Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Nevertheless, the next day Hilliard informed the commission about Wilkinson's refusal to clean the safe. 6 . See note 9, infra. 7 . See note 1, supra. 8 . It should be noted that defendants’ legal position is that "[a]s a limited term appointee [Wilkinson] has no due process or other right to re-appointment * * *" and that "[n]o cause is required to disapprove an appointment." Thus, defendants have argued on appeal that Wilkinson’s appropriate remedy was an appeal to the Personnel Appeal Board (PAB). But if the 1994 amendments truly had converted Wilkinson to a limited-term, non-classified employee, as defendants contend, then the PAB would have lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal. See Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education v. Newman, 688 A.2d 1300, 1303 (R.I.1997) . 9 . The 1978 version of G.L.1956 § 12-1.2-6
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the pab has no jurisdiction over nonclassified employees who are subject to the exclusive control of the commissioner of higher education    
B. holding the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings
C. holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive
D. holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
E. recognizing that only void judgments are subject to collateral attack and that a judgment is void only when court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property no jurisdiction of the subject matter no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.