Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

The Florida Science Foundation Office: Epstein’s Work Release Operation and Alleged Abuse Site

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views8

Snapshot

FieldDocumented information
PlaceOne Clearlake Centre, 250 South Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida
Office used for work releaseSuite 1404, on the fourteenth floor
Related addressSuite 1400 appears in the Florida corporation’s filings and was also the office address of Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger
Entity distinctionThe Florida Science Foundation, Inc., incorporated in Florida in November 2007, and The Florida Science Foundation, a fictitious name registered for the older C.O.U.Q. Foundation in July 2008
Work release periodOctober 10, 2008 until Epstein’s release from county custody on July 22, 2009
Initial scheduleTwelve hours per day, six days per week
Later scheduleSixteen hours per day from May 9, 2009; seven days per week from June 14, 2009
Custodial authorityPalm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, with work release administered through its Alternative Custody Unit
Paid securityNinety one different deputies worked the office detail; Epstein’s attorney paid PBSO $128,136 on the foundation’s behalf
Abuse allegationsCivil litigation and later survivor accounts describe sexual abuse at the office; the allegations must be distinguished from the documented custody arrangements
Investigative findingFDLE’s 2021 preliminary inquiries did not substantiate criminal conduct by PBSO personnel or a basis to continue the specific abuse investigation
Last checkedOctober 7, 2026

Florida’s 2021 work release investigation identifies the Florida Science Foundation office as the workplace to which Jeffrey Epstein was permitted to leave county custody during much of his 2008 to 2009 sentence. The office was in an ordinary commercial tower in downtown West Palm Beach. Its exceptional significance came from the arrangement around it: Epstein could spend most of the day there, receive approved business visitors, use a private office and return to the Stockade at night.

Katlyn Doe’s civil complaint alleges that the apparent job opportunity at this office was used to bring her from New York to Florida for sexual exploitation. Later public accounts describe additional alleged abuse there. The office is therefore both a documented work release location and an alleged abuse site. A precise history must explain how the arrangement operated, the warnings officials received and the limits of the investigations that followed.

Important Points

  • The work release office was in West Palm Beach, across the water from the town of Palm Beach where Epstein’s residence stood. They were separate locations.
  • Suite 1400 and Suite 1404 appear in different records for different purposes. Treating every reference as the same office obscures the chronology.
  • The Florida corporation formed in November 2007 should not be confused with C.O.U.Q., a Delaware foundation incorporated in 1998 that registered the Florida Science Foundation name in July 2008.
  • Federal prosecutors challenged the employment explanation before and after work release began. Their objections did not stop the sheriff’s office from administering the program.
  • The familiar description of twelve hours a day, six days a week applies to the initial arrangement. Approved hours and days expanded substantially in 2009.
  • The deputies’ office assignment included personal security and visitor recording. It did not require them to observe Epstein’s private meetings or monitor his computer.
  • FDLE reviewed 494 deputy overtime forms. Those forms were not the visitor logs, which PBSO said had been destroyed under records retention schedules.
  • The absence of a substantiated criminal case against deputies does not establish that no abuse occurred inside the office.

The Building and the Two Suite Numbers

The federal ENERGY STAR property record identifies One Clearlake Centre at 250 South Australian Avenue in West Palm Beach. The building’s identity also appears in legal service lists and property records. It was a commercial office building with other tenants, rather than an institution owned or operated by the sheriff’s office. Nothing about the documented address establishes involvement by unrelated tenants or later building owners.

The December 5, 2008 federal notification letter places Epstein’s work release employment at Suite 1404. It says he was reportedly working for the Florida Science Foundation, returning to the Stockade after work and being tracked by an ankle bracelet and GPS. FDLE’s later review independently identifies the same suite in the work release records.

The Florida corporate registry gives Suite 1400 for The Florida Science Foundation, Inc. Villafaña’s July 2008 correspondence identified that address as Goldberger’s office suite. The July 2008 C.O.U.Q. registration documents and later work release paperwork instead specify Suite 1404. The records establish this distinction without proving that every early reference to an office described the final leased space.

