It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Florida Court Rules Living ‘Off The Grid’ Is Illegal

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:43 PM
a reply to: TrueBrit

Good for you!

Now expect a form E-mail worded about like this:


Thank you for contacting us about this important matter... Whatever it was.

Now go away.


Moneygrubbers are Us.

Or something like that.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 09:50 PM
Part of the year, I live near this woman and have been following this. What is funny, I lived off the grid in Fl. for years aboard a boat and it felt just fine making my own water from sea water, using composting toilets and having a full solar array to do this.

When I am not down there, I live in a small house which I moved. I tore it down due to a holes with low IQ's and big egos within Kearney twp whom run the zoning. I numbered each rafter, each osb and everything on my little house, put it on a wagon and rebuilt it, stick by stick in an area of no zoning in the valley. We are off grid here now, drink filtered water from a creek out front so we don't need approval or a well. Our home is on skids now so we are portable and don't need permits from the county. We live here as we lived on our sailboat, simple. Oh yea, people look at us oddly when they discover we us composing here as well.

Freedom is worth more than you can know, but you must be clever and keep low, don't make it a challenge or idiots will come out of the woodwork or government offices with rules, not law, but unless you are rich, they can afford lawyers and you cannot.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 10:25 PM

originally posted by: maddy21

Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin ruled that Robin Speronis is not allowed to live on her own private property without being hooked up to the city’s water system.

He admitted that she had the right to live without utility power, but said that her alternative power sources must always first be approved by the city.

The city’s argument is that the International Property Maintenance Code was “violated” by her reliance on rain water rather than paying the city for water. The IPMC also would make it a crime for her to use solar panels instead of being tied into the electric grid.

How far are they going to go before people get fed up. I don;t know do they expect people to simply lie down and take it or have they desensitized and brainwashed the majority population to such a level that they are unable to fight ? Seems like things are getting really excessive..

Well they certainly would get worried , because viable alternatives work. If it became mainstream, what could they in all reasonableness charge you for? If anyone pays out money they expect value for it. Like putting solar panels on your roof, suddenly the excess you pump back into the grid, hasn't got the value you buy it for. Corporations, will never commit financial suicide. Because they are part of the control system, not a capitalist one..

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 10:27 PM
Boy it's escalating quick now, popcorn time! This is gonna get ugly

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:08 PM
a reply to: sailormon

You have seriously got it well worked out. If you don't raise a flag and proclaim what you are doing. You can live well.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:21 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Very good point. I didn't understand what I'd read til seeing you pull out this part and explain it. Its the same philosophy behind last yr when I forget who but some murderer walked, no question he did it, because the prosecution had pushed for a higher charge like murder 1 against the judge's advice since the added stipulations needed to bring murder 2 to murder 1 wouldn't be met and so the jury ended up not able to convict and judge saying sadly they made the" correct" decision just night the RIGHT one. And though BS like that or this living off grid decision come of it, I think it indeed keeps society safer to live where a court can't change the rules on the spot to tailor to each occasion. Its unfortunate but blame LEGISLATORS and the voters, this judge exercised true reservation if this is the case then and in a way, though for this person it may have been better, I am on slapmonkeys side in that I'd be more pissed if the article were about judges going vigilante and not enforcing the rules the voters and representatives gave but their own. A great example why I think democracy is a much safer form of government than a republic but in a world of nepotism and elite banking families, democracies don't exist. Only in a republic can you basically take power which should be equally divided for each citizens voice and turn it into a monarchy with nobility scattered across the land who hold the power just hiding under the guise of" democracy" which is all most republics are til we start seeing the high nobility of congress made up of mechanics, teachers, nurses, sanitary collectors, etc. Not a bunch of people all possessing seven and eight figure bank accounts for the most part
edit on 6/16/2015 by AlexandrosTheGreat because:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:01 AM
a reply to: seagull

Well sure, that is what I expect also.

However, I am interested to see if the response is belligerent, off handed, or nuanced. This will tell us an awful lot about the strength of the organisation involved. You see, the ICC is not a government department. It is an industry body. That is why I am looking to hear from them. Governments do not like explaining themselves, and they certainly dislike doing so before citizens of other countries. But private industry groups love to blow their own whistle, and I offered them a chance to do so.

Hopefully we might learn something from the notes they foul on.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:05 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

I suspect off-handed, with no name attached. Hope I'm wrong, but my pessimism is catching up with me...

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:10 AM
I hate to say it but...

If a state decides this than so be it, we are United States and states can choose their path. If the people of the state disagrees then vote it out, vote the people out, or move. When the Feds do this then we have real reasons to be afraid since where do you move to then?

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 01:53 AM
a reply to: maddy21

Well I am sure all the CHEMTRAIL believers on here wouldn't recommend using rain water, I take it there will be some kind of standard for potable water to make sure it's fit for consumption.

