Another Attorney General Who Cant't Be Held Criminally Liable in Tribal Court

According to easternband.com, Annette Tarnawski has been appointed the new attorney general, something most of us probably thought happened at least a year ago, especially those disgruntled Snowbird residents who had to sit through Ms. Tarnawski telling them ending their gerrymandered representation violates tribal law.
Of course I have my personal irritation with Ms. Tarnaski as her defense of the tribe in my lawsuit involves propagating the falsehood that I resigned from the One Feather as well as the fact that the Attorney General's office has yet to respond to my request for information made nearly seven months ago, despite the fact that tribal law states they had to respond months ago. I also didn't care for her ill informed assertion in front of Tribal Council that there were no tribal members who met the qualifications for editor of the One Feather. Aside from me, there are at least three. Just because none of them are willing to sell out journalistic values doesn't mean they aren't qualified.
However, the basis for my irritation goes much deeper than the fact that the Attorney General's office has now become Principal Chief Michell Hicks' and Tribal Council's personal legal counsel, a clear conflict of interest. The basis for my irritation is that Annette Tarnawski, who's a non Indian, can't be held criminally liable for her actions on tribal land. It doesn't impact her.
While that's not to say that there aren't or haven't been non Indian attorneys who've represented the tribe well and responsibly, too often I've seen the position advocated (by Indian attorneys as well) the the tribe has a "sovereign right" to govern any way it pleases, even if it disregards the inherent civil rights of individual tribal members. For non Indian attorneys there's no incentive to give responsible legal advice. Other than termination, they can't face any serious consquence.
So if Michell Hicks wants to build gulags for his political opponents, o.k. If he wants to execute his opponents for what he deems as treason, o.k. Well maybe that's extreme, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see proposed disenrollments with fabricated evidence along with a denial of due process for those who oppose the chief, all with the Attorney General office's blessings. This is the same office that drafted and got passed legislation that violates tribal employees' First Amendment rights. This is the same office that argued in front of Tribal Council that the principal chief is allowed to violate tribal law if it's in the form of an executive order.
Here's what the tribe should do. First of all, regardless of whether attorneys working for the tribal are Indian or not, it needs to be made clear that a respect for the civil rights of individual tribal members takes precedence. Attorneys who attempt to "get around" rights or act unethically should be fired immediately. The role of the Attorney General's office needs to be redefined. It should get out of the business of providing legal advice and focus on prosecutions. The executive branch and Tribal Council each should have its own legal counsel. These are supposed to be separate branches of government and having the same legal entity providing legal advice to both defeats that purpose.
The tribe's legal leadership has long been a part of the problem. It's why the "Red man" hasn't been able to "get ahead man." We certainly need to do better.