OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# CAT-Tools/OmegaT/User manual/Language Character Sets and Fonts

Previous: Keyboard Shortcuts - Next: Table of Contents

## Language Character Sets and Fonts

A different display font can be selected via the Display Font dialog. Open it via the Settings > Display Font... menu item. The font type and size can be changed from the dialog.
Note that the font selected applies only to the user interface display (i.e. the Editor and Match and Glossary Viewer windows. It has no effect on the fonts used within any formatted documents. The fonts available for selection are those which are available on your system.
In order to permit translation between two languages which employ different alphabets, select a font which contains the character sets of both alphabets. Installation of additional fonts might be necessary in certain cases.
On Mac OS X, the operating system automatically selects a combination of fonts to represent the necessary characters. In some cases it is more effective to manually select the fonts to use.
If no single font contains the needed character sets, a virtual Java font (e.g. Serif) can be selected and defined in such a way that it uses multiple real fonts. Refer to the instructions available on the OmegaT website for customization and modification in this case.
Previous: Keyboard Shortcuts - Next: Table of Contents
# CAT-Tools/STAR Transit

History
Transit is the integrated computer assisted translation environment developed by the STAR Group. Its beginnings date back to the year 1986. In 1991, Transit 1.0 (a 32 bit DOS version) is one of the first translator-dedicated workstations to appear. It already featured the modules that most of today's CAT tools have incorporated: A proprietary translation editor with separate but synchronized windows for source and target language and tag protection, a translation memory engine, a terminology management component and project management features. Transit 2.0, the first version for MS Windows appeared in 1994. Further features were added, network compatibility, enhanced usability and stability and more source file filters. In 1996, with version 2.6, the fuzzy match engine was introduced. The last 16 bit Windows version was the 2.7. The previous version, Transit XV, was launched in 2001.
The current version of Transit, 'Transit NXT', has been on the market since 2008. It is the second most popular CAT tool in many countries in Europe but less well known outside Europe. A key difference between Transit and most other CAT tools is that it does not generate one database full of disjointed reference segments but retains the documents in its own format from which translations are created. Thus, it is always possible in Transit to call up the exact context of a reference segment "hit". Because it does not use databases for its reference segments, it is possible to switch the direction of translation "live" at any time without having to export an existing translation memory (TM) and reimport it in the oppositre direction. Thus, the source and target languages are always at the same level of revision. A further key feature of Transit is the integrated dictionary window. Unlike some CAT tolls, this is not a feature that is relegated to the bottom of the priorities list but is a core feature, offering quick and easy term entry and the option of displaying graphics to illustrate terms as one works on a translation.
A number of CAT tools of the latest generation, including Transit, offer a formatted PDF or HTML view of the source text so a translator can see instantly whether a segment is body text, a heading, table header etc.
# CAT-Tools/Similis

Similis is a second-generation translation memory which enhances the productivity of translators and the quality of their translations. Similis currently offers a limited freeware version.
# CAT-Tools/OmegaT/User manual/System Requirements

Previous: Introduction - Next: Installation and Configuration

## System Requirements

OmegaT requires a Java Runtime Environment (also known as JRE). Essentially, if your system will run Java programs it will run OmegaT. Java Runtime Environments are available for the following platforms: Windows 95/98/2000/ME/XP, UNIX, Linux, and Solaris (both x86 and Sun SPARC). Mac OS X comes with one pre-installed.
This OmegaT release requires a JRE version of 1.4 or higher, and we recommend using at least version 1.4.2 for it is the most stable out of 1.4.x JREs.
As far as the OmegaT project team is aware, OmegaT does NOT run on the following platforms:
   * Windows NT; the NT Java implementation contains bugs
   * Mac OS 9; the only Java Runtime Environment available for it (known as MRJ) does not offer the required functionality.
# CAT-Tools/OmegaT/User manual/Tagged (Formatted) Files Text Editing

Previous: Translation Memory and Glossary Files - Next: File Filters

## Tagged (Formatted) Files Text Editing
### Working with Tags

OmegaT displays the in-line formatting information of supported formats (at present HTML, XHTML, OpenDocument, and OpenOffice.org/StarOffice) as tags. The tags that are visible in OmegaT are not the same as those used by the original format; OmegaT converts them internally, and converts them back at compilation when the target documents are created.
Care must be exercised with tags. If they are accidentally changed, the formatting of the final file may be corrupted. In the worst case scenario a file may not open altogether; this occurs with OpenOffice.org files in particular.
Although custom formatting cannot be performed from within OmegaT, it is possible to apply some degree of control over the existing format.

