Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg
Civil suit filed by Assignment Desk Works, LLC, a company tied to Patrick Bryant, against his former employee Alexis Berg to enforce a non-disparagement clause from a 2019 wage settlement. Rep. Nancy Mace is not a party, but she inserted herself as a 'Proposed Intervenor' to recover materials, including a recorded 2024 phone call, that she had voluntarily given Berg's lawyer, then tried to claw back. The court has repeatedly declined the relief she sought: already-produced materials stay in the record, Berg may keep using them, and the disputed files go to a neutral, all entered over Mace's objection.
Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg is, on its face, a contract case: a company sued a former employee for allegedly violating a non-disparagement clause. What makes it part of the Mace record is that Rep. Nancy Mace is not a party to it, yet has spent months trying to control its evidence, specifically, materials she herself handed to the other side and then demanded back. This page tracks that effort and how the court has ruled on it. The companion discovery dispute over the 11,000-plus files in Mace's Google Drive is covered in the dispatch on the third-party-neutral order.
What the case is about
Assignment Desk Works, LLC ("ADW"), a company tied to Mace's former fiancé Patrick Bryant, sued Alexis "Ali" Berg, a former employee, to enforce a non-disparagement clause contained in a settlement that resolved an earlier 2019 wage-and-hour dispute. ADW's amended complaint alleges Berg breached that clause, including, per the pleadings, by telling a former co-worker she had been sexually assaulted and was a cooperating witness in a related investigation, and by making other disparaging statements.
Berg has moved for judgment on the pleadings, raising two defenses:
- Truth. Truth is an absolute defense to a disparagement claim, so, Berg argues, evidence bearing on whether the underlying events occurred is "essential to [her] defense."
- The Speak Out Act. Berg contends the federal Speak Out Act (42 U.S.C. § 19401 et seq.) makes a predispute non-disparagement clause unenforceable "with respect to a sexual assault dispute." In June 2026 she filed a reply supported by a sworn declaration from Gretchen Carlson, who helped write the Act.
ADW disputes both defenses, and its own motion for summary judgment catalogs statements it says breached the clause. Both dispositive motions remain undecided.
Procedurally, ADW filed suit on May 7, 2025; the case was briefly removed to federal court and remanded to Charleston County by July 2025. ADW filed an Amended Summons and Complaint on September 25, 2025, and Berg answered with counterclaims on October 29, 2025. ADW moved for summary judgment on January 12, 2026; Berg moved for judgment on the pleadings on May 21, 2026, with her supporting reply and the Carlson declaration following June 8, 2026.
How Mace inserted herself
Mace is not a plaintiff or a defendant here. She entered the case as a "Proposed Intervenor," and the path she took to get there is itself part of the record.
According to a January 2026 emergency motion by Berg's counsel, Mace had voluntarily provided her Google Drive to Berg and Berg's lawyer in June 2025, saying she believed it "contained evidence that would be 'helpful' to Ms. Berg in this litigation," and, per the motion, "placed no restrictions on use of the materials, did not assert any privilege, and did not limit the scope of materials that could be accessed." After Berg produced materials from that Drive in discovery, Mace's position reversed. Berg's counsel told the court Mace had "demanded in a series of threatening emails and letters" that Berg's counsel "(a) cease using evidence for Ms. Berg's defense; (b) return or destroy evidence … and (c) 'claw back' evidence already produced in discovery." (See Mace shared the Drive, then clawed it back.)
When the demands did not work, Mace turned to the court. Appearing pro se on January 27, 2026, she filed a stack of motions in a case she was not part of:
- an Emergency Motion to Intervene, Dismiss, and for Sanctions;
- a Motion to Stay; and
- a sworn, verified Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order asking the court to bar ADW, Bryant, and Berg's attorneys from accessing, using, or disclosing the contested materials, in effect, a gag on opposing counsel. (See "This Court now stands as the only barrier".)
Because the TRO motion carried a Verification, Mace's factual assertions were made under oath; the same filing placed her candidacy for Governor on the official docket ("Rep. Mace is a sitting Member of the United States House of Representatives and a candidate for Governor of South Carolina"). She has also separately moved to dismiss ADW's suit as a "fishing expedition" (see Mace moves to dismiss).
The phone-call evidence she is trying to take back
A central item in the materials Mace gave Berg, and then sought to recover, is a recording of a roughly 44-minute telephone call Mace placed to Berg on April 6, 2024. According to FITSNews, which published the full audio on June 7, 2026, that recording "had been produced in the ADW v. Berg civil litigation." On the call, in her own words, Mace asks that the conversation stay "private and not shared," tells Berg "I'm going to sue him … Civilly," and frames the matter around a civil payout ("he can sell a building or two, settle, be done … all of us can get 150 K each"). (See the first recorded call, or watch the money-line clip.)
That recording is exactly the sort of material Mace's clawback demands and her TRO motion sought to pull back and restrict. Berg's position is the opposite: because truth is a defense to ADW's disparagement claim, the call and related materials are, in her counsel's words, "essential to Ms. Berg's defense," and returning or destroying them "would impair her ability to defend herself." The result is that Mace, a non-party, has been trying to remove from a lawsuit the evidence that the defendant says she needs to win it, evidence Mace had handed over herself.
The contrast with how the court treated a genuinely privileged recording is instructive. On May 22, 2026, Judge Hocker entered a separate Order Protecting Recorded Communication from Disclosure, but that order concerned a different recording, of a conversation among Berg, witness Melissa Britton, and their attorneys, which the court found protected by attorney-client privilege and ordered "shall not be produced." Mace's April 2024 call drew no such protection: it had already been produced, and the June orders left it in the record and available to Berg's defense, with the broader privilege questions over Mace's materials expressly reserved rather than resolved.
