---

ALL CONTENT ON THIS PAGE IS COPYRIGHT!!

---

Macca Report current Paul News!!!
Macca Report Archived News Index

---

!!!Some links could be outdated!!!

---

---

March 2008 Page 1

---

---

March 19, 2008 -- The Telegraph (UK)
by Jan Moir

Heather Mills is only fooling herself

"He got everything he wanted!" she cried. "No one wants to see me doing well!" As the treacherous incantation continued, her thin lips twitched and spooled, giving vent to the Geordie-accented fury that could not be placated by a £24 million ($48.6 million) payout, plus extras.

It was a horrible sight, like watching a pair of pink worms doing the tango while hooked up to some malign electric current. Fzzzzzt! Step away from the cage when the lady is in this crazy mood.

Sadly, Heather's spewing mental ugliness and vaunting self-interest have become a part of our cultural landscape over the past year or so. In the background, the great, empty prairie of her delusion stretches to the horizon and beyond.

Here she is, the plucky "campaigning girl" who single-handedly took on a Beatle and the entire English justice system and made a right old hash of it from the word go. How could she not?

I once appeared in court as a witness for a litigant in person, and can only liken the situation to that of walking naked into a cave full of half-starved tigers with raw liver strapped all over your body.

Just accept that you are going to be ripped to shreds, and move on. Don't blame the judge or - classy! - pour water over opposing lawyers when they get the better of your muddled arguments. They are only following ancient procedures, which you, Heather, must at least try to study and understand.

Yet Mills is the kind of person who seems to see conspiracy in every shadow, cowardice in the actions of others and only eternal, selfless heroism in herself. Now that she has lost, she is at pains to explain that she did not embark on this course of legal action for herself. Perish the thought!

The former Lady McCartney fought in court not for the fortune she originally demanded, but for her daughter's sake and for women.

One gets the impression that some people, such as Mills and Paul Burrell, see English courts as some kind of publicity appearance to be manipulated and exploited. In failing to understand the gravity of justice or the full power of the law, they deserve their humiliated fates.

St. Heather of the Downtrodden would be funny if she were not quite so toxic, and is particularly odious when continually citing her "charity" work as a justification for everything she does and says.

As Heather apparently sees it, she should be the Britannia on our coins, the vegetarian flame of justice, the tireless campaigner for good deeds in dark corners.

Since the day she met Sir Paul McCartney, she has carefully camouflaged her own ambition with altruism, but if she is still fooling anyone, it can only be herself.

Meanwhile, despite his divorce court victory and occasional thumbs aloft smiles to the cameras, McCartney has the emotionally scalded demeanour of a man who has been shackled to a runaway hyena for years, and only just managed to escape with his life.

Now that the judgment in the McCartney-Mills divorce case has been made public, we can begin to glimpse the depths of his ordeal. In an attempt to win a £125 million ($250 million) settlement, Mills claimed that her contribution to the marriage had been exceptional, and that she had been a full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and, oh dear, psychologist.

· Judge accuses her of blatant make-believe

· He says she 'tried to defraud Paul of £500,000

· And Macca? HE was accurate and honest

Heather Mills was yesterday labelled a serial fantasist.

The High Court judge who presided over her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney said she had a "warped perception" of the world and "indulged in make-believe".

Mr Justice Bennett said 40-year-old Miss Mills's evidence was "not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid".

He also criticised her "explosive and volatile character", saying she was "her own worst enemy".

His extraordinary 58-page judgment was revealed yesterday after Miss Mills failed to prevent it being made public.

The Court of Appeal judged that it was in the public interest to end media speculation about the divorce settlement, in which Miss Mills was awarded less than one fifth of the £125 million ($250 million) she had wanted from the former Beatle.

It confirmed many details from the court proceedings including Heather's claim that her life was ruined by her association with McCartney and her bombshell accusation that Sir Paul was possessive and jealous, abused alcohol and drugs and treated her "abusively and/or violently".

It provided an insight into the most high-profile divorce in recent years, setting out the wealth of one of the world's most successful musicians, and how Heather Mills, a former glamour model, battled unsuccessfully for a huge slice of it.

"Overall she was a less than impressive witness," the judge concluded on Miss Mills' attempt to fight her cause without lawyers, as a "litigant in person".

In contrast, Sir Paul was described almost as a model witness: "He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest."

Most damning, it was revealed in court how Miss Mills had attempted to defraud £480,000 ($960,000) from McCartney to pay off the outstanding mortgage on one of her properties he had already paid for.

In cross-examination, Miss Mills was forced to admit there had been no mortgage on the property and claimed she had confused the house with another.

On that point, Mr Justice Bennett wrote in his judgment: "In the light of her husband's generosity towards her, I find the wife's behaviour distinctly distasteful . . . it damages her overall credibility."

That generosity, showed court papers, included Sir Paul lending Heather's sister Fiona £420,000 ($840,000) for a house and buying Heather's Personal Assistant Sonya Mills a £193,000 ($386,000) house.

He also showered Heather with jewellery and gifts of cash totalling as much as £500,000 ($1 million) in a year.

The judge said: "Heather suggests her husband to be mean-minded, which, having seen the husband in the witness box, I do not believe him to be."

Miss Mills claimed she had to put her own lucrative career on hold when she married Sir Paul - but the judge again simply did not believe her.

"I do not doubt that she modelled successfully and was a public speaker. But the investigation in this case of her assets and earnings as at 1999 when the parties met do not bear out her case," he said.

"I find that the wife's case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated."

Central to Miss Mills's case was her argument that she in some way saved McCartney after the devastation of his first wife Linda's death from breast cancer.

In court Miss Mills said: "I was his full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist."

But the judge concluded: "The wife described her contribution as 'exceptional'. I reject her case. I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality."

The judge also suspected Miss Mills had gone on a spending spree after their April 2006 break-up in an attempt to exaggerate her spending needs.

In 15 months she got through some £3.5million ($7 million), and asked for £3.25 million($6.5 million) a year. The judge awarded her just £600,000 ($1.2 million).

He lamented that if Miss Mills felt aggrieved, she "only has herself to blame".

He explained: "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."

He added: "It must have been absolutely plain to the wife after separation that it was wholly unrealistic to expect to go on living at the rate at which she perceived she was living."

However Mr Justice Bennett said Miss Mills was a "kindly person" who is "devoted to her charitable causes" and had shown great fortitude in overcoming her disability.

He said: "She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination."

Last night Miss Mills said the judgment was "outrageous."

She said she would not be giving any interviews but said the decision to publish her home addresses had affected her security and that of her daughter Beatrice.

Beatles fans visiting Liverpool are backing Paul McCartney after full details of his bruising divorce were made public.

A Liverpool Beatles tour guide said fans had shown their support to the musician, and had branded Heather Mills a "gold digger" and a "fantasist".

The comments came after Ms Mills was told she could not appeal against publication of the details of the settlement.

Tour guide Philip Coppell said: "When I do the Beatles tours in Liverpool and speak to the fans the phrase that comes up time after time is 'gold digger'.

"Visiting fans have never taken to Heather. People are very suspicious about her. I've not met anybody who said she's wonderful."

Speaking after a judge said Ms Mills's evidence in her divorce case was "inconsistent, inaccurate" and "less than candid", Mr Coppell said: "I can see why she wanted to suppress the details."

"The judge said Heather was a less than impressive witness. Paul has come out with his dignity intact.

"Heather is living in fantasy world. She thinks she hasn't done anything wrong but I'm sure when she sees people they say things she doesn't like.

"I don't think Heather will ever feel safe again. She's upset and alienated so many people."

Sir Paul's family and friends said the former Beatle would have "nothing but support".

Speaking from his home in Heswall, his brother Mike McCartney said he had already discussed the judge's comments with his brother by telephone.

He said: "Paul's my brother and I totally support him in what he's gone through.

"He'll have nothing but support from his family up here."

City Talk breakfast show presenter Kim Hughes worked with Heather Mills as a producer on the Loose Women TV show.

Ms Hughes and her colleagues had to build up a picture of the former model's life before her appearance on the programme.

But she said they found it impossible to distinguish between the fact and fiction of her life story.

Ms Hughes said: "We just couldn't piece together her life."

The full ruling was published a day after she was awarded £24.3m ($48.6 million) at the high court in London.

The former model had asked for the full text to be kept private ­ but two court of appeal judges rejected her argument that her daughter's security could be put at risk.

The 40-year-old former model lost a baby within the first year of her marriage to Sir Paul McCartney before going on to have her daughter, now four.

The information came out in an astonishingly detailed divorce judgement which was published today, which contains part of an affidavit given by McCartney.

"After our marriage, the nature of our relationship to my mind, changed significantly," he said.

"I was and remain fairly old-fashioned about marriage. We decided upon a proper wedding for that reason - I did not want any suggestion that we were in any way furtive or ashamed about our marriage.

"I believed it was for life and that put everything on a very different footing.

"I drew up a will to include Heather which I executed on June 5, 2002.

"We stopped using contraception on the night we were married.

"There was never any question of us doing so before the wedding. Heather had one miscarriage before Beatrice was conceived in the first year of our marriage.

"Neither of us contemplated children before marriage."

Heather Mills' reputation has been torn to shreds after the High Court judge presiding over her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney accused her of "make-belief", inconsistency and inaccuracy.

Mr Justice Bennett said she was a "less than impressive witness" during the six-day hearing last month who "wholly exaggerated" the extent of her wealth before she met her now ex-husband.

Heather Mills speaks to the media outside the High Court in central London
Telegraph TV: Outside court Heather Mills yesterday spent 11 minutes attacking the legal system

In contrast, he described the former Beatle's evidence as balanced and said he "expressed himself moderately though at time with justifiable irritation, if not anger".

The damning 58 page report was handed down on Monday but only released in full today after Miss Mills lost a Court of Appeal application to have the judgement kept out of the public eye because it compromised their daughter Beatrice's privacy.

Her objection was dismissed by Lord Justices Thorpe and Wall who said they would not interfere with the Mr Bennett's decision to publish the entire ruling, in addition to Monday's executive summary.

In his judgement, Mr Bennett said Miss Mills, a 40-year-old former model who lost a leg in an accident, had lost her sense of reality when she met and married Sir Paul.

"The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband," he said.

"I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief.

"The objective facts simply do not support her case."

The judge described the couple's relationship as one of "considerable volatility" before he added: "There were good times, there were bad times, and the relationship always left in the husband's mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other."

He rejected Miss Mills' claim that Sir Paul had held back her potentially lucrative career by implying she was a bad mother and said: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife's career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says.

"He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim. Compensation therefore does not arise."

Intimate details of the couple's relationship were also divulged, including the revelation that Miss Mills suffered a miscarriage in the first of their four year marriage before she gave birth to Beatrice.

The document is a complete vindication of Sir Paul, who yesterday sealed an emphatic victory over his ex-wife when she was awarded £24.3 million from the marriage, less than a fifth of the £125 million she had sought.

Extracts: Judge's harshest words from the full divorce ruling
The McCartney-Mills judgement in full
The wealth | The relationship | The fingernail

Words fail me. If only they would fail Heather.

Outside the High Court, Mills could have said a dignified thank you, just as her ex-husband did.

But no. She couldn't resist letting rip about her crusade against the justice system. A system so unfair it had just made this former porn star and pathological liar one of the richest women in Britain.

Heather Mills finally announced her divorce settlement of £24.3 million with all the shy grace and modesty which we have come to expect of Lady McCartney

The poor coppers on duty behind the ranting Heather started to nod off.

On the roof of nearby St Paul's Cathedral, pigeons slipped into a coma and fell to their deaths as Heather began her 97th sentence without drawing breath.

