Judge's statement from the mills divorce
18-03-2008, 03:14 PM
#1
Judge's statement from the mills divorce
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.
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 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".
BUSTED!
"Overall she was a less than impressive witness," he said.
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 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".
BUSTED!
18-03-2008, 03:22 PM
#3
Seriously, the more you read about it, the more ridiculous her getting ANYTHING seems, she should have been told to get fucked, and got 1 day a week visiting rights to her's and Sir Paul's daughter which he should have got custody of.
18-03-2008, 03:27 PM
#5
.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: .
Posts: 6,373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The woman can't even lie convincingly....perhaps it's time she didn't try and just died quietly somewhere. Nauseating woman....McCartney is nauseating as fuck but at least he was famous for being a long term face of popular culture...who is this woman?
The poor kid...I tell you. She's going to get the piss ripped at school...your dads about half a million years old (if he lasts) and your mum is a world known golddigger with a perchant for living in a dream world whilst claiming you flying outside first class might reduce your risk of making it to 18..
The poor kid...I tell you. She's going to get the piss ripped at school...your dads about half a million years old (if he lasts) and your mum is a world known golddigger with a perchant for living in a dream world whilst claiming you flying outside first class might reduce your risk of making it to 18..
18-03-2008, 03:37 PM
#6
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scary thing is that she is genuinely ill in the head.
Stuff like her impersonating people didn't get anough press IMO:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Stuff like her impersonating people didn't get anough press IMO:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Trending Topics
18-03-2008, 04:38 PM
#8
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 14,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scary thing is that she is genuinely ill in the head.
Stuff like her impersonating people didn't get anough press IMO:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Stuff like her impersonating people didn't get anough press IMO:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Fecking fruitcake
18-03-2008, 05:14 PM
#12
Member No: 39
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 8,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McCartney Divorce Judgement in full
What a lying bitch she is, can you imagine what other kids will say to Beatrice at school.....
What a lying bitch she is, can you imagine what other kids will say to Beatrice at school.....
18-03-2008, 05:29 PM
#15
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hartlepool
Posts: 10,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cant stand her, hope she gets prosecuted for breaching the gagging order that was also imposed at the time of the settlement, thatd teach the bitch a lesson 
18-03-2008, 06:41 PM
#17
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shes a fucking cow.
The way she goes on about her daughter "only" getting 35k a year, fuck me. silly spoiled cow, she should get to fuck, Sir Paul has worked for his wealth, why she thinks she is entitled to any more of it than she got i do not know...
The way she goes on about her daughter "only" getting 35k a year, fuck me. silly spoiled cow, she should get to fuck, Sir Paul has worked for his wealth, why she thinks she is entitled to any more of it than she got i do not know...
19-03-2008, 08:59 AM
#20
Member No: 39
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 8,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the 58 page report... P27/28
139. On 2 November 2005 the wife e-mailed Mr Paul Winn, MPL’s finance director, in respect of the property at Thames Reach that “the amount outstanding on the mortgage is £480,000” and “please pay it in the following account and I will deal with the closure of it”. The account was a NatWest bank account in the name of the wife.
On 5 November the wife e-mailed Mr Winn that “there are 4 loans with different companies on the property totalling £480,000 …”. Mr Winn pressed for full details on each loan. In February 2006 the wife again e-mailed Mr Winn about the loans and on 28 February instructed him to pay £450,000 into her account “so that I can settle this situation”. On 1 March Mr Winn told the wife in an e-mail that he would not pay any sum “without proof that the loans exist or some protection secured on the
property at Thames Reach”.
140. In her Replies to Questionnaire dated 6 February 2007, in response to a question to annotate the wife’s bank accounts showing discharge of the 4 loans and indicating the recipient of each payment, it was said “the wife did not have any loans”.
141. The wife in her cross-examination accepted that Thames Reach was bought mortgage free and never had a mortgage on it. But she said that at the time of the e-mails referred to above she believed that there were loans secured on the property.
142. Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband.
143. In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means.
144. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr Mostyn rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility.
