“The Secretary Said You’re Not Welcome Here”: Five Years of Abandonment, Then Assault

The Six Witnesses

One of the most remarkable aspects of the November 11, 2025 incident is not that it happened—but that it happened in full view of six people, from two separate vantage points, and apparently no one at the embassy thought to file a mandatory incident report.

This is not a “he said, she said” situation. This is not one person’s word against another’s. This is a documented event with multiple independent witnesses, including embassy staff.

Let’s examine each witness and what they observed.

Witness #1: Sgt. Kelvin Blas (Victim)

Sgt. Blas contacted Covenant for Forgotten Warriors immediately after the incident with a detailed account. His description was consistent, specific, and verifiable—he provided the guard’s name, the approximate timeline, the exact words spoken, and the physical nature of the contact.

Critically, Sgt. Blas’s account was later independently corroborated by embassy staff, which we’ll address below.

Witness #2: Susan Williams (Civilian Visitor)

Susan Williams is a crucial witness because she is completely independent. She had no prior relationship with Sgt. Blas. She was not part of any advocacy effort on his behalf. She was simply a visitor to the embassy who witnessed something concerning enough that she felt compelled to speak up.

Her objection—”Stop handling him like that”—indicates that the physical contact was visible, concerning, and inappropriate enough to prompt intervention from a bystander.

Embassy visitor logs should document her presence on November 11, 2025. True Signal Media has requested these logs via FOIA.

Witnesses #3, #4, #5: Three Additional Civilian Visitors

These three additional witnesses observed the incident from outside the embassy. Like Susan Williams, they had no prior connection to Sgt. Blas or any advocacy organization working on his behalf.

The fact that multiple civilians were present during the incident is significant for several reasons:

• It demonstrates this was a public event, not a private confrontation
• Embassy security would have been aware that civilians were observing
• The incident lasted long enough (over one hour) for multiple people to witness it
• The physical nature of the removal was visible enough to be observed by multiple parties

Embassy visitor logs should document the presence of all visitors on November 11, 2025. True Signal Media has requested these logs via FOIA.

Witness #6: Mr. Agawu Raymond (Embassy Staff)

Mr. Agawu Raymond is perhaps the most important witness because he is an embassy employee who observed the incident and later confirmed key details to a third party.

Two days after the November 11 incident, Mr. Raymond spoke with a third party and provided independent confirmation of what occurred. This conversation is detailed below, but the significance of Mr. Raymond as a witness cannot be overstated:

• He is an embassy employee – His credibility is tied to his employment at the embassy. He has no apparent motive to fabricate or exaggerate.
• He observed from inside the embassy – This means embassy staff had visual confirmation of the incident in real time.
• He did not intervene – Which raises questions about whether embassy personnel are trained to intervene when security personnel use force against U.S. citizens.
• He later discussed the incident – Which indicates the event was significant enough to be remembered and discussed internally.
• He provided specific details – His account matched Sgt. Blas’s account on key facts.

The fact that an embassy staff member witnessed the incident and did not file a report (or if he did file a report, it has not been produced) is itself a significant problem.

What the Embassy Staff Said

Two days after the November 11, 2025 incident, a third party approached Mr. Agawu Raymond to inquire about what had happened to Sgt. Blas. The conversation that followed provides crucial independent corroboration—and reveals even more concerning information about embassy staff’s awareness and intentions.

The November 13, 2025 Conversation

On November 13, 2025, a third party asked Mr. Raymond what had happened to Kelvin Blas two days earlier. Mr. Raymond provided the following information:

This statement confirms several key facts:

• Embassy staff are aware of who Kelvin Blas is (Raymond identified him by first name)
• Embassy staff know that Kelvin was at the embassy on November 11
• Embassy staff confirm that Kelvin was asked to leave
• Embassy staff are using the lack of an appointment as justification for the denial

This confirmation is critical because it comes from an embassy employee who had no obligation to discuss the incident with a third party. Mr. Raymond could have declined to comment, claimed ignorance, or referred questions to embassy leadership. Instead, he confirmed the basic facts of what occurred.

