EFTA02341025: Jeffrey Epstein and Kathy Ruemmler Discuss CVRA Victims’ Rights Litigation (February 13, 2015)

UpdatedSeptember 11, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

This February 2015 email chain records Kathy Ruemmler telling Jeffrey Epstein that the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case against the United States was “about money.” After asking who at Boies was involved and receiving Epstein’s reference to “ingrid” as a “victims rights woman,” Ruemmler replied, “Victim’s rights, my ass.” A duplicate record shows that Ruemmler then asked Epstein to have attorney Martin Weinberg prepare a public facing explanation of Epstein’s criminal investigation, nonprosecution agreement, civil litigation, appeals, and CVRA dispute.

Evidence Snapshot

Document ID: EFTA02341025

Document type: Email chain

Primary date: February 13, 2015

Additional date: February 12, 2015

Primary participants: Jeffrey Epstein and Kathryn “Kathy” Ruemmler

Subject: Re:

Source collection: United States Department of Justice Epstein Library, Data Set 11

Document length: Three pages

EFTA page range: EFTA02341025 through EFTA02341027

Internal Bates range: EFTA_R1_01306282 through EFTA_R1_01306284

Related duplicate record: EFTA00864557

Primary subjects: Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation, attorneys connected with the dispute, survivor rights, telephone contact, and Epstein’s legal response

Additional people and entities referenced: An unidentified “Ingrid,” an unidentified person described by the initials “AD,” Boies, an unidentified client, and Axelrod

Evidence status: Verified primary source email record with a related duplicate chain providing additional context

Content warning: Dismissive language about victims’ rights and litigation brought by survivors of sexual abuse

Key finding: Ruemmler characterized the CVRA litigation as being “about money” and responded to Epstein’s reference to a “victims rights woman” by writing, “Victim’s rights, my ass.” The email documents her private language about litigation through which Epstein’s survivors were seeking recognition of rights they said federal prosecutors violated when negotiating his secret nonprosecution agreement.

Why This Document Matters

EFTA02341025 provides direct evidence of how Ruemmler discussed the Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation with Epstein in private.

The litigation was not a conventional damages action against Epstein. It was a federal proceeding brought against the United States by survivors who argued that prosecutors violated their statutory rights by negotiating and executing Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement without consulting them.

Ruemmler nevertheless told Epstein, “I told you that this CVRA case is about money.”

That statement was Ruemmler’s characterization. The email does not show what evidence she relied upon, whether she had reviewed the complete case record, or whether she had spoken with the survivors or their attorneys.

The exchange becomes more significant when Epstein refers to an unidentified “ingrid” as a “victims rights woman.” Ruemmler responds, “Victim’s rights, my ass.”

Read in context, the statement is plainly dismissive. It was directed at the subject of victims’ rights while Ruemmler was communicating privately with the person whose secret federal agreement was being challenged.

The email does not prove that Ruemmler opposed victims’ rights as a general legal principle. It does document the language she used about the rights litigation connected with Epstein.

A later duplicate chain shows that Ruemmler asked Epstein to have “marty” draft a short explanation of what happened for a general audience. Epstein forwarded the request to attorney Martin Weinberg. Epstein then described the desired product as a statement covering the Palm Beach police, grand jury, FBI, nonprosecution agreement, civil case, appeals, and CVRA litigation so the press could see “a version.”

That additional context suggests the participants were considering not only legal analysis but also public presentation and media response.

The email matters because it places a former senior government lawyer inside Epstein’s private discussion of survivor litigation and public messaging years after his Florida conviction.

It also raises important questions about how survivors and their legal claims were framed within Epstein’s circle. Describing the case as being “about money” reduced a major dispute over secrecy, notice, consultation, and government accountability to an alleged financial motive.

Later court rulings confirmed that the case raised substantial legal questions. In 2019, a federal district court found that prosecutors violated the survivors’ right to confer when they negotiated and executed the nonprosecution agreement without consulting them.

The Eleventh Circuit later denied a remedy on procedural grounds. Its ruling did not establish that the survivors’ claims were fabricated or merely financial.

What the Document Shows

The email chain begins with casual exchanges between Ruemmler and Epstein on February 12, 2015.

Epstein asks for a telephone number. Ruemmler says she is on the way to an Axelrod book party and will email him after she leaves.

The following morning, Epstein asks Ruemmler what appears to be a joking question about whether she had more than one glass. The released text contains an encoding error in the word “glass.”

Ruemmler responds that she had not. She says a new client had been distressed about a matter for which nothing could be done. She describes the rest of the day negatively and asks whether Epstein is in New York.