On 5 November the wife e-mailed Mr Winn that “there are 4 loans with different companies on the property totalling £480,000 …”. Mr Winn pressed for full details on each loan. In February 2006 the wife again e-mailed Mr Winn about the loans and on 28 February instructed him to pay £450,000 into her account “so that I can settle this situation”. On 1 March Mr Winn told the wife in an e-mail that he would not pay any sum “without proof that the loans exist or some protection secured on the
property at Thames Reach”.
140. In her Replies to Questionnaire dated 6 February 2007, in response to a question to annotate the wife’s bank accounts showing discharge of the 4 loans and indicating the recipient of each payment, it was said “the wife did not have any loans”.
141. The wife in her cross-examination accepted that Thames Reach was bought mortgage free and never had a mortgage on it. But she said that at the time of the e-mails referred to above she believed that there were loans secured on the property.
142. Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband.
143. In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means.
144. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr Mostyn rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility.
19-03-2008, 09:25 AM
#21
From the 58 page report... P27/28
139. On 2 November 2005 the wife e-mailed Mr Paul Winn, MPL’s finance director, in respect of the property at Thames Reach that “the amount outstanding on the mortgage is £480,000” and “please pay it in the following account and I will deal with the closure of it”. The account was a NatWest bank account in the name of the wife.
On 5 November the wife e-mailed Mr Winn that “there are 4 loans with different companies on the property totalling £480,000 …”. Mr Winn pressed for full details on each loan. In February 2006 the wife again e-mailed Mr Winn about the loans and on 28 February instructed him to pay £450,000 into her account “so that I can settle this situation”. On 1 March Mr Winn told the wife in an e-mail that he would not pay any sum “without proof that the loans exist or some protection secured on the
property at Thames Reach”.
140. In her Replies to Questionnaire dated 6 February 2007, in response to a question to annotate the wife’s bank accounts showing discharge of the 4 loans and indicating the recipient of each payment, it was said “the wife did not have any loans”.
141. The wife in her cross-examination accepted that Thames Reach was bought mortgage free and never had a mortgage on it. But she said that at the time of the e-mails referred to above she believed that there were loans secured on the property.
142. Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband.
143. In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means.
144. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr Mostyn rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility.
On 5 November the wife e-mailed Mr Winn that “there are 4 loans with different companies on the property totalling £480,000 …”. Mr Winn pressed for full details on each loan. In February 2006 the wife again e-mailed Mr Winn about the loans and on 28 February instructed him to pay £450,000 into her account “so that I can settle this situation”. On 1 March Mr Winn told the wife in an e-mail that he would not pay any sum “without proof that the loans exist or some protection secured on the
property at Thames Reach”.
140. In her Replies to Questionnaire dated 6 February 2007, in response to a question to annotate the wife’s bank accounts showing discharge of the 4 loans and indicating the recipient of each payment, it was said “the wife did not have any loans”.
141. The wife in her cross-examination accepted that Thames Reach was bought mortgage free and never had a mortgage on it. But she said that at the time of the e-mails referred to above she believed that there were loans secured on the property.
142. Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband.
143. In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means.
144. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr Mostyn rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility.
19-03-2008, 10:25 AM
#25
Advanced PassionFord User
she couldn't believe her low life hooker luck when she snared macca.stuck it out for a while ,then balls up the chance to take him for 100m because of her deluded mind.back to the gutter,even if she has 25m. hop it you tramp.
19-03-2008, 11:10 AM
#34
I recon her bio clock was ticking and she wanted some one to mate with her and she selected a successful man got the baby she wanted what did she need him for then, so she divorced him .It's as obvious as cat shit smells ,post natal pre postnatal would explain her bizarre behaviour,it's her hormones
19-03-2008, 11:13 AM
#35
I recon her bio clock was ticking and she wanted some one to mate with her and she selected a successful man got the baby she wanted what did she need him for then, so she divorced him .It's as obvious as cat shit smells ,post natal pre postnatal would explain her bizarre behaviour,it's her hormones
19-03-2008, 11:33 AM
#36
Pop into to any chemist books and books on womens problems not one on mens problems and according to women it's men that have the problems,not according to the publishers lol
19-03-2008, 12:04 PM
#38
the secret is to wait for someone else who's got the time and inclination to read it and then pick ot the juciy bits and explain what they mean rather than spend 4 days trying to work out what the fuck is going on
apparently the papers have ripped her to shreads this morning