Some people will file a lawsuit over just about anything. Take he classic case of a woman suing McDonalds’ for coffee she claimed was “too hot.” That lawsuit to a $2.86 million decision in her favor, but was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to strange lawsuits.

Here are five examples of unusual lawsuits recently filed.

1. Women suing for being described as “hot” and pictured next to “Douchebags”

In October 2009, three women tried to sue creators of the book “Hot Chicks with Douchebags,” about their appearance in the book. Joanna Obiedzinski, Yvette Gorzelany and Paulina Pakos attempted to file a defamation suit, but a New Jersey judge threw it out because the book itself was clearly a work of satire.

2. Beer commercial doesn’t follow through on promise

In 1991, Richard Overton attempted to sue the massive beer brewer Anheuser-Busch for $10,000, because he found he was not greeted by beautiful women in a tropical setting after drinking lots of Bud Light.

3. Don’t confuse me with a celebrity!

Oregon resident Allen Heckard was a little tired of being a doppelganger for a famous athlete. He was so fed up with everyone telling he looked like Michael Jordan, insisting that really it was Michael Jordan who looked like him. So he tried to sue Michael Jordan and Nike for $832 million for his “emotional pain and suffering.” Apparently not everyone wants to “be like Mike.”

4. Lindsay Lohan vs. The Milkaholic Baby commercial

Earlier this year, Lindsay Lohan filed a lawsuit against E-Trade for using the name “Lindsay” for one of the characters in a commercial. That character was called a “milk-alholic” by another baby. Lohan claimed in her suit was a direct reference to her public struggle with substance abuse. Her lawyers also said the actress is known singularly by her first name, just like Cher and Madonna.

5. Man sues himself for getting thrown in prison too often

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock was so tired of revolving-door prison time that he decided to go after the source: Himself. Brock filed a $5 million lawsuit claiming he violated his own civil rights by committing crimes while intoxicated and getting arrested. At the time he was serving a 23-year prison sentence and thought the state would have to foot the bill since he was locked up. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

Prosecuting lawyers argued in court recently that film director Roman Polanski should not have access to sealed transcripts that could help his case because of his fugitive status in the United States.

The transcripts of testimony by Roger Gunson, a former prosecuting attorney in the ongoing legal case with Polanski, reportedly detail alleged misconduct. Polanski’s defense lawyers believe the transcripts will help their effort to stop Polanski from being extradited from his current home in Switzerland, where he is under house arrest, according to the Associated Press.

Los Angeles area authorities have tried repeatedly to get Polanski back into the country to face sentencing for the charge of having illegal sexual relations with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Deputy District Attorney David Walgren wrote in a filing that the request made by Polanski’s lawyers should be denied because the director has refused to return to Los Angeles for sentencing, despite repeated requests. Walgren further said that any charges of misconduct should be dealt with at a sentencing in Los Angeles.

Gunson gave his testimony in February during a closed session, according to the AP. Court descriptions read that in 1977 Gunson testified that he attempted to challenge presiding Superior Court Judge Lawrence Rittenband, who has since passed away. But Gunson’s supervisors stopped him from doing so after a conference with Rittenband, according to the AP.

Documents within the files claim that Gunson wanted Rittenband to be disqualified from presiding as judge over Polanski’s case because of misconduct. The files with the transcripts are a part of filings made by Polanski’s lawyers.

The testimony was apparently taken from Gunson, who is now retired, in the event he wouldn’t be able to testify at a later hearing.

Another bullet Polanski’s legal team has tried to fire at Walgren involves claims that the requests made to authorities in Switzerland to extradite Polanski back to the United States have false and incomplete elements within them.

Walgren sharply criticized the statements made against his team’s efforts, describing the charges as “completely baseless and reckless allegations.”

Polanski’s case has been ongoing in some form since charges of illegal sexual activity arose back in 1977.

He had left the United States for Europe in 1978 the night before he was to be sentenced for the charges. Rittenband had reportedly said that night the he might renege on a sentencing agreement that had been reached in Polanski’s case.

Seven months ago, Polanski was arrested after arriving in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award for his film work.

He released his first public comments about the charges during that weekend, and said efforts to bring him back to Los Angeles were to serve him “on a platter to the media.”

An Australian lawyer has filed a lawsuit against police and government, charging them with not upholding their ends of a deal for her to give evidence against a former drug squad detective who was accused of murder.

Nicola Gobbo, who has served as a defense attorney for several figures in Melbourne’s underworld, filed a writ in the local Supreme Court for more than a million dollars in damages. In the filing, Gobbo names the state government along with former police chief commissioner Christine Nixon and Simon Overland, who now serves as commissioner, as defendants, according to the Australian.

