|
The DPA Constitution
The DPA clowns keep touting their governance, specifically the requirement in Article IV, Section 7 of their Constitution & By-Laws. Here’s the quote:
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..” Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way: 1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time. 2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer. 3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. 4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer. Here are some quick takeaways: • It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third. • Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority. Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws: “..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.” The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy. The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..” Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity. The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance. Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true. The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority. Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too! |
so. your fellow pilots are 'clowns'?
you relish an alpa pilot being abandoned by the association because they 'dont agree' with his grievance.....or feel any obligation for his defense. yet this same organization spared no expense defending an mec chairman who was committing tax fraud. after telling hundreds of training department pilots 'they werent really alpa pilots'.....and were "on their own".... got it. p.s. if you want to post something and question what 'clowns' wrote it....how about you start with the retirement language from the alpa experts that allowed our unqualified pension benefit to be left fully exposed as an operating expense....and nothing more than an i.o.u. in a paper sack from the next management frank lorenzo. |
Originally Posted by rube
(Post 2175098)
The DPA clowns keep touting their governance, specifically the requirement in Article IV, Section 7 of their Constitution & By-Laws. Here’s the quote:
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..” Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way: 1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time. 2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer. 3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. 4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer. Here are some quick takeaways: • It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third. • Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority. Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws: “..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.” The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy. The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..” Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity. The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance. Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true. The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority. Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too! Meanwhile, back on planet earth, Dalpa, via our management friendly NC, has f'd up our negotiations six ways from Sunday. Did you get the memo that we're now in a gubment mandated timeout Rube? Keep wasting your time on an outfit that isn't our CBA...while our current CBA is flushing the last nine months down the toilet. Thanks for your focus Rube... |
Originally Posted by rube
(Post 2175098)
The DPA clowns keep touting their governance, specifically the requirement in Article IV, Section 7 of their Constitution & By-Laws. Here’s the quote:
“..When the current total meets the 25% total, an automatic Recall vote is triggered.. ..50% plus one of the total responsible pilots vote to recall the leader. The leader is OUT..” Either the DPA doesn’t even read their own governing documents, or they are fervently hoping none of the Delta pilots will bother reading them. Their C&BL does require them to maintain an online popularity contest for every officer in their organization, but their own governance contradicts the rest of their message. I highlighted these contradictions, by the way: 1. A Recall petition for each Officer position will be maintained on the Association website with direct access provided to all active members in Good Standing. Members may add their names to or remove their names from petitions at any time. 2. The President, Executive Vice President, Vice Presidents or Secretary may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving a Two-Thirds (2/3) vote of the Seniority Block Representatives, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken within fifteen (15) days. Also, receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the active membership in any single Seniority Block will cause the Secretary to inform the remaining Seniority Blocks that a recall petition has been started. Receipt of petitions from one third (1/3) of the Active members in two thirds (2/3) of all Seniority Blocks shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer. 3. A Seniority Block Representative may, with or without cause, be removed from office. Upon receiving petitions from one-third (1/3) of the Active Seniority Block members, the Secretary shall cause a Recall ballot to be taken. The Secretary shall direct the Election Committee to begin balloting within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the petitions. 4. In any such Recall ballot, a Two-Thirds Majority Vote of the Active Seniority Block membership shall be necessary to remove the Officer. Here are some quick takeaways: • It wouldn’t be a 25% trigger in the popularity contest, it takes one-third. • Under the DPA C&BL, it requires much more than a simple majority to remove an elected officer; it takes a two-thirds super majority. Under ALPA governance, the recall of a local council representative requires two simple majority votes; one to place recall on the agenda, and a second vote on the recall itself. In both cases, the threshold is 50% plus one vote. An MEC officer (such as the Master Chairman) is subject to recall in the following way, as quoted from Article IV, Section 16 of the ALPA Constitution & By-Laws: “..at least fifty percent but less than two-thirds of the Master Executive Council has voted in favor of recall, a motion may be offered from the floor requesting a second vote on the recall motion using the roll call voting procedure. This motion to conduct a roll call vote on the recall motion must be allowed, if requested, as the next order of business following the first recall vote, and shall require a simple majority of the MEC.” The “DPA Difference” is that every part of their so-called governance is littered with language that insulates their leaders from simple majorities. One-third of their representative body can cling to power, stymie every attempt at collective bargaining, or nullify the results of negotiations just as completely as their governance nullifies the legitimate authority that belongs to the majority in every democracy. The DPA writes, “Every morning, every elected DPA official will grab their coffee and probably take a quick look at their personal recall list..” Why? If they have the support of one-third of the electorate, all they need is one more vote to tie everything up. Aside from being a craven way of governing – with the notion that officers should act like political windsocks – the DPA reliance on super majorities makes entrenched elected officials even less likely to care about the will of the majority. The system is built to create and sustain factions at the expense of the consensus that is the foundation of unity. The DPA’s governance is designed to hold the majority hostage to whatever bunch of nihilist clowns can scrape together one-third of the vote. This is exactly what some of our idiot reps and their corps of baboons on social media are trying to do to our union today, and the only thing holding it back is our current governance. Who wrote this garbage? I heard it was Art Williams. I’m dying to know if that’s true. The DPA will tell you that they're a "bottom-up" organization, but one look at their governing documents proves that is completely false. They fear any legitimate democratic result, and would hold the rest of us hostage to their lunatic minority. Who represented Timmy at his hearing last month? I'm dying to know that, too! |
Originally Posted by BobZ
(Post 2175128)
...yet this same organization spared no expense defending an mec chairman who was committing tax fraud.
