A judge says barring the Tampa attorney from interviewing would amount to prior restraint of the press.
By JEFF TESTERMAN
Published September 13, 2003
TAMPA - A judge Friday declined to grant an injunction aimed at preventing Tampa attorney Jonathan Alpert from talking to the media about allegations he has made against his ex-wife in a lawsuit.
Liz Alpert, through attorney Stanford R. "Sandy" Solomon, had sought an emergency injunction that would have barred the Alperts or their attorneys from talking to reporters about Jonathan Alpert's lawsuit until a judge ruled on it.
In the suit, filed earlier this week, Jonathan Alpert accuses his wife of exploiting him by taking his money while she had a secret plan to divorce him.
The Alperts were married for 23 years and were divorced in January. But acrimony between the two continues.
Jonathan Alpert, who once earned big fees battling banks and brokerage houses, has appealed the divorce judgment, claiming he no longer earns enough to pay the $11,892-a-month alimony. Liz Alpert has asked that her ex-husband be charged with contempt for missing alimony payments since the spring, during a period she says he has traveled frequently and lived lavishly.
Friday, Liz Alpert's attorney said her ex-husband's lawsuit is an attempt to smear her and that all claims in it should be barred since they should have been brought to light in the divorce case.
"He's trying to sway public opinion by making this a media-fest," Solomon said.
Solomon said he was concerned about Jonathan Alpert talking to the syndicated TV magazine Inside Edition. The show's producers contacted Alpert after seeing a St. Petersburg Times story about the new lawsuit. The show also contacted Liz Alpert about doing an interview, said Inside Edition spokesman Jim Kelly, but abandoned the story idea after she declined.
Circuit Judge Perry A. Little quickly ruled against the request for the emergency injunction, saying any such action would amount to prior restraint of the press.
"I don't think I can keep (Jonathan Alpert) from talking about this without violating his constitutional rights," the judge said.
