Teresa Helm

Snapshot

---

Key Takeaways

• Helm’s named complaint describes a deceptive employment approach that led to an alleged assault by Jeffrey Epstein.
• Her civil action targeted Epstein’s estate through its executors. Ghislaine Maxwell was discussed in the complaint but was not a defendant.
• The compensation resolution ended the civil claims without a trial verdict establishing their merits.
• Her Maxwell sentencing contribution was written; the hearing transcript records that she could not attend.
• Her public work includes sustained advocacy and practical work with other survivors.

---

Public identity and survivor advocacy

NCOSE’s biography identifies Teresa J. Helm as a survivor advocate whose public work connects her own account of Epstein’s abuse with support for people pursuing civil accountability and policy change. NCOSE identifies her as its Survivor Services Coordinator. The organization describes her work as supporting survivors considering lawsuits against people or businesses alleged to have facilitated exploitation and helping survivors participate in policy advocacy.

NCOSE’s November 2023 account uses the title Public Policy Outreach Manager for Helm. Its account of the 2023 Hope on the Hill events documents her participation in a congressional briefing about online sexual exploitation and the removal of abusive imagery. That work extends beyond the Epstein case. It is an organizational account of her professional activity, rather than independent evidence about the underlying abuse allegations.

---

The account of recruitment and assault in 2002

Helm’s November 2019 complaint says she was studying massage therapy in California at 22 when another student described a traveling masseuse job with a wealthy couple. It alleges that Sarah Kellen interviewed her, promoted the position and arranged a further interview in New York. Helm said she then gave Maxwell a professional massage and was directed to meet Epstein. At his Manhattan residence, she alleged nonconsensual sexual touching during a foot massage and further sexual assault as she tried to leave.

The complaint describes the employment offer, travel arrangements, impressive homes and displays of powerful acquaintances as the setting in which Helm initially trusted the opportunity and later feared repercussions. It says she did not respond to a subsequent hiring email, did not obtain the certification she originally intended to pursue and left California. These are her pleaded allegations, not findings from a completed trial.

Lisa Rubin’s May 20, 2026 reporting for MS NOW includes Kellen’s response: her lawyers said that Kellen had never met Helm. Kellen and her lawyers also said that her involvement in Epstein’s activities occurred while he was sexually and psychologically abusing and controlling her. Those are Kellen’s and her lawyers’ accounts. The disagreement over meeting Helm was not adjudicated in Helm’s civil action.

---

Civil proceedings and compensation

Helm filed her federal complaint on November 12, 2019. She sued Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of Epstein’s estate, asserting battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Naming the executors in that capacity did not amount to accusing them of personally committing the assault described in her complaint.

The estate’s defense disputed whether the lawsuit could proceed after the relevant limitation periods and challenged the demand for punitive damages. In their March 2020 filing, Helm’s lawyers argued that New York law allowed the case after the termination of Epstein’s criminal prosecution and that equitable tolling and estoppel also preserved her claims. These were competing legal positions.

A May 2020 discovery filing shows that Helm also sought records beyond documents containing her own name. Her lawyers argued that communications and records about the wider alleged recruitment system were relevant to her case. The letter includes the estate’s correspondence asserting that it was complying with preservation duties. The correspondence records the parties’ positions rather than a judicial finding about discovery misconduct.

The estate’s May 13 response disputed that portrayal, described ongoing document review, and raised relevance and burden objections. At the May 22 conference covering four estate cases, Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman said plaintiffs’ counsel had not fully conferred in good faith. She declined a blanket ruling and directed focused, request-by-request discussions before any renewed dispute. Those procedural directions did not decide the truth of Helm’s assault allegations.

The June 15, 2020 stay order paused discovery and resolution of pending motions for 60 days while Helm participated in the compensation program.

The October 15, 2020 joint stipulation states that Helm had accepted an offer from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program. The parties dismissed the action with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal fees and costs. The stipulation identifies no compensation amount and contains no adjudication of the alleged assault. A compensation resolution and a judicial verdict are different kinds of record.

---

Her written statement at Maxwell sentencing

Helm’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, submitted a statement dated June 22, 2022. Prosecutors filed it on June 24 as part of ECF 674 in United States v. Maxwell. Helm described Maxwell gaining her trust, giving her a false sense of safety and directing her toward Epstein. She also described enduring harm to her sense of worth and freedom. The statement provides Helm’s own account of the consequences she attributed to the abuse.

Judge Alison Nathan’s June 24 order records Maxwell’s objection to treating Helm as a crime victim under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The court did not decide that question; it accepted her written submission under its broader sentencing discretion.

Judge Alison Nathan’s June 27 order permitted Helm and other applicants to make shortened oral statements as a matter of the court’s discretion. Permission is not proof of attendance. The June 28 sentencing transcript, page 69, records that the judge acknowledged Helm’s written submission and said she understood Helm could not be present. Her contribution to this sentencing record was written, rather than an oral appearance.

