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.

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.”

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.

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.

Within a submitted court document, prosecutors defended what they described as a Santiago proffer that details evidence gathered against the former governor who was impeached in 2008. U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel said in a recent court hearing that he was considering unsealing at least part of the blueprint.

Blagojevich’s defense attorneys argued that unsealing the evidence and making it open to the public could lead to an unfair prejudice if jurors in the upcoming trial read details that are published, according to the Associated Press.

But prosecuting lawyers responded that Blagojevich’s several television appearances where he has pleaded innocence could have already undermined the bias of potential jurors.

“Notwithstanding the recent airing of a national television show in which he repeatedly claimed his innocence, Rod Blagojevich now argues that he would be unfairly prejudiced by the publication of the actual evidence that will be heard at his trial,” prosecutors said.

The former governor is charged with plotting to sell the Illinois U.S. Senate seat, left vacant after President Barack Obama was elected, in exchange for money or a high-paying federal position. He also is charged with trying to pressure campaign contributors through illegal means to avoid bad publicity, according to AP.

Robert Blagojevich, the former governor’s brother, is also charged with assisting him. Robert Blagojevich recently asked for a separate trial for his charges.

A Santiago proffer is described as a document filed in intricate legal cases where prosecutors are hoping the court will allow testimony from people who may be involved in what led to the charges, but who aren’t charged themselves. News publications regularly examine such documents for details about court cases that were not previously covered.

Multiple news organizations have also insisted that the court unseal the documents, while Rod Blagojevich’s lawyer Sheldon Sorosky.

Robert Blagojevich’s attorney Michael Ettinger said if part of the proffer was unsealed the whole thing should be released, or it all should be kept sealed. Ettinger said the proffer is inaccurate in its description of tapes made by FBI of phone conversation Rod Blagojevich made, as well as other witnesses’ testimonies, AP reported.

Prosecutors worked to reassure Zagel that any jurors with bias developed through publication of materials within the document could be weeded out during the selection process for jurors.

“In fact, the government has provided an accurate description of the evidence it expects to present at trial, and neither defendant substantiated any assertion to the contrary, calling into question their ability to do so,” they said.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 7 to 2 decision that the constitution’s Sixth Amendment, which ensures people accused of crimes will be given effective legal counsel, includes a need for lawyers to warn about the possible consequences of pleading guilty to a crime, including resulting in being deported.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the decision.

Stevens wrote further that lawyers have elevated responsibilities with immigrants due to recent congressional moves to punish immigrants more sharply when found guilty of crimes, even in cases involving comparatively minor incidents, according to the Washington Post.

“These changes confirm our view that, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part—indeed, sometimes the most important part—of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes,” Stevens wrote.

The case in front of the Supreme Court that led to this ruling involved a recent guilty plea of Honduras native Jose Padilla. (Padilla is not related to the Jose Padilla who was convicted of terrorist actions and considered an enemy combatant.)

Jose Padilla, a California-area truck driver, was facing charges of trafficking marijuana after he was arrested in Kentucky and asked his lawyer if pleading guilty would affect his legal status, according to the Post. Padilla, who has lived in the United States for almost 40 years and served in the Army during the Vietnam War, said his attorney told him that since he has lived in the U.S. for so long he did not have to worry about his immigration status.

Once Padilla pleaded guilty, he found out his lawyer was wrong. The marijuana trafficking charge is an aggravated felony, leaving him with little chance of avoiding deportation once he was released from a prison sentence.

The crux of Padilla’s subsequent appeal is that his lawyer deprived him of the right to effective counsel. The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against him, saying a lawyer is only required to inform a client about direct consequences, which does not include immigration status.

But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.

Though, in spite of the majority vote in favor of Padilla’s argument, some judges remarked about whether the Constitution should be used to create legal requirements. Judges Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia voted against Padilla.

“In the best of all possible worlds, criminal defendants contemplating a guilty plea ought to be advised of all serious collateral consequences of conviction, and surely ought not to be misadvised,” Scalia wrote in the dissent. “The Constitution, however, is not an all-purpose tool for judicial construction of a perfect world.”

Gao Zhisheng, who resurfaced about two weeks ago, declined to elaborate on the details of his disappearance, and wouldn’t say whether he was abused by the Chinese government during his time away. According to the New York Times, Gao looked like he had lost weight and was more reserved than in past contacts with him.

Gao said during his first interview since resurfacing that the ordeal had been very difficult for him, as well as for his wife and two children. His family left China in a clandestine way because of repeated harassment by Chinese police after Gao disappeared.

