Judge Faith - Shady Surveillance (Season 1: Episode #72)

Shady Surveillance - A man installed new security equipment for a business and wants to be paid - the business owner says the equipment was faulty and the owner would shut down the system
Stream every Judge Faith episode on Amazon Prime.
Judge Faith Season 1: www.amazon.com...
Judge Faith Season 2: www.amazon.com...
Judge Faith Season 3: www.amazon.com...

[@CrimeSheTyped]

The plaintiffs evidence backfired on him so hard lmao

[@rhondah.1478]

Yes it did! LOL

[@endtime144]

This guy wants to have the equipment working when he hasn't paid for it in Jesus name! This is theft 😂😂😂😂🙈✋🏿

[@claydecloure]

I’m an IT guy, he just took pictures to show evidence it was working correctly. The downfall in his argument is he isn’t being contracted to continue maintenance so he should not be checking to make sure that are working. It’s true technician do have all the IP address information but it shouldn’t be used unless they have to do maintenance on the hardware

[@NubianP6]

The fact that he installed the equipment wasn’t in dispute, nor was the fact that it was installed correctly. Aside from the outstanding payment, what was alleged is that the plaintiff was interrupting the defendant’s service at will in protest to the defendant’s non-payment. The defendant could have saved himself the headache by *paying* the man what he owed, and the plaintiff could have saved himself a lot of backlash by not submitting this “evidence”.

[@susane2524]

Love how when JF enters the courtroom and briskly walks over, all the men's eyes are checking her out.

[@peterlee584]

I don't wonder. She's gorgeous!!

[@christinembati1012]

Love how judge faith handled that case 🤗

[@lonnekejansen2306]

'God said: pay Irvin' 😂😂😂

[@dquansherman9583]

I’m so confused on how many of you are agreeing with him spying on him. That is illegal and the police can’t even do stuff like that unless they have a warrant or something smh

[@kristhemermaid3169]

Well technically the camera belongs to him bcs he wasn't paid. And with access he gave him green light to access

[@SB18TH]

If the defendant paid his bill, they wouldn’t be in court.

[@kevinwilliams3668]

For those who think it is normal for a tech to retain access to your phone, computer, or security system it is ILLEGAL. You must provide notice or awareness that you are surveilling a customer/client. There is a difference between providing security monitoring, companies like ADT or Ackerman are security monitoring companies. Installing a device does not give you the right to maintain access to someone's system. They can disable the remote access so he is blocked (think of a firewall) but the security guy can get into trouble pulling a stunt like building a backdoor into someone's system (network).

[@MsShondaRocc]

I can’t wrap my head around a camera system installer business having unfettered access to see what I’m doing within my business... This confirms the anxiety I have that I’m always being watched 👀

[@littlewoman1241]

Everyone saying the plaintiff had a right to look on the camera systems and take pictures whenever he wanted because the other guy didn’t pay- so... what about all the other customers that he still has access with? He said multiple times he had the IP address and did this with all of his clients. His business practice is unethical.

[@pfifltrigg]

No, that's a service people pay for - monitoring of their security cameras. It's not creepy or spying. It's why you installed the cameras. In this case though it sounds like there was little to nothing in writing about costs or who would have access. Bad business practice on the plaintiff's part because it's harder to get paid.

[@bigglypuff0420]

@@pfifltrigg he can't access the cameras without permission! That's the part you are not understanding lol. He can't hust access the camera whenever he wants! I agree preacher was trying to get over on him, but the way he went about it is illegal abd wrong. Furthermore imagine you get a phone you have to make payments on. Does that mean that company can record your personal info, and watch what you are doing? No! Plaintiff talked himself out of all of his money.

[@josedaniel4725]

He lost business there for sure,🤔

[@Monustaai]

​@@josedaniel4725 One can only hope! he's not Big Brother

[@signedMIRRA]

Why did Mr. Smith look shocked when he said this is a minister 😭

[@pricecheryl927]

Smith phone name

[@alawixxx1059]

😂😂😂😂

[@tanyacorbin1292]

THEY BOTH MAD AT THE END. LOL

[@cculc175]

He talks too much. Talked himself out of his full judgement.

