Skip to main content
Search
    • Articles coming soon
< All Topics
Print

250 Australian Avenue

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views0

Snapshot

FieldDocumented information
BuildingOne Clearlake Centre
Address250 South Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida
Other documentary forms250 Australian Avenue South; 250 S. Australian Avenue
Building typeCommercial office building
Construction year1986, according to the federal ENERGY STAR property profile
Suite 1400Historical law office address; also used in the 2007 Florida Science Foundation corporate articles
Suite 1404Foundation operating address and Epstein work release location in 2008 records
Suite 1500Venue stated on the March 2010 Joseph Recarey and Sarah Kellen deposition transcripts
Epstein’s connectionLegal representation, corporate and administrative address use, and occupation of an office during work release
Building ownershipThe cited legal and foundation records do not establish that Epstein owned the building
Related articleFlorida Science Foundation Office, covering the work release operation and alleged abuse
Review dateOctober 8, 2026

One Clearlake Centre is the office building at 250 South Australian Avenue in West Palm Beach. The address appears repeatedly in Epstein records, but those appearances describe several different roles. It was a professional address for lawyers, a corporate address for foundation paperwork, an actual work release office and a venue where witnesses were deposed in civil litigation.

The December 5, 2008 federal notice to victims’ attorney Brad Edwards identifies Epstein’s reported work location as Suite 1404. By contrast, a September 2009 court filing lists lawyers at Suite 1400. The distinction is essential: the same street address can identify different premises, people and activities.

The Florida Science Foundation Office article addresses the custody arrangement, alleged abuse and subsequent investigations. This address record brings together the building’s legal, corporate and deposition appearances, with particular attention to what each document actually establishes.

Important Points

  • The building is in West Palm Beach. It is separate from Epstein’s former residence in Palm Beach.
  • “250 South Australian Avenue” and “250 Australian Avenue South” appear as variants for the same office building in the cited documents.
  • Suite numbers matter. The evidence distinguishes Suite 1400, Suite 1404 and Suite 1500.
  • A lawyer’s address in a service list identifies counsel and a professional contact address. It does not establish where the lawyer’s client lived or where every event in the lawsuit occurred.
  • The Florida Science Foundation name appears in documents concerning two legal arrangements: a Florida corporation and an operating name registered by C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc.
  • The 2008 work release notice provides a direct, contemporary link between Epstein’s permitted workplace and Suite 1404.
  • The March 2010 deposition covers identify Suite 1500 as the examination venue. They are not evidence that the alleged conduct discussed in testimony occurred in that suite.
  • Administrative inventory entries identify office lease files, but do not disclose the complete executed lease or its commercial terms.
  • Nothing in a shared address alone establishes wrongdoing by a lawyer, landlord, other tenant, court reporter or visitor.

Building Identity and the Address Variants

The federal ENERGY STAR profile identifies One Clearlake Centre as an office building constructed in 1986 at 250 S. Australian Avenue. It lists gross floor area of 236,443 square feet. This is a building level description, not the size of Epstein’s office.

Scott Richardson’s professional biography at the American College of Trial Lawyers associates his 1986 through 2006 partnership at Atterbury, Goldberger, Richardson & Weiss with Suite 1400, One Clearlake Centre, 250 Australian Avenue South. It supplies independent professional context for the law office address that later appears in case records. It does not establish that Epstein was a client throughout that employment period.

The direction can precede or follow the street name without changing the building identified in these records. The suite cannot be discarded in the same way. Omitting it can make an address search appear to show that separate lawyers, foundation personnel and deponents all occupied the same office.

The number is equally important. Federal correspondence discussing Epstein’s office carries the United States Attorney’s own address at 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400. That is a different building address. A document can contain both the prosecutor’s office and the subject workplace without placing them together.

Three Suites, Three Documentary Roles

SuiteDocumented roleKey evidenceWhat the address does not establish
1400Counsel’s professional address and a foundation corporate addressSeptember 2009 counsel list; November 2007 corporate articlesThat every named client or director worked there daily
1404Foundation operating and work release addressJuly 2008 registration; December 2008 federal notificationOwnership of the entire office building or a complete visitor history
1500Civil deposition venueMarch 19 and March 24, 2010 transcript coversLocation of the underlying alleged abuse discussed in testimony

These categories can overlap in a broader professional network without becoming interchangeable. A principal business address, a mailing address, a leased office and a deposition room answer different questions about a person’s connection to a property.

