Baby Got Back!

Umgarishen Frauen Haben Die Am Besten Arse Um Die Welt.

Dr. Constantino Mendieta (Dr C) is the biggest advocate for butt augmentation in the world.

Unsurprisingly, his practice is in Miami and overrun with sexy nurses with surgically sculpted butts. Butt-hungry patients fly in from all over the globe to have his steady hand in their behind, and with good reason – he literally wrote the book on butts. It's called The Art of Gluteal Sculpting. In this article he wants to set the record straight.

All of the women pictured in this article are Hungarian, except for Serena Williams.

(Along the Danube on a warm sunny day, in the merry merry month of May)
None of them have had surgical augmentation. What you see is natural. It is just what God gave them.

rself to be an artist? 
What Dr C does is three-dimensional sculpting. It's not just moving around fat – anyone can do that. His prices start at around $14,000, but you may find some plastic surgeons who will charge $4,000 for butt augmentation.

(A working lunch in Budapest calls for a stroll to a nearby cafe for quick service.)
The price tag is the difference between going to a hack or getting a real Picasso.

The problem is that some women see the butts of other people who've already had an underground procedure. Initially underground butt injections with stuff like silicone can look fantastic – the problem often occurs several years later. The silicone can, for example, eat away at the flesh. It's mind boggling to me with the advent of the internet how many people think it is safe to undergo those shady procedures.

The bottom line is that there are four different butt shapes that exist, no matter what part of the world or the country you are in. It has to do with measuring two points – the upper-outer part of the upper butt and the lower-outer part of the lower butt. When you measure those points you start to get the A, the V, the Square and the round shapes. (SEE last picture in this article to view the 4 basic shapes.)

Serena Williams, tennis champion.

There are four famous women that most women want to look like. Number one would be J. Lo or Kim Kardashian, they are running head to head. And then Serena Williams and Beyoncé. Also, ever since the royal wedding we've been hearing a lot about Kate Middleton's sister, Pippa – she's got the smaller cute butt.

Serena Williams has a pretty massive ass. I would think not many people could achieve that level of butt, even with plastic surgery. 
Mainly the African Americans ask for that one. A lot of the time the women who seek a Serena butt are already full-figured. So it is in line with their body type. Occasionally, however, I can't deliver it because of their anatomy, so they have to come back for a second procedure.


The prettiest shape is the A. The most complained about shape is the square. The least attractive is the V, followed by the round – but it is a far second. The A shape is what we are always trying to get.

The A shape is basically where a woman's waist is smaller than her hips at a ratio of 0.7. Psychologist Devendra Singh did a study where she found that men – young, old, American, Afghan, whatever – desire women who posses that magic ratio. It's probably an instinctive thing because A-shaped women tend to be more fertile and have a healthier lifestyle.

How wide those hips are is the cultural factor. Latinos tend to like the "Jennifer Lopez", which is a little bit fuller on the bottom with wider hips. Asians tend to like a little bit narrower hip area because they want to look taller and more slender. African Americans want a huge caboose that is big, full and round everywhere. Caucasians run the gamut – some like a wider hip and some like a narrower hip.

I have never met a butt that I can't make better. I only turn them down because they're not good candidates for medical or psychological reasons, or they don't have enough body fat.

People who don't have any body fat limit what I can do. I have to send them to a Bootie Camp. To build more fat on their body that I can then move into the buttocks, I send them to booty camp.

 I tell them they can eat whatever they want – McDonald's, Burger King… Once they've puffed up I can grab that new fat and put it in their butt. Booty camp is the best prescription they are ever going to get.

When the news came out late last year that some retardedely desperate girls in Miami allowed a transsexual Frankenstein man with grotesquely gargantuan ass and titties to inject their butts with cement and Fix-A-Flat tire sealant in hopes of ballooning their asses to J. Lo proportions, we knew this whole bootylicious thing was starting to get out of control. Surprisingly, that case is just one of many instances last year where people hired quacks to augment their asses – a 20-year-old student in Philly even died from underground silicone butt injections last February.

This seedy scene of backyard assplasty belies a broader trend of women going to extreme measures to improve the shape and girth of their behinds. The sane way to do this, beyond squats and eating lots of bonbons, is to go to a plastic surgeon. There are two general methods that real doctors use to augment your bum – implants and fat transfers. Implants in the butt generally follow the same concept as implants in the breast, and have been slowly rising in popularity in the US over the last few years. However, fat transfers, also known as the Brazilian Butt Lift, are where all the action is. This procedure involves liposuctioning fat from unwanted places, prepping it and pumping it back into select areas of the butt to create a delicious flesh-apple. It's hard to get specific statistics on fat grafting, however, because most surgery societies tally fat transfers under liposuction.

The bottom line is that there are four different butt shapes that exist, no matter what part of the world or the country you are in.

It all has to do with measuring two points – the upper-outer part of the upper butt and the lower-outer part of the lower butt. When you measure those points you start to get the A, the V, the Square and the round shapes. he prettiest shape is the A. The most complained about shape is the square. The least attractive is the V, followed by the round – but it is a far second. The A shape is what we are always trying to get.

Judges Must Be Fair And Impartial.

Judge London Steverson, USALJ(Ret.)

All Social Security Administration (SSA) Admin Law Judges must fulfill their duties with fairness and impartiality. Statements and actions by any Judge that displays unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination undermine public trust and confidence in the administrative process. All SSA ALJs perform an essential role in ensuring that our administrative process is fair to claimants by conducting fair and unbiased hearings and issuing decisions for claimants who are dissatisfied with Agency determinations in claims arising under the Social Security Act.

