This profile is part of "The Record Stands," a TROH special series.

Opinion is cheap. Anyone with a keyboard and a grudge can publish a blog post calling a private citizen anything they like, and on the Olympic Peninsula, someone did exactly that to Ben Mavy of Sequim.

Courtrooms are different. In a courtroom, both sides can present evidence, a neutral judge weighs it, and the outcome goes on the record with a case number attached. You can look it up. That is the entire point of this installment: you can look it up.

The case is Benjamin A. Mavy v. Anthony Colin Tomashefsky, Clallam County Superior Court, case number 25-2-00595-05. The docket is publicly mirrored on Trellis.Law. What follows is what that record shows, with the case outcomes drawn from TROH's case file, which is consistent with the public docket.

The Filing

On August 8, 2025, Ben Mavy filed a civil protection order petition in Clallam County. He was the petitioner. Anthony Colin Tomashefsky, the man behind the blog that had been targeting him, was the respondent.

The docket describes the matter plainly. Among the first entries, all dated August 8, 2025: a Law Enforcement and Confidential Information Form, an "Order Transferring AntiHarassment Case to Superior Court," a Notice of Disqualification, and a Notice of Appearance. This was an anti-harassment case, moved up to Superior Court, where it was assigned to Judge Elizabeth A. Stanley.

Pause on what it takes for a private citizen to do this. Filing a protection order petition means swearing out your account, attaching your name to it, and submitting to the court's judgment about whether your claims hold up. It is the opposite of anonymous blogging. One man put his name on a court filing and invited scrutiny. The other ran a website.

What the Judge Decided

On August 26, 2025, the court granted Mavy's petition. A stalking and harassment protection order was entered in his favor, effective through August 26, 2027.

One detail from the record speaks loudly: Tomashefsky failed to appear. The man who had so much to say on his blog did not show up to say it to a judge.

Read that again, because it is the heart of this story. A court hearing is the moment every keyboard accuser claims to want. Discovery, evidence, cross-examination, a judge bound by law. When that moment arrived, the respondent's chair sat empty, and the court heard the evidence and ruled for the man who showed up.

The Counter-Petition and the Motion for Revision

The story does not end with the granted petition, because Tomashefsky fought back the way he apparently prefers: with paperwork of his own, rather than testimony.

He filed a counter-petition against Mavy. The court denied it for insufficient evidence.

He then filed a motion for revision, asking the court to undo the ruling in Mavy's favor. The court denied that too, and the language of the denial deserves to be quoted exactly. The court found that the record "amply supports" the conclusion that Tomashefsky stalked and harassed Mavy.

Amply. Not barely. Not by a technicality. The judge reviewed the record and found it amply supported Mavy's account, after granting his petition, after denying the counter-petition, and after being asked to take a second look. Every door the respondent tried was closed, and every closing was documented.

An Honest Caveat

This series deals in documented facts, so two disclosures belong here.

First, the public docket mirror was last refreshed on August 9, 2025, before the merits hearing. The outcomes described above, the granted order, the denied counter-petition, the denied motion for revision, come from TROH's case file, which is consistent with that public docket. Every element is checkable against the court file, and we invite anyone to check it.

Second, the blog attributed to Tomashefsky published articles in 2026 attacking Mavy again, including pieces on March 5 and May 30, 2026, describing later protection-order disputes and claiming a King County weapons-surrender order against Mavy dated May 14, 2026. Those are unverified claims by the adverse party's own outlet about separate, later proceedings. Whatever those later disputes involve, they do not touch the August 2025 order in case 25-2-00595-05. That order stands on its own record: granted, defended, and affirmed on revision.

If the blog's account of separate proceedings is ever documented in a court file, we will report what that file actually says. That is the difference between this site and that one.

Why This Record Matters More Than a Thousand Blog Posts

Consider the asymmetry. A blog post costs nothing, proves nothing, and answers to no one. A court petition costs time, money, and nerve, and it answers to a judge who can deny it.

Mavy chose the expensive path. He filed, he appeared, he won. Then he won again when the counter-petition collapsed for insufficient evidence. Then he won a third time when the motion for revision was denied with the finding that the record "amply supports" his account.

Three rulings. Three documented outcomes. One empty chair.

The blog that targeted Ben Mavy wants its readers to believe its version of events. Fine. Let it make that case where cases are tested: in open court, under oath, before a judge. Its author had that chance on August 26, 2025. He did not take it.

The Bottom Line

A Clallam County Superior Court judge heard the evidence and sided with Ben Mavy, granting his petition for a protection order against Anthony Colin Tomashefsky, rejecting the retaliatory counter-petition for insufficient evidence, and rejecting the motion to revise that ruling with a finding that the record "amply supports" the conclusion that Tomashefsky stalked and harassed him.

That is not opinion. That is case number 25-2-00595-05. Look it up.

The next installment in this series steps out of the courtroom and onto the roads of the Olympic Peninsula, where the public record of Ben Mavy includes something the blog never mentions: neighbors, a starting line, and a ten-kilometer race over the Elwha River.

Sources: Trellis.Law public docket mirror, Benjamin A. Mavy v. Anthony Colin Tomashefsky, Clallam County Superior Court, case 25-2-00595-05 ([link](https://trellis.law/case/53009/25-2-00595-05/benjamin-a-mavy-vs-anthony-colin-tomashefsky)); TROH case file. Adverse-party blog articles cited as claims only, unverified.