Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
companies related to "illegal conduct" or to a "public offense," as the magistrate's warrant did, is the substantive equivalent of finding that the companies were permeated with fraud. 124 Moreover, Norris points to no authority for the proposition that a magistrate must explicitly state that a business is permeated with fraud in order to issue an "all records" search warrant. An "all ree ords" search warrant issued by a magistrate is valid if the supporting affidavit relied upon by the magistrate includes allegations sufficient to establish probable cause that the businéés to be searched was permeated with fraud. Oloyede, 982 F.2d at 141. We therefore hold that requiring a magistrate to use the phrase "permeated with fraud" would be "unreasonably 'hypertechnical' " CJ id. at 140-41 . 125 Because the magistrate found probable
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a statement that the affiant is senior vicepresident and secretary of a corporation asserting a special appearance is sufficient to affirmatively show how the affiant has personal knowledge of the affidavit statements regarding the corporations contacts with texas
B. holding that a statement that the affiant is president of the company asserting a claim on an account is sufficient to affirmatively show how the affiant has personal knowledge of the affidavit statements regarding the account
C. holding it would be unreasonably hypertechnical to require an affiant to specifically claim that the business was permeated with fraud
D. holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants
E. holding warrant not undermined and affiant did not act in bad faith where affiant relied upon erroneous statements made by third party
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.