[@GabrielPG-yi4xh]

I just like when you say "thank you barbara"

[@missand5043]

Thank u jesus for judge faith , its been a swell day with nonsense n i appreciate her energy with each case shes a young sister n on point🙏

[@kapeskapes8766]

Im sorry judge the preacher was wrong! He had the work done he knew what it was gonna cost he said go ahead and install knowing he would just string him along as long as he could! Just because he's a preacher doesn't mean he is a man of God it does not guarantee he will always do right. Hes a crooked man. He should have had to pay it all!! With interest!!

[@anomylus]

Exactly

[@livefoursims1839]

lol well first he wasn’t a preacher, second, the man was illegally watching the cameras. so yeah The other dude had to pay for the equipment but he shouldn’t have to pay for labor

[@denny7119]

Judge Faith 💯 evolved bullsh*t reader! With ⭕ tolerance!! I 💖 it!! No wriggling about and entitle-ism for either plaintiff or defendant.

[@YT4Me57]

"A workman is worthy of his hire." Pay the man.

[@wuzzap1233]

I mean if he paid for the cameras and phones why can’t he access them ??? He was never paid for his work so he still owns the cameras 🤷🏽‍♀️

[@TheeZombieDinosaurs]

Even though he owns them it doesnt give him the right to spy into another persons business or life. I mean think of it this way a person pays for a tiny camera its their camera right? Then they place it in a public toilet using it to spy on people using the restroom. Just because someone owns the equipment does not mean they have the right to use said equipment to spy into personal details of peoples business and lives. He could've put alot of peoples information at risk by doing that not to mention it was unlawful surveillance. His contract says he can remotely access it to help fix issues but not remotely access it just because he feels like it because that is invading someones privacy. You see what i mean?

[@TheeZombieDinosaurs]

Another less gross example would be something along the lines of a family member buying you a phone technically they bought it they give you said phone but have already cloned it and or they remotely access the camera to view into your private life when they please because they bought said phone. Its just a huge invasion of privacy and even though they may have paid for the equipment or the technology it is your personal life and is a part of your life so I don't think its right especially if it wasn't specifically agreed too. He only agreed that they have remote access for certain occasions and only with permission so otherwise he should not be accessing those cameras unknowingly.

[@14onyx]

if he didn't get paid for the work he could shut the system off untill he does. what does he benefit from spying all around

[@TheeZombieDinosaurs]

@@14onyx EXACTLY!

[@lifebetweenlives6199]

14onyx they probably had beef

[@younaatz]

The black lady behind the plaintiff is gorgeous! 14:26 is when I first noticed her as this was just playing in the background.

[@chrystaljames6597]

I definitely don't agree with this ruling at all!

[@bryannamarie7539]

Me neither

[@renrecommends8072]

I didn't either. The "Minister" was hella wrong using God to try and weasel out of paying his debt.

[@livefoursims1839]

@@renrecommends8072 lol he wasn’t a minister tho

[@anomylus]

The defendant is so shady and when he said he's a minister, he shook his head no and then said yes. Wicked

[@nybsbfan18]

I would have brought in an expert so he knows what's morally wrong in this biz...

[@jpat989]

The Preacher is a crook. I would have disrupted his business a number of times and came to get all of equipment. He will suffer for screwing me over.

[@byebyedislikecount939]

wait, u r the plaintiff?

[@tr11ity]

@@byebyedislikecount939 the plantiff's name isnt j pat...

[@byebyedislikecount939]

@@tr11ity we dont know if j pat is a real name

[@terrencesmith4132]

I disagree with the Judge what the contractor did is perfectly legal and he had the right to shut down his equipment for none payment. And no the defendant doesn't a new system, just needs to change the password. Been that kind of for 20 years

[@fragrancialima]

Yes i think the same. This is just like your iPhone or apps thst you installed in your phone, th apps /company /developers must be having all access to all your private stuff , even with permission or not

[@kevinwilliams3668]

No, it is not legal or normal. When a tech remote accesses your system, they have to request permission which you can deny. It is ILLEGAL in all 50 States to pull that stunt and retain access, it's called installing an illegal backdoor. The technical term is unlawful surveillance you know like stalking. You must provide a disclaimer, a notice, make people aware of what is going on.

[@idalarsen2540]

Aight, when did you all become lawyers? 🤔

[@ncredbird3998]

Think both sides are shady. Got to say plaintiff sending the email of God says pay him was hilarious

[@ambercobb4994]

God said pay him his money. 😂😂😂

[@godsadvocate4990]

This dude is lucky he didn't get charge in CRIMINAL court for accessing the defendant camera and phone operations . GREAT RULING..

[@mellany1051]

Yes the fake pastor did know the guy had remote access to his cameras and security software because he admitted it earlier in trail. Come on Judge . All IT companies who offer remote troubleshooting state that they maintain access to their camera or soft where. Usually they have to ask permission for each time they access.

[@elizabethnorwood6395]

I always know it was a fair judgement when neither person is happy 😂 it’s called a compromise people

[@dianemitchell5224]

These cameras are a scary thing. That man might be a voyguer. In other words a peepin tom

[@lucygray6162]

No, the man just wanted his money from this fake Bishop, and was probably doing a little due diligence to see if the Bishop had any business going on that might indicate he would eventually get paid.

[@bigglypuff0420]

@@lucygray6162 you can't do that though, it's against the law. You would be okay if you are renting a smart tv that has a camera, and you fall behind. So that company you rent through starts accessing your camera to see into your home. See why there's laws against it.

[@lucygray6162]

@@bigglypuff0420 Well if you're dumb enough to rent a camera instead of purchasing one...Seriously, I don't know anyone who doesn't have video cameras on their property, rural and urban. And what about Nanny cams? And FYI, many Air BnBs have cameras in the houses they rent because of the potential destruction. Most people just want information about what's going on in their house or around the property. They'll worry about the legalities later.

[@knoxwallace9639]

This preacher is absolutely crooked, pay for your work.

[@missyo1283]

That's how security works read the small print

[@nashidragneel4980]

Judge Faith is about contracts is like Gordon Ramsey about Lamb sauce. WHERE IS THE CONTRACT

[@dandrelewis8041]

I'm a man of God as well but God also gave us a brain to think lol.

[@annag886]

The Judge's expression at 4:31 was pretty much exactly the same as mine....

[@JSmedic1]

lol ...

[@LoneGamerNerd]

I hate when they bring religion into these shows. 1) It doesn't matter; it is completely irrelevant to the case; and 2) It is the very reason religion has such a bad rap -- Christianity especially. And I'm not even Christian.

[@JSmedic1]

I agree with you ... Dude just needed to pay his debt!

[@itsyagirlindica3505]

FireHeart321 they werent bringing religion into they were simply stating they were both christians pretty much. they were still doing regular business. however the guy was dumb for not giving him a contract.

[@peachsodaoverwatch649]

Usually pastors are held to a higher standard. Him stating that helped his case about the contractual agreement.

[@toxicgerl]

IF they actually followed the WORD of their God, they'd be stoned to death, and I don't mean the gentle REEFER stoning either.

[@doitlikethebereans1690]

Not all Christians are like this. Please don't let these men cause you to think that's how we all are. They don't represent true Christianity. It makes me angry when they make us look like a joke. Also, Christianity isn't a religion. A large issue is that people make it out to be when it is only simple faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. (See KJV version of Romans 10:8_13)

[@trendygirl3489]

Preacher knows he owes the man...he should have paid him a long time ago.

[@justzee1574]

Pastor did you think an electronic system was going to be $5

[@theproudestJAILBIRD]

I agree with her but not the ruling. The man needs to be paid in full,however, the fact that he can remotely monitor his clients is a serious breach of privacy

[@tawtam1]

Rather she has questions about his practices or not the darn work was done, how is she not giving him labor??? He obviously done the work. She was dead wrong for not giving that man the money for the work he did.

[@Corduroy66]

Security is 24 hrs. a day. Is that what the defendant ordered?

[@skylarjaxx2399]

I doubt thats mostly retail stores other places record n are able to access when ASKED!!!!

[@livefoursims1839]

the defendant is a security company, he ordered cameras and instillation, not for someone to watch the cameras in his office

[@TJ-bh6cj]

He should have complete access to the cameras and systems because he set them up. However, to do it at his own leisure is a problem. The fact that he has access should not be shocking, nor is it evidence against his business. IT work requires that these days, it's easy to access and diagnose remotely.