What Mace asked for, and what the court did
The court resolved Mace's January 27 motions in two orders signed by Judge Donald B. Hocker in June 2026, after a May 14, 2026 hearing. On the points Mace pressed, the rulings went against her:
- No claw-back of produced materials. The June 9 order provides that all already-produced Google Drive documents "shall remain in production," and that "[n]othing in this Order shall limit, restrict, or otherwise impair Defendant's right to use the already-produced materials in her defense … including in depositions, motions, at trial, or in any related proceedings."
- A neutral, not a gag, for the rest. Rather than restraining opposing counsel, the court routed the unproduced files to a third-party neutral, former Circuit Judge Kristi Harrington, to decide what else may warrant production, an avenue toward more disclosure, not less. (See the neutral order.)
- No findings in her favor, no consent, and shared costs. The orders make "no finding" on privilege, admissibility, prior productions, or ownership; the appointment is expressly "not a Consent Order"; the court entered it while noting "Mace objects to this procedure"; and Mace is responsible for one-half of the neutral's fees.
In short, the relief Mace sought, recovering the materials, restricting their use, and gagging the lawyers, was not granted; the evidence stays in the case and remains available to Berg's defense, and the disputed trove is now headed for an independent review.
Where it stands
In June 2026 the court denied the pending dispositive motions and set a roughly 90-day discovery schedule (as described in Berg's later filings); the third-party neutral is to conduct an initial review and report back to the court on scope and cost. The case has since turned to a dispute over representation on the plaintiff's side: on June 18, 2026 ADW's counsel, Rene Stuhr Dukes (Saxton & Stump), petitioned to withdraw, citing an unpaid fee balance. Berg opposed the withdrawal on June 29, 2026 and, the same day, moved for a rule to show cause against Dukes, supported by an affidavit from Berg's counsel Marybeth Mullaney alleging that Dukes used or disclosed materials in violation of the November 24, 2025 Consent Confidentiality Order. Those motions are unresolved; the allegations in them are contested and unproven. The case remains one of the cluster of related Charleston County matters assigned to Judge Hocker by the Supreme Court of South Carolina (see the Judge Hocker profile), alongside Berg v. Bryant and Mace v. Bowman.
All allegations across this cluster of cases, ADW's disparagement claim, Berg's account of an assault, Bryant's claims, and Mace's sworn assertions, are contested, unproven, and have not been adjudicated. Patrick Bryant and the other men named in related matters deny the allegations against them; Mace denies the claims against her. The orders described here make no finding of fact and no ruling on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing. Nothing on this page is a finding of fact or an opinion on the merits. For background on the individuals named, see People in the Public Record.
Selected docket entries
A curated selection of substantive filings, drawn from the case docket (Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671). It is not the complete docket, which runs to hundreds of entries; routine notices, rosters, and service affidavits are omitted.
| Date | Filing | By |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-05-07 | Summons & Complaint | ADW |
| 2025-06-13 | Notice of Removal to District Court | Berg |
| 2025-07 | Order remanding from District Court to Circuit Court | Court |
| 2025-09-02 | Order of the S.C. Supreme Court assigning the case to Judge Hocker | Court |
| 2025-09-25 | Amended Summons & Complaint | ADW |
| 2025-10-21 | Order denying motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint | Court |
| 2025-10-29 | Answer and Counterclaims to Amended Complaint | Berg |
| 2026-01-12 | Motion for Summary Judgment | ADW |
| 2026-01-26 | Emergency Motion re: Use of Evidence | Berg |
| 2026-01-27 | Emergency Motions to Intervene / Dismiss / for Sanctions, to Stay, and for a TRO | Proposed Intervenor Mace (pro se) |
| 2026-02-02 | Memo in Opposition to the Intervenor's Motions | Berg |
| 2026-03-18 | Confidentiality Order | Court |
| 2026-05-13 | Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment | ADW |
| 2026-05-18 | Order denying Berg's Motion to Compel Forensic Inspection | Court |
| 2026-05-21 | Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings | Berg |
| 2026-05-22 | Order Protecting Recorded Communication from Disclosure (Berg/Britton/counsel recording; attorney-client privilege) | Court |
| 2026-06-08 | Reply ISO Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings + Carlson Declaration | Berg |
| 2026-06-09 | Order Regarding Third-Party Neutral | Court |
| 2026-06-16 | Order Appointing a Third-Party Neutral (Kristi Harrington) | Court |
| 2026-06-16 | Orders denying the pending dispositive motions and setting a ~90-day discovery schedule (as described in Berg's June 29 filings) | Court |
| 2026-06-18 | Petition for Withdrawal of Appearances (plaintiff's counsel seeks to be relieved, citing an unpaid fee balance) | ADW's counsel (Rene Stuhr Dukes / Saxton & Stump) |
| 2026-06-29 | Memorandum in Opposition to Attorney Dukes's Petition to be Relieved as Counsel | Berg |
| 2026-06-29 | Motion for a Rule to Show Cause against Rene Dukes, with supporting Affidavit of Marybeth Mullaney (alleging use or disclosure of materials in violation of the November 24, 2025 Consent Confidentiality Order) | Berg |
Documents hosted here (public court records)
- Amended Summons & Complaint (PDF), filed September 25, 2025.
- ADW's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (PDF), the substantive brief cataloging the statements ADW says breached the clause, filed May 13, 2026 (the one-page motion itself was filed January 12, 2026).
- Berg's Emergency Motion for Judicial Determination Regarding Use of Evidence (PDF), filed January 26, 2026.
- Mace's Emergency Motion to Intervene (PDF) and verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (PDF, 9 pages), filed January 27, 2026 (pro se).
