Kanye West assigns Bianca Censori his power of attorney in 2024 lawsuit amid marriage troubles
Rapper Kanye West, aka Ye, has assigned his wife, Bianca Censori, his power of attorney (POA), amid rumours of their split. An In Touch report claims that this was revealed when Ye was asked to provide documents for an ongoing 2024 lawsuit against him. (Also Read: Did Kanye West really sue Kim Kardashian for neglecting their kids, going to Met Gala? Here's the truth)
A POA gives someone the power to execute business transactions and manage their personal affairs. According to court documents obtained by the publication, Ye dropped the bombshell about Bianca during the 2024 lawsuit against him and his company for discrimination and wrongful termination.
For weeks, Benjamin Deshon Provo, who filed the lawsuit against Kanye, has claimed that he is struggling to obtain documents. During the back-and-forth, Ye revealed that Bianca is his POA and serves as his agent. The rapper also stated that he would turn over a document titled Designation of Agency, but wouldn't do it without a protective order in place. However, the complainant reportedly 'scoffed' at the idea that a protective order was necessary for it.
Kanye's lawyer, Eduardo Martorell, noted that the document was: 'Confidential in nature and shall not be used, disclosed, or disseminated for any purpose outside of this proceeding, except as expressly permitted by law or further order of the Court. Responding Party reserves all rights to seek further protective measures if necessary to prevent misuse or improper disclosure,' according to the publication.
Benjamin, however, claims that despite four requests to provide that Bianca was Kanye's POA, the rapper failed to provide any documentation supporting it. He also asked that the rapper sanction of $2,610 for failing to turn over documents and be ordered to produce them immediately.
Benjamin claims in his lawsuit that he was hired to work as security at Donda Academy in Los Angeles and later given duties at Sunday Service and another one of Ye's businesses. Over time, he claims to have noticed black employees being treated differently from white ones. '(Benjamin) and other Black employees, in relation to his non-Black counterparts,' claims his lawsuit.
Ye and other employees also allegedly pressured Benjamin to cut off his dreadlocks he wears due to his Muslim faith. He claims to have been terminated for refusing to comply with that demand. Kanye was ordered to be deposed in the case after months of delay. The publication notes that Bianca, too, will be 'grilled' under oath.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
35 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"Justice has been served," says BJP's Suvendu Adhikari after Sharmistha Panoli gets interim bail
Kolkata (West Bengal) [India], June 5 (ANI): After Calcutta High Court granted interim bail to law student Sharmistha Panoli, West Bengal Assembly Leader of Opposition and BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari on Thursday said, 'justice has been served today'. In a post on X, Suvendu Adhikari said, 'Justice has been served today - Sharmistha Panoli, a law student, aged about 22 years, has been released on interim bail by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.' He called her arrest 'police atrocities' and said she was wrongly arrested for exercising her right to free speech. He accused Kolkata Police of acting to please political leaders. 'This is a case of police atrocities as an innocent young lady, for using her freedom of speech and expression, has been illegally arrested by the Kolkata Police and was sent to judicial custody. This is yet another example of police overzealousness and eagerness to please their political masters,' the post reads. The court directed her to cooperate with the investigation, not leave the country, and furnished bail on a personal bond of Rs 10,000. The court also ordered appropriate police protection for her. Meanwhile, BJP MLA Agnimitra Paul and West Bengal BJP Legal Cell member Sanjukta Samanta filed an FIR against Wazahat Khan, who filed an FIR against Sharmistha Panoli, at two Police Stations, Ballygunje Police Station, Kolkata and Howrah Police Station. Paul said there should be equal rights and rules for every community. Speaking to ANI, Agnimitra Paul said, 'Yes, I have filed a police complaint against Wazahat Khan, who filed a police complaint against Sharmistha Panoli. I believe that Dr BR Ambedkar Ji's constitution is applicable in West Bengal, and there should be equal rights and rules for every Khan, who complained against Sharmistha Panoli, had posted an abusive post against our goddess Maa Kamakhya and Lord Krishna. If a Muslim is insulting my god and goddess, the same action needs to be taken for Wazahat Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma has sent his police force to arrest Wazahat Khan, Mamata Banerjee's police, because of her Muslim appeasement, have been hiding and shielding Wazahat Khan...' The 22-year-old law student from Pune, Sharmistha Panoli, was arrested by Kolkata Police in Gurugram on May 30, for allegedly hurting religious sentiments with a video on Operation Sindoor. The Instagram clip was reportedly derogatory towards a particular religion. However, Panoli had deleted the video and issued an apology on May 15. (ANI)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Arun Govil questions modern-day Ramayan adaptations: 'None of the stars today fit to play Lord Ram'
