SARAH KELLEN
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Co defendants |
49
Very Strong
|
45 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Employee |
22
Very Strong
|
31 | |
|
person
Bruce Reinhart
|
Client |
20
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Business associate |
19
Very Strong
|
25 | |
|
person
Bruce E. Reinhart
|
Client |
16
Very Strong
|
16 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Employment |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Superior subordinate |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Employee |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Employee |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Supervisory |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC.
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Shawn
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Rodgers
|
Acquaintance |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC.
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Financial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Brian Vickers
|
Spouse |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Espinosa
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Professional |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Sexual abuse of Plaintiff by JEFFREY EPSTEIN, aided by SARAH KELLEN, while Plaintiff was a minor. | Palm Beach mansion of JEFFR... | View |
| N/A | N/A | SARAH KELLEN arranging for Plaintiff to come to Epstein's mansion for 'massages'. | Palm Beach mansion of JEFFR... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Plaintiff being brought to and escorted within Epstein's mansion for 'massages'. | Palm Beach mansion of JEFFR... | View |
| N/A | N/A | SARAH KELLEN paying Plaintiff for 'sessions' with JEFFREY EPSTEIN. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | SARAH KELLEN arranging for gifts to be sent to Plaintiff. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | SARAH KELLEN taking nude photographs of Plaintiff at JEFFREY EPSTEIN's request and paying Plainti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | District Court's findings and application of sentencing guidelines, including a four-level leader... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conspiracy activities involving scheduling massages | The house | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage appointments attended by Carolyn | Palm Beach residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of video disks extracted by PBSO Computer Crime Unit showing Epstein, Sarah Kellen, Nadia ... | Epstein's Office (on video) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Visoski met Sarah Kellen. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Teresa Helm was sexually trafficked by Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Ghislaine Maxwell. She was recr... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage appointments attended by Carolyn. | Palm Beach residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | CL returned to house after call from Sarah Kellen, coerced into naked massage and sexual acts. | Epstein's House, El Brillo Way | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sarah Kellen takes over as Epstein's primary assistant. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial evidence presented regarding Sarah Kellen's employment and role. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Approximate timeframe discussed regarding Sarah Kellen's transition to becoming Epstein's primary... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of two pilots regarding Sarah Kellen's employment | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sarah Kellen started working for Epstein | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flights with Bill Clinton | Epstein's Plane | View |
| N/A | N/A | Massage appointments scheduled by Sarah Kellen where Maxwell was present. | Palm Beach residence | View |
| N/A | N/A | Flights on Epstein's private jet involving Maxwell and Sarah Kellen. | Epstein's private jet | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation analysis of Sarah Kellen's phone records | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sarah Kellen took over the scheduling of massages. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filing of Complaint for sexual assault and abuse. | Palm Beach County, Florida | View |
014.pdf
A legal motion filed on November 10, 2010, by Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting the court to quash service of process in the case of M.J. v. Epstein. The defense argues that leaving an unmarked envelope in the mailbox of Epstein's New York vacation home and claiming to leave papers with a non-existent person named 'Mark' violates Federal, New York, and Florida service laws. The document includes arguments citing specific statutes and an affidavit from Richard Barnett denying the presence of anyone named 'Mark' at the residence.
013.pdf
A court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dated November 8, 2010, in the case of M.J. vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas denied Jeffrey Epstein's motion to quash service of process without prejudice because the motion failed to comply with local rules requiring a certification of good faith effort to confer with opposing parties.
012-01.pdf
This document is a legal affidavit filed on November 3, 2010, in the case of M.J. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The affiant, Richard Barnett, states that he was present at Epstein's residence at 9 East 71st Street, NYC, for the entire day of October 8, 2010. He testifies that no individual named 'Mark' worked, resided, was present, or received a subpoena at that location on that date.
010.pdf
This document is a legal notice filed on November 2, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 9:10-cv-81111) by the plaintiff, identified as M.J. The filing strikes two previous certificates of service (DE 5 and DE 6) related to a summons and a subpoena for defendant Jeffrey Epstein due to incorrect filing. The document names Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen as defendants and lists contact information for attorneys representing both sides.
007.pdf
This document is a Motion to Quash Service of Process filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on October 29, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida. Epstein's lawyers argue that the plaintiff, 'M.J.', failed to properly serve Epstein with the lawsuit because the documents were merely left in an unmarked envelope in the mailbox of his New York residence (9 East 71st Street) rather than being delivered personally as required by law. The document details the specific dates of the attempted service and cites Florida, New York, and Federal laws to support the argument that the service was legally ineffective.