- Memorandum in Opposition to the Intervenor Motions (PDF), filed February 2, 2026.
- Motion to Compel Forensic Inspection (PDF), filed February 10, 2026.
- ADW's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Compel (PDF) and Return to the Emergency Motion (PDF), filed March 4, 2026.
- Mace's Supplemental Brief (PDF) and Response to the Emergency TRO (PDF), filed March 5, 2026.
- Berg's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (PDF), filed May 21, 2026.
- Order Protecting Recorded Communication from Disclosure (PDF), signed May 22, 2026.
- Berg's Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, with the Declaration of Gretchen Carlson (PDF, 11 pages), filed June 8, 2026.
- Order Regarding Third-Party Neutral (PDF, 3 pages), signed June 9, 2026.
- Order Appointing a Third-Party Neutral (PDF, 3 pages), signed June 16, 2026.
Sources & related coverage
Case No. 2025-CP-10-2671 is searchable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) by case number. Related on this site: Mace shared the Drive, then clawed it back · the sworn TRO to gag opposing counsel · the first recorded Mace-Berg call · the Carlson / Speak Out Act filing · the third-party-neutral order · Berg v. Bryant · The Litigation.
Related Dispatches
Nancy Mace loses in federal court: Bryant's suit accusing her of defamation and a blackmail conspiracy moves forward
Nancy Mace has lost in federal court. On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks rejected her pro se bid to move the case out of state court, ruling her removal untimely 'by several measures,' and remanded Berg v. Bryant to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. That sends Patrick Bryant's third-party case against Mace forward in state court, a case that accuses her of defamation and of a civil conspiracy to hack his phone and blackmail him into signing over property. The Court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation with modifications, overruled Mace's objections, denied her motion for oral argument, and terminated her duplicate federal case as moot. The ruling is procedural: it does not reach the merits, and Mace's immunity defenses travel with the case. The order (ECF No. 36) is reproduced below. The allegations are disputed and unproven; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
The Record: What Nancy Mace Has Said About Being Sexually Assaulted, Whom She Told, and What Reached Authorities
"The one I'm already in": Mace's Senate withdrawal was a statement about the case, made under a gag order that has never been lifted
Rep. Nancy Mace's July 20, 2026 announcement that she will not run for the Senate was, in both the video and the written statement, an announcement about litigation. She said she was leaving the race 'not because I'm backing down from a fight, but because the one I'm already in matters right now,' told supporters she has 'unfinished business,' and dated that business to the day she 'stood on that House floor.' That was February 10, 2025, when she named four men and told them they had 'bought yourself a one-way ticket to hell.' Three of those men are parties to Berg v. Bryant, where a gag order barring comment on the case was extended indefinitely in December 2025 and, on the documentary record, has never been vacated, dissolved, or found expired. It has also never been enforced. Mace contends it is unconstitutional.
Pro Se: Nancy Mace has lost her lawyers again, this time in her own defamation suit against Eric Bowman
On July 6, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace filed a Motion to Lift Stay in her own defamation case against Eric Bowman, and she filed it pro se, representing herself. On the coversheet she crossed out the entire 'Plaintiff's Attorney' block by hand, wrote 'N/A,' and wrote 'Pro Se.' The motion states she 'is now proceeding pro se in this matter, as reflected in the Notice filed June 30, 2026.' It is the second time in this cluster of cases she has gone without counsel. The three attorneys who filed and briefed the Bowman case for her, local counsel Andrew B. Moorman, Sr. and the two Washington lawyers she brought in pro hac vice, William M. Sullivan, Jr. and Alex G. Anderson, are no longer her counsel of record. A separate notice filed the same day names all three and asks the Clerk of Court to remove them. The complete eight-page motion, and the counsel-withdrawal notice, are reproduced below. Allegations on every side are contested and unproven; Bowman denies Mace's claims and has moved to dismiss, and Mace denies Bowman's.
Was this the voyeurism Nancy Mace was talking about?
Nancy Mace posted that voyeurism is a real issue. The clearest test of what she means is her own May 20, 2025 House Oversight hearing, which she titled 'Breach of Trust: Surveillance in Private Spaces,' where she held up a poster-sized still she said showed her own body and called it nonconsensual hidden surveillance. Maceopedia asks the narrower public-record question her hearing never answered: was that a hidden camera in a private space, or footage from a room with open windows facing a public or shared space? The two are not the same factual claim, and voyeurism turns on the difference.
In an X thread, Mace says the amount should be higher. The public-record receipt says the earlier number was tied to photos.
After Maceopedia resurfaced the Berg-call line about '150K each,' Rep. Nancy Mace replied that the amount 'should be more' and connected the thread to 'what was done to me and others.' The public-record receipt matters because the recorded call discusses a civil lawsuit, photos, and money, not an adjudicated criminal finding.
A federal magistrate recommends sending the case Mace removed to federal court back to state court, finding her pro se removal 'untimely': 'it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court.'
On June 17, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation in the case Rep. Nancy Mace removed to federal court (Berg v. Bryant, docketed federally as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC), recommending that the case be remanded to state court. The recommendation is procedural, not a ruling on the truth of anyone's allegations: the magistrate found that Mace, who removed the case and briefed the remand motion pro se, was on notice the case was removable by December 12, 2025, so her January 29, 2026 removal of the entire case was untimely. A Report and Recommendation is not a final order; the parties have 14 days to object, and U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks will make the final decision. The underlying allegations are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
Court appoints former Judge Kristi Harrington as third-party neutral to sort the 11,000+ disputed files in Mace's Google Drive
On June 16, 2026, Judge Donald B. Hocker appointed Kristi Harrington, a Charleston attorney and former South Carolina Circuit Court judge, to serve as a 'third-party neutral' in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2025-CP-10-2671), one of the cluster of cases tied to Rep. Nancy Mace and her former fiance, Patrick Bryant. Harrington's task is to review the more than 11,000 electronic files in what the court calls 'Mace's Google Drive,' files that both Mace and Bryant claim to own, and decide which, if any, must be turned over in discovery. The court split her fees between the two camps, warned the volume could make the process 'very cost-prohibitive,' and entered the order over Mace's objection. The order makes no finding on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing; the underlying allegations remain contested and unproven.
