Friday, December 26, 2008

Bruce Jeffrey Pardo, Dressed As Santa, Massacres Invitees To His Ex-Inlaws Christmas Party

On Christmas Eve day, food baskets were delivered to people in need. The baskets were very much appreciated. If everyone could see the glisten in the eyes of the children who saw that the basket contained chocolate milk and pumpkin pie, perhaps there would be no more starvation on future Christmas Eves... Yet the news is not all good. In a country where divorced men are too often treated as second class citizens, domestic violence continues to rise. Bruce Jeffrey Pardo serves as a blatant example that the institution of divorce is broken in America. Dressed as Santa on Christmas Eve, Bruce Jeffrey Pardo went to his ex-in-laws' home in Covina, California. An eight year-old girl answered the door, and Pardo shot her in the face.
With a gun in one hand and a present in the other, he continued to shoot people. Watch police description. Approximately 25 friends and family members were present for an annual Christmas party to which Pardo was no longer invited. Neighbors called 911 shortly before 11:30 p.m. When police arrived, the home was in flames. Six bodies were initially recovered. Two more were apparently subsequently discovered. The names have not yet been released. by authorities. Three people are not accounted for: Pardo's ex-mother-in-law, ex-father-in-law and ex-wife. Fortunately, the 8-year-old, is going to survive. A 16-year-old with a gunshot wound and a woman who jumped out the window were recovering in the hospital.

After Pardo set fire to his in laws home, he changed into regular clothing and went to another relative's home where he committed suicide. One of Pardo's rental cars was blown up. A second rental car was not destroyed. Police suggested the recent divorce was a possible motive for the attack. Pardo and his wife of one year finally settled a contentious divorce last week. Allegedly, one of the reasons for the divorce involved his wife's displeasure with Pardo having a disabled son by a previous relationship and the tax implications of the same. Pardo was not happy with the divorce and apparently did not want to lose his new wife and step children. In July, Pardo also lost his job. To be clear, there is never an excuse for domestic violence. But the current system is spawning more and more violence. Nothing will ever excuse Pardo for his irrational violent behavior. This is not intended to place any blame on the victims. Nothing that can be written nor anything that can be said will restore the joy of Christmas for those touched by these senseless deaths.
Update 12-29-08: Domestic violence is the enemy of the state. Legal Pub made a proposal to help reduce friction in divorce. While it may not be directly applicable to this case, it may help reduce future incidents of violence. Your comments are appreciated.
Update 6-3-10: Due to spamming, any further comment on this thread must be presubmitted to


Anonymous said...

Pardo was a crazy fool who collected weapons. There is no excuse or any defense for his violence.


Ms Calabaza said...

There is no excuse for this behavior, the guy apparently snapped but a great deal has to do with the divorce process, methinks. I think in many cases it's who can afford the better counsel who wins the "prize". That prize is the kids or the money or both. Many times the decisions just seem too arbitrary and one party is left with nothing. That, is not fair. Some people who were already unstable can go off the deep end ... This is a very, very sad story.

Anonymous said...

Divorce just plain sucks for men. 70% or more of the time the gal files. 85% of the time the gal gets custody of the kids no matter who your lawyer is...

99% of the time the woman tries to make the man's life a living h@ll!

Marriage just aint worth the heart ache of divorce!


Anonymous said...

Pardo was obsessed with what a screwing he got in the divorce. Of course his in-laws ignored his existence after the divorce. Can't blame him as once there is a divorce, he is no longer family.

But Pardo just snapped.

Anonymous said...

I agree that there is no excuse for this behavior.

I have read some things online to indicate that a child may have been involved. I don't know California divorce law but if there is alimony in CA, he may have been facing child support, alimony and marriage settlement agreement payments. In addition to that I read that he may have recently lost his job.

Divorce + children = child support for 18 years. Unfortunately this is the reality of having children. With no/little support system for divorced people, especially during the holidays when children are spotlighted, I feel that marriage should be abolished until there is a mandated system to help people going through a divorce.

As someone who spent 4 years in family court, the legal system is a total and complete failure.

Anonymous said...

Above, you are exactly right. Fathers have no rights. They are seen as a meal ticket. They are required to pay alimony in Cal in some cases. They are also required to such it up and smile as they are being ripped off by the divorcing woman.

The system is broke. Fathers need to unite and rebel peacefully until this archaic system of justice known as family law is abolished. See Legal Pub's proposed solutions which to me is at least a good start.


Anonymous said...

Pardo did what too many divorced men think about. It ain't right to do it, but I bet there are a lot who have thought about it.

Anonymous said...

Pardo had no prior criminal record! He was driven over the edge by this so called divorce system. Cudos to the slimy attorneys who push the buttons on those that freak out. You should be proud of yourselves...

Anonymous said...

Ah, comfort and joy. Tis the season

Legal Pub said...

A nineth body has been pulled from the ruins of the home.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. It is about time people start speaking out about the system being broken...

Anonymous said...


amen, except I am a woman. Women who work and spouse (man) refuses to work end up in the same situation as men are and have been in the past. Everyone who is abused by this system needs to unite.

Anonymous said...

A deranged man goes to the home of his ex-wife whom he was married to for less than one year, commits multiple murder and arson and it is the fault of the legal system???? Did it occur to any of you geniuses on this board that this guy was mentally unbalanced in the first place and maybe that is the reason for the divorce??? How convenient to use this maniacs behavior to justify your poor victim mentality. The truth is many men are mean, self-centered, abusive a-holes and that is why they end up divorced. Apparently this guy was no different. Those who blame the victim or the legal system are pathetic losers.

