'Less than candid' Heather Mills hires Gloria Allred

By M&C People Mar 18, 2008, 16:29 GMT

03/17/2008 - Heather Mills - Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills Divorce Hearing - March 17, 2008 - Royal Courts of Justice - London, England © Janet Mayer / PR Photos

The Judge who presided on the McCartney v Mills divorce case said in his judgement that Heather’s evidence was “not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid."

The Sun reports that the Justice Bennett added: "Overall she was a less than impressive witness.”

Mills, who has just hired American attorney Gloria Allred, who represented Scary Spice Mel B during the Eddie Murphy "who's the daddy" DNA tussle, had hoped to be paid £125m from Paul's vast fortune.

In a statement to the media, Allred says she is "honored to represent Ms. Mills because she respects Ms. Mills' courage throughout her difficult and painful divorce."

The judge had praise for Paul: “He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.”

Justice Bennett was not as effusive regarding Heather: “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.”

The judge said Mills was a “strong-willed and determined personality” who had shown great fortitude in overcoming her disability.

“She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination.”

One of her grey areas that the judge noted was a mysterious "contract" offered by retailer Marks and Spencer for £1million which she claimed Paul would not allow her to do.

The only proof of this claim that Mills could cough up was an email from Jaime Brent, a creative director from Beckenham. "There is nothing in it about any remuneration," the judge reportedly said, according to the Sun.

"The husband’s evidence was that even if such a contract for that sum was in the offing (which he doubted), nevertheless he and the wife discussed it and decided together that as they were in a relationship it was not appropriate for her to be seen modelling bras. She agreed."

The questionable "charitable nature" of Heather Mills was also under the microscope.

Mills' claims that she donated 80 per cent of her earnings to good causes.

The judge 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."

Also under suspicion was Mills' claim of wealth prior to their union.

“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 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."

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.

"...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 claimed n court that  "countless lucrative business opportunities" were offered to her after her marriage, that Paul quashed in one way or another.

"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.

"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 modelling 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."