Under a gag order barring 'any comment about any aspect of this case,' Mace uses her televised concession speech to talk about 'predators that got away in my case'
On the night of June 9, 2026, after conceding the South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary, Nancy Mace told her Charleston election-night crowd, and a live television audience, that she had talked to Attorney General Alan Wilson 'about my case' and would help his administration ensure that 'predators that got away in my case … we finally put criminals behind bars.' Mace is a third-party defendant in Berg v. Bryant, where a November 26, 2025 gag order bars every party from 'making or publishing any comment about any aspect of this case' or about any party or person connected to it, and a January 12, 2026 civil-contempt motion over her earlier public statements remains pending. Both orders are reproduced in full below. Mace contends the gag order is unconstitutional; all underlying allegations are unproven and contested, and no court has ruled on the June 9 remarks.
Gretchen Carlson, who helped write the Speak Out Act, files a sworn declaration backing Alexis Berg
On June 8, 2026, Alexis Berg's counsel filed a reply brief in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (No. 2025-CP-10-2671) arguing that the federal Speak Out Act makes the non-disparagement clause ADW is suing on judicially unenforceable, because the dispute before the court involves sexual-assault allegations. Attached was a sworn declaration from Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News anchor whose 2016 case helped inspire the Act, who states she has met with Berg and that 'this is exactly the situation we fought to address,' and offers to testify. ADW argues the Act does not apply. The motion is undecided; the underlying allegations are contested and denied.
On her first recorded call with Ali Berg, Mace lays out a civil suit against Patrick Bryant: 'He can sell a building or two, settle, be done' and accusers 'can get 150 K each'
FITSNews published the full audio of Nancy Mace's first recorded phone call with Ali Berg. Across 44 minutes Mace asks the call stay 'private,' spends little time on the alleged assault or the man she names as the assailant, never offers a victim advocate or a referral to law enforcement, and instead pitches a civil lawsuit against her ex-fiancé Patrick Bryant, predicting he will 'sell a building or two, settle,' and that accusers could 'get 150 K each.'
"You have to hit him in his pocketbook with a civil suit": the first recorded call with Ali Berg, in her own words
A produced supercut of Rep. Nancy Mace's first recorded phone call with Ali Berg (April 6, 2024), published by FITSNews on June 7, 2026, after the recording was produced in ADW v. Berg. Across 44 minutes Mace pitched a civil lawsuit and a payout, never mentioned the police, and never offered Berg a victim advocate or counselor.
Leaked Call Details Origins of Nancy Mace's 'Scorched Earth' Campaign
FITSNews obtained a recording of an approximately 45-minute call between Mace and Alexis 'Ali' Berg, the woman whose allegations became central to Mace's public campaign against her former fiancé Patrick Bryant; raising questions about how the allegations evolved from a private conversation into a national political narrative.
'To Simply Make Up a Legal Standard Is Inexcusable': Opposing Counsel Asks Court to Sanction Mace's Pro Se TRO Filing
In a March 5, 2026 response filed in ADW v. Berg, Assignment Desk Works' counsel Rene Dukes told a Charleston court that Rep. Nancy Mace's pro se emergency TRO motion cited a four-part legal standard that does not exist under South Carolina law, misrepresented a second case as supporting a doctrine it does not mention, and contradicted itself on whether an attorney-client relationship ever existed. Dukes asked the court to deny the motion and sanction Mace under Rule 11, the rule that requires any litigant, represented or not, to certify that a filing has good-faith legal and factual support.
For All the Accusations, 'Not One Woman Other Than Defendant Has Brought an Action Against Bryant, Including Mace'
In a two-page response filed March 4, 2026, ADW's counsel Rene Stuhr Dukes told a Charleston court that despite a coordinated effort by Ali Berg and Nancy Mace to level sexual-crime accusations against Patrick Bryant, no woman — including Mace herself — has filed a legal action against him. The filing is opposing counsel's argument, not a judicial finding; Bryant's denials and an open SLED investigation remain part of the record.
Bryant's Own Lawyer Alleges Mace 'Stole' His Phone and Hired a PI to Extract Its Data
In a public court filing, Patrick Bryant's attorney asserted in an email exhibit that Nancy Mace took Bryant's Samsung Galaxy S22 from his home and hired a private investigator to copy files off it. The allegations are unproven and contested; Berg's motion argues that Bryant's own pleadings directly contradict the account.
Opposing Counsel Tells Court Mace's Motion Is 'Intended to Delay This Litigation, Harass Plaintiff, Its Members, and Agents'
In a February 2026 court filing, ADW's counsel Rene Dukes argued that Rep. Nancy Mace had no legal standing to intervene in the ADW v. Berg breach-of-contract case and that her motion was frivolous, filed solely to harass and delay. Dukes also noted that Mace's filing invoked her own congressional floor speech, in which she had named private citizens who are members of the plaintiff.
Mace Calls ADW's Breach-of-Contract Suit a 'Fishing Expedition,' Moves to Dismiss It, Despite Not Being a Party
On January 27, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace, not a party to ADW v. Berg, a breach-of-contract case between her company and a former employee, filed an Emergency Motion to Intervene, seeking to dismiss the suit, impose sanctions on both sides' attorneys, and block all discovery. Mace signed the motion herself, as a pro se litigant, and certified that she had skipped the required meet-and-confer with opposing counsel because, in her judgment, it 'would not be productive.' ADW v. Berg is a civil case in Charleston County; no findings of fact have been made.
