Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
activities of Cooper’s enterprise affected interstate commerce. See, e.g., Keltner, 147 F.3d at 669 (interstate commerce requirement satisfied when defendants traveled between several states and committed some of the RICO predicate acts in another state); United States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 1354 (11th Cir.1989) (interstate commerce requirement satisfied when group members traveled between states to discuss and carry out RICO conspiracy). Second, Cooper argues no enterprise was in existence in 1993. However, every enterprise begins somewhere. There is no requirement that an enterprise be in existence before the first predicate act is committed as long as that first act relates to and is continuous with the subsequent acts in the pattern. See H.J., Inc., 492 U.S. at 239, 109 S.Ct. 2893 , Cooper’s third argument, that the Griffin
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that speech must be a threat or coercion to be actionable
B. recognizing that by accepting bribes in exchange for allowing violations of a collective bargaining agreement the defendant was conducting the rico enterprise local union through racketeering activity even though the union was harmed by the racketeering activity
C. holding that racketeering predicates must be related and amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity
D. holding that a pattern of racketeering activity required multiple illegal schemes
E. holding that plaintiff stated pattern of racketeering activity where defendants allegedly committed various predicates with common design of defrauding plaintiffs of money and obtaining control of coal mine
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.