City Cites “International Code” in Effort to Evict Off-Grid Woman

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Florida resident who generates her own electricity targeted for not being dependent on the state

Paul Joseph Watson
December 18, 2013

After a Fox affiliate did a feature story on the off-grid lifestyle of a Cape Coral, FL woman she was almost immediately hit with an eviction order from the city which cited “international code” as a reason for turfing the woman out of her own home because she was not dependent on city water or electricity supplies.

Just one day after the feature story about how Robin Speronis was living off’ grid by generating her own power via solar panels and collecting rainwater, city code enforcement officers visited her home to declare it unfit for human habitation. The code enforcers were able to make this determination despite not even venturing inside Speronis’ house.

“There’s a good chance they just looked at the water bill for that address and realized the city monopoly had been thwarted,” reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Despite the fact that Speronis’ home looks the same as every other on her street from the outside, because she is not dependent on government, the state is presumably worried about the threat of a good example and is attempting to evict her from her own fully owned property.

A city code compliance manager told Fox 4 that the eviction notice was issued because the home did not have running water or electricity.

Furthermore, the notice posted to Speronis’ property by city officials cites “international property maintenance code” as a justification for the eviction.

The ‘international property maintenance code’ is a lengthy set of regulations published by the International Code Council which, although not law, are “available for adoption and use by jurisdictions internationally.”

The regulations another example of how global directives in the spirit of the United Nation’s Agenda 21 are being imposed on Americans outside of the law which eviscerate traditional property rights as defined by constitutional protections.

Agenda 21 demands that member nations adopt “sustainable development” policies that are little more than a disguise for the reintroduction of neo-feudalism and only serve to reduce living standards and quality of life.

In response to the eviction threat, residents rallied in support of Speronis, filing hundreds of complaints with the city council, while attorney Todd Allen said that the city’s powers of eviction were non-existent.

“Cape Coral needs to be afraid of me. I’m not afraid of them,” said Speronis.

Share Button


  1. This woman is not the sympathetic figure she would appear to be at first blush. She has been in a lot of legal hot water recently, all of her own making. Here’s a sample describing allegations that she kept real estate clients’ money:

    Though the story about her tribulations with the city over living off the grid has gone viral and raised loads of support, my hunch is that there is a lot more to the city’s actions than some desire to enforce “Agenda 21”. The city has said it has tried to enforce other code violations after neighbors’ complaints since October, long before the story aired about her lifestyle, but was unable to reach her before this hit the fan.

    Sorry, but my experience with the Alex Jones conspiracy types (, etc.) giving the whole story or even reporting things correctly has been dismal. It pays to dig a little deeper. I am among those who has caught Jones and his ilk in real howlers about subjects with which I was familiar, but somehow these people never seem to correct what they report even after errors are pointed out to them—repeatedly. It pays to spend a few minutes with Google, DuckDuckGo, or another search engine to find out more about a seemingly outrageous story.

    • ekrampitzjr – I started reading his web site when I caught his radio show in Austin, although its the first I drop when I’m busy. His web site can be a good place to start, but for anything of interest, definitely do additional research. I do question some of his sponsors or items he pushes – some seem OK, but others have been in and out of legal battles and through various name changes for decades.

    • Cape Coral Woman Living Off Grid Being Kicked Out of Her Home

      Ye Olde Newsflash: “Thomas Paine is big fat liar. Stick to reading the King’s Powdered Wig Post, it’s got troof!”

      – e krammed pits senior

      Government evicting widow for ‘living off the grid’

      Widow Faces Eviction For Living Off the Grid

      • Tor, you’re making my point for me. Citing a website called “The Prepper Project” to back up Alex Jones’s Prison Planet site? Why not cite the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post too? Wasn’t Adam Lanza’s mom a prepper too? Maybe she would have bought the story here as gospel.

        Numerous sites not simply rehashing have noted that “eviction” isn’t correctly used in this case, and that more is going on than just the shortcomings with the property attributed to city statements. A landlord evicts a tenant. Government doesn’t evict a homeowner. Government can condemn a property and order you to vacate after X days unless a massive problem is fixed. “Evict” is an example of inflammatory language that doesn’t fit the circumstance, but is typical of the conspiracymongers.

        The local Fox News affiliate has covered this story on its site and notes that the woman is fighting the city. I still suspect that more is going on here than meets the eye, more than just trying to enforce Agenda 21, and I suspect that she is broadly to blame. Look back at previous coverage of her doings. Perhaps this action is actually the start of a process to place a lein to recoup the money she has been accused of stealing from others. Let’s reserve judgement until we see how this develops.

        • How about the facts about Robin Speronis? Or should we reserve judgment until massa says it’s time, maybe after cotton season?

        • ekrampitzjr,

          If she is stealing money from others: I think that would usually be a civil matter.

          Why would the government take steps to remove her from her property? (My understanding was that her property taxes were not in arrears.)

          If a lien is placed against her property: I thought that only affected the property owner when the property is sold. If an owner does not sell the property (w/lien) then the owner can still live at the property.

          Happy New Year to all. May 2014 be better than 2013.

      • Dear Tor,

        I left a comment at the first vid site.

        Bevin Chu
        1 second ago

        What is “The Government” but a bunch of strangers this sovereign individual doesn’t know from Adam? What right do these busybodies have to tell her how to live?

        This of course gets right back to what I was saying to Federalist45 earlier.

        • Thanks Bevin. Glad you’re still here.

          I guess Bureaucrat-Bloc Massa can kick an Old Widow Slave to the curb and other than a few principled exceptions, no-one here gives a damn. If property rights and vulnerable individuals aren’t worth defending, what is?