#### OpenDocument and OpenOffice.org File Tag Manipulation

OpenDocument and OpenOffice.org tags must be preserved as is. Tags are paired as opening ( <f>) and closing ( </f>) tags with consecutive numbers, starting from 1, in each segment. These tags cannot be deleted, duplicated, or have their sequence changed. However, it is possible to:
* move tags to a different part of the segment; as long as they remain in the same order;
* cancel tags by placing them next to each other.
    For instance, if the tagged sentence
    is changed to
    the italic formatting is effectively removed.

#### HTML/XHTML File Tag Manipulation

In HTML or XHTML the beginning of formatting is marked by an opening tag of the form <x>, and the end of formatting by a corresponding closing tag </x> (where x represents the characters of a particular tag element). These tags have matching numbers, starting from 0, in each segment. Essentially, any changes made to tags must be made to both tags of the same pair.
The following rules for tags are applicable:
* Deletion is permitted (e.g. to remove italics from
    simply delete the tags <x0> and </x0>).
* Duplication is permitted (e.g. in
    the same formatting of "italics" is applied to "this").
* Change of order is permitted (e.g.
    can be changed to
* Nesting is permitted (e.g.
    can be changed to
* Overlap is not permitted (tagging like this
    is not allowed and will corrupt the file. Insertion of an opening tag followed by a second opening tag requires the closing tag of the second opening tag to come before the closing tag of the first.

### Tag Validation

The validate tags function (Tools > Validate Tags) detects changed tags (whether done deliberately or by accident), and indicates the affected segments. Use of this function will open a dialog with any suspected broken or bad tags in a document.
This function can be useful for tracking down bugs in a translated tagged text. This is often a problem in OpenDocument or OpenOffice.org files that will not open due to tag problems created in the process of translation. Fixing the tags and recreating the target documents again can often remedy the problem.
Previous: Translation Memory and Glossary Files - Next: File Filters
# Canadian Criminal Trial Advocacy/Collecting the Evidence
## Disclosure

A component of the collection of evidence may include requests for further disclosure from the Police or Crown Office.

## Investigations

An investigation should be undertaken to discover additional facts and obtain additional evidence that may be used at trial or used in settlement negotiations.
Amongst the types of evidence that can be obtained by investigation include:
* locate witnesses and obtain statements of eye-witnesses
* obtain information on the background on possible crown witnesses (e.g. work history, character, reputation, criminal history)
* obtain other information that could be used for impeachment
* photographs of scenes

## Taking Statements
### Potential witnesses

All potential witnesses should give statements or at the least be interviewed. The net should be cast broadly, so the interviews should go beyond simply the parties to the case and their direct associates.
People to be contacted include:
* employees/employers of the parties
* friends of the parties
* relatives of the parties
Counsel should not shy away from talking to parties adverse to the client's case. Any witness may change allegiance over time.
By having a witness give a statement you are able to pin them down on their recollection.

### Drafting a Statement

Tips for statements:
* should be in the witnesses own words
* should contain clear and specific details
* should be facts and not opinions.
* should not include argument
* should avoid hearsay evidence.
Example Outline of Issues to cover in the statement: witness background
* full name, date of birth
* residence
* occupation
Facts
* Date and time of incident
* Location and actions of witness at time of incident
* Others present at the time of incident (include name, age, relationship, description)
* observations of incident
* reactions (verbal/physical) of each person
* outcome of incident
* harm or damage caused
* state of person or property prior to harm or damage
* whether anyone else could have seen what happened
* the witnesses' familiarity with the charges and how they would have known?
A warning should be given not to talk to anyone about their evidence.

### Interviewing clients
## Organizing Evidence

The evidence should be organized before you begin outlining the theory of the case and examinations.
The most straightforward manner of organizing information is chronologically. A chart showing the sequence of events can be quite useful. This is a preferred manner where the case consists of multiple witnesses discussing a single event.
Each event can be broken down into key sub-events. The testimony of each witness should be organized to match each sub-event. Each of these can be used as a topic in cross-examination. At each juncture, look at the non-testimonial evidence and see how it supports the testimony. Also consider the logic of the sequence of events and whether there is something abnormal about it.
# Canadian Criminal Trial Advocacy/Appendix
## Checklists
### Trial Prep Checklist