Jack Goldberger’s role connects the address history to Epstein’s legal representation. Sharing a building or a professional address is not itself evidence that a lawyer, another tenant or a visitor participated in sexual abuse. Claims about a particular person require evidence of that person’s conduct.

The Corporation and the Operating Name

The Florida articles of incorporation identify The Florida Science Foundation, Inc. as a nonprofit corporation with charitable, scientific and educational purposes. They list Suite 1400 as its principal address and Darren K. Indyke as incorporator. The state registry records a November 1, 2007 filing, a September 17, 2008 annual report and administrative dissolution for failure to file an annual report on September 25, 2009. Those are corporate filing events, not findings about when all activity at the office began or ended.

The C.O.U.Q. corporate documents establish a separate and older legal history. The Delaware certificate records incorporation on March 16, 1998. Florida’s acknowledgment letter says C.O.U.Q. filed qualification documents on July 9, 2008. Another acknowledgment records registration of The Florida Science Foundation as a fictitious name on July 10. The documents use Suite 1404.

The fictitious name application identifies C.O.U.Q. as the owner of the Florida Science Foundation name. Registration of a fictitious name provides a business operating name; it does not, by itself, create a second corporation. This is why the November 2007 incorporation and July 2008 registration cannot be collapsed into a single formation date.

C.O.U.Q.’s tax return for the year ending February 2007 lists Epstein as president and director, Indyke as vice president and director, and Ghislaine Maxwell as treasurer. It reports one hour per week for each and no compensation. The return also documents charitable finances predating the jail sentence. The existence of an older grantmaking entity does not establish that the later office hours or employment representations were accurate.

The C.O.U.Q. Foundation article addresses the older foundation’s broader financial history. For the office’s work release history, the central question is how these legal identities, the Florida address and a proposed job schedule were used to obtain permission for Epstein to leave custody.

How Work Release Became Available

The Justice Department’s full OPR report describes the gap between federal expectations and the eventual county arrangement. The 2007 nonprosecution agreement required a state resolution involving eighteen months in county custody followed by twelve months of community control. Federal prosecutors expected continuous incarceration, but the agreement did not expressly prohibit work release. The state plea agreement also did not resolve that question.

OPR’s account of the pretrial discussions records competing views about eligibility. Federal prosecutors raised the issue with state officials and sought restrictions. Barry Krischer later told OPR that work release was controlled by the sheriff’s office. The report distinguishes the prosecutors’ expectations from the authority of the officials who actually administered county custody.

FDLE’s review of the governing rules examined the 2008 version of Florida Statutes section 951.24, the county resolution, PBSO operating procedure 926.01 and a February 17, 2005 standing order for the sentencing division. FDLE said the standing order placed suitability decisions within the sheriff’s and staff’s discretion. It found that the applicable county procedure did not categorically exclude registered sexual offenders and excluded a person convicted under the prostitution statute when there had been three qualifying convictions in five years.

The application chronology places Epstein’s application on October 1, 2008 and the start of work release on October 10. He had pleaded guilty on June 30 to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a person under eighteen for prostitution. FDLE reported that PBSO counted two convictions and treated him as eligible. FDLE also found three instances of registered sexual offenders entering the program by court order, in 2005 and 2011. Those examples do not establish that their daily conditions matched Epstein’s. Eligibility under the county’s interpretation was different from a finding that his arrangement was wise, adequately supervised or consistent with the federal prosecutors’ understanding.

Villafaña’s December 11 eligibility objection took a different approach. She argued that the felony solicitation conviction itself depended on repeated violations and that the procurement offense was being inadequately described in the paperwork. Her letter also objected to language that could stigmatize the children as prostitutes. The record therefore contains an express contemporary objection, followed years later by FDLE’s different assessment of the county criteria. Neither should be omitted.

Warnings About the Claimed Employment

The July 3, 2008 email to Colonel Michael Gauger records Villafaña’s concern almost immediately after the plea. She reported that the Florida corporation had been incorporated in November 2007, that the stated address was Goldberger’s suite and that FBI inquiries had found no foundation listing on the directory or door. She also challenged Epstein’s claim of daily work there given his absence from Palm Beach County. The email explicitly recognized the sheriff’s discretion while questioning whether the proposed arrangement served the purposes of imprisonment.