On and on she moaned. Who says you can't turn sour grapes into whine?

Paul McCartney had just parted with almost 25 million ($50 million) quid to be shot of this woman.

Worth every penny, Paul, love.

You know what they say: Marry in haste, repent at heather.

Mills is comically oblivious to how she comes across.

In some compartment of that mad fantasist's brain, she honestly believes she is the big-hearted "Campaigning Girl" raking in alimony to hand it over "to me charities".

To the rest of us she is the worst kind of Nouveau Celeb - gauche, greedy, self-obsessed and constantly carping about the media while taking out a 999-year lease on the limelight.

Even the judge had to conclude that Ms Mills's evidence was, ahem, "less than candid".

How did Heather think it would go down when she moaned that the £35,000-a-year allocated to her daughter would not be enough to fly Beatrice 'A-Class'?

Puts that little crisis in Darfur into perspective, doesn't it, pet?

Millions are starving but, for Lady Mucca, hardship is a four-year-old rock princess roughing it in Business.

Besides, thirty-five grand sounds plenty to me.

Enough for a few party frocks and the rest to go on a therapist when the poor kid is old enough to realise what sort of mother she's been landed with.

Heather may have bagged herself a title, but she never did acquire any class. Chucking water over Fiona Shackleton, Paul's solicitor, was cheap.

It was also cheap to bitch about the ex-Beatle's "low offer of 15.8" (that's millions, in case you were wondering).

Heather had set her sights on a jawdropping £125 million for an exhausting four years of marriage.

Normally, I am the first person to insist that a divorced wife gets an equal share of the cake. But Heather Mills made a mockery of marriage. She was only two weeks away from her wedding to film-maker Chris Terrill when she announced she was getting together with Paul.

The love for this multi-millionaire was so powerful that, overnight, Lancashire hotpot-loving Heather discovered she had been a vegan all along!

Heather is brilliant at faking it. She could be anything a man wanted her to be. And she saw that what widower Paul wanted her to be was Linda.

No wonder Stella McCartney hated her. Talk about the Wicked Stepmother.

Heather may accuse Fiona Shackleton of behaving in "the worst manner you could imagine". But it is Heather who is an embarrassment to her sex.

Frankly, I have more respect for Ashley Dupré, who provided escort services to disgraced New York governor Eliot Spitzer for $1,000 an hour. At least Ashley made her price clear up front and never claimed to be doing it for charity.

As the old joke goes: A gold-digger married the guy for money.

She divorced him for the same reason.

Now, who does that sound like?

... so what is the future for her now?

My guess is she will soon tire of giving away Paul's money to charity and start missing those big court appearances.

Old patterns may resurface...

2008: Heather appears in the BBC's new talent show I'd Do Anything, the search to find a Nancy, the tart with the heart, for a new production of Oliver! She pulls out when it becomes clear that the winner doesn't get to marry multi-millionaire Lord Lloyd-Webber.

2009: After months of failing to get on any U.S. talk shows, Heather suddenly claims her real name is Hayley. She was once a child star and is the daughter of the late Sir John Mills. When the real Hayley Mills makes an angry appearance on TV, Heather admits she may have got herself mixed up with someone else.

2010: Heather holds a Press conference and says that under hypnosis she has remembered driving a white Fiat Uno in Paris on that fateful day.

2012: Heather's thrown out of the Church of Scientology for being too nutty.

2014: Finally, she finds love! In a private ceremony attended only by close friends, paid employees (they're the close friends) and Hello! magazine, Heather marries 'soul mate' Paul Burrell, giving him a special ring.

Two weeks later, she finds it on eBay. Back to court!

Heather Mills vs Paul McCartney: what they wanted

On January 31 of this year Heather Mills argued that she and daughter Beatrice, four, needed £3,250,000 ($6.5 million) a year to live, which equated to a total of £99,480,000 ($20 million).

She wanted full possession of two houses in the US - one in Beverly Hills called "Heather House" and a property in New York State.

Miss Mills also requested between £8 million ($16 million) and £12.5 million ($25 million) to buy a home in London, a further £3 million ($6 million) to buy a property in New York, and between £500,000 ($1 million) and £750,000 ($1.5 million) to buy an office in Brighton.

In addition, the 40-year-old wanted to transfer the remaining balance of two other mortgages from her husband to her.

Miss Mills demanded "significant monetary value" as compensation for her loss of earnings while married to Sir Paul, while she retained her two former properties, one in Robertsbridge, Sussex and another in Hove.

The total cost amounted to around £125 million ($250 million) plus her legal costs.

In return, on February 6, Sir Paul offered a package worth a total of £15 million ($30 million) which included the transfer of the two mortgages - valued at £683,000 ($1.3 million) - as well as the properties at Robertsbridge and Hove.

He stipulated that she should keep all the wealth she currently possessed and be given a lump sum as long as she returned certain works of art to her former husband.

Sir Paul said he would pay the cost of security for his ex-wife and Beatrice for two years, as long as it did not exceed £150,000 ($300,000).

The ex-Beatle said he would pay £35,000 ($70,000) worth a year for Beatrice's upbringing and the cost of a nanny which should not exceed £25,000 ($50,000) a year.

He said the annual payment for Beatrice would continue until Beatrice was 17 or left secondary school, which ever was later. He also offered to pay any school fees, uniform and extras, as well as health insurance premiums. He made no request for costs.

One of the few positive things to come out of Sir Paul McCartney's four-year marriage to Heather Mills was her suggestion that he should wear an acrylic fingernail to protect one of the fingers he uses for strumming the guitar, the judgement issued at the end of their divorce battle said.

Miss Mills had claimed that her contribution to the marriage had been "exceptional", and told the court: "I was his full time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist."

But Mr Justice Bennett said her claim was "devoid of reality".

The judgement stated: "It is a central part of her case that she helped the husband to communicate better with his children, particularly Heather. She 'counselled' him through his grieving over Linda. She gave him confidence after Linda's death to restart touring. She says she helped him write songs. She suggested he should have an acrylic fingernail because he had worn down his fingernail of his left hand to the point that it bled. She helped, it is said, with the set design and lighting on his tours."

Sir Paul, who is left-handed, "gave her full credit for the idea of the acrylic fingernail which, he told me, was a brilliant idea".

But whilst Sir Paul conceded that his wife was a good mother and had helped him through his grieving for Linda, her other claims were comprehensively demolished in the judgement.

"The wife's evidence that in some way she was the husband's 'psychologist', even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief," said the judge, and "her case that in some way she single-handedly saved him was exaggerated".

He added: "I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband's professional flame and gave him back his confidence."

Miss Mills's suggestion that she was Sir Paul's business partner was also "make-belief", the judge said, citing a DVD, shown in court, in which Miss Mills was seen photographing her husband and his team on their private jet, which she said was part of her work for Sir Paul.

"The husband, I thought, in a telling comment, said that the wife liked to be the centre of attention and she enjoyed wielding a camera," said the judge.

As for Miss Mills's overall claim to have made an "exceptional" contribution to the marriage, Mr Justice Bennett said: "I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality. The husband's evidence is far more persuasive."

It is a portrait of a modest-living man who puts his children through state schools and occasionally jets off to play the world's most famous pop songs to thousands of fans.

The unprecedented insight into Sir Paul McCartney's finances revealed in Mr Justice Bennett's judgment presents a private man, desperate to maintain some normality for his family despite his status as a living legend.

A final wealth tally of £387 million ($776 million) -- much lower than the £800 million ($1.6 billion) many believed ­ reflects the financial chaos and legal wrangling that dogged the Beatles' final years, culminating in the loss of control over the Lennon/ McCartney catalogue.

"Yesterday", "Let It Be", "Mull of Kintyre" and other pop classics have generated £240.9 million ($483.2 million). Music sources believe the figure is on the low side, since "Yesterday" has received 8 million plays on US radio alone and Sir Paul is paid for each "spin".

Wise investment in property, investments and works of art account for £100 million ($200 million) of the McCartney fortune. But the singer needs to "sweat" his musical assets to reap a greater income than regular royalty payments.

During the Heather Mills marriage, Sir Paul earned £39.6 million ($79.4 million), with £27 million ($54 million) arriving from 151 concerts performed in Europe and the US.

Sir Paul acknowledged in his submission that the new albums he recorded for EMI between 2002 and 2006 were "not profitable". Fans flocked to the stadium concerts to hear "the music created during my time with The Beatles and with Wings".

Live performance is important to Sir Paul because the Beatles' Northern Songs publishing company, which houses most of their hits, was sold to Lew Grade's ATV Music in 1969. Michael Jackson paid $47.5 million ($347.5 million) for the rights in 1985, outbidding Sir Paul, and formed a partnership with Sony a decade later.

When Sir Paul is not touring he prefers to live at his 1,500 acre Peasmarsh estate in East Sussex or his residence in St John's Wood, north London. Despite John Lennon's murder, Sir Paul has sought to make himself accessible to the public, even jumping on the Tube to his central London office. He objected to his wife's demand for "security" at their properties, which he believed was a sympton of her vendetta against paparazzi.

He told the judge: "Unless on tour, my older children had very little security. They all attended local state schools. It is not healthy for a child to have security 24/7. It sets them apart from their peers and makes them an object of curiosity and ridicule. Such children live in gilded cages."

There were no bodyguards at Peasmarsh when he lived there with Linda McCartney and their four children. "The general farm employees kept a lookout for anything suspicious," he said. "Since the summer, I have, to my great relief, been able to revert to the security arrangements which were in force for most of my 'celebrity' life before late 2003, when Beatrice was born and when Heather began her campaign to increase security."

The £24.3 million ($48.6 million) Sir Paul must pay could immediately be recovered through a deal to place the Beatles catalogue on iTunes, believed to be imminent. With Yoko Ono having approved in principle, the surviving members and families of the "Fab Four" could share $200 million ($400 million) when negotiations with Apple are concluded. The iTunes deal could include a Beatles-branded iPod and digital versions of their classic albums. After signing a lucrative one-off deal with Starbucks for his last album, Sir Paul is being courted by major labels and another "greatest hits" tour is expected.

The £400million ($800 million) man

Property
£33,979,000 ($68.2 million) Estate of 1,500 acres in East Sussex, house in London, flat in New York, property on Long Island. Properties in Rye, Somerset, Icklesham, Essex and Merseyside. Extensive Scottish estates. Other properties in New York and US

Business assets
(share in Beatles songs etc): £240,900,000 ($483.2 million) MPL Communications Ltd, MacSolo Ltd, shares in Apple Corps and other related companies

Cash
£15,159,000 ($30.4 million) in bank accounts in Britain and US plus £6,000 ($12,000) in cash

Investments
£34,319,000 ($68.8 million)

Works of art
£32,269,000 ($64.7 million) Paintings which he had painted, works of art, musical instruments, jewellery, furniture, house contents, motor vehicles and horses.

Owed
a total of £3,687,000 ($7.4 million) Tax liabilities £9,615,000 ($19.2 million)

Pension assets
£36,288,000 ($72.8 million)

Total net assets
£387,012,000 ($776.3 million) Total net income for the next 12 months: £5,357,000 ($10.7 million)

Having thrown a jug of water over Mrs Shackleton at the High Court yesterday, Miss Mills is now threatening to report her to the Law Society for professional misconduct over allegations that she called her names.

Miss Mills threw water over her former husband's lawyer and then laughingly announced that she had been "baptised in court."

But Mrs Shackleton may well have the last laugh as she is rumoured to have earned £3 million ($6 million) from the McCartney case.

Miss Mills' water-throwing tantrum was followed by an astonishing 12-minute rant on the court steps.