'This Court Now Stands as the Only Barrier': Mace Files Sworn Emergency Motion to Gag Opposing Lawyers
On January 27, 2026, Nancy Mace filed a sworn, verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the ADW v. Berg civil case, asking a Charleston County judge to bar opposing counsel, Patrick Bryant, and Berg's attorneys from accessing or using materials she called privileged. The motion — signed under oath by Mace personally — also places her gubernatorial candidacy on the official court record.
Civil Case Tied to Nancy Mace Careens Deeper Into Chaos
Judge Hocker ordered materials subpoenaed by plaintiff Alexis Berg's attorneys turned over to the court for private review, as dueling emergency motions clashed over whether materials Mace voluntarily shared in June 2025 could be used in litigation, with Mace, now representing herself, filing an 82-page emergency motion to reclaim them as privileged.
Mace voluntarily shared her Google Drive as 'helpful' evidence, then sent 'threatening' letters demanding it back
In a January 2026 emergency motion, Ali Berg's attorney Marybeth Mullaney told a Charleston court that Congresswoman Nancy Mace had voluntarily handed over her Google Drive in June 2025, saying she believed it would be 'helpful' to Berg's defense, and then reversed course, sending what the motion calls 'threatening emails and letters' demanding Berg's counsel stop using the materials, return or destroy them, and 'claw back' items already produced in discovery. The motion asks the court to step in and decide whether Berg may keep using what Mace herself provided.
Nancy Mace: 'I WILL NOT BE SILENCED'
Mace filed a five-page letter attacking Judge Hocker as running a 'kangaroo court,' fired her attorneys, announced plans to represent herself, and declared she would not comply with the gag order, while simultaneously seeking removal of the case to federal court.
In a letter to the judge overseeing her gag order, Mace calls the court a 'Kangaroo Court' and moves the contempt matter to federal court: 'I will not be SILENCED.'
On January 21, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace wrote directly to Judge Donald B. Hocker, the Charleston County circuit judge presiding over Berg v. Bryant, the case in which she is a third-party defendant under a gag order, calling the court a 'Kangaroo Court,' declaring the gag order unconstitutional, and announcing she was removing the contempt proceeding against her to federal court. Mace wrote the letter pro se, after she says she had discharged her counsel; it was stamped FILED on the state docket January 22, 2026. The full five-page filing is reproduced below. The allegations underlying the litigation are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
Sanctions Showdown: New Filing Accuses Nancy Mace's Lawyers of Fabricating Legal Citations
Patrick Bryant filed a motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions after Mace's attorneys allegedly submitted fabricated case citations and false quotations in a court memorandum, then distributed an 'amended' version without disclosing the original errors, with the filing suggesting AI-generated legal research as a possible explanation.
Bryant moves for sanctions over 'fake, AI generated citations' in Mace legal brief, and a cover-up that compounded them
Patrick Bryant filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion in the Berg v. Bryant litigation alleging that Rep. Nancy Mace's attorney submitted AI-fabricated case citations in a court brief, then, the motion alleges, attempted to conceal the error by filing an amended brief that itself allegedly continued to use fabricated citations. Bryant's motion documents the alleged cover-up paragraph by paragraph. Mace and her attorney D. Craig Brown dispute the allegations; no court has ruled on the motion.
Gag Order Showdown: New Motion Targets Nancy Mace
Attorneys for Patrick Bryant and Eric Bowman filed a contempt motion seeking civil sanctions, and possible incarceration, against Mace for allegedly violating the court-ordered gag order within hours of its issuance through social media posts, campaign emails, and congressional newsletters.
While the gag order holds, Mace promotes her 'Predators Act' as 'deeply personal'
On January 11, 2026, with the Berg v. Bryant gag order in effect and days before the court's supplemental order, Mace promoted her 'Preventing Prosecutors from Protecting Predators Act' from her verified @RepNancyMace account, calling it 'deeply personal' and tying it to 'trauma' she says she experienced 'two years ago.' Opposing counsel flagged the post as a continued public statement about matters connected to the case.
While the gag order holds, Mace proposes Aggravated Voyeurism Act and ties it to her 'personal experiences' as a victim
On January 3, 2026, with the Berg v. Bryant gag order in effect, Rep. Nancy Mace announced the Aggravated Voyeurism Act at the South Carolina statehouse and publicly tied it to her 'personal experiences' as a self-described victim of voyeurism. The announcement was not cited in the contempt motion filed January 12, 2026; it is presented here as a public statement made during the order's effective period. Mace disputes the validity and scope of the gag order.
A pinned post viewed 20,000+ times: Mace calls South Carolina a 'pedophile paradise' while the gag order is in effect
On December 31, 2025, from her verified @RepNancyMace account, Mace published and pinned a post attacking the South Carolina Attorney General, calling the state a 'pedophile paradise' at a time when a gag order in Berg v. Bryant was in effect. The post reportedly re-shared content from her December 27, 2025 video. A contempt motion filed January 12, 2026 attaches it as Exhibit 9 and notes the post had been viewed more than 20,000 times. Mace disputes the validity of the gag order and its application to her.
Bowman's lawyer reports a December 27 Instagram video to the judge as a gag-order violation
On December 27, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, Mace posted a video on Instagram from @repnancymace; counsel for co-defendant Eric Bowman, Robert Merting, emailed Judge Hocker on December 29 to report it, and Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches it as Exhibits 5-7, contending it referred to Bowman by name in terms implying criminal conduct 'that has not been alleged in this litigation.'