after telling hundreds of training department pilots 'they werent really alpa pilots'.....and were "on their own".... The IRS was correctly going after both of the above. Some instructors ended up paying hefty back taxes, and instead of accepting responsibility for their own crime of tax evasion tried to shift the blame to ALPA. |
Originally Posted by Viking busdvr
(Post 2175172)
DPA must be gaining traction.... Nobody takes the time and effort to bad-mouth an organization if it's insignificant...
Why don't you give us your opinion of why the details of the DPA Constitution are such a good idea? How will it allow us to make progress and move forward? |
After reading the transcript, "clowns" seems a propos:
MR. PUCKETT: Not to object here, are we doing openers? This is just argument, and it's not even -- it's argument on some other topic. Is he giving his opening statement, or is he just giving a soliloquy to the board? I don't understand what he's doing. |
Originally Posted by Viking busdvr
(Post 2175172)
DPA must be gaining traction.... Nobody takes the time and effort to bad-mouth an organization if it's insignificant...
1. From Article XI, Section 1., in order to start negotiations on any subject, LOA, Section 6, etc, even if a simple majority of representatives want it, 1/3 can prevent it. 2. "Only the President, with the Two-Thirds (2/3) Majority approval of the Executive Board, may declare a Tentative Agreement has been reached with the Company." Wow, that's some god-like power. Even Lee Moak didn't have that power. And if we go by what Rube wrote in the initial post, he can't be removed if 1/3 want to keep him. This isn't democracy, this is a tyranny of the minority or worse, we create demigods that are very difficult to remove. And the ability to get a TA, with it possible to be blocked if 1/3 don't get their special interest item means little to no progress. Forget the personalities we all have difficulty with. The DPA is proposing a structural change that guarantees failure and stagnation. It makes me think the goal of TC is union destruction, plain and simple. Your thoughts Viking? Why is this a good idea? |
Originally Posted by Dharma
(Post 2175191)
Viking, let me help you get started on why the DPA Constitution is such a good idea. Just as an FYI, I'm referencing page 32 of the DPA Constitution and By-Laws:
1. From Article XI, Section 1., in order to start negotiations on any subject, LOA, Section 6, etc, even if a simple majority of representatives want it, 1/3 can prevent it. 2. "Only the President, with the Two-Thirds (2/3) Majority approval of the Executive Board, may declare a Tentative Agreement has been reached with the Company." Wow, that's some god-like power. Even Lee Moak didn't have that power. And if we go by what Rube wrote in the initial post, he can't be removed if 1/3 want to keep him. This isn't democracy, this is a tyranny of the minority or worse, we create demigods that are very difficult to remove. And the ability to get a TA, with it possible to be blocked if 1/3 don't get their special interest item means little to no progress. Forget the personalities we all have difficulty with. The DPA is proposing a structural change that guarantees failure and stagnation. It makes me think the goal of TC is union destruction, plain and simple. Your thoughts Viking? Why is this a good idea? |
Originally Posted by Viking busdvr
(Post 2175204)
You need to read my post again. Nowhere did I say anything was either a good, or a bad, idea. I merely stated that DPA must be gaining momentum if the usual DALPA shrills are out in force this morning to bash DPA... Were marching orders put out last night to start bashing DPA? No one wastes their time beating up on an organization that is insignificant. Let alone write a short mystery novel as rube did to open this thread.... DPA must be gaining momentum.... Simply stating my observation...
