Tuesday, December 21, 2010

my mom, Paula Bellow, is with Jesus

Paula Bellow Funeral Service this Thursday 10AM

The funeral service will be at 10am this Thursday (December 23rd) at Calvary Baptist Church on Dowlen in Beaumont, TX we will not only remember and celebrate her LIFE in Christ but we will also rejoice that our mom is now in the presence of her God and Savior, seeing him face to face, full of Glory and great joy. There will also be a reception at her daughter’s home (123 Selman St, Lumberton, TX) following the memorial service. If you would like to visit with our family before then, there will be a visitation at Broussard’s Mortuary tomorrow (Wednesday, December 22nd) from 5pm – 8pm on Hwy 96 in Silsbee, TX.

Thank you everyone for your prayers, emails and support. Jesus listened and she went peacefully into the arms of Christ. That is the best Christmas present she could ever get.

Paula Bellow raised 10 children who love and serve the Lord. She would tell everyone about Jesus everywhere she went and she touched literally thousands of lives through her years of ministry and many came to know Jesus because they saw Jesus in her. Even though she was dying of cancer she praised Jesus everywhere she went. Calvary Baptist Beaumont made a video of her talking about her cancer and praising God. (I will post the amazing testimony video on youtube) The faith she displayed showed others that Jesus is real and gave them faith.

Click Here to see video of Paula Bellow Praising God even though dying of Cancer. Amazing Testimony Video!

She loved Jesus and her family and God did amazing miracles in her life to get her this far and God allowed her family to all be with her and talk to her before the passed. But we did not say goodbye and only said see you later. We might mourn but not like those who do not know Christ. Our mourning comes with the Hope and Joy that she is with Jesus and we will see her again.

Praise God for his amazing plan. May others know Him and the peace and salvation He brings.

In Christ,

David Bellow

Friday, December 17, 2010

David Bellow to submit Motion for Summary Judgment in Obamacare Lawsuit

Southeast Texas Resident, David Bellow, will file a Motion for Summary Judgment in his individual lawsuit against the Federal Government regarding the Healthcare Bill.

Bellow filed the lawsuit pro se the day after the Healthcare Bill was passed. Bellow argued that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force him to engage in commerce by forcing him to purchase a private health insurance plan or face a penalty. This is also known as the individual mandate requirement of the Healthcare Bill. Bellow also argued that the bill would violate his 4th amendment rights because the government would have full and unwarranted access to his private health records (and those of all Americans) in order to determine if he has “qualified insurance” or not. It would also violate his rights by not allowing him to make his own health decisions because the plaintiff’s private health decisions might not fit the government’s standard of what they determine to be “qualified”.

The Motion for Summary Judgment is a request asking the presiding judge to rule on the constitutionality of the healthcare bill without needing to go to a trial.

Along with the Motion for Summary Judgment, Bellow will provide, as evidence, a copy of the ruling from Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Sebelius. The federal judge in that case granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and ruled that the individual mandate section of the Healthcare Bill was unconstitutional. This ruling sets a precedent that should be carried over to Bellow’s case and Bellow’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and the presiding judge should rule in favor of the plaintiff by declaring the healthcare bill unconstitutional.

Timetable of events:

1) Bellow filed lawsuit against Obamacare – click here

2) Government responded with a Motion to Dismiss claiming Plaintiff has no standing

3) Bellow responds to Motion to Dismiss claiming he does have standing – click here

4) Bellow will file Motion for Summary Judgment on Monday, Dec. 20th, 2010

Click here for a copy of Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Sebelius

David Bellow Response to Government's Motion to Dismiss in Obamacare Lawsuit

The Federal Government filed a motion to dismiss my lawsuit that claims Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Below is my response to the Motion to Dismiss:



Beaumont Division

Michael David Bellow Jr.


CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:10-CV-00165







Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

1) The United States Constitution, in Article III, section 2, gives Federal District Courts jurisdiction to hear cases involving constitutional rights and federal law. This is called Federal Question Jurisdiction.

This Plaintiff’s complaint clearly pertains to issues involving constitutional rights and federal laws, and is not just simply one individual’s dislike of government policy.

2) Standing is simply the plaintiff’s ability to show the court that the law in question is connected to a harm that the plaintiff is or will receive. The law will clearly affect the plaintiff because the plaintiff is forced to pay for a private health service or pay a penalty to the government.

The plaintiff did not present more information about himself in the original complaint, other than he is an American Citizen, because that is all the information needed because this law applies to ALL American citizens.

The Defendants, in their motion the dismiss, admit that all American citizens must maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or face a penalty starting in 2014, unless the individual is exempt. Here is the information about the plaintiff that the court needs: The plaintiff is a 26 year old working male and does not get free health insurance coverage and is not exempt from having coverage. Therefore the plaintiff must pay for health insurance coverage, a private health service, or the government will penalize the plaintiff, therefore directly damaging the plaintiff through an unconstitutional extension of power that amounts to a direct tax. The penalty not going into effect until 2014 has no effect on the fact that, as the law stands, the plaintiff must pay for private healthcare coverage or face a government penalty. The plaintiff does not need to wait until he is hurt to file a lawsuit when the plaintiff can clearly show that he WILL be hurt. This lawsuit is to prevent the plaintiff from being hurt by a clearly foreseeable damage.

The damages do not only pertain to a monetary penalty. The damages also pertain to a direct infringement of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Even if the defendants offered free health insurance coverage for the plaintiff, the fact is that the plaintiff has no option to not have any health care coverage at all. Nowhere does the constitution allow the government to force all individuals to have health insurance. The defendants might have a constitutional authority to regulate commerce and regulate health insurance, but the defendants do not have any constitutional authority to force all individuals to actually engage in said commerce. For instance, the government can regulate the auto industry, but the government cannot force everyone to buy or have a car (even if it was given to them for free). The defendants cite Baldwin v. Sebelius as a reason to dismiss the plaintiff’s case because in Baldwin v. Sebelius the court dismissed the case because the plaintiff could have changes in his job or age that would qualify him for minimum coverage by 2014. This does not apply to the plaintiff because the plaintiff in this case does not want minimum coverage by 2014 and instead the plaintiff believes it is his constitutional right to decide to have no private health coverage at all and the defendants forcing the plaintiff to have coverage extends beyond the defendants’ authority and infringes on the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

The damages also extend to an infringement of plaintiff’s personal medical decisions and the privacy of their medical records. The defendants, in their motion to dismiss, state that some individuals will be exempt if they can show that they have a health insurance policy that would qualify as minimum coverage. This statement opens up an entirely different and more complex issue than what has already been addressed. First of all, how will the government know whether or not to penalize plaintiff for not having qualifying health insurance unless the government has complete access to plaintiff’s private health records, which would be an infringement of an individual’s fourth amendment rights. Second, what is considered qualifying health insurance? This seems to indicate that the government will approve all healthcare plans. That means that the plaintiff’s private treatment choices could be determined by what the government determines that all health insurances must offer, or not offer, in order to be qualified. This practice of the government determining what qualifying health insurance is will predetermines plaintiff’s potential treatment options. The defendants determining what is qualifying or not could also go against an individual’s First Amendment rights. If the government says that, in order to be qualified, all health insurance policies must offer abortion, and the plaintiff does not believe in paying for abortions because it is against his religion, then that individual is being deprived of their right to practice their religious beliefs. These questions of how the defendants will access plaintiff’s personal health records, and how the defendants will determine what is qualifying insurance, present issues that are serious enough to be examined by the court.


The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should not be granted.

Respectfully submitted and signed this 11th day of December, 2010


Plaintiff, Michael David Bellow Jr.