With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse 389 (3d ed.2000) (suggesting that § 1927’s language would not be offended, for example, by sanctioning counsel who had filed the same merit-less complaint in other courts). 13 . See United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 837, 103 S.Ct. 3352, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983) (observing that § 1985(3) was not intended "to reach conspiracies motivated by bias towards others on account of their economic views, status, or activities”); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971) (stating that § 1985(3) requires “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action”); Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 726, 103 S.Ct. 1483, 75 L.Ed.2d 413 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4, 17-18, 64

A: holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it
B: recognizing that  19852 proscribes conspiracies to interfere with the due course of justice in any state because of some racial or perhaps otherwise classbased invidiously discriminatory animus and conspiracies to interfere with federal proceedings
C: holding that a lower court should not take any action once appeal is filed which would interfere with the appeal process or with the appellate courts jurisdiction
D: recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action
B.