Bryant's counsel to Berg's attorney: 'Describing in detail what I contend is confidential before the Order is in place would defeat the very purpose of having a confidentiality order'
On December 22, 2025, Patrick Bryant's attorneys at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani filed a seven-page opposition to Berg's motion for a blanket confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. The brief argues that the photographs and recordings Berg now seeks to seal were already made public by Rep. Nancy Mace, with Berg's consent, during Mace's February and May 2025 congressional speeches. Bryant's counsel agrees that Berg's medical and therapy records should be confidential, but opposes a blanket designation. Attached as Exhibit A is a 23-page compilation of counsel emails documenting a six-week dispute over what, if anything, required protection. All allegations in the underlying litigation are disputed and contested; Bryant denies the claims against him; Berg, Mace, and all named parties deny Bryant's allegations; no matter has been adjudicated.
In her own sworn Answer, Mace admits she 'placed an air tag on Bryant's car for one day in August 2023'
In her December 19, 2025 Answer to Patrick Bryant's Third-Party Complaint, Rep. Nancy Mace admits under oath that she placed a tracking device on Bryant's car and attempted to access his laptop, while denying Bryant's allegation that she intended to weaponize what she found. The filing is Mace's own account, in her own words, on the public court record.
'There are at least two people in Mace's car': Bryant's counsel refuses to delete the recording, and announces an amended complaint
The recording of Nancy Mace's first phone call with Ali Berg, produced by Berg's counsel in the ADW v. Berg civil case, quickly became a courtroom fight. When Berg's counsel designated it confidential, Bryant's counsel refused to delete it, argued witnesses in the car undermined any privacy claim, and announced he would amend the complaint against Mace based on its contents.
Judge issues gag order restricting Nancy Mace and others from speaking about ongoing lawsuits
The Post and Courier reports that Judge Hocker imposed a sua sponte gag order barring Mace and eight other parties from publicly discussing two related civil lawsuits, following her February 2025 House floor speech accusing four men of sexual exploitation.
Gagged: Judge Issues Order in Nancy Mace Case
Retired S.C. circuit court judge Donald B. Hocker issued a gag order prohibiting Mace and other parties to the Berg-Bryant civil litigation from making any public statements about the cases, barring speech across all platforms including social media.
While under the gag order, Mace's congressional office sends a mass newsletter about the case: 'I WILL NOT be silenced.'
On December 1, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, a mass email newsletter from Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional office, headlined 'Rep. Nancy Mace says 2 more women accuse her ex-fiancé of abuse,' named Patrick Bryant, recited unproven allegations, and declared 'I WILL NOT be silenced.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches the newsletter as Exhibit 8, contending it violated the gag order.
Two days into the gag order, Mace posts: 'IMPEACH ALL CORRUPT JUDGES', 'especially including those in South Carolina SPECIFICALLY.'
On November 28, 2025, two days after Judge Hocker entered the sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant, Mace posted from her verified @RepNancyMace account calling to impeach 'all corrupt judges,' adding in the same thread 'especially including those in South Carolina SPECIFICALLY.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion makes the post Exhibit 4 and contends it violated the gag order.
Under four hours after the gag order reached her lawyer, Mace posts about a co-defendant's bond: 'Not nearly enough.'
On November 26, 2025, the same day Judge Donald B. Hocker entered a sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant and circulated it to all counsel at 2:23 p.m. Rep. Nancy Mace replied at 6:43 p.m. from her verified @RepNancyMace account to a post reporting that co-defendant Eric Bowman had been granted bond on domestic-violence and harassment charges, writing: 'Not nearly enough. Very concerned for the safety of his victims. Keeping them in my prayers tonight.' A contempt motion filed January 12, 2026 attaches the post as Exhibit 3 and contends it violated the order within hours of its issuance; Mace disputes both the motion and the validity of the order, calling it unconstitutional and unenforceable.
'Where is the Video?': Court Filings Challenge Nancy Mace's Story
Court filings reveal that even the plaintiff's own attorney acknowledged to the court that he did not have the video Mace claimed to have discovered; Bryant's counterclaim accuses Mace of allegedly accessing his phone without authorization, and the article reports his request for a TRO to compel in-camera review of the alleged evidence.
Patrick Bryant: 'Today I authorized my attorneys to file a temporary restraining order against Nancy Ruth Mace'
On November 17, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker entered an order in Berg v. Bryant ending pseudonym use in the case, ruling that the identities of the plaintiff and a witness were already known to the public. Bryant announced a temporary restraining order motion the same day.
Patrick Bryant publishes Mace's emails to his lawyers: 'You poked the wrong bear. And you will pay dearly.'
On November 14, 2025, Patrick Bryant published screenshots of emails he said a sitting Member of Congress sent to his attorneys and process server, including a profanity-laced reply to a cease-and-desist letter, an email authorizing service on two attorneys, and a reply from one of those attorneys stating she does not represent Mace. The screenshots are reproduced below; the allegations on every side are disputed and unproven.
New Filings Accuse Nancy Mace of Fabricating Sexual Assault Claims
FITSNews covered Bryant's third-party complaint accusing Mace, Melissa Britton, and Jane Doe of conspiring to fabricate sexual assault allegations for personal and political gain. Bryant denied all underlying allegations. Mace denied Bryant's account and called the filing an attempt to pay her again. All allegations are contested; litigation is active.
Patrick Bryant: 'Today I filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint… Where is the evidence?'
On November 6, 2025, Patrick Bryant announced he had filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint in Charleston County Court against Nancy Mace and alleged co-conspirators, denying he had ever assaulted anyone and demanding evidence.