The December 11 letter to Captain David Sleeth provided a more detailed employment challenge after prosecutors obtained the work release file. Villafaña compared the application’s claimed $250,000 salary with a W2 from Financial Trust Company showing $180,785.62. She said the materials did not establish earlier employment at the Florida Science Foundation or C.O.U.Q. She characterized the new office and schedule as arrangements created to obtain work release.

The letter’s comparison of working hours contrasted the older tax returns’ one hour per week with Indyke’s proposed six day, seventy two hour workweek. His written description said Epstein would oversee the foundation and evaluate charitable recipients. Villafaña questioned why the same kind of work now required that amount of time outside jail. That was a documented prosecutorial challenge, rather than a court judgment that every foundation transaction was fictitious.

The objections to the proposed supervisor were equally concrete. Indyke had signed paperwork promising to report missed work or early departure, but he lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area. He was also subordinate to Epstein in the foundation and Epstein’s commercial business. The prosecutor questioned both his ability to observe the daily work and his independence when reporting a violation.

The letter’s final pages questioned the use of retained lawyers as employment references and asked PBSO to keep prosecutors informed of any changes in release status. It also raised the possibility of protecting victims by adding their locations to GPS exclusion zones. OPR later reported that the sheriff’s office neither acknowledged nor answered this letter.

Federal Objections Did Not End the Arrangement

OPR’s November 2008 chronology says federal prosecutors learned of the work release only after it had begun. On November 24, Villafaña notified Roy Black that the government considered Epstein’s participation a material breach of the nonprosecution agreement. Black replied on November 26 that the agreement did not prohibit work release, that Florida law treated it as part of confinement and that the sheriff possessed authority to grant it.

The December 5 notice to Brad Edwards asked him to notify his clients that Epstein was participating in the program. The letter said the federal office had not been informed of the application and learned of release more than six weeks after the program began. It identified the foundation address and described the requirement to travel directly between the office and Stockade. The notification documents another gap between the formal custody arrangement and what survivors were told about it.

OPR’s account of the March 2009 exchanges records Jeffrey Sloman telling Alan Dershowitz that the federal office would not interfere with the sheriff’s administration of the sentence. Sloman also qualified that position: it did not mean the office encouraged mitigation or would necessarily decline to object to alternative custody or home detention. The government did not ultimately bring a breach prosecution that ended the work release arrangement.

The OPR executive summary later concluded that Acosta exercised poor judgment in resolving the federal investigation through the agreement and in the handling of victim notification. It did not find professional misconduct by the prosecutors. The full report also explains that OPR did not investigate whether the sheriff violated county or state work release rules. Those questions belonged to a different inquiry.

The Schedule Expanded During 2009

FDLE’s dated schedule reconstruction shows why a single description of the hours is insufficient. The permissions changed repeatedly while Epstein remained a county inmate. The following are the effective changes recorded in that investigation:

  • October 10, 2008: Work release began from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
  • November 6, 2008: The weekly day off changed from Sunday to Thursday, following approval on October 30.
  • December 20, 2008: The schedule changed to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday off.
  • February 21, 2009: Saturday was restored as a working day, leaving Sunday off.
  • May 9, 2009: Authorized daily hours expanded to 7 a.m. through 11 p.m., a sixteen hour window.
  • June 14, 2009: The schedule expanded from six days to seven days per week.
  • July 4, 2009: Approval took effect for two hours daily at his residence, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
  • July 22, 2009: Epstein left county custody and entered the separate community control phase of his sentence.

PBSO’s July 2009 permit records provide a contemporary administrative counterpart to FDLE’s retrospective schedule. The first sheet labels the detail Florida Science Foundation, Permit No. 7804, with successive shifts from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. It also notes no national holidays. The record supports the sixteen hour staffing window while cautioning against assuming that every date had identical attendance.

PBSO’s explanation to FDLE was that the residence visits would allow Epstein to prepare a home office before community control. FDLE found that command staff had approved the changes. The custody summary gives July 4 as the residence permission’s effective date; the separate abuse inquiry describes residence visits from July 5 through July 21. Authorized absence from the Stockade remained part of his jail sentence; it was not the same legal status as the home supervision that followed his July 22 release.