Suite 1400 and the Legal Representation Record

DOJ-OGR-00030292 is a particularly clear example of the address in litigation paperwork. It appears in an exhibit filed September 17, 2009, in the federal case numbered 9:08-cv-80119. The page reproduces a September 11 filing and lists counsel for several related civil cases.

The entry for Jack Alan Goldberger identifies Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., Suite 1400, and describes him as counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. A separate entry identifies Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A., at the same suite, as counsel for Sarah Kellen. The document distinguishes the represented clients even though the suite number is shared.

That is evidence of stated professional roles and an address used in court correspondence. It is not a retainer agreement explaining all terms of representation, a lease identifying occupancy rights, or a finding that the lawyers participated in their clients’ alleged conduct. Representation of a person accused of wrongdoing does not itself establish participation in that wrongdoing.

The page also illustrates why an address can recur many times in a released archive. Counsel lists are copied into filings, exhibits and subsequent productions. Multiple appearances can originate in repeated legal paperwork rather than multiple independent events at the building.

The Foundation’s Corporate Address

The Florida Science Foundation corporate articles, stamped filed November 1, 2007, identify 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, as the corporation’s principal place of business and mailing address. The individual page identifier is EFTA00224436, within the larger file beginning EFTA00224262.

This is a formal corporate address assertion. It does not, by itself, show that the foundation had a staffed, functioning office there at the time or that Epstein attended the premises daily. The distinction became the subject of a contemporary federal objection.

The July 3, 2008 email to Colonel Michael Gauger, stamped EFTA00213152, records prosecutor Marie Villafaña’s challenge to the proposed workplace. She said the given suite was Goldberger’s office, that FBI inquiries had not found the foundation listed in the building or suite, and that Epstein’s reported recent whereabouts did not fit his claim of daily work there. These were the prosecutor’s stated concerns, not a judgment resolving every aspect of the foundation’s activity.

The email matters to the address history because it separates paperwork from actual use. The presence of a company name and street address on incorporation documents was not treated by the prosecutor as conclusive proof of an established workplace.

Suite 1404 and the Foundation Operating Name

The July 2008 registration packet uses Suite 1404. Florida’s acknowledgment records registration of The Florida Science Foundation as a fictitious name on July 10, 2008. The application identifies The C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc. as owner of that name; Richard Kahn signed it as treasurer on July 8.

The page carrying the application is stamped EFTA00182214. The subsequent qualification papers identify C.O.U.Q. as a Delaware corporation formed in 1998. This is distinct from the Florida corporation whose articles were filed in 2007 and used Suite 1400.

The phrase “Florida Science Foundation” therefore does not always identify the same legal entity. A reference to the name in an email may describe the operation generally. The actual filing is needed to determine whether it concerns the Florida corporation, C.O.U.Q.’s operating name, or the workplace.

The C.O.U.Q. Foundation article addresses the organization’s wider history. For this address, the critical point is that the corporate paperwork preserves two suite numbers and two legal histories rather than a single, unchanging office identity.

The Contemporary Work Release Notice

The December 5, 2008 notice, EFTA00181285, says Epstein was reportedly working for the Florida Science Foundation at Suite 1404 after the sheriff’s office granted his work release application. It asked Edwards to inform his clients and said federal prosecutors had learned of the release more than six weeks after it began.

This establishes a contemporary government description of the permitted employment location. It also demonstrates why the building cannot be understood solely as an address on legal stationery. The record connects an actual custody arrangement to a particular office suite.

The detailed schedule, the deputies’ responsibilities, federal objections and later allegations are addressed in the work release office history. Those records should not be used to relabel the entire building as Epstein’s property or to treat all offices there as part of the foundation.

Lease Files and the Ownership Question

The inventory beginning EFTA00299850 separately lists Florida Science Foundation corporate records and C.O.U.Q. records associated with the Florida Science Foundation operating name. Its next page includes entries for a One Clearlake office lease and amendment, and a second amendment labeled with an April through July 2009 period.

These entries support the existence of files described as lease documents. They do not reveal every party, signature, rent amount, commencement date, renewal right or termination provision. A file label also cannot establish that a draft amendment was signed or that all stated terms took effect.

The strongest supported distinction is between office use and ownership of the building. The corporate, litigation and work release records establish several forms of address use. They do not supply a deed showing Epstein owned One Clearlake Centre. Nor is the building’s modern ownership profile a substitute for the historical lease and title records.