Anonymous said...

More details emerge of the so-called legal system victim. Click the link. Apparently he had a secret child whose existence he kept from his wife, clamied the child as a dependent even though he did not support him financially and lied about his educational credentials. These are just the initial details. Can'w wait to see what else we find out about this "victim".,0,7291873.story

Anonymous said...

He functioned normally for 45 years. The divorce system is what put him over the edge, no doubt about it.

Anonymous said...

Pardo even blew up his car...

Now for a man to do that, his ex wife and her lawyer had to have put him over the edge.

Anonymous said...

This just shows how demanding his ex wife was. Nine years ago, he and a girlfriend had a child. When his son was 1-year-old, the boy fell into a pool and suffered brain damage. His son was left physically handicapped. Although Pardo did not regularly support his son financially, he claimed the boy as a dependent for seven years on his tax returns. Apparently, the child's mom had no objection.

However, when Pardo's wife found out about the child, she demanded he stop claiming his son as a dependent. Family members said that was a catalyst that led to the divorce.

He also lost his job in July as a software engineer and that contributed to his depressed state. But make no excuses, this divorce put him over the edge!

The two married in January 2006. He became a step father to Sylvia's three children from a previous marriage. Sources say he became attached to the step kids.

But, since he would not stop claiming his real kid as a dependent, she apparently wanted to divorce him...

Anonymous said...

Come on, Einstien, every one knows fathers have no rights. What was Pardo thinking... the very idea that step fathers should be treated better then the family Akita?

Anonymous said...

Pardo was pushed over the cliff by this divorce!

M. said...

Unfair treatment of men needs to STOP! I can't defend what Bruce did, but I can say that it seems why she wanted to divorce him was utter b.s.!


Anonymous said...

I just can't agree with the notion that the legal system would drive someone to commit these heinus acts. What in the world did the 8 year old girl do to deserve being shot in the face, by Santa no less? What a frickin coward. So he cheated on his taxes, yes it is cheating if he didn't provide support, whether the child's mother condoned it or not, something about lying about his education...there has to be so much more to this story and why they divorced!
I am a product of a broken home. Even though they hated each other at the time, my parents made choices that were the best for their kids, not their own interests. My father raised my two younger sisters, and did a damn fine job.I was almost raised by that time and stayed with my mother. IMO, people make choices about their conduct. God bless these victims and the families of all involved who are left to pick up the pieces.
Just for the record, I am approaching my 30th wedding moral to this story is be really careful who you choose to marry.(this is the second for us both, we learned from our first mistakes)

Misia said...

What the hell is the matter with you loons who apologize for this monster's behavior, or worse, blame the victim?

Pardo meticulously planned and carried out the execution of nine people shooting and possibly burning some alive.

He'd made plans to escape and live his life out elsewhere - he had 17K in cash taped to his body, and plane ticket to Canada, but was thwarted when inflammatory device he used to torch the house with burned him so severely, he undoubtedly realized it was over and killed himself.

Police have just discovered he may have had a plan B to go to Mexico as the 2nd rental car had maps, and a couple of computers which may yield more evidence. (His detonation plan on that one didn't work, apparently) He had the Santa Suit made by a costume maker in Montrose in September.

What this guy intended to do was to commit the perfect crime - his own vehicles (A Hummer and an SUV) were parked in his driveway. He'd rented two cars, both of which he rigged with devices to detonate.

It was likely his plan that if apprehended, there'd be no physical evidence to tie him to the crime, other than the circumstantial one of a contentious divorce. Witnesses either dead, or too distraught to identify the person in Santa Suit shooting at them, when fleeing for their lives. These are not the actions of someone "pushed over the edge" they are the actions of someone without a conscience.

He was fired from his job, incidentally - that's how it was "lost". He had not visited his disabled son since 2002, had to be sued to invoke Homeowner's insurance award for his child.

I am incredulous and outraged that people are making excuses for this cold blooded sociopath, who intended to both exact revenge, and make his financial problems go away. MANY people go through nasty divorces, MANY people are betrayed, and endure all manner of personal tragedy.

16 kids have been orphaned. The mind does not want to touch upon the anguish, the horrible images the relatives of victims must be replaying. And idiots blather about how Dads are getting a bum rap. Boggles the mind. What happened to personal accountability?

Anonymous said...

An observation to ANom above, the law allows for one of the parents to declare the child as a deduction. There was nothing illegal about Bruce taking the deduction as a dependent if that was by agreement. Furthermore, it is unclear how much he financially contributed as that was a allegedly a source of contention with his new wife.

tax man.

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that the second rental car was not equipped with an explosive.

Anonymous said...

No one is suggesting that what this dad did was right. He was crazy. But you simply can not ignore the fact that the legal system is what caused him to go over the edge.

Why can't you admit this? There is cause and effect. And this is not an isolated occurence. Those of you who fail to admit this are probably some of the ones who benefit from the control and financial gain that the system affords you.


Anonymous said...

No one is suggesting that what this dad did was right. He was crazy. But you simply can not ignore the fact that the legal system is what caused him to go over the edge.

Why can't you admit this? There is cause and effect. And this is not an isolated occurence. Those of you who fail to admit this are probably some of the ones who benefit from the control and financial gain that the system affords you.


Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Bruce had a terrible tragedy with his son from a previous relationship. In an attempt to move on with his life and perhaps realizing that wasting his own life with guilt was not meaningful, he remarried. Just accomplishing that must have been a tremendous feat for him.