Epstein asks for a number. Ruemmler supplies one. This article does not reproduce the number because it is unnecessary to understanding the evidentiary value of the exchange.

The conversation then turns to the CVRA case.

Ruemmler writes: “I told you that this CVRA case is about money.”

She then asks: “Does AD know who at Boies is doing it? I am so pissed off now that I can’t see straight.”

Epstein responds: “ingrid victims rights woman.”

Ruemmler replies: “Victim’s rights, my ass.”

The document confirms:

Ruemmler and Epstein were discussing the CVRA litigation by February 13, 2015.
Ruemmler had previously expressed an opinion about the purpose of the case.
She characterized the litigation as being about money.
She asked whether a person identified only as “AD” knew who at “Boies” was involved.
She expressed intense anger about the situation.
Epstein identified someone named or described as “ingrid.”
Epstein called that person a “victims rights woman.”
Ruemmler responded with dismissive language about victims’ rights.
The participants did not identify “AD” by full name in this document.
The participants did not identify “Ingrid” by surname.
The document does not explain what work was being performed at Boies.
The document does not preserve a substantive response from Epstein after Ruemmler’s final statement.

The exchange strongly suggests that Ruemmler understood what Epstein meant by “ingrid victims rights woman.” She did not ask him to clarify the identity or role.

The line about “AD” may refer to Alan Dershowitz. That interpretation is supported by the related legal context and the duplicate chain, where Martin Weinberg asks whether Ruemmler wants him to summarize the “Alan/Boies” issue.

The initials are not expanded in EFTA02341025. The identification should therefore remain qualified.

The reference to “Boies” may concern David Boies, Boies Schiller Flexner, or an attorney associated with that firm. The email does not identify the specific lawyer.

The separate “Ingrid” reference remains unresolved. No surname appears in the chain, and the document does not provide enough evidence to identify her responsibly.

The final statement does not merely question a procedural argument under the CVRA. Its wording dismisses “victim’s rights” more broadly in the context of Epstein’s case.

The document also shows a level of familiarity between Ruemmler and Epstein. Their messages include personal scheduling, alcohol related teasing, discussion of a client, location questions, telephone contact, and legal strategy.

What the Document Does Not Show

EFTA02341025 does not prove that the CVRA litigation was motivated only by money.

It does not identify evidence supporting Ruemmler’s characterization.

It does not show that she spoke with the survivors before making that statement.

It does not show that she spoke with the survivors’ attorneys before making that statement.

It does not establish that the survivors abandoned their rights claims in exchange for money.

It does not establish that the survivors’ legal claims were frivolous.

It does not establish that federal prosecutors complied with the CVRA.

It does not negate the district court’s later finding that prosecutors violated the survivors’ right to confer.

It does not identify “AD” by full name.

It does not conclusively prove that “AD” means Alan Dershowitz.

It does not identify “Ingrid” by surname.

It does not establish that “Ingrid” was an attorney, advocate, witness, survivor, or employee.

It does not identify the attorney at Boies whom Ruemmler was discussing.

It does not explain what “doing it” meant.

It does not establish whether Ruemmler was referring to the CVRA action itself, related defamation litigation, media work, or another connected matter.

It does not show that Ruemmler formally represented Epstein.

It does not contain an engagement agreement between Epstein and Ruemmler.

It does not establish an attorney client relationship.

It does not establish that every communication between Ruemmler and Epstein was privileged.

It does not prove that Ruemmler filed anything in the CVRA litigation.

It does not show that she contacted the court, prosecutors, survivors, or opposing counsel.

It does not prove that she received payment from Epstein for work on the CVRA matter.

It does not establish that she participated in negotiating the original nonprosecution agreement.

It does not show that she knew Epstein during the 2006 or 2007 federal investigation.

It does not show that she knew about Epstein’s conduct before his Florida conviction.

It does not prove that she knew of criminal conduct occurring after his conviction.

It does not establish a conspiracy to obstruct the CVRA litigation.

It does not show witness intimidation, evidence destruction, bribery, or another criminal act.

It does not establish that Ruemmler’s dismissive language affected a court ruling.

It does not prove that the proposed public explanation was ultimately drafted or distributed.

The duplicate record shows an effort to prepare a version of events for a general audience and the press. It does not prove that the proposed version contained false information.

The email footer states that the communications may be privileged. A standard footer does not independently create attorney client privilege.

Ruemmler’s language is evidence of her private communication with Epstein. It should not be expanded into claims about conduct or knowledge that the record does not establish.

Document Context

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The law provides federal crime victims with rights that include reasonable protection, notice of proceedings, the opportunity to be heard, the reasonable right to confer with government attorneys, timely restitution, proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and treatment with fairness and respect for dignity and privacy.

The current statutory text is available through Cornell Law School and the United States Department of Justice.

The Epstein CVRA litigation arose from the federal government’s handling of the investigation that resulted in a secret nonprosecution agreement.

Federal prosecutors entered into the agreement with Epstein in September 2007. In exchange for Epstein resolving state charges and satisfying other conditions, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida agreed not to prosecute him federally in that district.

The survivors were not consulted before the agreement was executed.

In July 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed a petition against the United States seeking enforcement of their rights under the CVRA. The federal docket is Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736.

By early 2015, the litigation had become connected with public allegations, media scrutiny, and related disputes involving attorneys.

EFTA02341025 was sent during that period.

The primary document contains three pages. Most of the second and third pages consist of repeated copies of Epstein’s confidentiality footer.

The text contains multiple encoding errors. Names, words, email addresses, and formatting symbols are partially corrupted.

A cleaner duplicate appears in EFTA00864557. That record preserves the same exchange and extends the chain.

In the duplicate, Ruemmler asks Epstein to have “marty” prepare approximately one page explaining what happened in language suitable for a general audience.

Epstein forwards the request to Martin Weinberg.

Weinberg asks whether Ruemmler wants him to summarize the “Alan/Boies” issue or something else.

Epstein responds that he wants a statement covering what happened with the Palm Beach police, grand jury, FBI, nonprosecution agreement, civil case, appeals, and CVRA matter. He says the purpose is to allow the press to see “a version.”

Epstein also refers to the nonprosecution agreement having been public for five years and writes “no clinton etc.” The meaning of that final phrase is not explained.

In February 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in Doe v. United States that federal prosecutors violated the survivors’ right to confer by negotiating and executing the nonprosecution agreement without consulting them.

The district court found that prosecutors continued communicating with survivors in a manner that concealed the existence of the agreement.

Following Epstein’s death, the district court declined to grant the requested remedy.

In April 2021, the full Eleventh Circuit ruled in In re Wild that the CVRA did not authorize a freestanding civil action outside an existing criminal proceeding.

The appellate decision foreclosed the requested judicial remedy. It did not establish that prosecutors had treated the survivors fairly, that the secret agreement was good policy, or that the litigation was merely about money.

The United States Supreme Court denied Courtney Wild’s petition on February 22, 2022. A denial of review is not a ruling approving every aspect of the lower court decision or the government’s conduct.

In 2026, Ruemmler testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. When questioned about the phrase “Victim’s rights, my ass,” she acknowledged that the emails could appear callous when read in 2026.

Ruemmler testified that callousness toward victims was not what she intended and was not her state of mind at the time. She said she felt terrible that Epstein victimized women and girls and regretted ever knowing or communicating with him.

She also testified that she was not Epstein’s lawyer and did not formally represent him. She said he asked for her opinions about legal questions, media scrutiny, and litigation, and that she sometimes gave him her views.

Her later explanation is part of the evidentiary record. It does not erase the wording of the 2015 email, and the email alone does not establish everything Ruemmler knew or intended.

People and Entities Named

Jeffrey Epstein: Epstein participates in the email exchange, asks for telephone contact, refers to “ingrid” as a “victims rights woman,” and later seeks a public facing account of his investigation, nonprosecution agreement, civil litigation, appeals, and CVRA dispute. See the EpsteinWiki profile of Jeffrey Epstein.

Kathryn “Kathy” Ruemmler: Ruemmler tells Epstein that the CVRA case is about money, asks who at Boies is involved, expresses anger, and writes, “Victim’s rights, my ass.” She later asks Epstein to have Martin Weinberg draft a public explanation. See the EpsteinWiki profile of Kathy Ruemmler.

AD: The initials are not expanded in the document. The related reference to “Alan/Boies,” the contemporaneous litigation, and Ruemmler’s later testimony suggest that “AD” may refer to Alan Dershowitz. The identification is not explicit in EFTA02341025.

Boies: Ruemmler asks who “at Boies” is involved. This may refer to David Boies or an attorney at Boies Schiller Flexner. The specific person is not identified.

Ingrid: Epstein writes “ingrid victims rights woman.” No surname or role is provided. The document does not contain enough information to identify this person.

Martin G. Weinberg: The duplicate chain identifies Martin Weinberg as the attorney Epstein contacted after Ruemmler requested a public facing explanation. Weinberg asks whether the requested summary concerns “Alan/Boies” or another issue.

