Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.” 456 U.S. at 703, 102 S.Ct. 2099. For example, the parties may consent to jurisdiction through a forum selection clause in a contract, Nat’l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315-16, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964); Dow Chem. Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827, 831 (9th Cir.2005); by filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding, Tucker Plastics, Inc. v. Pay’N Pak Stores, Inc., 99 F.3d 910, 911(9th Cir.1996) (per curiam); or by filing an original complaint, a counterclaim or a crossclaim, Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 67-68, 58 S.Ct. 454, 82 L.Ed. 649 (1938); Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1037-38 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2002); cf. Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127, 1138-40 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) . The rules governing consent are not as
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court
B. holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim
C. holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws
D. holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation
E. holding that a nonmember who files a civil claim in an indian tribal court consents to tribal jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.