If the militia were volunteers, and they did anything under the guise of military action, civil protection or peace keeping acts, I'd think they 'served' even though they were not given that paycheck. It's looking more and more like (at least to me) that some things did not get recognition or were reported but the individual who may have done some deed or their family members believed they were doing anything close to 'military acts' or 'law following' things believed and possibly wrote something of it in a diary/journal or in a letter and said it was or even believed this was done in the official capacity.

It's hard for me to get the words right but, if I use my example, maybe it makes more sense. The only proof (in the legal sense) we proctors have to show we did in fact show up and do the job is

1 The paper we have to sign listing the exact time we go into the classroom and the time we leave. Also, the physical position in the classroom we are assigned to monitor. Most of the teachers assign us the entire room because it's just too much trouble to be more specific.

2 The legal document we sign when we get the briefing on the rules that acknowledges we understand that we can go to jail for a year or pay a $1,000 fine if we divulge anything we may see that is on the test.

Other than that, there is no proof we were even there. We have no clue if the state keeps those pieces of paper or disposes of them. We do know we do not have a pay stub to prove we were there. The state has the only document and it's either buried in a drawer or a land fill. We are there. We do something. After we leave, we cannot prove we did it. The document on what the law can do to us isn't proof. Some sign but are not called to proctor.

So, were we active or inactive for four days? Can't prove it either way once the state buries or destroys those sign in sheets.

Pam