What I find interesting is this name "International Property Maintenance Code" now is that like World Series Baseball where the rest of the world is not actually part of it.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:37 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

Ok, thanks. So... building codes. I get that. But what about somebody who is already in a building (house) and just wants to disconnect from the grid. How is that the ICC's business if the house is structurally sound?

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:46 AM
a reply to: HUMBLEONE

Florida is West Virginia's inbred retarded cousin.

Now come clean my screen!

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:45 AM
From the source article -

“Reasonableness and code requirements don’t always go hand-in-hand… given societal and technical changes that requires review of code ordinances,” Eskin told the paper.

He argues, however, that he has an obligation to enforce the code. Still, he acknowledges that some of the charges against her are unfounded

"Obligation to enforce the codes". Why? Is it too much to ask that our legal system acknowledge when a law is obsolete/useless and do what is right?

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:30 AM

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The government isn't always out to oppress you and keep you in a cage because it's fun for them.

Not because it's fun for them. Come on you know better than that! Don't be so naive. The government do not have your best interests at heart. If you think the system we are born into and the people that run it are decent, honest and fair then I envy you. Because ignorance truly is bliss.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

I have emailed the ICC to ask for a comment on these issues, and for a comment on whether the organisation supports the use of its codes to prevent people living free of energy and utility costs.

This, ladies and gentleman, is what you should be doing.

The laws are so convoluted that those who apply the law can get away with it because nobody understands it, not even the people enforcing it. I dare say that if the owner challenged the courts to provide literal evidence that prohibits such actions the answer would probably be "well if you read section 7G, paragraph uhhh...12 you'll find that....y'know just shut up and give me my money already!"

Government's doesn't want people to become self sufficient because those in question are not paying rates and electricity. Simple. There are watchdogs in place that can help with this sort of thing but TPTB don't mind a long drawn out court case because every day the defense laywers charge fees that's more taxes in the coffer and the more impoverished these 'radicals' become.

They are trying to send a message and cases like this should be pro bono.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:54 AM
A permit to be self reliant, lull…

ETA: they're going to get their pound of flesh one way or t'other.

You can pay taxes on the grid or fees living off it, pick.

edit on 17-6-2015 by intrptr because: ETA:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:04 AM
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

There is no reason something like this ever goes to court, unless you want it to, or are just to destitute to navigate the planning department bureaucracy.

The court is not going to care one iota about the codes. They are not law. The court will do whatever the planning department wants. Whether an injunction to stop work, or bar you from your property so unacceptable work that you have refused to tear down can be torn down. They are not going to debate the code with you, only ensure that you have been given all the opportunities to rectify your mistakes first. The code enforcement people will have all the paperwork. You will have been provided copies of all violations.

The code books are not cheap, but they have them at the planning office for perusal. They are also not complicated, for someone in the trade they codes are written for.

Trade groups have a lot of influence on the code as well.

An aside. When I ran fire protection, I would get calls all the time from people having a fire Marshal inspection. They would be freaking out and want me to come immediately, days before the marshal got there. I'd always tell them, I'll come if I can, but why do you want me to come before the marshal? They would say so I don't get fined and in trouble. I'd tell them to relax, take a breath, smile at the marshal and whatever he writes down, fax to me. Well get it taken care of. If I come today, and tomorrow he wants something else, you'll have to pay me twice.

I have never seen anyone recieve a fine for code violations.

Seriously guys, for the mechanically inclined, the codes are quite simple, and provide many routes to achieve the goals.

You want some really asinine and Draconian regs, look at historic districts. They have some insane rules.

Again, I am against all of this stuff, but you're not going to win this fight at the planning office. Civil disobedience is going to lose here. It is one area where you can actually get what you want as there is so much leeway in their game, but you have to play.

This fight is for the legislature. It is a law that adopts the IBC codes. A law that should be stricken as a violation of the basic human right to acquire and use property.

edit on 17-6-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:18 AM

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
I get that the law profession requires dismissal of this, but doesn't one swear an oath to become a judge?

Don't legislators?

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:40 AM
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

While I'm glad my comment could help you out, I have to disagree that a true democracy is better than a republic--each has it's flaws, but in a democracy, it's a majority rules scenario all the time. At least in our system, it's slightly conceivable that, as happened in the past, "third parties" can make an appearance and give voice to a different group of people who don't agree with the majority at one point or the other.

Even though both systems have their flaws, both are better than having a dictator or monarchy.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:44 AM

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
I get that the law profession requires dismissal of this, but doesn't one swear an oath to become a judge?

Don't legislators?

Yes I agree. I was interupted, by guests, and may have been unclear. The oaths should be a check each step of the way. If the legislators were always true to their oath, the judge's might not need one. (They would, but you get my point, one doesn't excuse the other).

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in