When his second wife found out about the disabled son, she decided to divorce him. This was none of her business at all. As tax man said, there may have been an arrangement on this and this was none of Sylvia's business whatsoever.

It also looks like Bruce became close to his step-children which may have brought him healing from the tragedy from his first son.

When Sylvia perhaps flipped out over claiming the first son in income tax (there are a lot of worse things to be upset about) she took from him the new life he had tried so hard to get and his new step-children. I can see how that would be crushing. Sylvia should have left the past in the past. When you marry someone, there is always a possibility that they have a past including children. If Sylvia had tried to show love and forgiveness none of that may have happened.

What Bruce did is inexcusable and horrible but a result of horrid pain from the past, present - bad divorce, bad legal system. Like it or not, Sylvia had choices to make and she decided to go the familiar route of alimony and other disgusting matters that men/women do which just added to the grief. Added to that is the loss of a job and how people are HOUNDED by the system when back payments are owed. You are treated like a total criminal.

Anonymous said...

The ANON above is 100% correct. It amazes me how much insight someone can gain if you read and use your head.

Sure Bruce was sick. But he functioned as a normal man. he was trying to get his life back in order. He lost his job. He lost his new wife and his new step children.

He went over the edge because he had a propensity to be mentally unbalanced, but darn it, the legal system pushed him over the edge.

Wake up. This type of story is all too common. The divorce system is broke and someone needs to fix it!


Legal Pub said...

Update 12-29-08: Domestic violence is the enemy of the state. Legal Pub made a proposal to help reduce friction in divorce. While it may not be directly applicable to this case, it may help reduce future incidents of violence. Your comments are appreciated.

Anonymous said...

LegalPub: I like your work but it is about mothers as well. Please do not be sexist. There are tons of women out there paying alimony and are separated from their children. Please do not leave us out and consider re-writing this to include women.

Anonymous said...

Some more insight to those interested:

Pardo's son Matt was left severely brain damaged as a toddler when he fell into a swimming pool in 2001. Bruce was apparently present when he nearly drowned.

Medical costs soared to $340,000. Matt's mom sued him. Bruce apparently had not Matt or given his mom much money in the last two years although there is some dispute over the exact details.

Pardo was a member of the Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in Montrose, California. He had complained that his wife was taking him "to the cleaners".

No one, suspected that a man with no criminal record or known history of violence would resort to such behavior. He had planned to go to midnight mass and visit friends in Iowa.

Misia said...

Factual correction to my previous comment - the 2nd rental car was not rigged with explosive. There were indeed maps of Mexico, computers, water and an extra tank of gasoline.

Pardo had not visited his son Matt since 2002 yet saw fit to claim him on his tax return. Contemptible.

What does it suggest to all of you who are arguing in Pardo's behalf that he planned to escape? That this was not an overnight decision but a methodically carried out execution done in the cruellest manner possible, not only to his wife but to her entire family and innocent bystanders?

The part of the 'system', legal pub, that's most dysfunctional is less institutional than ideological and moral. It is the pervasive mindset, fed by pop psychology and glib analyses that places blame on outside agents or influences (wretched childhood, bitch wife/husband, tyrant employer,etc.).

The concept of shameful behavior and personal responsibility has been discarded. Thus though you qualify comments with 'it is no excuse' you go on to complain that men are "too often treated as second class citizens". That claim itself is arguable...notwithstanding, it suggests Pardo's deed is at least mitigated. And that is baloney.

Keep on excusing – for that is exactly what you are doing. Someone suggested to hold this monster accountable for his deeds meant the author must be “benefitting from the system” - - a fantasy in their mind, Nothing could be further from the case...

Misia said...

Are men screwed "by the system" sometimes, exploited by avaricious women? Damn straight. Are women also screwed by the system sometimes, abused and exploited by men, left with kids to raise and no material support? Also damn straight. Ought we collectively to attempt to find solutions to remedy these things? Of course. None of this relevant in terms of justifying this man's horrible actions and I find ill-informed accusations of his dead wife's contributions to her horrible death to be disgusting if not obvious.

Anonymous said...

LegalPub: If you have a place to discuss this link, please post it or consider creating one. What this means is that if you lose your job and pay child support you cannot leave the country. From what I understand greyhound bus travel and state vehicle registration renewal is next - you will not be able to travel anywhere even within the US or drive a car. Someone needs to challenge this as people should be to get on buses and planes as needed. The system is disgusting for anyone who pays child support. Suicide for people who pay child support is on the rise.

Anonymous said...

Misia, the louder you argue the worse it sounds. Fact: Dometic violance has increased significantly. Recent laws that turn a Dad who gets behind on child support or alimony into a criminal are creating snapping points.

L.P. is not excusing violence. He is giving a heads up that the system is broke and needs to be fixed.

Why is it contemptable if Pardo took the deduction. Only one parent can take the deduction. Why are you faulting him? You do not know what there agreement was...

And you don't know why he stopped paying support. You also don't know how much support he did pass along to the mon that has gone unreported. In short, you don't know his side because he is not around to speak.

Was he insane before this incident, apparently not. He reached a boiling point where life was no longer worth living and he snapped. You can't argue that his divorce was not a catalyst without losing all credibility.

Do women get hurt in divorce, yes. Can the present madness continue? Not unless you are prepared to deal with regular violence and a complete boycot on the issue of marriage.

Misia said...

