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.