007-01.pdf
This document is an affidavit by Richard Barnett filed on October 29, 2010, in the case of M.J. v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in the Southern District of Florida. Barnett testifies that on October 13, 2010, he discovered an unmarked envelope containing legal documents (Summons, Complaint, Civil Rico Statement) in the mailbox of Epstein's home at 9 East 71st Street, NYC. He asserts that service was never personally delivered to anyone at the residence.
001-04.pdf
This document is a 'Summons in a Civil Action' filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2010. The case (No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD) involves plaintiff 'M.J.' suing defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The summons is addressed to Sarah Kellen at an apartment in Palm Beach, FL, instructing her to respond to the complaint within 21 days via plaintiff's attorney Bradley J. Edwards.
001-03.pdf
This document is a Summons in a Civil Action filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2010. The plaintiff, identified as M.J., is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The document commands Epstein to respond within 21 days and lists Bradley J. Edwards as the plaintiff's attorney. The second page is an unfilled Proof of Service form.
001-02.pdf
This document is a Civil Cover Sheet filed on September 17, 2010, in the Southern District of Florida for Case 9:10-cv-81111. The plaintiff, identified only as M.J., is suing Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen for 'Sexual exploitation of a minor' and demanding a jury trial. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards.
010.pdf
This is a motion filed by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys requesting a court order to allow him to attend mediation, deposition, and trial in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. The motion notes that a prior no-contact order involving Carolyn Andriano might technically preclude this, but states that Plaintiff's counsel and Ms. Andriano have no objection. The document includes a certificate of service listing numerous attorneys involved in related cases.
009.pdf
Legal filing from November 2009 in the case of Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein's attorneys argue for the preservation of evidence held by the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA), noting that the DOJ has seized boxes of documents from RRA, including 13 boxes related to Epstein. The document also disputes delays in the deposition of RRA's Chief Restructuring Officer, Herbert Stettin, citing upcoming trial deadlines.
008.pdf
This document contains a Motion for Protective Order filed by Igor Zinoview and Jeffrey Epstein to limit the scope of depositions in a civil case. Zinoview asserts via affidavit that he only began working for Epstein in November 2005, after the alleged events, and thus has no relevant knowledge. The filing also includes excerpts from the depositions of Epstein's pilots, Larry Visoski and Larry Eugene Morrison, where they are questioned about their personal beliefs regarding the sexual abuse allegations and whether they would trust Epstein with their own daughters. Flight logs and passenger manifests are referenced in the deposition indexes ('PLAINTIFF'S EX. 1 FLIGHT LOG BOOK' and 'JEGE, Inc., Passenger Manifest') but the actual log content is not present in these specific pages.
044.pdf
This document is a legal filing from May 2020 in the case of Teresa Helm v. The Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. It contains a letter from the Plaintiff's counsel arguing that the Estate Executors are obstructing discovery by limiting it to a narrow time window in 2002 and refusing to answer questions fully. The attached Exhibit A contains the Defendants' supplemental responses to interrogatories, in which they identify specific staff members (including Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and Lesley Groff) who worked at Epstein's New York home during late 2002, list various email accounts and phone numbers associated with Epstein, and identify Shoppers Travel, Inc. as his travel agency. No specific flight logs or aircraft manifests are included in the document.
001.pdf
This document is a legal complaint filed by Teresa Helm against the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, alleging sexual abuse and trafficking by Epstein and his co-conspirators. The complaint details Epstein's extensive sex trafficking network, previous legal proceedings, and his personal statements regarding his actions, seeking damages for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
081.pdf
Legal filing from July 2, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Plaintiff's counsel Isidro Garcia responds to a court order, apologizing for delays in filing a scheduling report, partly attributing the delay to difficulty serving Sarah Kellen who was 'believed to have been avoiding service.' The document announces that a settlement has been reached resolving all claims in this federal case and a companion state court case.
080.pdf
This document is a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on June 30, 2010, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen in the Southern District of Florida. The parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, with each party bearing their own legal costs. The document notes that a settlement was reached, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
080-01.pdf
This document is a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, dated June 2010 (entered on docket June 30, 2010). Judge Kenneth A. Marra dismissed the case brought by Plaintiff Jane Doe II against Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen following a settlement stipulation by the parties. The court retained jurisdiction specifically to enforce the terms of said settlement.
