Is there any wonder why Heather Mills is universally despised? Heather Mills threw water on Fiona Shackleton in court yesterday. Shackleton is Paul McCartney’s divorce attorney.

WATER. She threw water. In court. And she finds it hard to believe she’s hard to believe???

Still…it was Shackleton and of course Sir Paul who had the last laugh. Because the judge found Heather hard to believe too. Which is why he basically called her a fantasist in his official judgement. And also a loose cannon. And a liar. And yes… even a golddigger, though he was a little more subtle about the last two.

The judgment itself is super long. Too long to read while you’re at work. Later on though, when you have the time, click here for the full PDF and enjoy. Now we know why she wanted it withheld – not because, as she claimed, it compromises her daughter’s privacy, but because the contents are so damaging… even MORE damaging perhaps than her now legendary appearance on GMTV. Well no wonder she’s hired Gloria Allred.

Thanks to C for excerpting the most intriguing parts.

Is there any question Heather Mills was exploiting a widower and his bank account? Consider the detailed play-by-play below. In short, she tried to extract $1 million from him to pay for a series of imaginary loans…

On 2 November 2005 the wife e-mailed Mr Paul Winn, MPL’s finance director, in respect of the property at Thames Reach that “the amount outstanding on the mortgage is £480,000” and “please pay it in the following account and I will deal with the closure of it”. The account was a NatWest bank account in the name of the wife. On 5 November the wife e-mailed Mr Winn that “there are 4 loans with different companies on the property totalling £480,000 …”. Mr Winn pressed for full details on each loan. In February 2006 the wife again e-mailed Mr Winn about the loans and on 28 February instructed him to pay £450,000 into her account “so that I can settle this situation”. On 1 March Mr Winn told the wife in an e-mail that he would not pay any sum “without proof that the loans exist or some protection secured on the property at Thames Reach”.

140. In her Replies to Questionnaire dated 6 February 2007, in response to a question to annotate the wife’s bank accounts showing discharge of the 4 loans and indicating the recipient of each payment, it was said “the wife did not have any loans”.

141. The wife in her cross-examination accepted that Thames Reach was bought mortgage free and never had a mortgage on it. But she said that at the time of the e-mails referred to above she believed that there were loans secured on the property.

142. Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband.

143. In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means.

144. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband’s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife’s behaviour distinctly distasteful. In any event, as Mr Mostyn rightly submitted, it damages her overall credibility.

Then there’s the spending:
"£30,000 p.a. for equestrian activities (she no longer rides), £39,000 p.a. for wine (she does not drink alcohol)"

Finally… the judge’s assessment of her character:

I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy.

She has an explosive and volatile character. She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007.

Her evidence there that she had turned down huge amounts of work is quite inconsistent with her assertion that her earning capacity is zero.

Do you LOVE it or do you LOOOOVE it???

Click here for more (it’s a PDF) - enjoy!