“Someone Has Been Tarnishing the Image of the Embassy on the Internet”

But Mr. Raymond didn’t stop with simply confirming that Kelvin was asked to leave. He continued:

This statement is remarkable for what it reveals:

Embassy staff are monitoring external criticism. They are aware of advocacy efforts on behalf of Kelvin Blas. They are tracking online commentary about the embassy’s treatment of him. And they are discussing this criticism internally.

Mr. Raymond’s comment about “tarnishing the image of the embassy” demonstrates several things:

• The embassy is aware it is being criticized – Staff know that their treatment of Sgt. Blas is generating negative attention.
• The embassy is defensive – The framing of criticism as “tarnishing” rather than “reporting” or “documenting” suggests a defensive posture.
• The embassy is discussing the criticism internally – Mr. Raymond’s awareness of the online commentary means multiple staff members are talking about it.
• The embassy sees external advocacy as a problem – Rather than addressing the underlying conduct that prompted the criticism, staff are focused on the criticism itself.

This defensive posture is significant because it suggests embassy leadership is more concerned with managing their reputation than with addressing the systematic denial of services to a stranded veteran.

“He Will Be Arrested or Sack”

Then Mr. Raymond delivered the most concerning statement of all:

This threat is extraordinary for multiple reasons:

First, it is legally false.

U.S. citizens do not lose their right to consular access simply because they do not physically possess their passport. The entire purpose of consular sections is to assist citizens who have lost, had stolen, or had confiscated their travel documents.

If embassy staff could require citizens to physically hold their passport before providing services, then consular sections would be unable to help anyone whose passport was lost or stolen—which is one of the primary reasons people seek consular assistance in the first place.

This is not a gray area. This is not a matter of interpretation. Embassy staff threatening to arrest a U.S. citizen for seeking consular assistance without physically holding his passport is a fundamental misrepresentation of U.S. law and consular responsibilities.

Second, it represents escalating threats.

The progression is clear:

• November 11: “You’re not welcome here” + physical force
• November 11: “Next time you won’t even have the chance to come to the premises”
• November 13: “He will be arrested or sack”

Embassy staff are not de-escalating. They are not attempting to resolve the situation. They are threatening a U.S. citizen with arrest if he seeks help from his own embassy.

Third, it demonstrates embassy-wide awareness and coordination.

Mr. Raymond is a Togolese staff member. He is not making policy decisions about when U.S. citizens can be arrested. The threat he articulated—”from today onward”—suggests this is a decision that has been made at a leadership level and communicated to staff.

Someone at the embassy decided that Kelvin Blas will be threatened with arrest. Someone communicated this decision to staff. And staff are now repeating this threat to third parties.

This is not one rogue guard. This is not a misunderstanding. This is policy, authorized at a leadership level, communicated to staff, and being implemented through threats of violence against a U.S. veteran.

What This Means

The November 13 conversation with Mr. Agawu Raymond provides several critical pieces of information:

1. Independent corroboration – Embassy staff confirm the November 11 incident occurred as Sgt. Blas described
2. Embassy awareness – Staff know about external criticism and are discussing it internally
3. Defensive posture – Staff are focused on “image” rather than addressing underlying conduct
4. Escalating threats – Embassy is threatening arrest based on false legal claims
5. Leadership involvement – Threats are being communicated to staff as policy
6. Systematic retaliation – Embassy is retaliating against Sgt. Blas for persistent requests for help and for external advocacy on his behalf

Six witnesses observed the November 11 assault. Embassy staff confirmed it occurred. And now embassy staff are threatening further escalation.

This is not a story about one bad interaction. This is a story about systematic misconduct, leadership-level authorization, and escalating retaliation against a U.S. citizen for the crime of asking his own government for help.