The filing became public on April 29 after a suppression was lifted that previously had prevented any naming of Gobbo in regard to her role in collecting evidence against Paul Dale, the former cop charged with murder.

Dale is accused of ordering the killing of police informer Terrence Hodson and his wife Christine in 2004.

In the suit, Gobbo claims that police approached her in December 2008 and asked her to wear a wire to record a conversation she would later have with Dale in a hotel in Melbourne.

Gobbo further charges that police pushed her to make a statement implicating Dale, even though the act could be dangerous for her to undertake. The suit described the potential outcome of the statement as “inevitable, significant, perilous consequences.”

In return for her help, Gobbo claims she was to receive financial benefits as well as police protection from any threat that might arise from making a statement against Dale. But Gobbo alleges that the deal was not upheld.

“Having had the courage and strength to agree to become a witness for Victoria Police, I was required to give up my home, my security, my sense of life as I knew it,” Gobbo recently said during an ANC broadcast. “I was assured by Mr. (Simon) Overland that I would be compensated and that I would be left no worse off. My health has deteriorated as I was under constant stress and uncertainty. I remain in fear of my life since agreeing to give evidence for Victoria police.”

Gobbo claims that at one point she was told to “run for her life” by officers.

She also claims that before Dale even made it to court that her status as a witness was canceled by the police, which included her protection and payment.

Overland, chief of Victoria Police, offered no comment on the filing.

Lawyers for ousted former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich asked a federal judge to compel President Barack Obama to give testimony in connection to charges of soliciting payments to fill Obama’s vacated senate seat.

Records concerning the case were recently released containing errors: Redacted names were left visible, shedding some light on the process the former governor took to fill Obama’s senate seat after he was elected president, according to the Chicago Sun Times.

Records submitted by Blagojevich’s defense lawyers read that that Obama called a union official the day before he won the election against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to discuss the possibility of Valerie Jarrett replacing him in the U.S. Senate.

The same filing also read that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had several discussions with Blagojevich’s staff in effort to endorse potential senate replacements, according to the Sun Times.

The defense filing detailed several statements made by Service Employees International Union official Tom Balanoff to special agents within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as part of the FBI’s investigation into alleged criminal acts committed by Blagojevich and his staff.

Both Balanoff’s statements and the record of Obama’s phone call were not intended to be made public. Blagojevich’s lawyers filed the records under a seal, according to the Sun Times.

A glitch in the court’s computer records system allowed viewers to see sections that were previously blacked out. Other details found in the filing that were not meant for public consumption included statements made by convicted political fundraiser and business man Tony Rezko, and other details from closed meetings.

One other detail found in the filing involved Emanuel calling then governor Blagojevich after Jarrett took herself out of the senate seat race to urge the former governor to not appoint U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. The filing also detailed that Emanuel did support placing Urban League President Cheryle Jackson in Obama’s former seat, according to the Sun times.

Two sources who said they are familiar with investigation into Blagojevich claimed that Obama told Balanoff on Nov. 3, 2008 that he could go ahead and talk with Blagojevich’s staff about possibly appointing Jarrett. Obama reportedly said he felt Jarrett would be a strong senator.

The court filing by Blagojevich’s lawyers do not accuse Obama of any wrongdoing.

His lawyers asked the judge recently to subpoena the president to testify, under the justification that Obama’s testimony will help corroborate evidence Blagojevich’s defense team will try to use in court, the Sun Times reported.

Both the White House and the U.S. Attorney’s office declined to comment.

After Blagojevich’s arrest in November 2008, the White House released a report that stated Obama’s preference that Jarrett replace him. But it also said he wouldn’t stand in her way to get the seat or actively seek her appointment.

Both sides of the aisle are upset over a recent video by a Right Wing Group that claims the lawyers working for the Obama administration are connected to terrorist groups.

Keep America Safe, which is run by former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz Cheney, released a video that questions the patriotic values of lawyers that legally represented suspected terrorists while they were detained in Guantanamo Bay. The video plays on complicated feelings with regard to the American standard of fair legal practices and how that applies to people accused of attacking the country.

While the video has garnered attention for the fledgling group, it may not be the type of attention Cheney was looking for.

Describing the Democratic Party as weak on national security has long been a bash tactic used by the GOP, but Keep America Safe’s latest effort to shine negative light on the Obama administration has drawn strong denouncements from prominent conservative lawyers such as Kenneth Starr.

Starr, who served as solicitor general under George W. Bush’s administration and garnered notoriety as the lawyer who went after Bill Clinton for dishonesty about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s, signed a letter with several other conservative attorneys describing Keep America Safe’s efforts as “shameful,” according to the Associated Press.

