I am now raising funds here: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mark-howell-for-justice/

The NEC elections, disciplinary panel decision ending the brief suspension of Jeremy Corbyn on EHRC report publication day, and the leader's refusal to accept that decision, all make issues of accountability for what happened during the 2017 general election, here under examination, important not only for what should or should not have been the correct course of recent history, and liability for any impropriety, but also for how to navigate the future course of events in the short to medium term.

The allocated Court of Appeal judge (who I shall discretely not name) has had all outstanding documents inserted in the eleven lever arch files (one of which holds the leaked report and another the rulebook) for some two weeks as at the time of writing. How much other cases have intruded to restrict consideration I have no idea.  I only hope the matter is explored fully. 

On the basis of legal argument on my behalf by David Lemer of counsel as to various claims in relation to the 2017 general election, the Court of Appeal yesterday suspended any entitlement to costs prior to considering possible defendants' further arguments in response late in late September.

David Lemer of Doughty Street Chambers will represent the case before the Court of Appeal.

Further funds are needed as the amount of work involved is considerable.

The Court of Appeal Judge is awaiting transcripts of the hearings in the High Court on 19 June and 30 July. 

The Labour Party has contributed toward the cost. 

Next steps will be decided in the week commencing 1 September.

The Court of Appeal is deciding whether to allow the Labour Party internal report evidenclng the subvertion of the 2017 General Election together with other evidence to proceed to trial.

On 30 July, at a sham hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice that took place (but should not have) before a biased judge, who, without warning, organised a premeditated ambush concerning my previous complaint of several months ago, the court purported to strike out my claim against David Evans and Iain McNicol.

I had considered whether to request that a different judge deal with the hearing but concluded that the listed judge would obstruct this, which could have made matters worse.

I spoke to the senior administrator at the Court of Appeal immediately afterwards who, as a result, has now linked the court's review of the removal of the internal report from the High Court file on 19 June, which had already threatened to undermine the 30 July hearing, together with its consideration of the defects in the dramatic strike out decision at the end of the hearing, including the previous complaint.

In doing so, I should make clear that, quite properly, the internal report and all of the other relevant evidence is very much part of the Court of Appeal's file.  It aims to come to a provisional conclusion before the end of August.

I also spoke to supporters immediately afterwards, who I am moved to say seem to whole heartedly back me in the light of this further peculiar development.

Any contact, particularly evidence of paired neighbouring Labour held and non-Labour held marginal constituencies where leader's order to focus on the marginal was undermined by officials' secret instruction to misrepresent data as an excuse for focusing on the Labour held seat.

The minimum necessary target was passed yesterday with 30 hours to spare to the deadline, and this case is now moving towards securing further professional involvement. Huge thanks to all.

My claim was issued on 12 June in the High Court against David Evans as general secretary and Iain McNicol.

There are other possible co-claimants and co-defendants on the court file.

On 19 June Ian McNicol tried to get his name removed, but was refused because of the potential ground of chapter 2 clause II rule 7.

I withdrew my request for an order for suspensions because the party a few hours beforehand admitted that they already had.

With the Court’s permission, on 10 July I introduced additional allegations against Iain McNicol, and potentially others and I also referred the Report and costs order to the Court of Appeal.

On 30 July, physically at court, the defendants will try to challenge the legal basis of the claim. Although this hearing will be about law it will helpful nevertheless to have further information from members who were involved in the 2017 general election campaign, whether in Tory marginals starved of help or Labour held seats on which over generous help was bestowed.

The end result of the claim will be to determine the defendants’ liability for the results of wrong doing.

A further hearing will assess damages under various heads.

The court can also make declarations and conceivably referrals, for example to the director of public prosecutions.

Such declarations and referrals should rise to the historic import of the events of the United Kingdom’s general election campaign of 2017.

The world might now have been a rather different place if the relatively small band of individuals against whom evidence has come to light had not, as they seem to have done, secretly interfered.

