Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
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.
On December 22, 2025, attorneys for Patrick Bryant filed a public opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a confidentiality order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. Attached to that brief as Exhibit F is a set of text messages between Melissa Britton and Alexis Berg (the plaintiff, who proceeds in public filings as Jane Doe / "Ali Berg") covering exchanges from March through May 2025.
The pages bear a CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by Berg's counsel, Marybeth Mullaney, with Bates numbers PLTF_000176 through PLTF_000179. The fact that Bryant's counsel attached them to a public court filing is itself part of the dispute: Bryant's brief argues the documents are not properly confidential; Berg's motion argues they are. That dispute is currently before Judge Donald B. Hocker.
What Bryant contends the exhibit shows
In his brief, Bryant characterizes Exhibit F as evidence of a coordination problem on the opposing side. His filing states directly that the communications "highlight Britton's refusal to provide Berg with any of her alleged evidence of the assault. Why? Because it does not exist."
Bryant's position is that Britton, despite promising Berg that evidence of the alleged assault existed, declined to produce it to her. He further contends the messages show the parties coordinating on preparing a civil suit against him, not sharing contemporaneous evidence of the events Berg alleges.
The messages visible in the exhibit show Berg telling Britton she had retained an attorney named "Marybeth" and that she and "Nancy" were "preparing a civil suit." In a later exchange, Berg references her inability to access her own "file/screenshots/diary entry" and states a preference to keep communications in "official legal channels" so as not to "weaken our case." In a further message, Berg asks Britton to send "the diary entry," noting that "due to the nda I was only able to hear it read to me one time."
Bryant's brief uses those details to argue that what the messages actually document is a coordination effort to build a lawsuit, not the transmission of independent evidence.
Denials
Berg and Britton deny any wrongdoing. Berg's counsel, Marybeth Mullaney, has called any suggestion of improper coordination "baseless." The confidentiality designation applied to these pages reflects counsel's position that the communications were not meant to be public. The underlying allegations in Berg v. Bryant are disputed in their entirety; Bryant denies all of Berg's claims; all assertions remain unproven and no factual findings have been made.
The exhibit pages, as filed
The four pages of Exhibit F are reproduced below as filed in Bryant's public opposition. Each page bears the CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel and the corresponding Bates stamp. They were attached by Bryant to support his argument that the confidentiality designation was improper.
Exhibit F, p. 1 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000176). Text messages, March 13 through 14, 2025. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel; pages filed as part of Bryant's public opposition, Dec. 22, 2025.
Exhibit F, p. 2 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000177). Text messages, May 14, 2025. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel.
Exhibit F, p. 3 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000178). Text messages, May 17, 2025. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel.
Exhibit F, p. 4 of 4 (Bates PLTF_000179). Text messages, undated. CONFIDENTIAL designation applied by plaintiff's counsel.
The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related actions. All allegations remain unproven and contested. Bryant denies Berg's claims; Berg and Britton deny Bryant's characterizations of the exhibit; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Bryant's Opposition to Confidentiality Order (PDF), Exhibit F at pages 20 through 24, Berg v. Bryant, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 2025-CP-10-03124, e-filed December 22, 2025.
- Case hub: Berg v. Bryant court filings
- Melissa Britton
- Ali Berg
Read next
June 16, 2026 · DispatchCourt 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.
May 26, 2025 · DispatchText 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.
September 4, 2026 · DispatchNancy 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.
August 12, 2026 · DispatchCan Nancy Mace Make a Living Off Her New Podcast?
A current staffer says Nancy Mace is auditioning for a media career to 'pay the bills' after she leaves Congress in January 2027. So Maceopedia ran the numbers on the video she posted August 11, and on the operation around it. The video even opens like a YouTuber's channel: a 'GET MACED' logo bumper, a beach-and-poolside swimsuit montage, and a spoken 'hit the subscribe button' pitch, all before a word of politics. The same clip drew about 153,000 views on X and about 15,000 on YouTube, a ten-to-one gap that shows how much of her reach is rented from the platform and the office rather than owned. Former staffers have also alleged, in reporting Mace denies, that some of her online support was manufactured through staff-run burner accounts. Her personal channel has 22,300 subscribers; her official House channel's recent videos draw 130 to 1,400 views apiece. Measured against the political podcasters who actually earn a living, the picture is the streaming economy's brutal power law: a handful of stars capture nearly everything, and everyone else earns close to nothing. At her demonstrated scale, the direct economics of 'this type of podcast' land around a low-six-figure business at best, roughly her current $174,000 congressional salary or less, and that is before the reach she is renting expires with the seat. On top of the math sits a legal problem: the defamation defense keeping her afloat right now depends entirely on her holding federal office.
July 20, 2026 · Dispatch"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.
June 28, 2026 · DispatchIn 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.