With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This Court has stated that the only way to effectuate notice on CMGT in April of 2004, would have been through proper service on the Illinois Secretary of State or the Delaware Secretary of State. The Seventh Circuit recently reiterated that “[a] district court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been properly served with process.... ” United States v. Ligas, 549 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.2008). The Court further reminded district courts that “the service requirement is not satisfied merely because the defendant is aware that he has been named in a lawsuit or has received a copy of the summons and the complaint.” Id.; see also Equity Residential Props. Mgmt. Corp. v. Nasolo, 364 Ill.App.3d 26, 301 Ill.Dec. 467, 847 N.E.2d 126, 134 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Spehar has failed to establish that any of

A: holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service
B: holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service
C: holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service
D: holding that a defendants actual knowledge that an action is pending or that service has been attempted is not the equivalent of service of summons and will not relieve the plaintiff of its burden or vest the court with jurisdiction
D.