With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the exemptions available under Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution and the statutory exemption, Section 222.01 et seq. of the Florida Statute. In addition, counsel for the Debtor relied on the case of In re McNabb, 326 B.R. 785 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2005). In In re McNabb, the Bankruptcy Court held that subsection (p) of Section 522 does not apply in States which opted-out because in those States the debtors do not have a right to elect between federal and state exemption. The issue of the applicability of subsection (p) of Section 522 in opt-out States such as Florida has been extensively litigated since the decision in McNabb, and Bankruptcy Courts which considered this issue have uniformly rejected the decision of McNabb. See In re Kane, 336 B.R. 477, (Bankr.D.Nev. Jan.2006) (<HOLDING>), See also In re Kaplan, 331 B.R.

A: recognizing that code is speech
B: holding that the challenge to the sign code is moot because the original code was repealed and superseded and there was no reasonable likelihood the city would reenact the old code
C: holding the provision of the code was designed to close the millionaires mansion loophole in the current bankruptcy code that permits corporate criminals to shield their multimillion dollar homesteads
D: recognizing that source code is speech but not reaching the object code issue
C.