Judge: Heather Mills is a big fat liar

NoNoRehab · March 18th, 2008, 08:19 AM

In his full ruling on the McCartney divorce, the judge was highly critical of Heather Mills's evidence. Mr Justice Bennett wrote:
"The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.
"But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) 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 went on to criticise Miss Mills's claims:
"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. Her problem stems from the lack of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings."
He continued:
"During her cross-examination she asserted for the first time that in addition to property assets she had £2m-£3m in the bank. No mention of such assets was made in her affidavit. There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion. During the hearing she was asked repeatedly to produce bank statements, which she said she thought she had in Brighton, to verify this claim. No bank statements were ever produced.
"I do not doubt that she modelled successfully and was a public speaker. But the investigation in this case of her assets and earnings as at 1999 when the parties met do not bear out her case."
After addressing her financial claims in detail, he concluded:
"I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated."
Going on to discuss when their cohabitation began, and when their finances became intermingled, the judge said:
"It must be remembered that, as the husband said in evidence, there was a considerable volatility in their relationship. There were good times, there were bad times, and the relationship always left in the husband’s mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other."
After analysing the couple's finances, the judge dismissed Miss Mills's claim that their cohabitation began in March 2000:
"I reject the wife’s case on this issue. Thus, their true and settled relationship lasted from marriage (June 2002) and not from March 2000."
He was sceptical about Miss Mills's claims that her husband hampered her own career:
"There are other examples, in my judgment, which, contrary to the wife’s case, show that the husband was supportive of, or furthered, the wife’s career."
He cited the example of a lecture series in the US run by a man called Mr Benia. Miss Mills had claimed that Sir Paul prevented her from doing further lectures:
"The husband, in my judgment, gave compelling evidence that no-one tells the wife what to do. This accords with his written evidence that the wife is very strong willed. Indeed watching the wife give evidence and present her case she came across to me as strong willed and very determined. I have no doubt that had the wife really wanted to contract for dates through Mr Benia she would have done it and the husband would not have stood in her way."
Addressing Miss Mills's claim that Sir Paul failed to contribute to her charity work:
"I have to say that the facts as I find them to be do not support the wife’s case. Within two months of the parties meeting in May 1999 the husband donated £150,000 to the wife’s charity (the Heather Mills Health Trust). In December 2002 and again in December 2003 the husband made a gift of £250,000 outright to the wife, thus plainly giving her the opportunity to make donations to charity."
He concluded:
"I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife’s career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says. He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim. “Compensation” therefore does not arise."
He went on to acknowledge Miss Mills's role as a wife and mother, but rejected her claim that her commitment to the marriage was "exceptional":
"In my judgment the picture painted by the husband of the wife’s part in his emotional and professional life is much closer to reality than the wife’s account. The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention. Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public attention.
"I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him but to suggest that in some way she was his “business partner” is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief."
He continued:
"I have to say that the wife’s evidence that in some way she was the husband’s “psychologist”, even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief. I reject her evidence that she, vis-à-vis the husband, was anything more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage.
"I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband’s professional flame and gave him back his confidence."

McCartney Mills full divorce ruling: Extracts - Telegraph

NoNoRehab · March 18th, 2008, 08:32 AM

They updated it with more, I'd bold but it's all fucking gold so I can't decide. In short, in this bit he says that maybe if she wasn't such a fucking crazy liar she might actually be liked:

On Miss Mills's future earning power, he said

"I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character. She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007. Nevertheless the fact is that at present she is at a disadvantage."

He went on:

"Her evidence there that she had turned down huge amounts of work is quite inconsistent with her assertion that her earning capacity is zero."

He ruled that she had a greater earning power than she claimed, escpecially if she became "less confrontational":

"I have no doubt that, despite the very adverse publicity in the last 2 years or a little under, the wife does have an earning capacity. She has earned her living since the age of 17. I have found that her association with the husband advanced, not stultified, her career.

"If in the future she is circumspect about engaging with the media and/or adopts an emollient and less confrontational attitude to it, I think that the negative interest shown towards her will indeed subside."

And he attacked Miss Mills for exaggerating how much money she needs to live:

"These items in her budget which I have touched upon above, illustrate generally speaking, how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife. In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have.

