[W]hile
husband was advised that his retained counsel--a member of the Oregon
and federal bars--would not be permitted to appear before the Tribal
Court, the record shows that he was also informed that he might be
represented by a "spokesman" certified to make such an appearance. ...
[O]ne is not deprived of a "right" to representation because a court
will not permit a specific individual to appear before it. No
constitutional claim arises from the limitation of representation of
those satisfying specific qualifications where those so qualified are,
in fact, available to a litigant.[57]
The court of appeals refrained from addressing whether an ICRA due process claim was to be interpreted consistently with a constitutional due process claim. That issue was before a federal district court.[58] That suit, later
__________
[56] 542 P.2d 918 (Or. Ct. App. 1975)
[57] Id. at 922 (footnote omitted).
[58] Id. at 922 n.8 ("A federal cause of action is available to the parties alleging that a deprivation of rights created by the [Indian] Civil Rights Act. Indeed, we are informed at oral argument that such an "appeal" from the Tribal Court decree is now pending in the federal district court,
(continued...)
