Serious Asshole lawyer sues ACS for confiscating his son's Iphone 7

[shiokalingam]

he might have a case. 3 months and all - not good for a kid development. to say the least.

Picture of the asshole lawyer

 

[eatshitndie]

he might have a case. 3 months and all - not good for a kid development. to say the least.

should have consficated it for 6.9 days. anytime over 6.9 weeks without a phone is too long and inconvenient. school too much. must boycott.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Should follow this case to see if this lawyer can help himself. A good lawyer should be able to help himself and his own son.

SC Tan Chee Meng messed up badly on his son's NS matter.

 

[Bonut]

andrew sounds more atas and angmo than hainam lcc. if you name your law firm goondusamy or chinkangkor lcc few clients will show up.

The suffix LLC is not auspicious. Sounds like yao yao see, 饿饿死。

So Andrew LLC means ?

 

[scroobal]

Yes, John Hanam's son. Married a dutch woman and mixes only with Ang Mohs. Deacon in a church that is mainly Americans. Quiet surprised that his son is in ACS. He sent his other 2 kids to Expat schools here. Not sure if he is facing some financial issues.

Guy is bad news. Notorious for launching silly lawsuits. Not sure why the law society allows these sort of characters to waste the courts time.

screw bollah aka papsmear never ask the question :

is andrew hanam son of john hanam (now RIP), former CNB??????

 

[shiokalingam]

Yes, John Hanam's son. Married a dutch woman and mixes only with Ang Mohs. Deacon in a church that is mainly Americans. Quiet surprised that his son is in ACS. He sent his other 2 kids to Expat schools here. Not sure if he is facing some financial issues.

Guy is bad news. Notorious for launching silly lawsuits. Not sure why the law society allows these sort of characters to waste the courts time.

This case is different. I think he will go all the way. I worry for the School Principal.

This Thread is Hot too

 

[bic_cherry]

Asshole lawyer gave his asshole son his Iphone 7. The Asshole son uses his Iphone in school against the school regulations. Got caught and got phone confiscated for 3 months. Now Asshole Dad is suing ACS.
A Singaporean lawyer is suing the principal of a prestigious school for confiscating his son's mobile phone.
The secondary school bans students from using phones during school hours as it considers them a distraction.
Andrew John Hanam's son used an iPhone 7 in school, and it was confiscated for three months, court documents said.
The lawyer is now claiming damages and demanding the school returns the phone, arguing that it has infringed on property rights.
The Anglo-Chinese School Barker Road is one of Singapore's most prestigious all-boys' schools. It declined to comment when contacted.
The BBC has also sought comment from Mr Hanam.
The use of mobile phones in schools has been a controversial issue in many places. In 2006, a group of parents in New York sued education authorities over a similar ban, but eventually lost. The ban was lifted in 2015.
[h=2]'May send the wrong signal'[/h]In a January circular to parents, the school reiterated its ban on mobile phones saying they "pose a distraction from learning" and that students should keep their mobiles and other electronic devices in their lockers during school hours.
The school said that it would confiscate offenders' phones for three months.

Mr Hanam had lent his iPhone to his son, and it was confiscated on 21 March after the boy was caught using it during school hours, according to court documents.
The boy was told the phone would be returned after the three month confiscation period.
Mr Hanam, who is representing himself, has since filed a lawsuit claiming an unknown amount of damages, as well as a legal injunction demanding the phone be returned immediately while the case proceeds.
The lawsuit is pending, but a judge has rejected the injunction, saying the confiscation was "justifiable" as the principal was enforcing the school's rules.
He added that returning the phone prematurely may result in the school being "faced with demands from parents or guardians for the return of confiscated phones".
"This may also send a wrong signal to the students that they can use their mobile phones during school hours with impunity," the judge said.

Gist of the matter is that the silly father wants his phone back... think principal should examine the phone for pornography and then submit the phone to the police if it contains anything near to child porn etc...
Then Mr Hanam can also try suing the police to retrieve his phone...

 

[shiokalingam]

The judge ruled that the principal was not wrong as it was within the school rules to confiscate the phone. PHOTO: ST FILE





PUBLISHED JUN 7, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT


K.C. Vijayan , Senior Law Correspondent




Should a school hang on to a confiscated phone for three months?

This issue has reached the courts after a parent felt that the penalty was too harsh. The parent is suing a secondary school principal for damages, but has not succeeded in getting the school to return the phone.

The parent's request to have the phone returned immediately was turned down by District Judge Clement Julien Tan.

