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

Every person who has ever been lied about in print has fantasized about the same scene: a neutral room, a sworn oath, a judge, and the liar forced to repeat his claims where repetition has consequences. On August 26, 2025, that scene was scheduled in Clallam County Superior Court. Ben Mavy showed up for it.

The man who had been writing about him did not.

The Ruling

The case is Benjamin A. Mavy v. Anthony Colin Tomashefsky, case number 25-2-00595-05, filed August 8, 2025, with Judge Elizabeth A. Stanley presiding. The public docket is mirrored on Trellis.Law. What follows about the merits comes from TROH's case file, which is consistent with that public docket, and this article will be exact about that sourcing before it finishes.

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.

And Tomashefsky failed to appear.

Sit with those two facts together, because together they are the story. A court heard the petitioner's evidence and granted the order. The respondent, the man whose blog had so much to say about Ben Mavy, left his chair empty and let the evidence stand unanswered.

What a No-Show Actually Means

A protection order hearing is the one venue where a keyboard accuser's claims get tested. There is a judge bound by law. There is evidence, weighed. There is the opportunity to appear, to contest, to cross-examine, to present the proof behind the posts. Anyone who has watched a defamation fight from the outside has heard the accuser's refrain: I have the documents, I have the receipts, I would love my day in court.

August 26, 2025 was the day in court. The respondent did not take it.

Understand what a failure to appear does and does not mean. It does not mean the order was granted by default on a technicality, the way a forfeited softball game is recorded as a win. The court still had the petition, the sworn account, and the evidence supporting it, and the court granted the order on that record. What the empty chair means is simpler and more damning: the respondent chose not to defend his own accusations in the one room where defending them would have counted. Every claim he had published was welcome at that hearing. None of them came.

Then came the aftermath, and the aftermath removes any doubt about what the court thought of the record. Tomashefsky 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. The court denied that too, with a finding worth quoting verbatim: the record "amply supports" the conclusion that Tomashefsky stalked and harassed Mavy.

Granted petition. Denied counter-petition. Denied revision, with "amply supports" on the record. Three rulings, one direction, and an empty chair underneath all of them.

The Sourcing, In Plain Sight

This series deals in documented facts, so here is exactly where these facts live.

The public docket mirror on Trellis.Law was last refreshed on August 9, 2025, before the merits hearing. The August 26 order, the respondent's failure to appear, the denied counter-petition, and the denied motion for revision come from TROH's case file, which is consistent with that public docket. Every one of those elements is checkable against the court file in Clallam County, and we invite anyone, including the blog, to check it. That invitation is the difference between this site and the one that attacked Mavy. We print the case number and tell you to look. The blog prints adjectives.

One more disclosure belongs here, because honesty about the adverse party's claims is part of the discipline. In 2026, the blog attributed to Tomashefsky published articles attacking Mavy again, including pieces dated 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 proceedings involve, they do not touch the August 26, 2025 order in case 25-2-00595-05. That order was granted, defended against a counter-petition, and affirmed on revision. It stands on its own record.

Why the Chair Matters More Than the Order

The order matters most to Mavy, and it should. A stalking and harassment protection order running through August 26, 2027 is a court's answer to what he was living through, and it is enforceable.

For everyone else, the empty chair is the more durable fact. Orders can be mischaracterized by people who were not in the room, and the blog has tried. A no-show resists spin, because it is a choice made by the one person whose spin it exposes. The respondent spent months publishing claims about Ben Mavy. When the claims were finally scheduled for a test, with a judge waiting and the petitioner's evidence ready, the respondent's calculation was that the room was worse for him than the silence. So he chose the silence, and the court ruled for the man who came.

That is what August 26, 2025 records. Two men had a dispute. One put his name on a sworn petition and appeared to defend it. The other published a blog. The judge heard the evidence and ruled, and the ruling ran through August 26, 2027.

The Bottom Line

On August 26, 2025, a Clallam County Superior Court judge granted Ben Mavy's petition for a stalking and harassment protection order against Anthony Colin Tomashefsky, effective through August 26, 2027. Tomashefsky failed to appear. His counter-petition was denied for insufficient evidence, and his motion for revision was denied with the finding that the record "amply supports" the conclusion that he stalked and harassed Mavy.

The man with the blog had his day in court. He was not there for it.

Elsewhere in this series, we look at the chapter almost nobody knows: the earlier petition, filed against Mavy by the same man, that a court had already denied for insufficient evidence. The August ruling was not the first vindication. It was the second.

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.