Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
line acknowledging receipt of the notice of right to rescind and the signature line certifying her decision not to rescind. Id. at 95. The Wiggins court found the form “both objectively false and internally inconsistent,” because it purported to notify the borrower of her three-day right to rescind, while simultaneously requiring her to certify the rescission period had expired. Id. at 96. A prospective borrower signing the document at closing is bound to be confused about whether her right of rescission has actually passed. [T]he very language of the election not to rescind tells the average borrower that her “cooling off’ period “has expired” and that she may no longer rescind the transaction. Id.) see also Rodrigues v. Members Mortgage Co., 323 F.Supp.2d 202, 209 (D.Mass.2004) ; Adams v. Nationscredit Fin. Servs. Corp., 351
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the oneyear period begins to run after the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has expired
B. holding that veterans claim had remained pending before va at time of his death because 120day judicialappeal period had not yet expired and he had not filed noa
C. holding the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing inapplicable when a witness had been deported during the period of time the defendant had been a fugitive
D. holding the practice of requiring borrower to certify at closing the threeday period had expired and the transaction had not been rescinded has the serious potential for actual harm
E. holding that a two to threeday time period between the employees complaint and his discharge was sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.