"If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose she only has herself to blame. If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget."

aabbcc · March 18th, 2008, 08:42 AM

Just when I think she can't possibly be more delusional.

heathersharon · March 18th, 2008, 09:37 AM

I'm confused. Is this recent? And if so, why did she just get MORE money?

aabbcc · March 18th, 2008, 09:43 AM

Where does it say she just got more money?

NoNoRehab · March 18th, 2008, 09:50 AM

No, it's not recent, it's just the complete details of the decision handed down yesterday that we only got a summary of yesterday. The court released the entire document today.

BTW maybe my favorite part:

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE, NONE OF HEATHER'S TAX RETURNS INDICATE ANY CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AT ALL, EVER.

aabbcc · March 18th, 2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoNoRehab

ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE, NONE OF HEATHER'S TAX RETURNS INDICATE ANY CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AT ALL, EVER.

Well ... I am shocked!

Not.

cmmdee · March 18th, 2008, 10:00 AM

Heather Mills is awful

WesCAdle · March 18th, 2008, 10:00 AM

I think what they mean is she really got less than Paul offerred initially to settle out of court. She was asking for $125 to $150 million Lb's and he offerred her $25M Lb which she turned down. She ended up getting I think $24M Lbs or about $48 million. She also gets school and support for the kid but with stipulations. Nobody that reported on it yesterday could get why Heather kept stating she was victorious, etc when she should have just walked with more cash before and save all the lawyer fees she still has to pay now to her initial counsel before she fired them. I understand she is appealing it but I seriously doubt she has a leg to stand on IMO. Sorry about that but couldn't resist.

NoNoRehab · March 18th, 2008, 10:05 AM

She didn't appeal the decision, she appealed the ruling being made public. She lost, obviously.

I am reading the complete thing, I repeat it is fucking gold. I will be quoting this shit for the next week, probably.

Quote:

The first tax return that the wife has been able to produce is for the year ending 5 April 1999. The Revenue has not been able to supply any prior tax return. However her tax returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers. Her gross turnover and net profit declared for “acting, modelling and public speaking” for the tax years 1999 to 2002 are, respectively (to the nearest £500) £62,000 and £11,500; £42,000 and £6000; £112,000 and £58,000; and £78,000 and £49,500. Thus her tax returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife’s case of very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit.
32. The wife’s riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination. In her evidence she told me that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities. However, the wife had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence, for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to charities. In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having been asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, replied that she did not have the records requested to enable her to complete a schedule. Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with having £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all.

She reminds me of those people on Judge Judy who show up and are like, "Oh, I have proof, I have that bill...Oh, well, I don't have it with me. I think it's at home."

I heart this judge, his subtle snark in this thing is fantastic.

Text of full judgment: Heather Mills v Sir Paul McCartney - Times Online

WhateverLolaWants · March 18th, 2008, 10:28 AM

I hope her former council milks her for as much of that cash as possible

Seapharris7 · March 18th, 2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhateverLolaWants

I hope her former council milks her for as much of that cash as possible

They are probably just like NNR - watching the trial blow up in her face is enough payment...

Wait, nevermind, they are lawyers - they will squeeze the last drop of blood from a stone...

NoNoRehab · March 18th, 2008, 11:09 AM

My favorite so far is the judge's statement that she is "devoid of reality" and he repeates quite a lot that she is "prone to make-belief."

heathersharon · March 18th, 2008, 11:34 AM

Somehow I thought there was a ruling a few weeks ago and she got money, and somehow, recently, the total was upped. I think I've just been reading too many articles and stuff on this...
I get so confused what with the pounds to dollars and with just the huge numbers. Then I see Heather on TV acting all victorious and I just don't understand. I should know better than to fall for the Heather Mills act. Bitch is a manipultive liar and I'm glad its going public, even if it is confusing.

Paul McCartney forever!!!!!

bellini · March 18th, 2008, 11:42 AM

Poor Paul. Bet he believes in pre-nups now. Not that he'll probably ever marry again. I'm sure Ho-ther turned him off to marriage for life.

