|
Post by CoconutFudge on Feb 10, 2008 22:16:39 GMT -5
Yes, I should probably warn that it's a bit sickening and explicit!
|
|
|
Post by B on Feb 12, 2008 20:55:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B on Feb 18, 2008 10:14:19 GMT -5
On Sunday, the report was this:Heather Buries Paul (The headline on the first page.) www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/02/15/2008-02-15_paul_mccartney_to_pay_over_108m_to_heath.htmlPaul McCartney to pay over $108M to Heather Mills in divorce settlement BY ELLEN TUMPOSKY in London and LEO STANDORA in New York DAILY NEWS WRITERS Saturday, February 16th 2008, 12:34 AM Money and plenty of it is all Heather Mills wanted to say hello, goodbye to Paul McCartney for good, and it looks like she's getting it. Two years after their highly publicized plans for a divorce were announced, Sir Paul has agreed to give Mills more than $108 million - a tidy $27 million for every year of their marriage, London's Daily Mail reported. Mills, 40, will pocket a nearly $40 million lump sum, with $5 million annual payments until their 4-year-old daughter Beatrice reaches 18. Power-dressed in a black-velvet three-piece pantsuit with a crimson blouse, the former model and social activist couldn't hide her joy as she walked from London's High Court yesterday, smiling broadly at everyone. The settlement was huge but almost peanuts compared with the nearly $1.5 billion U.S. media magnate Sumner Redstone coughed up to his ex-wife, Phyllis, in 2001 after he got caught cavorting with a young model. Other big-bucks settlements have included Chicago energy magnate Michael Polsky, $184 million; hoops legend Michael Jordan, $168 million; singer Neil Diamond, $150 million, and golfer Greg Norman and director Steven Spielberg, $100 million each. As part of the deal, Mills agreed to never speak publicly or write in detail about the breakdown of the marriage, according to the Daily Mail. The accord came after Mills and McCartney had gone nose to nose in court for five days last week. Mills will have main custody of Beatrice, but McCartney, whose fortune is estimated at $1.2 billion, will have equal visitation rights. Beatrice's 65-year-old dad also agreed to set up a $2 million trust fund that she can access when she turns 18, according to the Daily Mail. Mills plans to live with Beatrice in Britain and either Poland or the Czech Republic, where she hopes to buy a home. A source told the Daily Mail a verbal agreement was reached just before lunch. "They have a settlement," a source said. "They have agreed on all points. Nothing much has changed this week. There was a deal at the beginning, but it was a complex one. There have been a few tweaks to the agreements, but those have been mostly changes Heather wanted made." A hearing, perhaps the final one, is scheduled for Monday. When a fan who gave his name only as Joe asked Mills to sign his autograph book as she left court, she readily agreed. McCartney earlier told the autograph hunter he couldn't sign his vinyl copy of "The White Album." "I told her Paul had refused to sign and she said, 'That's a pity; you are the sort of person who has made him what he is today.'" lstandora@nydailynews.com But then on Monday (Today), this was the news:[/b][/color] McCartney-Mills divorce hearing ends with no deal www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/02/18/2008-02-18_mccartneymills_divorce_hearing_ends_with.htmlTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS Monday, February 18th 2008, 9:37 AM LONDON - Paul McCartney and Heather Mills' weeklong divorce hearing ended Monday without a deal, and a judge will now impose a settlement on the warring couple. As legal teams left court, McCartney's lawyer Nicholas Mostyn told reporters that judge Hugh Bennett had reserved his ruling. The judge will now spend several weeks working out a settlement. Mills and McCartney separated in 2006 after four years of marriage. They went to court to decide on Mills' share of the former Beatle's fortune, which is estimated at as much as $1.6 billion. Mills, 40, smiled as she left London's Royal Courts of Justice with her entourage. McCartney, 65, did not attend, although he was in court to face his estranged wife every day last week. Media reports have suggested McCartney offered his wife around S$50 million and that she was seeking at least double that amount. Few details have emerged from Court 34 since the hearing began Feb. 11. Unlike most British court cases, divorce proceedings are heard in private, and the courtroom is closed to journalists and the public. The terms of a settlement will not become public unless it is challenged in the Court of Appeal, or one of the parties chooses to reveal details. Mills is a former model whose left leg was amputated below the knee after a motorcycle accident in 1993. She became active in campaigning against land mines and in favor of animal welfare. The couple married in June 2002 — four years after the death of McCartney's first wife, Linda — and their daughter Beatrice was born in October the following year. They announced their separation in 2006, and McCartney filed for divorce alleging "unreasonable behavior" by his wife. I read the news today; Oh boy!
|
|
|
Post by CoconutFudge on Feb 18, 2008 17:09:43 GMT -5
Hmm, which to believe, which to believe?!
But if "As part of the deal, Mills agreed to never speak publicly or write in detail about the breakdown of the marriage, according to the Daily Mail." is true, that's rather peculiar.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Feb 18, 2008 20:34:22 GMT -5
Peg Leg Heather also wants Bill to pay a fee for keeping her mouth shut about him being Paul Mc Cartney's replacement.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 18, 2008 20:48:54 GMT -5
As you are no doubt all aware, I don't mind Faul too much, other than him seeming a little too smug at times and I don't want him to pay Mills a penny because she seems like too much of a money grabber...
But I just hope that she knows so much - exactly what we all want to hear - that Faul doesn't have enough money for her to keep her gob shut!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Feb 19, 2008 13:32:48 GMT -5
The terms of a settlement will not become public unless it is challenged in the Court of Appeal, or one of the parties chooses to reveal details.
The public may yet finally hear the truth...
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 9, 2008 10:40:37 GMT -5
Heather Mills’ dad says she’s greedyThe headline says it all really, it's this anonymous comment below the article that was strange... Mccartney has to answer and worry about alot more than giving Heather money. He will have to answer to the fact that Paul and Michael Jackson have hidden John Lennons long lost daughters inheritance. Yoko told Jackson years ago to be publisher on this and to personally hide her fortune from the daughter. If Yoko had gotten the rights back in her name she would have to reveal to courts of the hidden daughter. It just so happens that copyright ownersher was up in UK in 2005. Take 2 or more years for grace period. Now the unveiling must happen. Heather knows this and will slam Mccartney to the wall. He will look like a fraud who never gave johns daughter her money. She doesn’t want to settle and wants Open Court so the whole thing comes and and also she has tapes of phones conversations of Mccartney, Yoko and Jackson talking about this daughter. The world will see scandal in the highest.
Heather is no angel I agree but Mccartney is no angel either. God gives people talent not to hurt others or take their money. Is this the way famous people repay God by disrespecting him? If it wasn’t for God that Paul would never have what he has. Also, I saw 20 20 with The lost son of JFK. He might really be the son. But see how easy these famous people get away with this shit. They pull their pants down and impregnate women and later say it isn’t theirs. John Lennon owned up to this daughter and fought to see her. At least he wanted to know his daughter. See all the Beatle things going on right now. Well Jackson has to give up rights to Beatle catalogue because it must go to the heirrs including that beautiful daughter. Amen!
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Mar 9, 2008 11:02:38 GMT -5
thats a new one.. is there anything anywhere that could back this up?
very interesting
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 9, 2008 11:35:19 GMT -5
I'd say this was pretty well hidden, if it's true. However, Heather sure does act like she has "something" that could really shock everyone.. many here assume it's about PWR, but.. this is also pretty up there on the scale.. I would imagine the daughter, if she does exist, would have mixed feelings about this coming out. I wonder: invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=connection&action=display&thread=1160468677&page=4#1161444794It's not real clear, but the baby in the black clothing on the bottom of the first pic I posted looks perhaps too small to be Sean?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 9, 2008 12:36:17 GMT -5
Heather Mills’ dad says she’s greedyThe headline says it all really, it's this anonymous comment below the article that was strange... Mccartney has to answer and worry about alot more than giving Heather money. He will have to answer to the fact that Paul and Michael Jackson have hidden John Lennons long lost daughters inheritance. Yoko told Jackson years ago to be publisher on this and to personally hide her fortune from the daughter. If Yoko had gotten the rights back in her name she would have to reveal to courts of the hidden daughter. It just so happens that copyright ownersher was up in UK in 2005. Take 2 or more years for grace period. Now the unveiling must happen. Heather knows this and will slam Mccartney to the wall. He will look like a fraud who never gave johns daughter her money. She doesn’t want to settle and wants Open Court so the whole thing comes and and also she has tapes of phones conversations of Mccartney, Yoko and Jackson talking about this daughter. The world will see scandal in the highest.