[@somieesomiee]

The defendant didn't even bother to find out the details of the business deal. He just let it happen.

[@rydbthatsme]

That gasp at 8:27 took me all the way out! LOL

[@goldenunicorn2234]

Sometimes I fully disagree with Judge Faith😔

[@tangajTANG]

His rebuttal to having access is that he is the owner until he gets paid. Once paid access is limited at businesses request.

[@msshannyangel1058]

Judge Faith you was wrong on that one now that man should of been paid all of his money. He did the work than he should of been paid that was crazy there.

[@QueenRissa_34]

I was thinking the same thing....he should have been paid all of his money with interest?!?!??! He never paid him anything and that's wrong......and why you let your business partner make a decision like that? He's very dumb as well.....

[@kikiwest2001]

He didn't have a contract. How does she know if that was the original agreed amount. He could've said 3000 and changed it later like some moving companies do when they quote you.

[@SB18TH]

If anyone thinks the security company cannot log into your system when they want, you are naive.

[@sybellem.gateka6860]

'''that's as good as my dog ate my homework''HAHAHAHAHAHA

[@itsyourgirlkesha6327]

Great Judgetment!!! a person has a right to privacy, I am surprise the people in those pictures don't sue for invasion of privacy. The company they work for is not spying on them, the company that install the equipment is. He should not get all the money because he was wrongfully and illegally doing surveillance.

[@rpierre777]

I get that he should have paid the money, but the privacy of his business was violated. So, he doesn't get

[@clerckbaffoe667]

Judge on this case the installer was right because installers always have access to Clint's system at anytime if there have remote access at anytime .

[@peachsodaoverwatch649]

I don't think that was the issue. The issue was that he used the technology to be malicious and spy on this particular client. That was very weird.

[@c.j5873]

Remote access means he's can access it from wherever he is! And it is normal so they can do repairs without going into the office! He tells them he has remote access... Sooo what's the issue he let them know!

[@emilyn7572]

She is wrong he deserves full payment. The client is a hustler.

[@itsyagirlindica3505]

Emily Noel i agree. that seemed unfair.

[@rpierre777]

Emily Noel No, he committed a crime by survelling without authorization. He only had permission to access the system when there is a problem. He didnt have permission to use the system to monitor the day-to-day operation of the business or to access their computer system at will. Seeing how its a security company he's accessing, this potentially means he can access their clients' information-which breaches the contract with the clients. Think about it like this: you have a contract for service with a phone company. Would you want the people who installed their security system to be able to access your account information? By logging into their computers any time day or night, he would have unlimited access to their customer's accounts. Also, he could listen in on any phone call they handle with customers where account information is discussed.

[@msshannyangel1058]

Right!! And this coming from a preacher now lol lol tell me we ain’t living in our last days smh you got preachers hustling others like that. This man just did a $5500 worth job for you pay the man his money and keep moving.. he’ll definitely lose out though..

[@marlysschlepp6815]

There were discrepancies in the contract for his approval to install that system!!! What would have the defendant done if they had a breach in that security system and the plaintiff was the only one who could see the culprit/???!!! Judges ruling IS/AND WAS UNFAIR!!! IF PEOPLE WOULD JUST READ THE FINE PRINT ON ALL CONTRACTS THEY Would KNOW AND REALIZE Its is for the safety of the business!!! I DISGREE IN THIS RULING!!!

[@christinelavita5838]

If he was truly a man of God he would of kept his word and paid what he owed .What a embarrassment to Gods ministry .Pastors' have no business in court

[@carolinemagee8033]

For 20 yrs he has been spying on his clients. Creepy.

[@arien5725]

To be fair that guy has the right to shut off those phones if he isn’t being paid. I still think I’m he was right.

[@janettelloyd1551]

Of course he needs access. Our IT man certainly does how else can he trouble shoot. She is wrong in this case

[@BossiBabes]

This was a good one lol😂😂😍😍

[@Mr_Goodstart]

That was the wrong judgment. The plaintiff should have been awarded all the cost. But she will never know what its like since she's not a self employed business owner with staff to pay each month plus operational costs.