---

Public work after the court cases

NCOSE’s October 2025 account described Helm’s advocacy for disclosure and accountability and her objection to Maxwell’s voice receiving official attention before survivors were heard. The organization emphasized that her public statements also encouraged other survivors to speak about their own experiences. These statements document advocacy positions and their reported impact, rather than findings that every person discussed in the files committed a crime.

A February 24, 2026 announcement from Representative Eric Swalwell’s office stated that Helm was his invited guest for the State of the Union. The office’s release identified her NCOSE role and included her statement about dignity and justice. The announcement verifies the invitation; it is not a substitute for an independent attendance record.

Rise Survivor Rise’s leadership page lists Helm as a board member in its Advisory Board section. The organization describes its mission as supporting survivors through advocacy, recovery and economic independence.

---

Public interviews and advocacy

A July 18, 2025 Democracy Now! interview records Helm discussing recruitment and accountability.

CNN’s February 15, 2026 interview transcript records Helm appearing with Jess Michaels and Liz Stein after the congressional hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi. Helm criticized Bondi’s treatment of survivors and called for further investigation and accountability. Her remarks express her own assessment and advocacy; the interview is not a court finding or testimony under oath.

---

Evidence Appearances

---

What the record does and does not show

The civil complaint, compensation stipulation and written sentencing statement establish a substantial named public record. They do not establish that every allegation was litigated to a verdict, reveal the compensation amount or calculation or identify every other person involved. The 2020 dismissal resolved the civil action; it did not erase Helm’s publicly expressed account or end her advocacy.

Helm’s complaint, paragraph 36, places her age at 22 during the alleged 2002 encounter. Her claim concerned abuse as an adult.

---

Related pages

• Helm v. Indyke
• Ghislaine Maxwell
• Jeffrey Epstein
• Epstein litigation index

---

Sources

1. Helm v. Indyke complaint. Filed complaint. 2019-11-12. ECF 1, especially paragraphs 36 through 56. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02819086, complaint paragraphs 36 to 56 at pages 9 to 12.
2. Estate defendants request dismissal. Defense pre-motion letter. 2020-01-24. ECF 12, pages 1 through 4. Readable court-record mirror. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02819136, pages 1 to 4.
3. Helm requests argument on timeliness. Plaintiff filing. 2020-03-20. ECF 30. Readable court-record mirror. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02819220, page 1.
4. Joint stipulation dismissing Helm case. Filed joint stipulation. 2020-10-15. ECF 63, pages 1 and 2. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02819477, pages 1 to 2.
5. Teresa Helm written victim impact statement. Filed victim statement. 2022-06-24. ECF 674, pages 12 and 13; statement dated June 22. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02838501, pages 12 to 13; Bates EFTA02838512 to EFTA02838513.
6. Order permitting survivor statements at Maxwell sentencing. Court order. 2022-06-27. ECF 686, pages 1 and 2; DOJ OGR 00010751 and 00010752. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02838589, pages 1 to 2.
7. Maxwell sentencing transcript. Court transcript of the June 28, 2022 hearing, filed July 22, 2022. ECF 737, page 69, lines 11 through 14. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02839358, page 69; Bates EFTA02839426.
8. Teresa J. Helm professional biography. NCOSE official biography. Survivor Services Coordinator.
9. Hope on the Hill congressional advocacy. NCOSE official event account. 2023-11-02. Names Helm Public Policy Outreach Manager and Survivor Services Coordinator and documents briefing participation.
10. Survivor services and transparency advocacy. NCOSE official article. 2025-10-08. Account of the September press conference and survivor advocacy.
11. Congressional invitation for Teresa Helm. Official office press release reproduced by LegiStorm. 2026-02-24. Invitation to State of the Union; does not independently verify actual attendance.
12. Lisa Rubin’s reporting on Sarah Kellen and her response to Helm. MS NOW, May 20, 2026. Direct interviews with Kellen and her lawyers; includes the specific denial of having met Helm.
13. Rise Survivor Rise leadership. Organization website. Advisory Board section.
14. Helm discovery letter and exhibits. Plaintiff discovery filing. 2020-05-07. ECF 37 main letter pages 1 through 5 and exhibits; party assertions, not judicial findings. Released EFTA copy, EFTA02819265, main letter pages 1 to 5 and exhibits.
15. CNN State of the Union transcript. February 15, 2026, survivor interview beginning at 09:51:58; Helm’s remarks at 09:55 and before 10:00.
16. Democracy Now! interview. July 18, 2025.
17. Order on written sentencing statements. June 24, 2022. United States v. Maxwell, ECF 682, especially page 2; DOJ OGR-00010744 through 00010747.
18. Estate response to Helm’s discovery letter. May 13, 2020. Helm v. Indyke, ECF 43, pages 1 through 4.
19. May 22 discovery conference transcript. Filed June 3, 2020. Helm v. Indyke, ECF 48, pages 21 through 23; conference covering four estate cases.
20. Compensation-program stay order. June 15, 2020. Helm v. Indyke, ECF 52, pages 1 and 2; order signed by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman.