Some people seem to exist in a dream world totally oblivious to anything around them.
One of these people is Heather Mills. The public persception of her is that she went after Paul McCartney because of his money. That may be so but what is more interesting is the judges comments about her after her divorce case.
This is from the BBC.
According to the judge Hather Mills’ evidence in her divorce case with Sir Paul McCartney was “inconsistent, inaccurate” and “less than candid”.
Mr Justice Bennett’s High Court ruling has been revealed in full after Ms Mills was told she could not appeal against its publication.
The full ruling was published a day after she was awarded £24m at the High Court in London.
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.
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”.
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.
And this is from the Times
Heather Mills was castigated yesterday as a greedy fantasist who indulged in make-believe; a “less than candid witness” and a woman whose claims about her marriage to Sir Paul McCartney were “devoid of reality”.
In a stinging judgment that she had attempted to have suppressed, Mr Justice Bennett said that her whole attitude was “me too” or “if he has it, I want it too”. He also suggested that Ms Mills might have made a “fraudulent” attempt to extract money from her husband and condemned her behaviour as “distinctly distasteful”.
His strong criticisms exposed only too clearly why Ms Mills had been determined to stop its release after being awarded £24.3 million on Monday, based on living needs of £600,000 a year.
he judge rejected one by one the claims by Ms Mills — that she was wealthy by the time she met the former Beatle; that he held back her career; or that he was worth £825 million. He questioned her claim that she gave 80 to 90 per cent of her earnings to charity.
He said: “The wife accepted that had she had £2 million to £3 million in the bank in 1999 she is most likely to have put such a sum into an account earning interest. But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all.”
The judge said that a property, Thames Reach, bought by Ms Mills out of money given to her by Sir Paul, had no mortgage on it. But she had requested £480,000 to pay an allegedly outstanding sum. Mr Justice Bennett said he did not have to decide if the attempt was fraudulent, but added: “It is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful . . . it damages her overall credibility.”
Good grief.
For goodness sake, if you are going to lie at least make it believeable instead of coming out with this nonsense that can easily be verified for what it is, a blatant lie.
If she will lie about this in this manner she can hardly find it surprising that people will accuse her of lying about marrying Paul McCartney for his money.
Still, £24million quid is not a bad payday for 4 years work.
And lets not forget the German sex manual that she took her clothes off for and starred in, engaging in sexual activity for money is prostitution.
I’ve nothing against prostitution, the individual owns their own body to do with as they want and such activity is consensual between two adults, it’s the bare faced porkies that get me.
 |
|
||