Suite 1500: Joseph Recarey’s Deposition

The transcript cover for Detective Joseph Recarey’s March 19, 2010 deposition gives the examination venue as 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1500. The excerpt was later filed as Document 291-28 in Doe v. United States on January 21, 2015. The later filing date is distinct from the date of the testimony.

The cover and appearances pages identify several civil proceedings and lawyers for the parties. Goldberger’s listed professional address remains Suite 1400 even though the stated deposition venue is Suite 1500. The same exhibit therefore supplies both address functions without requiring an assumption that they were the same room.

The surviving excerpt concerns the investigation, evidence and communications among law enforcement agencies. It records sworn testimony about earlier events, rather than an examination of conduct alleged to have occurred in Suite 1500 itself. Its reuse in federal litigation demonstrates how an address in an older transcript can reappear years later in a separate case.

Suite 1500: Sarah Kellen’s Deposition

The cover of Sarah Kellen’s March 24, 2010 videotaped deposition also identifies Suite 1500. The excerpt was filed in Giuffre v. Maxwell as Document 36-1 on February 26, 2016. The cover identifies the earlier Florida proceedings in which the testimony was taken.

The excerpt records Kellen invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to a series of questions, with Reinhart acting as her counsel. It also records Goldberger identifying himself as representing Epstein. The lawyers’ questions, their objections and the witness’s actual answers must remain distinct; an unanswered allegation embedded in a question is not affirmative testimony establishing it.

For the address history, the cover provides direct evidence of a dated legal examination at Suite 1500. It does not establish that Kellen lived there, that Epstein was personally present throughout the examination, or that the conduct discussed happened in that suite. The identity of a deposition venue is separate from the location of the events under examination.

Allegations About the Work Release Office

Katlyn Doe’s August 20, 2019 civil complaint alleges she traveled to Florida in June or early July 2009 expecting legitimate foundation work and was subjected to sexual acts with Epstein at his work release office. The claim concerns the foundation workplace, rather than the later deposition venue.

The pleading’s earlier paragraph about the plea hearing uses Suite 1400. That should be read alongside the contemporary December 2008 government notice using Suite 1404, rather than treated as proof that the suites were interchangeable. The complaint establishes what the claimant alleged; it is not an adjudicated finding about every party or an independently verified floor plan.

FDLE’s 2021 investigative summary said the alleged conduct was possible but that it had not developed a criminal predicate to continue that investigation. It noted uncertainty over exact incident dates and whether particular events occurred during county work release or later state supervision. The foundation office remained an employment location during the latter period, according to the report. That outcome did not determine that the survivor’s allegations were false.

Evidence Appearances

RecordDateAddress functionLimits
ENERGY STAR building profileCurrent profile, historical construction fieldIdentifies One Clearlake Centre and office building typeBuilding profile does not establish Epstein era tenancy
EFTA00224436 in file EFTA00224262Filed November 1, 2007Corporate principal and mailing address, Suite 1400Formal address assertion, not proof of daily activity
EFTA00213152 in file EFTA00213048July 3, 2008Prosecutor challenges the proposed Suite 1400 workplaceAttributed prosecutorial account
EFTA00182214 in file EFTA00181807Signed July 8; filed July 10, 2008C.O.U.Q. operating name application, Suite 1404Name registration does not determine all actual use
EFTA00181285December 5, 2008Government notice identifies Suite 1404 workplaceNotice is not a complete daily attendance record
EFTA00299850 and EFTA00299851Inventory undatedCorporate and One Clearlake lease file descriptionsIndex, not the complete executed lease
DOJ-OGR-00030292September 2009 filingsGoldberger and Reinhart counsel entries, Suite 1400Professional address does not prove client conduct
Doe v. United States, Document 291-28March 19, 2010 testimony; filed January 21, 2015Recarey deposition venue, Suite 1500Venue separate from subjects of testimony
Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 36-1March 24, 2010 testimony; filed February 26, 2016Kellen deposition venue, Suite 1500Questions and privilege assertions are not factual admissions

Interpreting the Address Record

The building’s significance comes from several types of evidence that intersect there. Corporate filings explain how an organization represented its location. A federal notice identifies a permitted workplace. Counsel lists document representation and professional addresses. Transcript covers identify where testimony was taken. A lease inventory points toward contractual records that require their own examination.

None of these records alone describes the entire building, every tenant or everyone who entered it. Their combined value lies in the specific dates, suite numbers and document functions. Keeping those distinctions intact makes the address a useful historical record without converting routine legal appearances into unsupported allegations.

Related Articles

Sources

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Tags:
Table of Contents