Ex-fiancé sues Rep. Nancy Mace, claims she fabricated sexual assault allegations
Local Charleston television station Live 5 News was the first outlet to publish Bryant's lawsuit against Mace alleging she fabricated sexual assault claims. All allegations are contested; Mace denied Bryant's account; litigation is active.
Mace announces intent to sue: 'SUING FOR DEFAMATION!!'
On Nov. 5, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace announced she had retained attorney Larry Klayman and intended to sue the Charleston Airport, American Airlines, and others for allegedly falsifying incident reports after her Oct. 30 confrontation. As of June 2026, no complaint had been filed in any court.
S.C. Chief Justice Consolidates Cases Involving Nancy Mace, Former Fiancé
South Carolina Chief Justice John Kittredge assigned retired circuit judge Donald B. Hocker to oversee five civil lawsuits and two criminal indictments stemming from Mace's February 2025 House floor speech, with the order noting that additional civil lawsuits were expected and could be added to the docket.
'Recuse themselves': Mace's official press release demands the prosecutor's removal and a state investigation into her
On August 18, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace issued an official congressional press release headlined 'Solicitor Scarlett Wilson Tipped Off Abuser and Leaked Evidence to Harm Victim,' demanding that the elected Ninth Circuit Solicitor recuse from 'any and all cases related to this victim,' be removed from all domestic-violence prosecutions, and face 'a full and immediate state investigation into Wilson's misconduct.' Wilson responded that prosecutors are 'required by law and ethical rules to provide all relevant information to the defense' and that she would not 'play a part in the circus sideshow.' The allegations on all sides are unproven and contested.
Mace's own motion shows she signed a quitclaim deed to her ex-fiancé on Feb. 13, 2025, three days after accusing him of crimes on the House floor
Mace's June 27, 2025 motion to enforce her settlement with Brendan (Patrick) Bryant documents that she executed a quitclaim deed transferring the beach house to him on Feb. 13, 2025, days after her Feb. 10 floor speech, while their property settlement was still being carried out.
'The solicitor leaked evidence': Mace accuses the prosecutor in her own cases on a national podcast
On June 19, 2025, on the PBD Podcast, Rep. Nancy Mace named Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, the elected chief prosecutor whose circuit would handle the cases arising from Mace's own allegations, and accused her of leaking evidence, refusing to prosecute rape, and having 'inserted yourself into this investigation and … obstructed the investigation.' Wilson answered that her office was not running the investigation, SLED was, and said 'I have no idea what the Congresswoman is referring to.' The Post and Courier reported that when it asked Mace's office, repeatedly, for evidence of the obstruction claim, none was provided. The underlying allegations are unproven and contested.
Patrick Bryant: 'People often ask, how did I ever love Nancy Mace?'
On June 3, 2025, Patrick Bryant reflected publicly on his former relationship with Nancy Mace while sharing coverage of her abrupt reversal on LGBTQ issues.
Text messages show draft complaint revised line by line, with edits including: 'change statehouse floor to floor of the United States House of Representatives'
Exhibit E to Bryant's December 22, 2025 opposition to a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant is a set of text-message screenshots between a contact identified as 'N M' and Alexis Berg, dated Monday, May 26, 2025. The thread includes an attachment titled 'Proposed Complaint, Ali's edits.docx' (228 KB), followed by a series of messages that walk through the draft complaint bullet by bullet, proposing specific textual changes. Bryant contends in the filing that these texts show Rep. Nancy Mace was 'actively drafting and revising the allegations' in Berg's complaint. Berg and Mace deny improper coordination; Berg's counsel has described any such suggestion as baseless. The litigation is ongoing and the allegations are unproven.
Under oath, former Nancy Mace strategist says SC congresswoman asked him to 'blackmail' her ex
Under oath in a deposition, Mace's former campaign strategist Wesley Donehue testified that she asked him to 'blackmail' her ex-fiancé Patrick Bryant over property and photos, not to contact police, and that he refused. Mace contests the characterization; all parties deny the most serious allegations; litigation is ongoing.
Bombshell Deposition: Nancy Mace's Former Strategist Unloads
FITSNews broke the Donehue deposition story two days before the Post and Courier, publishing lengthy excerpts of Donehue's sworn testimony that Mace pressed him to blackmail Bryant and that the original complaint contained no rape or sex-trafficking claims. Mace denies the characterization; all parties are adverse in ongoing civil litigation.
Patrick Bryant: 'I categorically deny the false and outrageous claims made by Nancy Mace'
On May 20, 2025, the day Rep. Nancy Mace testified before a House Oversight subcommittee, her former fiancé Patrick Bryant issued a public statement denying her allegations and demanding she repeat them outside the protections of Congress.
At her own surveillance hearing, Mace displays a 'naked silhouette' of herself: 'That's my body. You can see the silhouette.'
Chairing a House Oversight subcommittee hearing she titled 'Breach of Trust: Surveillance in Private Spaces,' Rep. Nancy Mace held up a poster-sized image she said depicted her own body, told the room it had been captured by hidden surveillance without her consent, and said no one had been arrested. She tied the image to her ex-fiancé, Patrick Bryant, who categorically denies her allegations; the matter is contested and in ongoing litigation.
Nancy Mace Parades Her Own Naked Photos in Bizarre Hearing
Mace displayed before a House Oversight Committee hearing what she described as a silhouette image she said depicted her, allegedly taken without her consent by her ex-fiancé and others. Her ex-fiancé and the other accused men deny all allegations. Litigation is ongoing.