March 18th, 2008, 08:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
NoNoRehab Elite Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: LYNWOOD JAIL Posts: 1,696	Judge: Heather Mills is a big fat liar In his full ruling on the McCartney divorce, the judge was highly critical of Heather Mills's evidence. Mr Justice Bennett wrote: "The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest. "But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) 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 went on to criticise Miss Mills's claims: "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. Her problem stems from the lack of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings." He continued: "During her cross-examination she asserted for the first time that in addition to property assets she had £2m-£3m in the bank. No mention of such assets was made in her affidavit. There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion. During the hearing she was asked repeatedly to produce bank statements, which she said she thought she had in Brighton, to verify this claim. No bank statements were ever produced. "I do not doubt that she modelled successfully and was a public speaker. But the investigation in this case of her assets and earnings as at 1999 when the parties met do not bear out her case." After addressing her financial claims in detail, he concluded: "I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated." Going on to discuss when their cohabitation began, and when their finances became intermingled, the judge said: "It must be remembered that, as the husband said in evidence, there was a considerable volatility in their relationship. There were good times, there were bad times, and the relationship always left in the husband’s mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other." After analysing the couple's finances, the judge dismissed Miss Mills's claim that their cohabitation began in March 2000: "I reject the wife’s case on this issue. Thus, their true and settled relationship lasted from marriage (June 2002) and not from March 2000." He was sceptical about Miss Mills's claims that her husband hampered her own career: "There are other examples, in my judgment, which, contrary to the wife’s case, show that the husband was supportive of, or furthered, the wife’s career." He cited the example of a lecture series in the US run by a man called Mr Benia. Miss Mills had claimed that Sir Paul prevented her from doing further lectures: "The husband, in my judgment, gave compelling evidence that no-one tells the wife what to do. This accords with his written evidence that the wife is very strong willed. Indeed watching the wife give evidence and present her case she came across to me as strong willed and very determined. I have no doubt that had the wife really wanted to contract for dates through Mr Benia she would have done it and the husband would not have stood in her way." Addressing Miss Mills's claim that Sir Paul failed to contribute to her charity work: "I have to say that the facts as I find them to be do not support the wife’s case. Within two months of the parties meeting in May 1999 the husband donated £150,000 to the wife’s charity (the Heather Mills Health Trust). In December 2002 and again in December 2003 the husband made a gift of £250,000 outright to the wife, thus plainly giving her the opportunity to make donations to charity." He concluded: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife’s career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says. He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim. “Compensation” therefore does not arise." He went on to acknowledge Miss Mills's role as a wife and mother, but rejected her claim that her commitment to the marriage was "exceptional": "In my judgment the picture painted by the husband of the wife’s part in his emotional and professional life is much closer to reality than the wife’s account. The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention. Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public attention. "I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him but to suggest that in some way she was his “business partner” is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief." He continued: "I have to say that the wife’s evidence that in some way she was the husband’s “psychologist”, even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief. I reject her evidence that she, vis-à-vis the husband, was anything more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage. "I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband’s professional flame and gave him back his confidence." McCartney Mills full divorce ruling: Extracts - Telegraph

March 18th, 2008, 08:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
aabbcc Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Watching the sun set over Lake Superior. Posts: 16,623	Just when I think she can't possibly be more delusional. __________________ I am awesome sexy awesomeness with a side of chips.

March 18th, 2008, 09:37 AM	#4 (permalink)
heathersharon Gold Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In ur internetz. Gossipin'. Posts: 1,404	I'm confused. Is this recent? And if so, why did she just get MORE money? __________________

March 18th, 2008, 09:43 AM	#5 (permalink)
aabbcc Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Watching the sun set over Lake Superior. Posts: 16,623	Where does it say she just got more money? __________________ I am awesome sexy awesomeness with a side of chips.

