Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“purposeful and deliberate attempt ... to suppress dissent within the union.” Schonfeld v. Penza, 477 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir.1973); Cotter, 753 F.2d at 229 (2d Cir.1985). This is because “the rights of union members to belong to an open democratic labor organization are infringed” when a “dominant group •strives to stifle dissent and efforts at reform” through removal of a political opponent from office. Adams-Lundy v. Association of Professional Flight Attendants, 731 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir.1984). To fall within this exception, a plaintiff must present “clear and convincing proof’ that her dismissal was “part of a series of oppressive acts by the union leadership that directly threaten the freedom of members to speak out.” Cotter, 753 F.2d at 229; see also Schonfeld, 477 F.2d at 904 . In the past, we have allowed such claims to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that before pretrial detention may be ordered in a life felony case state must show that proof is evident or the presumption great
B. holding that ratification by a union of disciplinary acts of the local leadership against members would occur if the union affirmed the discipline with full knowledge that it was part of an overall scheme to suppress dissent in violation of the lmrda
C. recognizing the cause of action
D. holding that to state a cause of action the alleged scheme to suppress dissent must be evident either in the established history or articulated policy of the union
E. recognizing cause of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.