073.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on November 28, 2009, by Plaintiff Carolyn M. Andriano (Jane Doe No. 2) in her civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. The filing opposes a motion by third-party witness Igor Zinoview—Epstein's driver, bodyguard, and trainer since November 2005—who sought to avoid being deposed by claiming he had no knowledge of relevant facts. The Plaintiff argues that Zinoview must be deposed because he worked for Epstein during the active Palm Beach Police investigation (2005-2006) and likely possesses knowledge regarding activities at the Epstein residence, especially since Epstein himself invoked the Fifth Amendment.
071.pdf
A 2009 legal motion filed in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein requesting permission to attend mediation in a case involving Carolyn Andriano (C.M.A.). The motion notes that a prior 'no contact order' exists regarding Andriano, but states that neither she nor her counsel object to Epstein's presence at depositions, mediation, or trial. The document includes a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in multiple related cases against Epstein.
069.pdf
This document is a legal motion filed on November 9, 2009, by Igor Zinoviev, a third-party witness and employee of Jeffrey Epstein, seeking a protective order to prevent or limit his deposition in the civil case 'Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein'. Zinoviev claims he has no relevant information for the civil cases as his employment with Epstein began in November 2005, after the period of the alleged misconduct, and he has not discussed Epstein's criminal or civil cases with him.
056-01.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of Florida dated August 2009 in the case of Jane Doe II vs. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Judge Kenneth A. Marra grants Sarah Kellen's request to adopt co-defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Dismiss and Reply as her own arguments in the case.
050.pdf
This document is a Notice of Compliance filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team (Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman) on July 28, 2009, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It addresses a court order regarding the preservation of evidence and a protective order, noting that while the parties agreed on many sections, they could not finalize a joint order, leading Epstein to submit his own proposed order separately. The document lists numerous related civil cases involving Jane Doe plaintiffs and provides a comprehensive service list of attorneys involved in the various Epstein-related litigations at that time, including Bruce Reinhart representing Sarah Kellen.
048.pdf
This is a legal reply filed by Sarah Kellen's attorney in July 2009, requesting the court set aside a default judgment in the case brought by Jane Doe II. The document argues that service of process in New York was legally deficient because the 'nail and mail' method was used without proper due diligence (attempts were made when Kellen was known to be out of town) and that the default was entered prematurely before the response deadline. Kellen also asserts a meritorious defense, stating she did not conspire with Jeffrey Epstein to commit sexual battery and was unaware of what occurred privately between Epstein and the Plaintiff.
047.pdf
This document is a Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law filed on July 14, 2009, in the case of Jane Doe II v. Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The Plaintiff opposes Sarah Kellen's motion to set aside a default judgment, arguing that Kellen was properly served via 'nail and mail' in New York on April 23, 2009, after six attempts, and deliberately ignored the lawsuit. The filing asserts Kellen has provided no evidence she didn't receive service and has failed to present a meritorious defense as required by law.
042.pdf
This document is a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default filed by attorney Bruce E. Reinhart on behalf of defendant Sarah Kellen in the case Jane Doe No. 2 v. Sarah Kellen. Kellen argues that the default judgment entered on June 17, 2009, is invalid because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the summons under New York law (specifically regarding timing of filing the affidavit of service) and because the time for a responsive pleading had not yet expired when the default was entered.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Paid | SARAH KELLEN | plaintiff | $0.00 | Paid Plaintiff for 'sessions' with JEFFREY EPSTEIN | View |
| N/A | Paid | SARAH KELLEN | plaintiff | $0.00 | Paid Plaintiff for posing for photographs | View |
| N/A | Paid | SARAH KELLEN | plaintiff | $15,000.00 | Demanded judgment for damages in excess of fift... | View |
Phone call
Outgoing call, 12:46 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 11:29 AM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 1:46 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 1:48 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 1:47 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 7:22 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 12:10 AM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 2:01 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 10:29 AM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 11:45 AM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 1:54 PM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 9:45 PM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 9:57 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 9:59 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 9:59 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 10:00 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 10:03 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 10:05 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 10:20 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 10:44 AM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 1:10 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 4:10 PM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 4:10 PM.
Phone call
Incoming call, 4:15 PM.
Phone call
Outgoing call, 5:17 PM.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity