Since late December, the Olympic Herald has published hundreds of articles about Clallam County's courts, judges, and residents. 425 posts, per its own sitemap. What those pages never fully tell is the best-documented story about its publisher: court records show Anthony Tomashefsky of Sequim is subject to a stalking and anti-harassment protection order entered after a hearing he chose not to attend, that the judge who reviewed the case found the record "amply supports" the findings, and that his earlier petition against the same man was denied for insufficient evidence.
The order
On Aug. 7, 2025, Benjamin Mavy petitioned in Clallam County for a stalking and anti-harassment protection order against Tomashefsky, case No. 25-2-00595-05. A temporary protection order issued on Aug. 12, 2025, after both men appeared on the ex parte calendar, and the court set a full hearing for Aug. 26, according to Judge Brent Basden's later memorandum opinion.
The final protection order, filed Aug. 26, 2025, checks both boxes: harassment and stalking. It restrains Tomashefsky from any contact with Mavy except service of court documents, bars him from monitoring, surveilling, or tracking Mavy, and orders him to stay 1,000 feet from Mavy's person, residence, vehicle, and workplace. The order lists an end date of Aug. 26, 2027.
Court records show Tomashefsky did not attend the Aug. 26 hearing. Four days earlier he had emailed the court administrator asserting the hearing "must be stricken" under RCW 4.105, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, according to the memorandum opinions in the case. The administrator informed him an email does not change court dates; he could schedule a hearing or appear to request a continuance. He did not appear. Commissioner Brian Parker's Aug. 27 memorandum opinion notes that UPEPA "clearly states it doesn't apply to protection orders" and records: "Respondent did not attend the hearing on this matter."
What the commissioner found
Parker's memorandum opinion states that he reviewed "some 55 pages of emails between Respondent and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, as well as other Lincoln County, Wyoming government officials," containing "extensive descriptions of Petitioner's activities, movements, location, and travel plans." Mavy testified under oath that he never provided that information to Tomashefsky.
The exhibits, Parker wrote, "reveal an extensive history of attempts at contacting, monitoring, tracking, surveillance, keeping under observation, disrupting activities in a harassing manner, or following of another person." The issue was not the reporting of a suspected violation, he wrote, but "the persistence and intensity in which Respondent displayed in attempting to pressure the Wyoming Game and Fish Department or other Wyoming law enforcement to not only sanction Petitioner, but to arrest him in front of his children at a family funeral." And: "both Respondent's methods and his motives cross the boundaries of the permissible."
The commissioner noted the animosity between the men "are well documented, in this and other court cases (including Petitioner's ongoing divorce action, in which Respondent has inserted himself)." A commercial background report places Tomashefsky in a Sequim household shared with Mavy's ex-wife, the woman he is dating.
"On the record, Respondent was invited to offer a lawful purpose for his extensive course of monitoring and reporting on Petitioner," Parker wrote. "Respondent declined to do so." His conclusion: "the fact some elements of the course of conduct may be legitimate or even protected does not legitimize the entire punitive campaign of aggression," and Tomashefsky's conduct "goes beyond the bounds of any protected speech, and as a whole his actions constitute harassment."
What the judge said
Tomashefsky moved to revise. On Oct. 21, 2025, Judge Brent Basden denied the motion in a five-page memorandum opinion.
On the evidence: "Respondent alleges that the record does not support the finding of harassment and stalking. On the contrary, the record amply supports the conclusion that Respondent has engaged in this behavior."
On his "legitimate legal purpose" theory: "The protection order does not limit speech, it limits conduct. Under Respondent's theory of this case, an individual could engage in any stalking or harassing behavior, and then 'legitimize' or 'protect' that behavior if it happened to uncover wrongdoing by the individual harassed or stalked."
On service: Basden noted Tomashefsky had waived "all objections related to the initial lack of service," writing that "Respondent cannot waive objections to service and then object to service." On the missed hearing: "He chose not to appear at the hearing and argue the applicability of RCW 4.105." On his recusal demand: "The court finds no evidence that the court commissioner violated any judicial canon by hearing this matter."
"The court denies the motion for revision," the opinion ends, "and the protection order remains in place."
The petition he lost
It was not the first case between the two men, or the first ruling against Tomashefsky. In 2023, Tomashefsky petitioned for his own anti-harassment protection order against Mavy, case No. 23-2-00372-05. A full hearing was held; both men appeared by video, each with a lawyer. On July 28, 2023, the court denied his petition, entering the finding: "Insufficient evidence. A preponderance of the evidence does not support issuing any type of protection order that this court has authority to issue."
The Wyoming file
In October 2021, prosecutors in Lincoln County, Wyoming, summonsed the woman who is now Tomashefsky's partner, Mavy's ex-wife, on charges of unlawful contact and breach of peace, case No. CRA-2021-189. A sheriff's deputy's affidavit alleged she shoved a salon employee and tore down a client's flag after confronting the client, a 17-year-old, over a parking space. The case is on file in the same county where, four years later, Tomashefsky was emailing authorities about Mavy.
The pattern
The Olympic Herald launched two months after Basden's ruling; domain records show olympicherald.com was registered Dec. 26, 2025. TROH's review of its 425-post archive found the site's two most-covered subjects are the two judicial officers who ruled against its publisher: Judge Basden is named in 109 articles, Commissioner Parker in 58. Mavy appears in 17. Two forensic psychologists in Clallam County family-court matters, Dr. Steve Tutty and Dr. William Singer, appear in six and five, respectively.
Every institution that examined Tomashefsky's conduct ruled against him, the commissioner who entered the order, the judge who upheld it, the court that dismissed his petition. The blog that followed trains its fire on each of them, acknowledging the protection order only to frame it as a "legal attack", omitting what the court found.
This article relies on public court records and public complaints. TROH welcomes a response and will publish it in full.