A. No. My client inquired of the competent offices, not of Goering, but of the competent offices, namely the legal departments. In all the ministries there were legal departments, also in the Reich Air Ministry and in the Wehrmacht itself. They employed specially trained experts. I draw your attention to—
Q. Just a minute. Then the head legal experts make the law as far as the defendant is concerned?
A. No, no, he does not make the law but he tries to, and that is, of course, the legal error that—
Q. He makes the law by which the defendant may govern himself?
A. Yes, for this special case, as long as he does not hear an opinion to the contrary, let’s assume.
Q. Oh, what happens after he does hear the opinion to the contrary, then which law does he abide by?
A. In that case he can act no longer at all. If he acts, he acts on what is known from the Roman law as “eventual dolus”, an evil intention, in case he comes up against the law. I assume that the term “eventual dolus” is known to your country, too.
Q. Supposing that he gets two conflicting opinions from the legal ministry, or one of the legal advisers in a high place tells him he may do a thing, and another in an equally high place says he may not, how does that solve the dilemma?
A. In that case he must not commit the act, because his attention has been drawn to the difference in the legal opinions, and that is where we have the “eventual dolus”. If he does not depend on it, and does it on his own risk, then in that risk he committed a wrong.
Q. I am frank to say that this is a new and startling legal theory. Did you understand that?