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
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.
Exhibit E to a December 22, 2025 court filing in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124, is a set of text-message screenshots spanning pages 14 through 19 of Bryant's opposition to Berg's motion for a confidentiality order. The messages are between a contact displayed as "N M" and Alexis Berg. They are dated Monday, May 26, 2025.
Near the start of the exchange, a file attachment appears in the thread: "Proposed Complai...s to Ali's edits.docx" (228 KB), sent at 10:50 AM. The messages that follow work through the draft complaint paragraph by paragraph, proposing specific language changes.
One edit, quoted verbatim from the screenshots on page 16, reads:
"Bullet 8 same page, important edit: change statehouse floor to floor of the United States House of Representatives. Statehouse and US House two very different things"
Bryant's filing, at page 6, contends that these text messages establish that Mace was "actively drafting and revising the allegations" in Berg's complaint. The contact "N M" is identified in Bryant's submission as Mace; the dispatch uses that characterization as attributed to Bryant's filing, not as an independently established fact.
Berg's counsel has stated in the litigation that any suggestion of coordination with Mace in drafting the complaint is "baseless." Mace has separately denied the underlying allegations against her in this litigation. The case is pending.
Exhibit E, as submitted
The images below are reproduced from the version of Exhibit E attached to Bryant's filing, as docketed; this site has not independently verified that they match a separately obtained copy of the underlying exhibit.
Page 15: the "Proposed Complai...s to Ali's edits.docx" attachment (228 KB, 10:50 AM) appears in the thread, followed by the first edit: "Should Page 3, bullet point 7, end of sentence be 'Charleston County' instead of 'Charleston'?" (10:54 AM).
Page 16: "Bullet 8 same page change to February 10"; "Bullet 8 same page, important edit: change statehouse floor to floor of the United States House of Representatives. Statehouse and US House two very different things"; "Bullet 9... change that to 'who'"; "Page 3, Bullet 11: Bowman once owned a sports team etc since he no longer owns it any more."
Page 17: "I believe Page 6 bullet 29 would be he turned them off multiple times and she tried to turn them on..."; the reaction "holy shit; they tried to get you in a bedroom"; "Page 6, bullet 32, cell phones plural... Confirmed via Daily Mail article also"; "Bullet 33 may want to clarify... you changed or undressed in bathroom; not out in the open."
Page 18: "Page 7 bullet 36, in an email she used for a diary"; "Page 10, bullet 58, Moffatt spelling typo..."; a reaction sequence: "That's RAPE / you were intoxicated / WTF / How many women did he do this to???"
These messages are reproduced as they appear in the exhibit attached to Bryant's filing; they reflect statements by the texter, not assertions by this site. The allegations they refer to remain unproven and contested, are not a finding of fact, and are denied by the parties they concern.
Page 19: edits to bullets 60, 61, 66, 67, 72, 76, and 103; closing with: "Page 17, bullet 100, I was also on that letter; add me in there bc that shows he's targeting victims and witnesses."
What Bryant contends
At page 6 of the opposition brief, Bryant argues that the exhibits attached to the filing demonstrate that "Mace and Berg communicated hundreds of times" in connection with the litigation, and that the text messages in Exhibit E show Mace "actively drafting and revising the allegations" in Berg's complaint. Bryant's filing submits this as grounds to oppose Berg's motion seeking a confidentiality order, arguing Berg cannot seek to restrict the evidence while the coordination it reflects has already been made part of the public record.
The edits shown in Exhibit E range from jurisdictional precision (the statehouse/House-floor correction) to factual additions ("Bowman once owned a sports team"; "I was also on that letter; add me in there bc that shows he's targeting victims and witnesses") to spelling corrections across more than a dozen numbered bullets.
The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related proceedings. All allegations remain unproven and contested. Mace and Berg deny improper coordination; Bryant and the other named parties deny Berg's allegations; 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, pages 14-19 are Exhibit E), Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Patrick Bryant's Response and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Confidentiality Order, Berg v. Bryant, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 2025-CP-10-03124, e-filed December 22, 2025. Exhibit E begins at page 14.
- Case hub: Berg v. Bryant court filings
- The state docket is verifiable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County) under Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124.
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 14, 2025 · DispatchExhibit 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.
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.