With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id.; Heckler v. Comty. Health Servs. of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 61, 104 S.Ct. 2218, 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984) (observing that “a private party surely cannot prevail without at least demonstrating that the traditional elements of an estoppel are present”). Moreover, where, as here, estoppel would apply against the government, a plaintiff must show, in addition to the traditional elements, that the “government agents [have] engage[d]—by commission or omission—in conduct that can be characterized as misrepresentation or concealment, or at least [have] behave[d] in ways that have or will cause an egregiously unfair result.” Smith, 277 F.Supp.2d at 107 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); accord. Conax Fla. Corp. v. United States, 824 F.2d 1124, 1131 (D.C.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); L'Enfant Plaza Props., Inc. v. District of

A: recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states
B: holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct 
C: holding that the united states corps of engineers publication of maps of navigable waters did not constitute affirmative misconduct for equitable estoppel purposes
D: recognizing that the supreme court has indicated that affirmative misconduct is a prerequisite to a finding of estoppel against the united states
D.