Heather is no angel I agree but Mccartney is no angel either. God gives people talent not to hurt others or take their money. Is this the way famous people repay God by disrespecting him? If it wasn’t for God that Paul would never have what he has. Also, I saw 20 20 with The lost son of JFK. He might really be the son. But see how easy these famous people get away with this shit. They pull their pants down and impregnate women and later say it isn’t theirs. John Lennon owned up to this daughter and fought to see her. At least he wanted to know his daughter. See all the Beatle things going on right now. Well Jackson has to give up rights to Beatle catalogue because it must go to the heirrs including that beautiful daughter. Amen!
An interesting association in my mind. Of all the individuals that are revered by millions -- excluding totalitarian dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao who used state machinery to manufacture personality cults -- of all remaining individuals, I've always felt that JFK and "Paul McCartney" were the most overrated.
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 9, 2008 12:46:27 GMT -5
You probably weren't around for JFK then.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 9, 2008 14:55:20 GMT -5
You probably weren't around for JFK then. I wasn't around for Ulysses Grant either. But I'm confident that he was very overrated as a president in his lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Mar 9, 2008 20:41:07 GMT -5
I didn't know about Lennon's daughter...was this a daughter in his Pre Yoko days?
Just thinking that if there was another Lennon heir younger than Sean, it would have been most likely revealed....
However, pre-Beatles...could be, look at the alleged children of JPM before Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 17, 2008 18:10:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Mar 17, 2008 19:19:50 GMT -5
That should keep her yap shut...
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 17, 2008 19:54:44 GMT -5
She got (second) worst person in the world honors from Keith Olbermann tonight, for throwing a glass of water into Fiona Shackleton's face. (Sir Paul's lawyer) A bit impulsive, ya think?
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Mar 17, 2008 20:03:38 GMT -5
c'mon people. These are human beings. Chill on Heather. It's over. All of this is CHUMP change, chump chump, chump change. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeze. He got off. She got off. I don't care. He actually got a-way settlement. Not, enough, in my book, and I know the book.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Mar 17, 2008 20:12:44 GMT -5
What, you don't reckon HMM got enough?
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Mar 17, 2008 20:15:42 GMT -5
no, I don't.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Mar 17, 2008 20:17:43 GMT -5
Bear in mind hes only worth £400m rather than the speculated 800... Then again, she still wouldn't even have got half of it if she'd got the amount she was after.. man thats crazy money
Did anyone read her 'b class' remark?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 17, 2008 20:21:00 GMT -5
Well, I said it was impulsive, I didn't say it wasn't justified, 'cause I have no idea. Perhaps Fiona took a dig, knowing how easy it is to push Heather's buttons..
I'll add that IMO SP is not "damaged" by this judgment in any meaningful way, whether his fortune is 400 or 800 million pounds. I'm not sure what you are saying Iameye, that the amount should be punitive in some way, or that the amount is just lacking in fairness? I don't know, but let's say Linda was still alive, and they just now got divorced.. If she got anything less than half, it would be clearly unfair, as Linda would have been there for the duration of most of his accumulation of wealth, but this situation..
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Mar 17, 2008 20:56:51 GMT -5
situation is no different............if they were in Ca, 50/50
you need to understand this net worth is not stagnant. This settlement is close to a pittance, in that world. Don't look at the figures from a layman's view. How much do you think it cost to run their (former) household per year?
2 mil for little bea.......you are kidding me.
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 17, 2008 21:34:18 GMT -5
She got (second) worst person in the world honors from Keith Olbermann tonight, for throwing a glass of water into Fiona Shackleton's face. (Sir Paul's lawyer) A bit impulsive, ya think? She may have been wanting to see if she'd melt.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 17, 2008 22:13:58 GMT -5
situation is no different............if they were in Ca, 50/50 California IS a 50/50 community property state, but what that means is that when the marriage is dissolved, there is a 50/50 split OF THE PORTION OF THE MARITAL ESTATE THAT INCREASED OVER THE DURATION OF THE MARRIAGE. There's a big difference between that and a 50/50 split of the entire estate.
|
|