What the Deputies Did and Did Not Monitor

The Alternative Custody Unit records summarized by FDLE describe two layers of supervision. The unit tracked Epstein’s permitted geographical area through GPS and an ankle monitor and conducted thirty two job checks without a reported incident. His conditions restricted contact to business associates and prohibited contact with friends, girlfriends, family members and minors. The unit did not monitor his computer activity or read his email as part of its duties.

The separate permit detail arrangements assigned deputies to personal security at the office. They had to wear suits, meet Epstein on arrival, record his arrival and departure, identify and log visitors, remain at a post in the suite’s lobby and escort him to his car at the end of the day. They did not accompany him during transport between the office and Stockade. The report does not describe a deputy continuously observing his conduct inside his private office.

FDLE’s description of the private office says Epstein had a room at the back where he worked and met business associates. Deputies were not required to sweep the office before his workday, monitor meetings or inspect his email. The same report says they were not required to sweep his residence when home visits were approved. These limitations are material to understanding how a record of compliant location checks could coexist with allegations about conduct behind a closed door.

The accounts of why deputies were hired are not identical. A letter from Epstein’s attorney presented the security arrangement as a requested precaution that was not a general program requirement. PBSO command staff told FDLE that hiring permit deputies was made a condition of Epstein’s participation because of the nature of his offenses and concern for public safety. FDLE preserved both explanations. A complete account should do the same.

The payment records reviewed by investigators showed eleven checks totaling $128,136 paid to PBSO by Epstein’s attorney on the foundation’s behalf. Ninety one different deputies worked the detail between October 10, 2008 and July 21, 2009. PBSO paid the deputies by direct deposit. These documented fees should not be described as cash bribes or payments made directly by Epstein to each deputy.

The unexamined internal policy provision prohibited business transactions between PBSO employees or their families and inmates or their families during custody and for a year afterward. PBSO personnel told investigators that this policy had not been considered before the permit arrangement was approved. FDLE regarded the possible policy issue as outside its criminal inquiry. Its decision therefore did not resolve every question about internal compliance or institutional judgment.

Survivor Allegations About the Office

Katlyn Doe’s August 20, 2019 complaint alleges that Epstein communicated with her during his confinement and proposed employment at the foundation. She said that in June or early July 2009 she was flown from New York to Florida expecting legitimate work, but was made to engage in sexual acts with Epstein at the office, including one incident involving another young woman. The complaint identifies the employment representation, travel arrangements and office as parts of the alleged coercive scheme.

The complaint’s personal chronology says she was seventeen when she first met Epstein in 2007 and turned eighteen later that year. She was therefore an adult during the alleged 2009 office events. This distinction does not reduce the seriousness of her allegation; it prevents her age at initial contact from being incorrectly assigned to the work release period.

The claims against the foundation and related entities allege coordination in recruiting, transporting and coercing her. The complaint names Florida Science Foundation, Inc. as a defendant and seeks civil remedies, including under the federal trafficking statute’s civil provision. A pleading establishes what a claimant alleged. It does not, by itself, decide corporate liability or resolve the relationship between every similarly named entity.

FDLE’s separate review of the abuse allegations considered the complaints of Katlyn Doe and Priscilla Doe. Katlyn Doe’s allegations concerned the foundation office. Priscilla Doe’s relevant allegations concerned Epstein’s residence. They should not be merged into a claim that both complaints described the same office incident. FDLE also said the foundation office remained Epstein’s employment location during later community control, making exact incident dates important to identifying the agency responsible for supervision.

CNN’s July 2026 survivor interviews added public accounts of alleged abuse at the office. One woman said she was eighteen when an offer of weekend reception work brought her there in summer 2009 and Epstein assaulted her. Two other women, who remained unnamed in the report, also described abuse at the foundation office. Their recollections included a busy workplace, a private room with a futon and officers stationed near the entrance. These are survivor accounts reported by CNN, rather than findings from a criminal trial. The article said PBSO did not respond to its request for comment.

The Telegraph’s June 2026 investigation separately reported on office photographs, contemporary correspondence and allegations that Epstein used the premises to continue his personal life and relationships while serving his sentence. Its account adds reporting about the physical setting. Exact incident dates and individual responsibility still require the underlying evidence, and photographs of the office cannot by themselves establish that a particular assault occurred.

