Imagine hypothetical scenario where a plaintiff has acted in bad faith and has sued you. As defendant you know that:

1. "facts" suggested by plaintiff in complaint are wrong and the plaintiff's attorney has not done his homework in establishing them
2. some facts, if established in front of court, would incriminate his client for something like intentionally not paying taxes.
3. plaintiff and his attorney are buddies. His attorney possibly conspired against you.

Let's say the case is handled [here][2]. **What would be the best response?** Do I understand correctly, that to

1. make plaintiff to pay for defendants legal expenses the defendant would have to file *cross-complaint*.
2. to incriminate plaintiff, defendant would have to file *Motion to Strike*.
3. to make the court question plaintiffs honesty you would file *General Denial*

What would be the best response in that hypothetical scenario?


  [2]: http://www.scscourt.org/self_help/civil/lawsuits/defendant.shtml#types