Part of: Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
"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.

A supercut of Rep. Nancy Mace's first recorded phone call with Alexis "Ali" Berg (April 6, 2024), drawn from the audio FITSNews published on June 7, 2026. Every line below is verbatim from the recording.
FITSNews published the full audio on June 7, 2026, describing it as the origin of Mace's "scorched earth" campaign. The recording was produced in the ADW v. Berg civil litigation. The call runs roughly 44 minutes; this supercut presents its key moments in sequence.
Credit: FITSNews ("Leaked Call Details Origins of Nancy Mace's 'Scorched Earth' Campaign," June 7, 2026).
The assertion, and no memory
Early in the call, Mace describes what she says she believes happened, naming a third party. Berg says she has no memory of the events Mace is describing.
- Mace: "I believe you were assaulted. And I believe that he filmed it."
- Ali: "Can you tell me what you mean by assaulted?"
- Mace: "And he did it in front of Patrick and Eric, and Patrick filmed it."
- Ali: "Did what?"
- Mace: "It looks like he was assaulting you."
- Ali: "I have no memory of any of that. Like, I told you what I remember."
- Mace: "Which is why you told me what your lawsuit was over, the overtime. I was like, she doesn't know."
- Mace: "You were passed out. You were completely out. It was John."
- Ali: "Still a little shaky, still a little shocked, trying to wrap my head around it."
The pitch: a lawsuit, not the police
From there Mace turns to what she says she is doing about it. She does not suggest Berg contact law enforcement or speak with a victim advocate. The help she offers is civil litigation and money.
- Mace: "I'm going to sue him. Okay? Civilly."
- Mace: "It's about $150,000. It does not include legal fees."
- Mace: "My attorney tells me that we can all be Jane Doe, at least initially."
- Mace: "If you want justice, I'm going to help you. If you don't, then I'll never say another word."
- Mace: "If there's a civil suit, those things can be subpoenaed. What I want is, I want all my videos and I want them destroyed."
- Mace: "I filed a suit against him on Tuesday of this week regarding our real estate."
- Mace: "There's strength in numbers. They can't go after just one of us."
- Mace: "Andrews got 55 million when she was filmed without her knowledge or consent."
- Mace: "You have to hit him in his pocketbook with a civil suit."
- Mace: "Easily all of us can get $150,000 each. I think we can get more."
- Mace: "He has assets. He has real estate. He has businesses."
- Mace: "I think he would settle right off the bat. Sell one of his buildings, settle."
- Mace: "He can sell a building or two, settle, be done, move on."
- Mace: "I'm interviewing different attorneys for the civil suit, and they're going to do it on contingency."
- Mace: "I'm not talking to him. I'm not talking to his business partners. He'll never know what hit him."
Across the call, Mace frames the matter as a civil suit for financial damages rather than a criminal complaint. At no point does she offer Berg counseling, a victim advocate, or a referral to law enforcement.
The allegations Mace describes on the FITSNews recording are unproven, contested, and the subject of ongoing civil litigation and a South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation. The people she names, including Patrick Bryant, who has categorically denied her claims, as well as John Osborne and Eric Bowman, deny wrongdoing. None of the underlying matters has been adjudicated. Nothing here is a finding of fact.
Sources and related coverage
- FITSNews, "Leaked Call Details Origins of Nancy Mace's 'Scorched Earth' Campaign" (June 7, 2026)
- Full audio on YouTube
- Original first-call dispatch on Maceopedia -- full transcript analysis and context
- Berg v. Bryant court-filing hub -- docket and case background

Read next
- April 6, 2024 · Dispatch
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.
June 7, 2026 · DispatchOn 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.'
- April 6, 2024 · Dispatch
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.
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.
August 28, 2024 · DispatchA 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.'
June 30, 2026 · DispatchWas 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.