March 18th, 2008, 10:00 AM	#9 (permalink)
WesCAdle Elite Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Chokey Chicken on the Left Coast Posts: 1,518	I think what they mean is she really got less than Paul offerred initially to settle out of court. She was asking for $125 to $150 million Lb's and he offerred her $25M Lb which she turned down. She ended up getting I think $24M Lbs or about $48 million. She also gets school and support for the kid but with stipulations. Nobody that reported on it yesterday could get why Heather kept stating she was victorious, etc when she should have just walked with more cash before and save all the lawyer fees she still has to pay now to her initial counsel before she fired them. I understand she is appealing it but I seriously doubt she has a leg to stand on IMO. Sorry about that but couldn't resist. __________________ as privileged as a whore...victims in demand for public show, swept out through the cracks beneath the door, holier than thou, how?

March 18th, 2008, 08:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
NoNoRehab Elite Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: LYNWOOD JAIL Posts: 1,696	They updated it with more, I'd bold but it's all fucking gold so I can't decide. In short, in this bit he says that maybe if she wasn't such a fucking crazy liar she might actually be liked: On Miss Mills's future earning power, he said "I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character. She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007. Nevertheless the fact is that at present she is at a disadvantage." He went on: "Her evidence there that she had turned down huge amounts of work is quite inconsistent with her assertion that her earning capacity is zero." He ruled that she had a greater earning power than she claimed, escpecially if she became "less confrontational": "I have no doubt that, despite the very adverse publicity in the last 2 years or a little under, the wife does have an earning capacity. She has earned her living since the age of 17. I have found that her association with the husband advanced, not stultified, her career. "If in the future she is circumspect about engaging with the media and/or adopts an emollient and less confrontational attitude to it, I think that the negative interest shown towards her will indeed subside." And he attacked Miss Mills for exaggerating how much money she needs to live: "These items in her budget which I have touched upon above, illustrate generally speaking, how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife. In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have. "If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose she only has herself to blame. If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget."

March 18th, 2008, 09:50 AM	#6 (permalink)
NoNoRehab Elite Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: LYNWOOD JAIL Posts: 1,696	No, it's not recent, it's just the complete details of the decision handed down yesterday that we only got a summary of yesterday. The court released the entire document today. BTW maybe my favorite part: ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE, NONE OF HEATHER'S TAX RETURNS INDICATE ANY CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AT ALL, EVER.

March 18th, 2008, 10:00 AM	#8 (permalink)
cmmdee Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Eva's Love Den Posts: 25,591	Heather Mills is awful

March 18th, 2008, 10:28 AM	#11 (permalink)
WhateverLolaWants Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,327	I hope her former council milks her for as much of that cash as possible __________________ ---------------------------- *"Ask me about pins*

March 18th, 2008, 11:09 AM	#13 (permalink)
NoNoRehab Elite Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: LYNWOOD JAIL Posts: 1,696	My favorite so far is the judge's statement that she is "devoid of reality" and he repeates quite a lot that she is "prone to make-belief."

March 18th, 2008, 11:34 AM	#14 (permalink)
heathersharon Gold Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In ur internetz. Gossipin'. Posts: 1,404	Somehow I thought there was a ruling a few weeks ago and she got money, and somehow, recently, the total was upped. I think I've just been reading too many articles and stuff on this... I get so confused what with the pounds to dollars and with just the huge numbers. Then I see Heather on TV acting all victorious and I just don't understand. I should know better than to fall for the Heather Mills act. Bitch is a manipultive liar and I'm glad its going public, even if it is confusing. Paul McCartney forever!!!!! __________________

March 18th, 2008, 11:42 AM	#15 (permalink)
bellini Elite Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,601	Poor Paul. Bet he believes in pre-nups now. Not that he'll probably ever marry again. I'm sure Ho-ther turned him off to marriage for life. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Heather Mills	DontMindMe	Just Plain Scary	17	November 14th, 2007 03:49 AM
Esther Rantzen: Yes, she's a bully and liar. But I still admire Heather Mills' spirit	TheMoog	Latest Gossip	16	November 8th, 2007 10:26 PM
Jonathan Ross calls Heather Mills a "f-ing liar"	moomies	Gossip Archive	10	October 31st, 2006 05:49 PM
Heather Mills McCartney's ex-fiancee to Paul McCartney: We've both been 'Heather-ed'	lovely bones	Gossip Archive	4	June 4th, 2006 12:52 AM
Heather Locklear unhappy with her divorce judge as well	SVZ	Gossip Archive	5	March 11th, 2006 02:55 AM