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

Every TROH profile is independent commentary assembled from public records. Subjects are not contacted and have no knowledge of these articles. Nothing here predicts or comments on any ruling in any case.

Court opinions are full of Latin and jargon, and most of it can be skimmed. Two words cannot: "with prejudice." They appear at the end of a case, and they mean the end is the end. A claim dismissed with prejudice cannot be refiled. The door is closed, locked, and the lock is part of the judgment.

The federal lawsuit that sits beneath nearly every scandal theme the Olympic Herald has published about former Clallam County Family Court Commissioner Brian Parker was dismissed with prejudice. Then, four months later, what remained of it was dismissed with prejudice again.

This is the story of those two orders, and of what the blog did with them, which was mostly to keep going as if they had never happened.

The Case Behind the Headlines

Virtually every theme in the blog's coverage of Parker (perjury, stalking, harassment, corrupt guardian ad litem referrals) traces to one source: Gina Bloom, the losing party in a Snohomish County custody case. Her federal lawsuit over those same events is Bloom v. State of Washington et al., No. 2:24-cv-02155 in the Western District of Washington. The [docket is public](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69505597/bloom-v-state-of-washington/), and reading it costs nothing but time.

May 5, 2025: The First Door Closes

On [May 5, 2025](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/681d786de21dea0abe652402), the court dismissed the claims against the judicial officers with prejudice, on absolute judicial immunity grounds.

Absolute judicial immunity is one of the strongest protections in American law, and it exists for a reason: judges and quasi-judicial officers cannot do their jobs if every losing party can convert a courtroom defeat into a personal lawsuit against the officer who presided. The immunity is not a technicality or a loophole. It is the system defending the independence of the people who decide cases, and it attaches to the role, not to the favor of the moment.

The same order dismissed the State of Washington with prejudice, and dismissed the Superior Court itself as an entity incapable of being sued. Three defendants or groups of defendants, gone, with finality, in one order.

September 3, 2025: The Second Door Closes

What remained after May were claims against Snohomish County. On [September 3, 2025](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/68ba4bfcf964826458ff2b16), Judge Barbara J. Rothstein dismissed those with prejudice too.

The order is worth reading for two details beyond the disposition. First, the court treated the pleading before it as the plaintiff's third attempt, and held that she could not cure the deficiencies. Three attempts is the system being generous. A plaintiff gets a complaint, an amended complaint, and in this case another chance after that, and the deficiencies survived them all.

Second, the judge described some of the plaintiff's assertions about Parker as "demonstrably false." Not unproven. Not unpersuasive. Demonstrably false, a phrase a court reaches for when the exhibits themselves settle the question, as they did on the claim that Parker was corruptly handpicked as a guardian ad litem: the plaintiff's own exhibits showed the judicial coordinator first appointed a different GAL, and that when she was unavailable, it was the plaintiff's own attorney who proposed Parker (section IV.B.2(a)).

What With Prejudice Means, Plainly

A dismissal without prejudice is a do-over. The case fails on a fixable defect, and the plaintiff may correct it and return. Courts grant these constantly, and they carry no verdict on the merits.

A dismissal with prejudice is the opposite. The claim is finished. Refiling it is barred. When a court reaches that disposition on a third attempt, after immunity rulings and a finding that the deficiencies cannot be cured, the law has said everything it has to say about the matter.

There is also what a with-prejudice dismissal is not. It is not a settlement, where parties trade money for silence. It is not a technicality, where a case dies on a missed deadline. It is the court's judgment, after review, that the claims before it end here. In this case the court reached that judgment twice, against different sets of claims, in two written orders the public can read.

That does not mean the accusations vanished from the internet. It means they lost, conclusively, in the one venue where they were tested.

What the Blog Did With the Ending

The Olympic Herald's coverage of Parker continued into January and February of 2026 ([the accusation](https://www.olympicherald.com/clallam-county-superior-court-commissioner/)), recycling the same themes the federal court had dismissed months earlier. The sympathetic national pieces the narrative rests on (The 19th on [May 19, 2025](https://19thnews.org/2025/05/guardians-ad-litem-influence/), The Imprint on [June 6, 2025](https://imprintnews.org/top-stories/a-washington-mother-had-custody-of-her-kids-and-protection-from-her-abuser-then-a-guardian-ad-litem-got-involved/261501), InvestigateWest on [August 6, 2025](https://investigatewest.org/a-wa-mother-had-custody-of-her-kids-and-protection-from-her-abuser-then-a-guardian-ad-litem-got-involved/)) all predated the September dismissal and none independently verified the claims. The blog kept the story and skipped the ending.

A narrative that survives two with-prejudice dismissals unchanged is a narrative that was never checking with the courts in the first place.

Verifying any of this requires no special access. The docket sits on CourtListener. Both orders are linked in this article. The blog's archive is public too. Lay the dates side by side and the story writes itself: rejected in court, recycled online.

The Record Stands

May 5, 2025: judicial officers dismissed with prejudice on absolute immunity, the State dismissed with prejudice, the Superior Court dismissed as unsuable. September 3, 2025: the remaining claims dismissed with prejudice on a third attempt, with parts of the plaintiff's story about Parker described as "demonstrably false."

With prejudice means done. Done is done. The record stands.