Part of: Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
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.
In a public X thread, Maceopedia replied to a discussion involving Rep. Nancy Mace and Austin Ayers with the public-record receipt from the first recorded call between Mace and Alexis "Ali" Berg.
The point was narrow: the recording published by FITSNews includes Mace discussing a civil lawsuit, videos or photos, and a potential dollar figure. In that call, Mace says:
"Easily all of us can get $150,000 each. I think we can get more."
Mace then replied in the X thread:
"Should be more. For what was done to me and others."
That reply matters because it places Mace's own current public framing beside the earlier recorded call. The public-record question is not whether legislation protecting women and girls is important. It is what specific conduct Mace is tying to the dollar amount in this thread, and whether that claim is about alleged sexual assault, alleged voyeurism or photos, or something else.
Maceopedia's follow-up reply asked that question directly:
"@NancyMace when you say 'what was done to me and others,' are you referring to alleged rape, alleged voyeurism/photos, or something else?
The distinction matters. The Berg-call receipt discusses '150K each' in the lawsuit context around photos."
The underlying allegations remain unproven, contested, and part of ongoing civil litigation and investigation. Patrick Bryant, John Osborne, and Eric Bowman deny wrongdoing. None of the underlying matters has been adjudicated, and this dispatch is not a finding of fact.
The record point is narrower: when Mace connects "what was done to me and others" to money in the same thread where the "150K each" receipt is being discussed, specificity matters.
Sources and related coverage
Read next
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.
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.'
- June 7, 2026 · Dispatch
"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.
- 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.
- 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 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.