Client notice
* notify client of trial date
* book appointment to review trial/answer questions
Witnesses
* notify witnesses of trial date and purpose by phone or letter
* made arrangements for out-of-town witnesses
* issued subpoenas for witnesses
* copies of criminal record of witnesses (such as CPIC printout)
Documents, Notices ,and Exhibits
* copies of transcripts from statements and preliminary inquiry hearings
* subpoenaed documents
* notices filed (business documents, court orders, medical reports)
* Expert report forwarded to other party within time limit
Trial materials
* trial briefs prepared
* legal research completed
* pre-trial motions prepared
* witnesses prepared
* completed Trial Book (witness lists, outline of proof, examination outlines, opening/closing outline)
Real Evidence
* visual aids and demonstrative evidence prepared (sufficient copies are available)
Courtroom
* technology set-up tested and arranged for court
* interpreter booked
Day of Trial
Materials
* Criminal Code
* Trial Book / Trial Brief
* pads of paper
* pens and highlighters

## See also

* Baum, Art of Advocacy: Preparation
* Manes & Edwards, Organized Advocacy, 2d ed. (Toronto:Carswell, 1988) Form 12-2
* F. Lee Bailey, Fundamentals of Criminal Advocacy (Rochester: The Lawyers Co-op, 1974)
* F. Lee Bailey, Investigation and Preparation of Criminal Cases (Rochester: The Lawyers Co-op, 1985)
* Justice Saunders, Reflections on the Art ... and Science of Decision-Making
Theory of the case
* http://www.mcle.org/includes/pdf/1960301B00_S.pdf
* http://www.pdsdc.org/Resources/summerseries/SS06142011/DevelopingTheory.pdf
* http://ambrosecriminallawblog.com/category/cross-examination-science-and-techniques-by-pozner-dodd/page/3/
# Canadian Criminal Trial Advocacy/Closing Arguments

The Closing Argument is portion of the trial where counsel can present and explain the reason why the trier-of-fact should decide in their favour.

## Effective Argumentation

Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court lists 16 rules of argumentation before a judge in his book "Making your case: The art of persuading judges":
* Be sure the court has jurisdiction
* know your audience
* Know your case
* Know your adversary's case
* Pay attentions to the standard of decision
* Never overstate your case. Be scrupulously accurate
* Occupy the most defensible terrain
* Yield indefensible terrain
* Take Pains to select the best arguments
* Communicate clearly and concisely
* Appeal not just to rules but also common sense
* When you must rely on fairness to modify the strict application of the law, identify some jurisprudential maxim that supports you
* Reason is paramount and that overt appeal to emotions is resented
* Assume a posture of respective intellectual equality with the bench
* Maintain your emotions and do not accuse
* Close in a powerful way and say explicitly what you want the court to do
# Canadian Criminal Trial Advocacy

This text is intended to provide a primer on the skills and techniques that can be used in Criminal trial advocacy. Coverage of the law and rules of courtroom conduct and evidential rules are covered elsewhere in the companion texts.

## Contents

* Beginning the Case
* Collecting the Evidence
* Developing a Theory of the Case
* Preparing for Trial
* Opening Statements
* Direct Examination
* Exhibits
* Cross Examination
* Closing Arguments
* Appendix
# Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Kidnapping and Unlawful Confinement

| Case | Citation | Prv | Crt | Sentence | Summary |
| R. v. White | 2012 ONCJ 619 (CanLII) | ON | PC | 2 years less a day | offender built dungeon in basement of building to kidnap friend of ex-wife--also sentenced for break and enter of building. |
| R. v. Singh | 2011 ONCJ 394 | ON | PC | 6 months | domestic violence case--found guilty of s.88, 264.1, and forcible confinement of wife--offender assaulted wife with pipe, forced her into house to hide from authorities--no record, on house arrest for 34 months, remorseful--serious long standing injuries to victim--global sentence of 3.5 years |
| R. v. Oxford | 2009 CanLII 70905 (NL PC) | NL | PC | 12 months | also sentenced on poss'n of weapon (88) and breaches--offender confined wife in house at knife-point |
| R. v. Power | 2008 NLTD 6 (CanLII) | NL | SC | 5 months | also sentenced for assault, uttering threats, and breaches--offender assaulted his wife on numerous occasions--offender would not let accused out of vehicle--global sentence of 16 months |
| R. v. McBride | 2003 NSSC 204 (CanLII) | NS | SC | 16 month CSO (JR) | offender also sentenced for assault causing and breach of probation--offender grabbed wife by throat and confined her in the vehicle--offender had 14 prior convictions for violence against women--joint recommendation |
| R. v. Gbeve | 2001 MBCA 73 | MB | CA | | |
| R. v. Pupovic | 2000 CanLII 16876 (ONCA) | ON | CA | 2 years | offender bound and gagged his mother-in-law and put her in the basement--victim was found and rescued by neighbour--appeal from sentence of 5 years |
| R. v. Savchenko | (2000), 191 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 225 (NLSC) | NL | SC | 18 months | also sentenced for assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and unlawful entry--offender entered into victim's apartment and forced them into a car and drove with the victim at knife-point, victim escaped while car was stopped--offender had unrelated record |
| R. v. Rowe | (1994), 126 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 301 (NLSC) | NL | SC | 3 months | offender also sentenced for uttering threats, dangerous operation, and assault with a weapon--offender confined wife in a vehicle |
# Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Mischief
## Under 5,000