He reached a boiling point where life was no longer worth living? No, he reached a point where he decided his WIFE's (and the rest of her family)life was no longer worth living. Keep in mind he had 17K in cash, a plane ticket, and a rental car loaded with supplies and a map to Mexico.

He'd arranged the execution meticulously to cover his tracks, but plans backfired (literally) when the inflammatory liquid he used ignited prematurely. The severe burns he sustained made his scheme to escape impossible.

What he made was a decision, and that decision was to get rid of a troublesome problem and take off to live his life somewhere else unburdened.

You are right that I don't know the details of the deduction arrangement. What I do know is that his ex girfriend found the circumstance so disturbing she took off. What I do know is he had not seen the child since 2002. These facts in combination with all the rest suggest a man of less than stellar character.

I think anonymous' suggestion of starting another topic on subject of inequities and unfairnesses in divorce instead of making this monster a poster child for the problem. It is disrespectful to victims of the brutal massacre and to living victims, the orphans left behind. Pardo is not representative of numerous decent men who do get caught up in bureaucratic tangles and systemic injustices.

Anonymous said...

I think some of you don't understand what is wrong with the legal system. I have been living on $15 for the last two weeks while my ex (a man) refuses to work. He also refused to buy my child any Christmas presents. For my child to have a Christmas, I had to pay child support through the nose plus buy him Christmas presents while my ex refuses to work. I am now buying food with a credit card with high interest.

This is what people who pay child support go through. The legal system doesn't care who buys Christmas presents or how child support money is spent.

What Bruce did is unforgivable but people are commenting on him declaring him on his income tax, people that have no idea what the family court system is really like.

Anonymous said...

To the woman above paying child support, welcome to my world. It is disgusting that a non custodial parent not only has to pay child support to their ex but also are OBLIGATED to pay college expense. If you are still married, there is no requirement you pay your kids college. But if you are divorced, the court orders it. College ought to be a gift or an arrangement/incentive with your kid to work hard. But not with divorce...


greg said...

Pardo is a whacko who killed nine people. He may have also had plans to kill his mother and his former wife's divorce attorney. But keep in mind he had no criminal record. The Dec 18 finality of his divorce tipped him over the edge. It is not all that uncommon. Folks, the system is broke and those who refuse to recognize it are either blind or just trying to act oblivious to the problems in the current sytem.


Anonymous said...

It is not that Pardo is a poster child for bad divorce, it is that he just serves as another example of violence spawned by the out of control family law courts.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Bruce's mother, Nancy Windsor testified for the other side in divorce. I know I would be outraged if my family went with the other side. She is now doing interviews saying how wonderful Sylvia's family is/was. Maybe they are wonderful but lady, it's not appropriate to join the other side in your son's divorce. I know I would be outraged. While Bruce's reaction was horrible, the mother obviously didn't care anything about a future relationship with her son. That also was no doubt a factor - lose everything including your own mother. If my son gets a divorce I will never join the other side - that would guarantee that my son would never speak to me again.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Bruce's mother should have remained silent. She should not volunteer to help the other side. It is not all about being on the winning side people!

Anonymous said...

But no one deserves to die!

Anonymous said...

Tax man, the mother of Bruce Pardo's child is on record as saying she HAD NO IDEA Bruce Pardo was claiming her child as a dependent. It's a misrepresentation to say she had objection as it was done without her knowlege.

Even if she had no objection, thhe child was not, in fact, an legal dependent of Bruce Pardo's, and he provided no material support for the child and no basis for the deduction.

I do not think I would be seeking your services, as you give very bad advice.

Anonymous said...

to anon at December 30, 2008 9:44 AM:

You speak without enough information.
It is possible that Nancy Windsor was subpoenaed to testify. She would not have the legal option to refuse, and she does not have the legal option of lying under oath.

I only speculate here but believe may have been called because Bruce Pardo refused to admit he evicted his wife, and she had knowlege of that event.

If it's your position that she should have testified in her son's favor if called, even if that meant testifying untruthfully, I don't think I agree with you. I know the legal system does not.

SarahW said...

There are rumors that Nancy Windsor is one of 2-3 woman who have at some time or another taken out restraining orders against Bruce Pardo.

I hope to find out if that is true, and If she was threatened on intimidated by her son because she had been called as a witness.

tax man said...

The IRS does not care which parent takes the deduction as long as only one claims the deduction. Noncustodial parents claiming the deduction must file a 8332 with their return. The IRS checks dependents using the soc sec number of the child.

Second, the media is presenting only one side of the Pardo dispute. His argument is that he did support his son.

Third, you don't seek my attention, if there is a problem, I seek you.

Tax Man

Anonymous said...

Sarah, keep us posted on what you find out.

Anon, I suspect that Pardo's mom voluntarily talked to and cooperated with his wife's attorney. It is not necessary to cooperate. If subpoenaed for deposition or trial, then yes, you must tell the truth. But there is also a difference between telling the truth and becoming an advocate for the other side.

Lets leave it up to Pardo's mom to decide how far she went to help her ex daughter in law.

rose said...

I don't think any one is arguing that Pardo is a great guy. At least, I know better. But I do get the point that some of the posters are making, namely: the current divorce system is spawning violence. It is hard to watch the news and see the common thread of the divorce system and say that this is not pushing unstable folks over the edge.

For those of you who want to think the current family law system is all rosey, you are not intellectually honest.


Anonymous said...