What the 2021 Investigation Established

FDLE’s abuse inquiry summary dated March 18, 2021 explains that the initial PBSO criminal inquiry followed public allegations in July 2019 and was transferred to FDLE under the governor’s August 6 executive order. Investigators reviewed the civil complaints, custody and corrections records and information from PBSO. The report says the two civil claimants, through counsel, declined to provide sworn statements to the FDLE investigators and did not allege criminal acts by deputies in those complaints.

The inquiry’s conclusion was narrower than a declaration that the survivors’ accounts were false. FDLE said the alleged conduct was possible but that it had not developed a criminal predicate warranting continuation of the investigation at that time. It cited the absence of specific incident dates and additional sworn information, as well as uncertainty about whether particular events fell under PBSO work release or subsequent Department of Corrections supervision. Epstein had died in August 2019.

The companion custody investigation found no developed evidence that identified PBSO personnel had committed crimes in their housing or supervision of Epstein, and no substantiated coercion or bribery in the supervision arrangements. It nevertheless recognized differential treatment and expressly separated possible policy issues from criminal findings. The Nineteenth Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office agreed with the summaries’ findings after review in March 2021.

The distinction between missing and surviving records is particularly important. FDLE reviewed 494 Extra Duty Permit Overtime Report Forms and reported no recorded work release violations in those forms. PBSO said the visitor logs had been destroyed under retention schedules. The overtime forms can show who staffed a shift and when; they are not a substitute for a surviving record of every visitor or every private encounter. The cited record does not establish that the logs were deliberately destroyed to conceal abuse.

The Office in Later Congressional Testimony

Sarah Kellen’s May 21, 2026 congressional interview directly addressed the office’s setup. She recalled being assigned to buy furniture and prepare the space. She said she assumed the foundation was intended to provide Epstein somewhere to go on work release, but did not know whether it had genuine operations and could not recall a particular conversation establishing its purpose. Her testimony supports an account of her involvement in furnishing the office; her understanding of its purpose must remain attributed.

Kellen’s separate account of gifts to a jail officer alleged that Epstein arranged cash and Disney tickets to be delivered, based on what a person she described as his paralegal told her. She said she did not know what Epstein received in return. That allegation, made publicly after the 2021 inquiry, is distinct from the documented $128,136 paid to PBSO for the office detail. The testimony does not establish that those contract payments were bribes.

Lesley Groff’s June 9, 2026 congressional interview provides a later firsthand account of visiting the workplace. She said she went twice during Epstein’s work release, but could not give precise dates. She described coordinating scientists’ contact information, making calls, arranging appointments and ordering office supplies. She denied helping secure work release or preparing foundation documents.

Groff’s description of office visitors names Marvin Minsky and his wife Gloria, lawyers, Story Cowles, whom she described as a paralegal, and pilot Larry Visoski and Epstein’s security guard and trainer Igor. These were recollections offered to Congress, not a complete visitor register. She denied seeing visiting minors or young women who did not work for Epstein and said she learned of allegations of office abuse while preparing for the interview.

The scope of that testimony supports the conclusion that the office functioned as an active meeting and administrative location during the sentence. Groff’s limited visits and stated lack of knowledge do not establish what happened there at other times. Naming a visitor does not establish participation in or knowledge of abuse.

The full Groff testimony article places this passage within her broader congressional account. The official transcript is the source for her statements; its questions, her answers and the separate allegations against Epstein must remain distinct.

After County Custody and the Continuing Questions

The July 28, 2009 corrections entry records Epstein submitting C.O.U.Q. and Financial Trust Company incorporation documents as proof of employment after his release from the Stockade. Together with FDLE’s statement that the foundation office remained an employment location during community control, the entry shows why the office’s history cannot be treated as ending automatically on July 22.

The supervision distinction identified by FDLE also matters when interpreting an ankle monitor in a witness account. FDLE said Epstein wore GPS monitoring during county work release but was placed on Community Control 1 without GPS after release. A recollection of a monitor can be relevant evidence, but it does not supply an exact date on its own or resolve every inconsistency between memories and administrative records.

