Corrections: The original version of this article had accidentally misspelled Ms. Araoju's name, and has been corrected
Editor’s Note:
I have chosen not to publicize the specific trial date for this case in advance, a decision made for both safety and journalistic integrity reasons. Post Millennial staff, including Andy Ngo and Katie Daviscourt, have a documented pattern of filming and posting individuals they perceive as ideological opponents—including left‑leaning, transgender, and disabled journalists like myself—to their large social media audiences. This tactic, which Ngo was questioned about under oath in a prior Portland trial, routinely triggers waves of online harassment from their followers. While Daviscourt herself has not directly harassed me, the pattern is clear: film, post, and let the audience do the rest. Delaying public mention of the trial date helps ensure I can cover these proceedings without unnecessary interference or personal risk. Additionally, further research on the case suggests the state prosecutor would have told Mr. Ngo months ago when the trial was, as a crucial person of interest.
A Case Build on Contested Evidence
The criminal case against Isabel Araujo, stemming from the March 24, 2024 pepper‑spray incident at Portland State University, is set to resume this Monday before Judge Brown—the same judge who dismissed the original charges earlier this year over discovery concerns. The state refiled two misdemeanor counts—Assault IV and Unlawful Use of Mace II—after the statute of limitations expired on the third (Harassment).
The defense’s Motion in Limine (MiL), filed August 1, 2025, challenges the foundation of the state’s evidence. At the heart of the motion is video footage filmed by complainant Sorbeah Almosa. Police body‑worn camera audio captured Almosa admitting:
“I edited that video. There is a much longer version. I edited it so that it would fit into the criteria that I wanted.”
— Officer Wands BWC, timestamp 1:42–1:50
Despite repeated requests, the unedited original video has never been provided to the defense, raising potential Brady and best‑evidence issues.
The Video Chain: Three Versions, Three Narratives
Through review of available footage, three versions of the March 24, 2024 incident video are now known:
- Full Original Video (Unproduced)
- Filmed by Alamosa; length unknown
- Admitted to being edited for her purposes.
- Never produced to the defense
- One Minute Clip (Katie Daviscourt/The Post Millenial)
- Likely the version provided to Portland Police.
- Opens with Almosa shouting: “Is this where the Hamas supporters are?”
- A masked black‑bloc figure runs in from around 40 feet away to confront her.
- Roughly 45 seconds of back‑and‑forth as Almosa taunts and the figure repeatedly orders her to leave.
- Ends with verbal ultimatum and five‑second countdown, followed by pepper‑spray deployment.
- The video ends with the figure walking away and being intercepted by another unknown person before it abruptly ends
- Eight‑Second Social Media Clip
- Cropped from the end of the one‑minute clip.
- Shows only “Get the fuck out!”, the five second countdown and the pepper spray deployment
- Removes all approach, verbal provocation, and context, creating the impression of an unprovoked attack.
While the 8 second clip seems to favor showing a level of victimization where the incident was completely unprompted, the longer Daviscourt video shows a far more complex interaction, with Almosa engaging in extended verbal antagonism and the masked figure appearing to act in a protective posture for the protest, consistent with the defense’s community‑protection theory. But the lack of lead-up and the sudden end of the video raise a lot of missing context that is required by law.
Lawson, Hearsay, and the Andy Ngo Factor
The defense is also pursuing a Lawson challenge, which can exclude unreliable eyewitness identifications as a matter of law.
- Almosa’s identification of Araujo as the masked protester is heavily post‑event:
- She relied on Andy Ngo’s social media content and confirmation.
- Her own statements to police suggest she had no way to identify her attacker without Ngo’s coaching.
The defense is not calling Ngo as a witness, citing his residence abroad and the prejudice of remote testimony. Instead, their motion places the burden on the state:
- If Ngo does not appear as a witness, his statements and Almosa’s ID testimony based on his hearsay should be excluded under both Oregon and Sixth Amendment standards.
- Ngo has repeatedly claimed that it is dangerous for him to come to Portland, suggesting that he likely doesn’t want to be involved. This does run counter to social media posts of him taking videos in downtown Portland (a particular one we’ve noticed was published in May of 2025 to promote a new project of his)
Combined with the video‑admissibility challenge, these motions threaten the bedrock of the state’s case. Without the audio, video and the first hand testimony of the person who named Arajou, prosecutors don’t appear to have a path to even suggest, much less prove, that they have the right person on trial, much less prove their identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Almosa’s Public Narrative and Media Persona
Almosa has also continued to shape the incident for public consumption:
- A YouTube channel, titled “Where In The World Is Ara American,” hosts a single animated video, with a link to a website with a second video.
- The opening sequence mimics a Family Ties‑style sitcom intro, showing Almosa burning Qurans in various international locations, often with bystanders smiling or appearing supportive. The credits particularly highlight her and Brandon Farley as leading cast/producers of the piece, which frames a story laced with Islamophobia and transphobia, where she travels to the UK, in an attempt to break Tommy Robinson out of jail. The tale has her stealing food to get arrested, where she claims she is a trans man to get sent to a mens prison, only later for her and Robinson don niquabs to escape the prison.
- Two frames recreates the PSU incident: Almosa grins beside a burning Quran as a masked black‑bloc figure charges with pepper spray, and a second piece of her appearing shocked, surrounded by an orange gas.
This self‑curated narrative mirrors the content of her edited videos and reinforces the defense’s claim that media framing and post‑event storytelling have contaminated the identification and public perception of the case.
Additionally she was one of a number of people who was alleged to have attempted to mace a number of protesters during the social justice protests of 2020, eventually getting chased into a local 7/11 near the federal courthouse where protests were taking place. If her 2020 actions are to be addressed in court, it could further support the claim of a known problematic person being advised to leave a protest (there is significant overlap in the ideologies and members of both the 2020 protests and the 2024 PSU protest).
What to Watch as Trial Resumes
With Judge Brown presiding again, several developments could define this trial before a jury ever deliberates:
- Video Admissibility – If the 1‑minute clip is excluded under Brady, OEC 1002, or OEC 403, the state loses its only audiovisual evidence.
- Lawson and ID Reliability – Post‑event identification built on Ngo’s social media may be found insufficient.
- Sixth Amendment Issues – If Ngo does not appear, hearsay testimony about the perpetrator’s identity could be stricken.
- Credibility and Media Exposure – Almosa’s pending felony DV case in Clark County and her public self‑presentation may weigh heavily on the trial if it reaches a jury, as well as the past documented incidents of her attempting to attack leftist protesters.
If Judge Brown grants even part of the defense’s motions, the state’s case may unravel before a jury is seated.
We will be covering the trial in person and providing updates as rulings are issued. Stay tuned here and to our BlueSky for more information.