[@camiwhite2489]

Anyone else bothered by the fact that the defendant’s name is John Smith Jr? 😂😂

[@pricecheryl927]

Trevor fathers names.COMPTON checked in.

[@bobcloutier9056]

Gré Job, Your Very Fare In Everyone Of Your Proceeding’s Faith Your Honor! Thank You 🙏

[@nyaikabeverly7538]

😂😂😂 the plaintiff in the security camera case.... He shouldn't never told him tht he would cut the systems and stuff..shoulda just did it.. bet he woulda paid than.... 😂😂😂

[@terrencesmith4132]

In NJ it's called theft of services

[@RealtorArbutus]

And that's why I did my own camera's. I have a few friends that do that for a living and they "all" have access

[@amberhunter5338]

To all the people questioning this ruling just imagine real quick that the plaintiff used his access to cause harm to the defendant. Just imagine he goes to the extremes and decided to use his access to kill the defendant. That’s why it’s illegal. That’s why he didn’t get his $5,500 back. You can’t illegally abuse the system because you want money back. 🤷‍♂️

[@marlysschlepp6815]

He didnt ABUSE the system of security ... HE WANTED HIS PAYMENT!!! You all better study your LAW books!!!! Real talk😨😷

[@kissestoyou1900]

@@marlysschlepp6815 Not only that, but that business quite literally works like that. Security companies watch A LOT. It IS in the contract for most places. He was completely in the right, she and the preacher 100% don't understand security and technology in this case.

[@bongoikno4994]

Imagination is make believe deal with the reality

[@Honey-pv1zg]

This case is just like how some black customers burn black businesses. Plaintiff: “My services cost this much” Defendant: “We’ll see what we can do”

[@peachsodaoverwatch649]

If the plaintiff would have just told the truth that he cut off the services he probably would have received the full amount.... He started telling on himself when he continued to lie. He knew he was wrong about that.... However, the defendant is just disgusting. A wolf in sheeps clothing...

[@lerandagarib378]

What??? Well I thought the plaintiff was lying on the defendant when he revealed that' he's a minister. That reaction.... smh... what a lying minister

[@jazminegraves19]

Yeah even for me working for a bank I would get fired for using someone’s personal information for personal gain. Even if I have access to the information I can’t maliciously use the information. If some stranger were to hit my car and it was a hit and run and that customer ended up coming into the bank that I work for and I do his transaction and copy his address etc to take to the police department I have now violated that customer and can be fired for privacy issues

[@godofwar007god]

As someone who has done i.t.and security cameras.. it is in fact part of the territory, you have to have access to make sure everything works properly and fixing problems that pop up

[@watchingdivorcecourtliketh6916]

Honestly, I think a fairer judgement would've been to to order the guy to disable all of his equipment and return it to the other one. No money's exchanged. The client removes all of the security equipment installed and the peeping tom takes it all back, with no extra funds. But yes, they are both shiesty.

[@whinnie7529]

After the equipment has been installed it's now used, he doesn't have to accept the equipment back at that point.

[@Kelli_D.]

All the guy has to do is change the login in information on the system and the installer guy won't be able to access it any more

[@lonewolf14]

That gasp was amazing

[@gorgeouslady5612]

With professional monitoring, trained security company employees track the signals from your system and attempt to contact you and the relevant authorities if a potential threat is detected. All professionally installed security systems require professional monitoring contracts for up to three years. Most DIY systems give you the choice of using professional monitoring with no long-term commitment.

[@austinbuscaglia8705]

The defendant is wrong for expecting qaulity assurance when not having paid, and the plaintiff is wrong for continuing his access after installation for non troubleshooting purposes. Tsk tsk.

[@andrejamal5438]

He never received money so he didn’t turn over access

[@killitill3588]

this is supposed to be a COURT room, why audience is clapping ?!

[@NellieKAdaba]

Because they're crazy.

[@ZachTheRantingGuy]

killi till I don't have a problem with them clapping. I have a problem with them clapping every TWO seconds. Shows like this put their "people" in the audience who clap to the host or judge no matter what and the sheep in the audience follow along. This has been done for years.

[@Black.rose59]

They don't only clap.. They hoot and woooo like they are in a Maury audience. Annoying as hell.

[@ZachTheRantingGuy]

Soul Given I agree. It's annoying af but Judge Faith should tell them to be quiet. She apparently either doesn't pay attention to it or she doesn't care.

[@hannahmarie8777]

I guess that's what happens with "TV entertainment". I agree its distracting

[@hawihawi9260]

Imagine u ask this guy to install a camera 🎥 in your house and this guy sees u having sex

[@michaelbardov6371]

Judge Faith, your judgements are A1. But I must tell you that I had a budgie, Joey, who used to fly freely around my room. Joey, did, in fact nibble and chew my homework! Guess what. My teacher didn’t believe me but fortunately, the school principal also had a budgie ant that’s what saved me!

[@meekomio]

People who use God as an excuse not to pay bills or get discounts are disgusting. They can't really believe in God or they would be honest instead of trying to con people out of their hard earned money for services rendered.

[@trudijones6992]

I don't agree with Faith's ruling in this case, the pastor should be made to pay for all of that work, and his equipment. If he's to service that equipment, then he needs to have access to it! Who has time to just spy on someone's office activity? The man said he could look into his office if he wanted, he didn't say that he does.

[@ZachTheRantingGuy]

1:19 That guy sitting in the gallery on the right, wearing the white shirt, looks like the Bolivian president, Evo Morales. :D

[@shanellwatson9005]

I love the ruling yes the preacher was wrong for not paying for the equipment but it doesn't give him the right to spy that is invasion of privacy he should have just shut the system down for non payment point blank period

[@jeremymccray2754]

What you mean shady surveillance at 12 13 midnight..... Not kenny lattimore i know you re (you are) disgusted with me....... " but that must be your ALL TIME favorite song ...... I don't see it

[@oliveoil5034]

you cant be gettin in there office space andthen say you have the right to do that it doent give that right . you may of instaled the carma but you cant be runining someone business .

[@asapangie]

The defendant was dead wrong!

[@NotMykl]

Contractors get a signed contract but I have yet to see any contractor demand a down payment.

[@mikilacunningham6259]

Told on him self

[@tead9684]

Plaintiff is CREEPY! He looks like he spy's on ALL of his customers! I can't even imagine paying someone to put security cameras outside of my house AND inside and find out that the company (or the creepy, nasty old man/woman) has been watching my every move. He's done this before and I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't watching people/customers. I hope the authorities investigate this creep

[@ruth2nice0769]

Why he can't he access the system when the government does it EVERYDAY! He's just doing what the government does.

[@liljerry496]

He shouldn’t be surprised when my five fingers go upside his head🤛🏿😡😡🤬fr give me my money ponk

[@lerandagarib378]

People know now to stay away from any services of the plaintiff. .. poor service. It's ridiculous

[@abishaibenisrael9480]

Just go out and do Wicked without calling yourself Christians..the way it seems lately the titles share the same characteristics.

[@DanielSelk]

To be fair, Christians are human too.

[@brianellinger6622]

And the real reason that they are gaslighting in gangstalking is because they have possession of some kind of a trust fund that is supposed to go to me. And these stalkers are being paid with my money handed to them from a thief who is not supposed to have possession of it

[@reginaldgreen6221]

That's just like when a police officer is being investigated and doesn't know

[@missyo1283]

It is not illegal until it's fully played off and even then when the police need security footage who the hell does she think it comes from????

[@kay22100]

Um..I'm a Christian but this isn't charity work LOL.. We would've had a signed contract before I did ANYTHING

[@TheMamaPowell]

“No one puts the wrong address on an envelope. It’s like the dog ate the homework”. 🙋🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️ Within the last year I imposed numbers on the address for my rent check and never knew until it got returned to me. I immediately contacted my landlord and sent him a picture of the envelope. Just saying it does happen.

[@livefoursims1839]

nah she was saying after months of stringing someone along, that excuse doesn’t work anymore.

[@cathylittleton7361]

The plaintiff sounds creepy when he monitoring the computer's

[@cynthiabroyles4890]

Am I the only one that thinks of 'How Its Made' everytime the narrator speaks?