Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
, at any time upon a showing of good cause. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3). This court follows the vast majority of courts that have considered this issue and finds that the FCA does not run afoul of the separation of powers doctrine. See United States ex rel. Taxpayers Against Fraud v. General Elec. Co., 41 F.3d 1032, 1041 (6th Cir.1994); Kelly, 9 F.3d at 755 (“[T]he FCA gives the Attorney General sufficient means of controlling or supervising relators to satisfy separation of powers concerns.”); Kreindler, 985 F.2d at 1155 (“[T]he FCA qui tam provisions do not usurp the executive branch’s litigating funct d qui tam rela-tors do not wield so much governmental power that their appointments must conform to the requirements of the Appointments Clause); Robinson, 824 F.Supp. 830, 836 . Hektoen argues that qui tam relators are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that civil rights lawsuits are private only in form
B. holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area
C. holding that relators are not officers because they seek to vindicate not only public rights but their own private rights as well
D. holding that rights under vienna convention are not the equivalent of fundamental rights such as the right to counsel
E. holding that it is well settled that while one tenant in common may acquire homestead rights in the common property the rights so acquired are not superior to the rights and remedies of the other joint owners he can acquire no such rights as will prejudice or in anywise interfere with the rights of the other tenants in common
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.