She accused Mrs Shackleton, nicknamed the "Steel Magnolia", of "calling me many, many names before even meeting me when I was in a wheelchair".

According to sources, Miss Mills is planning to report Mrs Shackleton to the Law Society, the body that regulates solicitors, over alleged comments made during negotiations leading up to yesterday's settlement.

A source said: "Mills believes that Shackleton accused her of trying it on by appearing at one legal meeting in a wheelchair to gain sympathy.

"More than anyone else, Mills felt this woman had a personal grudge against her. She felt personally attacked by Fiona Shackleton."

Mrs Shackleton, her reputation now secured as perhaps the finest and certainly most feared divorce lawyer in the country, could for her part take the fight to Mrs Mills.

The source said: "If Fiona Shackleton wants to, she could press for Heather Mills to be found in contempt of court."

Mrs Shackleton, who also represented Prince Charles in his divorce, has refused to comment, pointing out it is her policy never to speak to the media.

Miss Mills' outburst came after she was awarded only a fifth of the £125 million ($250 million) she had been seeking.

The £25 million ($50 million) settlement amounts to more than £700 ($1,400) for every hour that she was married to Sir Paul.

But she was furious at the judge's decision to grant his request that the full judgment in the case be made public, and today lost her appeal against the move.

Miss Mills is understood to have hurled a glass of water at Sir Paul's lawyer after accusing her of "letting down womankind" by representing men in the divorce courts.

Mrs Shackleton, whose normally immaculate blonde coiffure was wet and bedraggled, left the Royal Courts of Justice through a rear exit with Sir Paul.

He said simply: "I have no comment. All will be revealed."

By this time Miss Mills was on the front steps delivering an angry tirade against her ex, his lawyers, her lawyers and the entire legal system.

She confirmed that she had been awarded £24.3 million ($48.6 million) compared with the £125 million ($250 million) which court papers revealed she had demanded.

The amount is made up of a £14 million ($28 million) lump sum, calculated as an annual allowance of £600,000 ($1.2 million) plus another £2.5 million ($5 million) to buy a London home.

The rest comprises assets she will keep from the marriage totalled at £7.8million, which include a property in East Sussex where she lives with their four-year-old daughter Beatrice.

In addition, she will receive £35,000 ($70,000) a year for Beatrice's expenses until she reaches 18. That figure does not include childcare or schooling, which Sir Paul will also fund.

Miss Mills's chances of gaining £125 million ($250 million) collapsed after the judge ruled that the musician was worth £400million rather than the £800 million ($1.6 billion) she had claimed.

It was also reduced after Sir Paul's legal team argued successfully that they did not live together before they married.

McCartney's lawyers turned out to be worth their weight in gold.

They advised him to take a gamble and back out of a £50 million ($100 million) mutually-agreed settlement on the basis that they thought a High Court judge would award a lot less. It was advice which saved him some £25 million ($50 million).

In her impromptu press conference, Miss Mills criticised the ruling that Sir Paul was worth £400 million ($800 million), saying: "We all know he's worth £800 million ($1.6 billion).

"He's been worth £800 million ($1.6 billion) for the last 15 years."

She then criticised the judge for believing that they never lived together before they married, citing electoral roll evidence to the contrary.

Normally in cases at the Family Court, matters remain private but Sir Paul is said to be keen to end the speculation over his finances and wants the details out in the open.

However Miss Mills argues that it will put her and their daughter's security at risk by revealing where she will go to school.

In a barbed remark, she said her ex-husband wanted the details published because "he wants to look like this generous Sir Paul."

Today, in the Court of Appeal, a panel of three judges will decide whether to uphold yesterday's decision to publish the full ruling.

The court also made an order yesterday stating that, save for the release of the judgment, neither party could reveal details of the case without obtaining the consent of the other.

Family law expert Donna Dean said Miss Mills had already shown "scant regard" for this order.

"Her comments outside court could land her in hot water. If she has breached this order then she could be in contempt and hauled back before the judge to explain herself.

"It would have been much more sensible and dignified for her to have kept quiet and walked away content with her lot."

Last night, Miss Mills removed all references to her ex-husband from her website and changed her name on it from Heather Mills McCartney to Heather Mills.

A close friend said that in private she was devastated about being awarded so little. "In court it is clear that she just got too cocky.

"The worst thing she could have done was represent herself. On quite a few occasions, Heather was just too brusque with the judge and would talk over him.

High Court judges don't take kindly to being ranted at. Heather just came across as incredibly greedy."

"To some extent she is her own worst enemy," wrote Judge Hugh Bennett.. "She has an explosive and volatile character."

Mills, who lost part of her leg when she was hit by a motorcycle, cast McCartney as an abusive, alcoholic husband who cruelly made fun of her disability. But the judge made clear the angry assertions rang hollow.

In a devastating indictment, Bennett called Mills' testimony "not just inconsistent and inaccurate, but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness."

By contrast, the judge praised McCartney, 65, for "consistent, accurate and honest" testimony in the ruling, made public after he rejected Mills' attempt to block its release.

Calling Mills' demand of $250 million from McCartney "exorbitant" in light of their four-year marriage, the judge said her claims may have been inflated because of her estranged husband's stature.

"The wife ... must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband," he wrote. "I think this may well have warped her perception, leading her to indulge in make-believe. The objective facts do not support her case."

He said Mills, 40, had "unreasonably" expected that she would be able to live the deluxe McCartney lifestyle for the rest of her life even after she divorced the pop star.

"Although she strongly denied it, her case boils down to the syndrome of 'me too' or 'if he has it, I want it, too,'" he wrote in awarding Mills $48.6 million.

Mills maintained she needed $6.4 million a year for herself and her daughter, Beatrice, as well as multi-million dollar properties in London and New York, and money for an office in Brighton, on England's south coast.

Instead, the judge said Mills could get by on $1.2 million a year and one property, worth $5 million, in London.

The former model also sought millions of dollars in lost income, asserting McCartney had forced her to turn down numerous lucrative business opportunities. But Bennett rejected the claim, saying the former Beatle used his considerable prestige to actively promote his wife's career, not quash it.

Mills claimed, for example, that McCartney made her turn down a $2 million offer to model bras for Marks & Spencer, the British retail chain. But the judge said there was no evidence to support the claim, which McCartney denied.

McCartney said the couple jointly decided it was not a good idea for Mills to model lingerie while they were having a relationship.

Bennett also said Mills greatly hurt her market value and potential earnings by attacking McCartney during two televised interviews last fall.

"To some extent she is her own worst enemy," he wrote. "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," he wrote.

The judge did not, however, punish Mills for reportedly dumping a glass of water on McCartney's lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, in the final hours of the hearing Monday. Shackleton, who represented Prince Charles in his divorce from Princess Diana, emerged with wet hair from the hearing, and Mills joked she had been "baptized" in court.

Still, the ruling gave a sympathetic description of Mills' childhood, describing how she left home when she was 15 and supported herself with various jobs, beginning work as a model at 17 and soon finding jobs as a television anchor.

The judge also recounted how McCartney, still grieving the loss of his first wife Linda, wore the wedding ring she gave him throughout the early years of his romance with Mills and only removed it when he married Mills.

The 58-page ruling offered an unprecedented public airing of McCartney's finances -- and showed just how far the former Beatle has come since his early days in Liverpool, when the band dreamed of someday scoring a top-10 hit..

McCartney has long been rumored to be pop's first billionaire. Accounts unveiled Tuesday show him to be short of that goal, but still worth in the neighborhood of $800 million, with choice real estate holdings and an art collection of Picassos, Monets and other masters.

In classic British understatement, the judge described McCartney as someone who "composes, sings and plays musical instruments."

He wrote how McCartney and his first wife, Linda, lived fairly modestly on Blossom Wood Farm in the village of Peasmarsh for many years and also had a property in London.

In the late 1990s, the judge said, the singer had properties in New York and on Long Island, as well as British properties in Rye, Somerset, Icklesham, Essex and Merseyside.

The judge said it was impossible to put a precise figure on McCartney's vast financial empire, but said he believed it was worth about $800 million, far less than the $1.6 billion Mills claimed.

"There is absolutely no evidence at all to support that figure, or any figure anywhere near it," he said.

Among McCartney's holdings is real estate valued at about $68 million, bank accounts with more than $30 million, investments worth more than $68 million, and paintings, furniture, jewelry, horses and other assets valued at more than $64 million.

McCartney projected his net income for the year to be more than $10.6 million, the judge said.

In a statement to the court, McCartney said much of his current income comes from touring and that while his recent recordings have been well-received by critics, they have not been commercially successful.

He also said he does not have "day to day" control over many of his businesses, but is consulted on key decisions. He said the value of the music copyrights he holds has increased substantially, adding to his net worth.

He also said he wanted to keep all of his art collection because the works were collected before his marriage to Mills.

The court documents said Mills had an appraisal done of the collection that concluded it was worth $140 million, a valuation McCartney rejected. Mills also maintained McCartney gave her 30 of his paintings, an assertion he denied.

"I accept the husband's evidence," the judge said. "In my judgment he is entitled to have them back."

SUMMARY

This is a summary of the judgment handed down (17 March 2008). It is not a summary of every issue in the judgment. This summary forms no part of the judgment. The court ruled that the judgment should be published but upon Ms Mills' application granted a stay of such publication pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1) THE fundamental issue was what financial provision should be made for Ms Mills. She sought an award of almost £125 million ($250 million). Sir Paul proposed that the wife should exit the marriage with assets of £15.8million ($31.6 million) inclusive of any lump sum award.

2) The judge decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of £16.5 million ($33 million) which together with her assets of £7.8 million ($15.6 million) (which include her current properties) means that she exits her marriage with total assets of £24.3 million ($48.6 million) inclusive of a deemed figure of £500,000 ($1 million) referable to her overspending in the period of separation.

3) The judge found that the total value of all the husband's assets, including his business assets, was about £400 million ($800 million). There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth £800 million ($1.6 billion).

4) The judge found that although the parties met in 1999 and formed a relationship, the parties did not cohabit from March 2000 but did so from the date of the marriage (11 June 2002). The parties separated in April 2006. The length of the marriage was just under 4 years.

5) The judge refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant.

6) The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.

7) The lump sum of £16.5 million ($33 million) is made up of a sum of £14 million ($28 million) as the capitalised figure for the wife's income needs, which the judge assessed at £600,000 ($1.2 million) p.a., and a sum of £2.5 million ($5 million) for the wife to buy a property in London.

8) Financial provision for Beatrice consists of a periodical payments order of £35,000 ($70,000) p.a., the husband agreeing to pay for her nanny and her school fees.

9) The court made an order in the following terms:

Save for the release of the judgment and Order dated 17 March 2008 the Wife and the Husband and any persons acting on their behalves are strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing, or in any way revealing without the consent of the other, the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgments or Orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family (b) the main suit (c) the cross-applications for ancillary relief, and (d) any marital confidences. If consent is not forthcoming then the party seeking publication shall be entitled to seek the permission of a Family Division Judge to do so.

10) The judge expressed his confidence that the media would respect the privacy and confidentiality of the Children Act and ancillary relief proceedings, including evidence and submissions (oral and in writing) given within both sets of proceedings.

1 She wants...but he'll give

This means that Heather asked the court to award her £125 million ($250 million) but Sir Paul was only prepared to offer £15.8 million ($31.6 million), including all assets or properties.

2 Figures

Heather deserved £16.5 million ($33 million), Mr Justice Bennett decided.

She gets to keep her own assets - including homes in Hove, East Sussex, and nearby Robertsbridge - worth £7.8 million ($15.6 million), bringing the total to £24.3 million ($48.6 million).

The final sum includes £500,000 ($1 million) she is said to have spent from a joint account during the divorce.

In August 2006 it emerged Sir Paul had frozen the account after she reportedly withdrew "obscene" sums of cash.

3 His cash

Macca had £825 million ($1.65 billion), The Sunday Times Rich List claimed.

But the judge found the true figure to be £400 million ($800 million).

Heather complained bitterly outside court that she had been barred from seeing his accounts.

She fumed: "Everybody knows he's been worth £800 million ($1.6 billion) for the past 15 years.

"I wasn't allowed any access into our accounts... what we spent, where we went. I was locked out of every home."

4 All a matter of timing

The settlement was based on when they began to live together - which the judge deemed to be the date of their June 2002 marriage.

But Heather argued that the couple had started cohabiting at a much earlier date. She said bitterly on the court steps: "Apparently we didn't live together until the day we were married.

"The judge believed that, even though I'm registered at Westminster Council as living there since 29 March 2000 and even though many of you were outside Cavendish Avenue in July 2001 when we announced our engagement."

5 Rows are not important

According to court documents leaked in October 2006, Heather claimed Macca once tried to choke her and stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine glass.

She also alleged he was a heavy drinker and used illegal drugs. Macca said he was divorcing her on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, claiming she was rude and argumentative to staff. But the judge said the mud-slinging was irrelevant in determining any pay-out.

6 Future need

The phrase "magnetic importance" is basically a technical term for lawyers.

It means the judge has not based Heather's award on a straight 50/50 split of the marital assets but on her needs for the future.

7 Adding up

Here is a simple explanation on how the judge reached his decision on the lump sum of £16.5million.

She has been awarded £2.5 million ($5 million) to buy a home in London - presumably because Macca gets to keep their place in St John's Wood.

Heather also needs around £600,000 ($1.2 million) a year to live, according to the court.

This large sum could be based on the fact the court does not want too much disparity between Heather and Paul's lifestyles for the sake of their daughter Bea.

8 Small Bea

The couple are understood to share custody of Bea with maintenance determined at £35,000 ($70,000) per year.

Macca has also agreed to pay for her childcare and any school fees so this money is basically for Heather to feed, clothe and generally look after their daughter.

9 Oi, shut it..

In essence, this is a gagging clause banning Heather or Paul from publicly discussing private details of the divorce hearing and details of their marriage, apart from that which is contained in the order.

Heather is understood to have wanted freedom to talk about their marriage.

10 No comment

The judge is reminding the media that the divorce proceedings - and details relating to Bea - must remain confidential.

The protection of the rights of their daughter is of paramount concern to the court - and all evidence raised in court is private, until published by the court.

Heather Mills was "a less than impressive witness" whose evidence was "not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid", a High Court judge says in a ruling the former model did not want the world to see.

The full judgment of the divorce battle between Miss Mills and estranged husband Paul McCartney was released today after her attempt to appeal Mr Justice Bennett's decision to release it failed at the Court of Appeal.

The judge described Sir Paul McCartney's evidence as "balanced".

He said: "He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest."

Mr Justice Bennett said Heather Mills was a "strong-willed and determined personality" who had shown great fortitude in overcoming her disability.

He said: "She has conducted her own case before me with a steely, yet courteous, determination."

The judge described her as a "kindly person" who is "devoted to her charitable causes".
click for full mills v mccartney divorce judgment

However, Mr Justice Bennett said: "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 he could not accept Miss Mills's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the former Beatle in the middle of 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 backed Sir Paul's assertion that their "true and settled relationship" began upon marriage in June 2002 and not, as Miss Mills asserted, in March 2000.

In assessing their relationship before their marriage, the judge said the background was of importance.

"The husband's wife, Linda, had died in 1998.

"Their marriage endured for some 30 years.

"Repeatedly in his evidence the husband described how, even during his relationship with the wife in 1999 to 2002, he was grieving for Linda.

"I have no doubt the husband found the wife very attractive. But equally I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to Linda."

The judge said it was "not without significance" that until Sir Paul married Miss Mills, he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda.

"Upon being married to the wife, he removed it and it was replaced by a ring given to him by the wife.

"The wife, for her part, must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception, leading her to indulge in make-believe. The objective facts do not support her case."

On the issue of claims for compensation for her lost career, Miss Mills gave evidence that Sir Paul had advised her "against 99%" of what she described as "countless, lucrative business opportunities" made to her once they had married.

In a written statement before the judge, she said: "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."

But the judge ruled: "I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife's career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says.

"He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as I find them do not in any way support her claim. Compensation therefore does not arise."

The judge said Miss Mills was a good mother, which Sir Paul readily conceded, but her case was that her contribution throughout the marriage was "exceptional".

"It is a central part of her case that she helped the husband to communicate better with his children, particularly Heather.

"She 'counselled' him through his grieving over Linda. She gave him confidence after Linda's death to restart touring. She says she helped him write his songs.

"She suggested that he should have an acrylic fingernail because he had worn down his fingernail of his left hand to the point that it bled.

"She helped, it is said, with the set design and lighting on his tours. She went on every tour; indeed, she says, he insisted on her coming."

Miss Mills, he added, summed up her contribution in this way: "I was his full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist."

The judge said that Sir Paul agreed that Miss Mills helped him through his grieving, as he was in a "sad state" for a year after Linda's death, but he argued that her case that she in some way single-handedly saved him was "exaggerated".

The judge said: "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."

He added: "I have to say that the wife's evidence that in some way she was the husband's 'psychologist', even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief.

"I reject her evidence that she, vis-a-vis the husband, was anyhting more than a kind and loving person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage. I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband's professional flame and gave him back his confidence."

He concluded: "In her final submissions the wife described her contribution as 'exceptional'. I reject her case. I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality. The husband's evidence is far more persuasive."

Mills loses divorce ruling appeal

Full details of the divorce of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills have been made public after Ms Mills was told she could not appeal against publication.

Ms Mills said she wanted to keep the full ruling secret because it contained private details that could affect the security of their daughter Beatrice.

The decision came a day after a High Court judge awarded Ms Mills £24.3 million ($48.6 million).

The judge determined the final figure after the couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month.

Ms Mills was not in court to hear two Court of Appeal judges rule that divorce hearing judge Mr Justice Bennett's decision to publish his entire ruling could not be challenged.

'In danger'

David Rosen, who represented her, said: "Miss Mills believes her daughter will be put in real danger. It is most disturbing."

Mr Rosen has confirmed that the ruling marks the end of Ms Mills' appeal against the publication.

After yesterday's settlement, Ms Mills said: "I'm not appealing against the judgment because it's not worth it.

"I'm appealing against the publication of it because it has so many details of me and my daughter in it."

Lump sum

Following the ruling, Ms Mills will receive £14 million ($28 million) for herself and £2.5 million ($5 million) to buy a house in London.

Sir Paul will pay for Beatrice's nanny and school fees, and give the four-year-old £35,000 ($70,000) a year. The judge awarded a lump sum of £16.5 million ($33 million) and assets of £7.8 million ($15.6 million).

The settlement equated to £17,000 for every day of the couple's marriage.

The judge found the total value of Sir Paul's assets was about £400m. Ms Mills had sought £125 million ($250 million) and been offered £15.8 million ($31.6 million).

Sir Paul, 65, and Ms Mills, 40, got married in 2002, but they split four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives.

The judge made the assessment of the former Beatles's wealth in a ruling for the divorce settlement between McCartney and former wife Heather Mills - much to her disdain:

"Everyone knows that he has been worth £800 million for the last 15 years," she said.

Rich lists have always claimed that McCartney is worth £825million ($1.6 billion), but as part of today's settlement the judge insisted the former Beatle's fortune was around £400million ($800 million).

Legal experts said the fact that the couple have a child would be taken into account in a settlement - but so would the relative brevity of the marriage and the fact that most of McCartney's wealth was generated before he married Mills.

Shortly after the deal was made further details of the arrangements began to filter through which include Beatrice's school fees and a £2.5 million ($5 million) home for Mills.

Mr Justice Bennett issued a summary of his judgment handed down today after hearing the case.

The summary reads: "The fundamental issue was what financial provision should be made for Ms Mills. She sought an award of almost £125 million ($250 million).

Sir Paul proposed that the wife should exit the marriage with assets of £15.8 million ($31.8 million) inclusive of any lump sum award.

The judge decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of £16.5 million ($33 million) which together with her assets of £7.8 million ($15.7 million) (which include her current properties) means that she exits her marriage with total assets of £24.3 million ($48.6 million) inclusive of a deemed figure of £500,000 ($1 million) referable to her overspending in the period of separation.

The judge found that the total value of all the husband's assets, including his business assets, was about £400 million. There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth £800 million.

The judge found that although the parties met in 1999 and formed a relationship, the parties did not cohabit from March 2000, but did so from the date of the marriage (June 11, 2002).

The parties separated in April 2006. The length of the marriage was just under four years.

The judge refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant.

The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.

The lump sum of £16.5 million ($33 million) is made up of a sum of £14 million ($28 million) as the capitalised figure for the wife's income needs, which the judge assessed as £600,000 ($1.2 million) per annum, and a sum of £2.5 million ($5 million) for the wife to buy a property in London.

Financial provision for Beatrice consists of a periodical payments order of £35,000 per annum ($70,000), the husband agreeing to pay for her nanny and her school fees.

The court made an order in the following terms: Save for the release of the judgment and order dated March 17 2008 the wife and the husband and any persons acting on their behalves are strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing or in any way revealing without the consent of the other the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgments or orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family, (b) the main suit, (c) the cross applications for ancillary relief and (d) any marital confidences.

If consent is not forthcoming then the party seeking publication shall be entitled to seek the permission of a Family Division judge to do so.

The judge expressed his confidence that the media would respect the privacy and confidentiality of the Children Act and ancillary relief proceedings, including evidence and submissions (oral and in writing) given within both sets of proceedings."

At the start of the judge's summary, he said that the court had granted Ms Mills a stay of publication of the full judgment pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal against his decision that the full text could be published."

Reports had claimed that the divorce payout in the McCartney-Mills case would make legal history, but this has turned out not to be the case.

"It's okay, it's at the lower end of the band for a four-year marriage," said one legal expert outside the court.

Ms Mills, 40, speaking on the steps of the High Court, said she was hitting out after the judge in the case ruled that details of the divorce should be made public.

It emerged that she had sought nearly £125 million ($150 million) and that McCartney had offered her £15.8 million ($31.8 million)/

Ms Mills said she was "very, very happy" with the settlement and a summary of the judgment was published today.

But the former model will appeal against Mr Justice Bennett's plans to release it in full at a further hearing tomorrow.

Launching a non-stop stream of criticism, Ms Mills raged against Sir Paul, the judge and McCartney's lawyer Fiona Shackleton.

She said: "Fiona Shackleton has very sadly handled this case in the worst manner you could ever imagine. She has called me many, many names before meeting me when I was in a wheelchair."

Ms Mills also launched an angry outburst against her husband's victory on where their daughter would live and how much she would get each year.

"Beatrice gets £35,000 ($70,000) a year. She is meant to travel B-class when her father travels A-class.

"Paul has always wanted Beatrice to go to a state school. He insisted that he wanted us to move to that area [East Sussex] - £35,000 ($70,000) includes. £17,000 ($34,000) for school fees."

"He tried to get our daughter with joint residency, even though we had gone 50-50. In that way he has got everything he wanted, but that's what powerful people get."

Ms Mills complained about the judge's assessment of her husband's wealth.

"He also said that Paul is only worth £400 million ($800 million). Everyone knows that he has been worth £800 million ($1.6 billion) for the last 15 years.

"Paul has always wanted it public because he wants to look like generous Sir Paul."

"I was locked out of every home. I really hope now that me and my daughter can have a life and not be followed every day. Apart from one television thing I have stayed quiet for 21 months. If the judgment had been kept private I would not be out here speaking."

She added: "I can't leave England. Believe me if I tried to go he'd have an injunction on me in a second."

Describing herself as a "campaigning girl" she called on people to represent themselves in court but urged couples to do their best to resolve their problems immediately.

She said: "I'm so glad it's over, it was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter's future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with - because you know it has been my life for 20 years.

"Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they're never going to make it look in favour.

"But all of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between £20 ($40 million) and £30 million ($60 million), Paul was offering a lot less than that, which you'll see in the judgment, and very much last minute to put me and Beatrice sadly through this ... incredibly sad."

Asked if she thought Sir Paul had been "cruel", she said: "I can't say that for the sake of my daughter but my sister does."

She added: "I'm going to go and be with my daughter because I took so much time away from her."

Paying tribute to her sister's support, she added: "Every time I look at her, I want to cry."

Sir Paul left the court quickly, saying simply "thank-you" as he waved to the cameras.

The judge decided Sir Paul should pay a lump sum of £16.5 million ($33.2 million) together with her assets of £7.8 million ($15.7 million) including her homes.

"This means she exits her marriage with total assets of £24.3 million inclusive of a deemed figure of £500,000 ($1 million) referable to her overspending in the period of separation," said the judge.

The judge said that the couple had met in 1999 and started a relationship but did not live together until the start of their marriage on 11 June 2002.

He found against the claim that they had co-habited from March 2000.

The couple separated in April 2006 so the marriage lasted less than four years.

The judge also refused permission for both Ms Mills and Sir Paul to raise any issues alleging bad conduct on the grounds that it was "irrelevant".

Earlier, instead of rubber-stamping the deal, the couple had spent another morning behind closed courtroom doors, thrashing out the smallprint.

McCartney was first to arrive at the Royal Courts of Justice, accompanied by his solicitor Miss Shackleton. He strode purposefully into Court 34 at around 10.15.

Minutes later Ms Mills was driven in through the court's main gates.

She was flanked by her sister Fiona, personal trainer Ben Amigoni and a minder.

Ms Mills smiled at waiting reporters, saying: "I'm sorry, I can't make any comment."

A case scheduled to be heard first in the wood-panelled Court 34 was moved aside to allow discussions to get under way at 10.30.

First of all I just want to say I'm so glad it's over. It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter's future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with - because you know it has been my life for 20 years.

Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they're never going to try and make it look in my favour.

But all of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between £20 and £30 million. Paul was offering a lot less than that, which you'll see in the judgment, and very much last minute to put me and Beatrice sadly through this - it's been incredibly sad.

So we're very, very, very pleased. And what I'd like to say, being a campaigning girl, is anybody wanting to go through a divorce, try your hardest, man or woman, to settle it immediately.

And if you're in an impossible situation - which anybody listening will know that, people don't see eye to eye, things get out of hand - you can be a litigant in person.

It's not easy, but just make sure you do all your research, save yourselves a fortune.

(Law firm) Mishcon (de Reya) wanted to charge me an extra £600,000 ($1.2 million) just to do this trial, which could quite easily go to charity.

And I agreed before the FDR (final dispute resolution) to let them go if they didn't win at the final dispute resolution, which they didn't.

It was an amicable parting, we had planned it for months, whatever you read, and I'm still very good friends with (Mishcon de Reya lawyer) Anthony Julius, that I very much respect.

But he was dealing with an impossible side. (Sir Paul McCartney's lawyer) Fiona Shackleton has very sadly handled this in the worst manner you could ever, ever imagine.

She has called me many, many names before even meeting me when I was in a wheelchair.

So I recommend, do it yourself, be a litigant in person, the power of one - the Law Courts do not want me to say this.

And the only reason I'm coming out to be honest, if the judgment had been sealed today to remain private I actually wouldn't be standing here, because we have a gagging order on us not to reveal marital confidences.

That was something that Paul really wanted to be put into this. So I wouldn't be standing here.

But I'm basically standing here because Paul is insistent on the whole judgment being put out.

I've said if the whole judgment goes out, then all the transcripts have to go out because it's going to be written in a way that they will try and make it look like I wasn't successful.

But all in all we came out with nearly £25 million ($50 million). I know you want to know the figure. I'm allowed to say this because this is the summary.

The only reason I'm appealing the judgment tomorrow morning - which because I've got my daughter I'm going to get somebody else to do because I'm exhausted from all this - is because the judgment involves private secure matters of my daughter: where she goes to school, what she does, everything about her is in there.

And they didn't even do a redacted version to keep Beatrice out of it.

So it has gone against everything to do with human rights, the section six, it has gone against everything to do with the confidentiality papers, it has gone against everything to do with the private family matters.

They tried to compare it with a case called Sorrell vs Sorrell (a divorce settlement from 2005). There are no young children in that case. There is in this.

When you go into court, and this is where it's very important, they've actually started to set a precedent, that we lose our right to privacy when we step in a family court by doing this - actually making the judgment (public in) full.

Because normally you go into court and you expect complete privacy in a family court. Two days into the hearing, they threw up, 'maybe we can compare it to Sorrell vs Sorrell'.

And I was like, why would you need to do that, this is private. They said, 'well, we'll let you know at the end of trial'.

So they gave me no chance to not go to trial. They already had planned, the judge had his whole judgment statement written up before we even did our submissions. He just read it out - so he'd already decided that he was going to do this.

These people are in a club, it's like they want to stay together and they don't want to see a litigant in person doing well. But he could not award me and my daughter such a low sum because it was actually impossible. I'll read it to you. Sir Paul offered me - I'll have to go back to it because it's been a while - £15.8 (million) all in, including properties.

We got £24.5 (million) - I don't remember the figures because the most important thing for me was just to get this over and done with.

I'm not appealing against the judgment, no, not at all, because it's not worth it. I'm appealing against the publication of it because it has so many details of me and my daughter in it.

It will be published. That's why we're appealing. It has a stay on it until the appeal tomorrow, but this summary will come out today.

And I'll read the summary to you. He proposed £15.8 (million), and the judge decided that I should get £23.7 (million), it says.

And then what they wanted to do was, because I'd spent money on security, they do a thing called "add back". Because they say me and my daughter don't need security, and Paul might give it for two years, but that's it, which you're going to read about in the judgment, otherwise I'd never put... Obviously I will use my funds to get security.

But Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year. And so she obviously is meant to travel B class while her father travels A class - but obviously I will pay for that.

(Question: was it a mistake to represent yourself?)

Not at all. The lawyers were not getting anywhere near this figure in the FDR, they couldn't get anywhere near this figure. There was no more evidence.

Apparently we didn't live together until the day we were married, and the judge believed that even though I'm registered at Westminster Council living with Paul since the 29th of March 2000 and even though many of you were outside Cavendish Avenue in July when we announced our engagement.

So a lot of strange things have been going on behind the scenes. I obviously had all the evidence to prove we cohabited and lived together. It's been followed by the world's media.

(Question: do you regret representing yourself?)

No, I don't regret representing myself. I'm just glad it's over. And I hope this is reported fairly and balanced. I'm so so happy with it.

(Question: what are your feelings toward Sir Paul?)

I've got no comment. And also, what the judge also said, as well as saying we never lived together, he also said that Paul is only worth £400 million and that is what he said he believes him to be worth.

Everybody knows he has been worth £800 (million) for the last 15 years. So we know that has been... and I wasn't allowed any access to any of our accounts, nothing.

I wasn't allowed to look at what we spent, where we went, I was locked out of every home - I won't go into all the horrific details of what has happened because I'm just glad it's over.

And I really hope now that me and my daughter can have a life and not be followed every single day and that is why I've come out, to give it closure.

Apart from one television thing (an interview with GMTV last October) I've stayed quiet for 21 months, I've been told that we can speak now. If the judgment was kept private than I wouldn't be out here speaking.

I wanted to keep the judgment private. Paul has just said he wants it public, that's the only reason I'm talking. He's always wanted it public because he wants to look like he's this generous Sir Paul.

£35,000 doesn't include her (Beatrice's) school fees. He wants her to fly five times a year on holiday - £32,000 for two people on return fares, it costs, so that's obviously not meant to happen any more for her. It's very sad.

Basically Paul has always wanted Beatrice to go to a state school - a private school, sorry.

He insisted that I move to that area even though he tore the cabin down with a 106 demolition agreement. But he's pretending it was me. If you look online you can see that he signed a voluntary demolition agreement to tear the cabin down.

Then we moved to Brighton, and then he went to try and get my daughter, joint residency, when I already shared her 50-50, there was no need, forced us back to the school.

That's why she has to go that school. It's nothing to do with me wanting her to go to state school or private school, it's the school that Paul chose. So in that way he's got everything that he wanted. But that's what happens with powerful people.

But I say, be a litigant in person - just don't go through this unless you have to. But I'm really happy with the outcome.

(Question: do you think Sir Paul has been cruel?)

I can't say that for the sake of my daughter. My sister (Fiona) does.

(Question: what are you going to do now?)

I'm going to go and be with my daughter because I took so much time away from her.

And I just want to thank everybody, and incredibly my sister for being so supportive to me. Every time I look at her, I want to cry.

(Question: Are you going to leave England?)

I can't leave England. I've always wanted to keep my daughter near her father, and believe me if I tried to go he'd have an injunction on me in a second. So there's no point.

And I love England, I've got all my friends and family here. And I just want to thank everybody for their support and finalising this, so at least we can start getting some really good headlines on the front pages, of important issues and matters instead of our boring divorce. I'm sure everybody at home is fed up with hearing a million figures that never existed.

This is the end result, and thank you very much.

I'm appealing on the judgment being made public, not on the judgment, I'm very very happy with the judgment.

March 17, 2008 -- BBC News (UPDATE)

Mills awarded £24.3 million ($48.6 million) settlement

Heather Mills has been awarded £24.3m in her divorce settlement with estranged husband Sir Paul McCartney.

Speaking outside London's High Court, Ms Mills said she was "glad it's over" and "it was an incredible result to secure mine and my daughter's future".

As part of the deal, Ms Mills will receive £14 million ($28 million) for herself and £2.5 million ($5 million) to buy a house in London.

The couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month, leaving the judge to determine the final figure.

The settlement will also see Sir Paul pay their four-year-old daughter Beatrice's nanny and school fees and will pay Beatrice £35,000 ($70,000) a year.

The summary judgment stated that Ms Mills had sought £125 million ($150 million) and been offered £15.8 million ($31.8 million) by Sir Paul.

Speaking on the steps of the High Court - surrounded by a media scrum - Ms Mills insisted she was "very, very happy" with the decision.

But she said she would be appealing against the publication of the ruling on Tuesday morning because of concerns for the security of her daughter.

"I'm not appealing against the judgment because it's not worth it," she said.

"I'm appealing against the publication of it because it has so many details of me and my daughter in it. It has a stay on it until the appeal tomorrow."

The judge found that the total value of all Sir Paul's assets, including his business assets, was about £400 million ($800 million) and that there was no evidence at all before him that he was worth £800 million ($1.6 billion)

The judge also refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant.

A spokesman for Sir Paul McCartney said that the former Beatle would not be commenting on the settlement.

Sir Paul, 65, married the former model and charity campaigner Mills, 40, in 2002 but they split four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives.

DIVORCE SETTLEMENT
£16.5m lump sum, including £2.5 million ($5 million) to buy London property
£7.8 million ($15.7 million) assets
£35,000 ($70,000) a year for daughter Beatrice - plus nanny and school fees
The judge awarded a lump sum of £16.5 million ($33.2 million) and assets of £7.8 million ($15.7 million).

Heather Mills has been awarded £24.3 million in a divorce settlement from former Beatle Paul McCartney but has vowed to appeal the publication of the judge's summary.

Her divorce from Sir Paul has been one of the most acrimonious divorce battles in recent history.

Sir Paul said "all will be revealed" as he left the court and added that a statement would be made shortly.

The warring couple spent six days in court last month trying to reach a settlement on the division of Sir Paul's assets, reputed to be worth as much as £825 million ($1.6 billion).

The decision of Lady McCartney, 40, to sack her legal team and represent herself is thought to have contributed to the length of the case.

Sir Paul, 65, married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, but they split four years later.

Since the divorce was announced, there has been mounting speculation about Lady McCartney's demands, and the legal profession is expected to review the decision closely.

Speaking on Sky News, family and divorce lawyer Vanessa Lloyd Platt said: "This is a short marriage and will set a precedent for judges."

Some lawyers have claimed it could be the biggest contested divorce settlement in British legal history, while others expect a more conservative agreement, citing the short length of the marriage and the fact that most of Sir Paul's wealth was established decades before the couple met.

It is understood that the couple have agreed joint custody of their four-year-old daughter, Beatrice.

Before the case there was speculation that Sir Paul would offer Lady McCartney a £55 million ($110 million) settlement, on the condition that she agree never to speak to the press about the marriage.

The money would be paid in £2.5 million ($5 million) annual payments until Beatrice turns 18.

A judge awarded Heather Mills a total of $48.6 million Monday in the financial settlement of her divorce from former Beatle Paul McCartney.

A document released by the Family Court said the judge awarded Mills a lump sum of $33 million plus the assets she currently holds worth $15.6 million.

"I'm so, so happy with this," Mills told reporters following the closed hearing.

The court also ruled that the couple's 4-year-old daughter Beatrice should receive a "periodical payments order" of $70,000 per annum. On top of that, McCartney will pay for the child's nanny and school fees.

Mills had sought almost $250 million, while McCartney had said she should receive $31.6 million, including her own assets, which the court assessed at $15.6 million.

Judge Hugh Bennett found that the total value of all of McCartney's assets, including his business assets, was about $800 million. He said there was no evidence to support the widely published figure that was more than twice as much.

McCartney left the court without making any statement.

"I'm so glad it's over," Mills said at her impromptu news conference.

"It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter's future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with - because you know it has been my life for 20 years," she said.

"Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they're never going to make it look in favor.

"But all of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between 20 and 30 million (pounds), Paul was offering a lot less than that, which you'll see in the judgment, and very much last minute to put me and Beatrice sadly through this ... incredibly sad."

Heather Mills is reportedly set to receive close to £25 million ($50 million) in her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney.

Details of the settlement - roughly £4 million ($8 million) for every year Ms Mills was married to the ex-Beatle - are said to be contained in a preliminary High Court judgment sent to the estranged couple and their legal advisers this week.

The official verdict will be handed down on Monday according to the London Evening Standard, bringing an end to one of the most costly and acrimonious divorce battles in British history. Legal bills alone could be as high as £10 million ($20 million).

Mr Justice Bennett sent each team of lawyers his preliminary judgment this week under strict orders not to reveal the contents.

But neither party is likely to object to the basic details of the settlement being divulged.

A source closely connected to the case has reportedly told the Evening Standard that Ms Mills will receive a lump sum of "around £25 million".

It is not clear whether that sum includes provision for the couple's daughter Beatrice, who was born in 2003.

Ms Mills, 40, a former glamour model, and McCartney, 65, married in June 2002 but announced their separation less than four years later.

The source said: "The judgment has been made. The parties involved received their copies this week.

"On an analysis of the case law Mills was always going to receive around £25million. I think it's fair to say the judge has not erred from that.

"The judgment is very thorough. He has gone into every detail to make sure neither party can have grounds for appeal. It's fair to say the judgment is very long."

The huge sum - one of the largest for a British divorce - is less than some reports had speculated. But it still represents a generous settlement for such a short marriage.

A summary of Mr Justice Bennett's findings are also expected to be made public, ending almost two years of often wild speculation about the size of Ms Mills' payout.

Both parties are expected to be pleased with the outcome.

Sir Paul will be relieved he is not giving away more of his money while Ms Mills will walk away from the High Court on Monday as one of the wealthiest women in Britain.

It will be very difficult for her to appeal against the case - which would allow further details of the marriage to be aired in public - without bolstering her image as a "gold-digger", a label she has vehemently objected to.

The source said: "The judgment on the whole is reasonable and acceptable and appears very sensible. I doubt there will be an appeal although who knows?"

According to the source, Sir Paul's claim that he is not nearly as wealthy as has been previously estimated has been accepted by Mr Justice Bennett.

Rich lists have put his fortune at £825 million ($1.6 billion) and Ms Mills believed it to be even higher.

But the judge appears to have agreed to evidence given by a series of actuaries and accountants that McCartney is worth much less - the headline figure is not clear - restricting the final settlement to Ms Mills.

The source told the Evening Standard: "It is always a problem in divorce cases proving what the husband is actually worth. In this case like others McCartney had the information and it was impossible for Mills to prove otherwise."

But Ms Mills will also be delighted that her decision to represent herself - she parted company with her law firm Mishcon de Reya in the run up to the six-day hearing last month - has not backfired.

The source said: "She did very well in court. She did the best job she could and has nothing to be upset about."

The source also expected Mr Justice Bennett to release at least part of his findings, adding: "If I were a betting man I would say there will be a summary judgment.

"It is an obvious way to satisfy the intense public interest and the right of both parties to at least an element of privacy. I don't think either side will object to the headline figures being made public."

The case brings to an end almost two years of acrimony despite a pledge when the couple announced their separation that they would resolve their differences amicably.

Sir Paul hired probably the most expensive divorce team ever assembled in this country.

His solicitor Fiona Shackleton represented Prince Charles in his divorce while his barrister Nicholas Mostyn QC is the most feared in the business.

Ms Mills originally hired litigator Anthony Julius, who represented Princess Diana, but a series of outbursts on television led to a parting of the ways.

She is now in dispute with Mishcon over unpaid legal bills, a difficulty expected to be resolved following Monday's payout.

A phone call set this in motion ­ 30 years ago.

"You want to come to a jam session?"

"Sure."

"Oh, by the way, Paul and Linda will be there."

That would be Paul and Linda McCartney. And the jam session would be an audition for young studio guitarist Laurence Juber.

"I was aware of Wings," Juber, now 55, says of the band McCartney formed after The Beatles. "But I wasn't terribly familiar with their repertoire."

They jammed to some Chuck Berry tunes, then McCartney asked: "What are you doing the next few years?"

"I had to think about it ­ for at least a nanosecond," says the understated Juber. "I wasn't going to turn down the opportunity to work with Paul McCartney."

One thing led to another. Concerts. Tours. Gold records. Grammy Awards. Fourteen solo albums. Worldwide acclaim.

But now Juber, who performs twice in Orange County (California) this weekend, is reducing his usual 80-90 gigs a year. One of the best guitar fingerpickers in the world has immersed himself in the music of ­ hold onto your hat, little buddy ­ the music of "Gilligan's Island." And "The Brady Bunch."

And it's because of Paul McCartney.

TRANSCENDENT MOMENT

Juber was a shy kid. Early on, the guitar became his voice.

"My ambition was to be a studio guitar player," he says.

At London University, he studied Renaissance lute as well as electric guitar.

By the time he joined Wings, he was a virtuoso ­ but not a star. In fact, he occasionally found himself wowed in the presence of childhood idols.

One time in the studio, McCartney began strumming an old Beatles classic.

"My first reaction was, Oh my God. It's Paul playing 'Michelle,'" he says.

During the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea, members of Led Zeppelin and The Who stood back as Juber played lead to "Let It Be."

"It was a transcendent moment," he says. "I was on stage, playing "Let It Be" with Paul McCartney, and I've got Pete Townshend breathing down my neck and all these people I grew up admiring. I'm, like, 'What am I doing here? I must've done something right.'"

Wings changed him. With McCartney as mentor, he learned about writing, performing and recording music for the masses.

'It was turning point for me," Juber says. "I learned what it meant to be an artist."

By 1981, he was ready to strike out on his own. He quit Wings and moved to New York City.

Some might call what happened next "chance." But Juber and his wife swear it's fate.

Which makes this a tale of a fateful trip.

AN EXTRA WEEK

This was no mere love at first sight. This was written in the stars.

Juber had a premonition before he went out that night. And Hope?

"When we met," she says, "it was one of those movie moments where everything gets hazy and everyone else disappears."

That she was even in New York is worthy of a story. Let's just say it involves the death of John Lennon, her mother's hairdresser, a chance encounter with Ringo Starr, a new job and a short romance with an actor ­ all tugging her to New York to meet said actor at a comedy club.

She was waiting for him when Juber walked up to her and started talking about marriage. The next day, Hope called her mother to say she'd be delayed.

"Mom told Dad," Hope says. "And he yelled, 'She's going to marry him!'"

In 1940, her dad had done the same thing: gone to New York, met his wife-to-be, decided to marry her in five minutes, and stayed an extra week.

Hope ponders the odds and decides: "This was cosmically arranged."

Adds Juber: "My Wings experience really just got me to New York to meet Hope."

The question is: What cosmic force would spark a musical fascination with the likes of Gilligan, Marcia Brady and Thurston Howell III?

No. 2 SON

Maybe it's time for NBC weatherman Fritz Coleman to weigh in.

He hosted a 1990s, late-night variety show following "Saturday Night Live" and hired Juber as his band leader.

"Just having him there gave us credibility," says Coleman. "There was no, 'I toured with Wings and nothing you do can impress me.' He was very cool and part of the family."

Juber has played guitar for TV hits "Happy Days," "Home Improvement" and "Beverly Hills 90210." He played in feature films "Good Will Hunting" and "Dirty Dancing."

He's won two Grammy Awards, recorded with three Beatles and been named "Fingerstyle Guitarist of the Year."

Yet everyone says the same thing: Nice guy.

"I call him my No. 2 son," says Dolores Sampson, 82, of Fond du Lac, Wis., who's seen him play in four states. "Since I lost my only son in 1986, LJ has helped to fill the void left in my heart. He always goes out of his way to be nice to me."

He's also been rushed on stage by teenagers in Taiwan where his 1995 tune "Pass the Buck" has become a rite-of-passage piece for young fingerstyle guitarists.

That song and its album,"LJ," defined Juber's musical style: solo guitar, recorded without overdubs, in which he performs all the instrumental and vocal parts at the same time. He's never been afraid to reinvent himself ­ a lesson learned from watching McCartney in Wings. Another was the value of family.

"Wings was a family band ­ Paul and Linda," he says. "I'd never underestimate Linda's contribution to the band. She was his anchor."

Likewise, Hope became Juber's producer. And her family became his family.

GILLIGAN ON TOUR

OK, remember the voice over the telephone that yelled, "She's going to marry him!"

That was Hope's dad. You may recognize his name: Sherwood Schwartz. He created "Gilligan's Island" ­ the most syndicated show in television history. And "The Brady Bunch" ­ the third-most syndicated show, right behind "I Love Lucy."

He was skeptical when his daughter announced she was marrying a musician in 1982.

"A lot of people in music were not very nice guys in those years," he says. "But he's a nice guy. He's brilliant. And he's like a genius with the guitar."

Around 1990, Schwartz and his son Lloyd wrote "Gilligan's Island, the Musical." Guess who wrote the songs? Hope and Laurence Juber.

The musical has played in more than 50 community theaters. In January, a national tour launches.

"It's fun to sit in the audience and hear people sing songs you've written," says Juber.

After that success, the family wrote "A Very Brady Musical." That opens in L.A. in June.

"We live in a very odd nexus of pop culture," says Juber. "Me from a McCartney, Beatles and Wings perspective. And Hope from a Brady and Gilligan perspective. It's Americana meets the British Invasion."

And it started with a phone call -- 30 years ago.

7:30 p.m., Fri., March 14, Dana Point Community House, $25

7 p.m., Sat., March 15, Mission Viejo Civic Center, $20

Reservations: 949-842-2227

Show info: www.lordofthestringsconcerts.com

Laurence Juber on-line:

www.laurencejuber.com

Juber's myspace page with videos

As Sir Paul McCartney steels himself for a return to the High Court on Monday where he will learn how many of his millions must go to Heather Mills, he can at least console himself with some happier news from his daughter Mary.

She is, I can reveal, expecting a baby by the new man in her life.

As I disclosed last year, pretty brunette Mary, 38, has fallen in love with film-maker Simon Aboud, 43. He is divorced from his wife and Mary is also believed to have quietly divorced her estranged husband, TV producer Alistair Donald.

Mary, who has two children by Donald - Arthur, eight, and Elliot, five - will be adding to her brood at the end of July.

"They don't know whether it's a boy or a girl and they don't want to," says a friend. "Everyone is delighted and they are very happy."

Like her late mother Linda, Mary is an acclaimed photographer and famously took the official portrait of Tony and Cherie Blair with baby Leo.

She met Donald when she was still at school, but their marriage fell apart after seven years.

Aboud, who describes himself as a director, writer and photographer, went to Birmingham University before going into advertising, where he became creative director of Magic Hat and McCann Erickson.

"Like Mary, Simon loves photography," I am told. "They don't like a lot of fuss and they often go out separately so as not to draw attention to themselves."

Paul McCartney is expected to find out on Monday how much of his fortune he must hand over to estranged wife Heather Mills when a judge rules on their acrimonious and highly public divorce.

With the world's media poised to pore over every detail of any judgment, it is unclear whether judge Hugh Bennett will make public all or part of his decision, due to be handed out at London's High Court.

The ruling will not necessarily spell the end of one of the most bitter and high-profile break-ups in British legal history.

If either side is unhappy, they can apply for permission to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal. Unlike the closed hearings so far, those proceedings would be in open court.

"I don't think there's ever been a divorce case that has attracted so much publicity, certainly in Britain, and there probably won't be ever again," said Alan Kaufman, family lawyer at Finers Stephens Innocent.

McCartney, 65, married former model and charity campaigner Mills, 40, in 2002, but they split four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives. They have a daughter Beatrice, aged four.

Press and public attention intensified in the following months, with tabloid newspapers printing lurid stories about Mills's past and generally casting McCartney as the innocent party.

At one point, though, McCartney vowed to defend himself in court against accusations published in newspapers that he physically attacked Mills during their marriage.

Mills issued strongly worded statements, threatened to sue newspapers and held a series of emotional live television interviews last year in which she accused the media of branding her a "whore" and a "gold-digger".

Her main PR adviser quit over the interviews, and days later she parted ways with her lawyer. In recent court hearings Mills has represented herself.

SPECULATION

Since the split was announced in May, 2006, newspapers and commentators have speculated about the size of any settlement.

Initial reports put the bill at up to £200 million ($400 million), or a quarter of what McCartney's fortune is estimated to be worth.

Recent figures have been closer to £50 million ($100 million), which would still be the largest divorce settlement in British legal history, surpassing the £48 million ($80 million) paid by insurance magnate John Charman.

Kaufman said the size of McCartney's fortune, itself the subject of debate, meant the divorce case was unprecedented.

On the one hand, experts say, the marriage was relatively short, limiting the amount Mills should expect, but on the other McCartney must provide for Beatrice as she grows up.

"Another big issue the judge must decide on is how far she has the right to a stake of McCartney's wealth before the marriage and a stake of anything amassed since they separated," Kaufman added.

He said Mills would almost certainly be in court on Monday and that McCartney was likely to show up for the key judgment.

The League Against Cruel Sports, which maintains the woodland shrine, says a sadistic poacher has savagely attacked a deer and left the mutilated remains in the five-acre woodland site dedicated by Sir Paul to his beloved first wife. The shrine lies on his Somerset estate near Bampton.

The grim discovery, which was made in the early hours of February 24, was reported to both Devon and Cornwall and Avon and Somerset police forces. It came as Sir Paul joined ex-wife Heather as the face of a PETA campaign against animal cruelty, and threw his weight behind protesters in Australia battling against a planned kangaroo cull.

Rachel Jay, spokesperson for LACS, said the deer remains were found in the vicinity of St John's Wood (not London), which the League manages on behalf of Mr McCartney, and said that there had been a series of incidents.

"Paul McCartney owns St John's Wood, a portion of which is also a shrine to Linda McCartney," she said.

"The 5,000-acre wood was bought by the McCartneys in 1990 for the League to manage. In 1998 when Linda died a five-acre wood was planted in memory of her.

"The remains were found on Post Lane which is just on the edge of St John's Wood, in between Upton and Skilgate.

"The neighbours found it. It was the head, legs and intestines of the deer, which looks like it had its hair scraped off. Obviously it is quite a sadistic attack."

The discovery was made as Sir Paul inserted himself into the row brewing in Australia over a controversial kangaroo cull.

A British animal protection group is using Sir Paul's face in an international campaign against the planned cull of hundreds of kangaroos on an Australian military base.

As demonstrators on Wednesday promised human shields to protect the animals, McCartney appeared on a website set up by the animal welfare group Viva! to condemn the cull of up to 500 animals using tranquilizer darts and lethal injection.

"There is an urgent need for action to protect kangaroos from a barbaric industry which slaughters them for meat and leather," McCartney said in an undated message.

"Please do all you can to help Viva! end this shameful massacre."

The eastern grey kangaroos, which feature on Australia's coat of arms, are living on a military communications base in the nation's capital Canberra.

Authorities say the animals, on death row since May last year, threaten other local species through overgrazing.

Wildlife Protection Association spokesman Pat O'Brien said the cull of animals synonymous with Australia could damage tourism and promised human shields to protect them, with barricades and demonstrations to be set up on Thursday.

"I'm sure there will be people standing in front of the dart guns," O'Brien told Australian radio.

Viva!, or Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, said it had launched a Europe-wide campaign against the cull and by Wednesday had gathered more than 1,300 protest signatures from 36 countries on an Australian-based web page.

The petition, which had photographs of kangaroos in rifle crosshairs, included supporters from Spain, England, the United States, Switzerland, France, Canada, South Africa and Germany.

In 2004 there was an international outcry over the shooting of 900 kangaroos at a dam supplying water to Canberra. The animals were causing erosion problems through grazing.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett, a former head of Australia's conservation movement, said he would not intervene.

"Programs like this, humanely and properly administered, are sometimes necessary," he told reporters.

The cull, Garrett said, would not damage Australia's anti-whaling campaign, which has angered Japan amid international efforts to close a loophole permitting scientific whaling.

But Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown said it would bring "further notoriety" for Australia's treatment of wildlife.

"(Prime Minister) Kevin Rudd could begin by saving those kangaroos and making sure they are transported to a safe haven ... rather than be given a deadly injection and left as a heap on the ground," he said.

SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY - MCCARTNEY OPENS UP ABOUT FISHING NIGHTMARE FOR PETA POSTER

Sir Paul McCartney has opened up about the moment he decided to become a vegetarian - for a new People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) poster campaign. Wearing a trilby and a T-shirt sporting the words "Eat No..." and a picture of a cow, vegan (???) McCartney reveals a fishing expedition made him rethink his passion for angling.

In a statement on the 'I Am A Vegetarian' poster, the former Beatle writes, "Many years ago, I was fishing, and as I was reeling in the poor fish, I realised, 'I am killing him - all for the passing pleasure it brings me.' "Something inside me clicked. I realised as I watched him fight for breath, that his life was as important to him and mine is to me."

Music legend Sir Paul McCartney dons PETA's "Eat No Animal" T-shirt and stars in a new ad to kicks off PETA's veggie testimonial Web site, featuring some of the hottest and hippest celebrities in the music, TV, and film industries, all proclaiming why they're vegetarian!

Why did this extraordinary group of talented individuals decide to go vegetarian? Watch the veggie testimonials from Forest Whitaker, Casey Affleck, Alicia Silverstone, and more to find out what your favorite stars have to say about the benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle.

We know that after watching their testimonials, some of you will be unable to resist making your own. That's why we're holding a contest for the best homemade veggie testimonial. Click here for complete instructions on how to enter. The best entry will win a video iPod!

What are you waiting for? Click here to check out the new site now! Happy viewing!

Paul McCartney reportedly inks iTunes deal

The most notable band absent from Apple's digital music store may finally be making its way to iTunes, as long-time skeptic Paul McCartney has reportedly signed a $600 million deal with Apple.

London publication The Telegraph reports that McCartney has decided to finally give his approval to allow the Beatles catalog to make its way to iTunes. The paper claims that Apple offered McCartney as much as $600 million as part of the deal.

McCartney has been one of the most notorious holdouts for entering the digital music age, and was especially protective about his work as lead singer for the Beatles.

The legendary rock singer has had a tumultuous relationship with Apple, not the least of which is the fact that a company called "Apple Corps" actually has control over the music from the Beatles.

No prospective date was given for when Beatles music might actually make it to iTunes.

The BRITs fallout continues...!

Fresh from Paul's very offices have come a bunch of new shots from of our 'Outstanding Contributor To Music' hanging out with friends backstage. Check out images of Macca with The Osbournes, Ricky Kaiser Chief, Beth Ditto, Kenny Lynch, Girls Aloud, Rihanna and Vic Reeves and Nancy Sorrell.

Sir Paul McCartney wants Amy Winehouse to sing the theme tune for the new James Bond film, 'Quantum of Solace'.

The Beatles legend - who sang the title track for hit 1973 Bond film 'Live and Let Die' - thinks troubled singer Amy has the perfect voice for a theme song, and offered some advice to her.

He said: "I think Amy Winehouse would be really good, and I think she would do a really good job. My advice to her would be not to try and rhyme 'Solace' with anything - that's too hard."

Paul also said despite being responsible for one of the most popular Bond tunes of all time, he wouldn't want to have the responsibility again.

He added: "I definitely wouldn't do it again. I have been trying to think of something to rhyme with 'Solace' and all I can come up with is 'Wallace'! I don't envy whoever is going to do the song!"

Other singers who have recorded a 007 theme tune include, Dame Shirley Bassey, Tina Turner, Sir Tom Jones, Carly Simon and Lulu.

U2, Paul McCartney and Eminem have reportedly been asked to play at Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday celebration. Queen, Annie Lennox, Keane and Razorlight have been confirmed for the bash, which will be held June 27 in London's Hyde Park.

The Evening Standard splash (as journalists call it; front-page lead as most other folks do) today is "MACCA'S £200m iTUNES PAYDAY" which is remarkable for two things: first, they bothered to put the 'i' of iTunes into lower-case; second, that according to the spokesperson for Apple Corps, which still retains publishing rights to the Beatles' back catalogue, its suggestion that the songs will go online later this year is wrong.

The story says that McCartney "is to release the Beatles back catalogue online - helping pay for his multi-million pound divorce from Heather Mills." Later it says that

The catalogue's online release has been hampered by legal wrangles that have now been settled. The divorce is thought to be the final obstacle. A source close to the musician told the Evening Standard today: "I reckon the Beatles catalogue will go on this year."