Exhibit F: The Britton Texts Bryant Says Show No Evidence Was Ever Delivered
Attached to Bryant's December 22, 2025 public opposition to a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Exhibit F is a set of text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg spanning March through May 2025. Bryant contends the messages show that Britton refused to provide Berg with any promised evidence of the alleged assault. Berg and Britton deny wrongdoing; Berg's counsel has called any suggestion of improper coordination baseless. The exhibit pages carry a CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by Berg's counsel, and the confidentiality dispute is itself before the court.
Mace's own defamation complaint puts her House-floor accusations, and the men's furious replies, into the public record
Suing Eric Bowman for defamation on May 12, 2025, Mace's complaint confirms she 'identified four individuals' from the House floor and reproduces, verbatim, the very accusations she calls false, including claims she steered VA contracts and 'destroy[ed] innocent men with zero evidence, zero charges.'
Patrick Bryant on Mace's reversal: 'Just two years ago, she sounded like an entirely different person'
On April 25, 2025, Patrick Bryant shared a column on Nancy Mace's political shift, contrasting her 2023 support for LGBTQ rights with her later rhetoric and noting the timeline of their breakup.
Prosecutors drop charge against man who Rep. Nancy Mace claimed 'physically accosted' her
CNN's companion to the NBC charges-dropped story; confirmed prosecutors declined to prosecute James McIntyre and included McIntyre's own statement directly rebutting Mace's account of being physically assaulted.
Prosecutors drop charge against man who Rep. Nancy Mace accused of assaulting her at the Capitol
Prosecutors dropped the misdemeanor assault charge against foster-care advocate James McIntyre, whom Mace had accused of 'physically accosting' her at a December 2024 Capitol event. Three eyewitnesses said McIntyre had simply shaken her hand. The dismissal drew wide coverage, which characterized the charge's collapse as undercutting Mace's account.
Patrick Bryant shares Live5 report: Mace declines Mount Pleasant town hall, citing 'left-wing extremists'
On March 19, 2025, Patrick Bryant amplified a Live5News report that Rep. Nancy Mace declined an invitation to a Mount Pleasant town hall, citing concerns about 'left-wing extremists.'
US Rep. Nancy Mace sued for libel and defamation after making public accusations of abuse
Brian Musgrave, one of the four men Mace accused by name in her February 2025 House floor speech, filed a federal defamation and libel suit against her. The case was ultimately dismissed as to floor-speech claims under the Speech or Debate Clause, though the judge left open whether Mace's social-media statements were protected. All allegations are contested; Mace denied wrongdoing.
Patrick Bryant on Brian Musgrave: 'Absolutely everything said about him is a lie'
On March 10, 2025, Patrick Bryant publicly defended his longtime friend Brian Musgrave, one of the men Mace named on the House floor, pointing to a CNN interview in which Musgrave denied Mace's allegations.
Exclusive: Man accused as 'predator' by Rep. Nancy Mace breaks his silence
In an exclusive interview with CNN national correspondent Randi Kaye, aired the evening of March 10, 2025 as a segment on 'Anderson Cooper 360°', Brian Musgrave, one of the four men Rep. Nancy Mace named in her House floor speech, denied her allegations on camera: 'Absolutely not. No, no.' Mace's allegations are contested and unproven; the dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation.
Patrick Bryant shares P&C report: Mace 'declined to answer' on private vs. taxpayer-funded defense
On March 9, 2025, Patrick Bryant shared a Post & Courier report on the legal exposure facing Rep. Nancy Mace after her House floor speech, spotlighting that her office declined to say whether she would use a private or taxpayer-funded attorney.
Patrick Bryant: 'I hope others will stand up for John Osborne'
On February 11, 2025, a day after Mace's House floor speech, Patrick Bryant publicly defended his friend John Osborne, calling the consequences Osborne faced 'without being investigated, without being charged, and without a shred of real evidence.'
Rep. Nancy Mace details accusations of rape and sexual abuse in a speech from the House floor
Mace used a 50-plus-minute House floor speech to accuse four named men, including her ex-fiancé Patrick Bryant, of rape, sex trafficking, and other crimes. All four men categorically denied the allegations to NBC. The speech triggered multiple defamation lawsuits and is central to ongoing litigation; all allegations are contested and unproven.
A sworn affidavit attributes a statement to Mace: 'I hacked into his [Patrick's] computer and phone'
A sworn affidavit by South Carolina journalist Ashleigh Messervy attests that at a private August 28, 2024 meeting, Rep. Nancy Mace, after explaining she 'used to be a programmer', told her: 'I hacked into his [Patrick's] computer and phone.'
The first recorded call with Ali Berg, April 6, 2024: full supercut, in her own words
A produced vertical supercut of Rep. Nancy Mace's first recorded phone call with Alexis "Ali" Berg (April 6, 2024), published by FITSNews on June 7, 2026, after the recording was produced in ADW v. Berg. Across 44 minutes Mace pitches a civil lawsuit and a payout, never mentions the police, and never offers Berg a victim advocate or counselor.
Easily all of us can get $150,000 each: the money line from Mace's first call with Ali Berg
A 19-second vertical clip of the money line from Rep. Nancy Mace's first recorded phone call with Alexis "Ali" Berg, April 6, 2024. Rather than a referral to law enforcement or a victim advocate, Mace pitches a civil lawsuit against her ex-fiance Patrick Bryant and tells Berg a payout of about $150,000 each is realistic. FITSNews published the full audio on June 7, 2026, reporting the recording was produced in the ADW v. Berg civil litigation. Mace's allegations on the call are unproven and contested; the people she names deny wrongdoing.
Ten months before accusing him from the House floor, Mace sued her ex-fiancé to split the beach house they owned together
On April 2, 2024, Mace filed a partition action against Brendan (Patrick) Bryant to divide or sell a jointly owned Isle of Palms beach house. Her own complaint records that she and the man she would later accuse of crimes each held 'an undivided one half' interest in the property.