March 18, 200817 yr Author As for the settlement.. It's frankly bloody outrageous, beyond maintenance for the child, she should get bugger all, this makes her just about the highest paid whore in the history of Prostitution really.... -_- She's a lying, scheming, conniving little whore who basically preyed upon a bloke who'd lost his wife of several decades, manipulated his emotions, made him think she actually loved him, but in fact was just a dirty little gold-digger.... She's a vile, VILE character who doesn't even know how to behave herself in public..... It appears the judge took a similar view. Still £700 per hour married to the ex-Beatle is not enough to go round is it, even David Beckham & Lewis Hamilton are not on that money? Last Updated: Tuesday, 18 March 2008, 15:57 GMT Judge: Mills gave 'inaccurate' evidence BBC News Heather Mills' evidence in her divorce case with Sir Paul McCartney was "inconsistent, inaccurate" and "less than candid", according to the judge. Mr Justice Bennett's High Court ruling has been revealed in full after Ms Mills was told she could not appeal against its publication. Ms Mills told the BBC she thought the judgement was "outrageous". The full ruling was published a day after she was awarded £24.3m at the High Court in London. The judge determined the final figure after the couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month. The former model had asked for the full text to be kept private - but two Court of Appeal judges rejected her argument that her daughter's security could be put at risk. Ms Mills was not present in court. In the full report, Mr Justice Bennett described Ms Mills as having "a strong-willed and determined personality", and said she was also a "kindly person and devoted to her charitable causes". "She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination," he said. Sir Paul's evidence was described as "balanced". "He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest," Mr Justice Bennett said. The judge wrote that he gave Ms Mills "every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under". But he added: "I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid". "Overall she was a less than impressive witness," he said. BREAKDOWN OF SIR PAUL'S £15.8M OFFER Costs, not exceeding £150,000 per year, for security would be met for two years Annual, index-linked payments of £35,000 for Beatrice until she is 17 or ends secondary education Nanny would be employed for no more than £25,000 He would discharge costs for school fees, uniforms and reasonable extras Lump sum for the return of some art Vs BREAKDOWN OF MILLS' £125M CLAIM £3.2m per year for herself and Beatrice Properties in Los Angeles and New York Between £8m and £12.5m for a home in London £3m to purchase a New York home £500,000 to £750,000 to buy a London office Monetary value on compensation for loss of earnings Ms Mills said the decision to publish the address of her houses had affected the security of her and her daughter, Beatrice. The ruling questioned Ms Mills' statement that she owned a penthouse flat in Piccadilly worth "approximately £500,000" when she met Sir Paul, along with a Brighton property "worth £250,000". "I have to say I cannot accept the wife's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999," said Mr Justice Bennett. He said the penthouse flat "was not worth £500,000 in 1999", adding she sold it in 2001 for £385,000 after the London property market had risen substantially since 1999. "She did not in 1999 own the property in Brighton. That was not bought until March 2000," he said. He also questioned her claim that she had £2m-£3m in the bank at this time, adding: "There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion." And her claim to have had "very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit" were not supported by her tax returns, the ruling said. The judge added that her tax returns "disclose no charitable giving at all", despite Mills saying she gave "as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings ... direct to charities". Commenting on that claims, Ms Mills said it was because her accountant "hadn't ticked the tax return box". The judge found the total value of Sir Paul's assets was about £400m. Ms Mills had sought £125m and been offered £15.8m. Sir Paul, 65, and Ms Mills, 40, got married in 2002, but they split four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives. Is it me or does the judges damning verdict towards Heather prove once & for all that Heather Mills does not know the meaning of the word "truth"?
March 18, 200817 yr Just reading through the judgment just confirms that she is the lying vile creature we all knew. She wanted £125m, yet went on TV saying the media were making up that she wanted £50-£70m in order to make her seem like a gold digger, and tried to make out that she wanted nowhere near that much, yet it appears she wanted double what the media claimed all along. She wanted something insane like £40K per year for WINE, and she does'nt even drink, as well as £30K for horse riding yet she does'nt ride them anymore. I mean can this women be more ridiculous? The judge has said Paul was consistant, accurate and honest, and said she was inconsistant, inaccurate and less than candid. She claimed she was very wealthy prior to meeeting Paul, yet the judge said he does not accept this and how that the claims she released were untrue, such as the value of her property. It was also said she did not give anywhere near the amount to charities as she claimed. It is no wonder she did'nt want this released. She claimed it was to keep their daughter safe. Yeah right, it was clearly just so the public were unable to see the evidence to prove what has been so very obvious to all sane people from the start, that she is nothing more than a golddigger and a compulsive liar. Even though she clearly did'nt deserve anywhere near £24m, it must be a great relief for Macca, and lets face it, £24m really doesn't dent his vast fortune very much, and it's more than £100m less than she wanted, so he must be very pleased. Now if only this would be the last we see of this women, but I bet she will be back on GMTV ranting in the near future.
