to abrogate the tribe’s immunity. Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Ute Indian Tribe, 149 F.3d 1260, 1263 (10th Cir.1998). Second, the tribe can waive its own immunity. St. Stephen’s, 264 F.3d at 1304. In either event, “a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” Ute Distrib., 149 F.3d at 1263 (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978)). It is undisputed that Congress has not abrogated the immunity of either SCTC or the Seneea-Cayuga Tribe. It is also undisputed that the Seneea-Cayuga Tribe has unequivocally waived its own immunity via the “sue or be sued” clause in the Corporate Charter—but only with respect to the actions of the Tribal Corporation, and not the actions of the Tribe. See id. at 1268 (<HOLDING>). On appeal, the primary issue in dispute is
holding that because a waiver of immunity is altogether voluntary on the part of the tribe and thus the tribe may prescribe the terms and conditions on which it consents to be sued and the manner in which the suit shall be conducted    the issue must be determined in the forum that the tribe has chosen for determination of the viability of claims against it to wit arbitration holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that waiver in a sue and be sued clause is limited to actions involving the corporate activities of the tribe and does not extend to actions of the tribe in its capacity as a political governing body holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that the district court may exercise jurisdiction over an indian tribe when the tribe is engaged in activity off of the reservation as an unincorporated association registered and authorized to do business in this state and is sued in that capacity for breach of a written contract