Veteran actor , who immortalised the role of Lord Ram in Ramanand Sagar's classic Ramayan, has weighed in on the current wave of mythological remakes, and he isn't holding back. Speaking to NDTV, the revered actor expressed skepticism about modern interpretations and questioned whether today's stars truly embody the spiritual weight of the character. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'Three-four people have tried recreating it, but they weren't successful,' Govil said. 'I don't think in our lifetime someone should attempt to remake Ramayan.' Govil believes authenticity, not star power, should lead casting choices Though he didn't mention any names, Govil's remarks seem to reflect public sentiment around recent adaptations like Adipurush (2023), which cast Prabhas as Ram but faced intense criticism over its dialogues, visual treatment, and perceived lack of reverence. Despite high expectations and a massive release, the film failed to leave a lasting impact. In a pointed remark on casting, Govil added, 'When it comes to playing Ram, none of the stars we have today fit the part in my opinion. Maybe someone from outside the industry might be more suitable.' Arun Govil's old video resurfaces: Muslim family greets 'Shri Ram' at airport Govil's portrayal of Lord Ram between 1987 and 1988 became a spiritual event in itself, with millions tuning in every Sunday morning on Doordarshan. His performance, soft-spoken demeanor, and commanding presence set a benchmark that many argue remains unmatched even today. The timing of his remarks is noteworthy, coinciding with the second phase of the Pran Pratishtha ceremony at the in Ayodhya, a monumental spiritual event that reinforces the cultural importance of Ramayan and its characters. Govil's comments also come just as gears up to portray Lord Ram in Nitesh Tiwari's ambitious film adaptation of Ramayan. Planned as a two-part saga, the project is expected to release on Diwali in 2026 and 2027.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Wrong identity of deceased lets murder accused walk free, police probe in question
Critical investigative lapses, including the failure to conduct DNA testing to confirm the identity of a body found on the tracks, led to a murder accused walking free, in Meerut, on Wednesday. Narendra Kumar Dubey, imprisoned for over two years on murder charges, was acquitted by a Meerut court on Wednesday, after the supposed victim, Mohammad Aitabh, was found alive. The alleged assault took place on a Delhi-Ayodhya train on December 15-16, 2022. One Alok Kumar had reported a violent altercation in the train's General Coach D-2 via a railway helpline, claiming a passenger was beaten and thrown out near Tilhar Railway Station, Shahjahanpur. Based on a video provided by Kumar and witness statements from two passengers, Ajni and Dildar, police arrested Dubey, accusing him of throwing the victim from the moving train. The Shahjahanpur GRP station house officer, Rehan Khan, stated that a body had been recovered from the tracks in Tilhar area. The police showed photographs of the body to witnesses, who identified it as the same person thrown from the train. Photographs of the body were posted on social media for identification. On December 21, Mohammad Yakub from Tarsan Sumera village in Kudni police station area of Muzaffarpur, Bihar, arrived at Shahjahanpur district hospital mortuary. He claimed the body was that of his son, Mohammad Aitabh. After formal identification, Yakub performed the last rites as per Muslim customs in Shahjahanpur. However, no DNA testing or forensic analysis was conducted to verify the body's identity, a glaring oversight in the investigation. Six months later, Aitabh returned home from Gujarat, shocking his family and neighbours who had believed him dead. Locals recorded videos and informed the police. Shahjahanpur police brought Aitabh in for questioning. In his statement before the court, Aitabh revealed he was never on that train. He had gone to Delhi to learn embroidery and tailoring and later moved to Gujarat for work. He had no mobile phone and therefore lost contact with his family. Based on this testimony and witness statements, additional sessions judge, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, acquitted Narendra Kumar Dubey of the murder charge. The court further noted that the person who was thrown from the train was someone else altogether. If that unidentified individual's family wishes to pursue legal action against Narendra Dubey, the present judgment would not hinder such proceedings. Meanwhile, police officials explaining the process followed in cases of unidentified bodies being found, said that once parents or immediate family members identify a body, it takes away the need for ordering a DNA or any other forensic test. To buttress their claim, they also pointed out that the court, in its order, had passed no strictures against the force or the way the investigation was conducted in the case. However, the question still stands. Whose body was found on the tracks?
