Disclosure requests; Court file 244069-10-BC [Patrick Fox; Tara Laker (BCPS)]

Any records from the VPD which would substantiate Mr. Lam's testimony that as of two years ago Hunchly users, and in particular Catherine Meiklejohn, DO NOT go through a network device or host which would have been included in the Slunk report he generated on 2022-10-12, when those users access the internet from te VPD's network.

Since it has already been established (and supported by Shook's testimony) that VPD requires ALL internet access to go through a security devide, and it is already established that "chancellor2' is the only such device actually being used for all of VPD's network, I request any records which would establish that that policy changed two years ago and that the corresponding network topology also changed accordingly.

When we stood down and Mr. Lam supposedly called the office to confirm that actual policies regarding the Hunchly users, who did ne speak with that supposedly provided him the information he then testified about? I believe this is very significant because Mr. Lam is an "IT Manager" with VPD, so how is it possible that a major policy and network topology change such as this occurred two years ago and yet he had absolutely no idea? Moreover, he somehow remained completely oblivious for two years?

Other than Meiklejohn, how many active Hunchly users are there within the VPD?