The British judge who presided over the Paul McCartney Divorce case has called Heather Mills a lying sack of cow dung. Or words to that effect.
Well, all right, what the judge actually said was 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.” In other words, she lied about A LOT of things.
Meanwhile, the judge described Sir Paul McCartney’s evidence as “balanced”.
But the real eye-opener is that the appeals court is allowing - with Paul's consent - all the messy details of the divorce proceedings to be made public. And it appears that Heather has been lying in the media about a lot of stuff too - that she was rich before she met Paul and that she would have "made millions" in her career if she had not married the Beatle and had a baby.
For example, the ruling questioned Heather' claims that she donates 80-90 per cent of her earnings to charity.
Mr Justice Bennet said: "In her evidence she told me that as much as 80 per cent or 90 per cent 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."
And the Judge said he could not accept Mills’ case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the former Beatle in 1999. “I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated."
"The assertion that she was a wealthy person in 1999 is, of course, the first step in her overall case that her career, which in 1999 she says was one producing rich financial rewards, was thereafter blighted by the husband during their relationship.”
The Judge added: "By the time of the parties’ first meeting in May of 1999 the wife says that she was wealthy and independent with, as she told me in evidence, properties and cash totalling between £2m and £3m.
"I have to say I cannot accept the wife’s case ... her problem stems from the lack of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings."
The Judge added: "Her tax returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife’s case of very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit.
"Furthermore, her assertion that she gave away to charity 80 per cent to 90 per cent of her earned income is inconsistent with having £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999."
"But the tax returns do not disclose any bank interest earned or only very small sums which are not consistent with holding £2m- £3m in a bank or banks. Moreover her tax returns disclose no charitable giving at all."
Mills said "countless lucrative business opportunities" were offered to her after the marriage top Sir Paul. "Sadly, Paul advised against 99 per cent of all of them," she had stated.
"He stated that they were only interested in me because of his name and that I should just stick to charity work and he would take care of me," Mills told the court.
"When I was asked to design clothes, create a food line, write books, make a video, write music or do photography, Paul would almost always state something like 'Oh no you can’t do that, Stella does that or Mary does that or Heather (his adopted daughter) used to do that or Linda did that,' even though I had been involved with fashion and modeling for years.
"If I had been free to pursue my TV career, especially in the US, then I believe, and have been told by other professionals, I would have made millions."
The full judgment was made public after Heather’s application for an appeal was refused today.
She was awarded $48 million dollars from Paul's $800 million estate. She had asked for around $125 million.
