Re: Lost Lands: Mistakes Of The Past Cheat Code For Ps3
Onofre Alamillo
ChronoscepterOverviewWeapon typeEnergy scepterAmmunition typeUnknownAmmunition capacity3Effective rangeMid to LongSecondary functionNoneService historyFirst locatedAll eight pieces must be located throughout the game[Source]
The Chronoscepter is the most powerful weapon in the game, designed to be strong enough to take down an enemy like the Campaigner. The weapon must be charged first; this only takes a couple of seconds but can be dangerous if the Campaigner is too close to the player. This is due to the large blast radius of each shot.
Once released, the Chronoscepter fires a blue beam that causes a devastating explosion the same size as that of the Fusion Cannon. This can kill all enemies within the blast radius and take down a good portion of the Campaigner's health. Players must be cautious when firing the weapon. If the player is too close to the blast, it will result in an instant death. The Chronoscepter can only be used three times. Once its energy is depleted, it cannot be used again as ammo is not available for this weapon.
Before this weapon can be used, the player has to find all eight parts of it. One piece is hidden in every level, and the player can keep track of what pieces they have collected via the "Key" option on the Pause Menu. As such, the Chronoscepter is only available for use in the final battle with the Campaigner unless the player uses cheat codes. If the player does this, the Chronosecepter will essentially function as a slower firing, but more powerful, version of the Fusion Cannon.
The Chronoscepter is an ancient, destructive weapon created thousands of years before the events of Turok: Evolution and Turok: Dinosaur Hunter. Realizing the dangers of its power, the Lazarus Concordance shattered the Chronoscepter into eight pieces and scattered them all across the Lost Land in order to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.
Now, an evil warlord known as the Campaigner launches an attack against the Lost Land. His main objective is to seek out all eight pieces of the Chronoscepter and assemble it, then use a massive focusing array to amplify the Chronoscepter's destructive powers to shred the fabric of space and time, so he can rule the universe.
Tal'Set is able to locate every piece and assembles the Chronoscepter. He then uses it in his battle with the Campaigner, during which the Campaigner is defeated and dies from the explosion. Tal'Set is able to escape the fortress in time and watches as the building collapses.
After leaving the ruins of the Campaigner's fortress, Tal'Set goes into a dream-state to confer with past and future Turoks on the Chronoscepter's fate. He decides to throw the Chronoscepter directly into an active volcano so no one would ever abuse its power again.
Unknown to Tal'Set and the other Turoks, the destruction of the Chronoscepter triggers a violent earthquake all across the Lost Land. The quake awakens a being long-trapped inside a large derelict spacecraft deep within the Lost Land. The events of Turok 2: Seeds of Evil then follow.
On March 14, 1944, defendants were indicted in seven counts for grand theft and in one count for criminal conspiracy to commit grand theft by false pretenses and false promises. Their trial commenced on May 15th and the verdict of guilty on all counts was returned on July 12, 1944. Appellant's motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial having been denied he was sentenced on September 8, 1944, to the state prison at San Quentin for the term prescribed by law. The terms of imprisonment for the counts from 2 to 8 inclusive were to run concurrently and consecutively to the term of imprisonment for count 1.
The appeal is from the judgments of conviction and from the order denying a new trial. It is grounded upon the claims of insufficiency of the indictment; insufficiency of the evidence to prove a conspiracy or to prove grand theft; prejudicial [71 Cal. App. 2d 610] misconduct of the district attorney; error in admitting evidence of transactions other than those mentioned in the indictment; error in giving and refusing instructions.
Appellant contends that the indictment fails to charge a public offense in two respects: (a) that it does not conform with the provisions of sections 950, 951, 952 of the Penal Code, and (b) that if such sections have been complied with they are unconstitutional in that appellant has been denied due process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution, and California Constitution, article I, section 13.
The first count of the indictment charges a conspiracy of the defendants in that they "confederated and agreed together and with each other, and with divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, that they would cheat and defraud by criminal means, and obtain money and property by false pretenses and false promises, with fraudulent intent not to perform such promises, and to commit grand theft." Following such charge the indictment sets forth 28 overt acts whereby it is alleged that one or the other or both of the defendants took specified sums of money from the several persons named in the declarations of the overt acts.
