The short answer is this: It's possible, but hard to pull off.

First, you would have to do some basic research on court filing procedures. It's not rocket science, but you can't just pop an envelope in the mail addressed to the judge.

Once you figure out how to file documents for the case, you need to determine what type of documents to file. E.g. a motion to dismiss might be appropriate if you think the claim is utterly bogus.

It can be "plain English," as Smattiso suggested, and indeed, judges always appreciate clarity. Legalese isn't required, but valid legal reasoning is. Contrary to popular belief, "legal reasoning" doesn't have to be arcane. It's pretty much just a matter of using everyday logic to apply legal principles to the facts of the case.

It's a lot like learning to program. There's no magic involved. It's just a matter of reading the relevant documentation, looking at examples, and using your innate reasoning abilities to put something together in accordance with the rules. And yet, as with programming, reasoning and writing about the law take practice to do well. You can hack together a simple CRUD app with zero programming experience and a lot of motivation. But you wouldn't want to bet your entire net worth on it. Likewise for legal writing. You can spend a few evenings of hard work learning the anatomy of a motion to dismiss and the basics of trademark law, and then you can write your motion. But I wouldn't do it if my personal finances were on the line.

In a situation such as the OP describes, there is an additional challenge. According to the OP, the plaintiff is using and perhaps abusing quirks of court procedure to his advantage. (I'm referring to the bit about default judgement and the alleged absence of certain documents.) That, too, could in principal be dealt with by a non-lawyer, but it would be quite difficult. You'd have to learn a great deal about the finer points of court procedure. This is especially difficult because it's not uniform across jurisdictions.

EDIT: You would also need to determine whether this would constitute unlicensed practice of law in your jurisdiction. Generally, you're allowed to represent yourself in court ("pro se.") But the rules about representing your business are a little more complicated. Sometimes it's OK, sometimes it's not.

So, yes, you can sometimes write something up and get a case dismissed without hiring a lawyer, provided you're willing to learn a great deal very quickly. But you'd be taking a tremendous risk. Probably not a good idea.

Just to be clear: I'm not at all recommending that the OP do this. I'm just answering the question posed in the parent comment. The OP really does need a lawyer, especially considering the plaintiff has allegedly shown a willingness to play procedural games.

IANAL, but here are some other things that others involved in the system have related to me:

A lot of what the lawyers do is to prepare the case and documents in order to save work for the judge. If there's a amateur doing it, it can mean a lot more work for the judge and he may not be real thrilled about it.

Be prepared to explain why do you don't have a lawyer doing it. It's hard to know how well the answer "because I didn't want to pay lawyer's rates" is going to go over because the judge and all of his professional peers are lawyers.

In a smaller city it's quite possible that everyone in the room (including the opposing lawyer) will know each other well and lunch together on a regular basis. Except you.

This is the kind of information that I would be most interested in. I understand that the legal system is very complex (like a programming language with funky syntax), but there IS a process and there ARE standard ways to go about doing things, even if there are particularities for different locations. I suppose this is the kind of thing you learn in law school or from experience in a courtroom, but there is no reason that it can't be taught outside of those environments.

Is there a repository for learning the basics (and maybe more advanced) legal processes? What forms to send to whom, and when, and what to be sure to do, and what to never do?

It's learn-able if there is a resource that teaches it. An online Khan Academy-like resource. Or even maybe an educational game. The only lawyer sim I've seen is Phoenix Wright.

Sure, I'd still prefer an experienced lawyer to do the driving if something comes up, but I'd feel more confident with some solid legal knowledge of my own.

Ok, so here goes. This is by no means a suggestion that anyone become an amateur lawyer, practice law without a license, handle a particular case pro se, or do any other such thing. This is just useful info for anyone who might want to learn some law. (Nothing wrong with learning as much about the world as you can.)

I'm not aware of any single repository of such information other than law school. But if you're willing to consult multiple sources, you can definitely find the information.

For starters, one can always get a copy of the reading lists for various law school classes. You could also look at commercially prepared law school study guides. Pretty much everything you would learn in law school is available in book form, in one place or another. Obviously, law professors and lecturers contribute a great deal of value added in the form of their own experience and idiosyncratic knowledge. But the core material is all written down in various places.

Those types of materials will teach you the basics of American law. The next step is to research the statutes and case law in your jurisdiction. That means federal, state, county, and municipal laws. The statutes can be found by Googling, for example, "Illinois Statutes," or "Chicago Municipal Code." As for case law, assuming you don't have a subscription to a legal database, you can use some Google-fu to find articles that address whatever legal question you're researching. You can also buy a "treatise" on the field of law you're researching; they're packed full of case citations.

As for court procedure--well, first, let me just say that you probably don't want to litigate your own cases unless you're in small claims court. And even then, having a lawyer really, really helps. But if for some reason you want to learn procedure, that'a a bit harder. There are books specific to individual jurisdictions. Also, courts often publish their own procedural rules. All of this can be found through Google.

Again, this won't make you a lawyer, and it won't eliminate the need for one. But I'm a firm believer that anyone can benefit concretely from a solid understanding of the law. There's no better combination than a smart lawyer and a smart client.

What a screwed up system. Seemingly there should a vetting process where the court system determines a claim at least has merits before the defendant has to waste his/her resources fighting it.

As it stands it is way too easy to use as a weapon to sue people into submission. Although I think this is already well known.

That might not be a terrible idea. It might help weed out some truly frivolous lawsuits.

But consider this: To be fair to plaintiffs, the bar for "not frivolous" would have to be fairly low. I suspect that a fair pre-vetting system would only weed out a tiny fraction of lawsuits. Probably, even most lawsuits that end with a successful motion to dismiss would make it past the type of preliminary review by the court that you're proposing.

So it's a good idea, but I think something more would be needed to help protect the little gal/guy from legal bullying. (BTW, I'm not saying this particular case is an instance of legal bullying. We only have one party's perspective.)

It seems reasonable to me that the plaintiff would have to establish the elements of their case before requiring any response from a defendant (though of course response should be allowed). Only after a court has found that the defendant needs to mount a defense should he need to hire a lawyer. Instead, our courts generally work the other way -- if you don't show up, you lose no matter how ridiculous the other guy's claims are.

The legal system would benefit greatly from being framed as a cost/benefit optimization problem instead of as reasoning in a byzantine para-consistent logic.