No attachments were filed with the petition, neither any court decision" such claims should be filed with the trial court" Therefore, the petition is denied. Rendered today, May 13, 2017. Justice Anat Baron.
Figure. Court file A - Leybel v State of Israel (4278/17) in the Supreme Court: The "short" decision, dated May 13, 2017, was served on defense counsel, but not on the District Court.
________
However, the Supreme Court file, where the "short" decision was entered, appeared in the Supreme Court's case management system only on May 24, 2017 (11 days later than the petition's filing date). The court file is open to the public.
Figures. Court file A - Leybel v State of Israel (4278/17) in the Supreme Court: The court file is open to the public. It appeared in the Supreme Court's IT system only on May 24, 2017. The top panel shows that the petition was filed on May 14, 2017 (in fact it was filed on May 13, 2017). The bottom panel shows that decision was entered on May 13, 2017 (purportedly prior to filing of the petition).
_______
C) Court file B -- Anonymous v State of Israel (3912/17) -- unlawfully "sealed", where the "long" mandate decision was filed, which wasn't served on defense counsel, but was filed as a "Request" in the District Court.
In court file B, Justice Anat Baron entered the "long" decision, providing entirely different reasoning for denying the petition. The "long" decision was falsely back-dated to May 12, 2017 -- prior to filing of the petition"
Figures. Court file B -- Anonymous v State of Israel (3912/17): The "long" decision, which was back-dated May 12, 2017 (prior to filing of the petition). The "long" decision wasn't served on defense counsel, but was filed in the District Court as a "Request".
________
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).