of this principle to 37 U.S.C. § 206. The Posse Comitatus Act also supports the proposition that membership in a state National Guard and in the National Guard of the United States represent different activities. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of “any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse eomitatus or otherwise to execute the laws.... ” 18 U.S.C. § 1385. The Act has been uniformly interpreted to apply to National Guard members only when they are in federal service and not when they are in service to their states. United States v. Hutchings, 127 F.3d 1255, 1257-58 (10th Cir.1997) (“But until a Guardsman receives orders directing him into federal service, he is a state serviceman, and not a part of the federal Army.”); United States v. Benish, 5 F.3d 20, 25-26 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Case law thus establishes that when National
holding that pennsylvania law applied as the parties did not argue choice of law issue and implied that pennsylvania law applied by focusing their arguments on same holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service holding that the district court was correct in dismissing the section 1782 application as moot because at that time there were no foreign proceedings within the meaning of the statute in which the discovery could be used holding that pennsylvania national guard members could be used for civilian law enforcement because they were not in federal service at the time holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss