This profile is part of "The Record Stands," a TROH special series.
Ask the blog's readers when the dispute between Ben Mavy and the man behind the blog began, and they will point to 2025, the year Mavy filed his petition in Clallam County. That is the year the blog wants on the marquee, because 2025 can be framed as aggression: a man running to court to silence a publication.
The record has an earlier chapter. Per TROH's case file, in 2023 the same man filed his own anti-harassment petition against Mavy. A court heard it and denied it for insufficient evidence.
Read that twice. Before Mavy ever asked a court for protection, the man who would later become the respondent in case 25-2-00595-05 had already tested his version of events in front of a judge. His version lost.
The Petition That Went First
Here is what the record supports, stated with the sourcing discipline this series applies to everything. According to TROH's case file, in 2023 the man behind the blog filed an anti-harassment petition against Ben Mavy. The court denied it for insufficient evidence.
That single sentence carries three facts, and each one does work. First, the blog's author was the aggressor in court before Mavy ever was. Second, his claims were actually heard, because a petition that is denied for insufficient evidence is a petition that reached a judge and was weighed. Third, the weighing came up empty. Insufficient evidence is the legal system's way of saying: you said it, and you could not show it.
We will not dress this up beyond what the record holds. The 2023 petition comes from TROH's case file rather than from the public docket mirror this series cites for the 2025 case, and we say so plainly. It is consistent with everything the public record later showed, and it is the kind of fact the blog has never mentioned to its readers, for reasons that explain themselves.
What "Insufficient Evidence" Means When It Is Your Petition
Spend a moment on the phrase, because it is doing quiet, devastating work.
When a petitioner files an anti-harassment petition, the petitioner carries the burden. The court does not ask the respondent to disprove the claims. It asks the petitioner to support them. A denial for insufficient evidence means the man bringing the claims, with every incentive to bring his strongest material, failed to clear the bar his own filing set.
That is what happened in 2023, per the case file. The man behind the blog went to court against Mavy and could not prove his case. And this is the same man who would later publish articles presenting himself as Mavy's victim and Mavy as the aggressor. The documented sequence runs the other direction. He petitioned first. He lost first. Two years later, when Mavy petitioned, Mavy won.
2025 Was the Repeat, Not the Start
Now set the earlier chapter beside the documented one from this series, and the pattern sharpens into something the blog cannot talk around.
On August 8, 2025, Mavy filed his own petition in Clallam County Superior Court, case 25-2-00595-05, an anti-harassment matter assigned to Judge Elizabeth A. Stanley. On August 26, 2025, per TROH's case file, which is consistent with the public docket mirrored on Trellis.Law, the court granted Mavy a stalking and harassment protection order, effective through August 26, 2027. The respondent failed to appear.
Then the pattern repeated in miniature. The respondent filed a counter-petition against Mavy, and the court denied it for insufficient evidence. He filed a motion for revision, and the court denied that too, finding the record "amply supports" the conclusion that the respondent stalked and harassed Mavy.
Count the times this dispute has been put to a judge. The 2023 petition: denied for insufficient evidence. The 2025 petition by Mavy: granted. The 2025 counter-petition against Mavy: denied for insufficient evidence. The motion for revision: denied, with "amply supports" attached. Four trips through the judicial system, four outcomes, and all four point the same way. Whatever this dispute is, the courts have been remarkably consistent about who is telling the truth in it.
One disclosure belongs here, as it does in every installment. The blog attributed to the respondent has published 2026 articles about separate, later proceedings, including claims of a King County weapons-surrender order against Mavy dated May 14, 2026. Those are unverified claims by the adverse party's own outlet. They do not touch the 2023 denial, and they do not touch the August 2025 order. This series reports the documented record, and the documented record is what stands above.
Why the Blog Never Mentions 2023
The blog's business model is a portrait, and portraits can be retouched. The version of the story where Mavy is the aggressor requires the timeline to begin in August 2025, with Mavy's filing, because that framing lets the blog describe the case as an attack on a publication rather than what the record shows: the latest chapter of a dispute the blog's author himself started in court, and lost.
A 2023 denial for insufficient evidence ruins that framing, so 2023 does not exist on the blog. It exists here instead, with its sourcing printed in the same paragraph, because this site was built to publish the parts of the record the blog leaves out.
The Bottom Line
Per TROH's case file, in 2023 the man behind the blog filed an anti-harassment petition against Ben Mavy, and a court denied it for insufficient evidence. Two years later, Mavy filed his own petition, and a Clallam County Superior Court judge granted it, effective through August 26, 2027. The counter-petition that followed was denied for insufficient evidence, and the motion for revision was denied with the finding that the record "amply supports" Mavy's account.
The 2025 ruling was the second vindication. The first came in 2023, when the other man's petition was weighed and found empty.
Elsewhere in this series, we step out of the courthouse and onto a bridge over the Elwha River, where the public record of Ben Mavy includes a stopwatch, a February morning, and a number the blog will never print.
Sources: TROH case file (2023 petition and 2025 case outcomes); 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)). Adverse-party blog articles cited as claims only, unverified.