brady đến Nathan E. Staples, 51 Lantern Lane, 336.000 đô la.Donald J. Donahue cho Anthony J. Iennaco và Trisha Fisher, 99 Forris St., $ 254.900.Fallah Razzak và Shakira Lubega đến Joseph T. Martin và Sara L. Edwards, 340 Amostown Road, 220.000 USD.Geraldine Theresa Racicot đến Vòng Hai LLC, 193 Bosworth St., $ 145.000.Paul K. Blankenburg, đại diện, và Amy Blankenburg, bất động sản, đến Manchester Enterprises LLC, 156 Upper Beverly Hills, 80.000 đô la.Vincent T. Bovino và Robin M. Bovino cho Matthew J. Plasse và James Matthew Plasse, 106 Greystone Ave., 240.900 đô la.WestfieldBethany E. Hết sức với Julie Cuttell, 5 Maplewood Ave., $ 176.000.Carlos Bolivar Bermejo Tenesaca và Luz Mila Neira Tenesaca cho Andrea Strom và William Metzger, Vòng tròn 52 Marla, 452.400 USD.Hiệp hội thế chấp quốc gia liên bang và Fannie Mae đến Thomas Kowalski, 1779 Granville Road, $ 203,023.David S. Weaver và Wendy J. Weaver cho William E. Leavy và Libby A. Leavy, 3 Locust St., $ 224.500.Evelyn Tirado đến Jennifer L. Bennett, 243 Southwick Road, 232.500 đô la.F H B Realty LLP, Heather Cassell và Edward Cassell IV cho Brian Robert Rucki, 1430 Russell Road Đơn vị 7, $ 117.500.Frances A. Slasienski đến Robert R. Morin, 55 Woodside sân thượng $ 262.500.Joanne Tirrell, đại diện, và David R. Strong, bất động sản, cho Cheryl Giusti và Brian Giusti, 38 Dickens Drive, 205.000 đô la.Laurence N. Brady, Mary Lee Brady và Mary L. Brady đến Kathleen R. Brady, 39 Old Feed Hills Road, 200.000 USD.Liên đoàn cho vay mua nhà liên bang Corp, đến Bohdan Balandyuk, 95 Đại lộ Beveridge, $ 140.000.Sinh La và Max La đến Richard E. Clark Jr., và Gina L. Clark, 16 Clinton Ave., 150.000 đô la.Wilbraham2301 Boston Road LLC, đến Leonard S. Remaly và Michelene C. Remaly, 20 Lodge Lane, $ 411,056.Daniel J. Kelley và Daniel J. Kelly đến Michelle T. Gallien, 931 Main St., $ 230.000.Mary A. Michaud, đại diện, Stanley John Trzeciak, bất động sản, và Stanley J. Trzeciak, bất động sản, đến Franklin D. Quigley Jr., và Mary Jo Troy Quigley, 12 High Pine Circle, $ 292.500.Mathew N. Chaplin và Daylin A. Chaplin đến Jack McIntyre và Jordan Walczak, 870 Stony Hill Road, $ 275,000.Susan T. McDiarmid cho Craig M. Healy và Tracey Ann Healy, 10 Winterberry Drive, 480.000 đô la.[ad_2] Nguồn

0 notes