Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by the court. See Thomas v. Bracey, 940 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Russell v. Clark, 620 S.W.2d 865, 870 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1981, writ refd n.r.e.). All doubt should be resolved in favor of the communication’s relation to the proceeding. See id. “It is a verity of life that all things human, including lawsuits, have a beginning and end. These two aspects define the thing involved, and in defining it, they are inextricably related to and become a part of it.” Bennett v. Computer Associates Intern., Inc., 932 S.W.2d 197, 201 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1996, writ denied). Courts have deemed conduct related to the initiation of a suit as sufficiently related to a judicial proceeding and, therefore, absolutely privileged. See Thomas, 940 S.W.2d at 343 ; see also Russell, 620 S.W.2d at 868 (holding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statements typically found in an attorneys demand letter related to an imminent judicial proceeding absolutely privileged
B. holding demand letter written prior to and during litigation absolutely privileged
C. holding absolutely privileged a communication to an administrative agency designed to prompt action by that agency
D. holding absolutely privileged the filing of a mechanics lien prior to the judicial proceeding to foreclose it
E. holding that prosecutors defamatory statements to the press after plaintiff was pardoned were absolutely privileged
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.