Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
assertion of jurisdiction over all co-conspirators, residents and nonresidents, based upon their involvement in a conspiracy which occurred within the forum. Under the conspiracy theory, the plaintiff must: (1) make a prima facie factual showing of a conspiracy (i.e., point to evidence showing the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant’s knowing participation in that conspiracy); (2) allege specific facts warranting the inference that the defendant was a member of the conspiracy; and (3) show that the defendant’s co-conspirator committed a tor-tious act pursuant to the conspiracy in the forum. Kohler Co. v. Kohler International, Ltd., 196 F.Supp.2d 690 (N.D.III.2002). See also American Land Program, Inc. v. Bo-naventura Uitgevers Maatschappij, N.V., 710 F.2d 1449 (10th Cir.1983) . In this case, Plaintiff alleges as a “fourth
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing requirement that defendant conspired to commit an overt act in state in furtherance of the conspiracy
B. holding that a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an illegal act into which the defendant knowingly and voluntary enters and which is manifested by an overt act
C. holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
D. holding that telephone conversations and meetings were overt acts in furtherance of a drug conspiracy
E. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.