Regarding Pardo's tax break on the son, something's not right there. More will be revealed, just like the whole Canada story later changed. If he's divorced, the mom and dad can't both get a tax break on the disabled son. Am I supposed to believe the mom of the disabled boy is NOT taking that head of houehold/child tax deduction? I find that impossible to believe. Then we have the ex-wife who tells him to get lost, but at the same time wants to keep living in his house a few more months (its for the kids, of course, always the martyr mom sacrificing for the kids ) while she is collecting $3000+ month spousal support. And she'll help pay for groceries LOL! Rightly, he tells her no (at least then he can try to rent some rooms out to come up with that $3000 monthly). A few months later, Pardo, without job/income (and trust me, that $3000 month (+taxes on that) is still due every month, job or no job, or you lose your drivers license, credit rating, work related licenses, passport, and/or go to jail), gets slammed with another 10K for the property division. By the way, he is probably not only paying his attorney $400 hour but probably told by the courts to pay at least part of her attorney fees as well, since she can't seem to afford anything. He finally snaps and does horrendous things. Justified, absolutely not. I am as horrified as anyone. But predictable, yes, until divorce laws are changed, a few men will continue to snap, every time. All you gentlemen about to get married and (especially) have kids. Call me bitter, insane, or whatever you want. But at least do this: go to your local Family Court house, and spend an hour or two in one of the courtrooms. It's 100% free, just don't carry anthing metallic so you can get past the metal detectors. Watch what happens to the guys. They were all madly in love, just like you are right now. Convinced, as I was a few years ago, that our love was special and that the beautiful woman whose eyes I gazed longingly into 24/7 could never stab me in the back. Go into a Family courtroom and Watch how the judge talks to the mom, and how he talks to the dad. Watch who gets the kids, the house, the monthly payments, and the tax deductions. If you can't spend a few hours doing that, you're not facing the truth.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:38 a.m. I say to you amen! The system is broke. It makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Things become perceived as so desperate that suicide starts to appear to be the best option.

Anonymous said...

Above anon, you are so correct in your perception of how the feeling of desparation can become so powerful.

misia said...

Wonder how many times this will need to be pointed out: Pardo did not plan on committing suicide but on living his life out elsewhere.

The trip he had planned to visit a friend back east was a Canadian Airline ticket -- that is why it was misreported. The friend who was to have picked him up Christmas morning has confirmed the arrangement.

Pardo had his two vehicles, an SUV and a Hummer parked in his driveway on night of the murders, and 17 thousand bucks in cash taped to his body preparatory to fleeing after the hideous slaughter.

A friend at church said he announced plans to go to midnight mass. He began killing at 11:20, enough time to change and get to church, then to airport and hop plane to Iowa where he would be notified of the gruesome killings in Covina. Sound familiar?

Is someone trying to suggest this man was in financial desperation?

He was not married to the mother of his disabled son.

He lost another girlfriend prior to his marriage to Sylvia Pardo. (She was interviewed on local news). She had been with him six months when she discovered he had a son, and also learned (just as Sylvia pardo did) that he was claiming him as dependent. He had not visited the child since 2002. The ex-girlfriend said this discovery suggested Pardo had a bad character - for her, his lie by omission was a "deal breaker" (her words) and she got out quickly. She said she is now very glad she did.

This man was a scumbag, the trait did not surface upon the dissolution of his marriage to Sylvia Pardo. Why do you feel the need to make excuses for him?

Sometimes monstrous people do monstrous things. He was crossed, he faced prospect of losing some of his toys, he was pissed, he brutally murdered nine people.

You impute the same conscience to him that you have, the way you think and feel to him.

You might consider there are people who do not possess any moral compass, and have no conscience. By all accounts, Pardo fits that bill. He deserves nothing but your unequivocal condemnation, not blinkered empathy for his "plight".

Anonymous said...

Misia, you are missing the point. HE had no criminal record. His divorce was on Dec 18th. The man went over board and off the edge of the planet on the 18th. It culminated in a bloody massacre on the 24th.

No one is excusing Pardo. NO one is feeling sorry for Pardo. The above posters are trying to tell you and the others that the family law system is broke. It puts sane people over the edge and it takes crazy people and makes them more crazy. If you can't see this, then you don't want to see it. Do a google search on domestic violence with a divorce/ child custody common denominator and the stats showing the rise in violence. Legal Pub even has some stories. The only ones wanting to keep the current system are the ones benefiting from it (Lawyers and those receiving unfair property settlements, alimony and/or child support.) Even lawyers are starting to recognize that the system is broke.

Pardo is just an example of a nut who was not a criminal before who was pushed over the edge of sanity by the system. And no matter what you think his plans were, Pardo committed suicide. His actual plan may have to make it look like he was missing and then blow himself up as well. One thing was clear, he didn't want any one getting the last remaining cash. (He may have maxed out credit cards and borrowed to get it, by the way.)Pardo was going to try to take it with him one way or the other. My opinion was originally he would blow up with the money. His painful burns caused him to just shoot himself. We will never know Pardo's side of the story...

Anonymous said...

This whole thread reminds me of why I am a marriage strike supporter.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous on December 31, 2008 4:26 PM

You are right on target. Could not have said it better myself

Legal Pub said...

Anon 4:26, I can see your point. Pardo was wrong. He had to be crazy to take innocent lives. But there seems to be little doubt that it was the divorce that put him over the edge.

Let's all work for a better system with less violence in the new year.

Anonymous said...

As for thinking that the $17,000 dollars is a lot of money, it's obvious that anyone who isn't paying child support/alimony would think that.