Marty: Ruemmler asks Epstein to have “marty” prepare the summary. The subsequent forwarded exchange identifies Marty as Martin Weinberg.

Axelrod: Ruemmler says she is going to an “Axelrod’s book party.” The email does not provide a first name. The timing is consistent with David Axelrod’s 2015 book publication, but the document does not spell out that identification.

New client: Ruemmler mentions a new client who was distressed about a matter for which she believed nothing could be done. The client is not identified, and the email does not connect that person with the CVRA litigation.

Palm Beach Police Department: Epstein includes the Palm Beach police investigation among the subjects he wants summarized for the press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Epstein includes the FBI investigation in the requested summary.

Palm Beach County grand jury: Epstein references the grand jury as part of the history he wants explained.

United States Department of Justice: The Department was the respondent in the CVRA litigation and later released these emails through the DOJ Epstein Library.

Boies Schiller Flexner: The law firm is a possible referent for Ruemmler’s phrase “at Boies.” The primary email does not provide the firm’s complete name.

United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: The Committee questioned Ruemmler about the email during her 2026 transcribed interview.

Chronology

September 24, 2007: Federal prosecutors and Epstein execute the nonprosecution agreement without first consulting the survivors who later brought the CVRA action.

July 7, 2008: Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 file their CVRA petition against the United States in the Southern District of Florida.

February 12, 2015, 6:39 PM: Epstein asks Ruemmler for a number.

February 12, 2015, 6:42 PM: Ruemmler says she is on the way to an Axelrod book party and will email when she leaves.

February 13, 2015, 6:25 AM: Epstein asks what appears to be a joking question about whether Ruemmler had more than one glass.

February 13, 2015, 6:53 AM: Ruemmler says a new client was upset about a problem for which nothing could be done. She asks whether Epstein is in New York.

February 13, 2015, 6:53 AM: Epstein asks for a number.

February 13, 2015, 6:54 AM: Ruemmler supplies a telephone number.

February 13, 2015, 7:28 AM: Ruemmler writes, “I told you that this CVRA case is about money.”

February 13, 2015, 7:40 AM: Ruemmler asks whether “AD” knows who at Boies is involved. She says she is extremely angry.

February 13, 2015, 7:57 AM: Epstein responds, “ingrid victims rights woman.”

February 13, 2015, 12:59 PM: The released header identifies Ruemmler’s final response as “Victim’s rights, my ass.”

February 13, 2015, 8:04 AM in the duplicate chain: Ruemmler asks Epstein to have Marty draft a short explanation for a general audience. The displayed time order reflects the way the forwarded messages were preserved and may involve different time settings.

February 13, 2015, 8:06 AM: Epstein forwards Ruemmler’s request to Martin Weinberg.

February 13, 2015, 9:47 AM: Weinberg asks which issue Ruemmler wants summarized and references “Alan/Boies.”

February 13, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC: Epstein says he wants a statement covering the Palm Beach police, grand jury, FBI, nonprosecution agreement, civil case, appeals, and CVRA matter so the press can see “a version.”

February 21, 2019: The district court finds that federal prosecutors violated the survivors’ right to confer under the CVRA.

2019: Following Epstein’s death, the district court declines to provide the requested remedy.

April 15, 2021: The Eleventh Circuit, sitting as a full court, rules that the CVRA does not authorize a freestanding civil action outside an existing criminal proceeding.

February 22, 2022: The Supreme Court denies Courtney Wild’s petition for review.

July 2026: Ruemmler addresses the email during a transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee.

Key Excerpts

The excerpts below preserve the substantive language of the released record while normalizing obvious encoding errors.

Ruemmler writes: “I told you that this CVRA case is about money.”
Ruemmler asks: “Does AD know who at Boies is doing it?”
Ruemmler adds: “I am so pissed off now that I can’t see straight.”
Epstein responds: “ingrid victims rights woman.”
Ruemmler writes: “Victim’s rights, my ass.”
In the duplicate chain, Ruemmler asks: “Can you ask marty to draft up a page or so that lays out what happened, and then we can edit it for a layperson audience?”
Martin Weinberg asks: “not sure which issue Kathy wants me to summarize (Alan/Boies? some other?)”
Epstein requests “a statement of what actually happened” covering the Palm Beach police, grand jury, FBI, nonprosecution agreement, civil case, appeals, and CVRA matter.
Epstein states that the purpose is “so that press can see a version.”

The phrase “Victim’s rights, my ass” appears in the primary document. It is not a paraphrase or characterization supplied by a reporter.