Counts 2 to 8 inclusive are in conventional form. Count 2 is typical. By its charging clause it alleges that "on or about March 26, 1941, at and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, said defendants, James M. Gordon and Harry White did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take forty-five hundred and sixty dollars ($4,560) in money, lawful money of the United States, of the personal property of one Ida A. Wastlund." Each count specifies the name of the victim and the sum stolen.
[1] The count charging the conspiracy is not wanting in any of the essentials of a valid accusation. Under our simplified forms of criminal pleading it is not necessary to detail the act which each of the conspirators is to perform in the execution of the enterprise. (People v. Corica, 55 Cal. App. 2d 130, 135 [130 P.2d 164].) In view of the requirement that the accused must be furnished with a copy of the indictment and with the testimony given before the grand jury the omission from the indictment of the names of the intended victims of the conspiracy is not fatal. The pleading is sufficient if it sets forth in intelligible language a notice of the [71 Cal. App. 2d 611] offense to be charged. The accused is not entitled to the description of the "particular circumstances thereof" which he may get from his copy of the testimony given before the grand jury or the committing magistrate and furnished to him. (People v. Yant, 26 Cal. App. 2d 725 [80 P.2d 506]; Pen. Code, 870, 925.)
The gist of the crime of conspiracy is the unlawful agreement to commit a crime and an overt act done in furtherance of the agreement. (People v. Black, 45 Cal. App. 2d 87, 96 [113 P.2d 746].) No indictment is insufficient by reason of any defect or imperfection of its form so long as no substantial right of the accused is prejudiced upon the merits of the case. (Pen. Code, 960.) Section 952, Penal Code, as amended in 1927 provides that it shall be sufficient if its language gives notice to the accused of the offense charged against him. (People v. Gilbert, 26 Cal. App. 2d 1, 7 [78 P.2d 770].) [2] The validity of an indictment cannot be questioned when drawn in ordinary and concise language accusing the defendant of a specific public offense, omitting details, so long as he is furnished with a copy of the accusatory testimony. (People v. Jones, 61 Cal. App. 2d 608 [143 P.2d 726].) The form of the indictment is not important so long as it presents in sufficient substance the facts constituting the crime charged, and it makes no difference whether the indictment be regarded "substantially and actually as a charge of substantive crime or as a charge of conspiracy." (People v. Keyes, 103 Cal. App. 624, 634 [284 P. 1096].) [3] Neither is the validity of a count charging a conspiracy affected by the fact that the conspirators may have succeeded in committing the crimes which were the object of conspiracy. (People v. Black, 45 Cal. App. 2d 87, 96 [113 P.2d 746]; People v. Chait, 69 Cal. App. 2d 503 [159 P.2d 445].) In no event shall a judgment be reversed because of an error in the form of the indictment "unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." (Pen. Code, 960; Const., art. VI, 4 1/2; People v. Curtis, 36 Cal. App. 2d 306, 327 [98 P.2d 228]; People v. Beesly, 119 Cal. App. 2d 82, 87 [6 P.2d 114, 970]; People v. Pierce, 14 Cal. 2d 639 [96 P.2d 784].)
[4] The contention that an indictment drawn pursuant to sections 950 at seq. of the Penal Code as interpreted by the courts of this state is a denial of due process is not [71 Cal. App. 2d 612] supported by the authorities. [5] Due process of law means no more than "law in its regular course of administration, according to prescribed forms and in accordance with the general rules for the protection of individual rights." It is complied with so long as provision is made for reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. (People v. Troche, 206 Cal. 35, 42 [273 P. 767]; People v. Dunn, 40 Cal. App. 2d 6, 17 [104 P.2d 119].)
The variety of grand theft charged is that in which a person by fraudulent representation or pretense defrauds another of his money or property. (Pen. Code, 484.) The scheme utilized by these defendants whereby to approach their victims was the sale of desert lands in the San Joaquin Valley by representing that they were underlain with petroleum. By testimony of the several purchasers of the desert acres it was proved that the moneys were obtained by making declarations of the value and oil content of the lands, of their proximity to oil production and by promises that the parcels purchased from defendants would be sold or leased to major oil companies within a short time at great profit. The statements of fact were shown to be untrue, and the jury believed that the promises were made without intention [71 Cal. App. 2d 613] of performing them. The testimony introduced to prove the statements and promises falls into two classes, namely, (1) that of the purchasers of the lands and (2) that of defendant White, an accomplice. The testimony of each of the vendees as to the false statements and promises corroborated the testimony of White which the jury accepted.
7fc3f7cf58