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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Gomolekoffgreen2 sentences2024However, staleness “is not determined by age alone, as this would be inconsistent with a totality of the circumstances analysis.” Id. (citation omitted). - 21 - J-A26019-23 In Commonwealth v. Gomolekoff, 910 A.2d 710, 713-15 (Pa.Super. 2006), this Court rejected a staleness claim where police obtained a warrant nine and a half months after the defendant sent emails containing alleged child pornography. 2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gomolekoff, 910 A.2d 710, 713-14 (Pa. Super. 2006) (rejecting a staleness claim where police obtained a warrant nine and a half months after the defendant sent emails containing alleged child pornography, noting that other courts had observed in other cases that “pedophiles rarely, if ever, dispose of child pornography” and that “individuals will protect and retain child pornography for long periods for time because it is illegal and difficult to obtain”). - 19 - J-A10017-24 prima facie showing, of criminal activity.”) (citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted | 2 | 3 |
United States v. David Scott Zimmermangreen2 sentences2024We noted that other courts had observed in other cases that “pedophiles rarely, if ever, dispose of child pornography” and that “[p]resumably individuals will protect and retain child pornography for long periods for time because it is illegal and difficult to obtain.” Id. at 714 (quoting United States v. Zimmerman, 277 F.3d 426, 434 (3d Cir. 2002)). 2019We noted that other courts had observed in other cases that "pedophiles rarely, if ever, dispose of child pornography" and that "[p]resumably individuals will protect and retain child pornography for long periods for time because it is illegal and difficult to obtain." Id. at 714 (quoting Unite d States v. Zimmerman , 277 F.3d 426 , 434 (3d Cir. 2002) ). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Sanduskygreen1 sentence2025See PCRA Ct. Op., 8/1/24, at 3, 9; see also Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043-44 ; Watley, 153 A.3d at 1039 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Leed, E., Aplt.
green
2 sentences2024However, staleness “is not determined by age alone, as this would be inconsistent with a totality of the circumstances analysis.” Id. (citation omitted). - 21 - J-A26019-23 In Commonwealth v. Gomolekoff, 910 A.2d 710, 713-15 (Pa.Super. 2006), this Court rejected a staleness claim where police obtained a warrant nine and a half months after the defendant sent emails containing alleged child pornography. 2021Leed, supra at 408-09 . | 2 | 2021–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Watley
green
1 sentence2025See PCRA Ct. Op., 8/1/24, at 3, 9; see also Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043-44 ; Watley, 153 A.3d at 1039 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gray v. South Carolina Public Service Authority
green
2 sentences1986Gray v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 284 S.C. 397 , 325 S.E.2d 547 (1985). 1986Gray v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, 284 S.C. 397 , 325 S.E.2d 547 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Bighum
green
2 sentences1978The Commonwealth, in the one paragraph its brief devotes to the issue, impliedly concedes that both incidents were too stable to impeach appellant’s credibility, see Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554 , 307 A.2d 255 (1973), but asserts that the staleness standard is different when a reputation witness is being cross-examined. 1978The Commonwealth, in the one paragraph its brief devotes to the issue, impliedly concedes that both incidents were too stable to impeach appellant’s credibility, see Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554 , 307 A.2d 255 (1973), but asserts that the staleness standard is different when a reputation witness is being cross-examined. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Bechdel's Estate
neutral
2 sentences1947The staleness of the claim makes it particularly suspicious: Beehdel’s Estate, 344 Pa. 139 , 23 A. 2d 859 ; Mays’ Estate, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 179 , 15 A. 2d 569 . 1947The staleness of the claim makes it particularly suspicious: Beehdel’s Estate, 344 Pa. 139 , 23 A. 2d 859 ; Mays’ Estate, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 179 , 15 A. 2d 569 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Mays' Estate
green
1 sentence1947The staleness of the claim makes it particularly suspicious: Beehdel’s Estate, 344 Pa. 139 , 23 A. 2d 859 ; Mays’ Estate, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 179 , 15 A. 2d 569 . | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.