The phrase “this CVRA case is about money” is Ruemmler’s opinion. It is not a judicial finding.

Related Evidence

The primary document consists of the following pages:

EFTA02341025 contains the substantive email exchange.
EFTA02341026 continues the chain and repeated confidentiality material.
EFTA02341027 contains additional footer material.

A cleaner duplicate and extended chain appears at:

EFTA00864557 preserves the forwarding exchange among Epstein, Ruemmler, and Martin Weinberg.
EFTA00864558 preserves the earlier messages and provides a cleaner version of the telephone exchange.
EFTA00864559 contains continuation material.
EFTA00864560 contains the final continuation page.

The federal CVRA case can be reviewed through the Doe v. United States docket.

The 2019 district court opinion found that federal prosecutors violated the survivors’ right to confer.

The 2021 Eleventh Circuit decision denied relief because the court concluded that the CVRA did not authorize a freestanding civil action outside a preexisting criminal proceeding.

The Supreme Court docket for Courtney Wild records the denial of review on February 22, 2022.

The 2026 House Oversight transcript of Ruemmler’s interview contains her later explanation of the email, her description of her communications with Epstein, and her statements concerning the CVRA case.

The EpsteinWiki Sleuth Report on Stephanie Thacker’s Epstein defense letter and federal judicial nomination provides additional context about the CVRA litigation and its later appellate history.

Nina Burleigh’s American Freakshow article Women or Children? examines Ruemmler and the broader treatment of women and girls within Epstein’s social and legal circle.

The Courtney Wild profile provides survivor centered context for the long legal effort to enforce rights under the CVRA.

The Paul Cassell profile provides background about one of the attorneys who pursued the CVRA case.

The EpsteinWiki Evidence Framework explains how primary records, later testimony, legal findings, denials, and unresolved inferences should be evaluated.

Questions for Investigators

What prompted Ruemmler to write that the CVRA case was about money?
What evidence had she reviewed before reaching that conclusion?
Had she read the survivors’ petition and supporting evidence?
Had she reviewed the nonprosecution agreement?
Did Epstein provide Ruemmler with documents or summaries concerning the CVRA case?
Did Ruemmler speak with any survivor or survivor attorney?
Did she know that the survivors had not been consulted before the agreement was executed?
Did she know that federal communications continued to describe the investigation as active after the agreement was signed?
What specific development caused Ruemmler to become so angry?
Who was “AD”?
Did “AD” refer to Alan Dershowitz?
Who at Boies was Ruemmler discussing?
What did the phrase “doing it” mean?
Was Ruemmler referring to the CVRA case, related defamation litigation, media representation, or another matter?
Who was “Ingrid”?
Why did Epstein describe Ingrid as a “victims rights woman”?
Was Ingrid an attorney, advocate, intermediary, witness, or another participant?
Did Ruemmler communicate directly with Ingrid?
Did Ruemmler communicate with anyone at Boies about the CVRA litigation?
What role did Ruemmler play in Epstein’s response to the litigation?
Did she provide legal analysis to Epstein?
Did she provide media advice?
Did she review drafts prepared for Epstein or his attorneys?
Did she edit the public facing summary requested from Martin Weinberg?
Was the proposed summary completed?
Was it distributed to reporters?
What did Epstein mean by allowing the press to see “a version”?
Did the proposed account omit material information?
What did Epstein mean by “no clinton etc”?
Did that phrase instruct Weinberg to exclude references to Bill Clinton or another Clinton?
Why did Epstein want the Palm Beach police, grand jury, FBI, nonprosecution agreement, civil cases, appeals, and CVRA dispute combined into one narrative?
Did Epstein or Ruemmler contact journalists about that narrative?
Did Ruemmler receive payment for any work connected with Epstein’s legal or media response?
Did Ruemmler believe her communications with Epstein were legally privileged?
Was there a formal engagement agreement?
What shared client did Ruemmler reference in her later congressional testimony?
Did that shared client create any conflict concerning advice provided to Epstein?
Which of Epstein’s lawyers knew about Ruemmler’s involvement?
Did Martin Weinberg understand Ruemmler to be advising Epstein?
Are native emails available with complete headers and uncorrupted text?
Are there attachments associated with the request for a public explanation?
Are there additional messages immediately before or after the released chain?
Did investigators compare Ruemmler’s private statements with her later account of her knowledge and intentions?
Did the House Oversight Committee obtain the completed Martin Weinberg draft, if one existed?
Were survivors or their attorneys given an opportunity to respond to any press narrative prepared through this exchange?

Sources

EFTA02341025 Download

PostedFebruary 19, 2026