Other former Bush administration lawyers signed the letter alongside Starr, including former deputy general Larry Thompson and Viet Dinh, the attorney who drafted the original Patriot Act.

One of the more surprising signers of the letter was former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs Charles “Cully” Stimson. Stimson resigned from the Bush administration back in 2007 after he came under attack for saying that it was shocking to him that U.S. lawyers would be willing to represent Guantanamo detainees accused of terrorist acts, according to the AP.

“The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’ representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre,” the letter read. “To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions” and “demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.”

Deborah Burlingame, another co- founder of Keep America Safe, said the organization’s goal is to get clarity from Obama’s staff on how they make decisions about Guantanamo detainees.

“This isn’t an attack on lawyers for being lawyers,” said Burlingame, a former lawyer.

A California attorney recently decided to file a lawsuit claiming that 10 different types of fish oil supplements contain industrial chemicals banned in 1979, and the companies who make and sell the supplements have not effectively notified people.

Chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyl compounds, or PBCs, were claimed by the lawyer’s suit to be found in supplements sold by CVS and Rite-Aid drugstore, and in supplements made by Houston, Tx.-based Omega Protein Inc. According to the San Jose Mercury News, Omega Protein claims to be the world’s largest producer of fish oil supplements.

David Roe filed the lawsuit in San Francisco citing Proposition 65, a law he helped write, reports the San Jose Mercury News.The law requires product labels to clearly state if an item contains toxic ingredients above regulatory safe levels.

Roe told the Mercury News that some of the tested supplements exceed the limit for PCBs by 10 times for cancer risk, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A limit on PCBs with regard to birth defects has not been established.

Benson Chiles, director of the New Jersey-based Coastal Ocean Coalition, is serving as a co-plaintiff on the suit and said that buyers need to be wary of what may be in the supplements.

Other companies named as defendants in the suit include Twinlab, GNC stores, Now Health Group, Solgar, and Pharmavite, which produces Nature Made supplements.

Two manufacturers were quick to respond to the lawsuit by saying their products are indeed safe for consumption.

Representatives of Twinlab and Pharmavite told the Mercury News that they distill their fish oil products to remove impurities and that any levels of PCBs are within government guidelines.

“PCBs are ubiquitous within the environment, which means that all fish - whether fish found in oceans and rivers or fish oil supplements - contain at least trace amounts of PCBs,” Erin Hlasney with the Council for Responsible Nutrition told the Mercury News. “The lawyers are using California’s Prop. 65 statute to bring attention to their case by attempting to frame this as a public health concern, when in reality, fish oil has enjoyed decades of safe use.”

The main crux of the suit is to simply make it known to consumers purchasing for health benefits that the supplements could carry a health risk, Roe told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Opinions are divided after the U.S. Department of Justice chose to not discipline two former DOJ lawyers who drafted memos in 2002 that legalized certain torture techniques against suspected terrorists, and gave the president near unlimited decision-making power to protect the country.

A five-year inquiry by the DOJ’s ethics department recommended that attorneys Jay S. Bybee and John C. Yoo be put under a disciplinary review for writing what are now described as the “torture memos.”

Bybee and Yoo wrote the memos in 2002 while working for the Justice Department during George W. Bush’s administration. The memos declared techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to perform on suspected terrorists, while also allowing the president freedom to order the military into action without consent of congress.

But shortly after the recommendation was made, the Justice Department’s David Margolis, a higher ranking official, overruled the inquiry ruling against the former DOJ lawyers.

Editorial writers with the Washington Post agreed with Margolis’ decision, pointing out that Bybee and Yoo were under pressure by the Bush administration to swiftly come up with a policy after terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The Post described David Margolis’ decision as courageous and quoted him as saying Bybee and Yoo acted under “good faith” and with the backing of several court decisions that could support the memos.

But the Post also wrote that Margolis was still sharply critical of the lawyers’ actions.

“Yet Mr. Margolis also made clear that Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo at virtually every turn argued for the most extreme application of executive power — a particular obsession of Mr. Yoo’s — and interpreted anti-torture provisions in the narrowest way possible,” the Post wrote in their editorial. “They failed to fully air arguments that cut the other way. Their work shows how quickly matters can go awry when ideology and fear drive decision-making during a crisis.”

The New York Times chastised the Justice Department for not following through on the recommendation to place both Bybee and Yoo under disciplinary actions by their respective state bar associations.

The Times wrote that while many Americans were both scared and clamoring for harsh punishment against terrorists after the Sept. 11 attack, the Justice Department had a responsibility to be even that much more vigilant when government officials wanted to sidestep laws.

“When [the Justice Department] renders an opinion, it has the force of law within the executive branch,” the Times wrote about the Justice Department. “Poor judgment is an absurdly dismissive way to describe giving the green light to policies that have badly soiled America’s reputation and made it less safe.”

