With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". broader, requirement of knowledge in other state statutes. The analogous section of the Oregon Blue Sky Law provided for the liability of every director, officer or agent of the seller, if such director, officer or agent with knowledge of the violation personally participated or aided in any way in making [the sale] * * *. [Emphasis added.] Ore.Rev.Stat. § 59.250(1). The Oregon Supreme Court, sitting in banc, held that “such knowledge is established by proof that the person knew the security was unregistered and it is not necessary, in addition, to prove that the person knew that the law required the security to be registered.” Spears v. Lawrence Securities, Inc., 239 Or. 583, 399 P.2d 348, 350 (1965) (in banc). See Lolkus v. Vander Wilt, 258 Iowa 1074, 141 N.W.2d 600, 604 (1966) (<HOLDING>). In their petition appellants Dayan and Bibi

A: holding interpretation of workers compensation statutes not clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency triggering review under iowa code section 17a1910c
B: holding that proof of willfulness in criminal tax cases requires negating a defendants claim of ignorance of the law or a claim that because of a misunderstanding of the law he had a goodfaith belief that he was not violating the law
C: holding that  2073 was not inconsistent with the provision regarding the discharge of a teacher employed by public schools iowa code  27927
D: holding that notwithstanding similar provision code of iowa  50223 1962 defendants could not because of their inexperience in the field of security sales claim immunity because of ignorance of the statutes
D.