With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as a claimant in this action and submitted to this Court’s in rem jurisdiction. It is not unreasonable to subject her to this Court’s in personam jurisdiction to resolve the same issues. In United States v. All Right, Title and Interest in the Contents of the Following Accounts at Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, No. 95 CIV. 10929 HB THK, 1996 WL 695671 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.5, 1996), the court considered the reasonableness of allowing cross-claims, based on in personam jurisdiction, to be asserted along with civil forfeiture claims. The court concluded that it would be “unfair to subject a claimant in an in rem proceeding to in personam liability without satisfying [the] fundamental prerequisites” of personal jurisdiction. I o. 3034504504 & 14407143, 971 F.2d 974, 980 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The court does conclude, however, that the

A: holding that where prior state court had in rem jurisdiction district court could maintain in personam jurisdiction and simply deny requests for conflicting in rem relief because district court is fully capable of preventing inappropriate conversion of the suit to a proceeding truly in rem
B: holding that a claimant submits to personal jurisdiction by appearing in an in rem civil forfeiture action
C: holding the claimant does not consent to personal jurisdiction by appearing in in rem action
D: holding that a  881 forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action that is independent of any factually related criminal actions
B.