[brief] Appellant’s brief is riddled with attempts to bad-mouth the Plaintiff-Respondent [...], who conducted the tax foreclosure and obtained judgment.  It includes false, inflammatory and unsupported allegations of wrongful service of process.  It alleges that the private service company [...] somehow engaged in an illegal act of falsifying an Affidavit of Service submitted to Court, and falsely claims that such company is part of the undersigned attorney’s law practice.  But all of these claims and allegations were raised, argued and dismissed by the Trial Judge who heard the multi-day testimony, weighed the evidence and found that personal service of process was accurately completed.  Appellant cannot overcome this conclusion, so resort is now made to personal attacks and an argument that the Trial Judge did not properly weigh the evidence.  But it cannot be ignored that Appellant failed to pay property taxes on this investment property (it has never been a personal residence) for years, Appellant acknowledged his knowledge and understanding of his delinquent status, and the evidence supported the Trial Judge’s conclusion that service was proper.  The judgment was proper, title legally vested in Respondent, and then the property was sold to a third-party buyer.  The subsequent attempt to challenge service was rightly rejected.  The process server testified in full as to his personal service upon Appellant.  He testified as to his actions and his data entry after serving the summons and complaint, including his GPS tracking which substantiated his service.  He testified as to his prior history (19 years as a process server in the constable’s office, [...] and then [...]) and his current employment.  Appellant’s own expert witness testified as to the technical GPS data, which coincided with the process server’s testimony.  While Appellant tried to draw time/distance distinctions, the Trial Judge affirmatively addressed these differences, including the several hundred yards difference in GPS coordinates, and the testimony as to the time period it takes to drive to the toll booth.  The judge also noted substantial deviations in the Appellant’s version of events between deposition and trial.  Testimony was heard from both the husband and wife (both home that day just prior to leaving for a weekend vacation).  Nothing was ignored; nothing was dismissed.  All of it was considered, weighed and affirmatively addressed by the Trial Judge who concluded that it all supported a finding of personal service.  Appellant did not redeem the taxes.  Judgment was entered.  The property was sold.  When challenged, the only grounds raised by Appellant was service of the complaint.  Appellant did not argue that he lacked knowledge of the delinquencies or default.  Appellant did not argue that the equites of the case favored vacating judgment and that equity in the property was so extensive that it would be improper to allow it either as an unlawful takings or otherwise.  No evidence was even put forth as to property values, encumbrances, amounts due and/or amounts that might be lost/gained.  This argument was not argued, and it does not form part of the record.  It cannot be maintained on appeal.