* R. v. Lee, 2012 BCSC 137 || S/S || age 45 , no record, holds PHD, destroyed clothing in a holt refrue store. Counselling required.
* R. v. Hollett, [2011] N.J. No. 327 (P.C.) --
* R. v. Skinner, 2011 NLTD(G) 104 --
* R. v. Smith, 2011 NLTD(G) 123 --
* R. v. Charlebois, 2011 ABPC 238 -- $2000 fine; discharges denied
* R. v. Akin, 2011 ABPC 201 -- graffiti
* R. v. Bricker, 1994 CanLII 630 (ON C.A.) -- time served (2 years) -- 60 year old ties up 911 line for 12 minutes; threatened police; lengthy record

## Over $5,000

* R v Banks, 2012 NBQB 133 || 21 months || damaged sprinkler system in correctional facility $300k+ in damage
* R v Crothers, 2011 NBQB 380 || 18 months CSO || damaging propoerty of correctional facility; joint recommendation; $350,000.00 of damage
* R. v. Cote, 2011 ONCJ 778 -- 6 months -- damage police cars during G20 riot
* R. v. Muzzin, 2012 ONCJ 83 || 60 days || smashed windows of stores during G20 protest in downtown toronto
* R. v. Coon, 2012 ONCJ 72|| 12 mo CSO || damage to several store fronts, mischief over 5k
# Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Refusal
## Generally

| Case | Citation | Sentence | Summary |
| R. v. Gray | 2012 PCNL 1310 | 9 months | 5 yr driving proh; 4 prior impaireds, and related record; |
| R. v. Riggs | 2011 NLTD(G) 26 | 4 months | 5 yr driving prohibition; |
| R. v. Musseau | 2010 CanLII 2539 (NL P.C.) | 10 months | 3rd time impaired, car accident; readings 230; 5 yr driving proh. |
| R. v. Oxford | 2010 NLTD(G) 102 | 95 days | for two offences; no related record |
| R. v. Barry | 2010 NLTD 50 | 8 months | 3 yr driving prohib; 6 priors; BAC 110 |
| R. v. Cullen | [2009] N.J. No. 57 (C.A.) | 8 months | two offences; 15 yr driving proh |
| R. v. White | 2009 NLTD 196 | 16 months | 14 prior offences; 8yr driving prohib |
| R. v. Slaney | [2009] N.J. No. 327 (P.C.) | 5 months | BAC 250; offender and son injured |
| R. v. Hirtle | [2008] A.J. No. 1515 (Alta. C.A.) | 21 months | offender was driving while driving while disqualified, pled to s. 253(b)--prior record with 9 alcohol-related driving offences and 3 for driving while disqualified. |
| R. v. Pittman | [2006] N.J. No. 193 (S.C.) | 90 days | four priors |
| R. v. Hewlin | [2006] N.J. No. 85 (S.C.) | 6 months | three priors; high degree of intoxication |
| R. v. Power | [2004] N.J. No. 229 (C.A.) | 6 months | 9 related prior offences |
| R. v. Hunt | 2001 CanLII 33789 (NL SCTD) | 23 months | 5 priors; BAC 210 |
| R. v. Squires | [1995] N.J. No. 157 (C.A.) | 12 months | 15 prior offences |
| R. v. Squires | [1995] N.J. No. 157 (C.A.) | 18 months | 15 prior related |
| R. v. Wells | [1997] N.J. No. 153 (C.A.) | 2 years | for 3 driving offences |
| R. v. Connolly | [2002] N.J. No. 40 (P.C.) | 6 months | long related record; almost hit a child |
| R. v. Cull | [2003] N.J. No. 213 (S.C.) | 3 months | prior related record |

## Refusal

| Case | Citation | Sentence | Summary |
| R. v. Gregory Louis Young | 2012 CanLII 26155 (NL PC) | 12 months | |
| R. v. Williams | (2004), 9 M.V.R. (5th) 183 (N.L.C.A.) | 12 months | convicted of refusal, also sentenced for driving while disqualified (4 months)--6 prior alcohol related offence, 2 prior for driving while disqualified--10 year driving prohibition |
# Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Motor Vehicle Offences
## Driving While Disqualified

