Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
5 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Vincent v. Com.green2 sentences2015When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this Court “must examine the evidence that supports the conviction and allow the conviction to stand unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Vincent v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 648, 652 , 668 S.E.2d 137, 139-40 (2008). 2015When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, this Court “must examine the evidence that supports the conviction and allow the conviction to stand unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” Vincent v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 648, 652 , 668 S.E.2d 137, 139-40 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2003Green v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 105, 118 , 546 S.E.2d 446, 452 (2001). 2 Upon retrial, a jury again convicted Green of capital murder during the commission of robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-31(4). 2003Green v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 105, 118 , 546 S.E.2d 446, 452 (2001). 2 Upon retrial, a jury again convicted Green of capital murder during the commission of robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-31(4). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2000We do not find it so under the analysis of Jones v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 75, 81 , 396 S.E.2d 844, 847 (1990). - 3 - firearm in the commission of robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1 is reversed. 2000We do not find it so under the analysis of Jones v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 75, 81 , 396 S.E.2d 844, 847 (1990). - 3 - firearm in the commission of robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-53.1 is reversed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elmore v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2002On appeal, he contends the holding in Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215 , 441 S.E.2d 342 (1994), compels the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove he actually possessed a firearm and that this Court's interpretation of Yarborough in Elmore v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 424 , 470 S.E.2d 588 (1996), and other cases is erroneous. 2002On appeal, he contends the holding in Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215 , 441 S.E.2d 342 (1994), compels the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove he actually possessed a firearm and that this Court's interpretation of Yarborough in Elmore v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 424 , 470 S.E.2d 588 (1996), and other cases is erroneous. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Yarborough v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2002On appeal, he contends the holding in Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215 , 441 S.E.2d 342 (1994), compels the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove he actually possessed a firearm and that this Court's interpretation of Yarborough in Elmore v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 424 , 470 S.E.2d 588 (1996), and other cases is erroneous. 2002On appeal, he contends the holding in Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215 , 441 S.E.2d 342 (1994), compels the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to prove he actually possessed a firearm and that this Court's interpretation of Yarborough in Elmore v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 424 , 470 S.E.2d 588 (1996), and other cases is erroneous. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lilly v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1999In Lilly v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 558 , 499 S.E.2d 522 (1998), we affirmed the trial court’s judgment and the death sentence. * Thereafter, Lilly successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. 1999In Lilly v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 558 , 499 S.E.2d 522 (1998), we affirmed the trial court’s judgment and the death sentence. * Thereafter, Lilly successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.