The judge ruled that the principal was justified in holding on to the phone, as the school rules had made it clear that any student caught using a phone during school hours will have it confiscated for at least three months.

The boy met the principal on March 21 and admitted that he had used an iPhone 7 during school hours on March 8. It was confiscated and the SIM card returned along with a receipt stating that it could be retrieved in three months' time.

Later in the evening of March 21, the parent wrote to the principal to say that the phone was his and he wanted it back.

He added that "a three-month confiscation is disproportionate to the offence", and his son had assured him that he would not break the rule on phone use again.

Failing to get a reply, he took the principal of the well-known secondary school to court.

The father, represented by lawyer Andrew Hanam, is claiming that retaining the phone amounts to the tort of conversion - which involves denying a person's rights to his property. He asked the court to get the school to return the phone while the case is being decided.

The principal's lawyer Alfonso Ang said that the claim is "frivolous and vexatious", and pointed out that the principal is responsible for overseeing student discipline based on regulations.

He also highlighted that the parent and son had both been told that the use of phones was banned.

District Judge Tan, who heard the application on April 28, said the principal was simply following the rules. He also rejected the parent's contention that he, personally, is not bound by the school rules as there is no contract between him and the principal.

"Such a position is , in my view, untenable," said the judge, in dismissing the application. The parent, he pointed out in judgment grounds obtained by The Straits Times yesterday, knew about the rules on phone use and if he had an issue with it, "could have enrolled his son in another school".

The judge added that the father had not " established any special circumstances in the present case" to enable the interim injunction to succeed. He also pointed out that having the phoned returned early defeats the school's rule.

"I accept that there may be a risk that until the matter is fully and finally disposed of, the school may be faced with demands from parents or guardians for the return of confiscated phones.

This may also send a wrong signal to the students that they can use their mobile phones during school hours with impunity, thus rendering the phone rule otiose (ineffective), however temporarily this might be so."

 

[nayr69sg]

This KC Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent? The father, represented by lawyer Andrew Hanna? The father is lawyer Andrew Hanam and was representing himself lah! Senior correspondent?

Sigh. Really the shit times man.

 

[Papsmearer]

Bwahahahahahahaa... You've made my day! Bwahahahahahahaa...

Very happy to
do that. LOL

 

[Papsmearer]

This KC Vijayan Senior Law Correspondent? The father, represented by lawyer Andrew Hanna? The father is lawyer Andrew Hanam and was representing himself lah! Senior correspondent?

Sigh. Really the shit times man.

That is why is initial K. C. stands for Kong Cheebye

 

[Papsmearer]

Gist of the matter is that the silly father wants his phone back... think principal should examine the phone for pornography and then submit the phone to the police if it contains anything near to child porn etc...
Then Mr Hanam can also try suing the police to retrieve his phone...

Next, this asshole lawyer
Hanam will sue ACS for making his son wear a school uniform?

 

[Papsmearer]

The suffix LLC is not auspicious. Sounds like yao yao see, 饿饿死。

So Andrew LLC means ?

Andrew is
the asshole lawyer's first name. LLC means Limited Liability Company. Some businesses call themselves PLC (Private Limited Company).
So, Andrew LLC is the name of his law practice.

 

[eatshitndie]

The suffix LLC is not auspicious. Sounds like yao yao see, 饿饿死。

So Andrew LLC means ?

andrew long lan chiao?

 

[Papsmearer]

This case is different. I think he will go all the way. I worry for the School Principal.

This Thread is Hot too

U raise a good point. Why sue the
school principal and not the school itself. I imagine anything the principal does is covered under the school liability. Normally, any decent lawyer would sue the party with the most money. The school for sure is richer then the principal.

 

[Papsmearer]

it's becumming handy in u.s. schools where kids need to reach their parents (and police) when a gunman is on the loose. there's a need for parents to teach their kids to turn location-finding on and turn off sounds or mute phone in the event of an emergency. e911 with otdoa will track phone 30 feet circle within a building. sinkie schools don't have to worry about gunmen on campus, thanks to the pap!

Ok, you have done
your obligatory PAP cocksucking for the day. U can go back to sleep now

 

[Papsmearer]

He should just transfer his Son to another school that is less strict on handphone matters.

which school allow handphone use during school hours in the class or even on the premise? I don't think any do.

 

[Papsmearer]

Just one question.

Why the law firm is not known as "Hanam LLC" but "AndrewLLC" ?