My apologies. |
Originally Posted by Viking busdvr
(Post 2175204)
You need to read my post again. Nowhere did I say anything was either a good, or a bad, idea. I merely stated that DPA must be gaining momentum if the usual DALPA shrills are out in force this morning to bash DPA... Were marching orders put out last night to start bashing DPA? No one wastes their time beating up on an organization that is insignificant. Let alone write a short mystery novel as rube did to open this thread.... DPA must be gaining momentum.... Simply stating my observation...
It's not a mystery novel. It's an indictment. Whoever wrote the DPA governance desired an outcome where one third of the membership could control everything. Why would anyone view that as superior to a true democracy? There are some other gems in the C&BL. Stuff that will get Timmy sued for DFR on Day One. I'll allow your suspense to fester a bit. Love that transcript. Idiots... |
Just read it. Did ALPA really bail on him 2 weeks prior?! How is this possible? Is he still a dues paying member? Can ALPA arbitrarily decide to not represent a member and then side with the company on a grievance? This is very troubling.
I have written off ALPA as too bureaucratic to take a strong stance on anything related to national politics or bargaining. For my money I only rely on them as insurance against one day making a mistake or being singled out for discipline. What am I paying for? |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2175305)
Just read it. Did ALPA really bail on him 2 weeks prior?! How is this possible? Is he still a dues paying member? Can ALPA arbitrarily decide to not represent a member and then side with the company on a grievance? This is very troubling.
Don't the transcripts shows TC discussing this with ALPA and the company since April 4, 2016? The DPA emails from shortly after that (April 27, 2016) indicate that Tim was unhappy with ALPA representation and (my interpretation) be unwilling to have them represent him anyways in a grievance. Being told by experts that there was no grievance didn't stop TC in this instance, just like it didn't stop him from pursuing retribution for his furlough by going on the rivet campaign. He's a guy who is unable to accept an answer he doesn't like, even if every expert is telling him different, and he'd be happy to have ALPA exposed to a frivolous charge for a crazy grievance. Or he's just trying to be contumacious. |
Originally Posted by Dharma
(Post 2175349)
notEnuf,
Don't the transcripts shows TC discussing this with ALPA and the company since April 4, 2016? The DPA emails from shortly after that (April 27, 2016) indicate that Tim was unhappy with ALPA representation and (my interpretation) be unwilling to have them represent him anyways in a grievance. Being told by experts that there was no grievance didn't stop TC in this instance, just like it didn't stop him from pursuing retribution for his furlough by going on the rivet campaign. He's a guy who is unable to accept an answer he doesn't like, even if every expert is telling him different, and he'd be happy to have ALPA exposed to a frivolous charge for a crazy grievance. Or he's just trying to be contumacious. I get the DPA emails and recently started reading them as my confidence in ALPA's leadership to RESTORE our contract is waning. JM's words. I supported him then because I believed in his ability and integrity. Now I question his willingness to achieve RESTORATION without giving concessions. QOL needs to be RESTORED too. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2175413)
Contumacious in my case refers to the NO vote, kinda like wearing the Rocket Surgeon moniker with pride.
I get the DPA emails and recently started reading them as my confidence in ALPA's leadership to RESTORE our contract is waning. JM's words. I supported him then because I believed in his ability and integrity. Now I question his willingness to achieve RESTORATION without giving concessions. QOL needs to be RESTORED too. It's normal to feel uncertainty and a lack of confidence at the end game. Join the crowd. Restoration has many different meanings. What is restoration for a 1986 hire is different than a 2007 hire. |
Originally Posted by Dharma
(Post 2175440)
I've only seen "contumacious" used by one other person, and that was by an ALPA attorney in the DPA hacking case. It's in the court transcript I believe someone posted on Chit Chat, and maybe here. If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, you are choosing the right person.
