Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
are not subject to dismissal, even though those of the Relator are. However, that fact does not render our consideration of this motion premature. “Intervention by the United States into a qui tam suit does not automatically endow the court with subject matter jurisdiction over both the claims by the United States and by the relator.” United States ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 282 F.3d 787, 798 (10th Cir.2002); see also Federal Recovery Services, Inc. v. United States, 72 F.3d 447, 452 (5th Cir.1995) (rejecting a relator’s attempt “to end-run the ‘original source’ inquiry by arguing that the United States’ intervention in the action cured any jurisdictional defect”); Eitel v. United States, 242 F.3d 381 (Table), 2000 WL 1529237, at *2 (9th Cir.2000) (unpublished disposition) . Thus, despite the Government’s notice of its
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate
B. holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate
C. holding that whether or not the government proceeds with this action eitel cannot because he is not an original source
D. holding that section 853n6a is likely never to apply to proceeds of the crime given that the proceeds cannot exist before commission of the crime
E. holding that a  1983 claim is an independent original action rather than a review proceeding even when it challenges an administrative action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.