With seven days still to go 312 believers in justice have already shown solidarity to reach nearly 60 % of the target.

Justice in the Labour Party, in the country and everywhere, which means unrigged democracy.

If only another 312 contribute an amount of just £15 during the course of the next week then we will make it.

And the road will be open to legal remedies for the cheating in the general election of 2017 that changed the course of history for the worse since.

To get the fund over the hump and ready for one or two important hearings coming up, could people contribute just £10?   

If 500 did by the end of the coming week we would be in a strong position.

Less is more.

Remember, this case is for the many, not the few. 

While preparations continue, in terms of strengthened legal team, further evidence and additional parties, the Court of Appeal, as of today, has begun a review of the confidentiality and costs parts of the decision made at the High Court hearing on 19 June at which suspension of members named in the report was revealed.

While the order to pay costs may be reduced there is still a need to build up a financial reserve for at least one important hearing before the trial can take place.

The next stage is to convince the court that there are additional aggrieved claimants whose devotion of energy and emotion and expenditure of money and, in the case of candidates, loss of prospective income,  was nullified in the 2017 general election campaign by industrial scale rule breaking, criminal acts and casual racism that there is abundant evidence of, but also that there are other defendants to be held accountable for the most egregious examples of this as well.

As the scale of involvement of solicitors and barristers ramps up their modest fees are going to be thoroughly deserved and should be begun to be prepared for now.

UK-wide, grassroots reports are coming in of pairs of neighbouring seats in 2017, one safe Labour, the other the Leader's marginal target seat that it was the aim to gain.   

Head office and nation/region offices misdirected activists, digital advertising and resources to such pairs of seats across Britain, especially England and Wales.

Instead of being sent to the marginal of the pair, people were sent to the safe one.   

Were you one of them, turning up at a marginal ripe to be gained yet turned away and told to go to the nearby safe seat?

If so, please get in touch and tell your story.

PS Despite the efforts of a small band of officers, 36 marginals were gained by Labour in 2017 (6 Labour marginals were lost) but it could so easily have been many more.

David Evans and Iain McNicol have until Tuesday to say what redactions in, or excisions from the Report they want

My claim was issued two weeks ago in the High Court against David Evans as general secretary and Iain McNicol personally (as opposed as former general secretary).  

There are other possible co-claimants and co-defendants who the Judge urged the current defendants to recognise as having been given notice of.

No part of the claim was conceded or removed at the hearing last Friday.  On the contrary, permission was given to introduce additional allegations against Iain McNicol, and potentially others.

Ian McNicol tried to get his name removed, but was refused because of the potential ground of chapter 2 clause II rule 7.

I withdrew my request for an order for suspensions since the party in the early hours of Friday morning admitted that they already had.

Because I had originally asked for more detail, the Judge (Dame Jennifer Eady) said that she had to award them half their costs. I have not yet decided whether to appeal against it.  

I knew that the names of those suspended, or at least some of them, would inevitably come out pretty soon since, as the defendants pointed out at the hearing, many members are authorised to interrogate the central membership database and see whether someone has the suspension flag against them.

The next steps will be to elaborate on the additional claims against Iain McNicol (potentially others) and then for the defendants to supply their defence on the part of the general secretary David Evans or Iain McNicol, unless of course either or both decide to submit to judgment on liability without further ado.

An application will be made to add claimants – narrowly losing 2017 candidates or others with first-hand knowledge – and defendants who were in a similar position to McNicol.

Following the determination of liability, whether by trial or admission, a further hearing will then be needed to assess damages under various heads.    

The court can also make declarations and conceivably referrals, for example to the director of public prosecutions.

Such declarations and referrals should rise to the historic import of the events of the United Kingdom’s general election campaign of 2017.  

The world might now have been a rather different place if the relatively small band of individuals against whom evidence has recently come to light had not, as they seem to have done, interfered.