It's normal to feel uncertainty and a lack of confidence at the end game. Join the crowd. Restoration has many different meanings. What is restoration for a 1986 hire is different than a 2007 hire. I am not nervous (your word) because I have been to this rodeo before. I am dismayed at the lack of resolve because again I will be presented with an agreement that has nothing in the form of QOL gains and pay that is not industry leading. This is likely the best/only opportunity for real gains and we seem to be wasting it on forming new disciplinary and pay review boards. My, how far we have fallen. The end will only come when management agrees to the more that reasonable December table position. There is no reason to accept anything less. If his takes years, that is on management. For those who have the most to lose or gain from this contract it will be well worth the wait. I could have 20 years remaining under the baseline set by this contract. Many will have 30+. The damage done by QOL concessions won't even be felt by most of the YES men. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2175515)
There is no reason to accept anything less. If this takes years, that is on management.
I guess we always have profit sharing... and if management wants to give us that, with no changes, you can guess how much it'll be worth in a few years. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2175515)
I don't doubt the differences a diverse pilot group of 13000+ with ages ranging from 20s to 64+. 2001 hires also have a different perspective, as due the pilots from a non-Delta legacy background.
I am not nervous (your word) because I have been to this rodeo before. I am dismayed at the lack of resolve because again I will be presented with an agreement that has nothing in the form of QOL gains and pay that is not industry leading. This is likely the best/only opportunity for real gains and we seem to be wasting it on forming new disciplinary and pay review boards. My how far we have fallen. The end will only come when management agrees to the more that reasonable December table position. There is no reason to accept anything less. If his takes years, that is on management. For those who have the most to lose or gain from this contract it will be well worth the wait. I could have 20 years remain under the baseline set by this contract. Many will have 30+. The damage done by QOL concessions won't even be felt by most of the YES men. |
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2175533)
Just curious. How long do you have til 65?
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2175536)
If you are willing to say, go first. Does it matter? We have all generations represented at Delta. Those very close to 65 will only live with this agreement for a few years while the rest of the pilots will live with it for the duration of their careers, some in excess of 40 years.
Your turn. |
Originally Posted by Dharma
(Post 2175180)
Bob is referring to a Delta Master Chairman who claimed Florida residency, but allegedly lived in Georgia, and (I think) instructors who claimed other states but were required to pay Georgia income taxes.
The IRS was correctly going after both of the above. Some instructors ended up paying hefty back taxes, and instead of accepting responsibility for their own crime of tax evasion tried to shift the blame to ALPA. delta, the corporation, had initially violated GA tax law in failing to begin witholding from 'G.O.' employees....which line pilots became when they were transferred from 030 to 052. apparently to avoid penalty for this...delta cooperated with the investigation and provided all our personal info. it was not until AFTER the flight instructors....most who were in good faitrh complying with railway labor provisions IRT state tax liability....brought this to alpa, and were told to get lost.... does your version of history remotely resemble the truth. the mec and chair...issued a statement they determined "there was no greater issue at stake for the delta pilot group" and so were going to do nothing. personally, i was told directly by an alpa operative,,,"you a-holes in the training department arent really line pilots anyways".......the rationale for this pricks finding?......the training dept was not covered by the PWA. i guess thats not alpas fault either. it was not until AFTER the GA board of revenue attorneys became appraised of the mec chairs fraud....that magically there was a 'greater issue' for the pilot group. the point is.....if the alpa personalities du jour find you a problem, or make a personal decision about the legitimacy of a pilots circumstance....that pilot, or group of pilots are s.o.l. the dysfunction is carried to national by these 'clowns'.....and there are hundreds of millions that has been paid legal settlements that are evidence of that arbitrary stupidity. it is evidence of the self perpetuating arrogant ignorance that yet again an alpa operative can entertain distain for a pilot/group of pilots that have no bearing on, and have cost this group not one red cent.......yet can find northing but undying allegiance to a bunch of 'clowns' that have LITERALLY cost this pilot group BILLIONS. |
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 2175584)
I have 9 years left. And yes it does matter. The problem with what I keep seeing here is that those of us with less time left should either a) take one for the team (Already done that) or b) get thrown under the bus by those with the longest time to recover and be happy about it. So then how much time remaining does one have to have to matter, because those with a short time left apparently don't?
Your turn. I didn't say your seniority doesn't matter. I was trying to say all age groups are represented and a simple majority will decide what is acceptable. I reject the notion that in these times we have to still give to get industry standard, not leading, pay rates. The norm is years of negotiations not early deals that are cost neutral with concessions. The problem is the bankruptcy mindset. We had little choice in the bad times, but to cooperate and give and ride it out. These are very different times. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:19 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands