Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
assignments. See id. at 304, 302. Appellants in this case did have notice that there was assigned parking at Le’Lisa; however, they did not have notice as to how the system worked. Further, appellants had notice from Article XVI of the by-laws that the document could be amended by a 66% percent vote of the unit owners. Appellants also had notice that the by-laws could contain “restriction^] on or requirement[s] respecting the use and maintenance of the units and the common elements.” RP § 11-104(c). See Allers v. Tittsworth, 269 Md. 677, 686, 309 A.2d 476 (1973) ("Every man is presumed to know the law”). Therefore, appellants knew the by-laws could be amended by the insertion of use restrictions. Cf. Board of Directors of By the Sea Council v. Sondock, 644 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Ct.App. 1982) . Appellants also attempt to distinguish Juno
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that condominium owners knew at time of purchase they bought subject to all provisions of declaration one of which was right to amend it
B. holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made
C. holding that defendant must assert right of confrontation and right to be present at time of alleged violation and cannot claim those rights for first time on appeal
D. holding that allegations that defendants designed and implemented improper accounting practices failed to state claim for securities fraud in absence of allegations of particular facts demonstrating how defendants knew of scheme at time they made their statements of compliance that they knew the financial statements overrepresented the companys true earnings or that they were aware of a gaap violation
E. recognizing that the right of redemption is one of the most important rights provided by the states to owners of real property
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.