The Times also pointed out that Margolis was critical of Bybee’s and Yoo’s professionalism in writing memos that seemed to offer little more than a preemptive criminal defense for questionable actions by the Executive Branch.

The Times wrote that Bybee and Yoo aren’t necessarily in the clear, since federal House and Senate Judiciary Committees will still be holding hearings in relation to the ethics report.

“The quest for real accountability must continue,” the Times wrote. “The alternative is to leave torture open as a policy option for future administrations.”

The tables have turned for Phillip Offill Jr.

In January, Offill went to an Alexandria, Va. courthouse because he was charged with the exact same type of crime he spent 15 years prosecuting as a federal Securities and Exchange Commission litigator.

On January 28, Offill was convicted on 10 counts of conspiracy and wire and securities fraud by a jury, according to a release from the U.S. Justice Department. Offill was immediately jailed after the verdict and faces significant prison time after the conviction.

According to the Dallas Morning News, Offill could face as many as 185 years in prison and be ordered to pay back as much as $15 million in lost funds.

“It is a sad day when a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorney uses what he learned in the government to later defraud the investing public,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division said after the verdict was given.

In 2004, Offill and Phoenix-based attorney David Stocker were involved in a scam to drive up prices of certain securities through press releases and spam-style email blasts, only to then sell the interests once the value went falsely went up, according to UPI. This type of scam is commonly called a “pump and dump.”

Along with the spreading information through media, the two lawyers also avoided stock registration requirements in order to hide the true nature of the stocks’ value when they wanted to sell at a high price, UPI reported.

In the criminal indictment against both Offill and Stoker, the two were accused of collaborating to register millions of shares in nine small companies that the two lawyers sold to investors, the Morning News reported. Once the prices went up through their media blasts and the lack of true records about the companies’ real finances, Offill and Stocker sold all shares in the valueless companies before stocks collapsed.

Stocker pleaded guilty to charges in 2009.

Earlier in January, Offill attended a court hearing within the federal court in mid-January on a contempt of court charge. He took the stand and defended himself against charges that he helped a client violate a court-order freeze on assets. Ironically, the freeze was placed on the individual after the SEC charged him with securities fraud, which is exactly the type of crime Offill used to prosecute.

Offill argued during the hearing that the assets considered frozen belonged to other companies that were labeled in the original court order as being a part of the freeze. He is scheduled to be sentenced in April.

Divorce is never a fun situation to tackle - however for many people it ends up being a somewhat painless process, from a legal standpoint. When it comes to emotions, obviously that’s another story - and some say celebrities who divorce have it worst of all.

According to an ABC News article, celeb divorces are the ugliest of the ugly. Not only do these people have to deal with the emotional pain and stress caused by divorce, but because of their fat wallets, the legal battles can be especially trying.

When these relationships include one celebrity and one non-famous person, sometimes that is the worst case scenario because the non-famous spouse might become more emotional or vindictive - wanting more assets or alimony than they would if the media weren’t involved and covering the couple’s every move.

Because of the natural human instinct to not want your personal life spread all over the news, often celebrities are willing to settle things quickly and pay more money - just to have the situation out of their lives.

Some of the most expensive celebrity divorces on record are:

• Rupert and Anna Murdoch ($1.7B)
• Craig and Wendy McCaw ($460M)
• Robert and Sheila Johnson ($400M)
• Michael and Juanita Jordan ($168M)
• Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving ($100M)

Paul Kelleher took the time and trouble to clean up his mother’s affairs after she died of cancer at the age of 52.  She left behind no estate to speak of, so the task was more one of notification and clean-up than actual administration.  But according to TPM Muckraker, Kelleher got a bit of a surprise when he called Bank of America–the bank representative breezily asked him how he planned to take care of his mother’s balance.

Of course, Kelleher wasn’t obligated to pay his mother’s outstanding balance; her estate would have been liable, if she’d had one, but heirs are generally not liable for outstanding debts of the deceased.  And, of course, Bank of America knows that…but how many people on the street are sure enough of it to respond, as Kelleher reportedly did, “…you should feel free to just go through the standard probate procedure. I’m certainly not legally obligated to pay for her.”?

Kelleher, fortunately, had enough understanding of the law to make that statement–and to stand strong in the face of the representative’s apparent dismay that he wasn’t going to “help out” his mother.

This is just one of many examples that demonstrate the willingness of collection representatives–both from primary creditors and from collection agencies or debt purchasers–to say whatever seems likely to be most effective in separating you from your money…whether or not you’re legally obligated to pay a debt.  Make sure that you understand your rights and obligations before entering into an agreement with a creditor or collection agency.