OK, well, that would certainly be nice - I've been ringing up Apple Corps since about 2003 asking when the Beatles' catalogue would join pretty much the rest of the world by going online. No date was ever given.

And that remains true, according the Apple Corps spokesperson who I spoke to after seeing the story. "There's no date set," she said. "The story isn't correct. I can't tell you if it's this year or next year or when." (The Standard did call Apple Corps for a response before publishing its story, and decided to go with its own sources.)

So what then are the obstacles to the Beatles catalogue, which would be enormously valuable, and would (as the Standard suggests) probably dominate the download charts for months if not weeks (might they become the first band to have No.1s four decades apart)?

Well, look to the publishing rights. The publishing rights to the Beatles songs are owned jointly by Sony, EMI Publishing and Apple Corps.

Sony has songs online. EMI Publishing has songs online and would love to have more. Apple Corps. doesn't. It is owned by, among others, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr. Its chief executive since April 2007 is Jeff Jones; he replaced Neil Aspinall - who fought against the Beatles' music being on CD until there was a higher royalty, and wouldn't allow it onto compilation albums.

Jones sounded excited about the job when he took it up:

The multiple opportunities to reach music lovers, both new and old, with the Beatles' spectacular body of work makes this position incredibly challenging and exciting.

Well, OK, excite us then, Mr Jones. It's been kinda lacking just lately. But is it me, or is there no very visible reason for the holdout? And what Beatles tracks (or albums) would you definitely buy that you don't already have?

Update: I put three questions to Apple Corps's PR:
1) Can you confirm if this [the songs going online this year] will happen?
2) Any details on dates?
3) Which online stores? Will it be all of them, or will any be excluded?

And the answer? "No comment." There. Clear as mud, eh?

WEBMASTER'S NOTE: From Bill King of Beatlefan Magazine: "The Beatles publishing is jointly owned by Sony and Michael Jackson. EMI and Apple do not have any ownership of it at all."

The singles and albums will be made available on iTunes in the coming months following the final divorce hearing, due to take place at the High Court in 10 days.

Ms Mills, 40, is expected to receive between £20 million ($40 million) and £30 million ($60 million) in a cash settlement following four years of marriage to McCartney, 65.

The sale of Beatles records online will be a huge windfall for Sir Paul, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison.

Containing albums such as Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, the White Album and Help!, it will be by far the most prized music catalogue released via the internet, worth up to £200 million ($400 million), according to some estimates.

It is expected to dominate the download charts for many months.

This could lift Ms Mills's expectation of the divorce settlement to beyond £30 million, on the basis that Sir Paul's future income should be taken into account.

It raises the prospect she could appeal if she feels the judge has not considered the online deal properly.

The catalogue's online release has been hampered by legal wrangles that have now been settled. The divorce is thought to be the final obstacle.

A source close to the musician told the Evening Standard today: "I reckon the Beatles catalogue will go on this year."

In a recent interview with Billboard magazine, McCartney said: "It's all happening soon.

"The whole thing is primed, ready to go - there's maybe one little sticking point left and I think it's being cleared up as we speak so it shouldn't be too long."

McCartney's solo catalogue has been available for download since last May but the Beatles' recordings will be far more valuable.

The bitter divorce was played out over six days behind closed doors last month. Sir Paul's legal and professional expenses alone are likely to cost about £5 million ($10 million).

His lawyers are understood to have argued in court that he is worth a lot less than the £825 million ($1.6 billion) that has been suggested.

Ms Mills, a former model who has represented herself in court, argued he was worth much more than that.

Mr Justice Bennett's judgment on March 17 - expected to be made public at least in part - is likely to take into account McCartney's earnings during their four year marriage but also his future income, which will be hugely inflated by the deal with iTunes, owned by Apple Computers.

The download agreement followed the settling of a court case last year between Apple Corps, a company formed by the Beatles to protect its music, and Apple Computers.

A further dispute between Apple Corps and the Beatles' original record label EMI over royalty payments was also settled last year, paving the way for the download of all the Beatles' records.

The Linda McCartney Fashion Show featured spring and summer 08 designs from Sir Paul's designer daughter.

Husband and wife pop stars Andy Scott-Lee and Michelle Heaton, and Queer Eye For The Straight Guy presenter Julian Bennett hosted the breast cancer charity event at the Hard Day's Night hotel.

Students from Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts organised the show to raise awareness of the charity's Field of Women campaign.

Breast cancer patients from the Linda McCartney Centre modelled clothes from John Lewis.

Repooc Couture, Joy, iwantpants.com, Secret Drawer, Tanya Maxwell, Project Catwalk hopeful Katy O'Grady and All Saints also showcased their latest trends.

Sir Paul's brother Mike McCartney was in the audience.

He said: "It's a fantastic event. I'm here to support the family."

Singer Andy Scott-Lee said: "I love Liverpool. We are honoured to be part of a show for a cause that is close to our hearts."

Former Liberty X singer Michelle said: "My grandma was diagnosed with cancer about 20 years ago and she's had it back about three times but she's well.

"Anything that is going to help fund treatment is amazing."

Julian said: "I've watched the city come on leaps and bounds in terms of fashion.

"Liverpool excels in music, theatre and fashion, so it deserves its Capital of Culture status. For me Liverpool's fashion has nothing to do with WAGs."

Campaigners hope the drive will raise more than £1m for breast cancer treatment from a spectacular show of support involving 10,000 men and women.

Field of Women is being staged at Liverpool Cricket Ground on Sunday July 6.

The plan is to sign up more than 10,000 people who will pay a £10 ($20) registration fee and receive a sponsorship pack.

The aim is for 10,000 people, sporting pink ponchos, to stand side by side at Liverpool Cricket Club in Aigburth to form the shape of a woman, dubbed Lucy ­ an acronym for listen up, check yourself.

Mr Millar said: "Yes, this is a fundraising event, but it is also about raising awareness and encouraging women to check themselves."

For further information and to register visit www.fieldofwomen.com or call 0151-706 3153.

Heather Mills' father has attacked her decision to drag her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney through the courts, accusing her of being "greedy".

A judge is due to return a decision on March 17 on what settlement Mills will receive, two years after their four-year marriage ended in 2006. But Mark Mills claims his 40-year-old daughter should have settled months ago after the former Beatle made his first big money offer.

He says, "He's offered her multi-millions. She should take that and stop what she's doing. It's plenty.

"She's being greedy. How much does she need?"

We've come across the song "Devil May Care," which was obviously written for the new James Bond novel's theme song contest. Remarkably, this song sounds as though it were recorded by Sir Paul McCartney.

Could it possibly be true? Check it out and see what you think.

This song did not make the finals for the competition, which is allowing the public to pick a theme song for the new Bond audiobook until March 17th.

Sir Paul McCartney's tour security chief has drummed up a fortune by flogging his stadium and rock concert business.

Mark Hamilton, who set up Rock Steady in Scotland in 1980 when he was 19, has sold out to Group 4 Securicor, known as G4S, for an undisclosed amount.

Rock Steady - which employs 2,200 and has a turnover of around £12million ($23.6 million)( - looked after security for the 2005 Live 8 events in London and Edinburgh, as well as supervising Rangers FC and Lancashire County Cricket Club matches, plus all of Macca's concerts.

Hamilton will now become managing director of a new G4S events division.

McCartney's music a legacy for Britons

Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, chef Jamie Oliver and footballer David Beckham head a list of 21st-century Britons whose legacies will be remembered most by future generations.

Sir Paul was named the celebrity who people believe will have the most impact on people in years to come, followed by Oliver and Beckham.

One in three people said Sir Paul would be remembered not only for his music, but also for founding his music academy in Liverpool.

Oliver came second in the poll for his work bringing healthy eating in schools into the limelight, while Beckham finished a close third with nearly one in five people saying he will be remembered for his football academy.

The former Beatle's ex-wife, Heather Mills - who received a multi-million-pound divorce settlement last week - fared less well with the public.

Just 2 per cent of the 2,000 people polled said she would be remembered for her charity work by future generations.

The research showed that, despite the nation's obsession with celebrities and money, most would rather be remembered for having a positive impact on people's lives or passing on their knowledge, than for being rich and famous.

When asked to think about what they would most like to be remembered for, six in ten Britons said having a positive influence on someone's life was far more important than fame or fortune.

Passing on knowledge was a key priority for one in ten Britons, compared with just 1 per cent who said they wanted to be known by future generations for being rich.

SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY - MCCARTNEY ENDS 30-YEAR FEUD WITH LAINE

Sir Paul McCartney has patched up his broken friendship with former Wings bandmate Denny Laine - nearly 30 years after they fell out. The ex-Beatle formed Wings with his late first wife Linda, guitarist Laine and drummer Denny Seiwell in 1971 - one year after the Fab Four's split was officially announced.

McCartney and Laine came to blows in 1980 after the singer's arrest for marijuana possession by Japanese customs officials forced the band to scrap their planned tour of the country. But the 65-year-old has since made up with Laine, with the pair meeting up in December (2007) to enjoy a U2 concert in London.

Special edition of Music Week magazine features Paul McCartney

Music Week, the UK's leading music industry trade magazine, is celebrating Paul McCartney being honoured with the Brits outstanding contribution award next week with an in-depth feature about the global music icon, including an exclusive new interview.

Remarkably it will be 50 years to the month since he persuaded John Lennon to let his school friend George Harrison into their band. Over the past five decades since the fledgling schoolboy musician formed the foundations that were to sustain an international musical phenomenon, Paul McCartney has left an indelible mark on popular culture.

To celebrate this incredible achievement Music Week has published a special tribute issue, with 16 pages dedicated to the life and work of Paul McCartney. Music Week looks at one of the most important and successful music careers in history, as well as talking to McCartney about the Brits honour, leaving EMI to sign with Starbucks' new label, his current recording and touring plans plus life inside the greatest group of all time.

Music Week is largely a subscription-based magazine, with only selected copies each week sold over the counter in a small number of UK newsagents. However, to mark this special feature and satisfy anticipated demand by Paul McCartney fans for it, order copies of the issue HERE.

ed his creative days were over.

However, speaking before he went on stage, he said he was delighted with the award and thrilled that people of all ages were still buying his records and those of The Beatles.

"It's human instinct to feel good when we get an award or any kind of praise, because it's validation. When people like what you are doing it's a big deal," he said.

"It's wonderful to get an award. It could go to anyone but I'm getting it and I'm very chuffed. It's much appreciated."

---

---

Macca Report news continues with February 2008 Page 2

---

---

Go to March 2008 Page 2

---

Macca Report Archived News Index

---

RECOMMENDED NEW PAUL BOOKS CD'S AND DVDS (Support this page by buying from these links)

---

Go to Beatles News!!!
Go to the Macca Report and current Paul News!!!

---

---

Home Page | Wings Tour (photos) | 1989-90 Tour (photos) | 1993 Tour (photos) | Back in the US 2002 (reviews) | 2002 USA Tour (photos) | Driving USA 2002 (reviews) | 2003 Tour (reviews) | 2004 Tour (reviews) | 2005 US Tour (reviews) | Meet Paul (photos) | Standing Stone (photos) | Macca Report (Paul News) | Archived News Index | Paul Photo Book| Back in the World CD/DVD Detailed info | McCartney Animation DVD | Fab Buys Shop | Beatles News | Ringo News | John News | George News | Bill Bernstein (interview) | Rusty Anderson (interview) | Brian Ray (interview) | Geoff Dunbar (interview)| Macca-Chat (Internet chat room) | Fan Close Encounter Page | Paul Shop | Message Board | Links | Macca Blog

---

---

Jorie Gracen