Anyone who pays child support/alimony MUST live a cash lifestyle. If you lose your job or get behind on payments (God forbid that you yourself may have medical bills or other emergencies - courts care nothing about that) you will still have to pay.

What they do is to take ALL money out of your bank accounts. If you have overdraft protection, they run it up to the max. This is why people who pay child support/alimony should NEVER have overdraft protection.

What that means is after they run your accounts into a negative situation, you will be on the street begging, calling friends, churches anyone to get your next meal including asking someone at mcdonalds if there is any spare food.

Do you need to save cash? ABSOLUTELY! That way when all money is ripped off you will still be able to eat. Considering the expenses of relocating etc. 17,000 isn't that much.

There's nothing like every payday withdrawing all money except for $10 to keep the account open because of a greedy man who refuses to work and uses a child as a pawn to live a lazy lifestyle.

Af for the vechicles, so what, he had to have a way to get around. Good luck selling them the way the economy is.

What Pardo did was sick but the violence will continue until the system is changed. Someone needs to start some protests.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:28. I am with you. Where do we start to change this horrible system?

SarahW said...

The focus on "the broken divorce system" is bordering on ridiculous. The finalization of his marriage breakup is obviously the nexus of his revenge-plan, the insult to his ego, but HE's the broken thing; it says nothing about the divorce system - that's a total red-herring.

He did not get taken to the cleaners, and his own actions have more to do with his misfortunes than anyone else's do.

Why would you make THIS case a poster for unfair divorce? It was reasonable for the court to order Pardo to provide some temporary spousal support under the law, under the specific circumstances of that marriage ( it was always modest and always going to be limited and temporary, with the final settlement ajusted for it); child support and custody was never an issue; the final settlement was not only rationally related to the joint assets accumulated in marriage, but rationally related to
the contribution of this specific woman to assets accumulated during marriage. All support (which Pardo never paid) was subsumed in the final settlement, too. And Pardo said he did not want the dog. Perhaps he felt otherwise, and falsely claimed so for some perverse reason of his own, but he never asked for the dog in the settlement, and said Sylvia could have the family dog, told her he didn't want it.

The loss of his sense of control of his life seems to be the real trigger, FEAR of Sylvia getting the upperhand, rather than her actually getting the upperhand in reality, seems to have been a huge stress on Pardo.

He broke her heart with his treatment of her and his inexplicable and very serious lies and deception.

He lost his job the same way.

I think it likely he offended the court with come very obvious, almost comical, lying, and he may have made the court less inclined to take his statements at face value.

And if he wanted to stay married, he sure gave a pretty bad impression of that to Sylvia. He acted the whole time like he was just fine with ending the marriage. In fact, he'd stopped being a loving partner before Sylvia found out how severely she'd been deceived in regard to Matthew Pardo. Acted like he just didn't care to be married anymore.

Since he did that in numerous previous relationships, why is this necessarily Sylvia's fault?

If Bruce cared so much for keeping money away from Sylvia, he could just as easily enacted every part of his plan except the murdering part. Grab the cash, blow town and start over under a new name in a new town. If that was his end-game, why is the mass murder, shoot everyone in the face part needed?

It's not because Sylvia got a modest settlement, or had the power to decide herself to leave and get any financial assistance to leave.

It's because she was in the drivers seat, and he felt like nobody gets to cheat anybody but ME! I am the one to win or everybody dies. I may not want you, but god forbid you leave. I SAY WHEN I AM DONE WITH YOU! I get to lie about my education, put in false time sheets, get rehired under a false name.
I am the one who leaves women at the altar. I am the one who clears out the joint account!!! (Delia, now you know how lucky a break he gave you by taking the cash and disappearing for two months).

Pardo was angry because all his devious plans kept blowing up in his face. All his attempts to control and deceive kept backfiring. And he blamed everyone else for his own misdeeds.

Anonymous said...

"it was always modest and always going to be limited and temporary, with the final settlement ajusted for it"

How ridiculous. Always modest? Really? How insulting to me. I have paid a hobo through the nose for 4+ years and didn't get compensated a penny when divorce was settled.

Take a look at WIC (Women Infants and Children). It's a good program because it useses ENFORCEMENT to make sure that families only buy appropriate items.

The child support system should be the same. It should not be a blank check for lazy people. It should let families buy APPROPRIATE items for families and have a list of them. Money should be collected when there is a true NEED, not just x$ per month that falls into a black hole of all kinds of stupid things.

I think it's time we start writing congress and form a website.

Whether Pardo was lying or not is irrelevant. The system rewards lazy men and women who just want to vegetate and collect checks. Both parents have a responsibility to provide for a child, not just one.

Anonymous said...

I make a 6 figure salary and I get under $200.00 every two weeks in pay. The rest goes to my ex who has a sound surround system, a SUV completely paid off by me, a huge network of computers and every technoloy device invented, a fully paid apartment and paid vacations. That's just a start. I'm sure what I don't know about is another 100k worth of stuff I've paid for. Most of this was bought from spousal support. I don't know where the other Anon. gets off saying that it's minimal payments. This needs to stop in the US. It's a crime against humanity.

SarahW said...

I have to say you don't make a lot of sense. It does not seem connected to anything I said.

Plus, you misstate what I said.
I did not say what I think you imply, that all divorcing wives always accept modest settlements.

Bruce did not go off the bend because he got a raw deal. He is also the author of his own misfortunes, not the victim.

Anonymous said...

