Originally posted by Troll
-
Because a recent case set a precedent that if a woman divorces a man much richer than her after a short marriage to which she has had little time to make a substantive contribution, she had an expectation of a better life that it would be unjust to now deny her. -
Why 30 mill for 1 kid? she can't claim she helped to establish his career, & her career was pretty well finished when they met, the duration of the marriage was short... can't see much being awarded beyond child supportOriginally posted by Miss EllieLeave a comment:
-
He might well have... difficult to tell these days!Originally posted by TrollLeave a comment:
-
It's just the stupid heifer's greed.
All she had to do was take the £30 million, ensure she got somewhere to live in her name to bring up the kid, and then screw him for maintenance so for the next 15 years she didn't have to dip into the £30 million.
I wish I were her lawyers.....Leave a comment:
-
I'm very suprised FG hasn't posted them already!!Originally posted by mcquiggdLeave a comment:
-
Exactly... she really has received the most appalling advice. All she had to do was just keep quiet, and she'd walk away with millions. At this rate her legal costs will leave her penniless.
I doubt all those rich arabs paid her £5k a weekend to serve tea.Leave a comment:
-
Looks like they are baiting her to sue them big time - they know she is not getting money from Paul, but solicitor costs are piling up, if her character is destroyed then she can't possibly win much damages even if she proves she was right - they seem to be able to prove she was a hooker (she did not sue when they first did), so, seems she is on a loser. This one will be interesting to watch
Leave a comment:
-
I have a feeling the papers have a lot more 'information' about her than they are letting on - they are waiting for the real court contest to start before they wade in to get maximum sales. As I said earlier, I wouldn't be at all surprised that tapes of her 'at work' from her younger days are exposed during the trial.Leave a comment:
-
Gotto love British press
Sun turns up the heat on Mills McCartney
Tara Conlan
Wednesday October 25, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk
The Sun has stolen a march on Heather Mills McCartney's threat to sue the paper by asking her to "tick the boxes" on a series of allegations the paper has made about the former model.
Today's paper tells readers that the estranged wife of former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney is planning to take legal action against the Sun.
However, the story on page four says: "It is not clear what exactly she plans to sue us about."
The paper then asks Mills McCartney: "Come on Heather, what exactly did we get wrong? Is it that you're a ..."
Underneath the open question, the Sun lists six allegations about the former model, with a blank box beside each one.
The words beside the boxes read: "Hooker, Liar, Porn Star, Fantasist, Trouble Maker, Shoplifter".
The paper then asks the former model to "tick appropriate boxes" as to which, if any, of the allegations the Sun has made are untrue.
Mills McCartney's solicitors announced yesterday she is planning to sue three newspapers over "false, damaging and immensely upsetting" statements in stories about her divorce from Sir Paul.
Her law firm, Mishcon de Reya, said legal proceedings had already been started against the Daily Mail and the London Evening Standard, and action would soon be taken against the Sun.
The storm over the McCartneys' increasingly bitter divorce escalated last week when parts of Mills McCartney's cross-petition for divorce, containing lurid and damaging allegations about Sir Paul's behaviour, were leaked to the press.
Each is seeking a divorce decree on the grounds of the other's unreasonable behaviour, after a four-year marriage which produced a daughter, Beatrice, now three.
---
Article in the Sun is here.
Gotto love freedom of press!
Leave a comment: