With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". disciplinary authority). The Board adjudged Brinker guilty of both charges. Brinker has had prior disciplinary actions that resulted in sanctions. On March 18, 2010, this Court issued an order against Brinker finding him guilty of noncompliance with the annual CLE requirement for the 2008-09 educational year and ordering him to pay a $750.00 fine. Brink-er failed to pay the ordered fine and failed to earn sufficient credits to cure his CLE deficiency. As a result, this Court suspended Brinker from the practice of law on October 21, 2010. Kentucky Bar Association, CLE Commission v. Brinker, 324 S.W.3d 401 (Ky.2010). On June 10, 2011, the KBA privately admonished Brinker for violation of SCR 3.130-3.4(c)(knowingly disobeying an obligation of the rules of a tribunal), SCR 3.130-5.5(b)(2)(<HOLDING>), and SCR 3.130-5.5(a) (practicing law in

A: holding that the term manufacture applied not only to things made but to the practice of making to principles carried into practice in a new manner to new results of principles carried into practice
B: holding that sponsoring applicants for pro hac vice admission to practice law is not a core component of the fundamental right to practice law
C: holding that historical practice is important when courts interpret the constitution even when the nature or longevity of that practice is subject to dispute and even when that practice began after the founding era
D: holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice
D.