Tasha K Wins $360M Lawsuit Against Bishop Lamor Whitehead

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – APRIL 30: Bishop Lamor Whitehead attends the Celebration of Life Event for DJ Mister Cee at Brooklyn Paramount on April 30, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Johnny Nunez/WireImage)

Tasha K, the well-known gossip podcaster, secured a significant victory in a $360 million lawsuit filed by Bishop Lamor Whitehead. Whitehead, also known as “Pastor Bling Bling,” accused Tasha K of defamation and invasion of privacy, claiming she lied about his financial situation.

Court Ruling in Favor of Tasha K

The lawsuit stemmed from comments Tasha K made on her podcast, Unwine With Tasha K, where she humorously suggested that Whitehead purchased a $2 million mansion with only “$10 to his name.” The judge ruled that Tasha’s statements were not defamatory and were likely true. This decision marked a rare win for Tasha K, who has faced numerous lawsuits in her career.

Whitehead, recently sentenced to nine years in prison for extortion and wire fraud, had a history of questionable actions. He was convicted of scamming a parishioner’s mother out of $90,000 in life savings and failing to fulfill his promise to renovate her home. Instead, Whitehead used the money for personal luxuries, including designer clothes and a BMW.

The ruling is a significant triumph for Tasha K, who is no stranger to litigation. She has faced several lawsuits, including a high-profile case with Cardi B, where she was ordered to pay a substantial sum. Despite her legal troubles, this victory against Whitehead stands out as a major success.

Whitehead’s legal troubles have overshadowed his previous reputation as a trusted community leader. U.S. attorney Jessica Greenwood remarked, “The defendant was trusted by many in his community. He promised to use the money to buy a fixer-upper home and failed to do so.” Whitehead’s actions ultimately led to his downfall and subsequent prison sentence.

In the wake of this ruling, Tasha K’s career sees a momentary respite from her legal woes. The court’s decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between defamation and protected speech, particularly in the realm of public commentary.