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.
7 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts 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 |
|---|---|---|
Randall v. Haddadgreen1 sentence2024Consequently, the general rule is that "'the Commonwealth cannot be summoned as a trustee under trustee process without statutory authorization and, therefore, there can be no attachment by trustee process' absent such an authorization." Randall v. Haddad, 468 Mass. 347, 354 (2014), quoting MacQuarrie v. Balch, 362 Mass. 151, 152 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
MacQuarrie v. Balchgreen1 sentence2024Consequently, the general rule is that "'the Commonwealth cannot be summoned as a trustee under trustee process without statutory authorization and, therefore, there can be no attachment by trustee process' absent such an authorization." Randall v. Haddad, 468 Mass. 347, 354 (2014), quoting MacQuarrie v. Balch, 362 Mass. 151, 152 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Seneca One, LLC v. Geulakosgreen1 sentence2024The use of trustee process is subject to certain limitations, including the long-recognized principle "that trustee process actions against the Commonwealth are barred by sovereign immunity."11 Seneca One, LLC v. Geulakos, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 439, 442 (2015), and cited cases. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Westwood Groupgreen1 sentence2019See id . at 746, 652 N.E.2d 567 , citing Mullins , 389 Mass. at 52 , 449 N.E.2d 331 . | 1 | 1 |
Mullins v. Pine Manor Collegegreen2 sentences2019See id . at 746, 652 N.E.2d 567 , citing Mullins , 389 Mass. at 52 , 449 N.E.2d 331 . 2019See id . at 746, 652 N.E.2d 567 , citing Mullins , 389 Mass. at 52 , 449 N.E.2d 331 . | 1 | 1 |
Commissioner of Correction v. Myersgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 260-261 (1979); Abdul-Alazim v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 449 , 452 n.6 (2002). 2015See, e.g., Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 260-261 (1979); Abdul- Alázim v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 449 , 452 n.6 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Superintendent of Worcester State Hospital v. Hagberggreen1 sentence2015However, a moot case nevertheless can be heard if it presents an issue “of public importance, capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Superintendent of Worcester State Hosp. v. Hagberg, 374 Mass. 271, 274 (1978). 8 As the dissent accurately points out, this long-recognized exception to the mootness doctrine has par ticular application to litigation involving inmate rights given the often ephemeral nature of the alleged improprieties being challenged. | 1 | 1 |
Bank of New York v. Baileygreen1 sentence2013First, the long-recognized defense, acknowledged by the banks, that a postforeclosure summary process action can be defeated if a plaintiff is unable to show that it acquired title strictly according to the power of sale provided in the defendant’s mortgage, see Bank of N.Y. v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327, 333 (2011), is mentioned nowhere in G. | 1 | 1 |
Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosleygreen1 sentence1994City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47 (1986), citing Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462-63 , and n.7 (1980): Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 98-99 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.green1 sentence1994City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47 (1986), citing Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462-63 , and n.7 (1980): Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 98-99 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alberts v. Devine
green
2 sentences2006We begin our discussion with the long-recognized principle that “the First Amendment [to the United States Constitution] prohibits civil courts from intervening in disputes concerning religious doctrine, discipline, faith, or internal organization.” Alberts v. Devine, 395 Mass. 59, 72 , cert. denied sub nom. 1994We begin our discussion with the long-recognized principle that “the First Amendment prohibits civil courts from intervening in disputes concerning religious doctrine, discipline, faith, or internal organization.” Alberts v. Devine, 395 Mass. 59, 72 , cert. denied sub nom. | 2 | 1994–2006 |
Sterley v. United States
red
2 sentences2006Carroll v. Al berts, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), and cases cited. 1994Carroll v. Alberts, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), and cases cited. | 2 | 1994–2006 |
Abdul-Alázim v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Cedar Junction
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 260-261 (1979); Abdul-Alazim v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 449 , 452 n.6 (2002). 2015See, e.g., Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 260-261 (1979); Abdul- Alázim v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., Cedar Junction, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 449 , 452 n.6 (2002). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Carey v. Brown
green
1 sentence1994City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 46-47 (1986), citing Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462-63 , and n.7 (1980): Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 98-99 (1972). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.