          Throw em all in the woods and feed ’em fish heads.

        • Dear Tor,

          Sure thing!

          Whether the woman was or was not a “nice person” up close and personal, or even wronged others in other matters, is irrelevant.

          In this specific context, she was right and was being wronged by others under the guise of “The Government” and that old shibboleth “public safety.”

          That is the issue here. If she wronged others on other matters is a separate issue not relevant to this case in particular.

          • Morning, Bevin!

            I don’t have all the facts as regards the case of this woman, but I know for a fact that in most areas (mine among them) it is “illegal” to build, say, a small cabin on one’s own land without the requisite permission and without adhering to all the various “codes” written into “the law.” If one does so anyway – and they find out about it – they will indeed forcibly evict you from “your” home on “your” land. Even though you’ve harmed no one (not even yourself).

          • Dear Eric,

            The auto industry as we all know, has been crippled by cloverism.

            But as the example you cited suggests, the architectural profession has been crippled even more severely by uberclovers.

            It’s one of the reasons I finally gave up on architecture in disgust.

            • Indeed.

              And one of the cruelest ironies of the whole mess is that the control freaks who posture as defenders of the “less fortunate” have – intentionally or not – made “housing” much less affordable. What good are electrical codes and all the rest of it if the person cannot afford the home?

              Take away all this crap and a man could buy an acre or so – land itself is still affordable outside of major developed areas – and then build himself (or have built) whatever he wanted and could afford. If that meant a small 20xx20 cabin with no indoor plumbing and “off grid” electrical – well, so what? Isn’t that preferable to being homeless (or dependent) or saddled with crippling debt for decades?

          • Dear Eric,


            Just as the cost of a family car is far higher than it need be, so is the cost of a single-family dwelling, and by an even greater magnitude.

            Just as CAFE, air bags, bumpers have driven the cost of a car way up, so have building codes, including energy efficiency requirements.

            Just as there is no reason why someone should not be prevented from driving something like a dune buggy if they can’t afford a Tesla, so someone should not be prevented from living in a barrio type tin shack, if they can’t afford to live in Gracie Mansion or the White House.

            Surplus freight containers for example can be made into great little homes. One merely has to use a little creativity and get past the prejudicial mindset about what a home has to look like.

            Here’s some pics of one by a Chilean architect at one of my blogs:


            • It’s sad, isn’t it?

              Are you familiar with the “small house” movement?


              Basically, these are mobile and highly space efficient little dwellings – think cabin by the pond – that can be driven by truck onto a lot and parked. They are self-contained/independent of the grid. Many are very nice, just very small.

              But, they are not “permanent dwellings” and so illegal to actually live in. Legally, they may only be used for “recreational purposes” and so on.

              Can you imagine it?

              Stormtroopers dragging people away in shackles for the “crime” of living in a dwelling of their own choice on their own land, harming no one.

  2. Vigil for teen murdered by Heroes turns violent in Durham, North Carolina. Escalators arrested six more and assaulted peaceful people with tear gas and batons while wearing military police gear.

    Hero Samuel Duncan’s report said Huerta was searched and no gun was found on him at the time of arrest.

    Commentary on Jesus Huerta’s death

    Call Durham Police at (919)-560-4600

  3. I remember hearing (some decades ago) about a Frenchman living in a cave treated in a similar manner. All they could get him for was a form of tax evasion.

    Without a widespread public outrage, treatment like this may end up in Common Law, destroying everyone’s freedoms.

  4. This lady does not appear to be harming anyone.

    I would think it is the burden of the local government to demonstrate that someone (an actual individual) is being harmed in a tangible manner.

    If they are concerned about a potential problem, then the local government (which is composed of individuals) should be able to explain their concerns in clear, unambiguous language.

    I fail to see how the actions by this individual are harming anyone in any tangible manner.

    • She’s different. Different is bad. Different harms the state, the order of things. If one person can get away with being different they might all start trying to be different. Start being individuals. How will those who want to control society control people like that?

      They have to go after her. They have to crush her. At the very least they have to make being different very difficult and costly. They have to make an example out of her or they could lose their way of life when other people stand up and break from the herd.

      • The only good thing about things such as this is that it paints in black and white how un-free this country really is. This woman – harming no one, living on her own land in her own paid-for house – is the target of state thuggery for what, exactly? Who has been harmed? Isn’t it her home?

        People live in a delusion of red white and blue.

        It’s time to shake them awake.

        • But I’ll guess most americans who saw the original piece on her and now these followups probably think she is the problem, not the government. Americans IME by and large think freedom is the freedom to be just like everyone else or the freedom to live as those with political power say. When someone exercises real freedom, to be different, the true nature of americans, their authoritarian side comes out.

          They’ll say the country is free, and to them it is, because they don’t get hassled, because they are like everyone else. Even if they are different they keep it private and will actually cheer on the government to crush the different.

          Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my observation of american society.

          • “Maybe I’m wrong”

            Only in scope. It is not just Americans.

            Schadenfreude plays a big part too. As long as it is not happening to them, the credulous sheep love the vicarious thrill of seeing other suffer. It makes them feel superior and closer to the ‘dear leader’ as obviously since they are not being punished, they are superior to those who are.

    • Hi Mith,

      “I fail to see how the actions by this individual are harming anyone in any tangible manner.”

      Of course, that’s just the problem. 95 percent of the laws on the books would be invalidated using that standard.

      • Eric,

        The only thing I could think is that it violates the sense of control that some busybodies like to think they have over other people. The need to be in control others can be very seductive to some individuals.

        It (codes and laws on the “books”) also provides a pretext for some in the government use as a weapon against those that some in the government do not like regardless of the reason.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here