SarahW, your response is more intelligent than the norm (and sounds slightly attorney-ish, are you involved with this case?) and you don't resort to name calling anyone who believes the divorce system snapped Pardo, so kudos to you for that. You are right that Pardo's divorce at first glance is not a posterchild for a man really getting screwed, especially since no children between them were involved and the marriage was short term. But the fact remains that so many men have gotten so badly screwed in Family Court (and continue to be screwed) that it has left a legacy of incredible anger and bitterness which resonates with what Pardo did. Pardo obviously had some serious demons unrelated to the divorce, and he snapped where many men who have had it worse were able to maintain.

Regardless, he still represents the anger and rage Family Court has left in all those men who got shafted by the system. Are you a parent, SaraW? Have you ever been ordered to see your children 4 days a month? Or not seen them at all for years. Have you ever had your house given to somebody else? Had your drivers license suspended, half your paycheck garnished, your passport canceled, your credit rating trashed? Have you ever had a judge speak down sarcastically to you as he would to a criminal? Not all of this was happening to Pardo, but I guarantee you a lot of it was. His own mother was testifying against him in court. You write a long list of all his failings, including falsyfing time sheets and lying to get his job back etc... Isn't that the sign of a financially desperate man? In criticizing him for this, you actually exemplify what happens in court to the man. He cannot win. He is ordered to come up with money that he simply cannot come up with. If he resorts to desperate means to get that money, then he is a lowlife for doing that. In other words, shame on you Pardo for lying to get that money, now go ahead and hand it over to us, we'll take care of it for you! LOL! Total hypocrisy! As for never making any payments... he was out of work, otherwise trust me the court would have been taking half his paychecks. They can and do garnish your paycheck within a few weeks of starting any employment. And they don't exactly ask your permission, either. And missing payments is irrelevant anyways since the ex- will get that money eventually, plus interest. Every penny of the payments he did not make, would eventually have been squeezed out of him the minute he got a job, again garnished out of his paycheck.

As for the whole control issues you point out in him, it didn't sound like he was exactly clinging to her, since he put her furniture out on the lawn. If you want to mention control issues, I think the real control issue here is a greedy, drunk-with-power Family Court system that has no checks or balances, operates outside of Constitutional Rights, and is filled with $350/hour divorce attorneys, 200K/year judges who used to be divorce attorneys, and money hungry ex-wives, all addicted to the tax free cash flow from the ex-husbands, and happy to suck every penny they can from these men and essentially turn them into a slave labor for the next 20 or 30 years. Then they pretend to be shocked and surprised when somebody snaps, and chalk it up to another psychotic madman. There is, of course, no acknowledgement of their own revolting greed and dishonesty. Might makes right, and the winners (court system and ex-wives) get to write history, all couched in beautiful words like "what's best for the kids". Which translated, actually means what's best for THEM.

Anonymous said...

ANON 7:58!

Excellent! You captured what so many of us are trying to say. We are not defending Pardo. We are explaining what happens to men. They snap in family court!

Counselors want to tell people that the system is broke but they can't break confidences.

It is going to get even more violent if men do not have the opportunity to face a more fair system!

Viper said...

Folks, you are welcome to discuss Legal Pub's proposed solution to domestic violence or the general fairness or unfairness of the family court system on my web site.

I am a divorce attorney who enjoys hosting any intelligent discussion.


Anonymous said...

ANON 6:04, You are being ripped off. God bless men like you who do not get violent dispite getting taken to the cleaners.

Yup, the system is broke. I for one admit it!


Anonymous said...

Thanks Anon 12:58 except I am a woman. Women are paying spousal support, alimony and child support and are facing the same issues plus there is prejudice against us because there is a stereotype that only men are affected by this.

Anonymous said...

1:40 You are a Saint!

Anonymous said...


You seem confused about the timelines, and the order in which everything happened. When he applied for a job under an assumed name, it was not because he was desperate for money. On the contrary, he did all of that years before he ever met Sylvia Pardo.

Pardo falsified time sheets when he worked at JPL. He worked at JPL from the mid-1980's to the early 90's. Long before he met Sylvia Pardo. For that reason (among others) he was fired from JPL.

He also left a woman at the alter around that time.

After he was fired from JPL, he tried, and succeeded, at getting hired under a fake identity. Eventually he was recognized, and re-fired, and escorted off the premises.

Again, all this happened in the early 90's, before he ever got married, before he met Sylvia Pardo.

Also, he was cheating on his taxes before he met her. Also, he was responsible for his son nearly drowning and becoming seriously disabled. Again, he did all of this before he met her.

Finally, look at the timeline of their divorce. she asks for a divorce in the spring of 2008, and as a response he kicks her out of the house. In June, he's ordered to pay temporary spousal support, as she can't afford to pay rent anywhere else. This spousal support was a temporary arrangement, only until the divorce was settled.

At the time (June, 2008) he was still employed. Then, in July 2008, he loses his job and gets no severance, and no unemployment compensation. The fact that he got no severance or unemployment means either:

1) he quit his job.
2) he was fired for cause.

If he had been fired as part of a downsizing (ie no fault of his own) he would have gotten unemployment.

Now you may ask, "why would he quit his job". Go read recommendations of the men's rights movement. One of their tips for avoiding paying alimony is to get "fired". That way you can plead hardship and not pay out anything.

The divorce was settled in December, 6 months later. In that period of time, he paid her nothing. The final settlement, all spousal support was waived. He was ordered to pay her $10K, but that was arguably less than the amount she had contributed to their joint savings account, which had at one point (before he cleaned it out) over $80K.

