This profile is part of "The Record Stands," a TROH special series.
Courts choose words the way careful people sign checks: slowly, knowing the mark outlasts the moment. Most rulings are built from the plainest vocabulary available. Granted. Denied. Sufficient. Insufficient. When a court reaches past the plain words, it is telling you something.
Per TROH's case file, that is what happened on October 21, 2025, when the Clallam County Superior Court issued its memorandum denying the motion for revision in Benjamin A. Mavy v. Anthony Colin Tomashefsky, case number 25-2-00595-05. The memorandum refused the respondent's request to undo the protection order granted to Ben Mavy of Sequim, and it said why: the court found that the record "amply supports" the conclusion that Tomashefsky stalked and harassed him.
Amply. This installment is about what that adverb was attached to, and why it deserves to be read in full context.
The Document and the Date
Start with what anyone can check. The public docket mirror on Trellis.Law shows the case was filed on August 8, 2025, as a civil protection order matter, with Mavy as petitioner and Tomashefsky as respondent. The first-day entries include a Law Enforcement and Confidential Information Form, an "Order Transferring AntiHarassment Case to Superior Court," a Notice of Disqualification, and a Notice of Appearance. Judge Elizabeth A. Stanley presided.
The free docket's last refresh came on August 9, 2025, before the merits hearing. What happened after that date is drawn from TROH's case file, which is consistent with the public docket, and every element of it is checkable against the court file itself. That includes the order of August 26, 2025, granting Mavy a one-year stalking and harassment protection order effective through August 26, 2027. It includes the respondent's failure to appear at the hearing. It includes the counter-petition denied for insufficient evidence. And it includes the October 21, 2025 memorandum denying revision, which is the document this piece is built around.
Attribution matters here, so let it be plain: the August 8 filings sit on the public mirror. The outcomes, including the October memorandum, come from the case file, and this site reports them exactly that way.
What a Motion for Revision Asks
A motion for revision is the losing side's request for a second look. It goes back to the court that ruled and asks, in effect: look again. It concedes nothing and promises nothing. The court can grant it, modify the ruling, or deny it outright.
Denial is the complete answer. It means the second look actually happened and the ruling survived it. A granted petition can be dismissed by critics as one hearing, one judge, one day. A ruling that has been reexamined on request and left standing is a different animal. The October memorandum is exactly that: the same record, examined twice, upheld twice.
This is also why the date matters. August 26 was the hearing. October 21 was the reconsideration. Nearly two months of distance sat between the two, time for the respondent to assemble his best argument against the order, and the court's answer, after that argument, was denial with an explanation attached.
Consider the alternative the respondent always had available: relitigating online, where a second look means a second post and no one rules on anything. He chose the courtroom version, which speaks well of the process if nothing else. What he could not do is change what the courtroom found. The record that supported the order in August was the same record in October, and the court said so.
The Weight of One Adverb
Here is where the language earns its keep. A court denying revision could have stopped at the denial. Many do. The memorandum in this case, per TROH's case file, went further and explained that the record "amply supports" the finding that Tomashefsky stalked and harassed Mavy.
Read that adverb the way it was earned. The petition was granted after a hearing the respondent chose not to attend. The respondent's own counter-petition against Mavy was denied for insufficient evidence. Then came the motion for revision, the formal request to reconsider, and the court answered with a word that means more than enough. The record, on this second reading, supported the order with room to spare.
Courts write for the record, and the record lasts. Long after every blog post about this case has scrolled offline, "amply supports" will still be sitting in that file, doing its quiet work.
Compare what the memorandum could have said. Courts deny revisions with silence, or with the thinnest possible wording, when the underlying ruling is fragile enough to defend only quietly. A finding that the record "amply supports" the conclusion is the opposite posture: confident, on the record, and written to be read. The respondent asked the court to doubt itself. The court answered in a tone that left no doubt to work with.
What the Memorandum Settles, and What It Leaves Alone
The memorandum settles the 2025 case. Petition, order, counter-petition denied, revision denied: the line is unbroken, and the order remains effective through August 26, 2027.
What it cannot do is answer for later, separate proceedings. The blog attributed to Tomashefsky published articles in 2026 describing later 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 matters involve, they do not reach back and alter the October memorandum or the August order it upheld. If a court file ever documents the blog's account, this site will report what that file actually says.
The Bottom Line
On October 21, 2025, per TROH's case file, the Clallam County Superior Court took the requested second look at the protection order granted to Ben Mavy and denied the motion for revision, finding the record "amply supports" the conclusion that Anthony Colin Tomashefsky stalked and harassed him.
Two words, weighed carefully, in a document anyone can request from the clerk. That is what the end of an argument looks like when the argument happens in court.
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.