“I don’t have the capacity to persevere,” Gao said during the interview. “On the one hand, it’s my past experiences. It’s also that these experiences greatly hurt my loved ones. This ultimate choice of mine, after a process of deep and careful thought, is to seek the goal of peace and calm.”

Described as pugnacious and dauntless, 44-year-old Gao was among a few activist lawyers in China that were a constant source of discontent for the government. Gao took on complicated and difficult cases of persecuted Christians, as well as members of the Falun Gong spiritual group that was labeled by the Chinese government a cult and declared illegal.

During times when Gao was not jailed and possibly tortured as a response to his human rights work, he was constantly monitored by police officers, according to the Times. When he disappeared 14 months ago, an international outcry was expressed by human rights organizations, the United Nations and governments including the United States and England.

During the interview, he reportedly was brought to tears when recalling his first visit back to his old house, and finding traces of his family’s presence.

“I completely lost control of my emotions, because to me these are the three dearest people in the world, and now, we’re like a kite with a broken string,” he said.

Gao’s desire to not elaborate on where he has been and what happened to him raised concern over whether he is still being monitored by Chinese authorities. There were hints during the interview that his ceasing to work as an activist was part of deal to be connected with his family again, according to Times.

“You know that past life of mine was abnormal, and I need to give up that former life,” Gao said. “I hope I can become part of the peaceful life of the big family.”

Thirteen of the officials filed the suit in a Pensacola, Fla. federal court, just minutes after the president signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the health care reform bill. Health care reform has been a major push by Obama’s administration, and an equally major fighting point taken by Republicans against the president.

The complaint describes the act as an “unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states” and requests that a federal judge block it from being permissible as a federal law.

The suit states that “the Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”

The lawsuit was filed by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, and was backed by 11 other Republican state attorneys general and one Democrat, according to CNN. McCollum said the health care act will require states to extend themselves far beyond any realistic means at their disposal, and it doesn’t provide any resources to accomplish these goals.

Aside from McCollum, the other attorneys general hail from Washington, Utah, Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Idaho, Louisiana , Alabama, Michigan and Colorado, according to CNN. Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell was the lone Democrat who joined the suit. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a suit separate of McCollum’s to block the act’s passage.

“It’s a question for most of us in the states of the costs to our people and to the rights and the freedoms of the individual citizens in upholding our constitutional duties as attorneys general,” McCollum said.

The White House did not appear too worried.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on March 22 that the administration has been advised by lawyers that the federal government will win the suits. Democratic Party Spokesman Hari Sevugan described the legal efforts a waste of state money “during the worst economic crisis in a generation.”

Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna returned home to criticism from the state’s governor, Democrat Chris Gregoire, who said she would actively oppose the lawsuit.

Legal professionals told CNN that the constitution grants Congress plenty of power over state laws, and that the lawsuit will face an uphill battle against decades of legal precedence that favors Congress.

Holder has been the target of sharply critical attacks for planning to try the alleged brain behind the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a criminal court as well as four other suspected terrorists, Reuters reported.

Holder defended the plans recently and urged politicians to cease attempting to inflame public ire about the decision. Critics have said those charged with carrying out the attacks should be tried in military tribunals, since the incident constitutes an act of war.

Obama’s administration is now reconsidering the criminal trial route, as Congress could possibly decide within weeks to withhold funding for military tribunals against the suspects and to close Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Attorney General Holder took it upon himself to defend the criminal court possibility by describing it as a successful method for trying suspected terrorists. He also emphasized that past trials in criminal courts were without security incidents and could possibly lead to guilty pleas.

“They are tested … they are secure, we have tried these cases in a safe manner,” Holder said to a House Appropriations subcommittee. “Our allies around the world support us in bringing these cases in (criminal) courts.”

Both Republicans and some members of President Obama’s staff have been outspoken about their desire to not bestow legal rights afforded to American citizens onto people suspected with attacking the country, according to Reuters. The opposition to Holder has largely requested a new version of a military tribunal, tailored to the situation.

Holder insisted that the suspects would be treated like “any other murderer” if tried in criminal courts and that criminal judges are more than qualified to handle any complications that might arise during the trial dates. Holder made an example of a recent trial where a Pakistani woman was charged with a terrorist act, and the judge removed the woman several times for her outbursts.

But Republicans on the subcommittee still fired back.

“This is war and in a time of war we as a nation have never given constitutional rights to foreign nationals, enemy soldiers, certainly captured overseas,” said Representative John Culberson.

Holder said a decision on where to prosecute the suspected 9/11 terrorists would be coming within weeks.

“Facts, facts, not fear, must be the basis of all of our discussions,” Holder said.

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.