Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a final order for purposes of the Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1506, by reference to the Judicial Code’s definitions, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102); Bray v. McKeesport Housing Auth., 114 A.3d 442, 446 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (defining housing authority as a local agency for purposes of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 752, by turning to the definition of "Commonwealth government” in the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102); Frazier v. Phila. Cnty. Office of Prothonotary, 58 A.3d 858, 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (defining "unified judicial system” in Section 102 of the Right to Know Law, 65 P.S, § 67.102, by relying upon the definitions provided in the Rules of Judicial Administration, Pa.R.J. A. 102); Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna Cnty. v. Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) . This is a reasonable and intuitive approach,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process
B. recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction
C. holding that the director of the office of domestic relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the rtkl because the director was administrative staff of the unified judicial system as defined in the judicial code 42 pacs  102
D. holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency
E. holding that the director of the office of domestic relations of a court of common pleas was administrative staff of the court and thus a judicial agency under the rtkl
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.