March 18, 200817 yr tbh i think macca ought to sue her for damages after claiming that he hit her! :lol: 24 million should do it! no wonder she didnt want it disclosed, its proof what a vile b**ch she is.... no one has annoyed me so much since thatcher...
March 18, 200817 yr That's a one-legged woman I really can't stand. She only married him for the money.
March 18, 200817 yr I was wondering if Macca's lawyer Fiona Shackleton could sue Mucca for chucking water over her in Court. About 24 million in damages should cover it. :lol:
March 18, 200817 yr I think that some time down the road she will try and sell her story. Regardless of any deal to prevent her either publishing her book or going to the papers, she strikes me as she would do anything for money. I'm sure she will spend her £24m pretty quickly. I only hope she actually spends some on their daughter. Wonder what she will be told in the coming years. The truth according to Heather. :angry:
March 19, 200817 yr She's proved herself, not only to be a money grabber but a liar and, like Brian says, I fear we haven't heard the last from her because I don't think she knows when to stop :angry: Are we going to see tears and tantrums on the GMTV sofa again :rolleyes:
March 19, 200817 yr And she reckons she needs an allowance of £39,000 a year to cover the cost of wine. :wacko: Why that's nearly as much as I spend! :o Shocking. -_-
March 26, 200817 yr tbh i think macca ought to sue her for damages after claiming that he hit her! :lol: 24 million should do it! Spot on mate... Surely that's the very definition of "Defamation of Character"..... Dont get me wrong, I dont want the kid to suffer in any way.... Heather fukkin' Mills on the other hand..... <_< I reckon there should be some legal way in which she cant get her hands on any of the money herself, but it should all be 100% for Beatrice.... The best thing that could happen is that when Beatrice grows up and realises what really happened, and what a lying, evil whore Heather is, she turns on her "mother" and goes off to be with her dad.... Poetic justice.....
March 27, 200817 yr Spot on mate... Surely that's the very definition of "Defamation of Character"..... Dont get me wrong, I dont want the kid to suffer in any way.... Heather fukkin' Mills on the other hand..... <_< I reckon there should be some legal way in which she cant get her hands on any of the money herself, but it should all be 100% for Beatrice.... The best thing that could happen is that when Beatrice grows up and realises what really happened, and what a lying, evil whore Heather is, she turns on her "mother" and goes off to be with her dad.... Poetic justice..... trouble is.... her dads likely to be pushing up daisies and therefore unable to defend himself to her, all she will have for years after pauls death is her mothers view. i sense in 30 years a book emerging painting paul out to be anything other then what we KNOW he is. time distorts the truth.
March 27, 200817 yr trouble is.... her dads likely to be pushing up daisies and therefore unable to defend himself to her Barring some sudden heart attack or fatal, terminal disease, I cant see the bloke snuffing it before Beatrice hits 14 or 15... And it'll be round about that time when she'll start to question things like all adolescents do....
March 27, 200817 yr Barring some sudden heart attack or fatal, terminal disease, I cant see the bloke snuffing it before Beatrice hits 14 or 15... And it'll be round about that time when she'll start to question things like all adolescents do.... .......only to have it re-written by hop-a-long after his demise, however old she may be.
March 27, 200817 yr .......only to have it re-written by hop-a-long after his demise, however old she may be. But her rep's pretty much lower than crocodile pish mate, nobody with any sense will actually believe a bloody word she says...
March 27, 200817 yr Isn't the gagging order on her for life, though? Seems she's got around this, anyway - she's been hawking her tawdry tittle tattle around the US networks...with her sister in tow - who plans to tell her side of the story (ie Heather Mills' side).
March 28, 200817 yr yeah... if anyone thinks theyve heard the last of old 'peg leg' then they will be very disappointed. she wont just roll over and die.
March 28, 200817 yr it's a shame McCartney's such a nice guy, I think - surely, with all his money, Mills could be just made to conveniently 'disappear'?
March 28, 200817 yr it's a shame McCartney's such a nice guy, I think - surely, with all his money, Mills could be just made to conveniently 'disappear'? :lol:..... i wish..
Create an account or sign in to comment