Corrupt Chukchansi Faction AYALA LOSES in COURT to Corrupt Chukchansi Faction Lewis

The same tribe that says courts have NO SAY in tribal matters want court to solve tribal matter:

The court says differently:

Plaintiffs argue that CIHA is a separate entity from the tribal government, and
that HUD and the Court must continue to recognize the last formally recognized tribal government – and the CIHA board that it appointed – until the BIA and the Tribe resolve
the intra-tribal dispute. Doc. 28 at 4. But CIHA is not an entity separate from the factions vying for control of the Tribe. The Ayala faction claims to control CIHA, while the Lewis faction has appointed an entirely different set of board members to govern
CIHA. Control of CIHA is therefore embroiled in the intra-tribal dispute this Court
cannot resolve.

The same is true of the tribal court judgment upon which Plaintiffs ask the Court
to rely. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the various tribal factions have established their own
tribal courts and have obtained rulings in their favor from those courts. Doc. 28 at 8-9.
Even if a ruling of a tribal court would be entitled to deference (an issue the Court need
not decide), identifying the valid tribal court would require a prohibited inquiry into the
claims of the competing tribal factions.
III. Conclusion.

Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing that they have been injured by
Defendants’ actions or that their injuries will be redressed by this Court’s order without
asking the Court to resolve matters of intra-tribal governance. Plaintiffs therefore cannot
show that they have standing to pursue this action. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments
and authorities unpersuasive, and elects to follow cases that have dismissed similar
claims