Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the contempt. (d) A rule provided for under subsection (b) may not issue until the facts alleged to constitute the contempt have been: (1) brought to the knowledge of the court by an information; and (2) duly verified by the oath of affirmation of some officers of the court or other responsible person. (emphasis added). The initial motion for contempt filed by Co-Alliance was not verified as required by Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5(d)(2). However, we have held that “not every technical requirement of the indirect contempt statute must be followed, so long as the contempt defendant’s due process rights are respected.” In re Contempt of Wabash Valley Hosp., Inc., 827 N.E.2d 50, 63 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); cf. Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Charles, 919 N.E.2d 114, 118 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) . Benson does not mention in his appellant’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state application for relief had not been properly filed because it was not accompanied by an oath as required by state law
B. holding that pleading captioned petition for rule to show cause implies that proceedings will be civil because a criminal defendant can never be compelled to show cause
C. holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction
D. holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause
E. holding that because the petition lacked verification by oath it faded to meet the statutory requirements and could not serve as a basis for a rule to show cause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.