The name of the law firm does not have to follow any of the partners names. For example Amica Law Services is just a company name used but everyone knows they are a law firm. SO, this asshole lawyer used his first name. His last name Hanam is treated like dirt in singapore, his reputation is the shits. He could have named his law firm Chaocheebye LLC.

 

[Papsmearer]

8 New Facts About The ACS Kid’s Parents Suing Principal Case That’ll Make You Cheer


Justice is served. And it was oh-so-delicious. Trust me, if you hear about the updates to the case of the parents suing a principal of a school in Singapore, you’ll cheer along with me.
Here’s a quick flashback in case you don’t know what the heck I’m talking about:

A secondary two student in ACS had his iPhone7 confiscated because he was using it in class

Instead of scolding the kid (like sensible parents do), or simply take the issue in stride, the parents decided to sue the principal instead.
Here are 8 facts about the ACS case you need to know. Because #CommonSenseFTW


1. Parents and Students Are Well-Aware of The School Rules in Advanced

If you’ve read our article on the case yesterday, you’ll know that the student confessed that he was aware of the school policy regarding using mobile phones in class.
So why did the parents react the way they did? Is it because they didn’t know about this?
Turns out the school sent a letter to every parent of their student “welcoming them back” for the new school year stated the rule explicitly.

Image: acsbr.moe.edu.sg

2. Lockers Were Provided For Students To Deposit Their Device Till After Class

Image: acsbr.moe.edu.sg Many wondered if the school provided a place for students to keep their devices. Because if they didn’t, it’s their fault (although I’m not sure how that works, but oh well).


Guess what? Students in the school are provided with a locker to keep their electronic devices locked in. And to assure the parents, CCTVs are installed in the locker areas.
3. My son won’t do it again

On 21 March 2017, the parent of the student wrote to the principal stating that the punishment was too harsh for the offence. He added that his son has promised not to do it again.
Like that’ll happen once the son sees how easily the rules can be broken without consequences.
4. I’m not bound by your school rules so you can’t take my phone

He further contended that the iPhone7 is his property, not his son’s. Represented by lawyer Andrew Hanam, they presented the case as a ‘denial of one’s rights to their property’.
Basically, what they’re saying is the principal holding on to the phone is ridiculous. Since the parent is not bound by school rules, his phone doesn’t have to be confiscated.


Wow. Just wow.
5. You’re denying the principal his right to enforce his school regulations

The lawyer representing the principal, Alfonso Ang, said that the point of contention put up by the parent is “frivolous and vexatious”.
He pointed out that the principal is responsible for enforcing discipline in his school.
Which makes sense. If you say he took away the rights to your property, how about you taking away his rights to enforce punishments?
6. You should just enrol your son in another school if you don’t like the school rules

One thing I got to say, this case has made two people look like a badass, and one like a jackass.
In response to the point made by the parent, District Judge Tan outright dismissed the parent’s argument that he wasn’t bound by school rules.
In addition, he also pointed out that parents should already be aware of the rules on phone use (refer #1). He could have “enrolled his son in another school” if he didn’t like that rule.
Burn.
7. The Phone Rule Will Be Rendered Useless If The Parent Got His Way

To add salt to the wound, the judge pointed out that if the phone was returned earlier than the stipulated duration of the punishment, it would lead to even more students breaking the phone rule.
After all, what’s to stop them from just getting their parents to sue the school in the future?
Since the parent don’t get it when a measly school principal tries to tell him that, maybe it’ll finally sink in when it’s the judge talking?
8. Only 2 weeks left before the punishment is up

Here’s the kicker: the iPhone7 will be returned to the student on 20 June 2017 if we follow the events of the report.
The kid was caught using his phone on 8 March, had his phone confiscated on 21 March, so add three months to that and you’ll see the phone returned on 20 June.
Instead of patiently waiting for the phone to be returned, the parent had to start a legal battle to demand an early return of the phone.
Not only did he have to spend money on hiring a lawyer, he made himself look like a jackass to the entire world.
So not worth it.

 

[Papsmearer]

Once an Asshole lawyer, Always an Asshole LAwyer

Lock Han Chong Jonathan V Goh Jessiline

Chief Justice Chan also directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to refer an investigation of Hanam's professional conduct to the Council of the Law Society of Singapore. The judgment also specifically prohibited Hanam from billing Lock for any legal costs without the permission of the Court of Appeal. In addition, all parties were to pay their own legal costs except Lock who was to have his paid by NTUC Income.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]