fact that the nature and purpose of the Notice makes it a public record. The cases that have found certain documents not to be public records have focused on the private nature of those particular documents and determined that they do not constitute records of official actions of the public entity or officer. See Griffis, 215 Ariz. at 4, ¶ 11, 156 P.3d at 421 (“The public records law was never intended to encompass such documents; the purpose of the law is to open governmental activity to public scrutiny, not to disclose information about private citizens.”); id. at 5, ¶ 14, 156 P.3d at 422 (“Some e-mails will relate solely to personal matters and will not, therefore, reflect the requisite substantial nexus with government activities.”); Salt River, 168 Ariz. at 539, 815 P.2d at 908 (<HOLDING>). The Notice was not a private and personal
holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding that the state police is a state agency holding that the arrest of an indian on indian land was illegal because the state had no jurisdiction over the reservation to enforce its laws  including the execution of a search warrant  unless congress consented to the states jurisdiction holding that the state did not have jurisdiction over crime committed on land held by the bureau of indian affairs for the use and benefit of a discrete indian community holding check distribution list for transactions between united states and individual indian allottees is not a state public record merely because it was in the possession of the state treasurer