* R. v. Virani, 2012 ABCA 155 -- 12 months
* R v Quewezance, 2011 SKCA 123 -- 9 months -- very long record, 5 prior offences
* R. v. Marroquin, 2012 ABCA 28 || 12 months || long record with 7 MV related convictions

## Failure to Stop at the Scene

* R. v. Dhaliwal, 2012 MBQB 155 - 12 months - no CSO available due to SPI Offence
* R v LLC, 2012 ABPC 103 -- 24 months--also charged with impaired driving; assault peace officer with a weapon
* R. v. Schmitt, 2011 ONCJ 546 -- 5 months

## Flight from Police

* R. v. Chaaban, 2011 ABPC 310 -- 8 mo CSO
# Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Cases/Perjury
## Perjury

| Case | Citation | Sentence | Summary |
| R. v. Hedderson | 2006 CanLII 15422 (NL P.C.) | 2 years | |
| R. v. J.W.C. | [2005] B.C.J. No. 2710 (P.C.) | 18 months | |
| R. v. C.D. | 2000 CanLII 3118 (ON CA), (2000), 132 O.A.C. 133 (C.A.) | 1 year | |
| R. v. Colbourne | 2002 ABPC 141 | 90 days jail | testified in traffic court and accused was acquitted as a result; limited record |
| R. v. Johnson | [1996] 182 N.B.R. (2d) 373 | | |
| R. v. Sheppard | [1995] N.J. No. 330 (P.C.) | 6 months | |
| R. v. Kusnezoff | 1991 CanLII 1968 (BC C.A.) | 18 months | testimony in drug trafficking trial; good psr; limited record |
| R. v. Crawford | (1988), 81 N.S.R. (2d) 88 | | |
| R. v. Moulton | [1984] N.J. No. 75 (C.A.) | 30 days | "lenient" sentence |
| R. v. Edward Morgan | (1979), 19 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 176 (N.L.C.A.) | 15 months | |
| R. v. Morgan & Morgan | (1979), 19 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 187 (N.L.C.A.) | 3 months | |
| R. v. Gilliard | (1979), 20 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 185 (N.L.C.A.) | 3 months | |
| R. v. Hickey | (1978), 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. (N.L.C.A.) | 4 months | |

## Obstructing Justice

| Case | Citation | Sentence | Summary |
| R. v. Robinson | 2012 BCSC 1134 | 12 months | |
| R v Viscomi | 2012 ABCA 135 | 12 months | attempted to convince witness to recant statement--also sentenced for assault and breaches (2 months consecutive) |
| R. v. Crazyboy | 2012 ABCA 228 | 9 months | treatening witness |
| R. v. Tippett | 2011 NLTD 149 | 570 days | Joint Rec.; false evidence on a second degree murder charge |
| R. v. Thomas | 2010 ABPC 90 | 16 months | attempted obstruction; sent a note from jail instructing associate to tell crown witness to forget evidence. |
| R. v. Laing | 2010 ABCA 70 | 2 years | accused in jail for shooting a girl, wrote to girl saying to go to the police |
| R. v. Tschetter | (2009), 466 A.R. 239 (Alta. Prov.Ct.) | 12 to 18 months | directed friend to destroy evidence of drinking and driving case; no criminal record; long provincial offence record. |
| R. v. Van Delft | 2007 ABPC 319 (CanLII), 2007 ABPC 319 | 18 months | gave false name to police |
| R. v. Rowbottom | [2006] N.J. No. 31 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.) | 9 and 12 months | accused threatened and bribed to witnesses in a uttering threats trial he faced |
| R. v. Crazybull | 2005 ABCA 215 | 23 months | accused facing assault with a weapon allegations; threatened witness to not attend |
| R. v. Gill | 2003 BCCA 208 | 5 years and 10 months |
| R. v. Konkolus | (1998), 86 A.R. 144 (Alta.C.A.) | 12 to 18 months | giving false name to police and court to avoid dangerous driving charges |
| R. v. Thuraisingam | [1997] O.J. No. 5424 (Ont. C.J.) | 2 years | threatened to kill witness |
| R. v. Duke | [1997] A.J. No. 407 (P.C.) | 6 months | |
| R. v. C.E.B. | (1995), 57 B.C.A.C. 308 (B.C.C.A.) | 15 to 18 months | indirect threats and harassment in court parking lot |

## Public Mischief

* R. v. Di Gianni, 2011 ONCJ 792 -- public mischief for making a false claim of theft -- discharge granted