For someone who typically makes 6-figures (like he did) a one-time payment of $10K is not that much of a hardship. And, it was not alimony, it was shared assets.

Anonymous said...

YOu want us to believe Pardo was a bad guy before the divorce to his recent wife. Even assuming you are correct, the fact remains that the family law system pushed him over the edge.

You are wanting to justify the system. It can't be justified. It is the trigger that sets unstable people over the edge. Accept it.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous
January 7, 2009 3:26 PM

Regarding cheating on his taxes, you are the confused one. The endless prattle about his tax cheating involved him taking a deduction on the disabled son he had no contact with. Please ask your tax man if (1) it is legal to take a dependent deduction on a child you have no contact with and (2) if it is possible for a divorced couple to both take a dependent deduction on the same child.

The answer to (1) is yes, it is done all the time and is legal if the parent who has custody of the child is willing to let the non-custodial parent take the deduction. The answer to (2) is NO, the IRS will flag it immediately. It's not something you can hide from the IRS, anymore than you could hide the goodyear blimp in your backyard. Double deducting is one of the first things the IRS looks at with any dependent deduction.

Putting (1) and (2) together, therefore means if Pardo was taking the deduction on that disabled son from the past wife and mother of that son, then the mother was not taking a deduction. The only way that could happen is if there was an agreement between the two. Those kinds of agreements are legal, and are made all the time, often based on the fact that even though the child is not living with the non-custodial parent, the non-custodial parent has made some financial sacrifices which merit him getting the dedcution. Perhaps the $100,000 (not exactly small change) the mother of the disabled child got out of Pardo's home insurance had something to do with that.

Regarding Pardo deserting his disabled son, you conveniently omit to mention how according to the mother he spent a week every day and night at the hospital after it happened. Definitely the sign of a cold, uncaring father, right? Subsequently there was no contact according to the mother, but of course millions of dads don't see their kids, and the mothers always say they just abandonned the children, but if you took the time to look at the court records you would see endless attempts by the father to gain some kind of custody or visitation, all to no avail because courts almost always give custody to the mother and could care a less about enforcing any visitation on the fathers part. The mothers are free to then play any number of endless games to make it difficult for the father to see their child, and after a few years of that agony the father gives up.In my case after not being able to see my daughter for months I petitioned the court to help me with visitation. Their response: we need to raise your child support to the mother because you are no longer caring for the daughter. Gee, thanks for you help!

Regarding Pardo's ex not receiving any payments, she would have gotten them eventually. It goes on his arrearage account. When you buy something on your credit card, you don't pay for it immediately but you owe the money eventually unless you declare bankruptcy. The only difference is that With alimony/child support, you cannot erase the debt with bankruptcy, it stays with you for life plus 10% interest. And by the way, I find it sooooo funny that Pardo's ex- was leaving him because he was scum, but had no trouble trying to get as much money from him as she could. In other words, Pardo is scum but his money is great! How convenient to look down your highbrow nose at someone, but at the same time help yourself to everything in their pockets.

Bottom line, no matter what Pardo or the average husband/father does, they cannot win in court. Every move they make and everything they say and do is used against them, until finally, one day, some of them snap.

Anonymous said...

having gone thru a bitter divorce I understand his behaviour , I laid awake many nights thinking how to kill her and her slim ball attorneys. THEse BASTARDS MADE ME LOOK LIKE A FELON I worked 3 jobs all my married life had million dollar homes did not screw around . My ex wife had an adgenda she got one half of all the property I had prior to marriage We spent 5 years in court due to her anger It cost me well over two million dollars , the attorneys milked this for all it was worth I have to pay alimony of $750.00 per month and she makes well over $1000.00 per month than me. the judge was very biased and i was unable to defend myself against the lies and half truths I am a 73 year old retired fireman on a disibility pension. The legal system is a farce all the attorneys and judges are in bed togther they go to parties luncheons and social events togther. I feel like i was totaly sold out.GO BLESS AMERICA AND THIS BIASED FRADULANT FUCKED UP LEGAL SYSTEM THIS IS WHAT I PUT MY LIFE ON THE LINE IN A COMBAT AERA TO DEFEND THIS BOGUS SYSTEM. ALSR GUSHSHOULED BE PUT ONTRIAL FOE HIS MISMANAGEMT OF THIS ONC EGREAT COUNTRY

Anonymous said...

There is no evidence that they both took the deduction for the child. In fact, only one did, Pardo.

Second, to the above poster, while I understand your anger, violence is never the answer. Work to change the system peacefully. It must be changed because it is unfair.

Anonymous said...


california surfer dude said...

Fire Dude:

Not everyone here is an attorney. I sypathize and empathize with you.

I am a poor surfer. I been through the cleaners... (divorce.) But not all attorneys are rich. Nor are they all cold hearted. I figured they are not that much different than surfers. We have comorodotiy before contests because it makes it easier to tolerate losing to a friend. Based on my experience in and out of court, its the same way with the suites in court.

Legal Pub's chief editor is a cool attorney who is very sypathetic to divorced dads. He has provided us with a marriage strike forum and a proposed solution to domestic violence. Check it out. Bet you can find some similar thinking dudes without the violent anger.

Peace. Surf's up.

Surfer Dude

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Legal Pub said...

Nice guy...

Legal Pub said...

Spammers will be billed $350.00 per spam as an advertising fee.

Legal Pub said...

Keep it strictly Pardo comments or Pardo related.

Legal Pub said...

Comments on this thread are closed until the spammer pays the advertising bill that we will be sending and pursuing.