It wasn't enough for Heather Mills to get almost $50 million in her divorce settlement with Paul McCartney - she also had to show everyone who's boss by dumping a pitcher of water on the head of McCartney's lawyer Fiona Shackleton in court.
Mills, who is clearly off the rails, reportedly declared that Shackleton had been "baptised in court" after throwing the water over her head. The court sketch artist reproduced Mills's idiotic act:
Now Mills is ramping up her feud with Shackleton even further by reporting her to the Law Society for allegedly calling Heather bad names during the proceedings.
Again, Mills is painting herself as the poor victim of persecution. Apparently she thinks divorce proceedings aren't supposed to be unpleasant.
Meanwhile, the judge in the case has issued his full ruling, and Heather does not come off well. The judge said of Heather's case overall:
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.
On Heather's assertion that Paul didn't support 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 also rejected Heather's claim that she contributed "exceptionally" to the marriage:
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.
The judge also questioned Heather's future earning potential, but denied her claim that she will be utterly unable to get work:
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.
However:
Her evidence there that she had turned down huge amounts of work is quite inconsistent with her assertion that her earning capacity is zero.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.
He also ripped Heather's exaggerated claims of her financial requirements:
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.
Sounds to me like Heather lost. Of course, Heather herself claims that she won, and said yesterday in her rant outside the courtroom that when the full ruling came out it would paint her unfairly as the loser. Apparently, Heather thinks the judge is in on some kind of conspiracy against her, because the British court system doesn't want people representing themselves. She's the victim. Blah blah...