The Butterfly Bureau’s July 28, 2026 roundup drew attention to the renewed survivor reporting about this office. Ellie Leonard’s October 2025 analysis had also highlighted the paid deputy detail and the work release arrangement. These independent commentary sources help trace public scrutiny; the dates, payments, legal entities and investigative limits above rest on the underlying records.

The central unresolved issue is the difference between monitoring an inmate’s permitted location and protecting people who entered that location. The record documents extensive freedom, repeated federal objections, a paid security detail with limited duties and serious survivor allegations. It does not provide a complete visitor history or a trial determination of every allegation. Accountability depends on retaining both parts of that record.

Document Appearances and Primary Evidence

  • EFTA00224262, pages 175 through 177: Florida Science Foundation, Inc. articles, with the Suite 1400 address and Indyke identified as incorporator. The corresponding page stamps are EFTA00224436 through EFTA00224438.
  • EFTA00181807, pages 403 through 410: C.O.U.Q.’s Delaware certificate, Florida qualification and fictitious name registration. Pages 407 through 410 connect the Florida Science Foundation operating name with Suite 1404.
  • EFTA00190062, page 6: C.O.U.Q.’s fiscal 2007 officer and compensation schedule, including the reported one hour per week and zero compensation.
  • EFTA00213048, page 105: July 3, 2008 email to Gauger challenging the claimed foundation workplace. The individual page stamp is EFTA00213152.
  • EFTA00211839: December 3, 2008 internal federal correspondence criticizing work release and the claimed supervision arrangement. It records the writer’s concerns and arguments, not adjudicated findings.
  • EFTA00181285, page 1: December 5, 2008 notification to victims’ attorney Brad Edwards, identifying the work release location as Suite 1404.
  • EFTA00189918: December 11, 2008 letter to Captain David Sleeth challenging eligibility, salary, working hours, supervision and references; requesting continued victim notification.
  • EFTA01308629: July 2009 PBSO extra duty permit schedule and overtime forms associated with the Florida Science Foundation detail.
  • EFTA00181807, page 109: July 28, 2009 corrections entry recording C.O.U.Q. and Financial Trust Company documents as proof of employment.
  • EFTA00299850, page 1: File inventory separately listing Florida Science Foundation incorporation, office and lease materials and C.O.U.Q. organizational records. An inventory establishes the listed categories, not the unseen contents of each file.
  • Katlyn Doe complaint, Case 1:19 cv 07771, Document 1: Filed August 20, 2019; paragraphs 76 through 88 set out the office and work release allegations.
  • FDLE Investigative Summary 2, Case EI 73 8674: March 18, 2021 custody, work release and permit detail inquiry, thirteen pages.
  • FDLE Investigative Summary 1, Case EI 73 8674: March 18, 2021 inquiry concerning the two civil claimants’ abuse allegations, six pages.
  • House Oversight interview of Sarah Kellen, pages 62 and 117: May 21, 2026 account of the office setup and separate allegation of gifts to a jail officer.
  • House Oversight interview of Lesley Groff, pages 198 and 199: June 9, 2026 recollections about visits and work at the office.

Key Takeaways

  • The foundation office was the practical center of Epstein’s county work release arrangement, with documented permissions that eventually allowed most of every day outside the Stockade.
  • The corporate evidence distinguishes a 2007 Florida nonprofit from a 2008 operating name for C.O.U.Q. The two suite numbers also need to remain distinct.
  • Federal prosecutors challenged the arrangement in contemporaneous correspondence. County officials continued to administer it, and the federal agreement did not expressly prohibit work release.
  • The paid deputies were responsible for security and specified checks, with limited visibility into private meetings. Location compliance was not equivalent to continuous observation.
  • Survivor allegations describe abuse at the office. FDLE’s inability to substantiate a criminal case under its 2021 inquiry did not disprove those accounts or settle every policy question.
  • The strongest reconstruction combines corporate filings, contemporary correspondence, custody records, survivor pleadings and later testimony while keeping each source’s limits visible.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

Sources

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Previous Terramar Project
Next WE Talks Enterprises LLC
Table of Contents