PORT ANGELES, A Clallam County Superior Court protection order against Anthony Tomashefsky of Sequim was granted on August 26, 2025, after Tomashefsky failed to appear at the hearing he had been told, in writing and in person, to attend. The order remains in effect through August 26, 2027.
The order, filed in Benjamin Mavy v. Anthony Tomashefsky, Clallam County Superior Court No. 25-2-00595-05, protects Mavy, a financial-technology sales professional. Court records show Mavy filed his petition on August 7, 2025, in Clallam County District Court; the matter was transferred to Superior Court the next day, where the public docket lists Judge Elizabeth A. Stanley as the assigned judge.
The court's findings are printed on the face of the order. Checking the box for a stalking protection order, the court found that "the restrained person has subjected the protected person to stalking." Checking the box for an anti-harassment protection order, it found that "the restrained person has subjected the protected person to unlawful harassment." Both findings were made "by a preponderance of evidence" based on "the petition, testimony, case record, and response, if any."
What the order commands
The restraints imposed on Tomashefsky are sweeping. He is ordered not to harass, threaten, or stalk Mavy; not to attempt or have any contact with him, "directly, indirectly, or through third parties, regardless of whether those third parties know of the order", except for service of court documents; and not to "harass, follow, monitor, keep under physical or electronic surveillance, cyber harass," or use "phone, video, audio, or other electronic means to record, photograph, or track" Mavy's locations or communications. He must remain at least 1,000 feet from Mavy, Mavy's residence, Mavy's workplace, and Mavy's vehicle. A handwritten addition on the form's "Other" line drives the point home: "Do not monitor, track, or surveil."
The standard form states that the order is "effective immediately and for 1 year from today's date, unless a different end date is listed here." The court listed one: 8-26-27. The order was filed with the Clallam County Clerk at 4:23 p.m. on August 26, 2025. No weapons surrender was ordered, and no minor children were included.
The empty chair
The order itself records the day's central fact: the respondent never showed up.
In the service section, the court checked and completed the box reading: "The restrained person did not appear at the hearing. However, the material terms of this order have not changed from the Temporary Protection Order that was served on the restrained person. No further service is required."
Tomashefsky cannot claim he was unaware. The order's notice section records that notice of the hearing was served on him "in court when TPO was issued", that is, at the August 12, 2025, ex parte hearing, which court records show both men attended. At that hearing, according to a later memorandum opinion by Superior Court Judge W. Brent Basden, the court heard briefly from both parties, "including providing Respondent an opportunity to say why an order should not issue," then issued a temporary protection order and set the full hearing for August 26 at 9:30 a.m.
Four days before that hearing, on August 22, Tomashefsky emailed the court administrator and Mavy stating his intent to file a motion under RCW 4.105, Washington's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, and declaring that the August 26 hearing "must be stricken," the Basden opinion recounts. On August 25, at the judge's direction, the court administrator informed Tomashefsky "that an email to the Court Administrator does not change court dates," and told him he could schedule a hearing or appear at the one already set if he wanted a continuance.
He appeared nowhere. "On August 26, 2025, the court conducted the protection order hearing that was scheduled," Basden's opinion states. "Petitioner appeared for that hearing, but Respondent did not." Court Commissioner Brian Parker, who presided, wrote in his own memorandum the next day: "Respondent did not attend the hearing on this matter. Consequently, a decision was rendered on the records and pleadings on file herein."
What it means
The order warns the restrained person in bold language that any violation can bring arrest and criminal charges, up to a felony, as well as contempt of court. It is enforceable nationwide under the Violence Against Women Act, the order's certificate of compliance states.
Tomashefsky did not accept the outcome. Court records show he filed a motion for revision the day after the order was granted, abandoned it for a motion for reconsideration, lost that, filed a second motion for revision, and lost again on October 21, 2025, when Judge Basden ruled that "the record amply supports the conclusion that Respondent has engaged in this behavior." Those rulings are the subject of the next articles in this series.
The protection order remains in force. Its listed end date is August 26, 2027.
This article relies on public court records and public complaints. TROH welcomes a response from Mr. Tomashefsky and will publish it in full.