Background: Statements and actions by our adjudicators that display unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination undermine public trust and confidence in our administrative process. Our ALJs perform an essential role in ensuring that our administrative process is fair to claimants by conducting de novo, informal, non-adversarial hearings and issuing decisions for claimants who are dissatisfied with our determinations in claims arising under the Social Security Act. All adjudicators, including our ALJs, must fulfill their duties with fairness and impartiality. We have three separate processes to guard against unfairness in our hearing process: (1) The Appeals Council review process, under which we review hearing decisions in accordance with 20 CFR 404.969, 404.970, 416.1469 and 416.1470, to ensure that ALJs fairly and impartially consider claims for benefits; (2) the Division of Quality Service's ALJ complaint investigation process; and (3) the civil rights investigation process for allegations of discrimination involving unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias based on race, color, national origin (including English language ability), religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint. These three processes operate separately from one another and have different focuses. Claimants, parties, and the public may avail themselves of any or all three of the processes, as applicable, and all three processes may occur concurrently.


Social Security Ruling, SSR 13-1p; Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes for Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR-13-Xp. This Ruling explains the three separate vehicles we have for addressing complaints of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination by an administrative law judge (ALJ). First, the Ruling describes the procedures that the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review's (ODAR) Appeals Council follows when it receives such allegations in the context of claim adjudication. Next, the Ruling describes how ODAR's Division of Quality Service reviews or investigates such complaints outside of the claim adjudication process to determine whether ODAR should take any administrative or disciplinary action with respect to the ALJ. Finally, the Ruling describes how the public may file with us complaints of discrimination based on race, color, national origin (including English language ability), religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint against the agency. This Ruling supersedes our prior Notice of Procedures: Social Security Administration Procedures Concerning Allegations of Bias or Misconduct by Administrative Law Judges, 57 FR 49186 (October 30, 1992).

Through SSRs, we make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, special veterans benefits, and black lung benefits programs. SSRs may be based on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations.
Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or regulations, they are binding on all of our components. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
This SSR will be in effect until we publish a notice in the Federal Register that rescinds it, or publish a new SSR that replaces or modifies it.

Purpose: This Ruling clarifies the three separate processes we have for addressing allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination by an ALJ.
Citations (Authority): Sections 205(b), 809(a), and 1631(c) of the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart J, sections 404.940, 404.967, 404.969, and 404.970, Regulations No. 5, subpart A, sections 405.25 and 405.30, and Regulations No. 16, subpart P, sections 416.1440, 416.1440, 416.1467, 416.1469, and 416.1470.

In this Ruling, we explain these three different processes and emphasize that:
1. The Appeals Council has authority under 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 to act when a party is dissatisfied with a hearing decision or dismissal of a hearing request. Even when a party does not request review, the Appeals Council may initiate review under 20 CFR 404.969 and 416.1469. The Appeals Council considers allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias by ALJs under the standards for review in 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470. The Appeals Council may also consider objections from a party stating why a new hearing should be held before another ALJ pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440. In evaluating such allegations, the Appeals Council considers only the evidence contained in the claimant's administrative record. The Appeals Council's process is the only process set forth herein that allows a claimant to obtain a remedy on the claim for benefits.

2. The Division of Quality Service may review and, if warranted, investigate any complaints against an ALJ, including allegations of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, or misconduct. Under this process, the Division of Quality Service evaluates allegations to determine whether it is necessary to recommend administrative or disciplinary action against an ALJ.
3. Individuals who allege discrimination based on their race, color, national origin (including English language ability), religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or in retaliation for having previously filed a civil rights complaint, may also file a separate discrimination complaint with us using our civil rights complaint process.

Policy Interpretation.
Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, or Misconduct Evaluated in the Appeals Council Claims Review Process
The ALJ's decision is subject to Appeals Council review under 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470 if the claimant or other party or his or her representative timely requests review of the ALJ's decision. The Appeals Council may also review the ALJ's decision on its own motion under 20 CFR 404.969 and 416.1469.
The Appeals Council will grant a party's request for review and issue a decision or remand a case when:
* There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the ALJ;
* There is an error of law;
* The action, findings or conclusions of the ALJ are not supported by substantial evidence;
* There is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the general public interest; or
* There is new and material evidence submitted that relates to the period on or before the ALJ's hearing decision, and review of the case shows that the ALJ's actions, findings or conclusions are contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.

Under our regulations, an ALJ must not conduct a hearing if he or she is prejudiced or partial with respect to any party or has any interest in the matter pending for decision. A claimant or other party to the hearing who objects to the ALJ who will conduct the hearing must notify the ALJ at his or her earliest opportunity. The ALJ will then decide whether to proceed with the hearing or to withdraw. If the ALJ does not withdraw, the claimant or other party to the hearing may, after the hearing, present objections to the Appeals Council as to reasons why the hearing decision should be revised or a new hearing should be held before another ALJ.
If, in conjunction with a request for review, the Appeals Council receives an allegation of ALJ unfairness, prejudice, partiality, or bias, the Appeals Council will review the claimant's allegations and hearing decision under the abuse of discretion standard. We will find an abuse of discretion when an ALJ's action is erroneous and without any rational basis, or is clearly not justified under the particular circumstances of the case, such as where there has been an improper exercise, or a failure to exercise, administrative authority. For example, if the record shows that the ALJ failed to conduct a full and fair hearing by refusing to allow the claimant to testify or cross-examine witnesses, we will find that an abuse of discretion has occurred. An abuse of discretion may also occur where there is a failure to follow procedures required by law.

An ALJ also abuses his or her discretion if the evidence in the record shows that the ALJ failed to recuse himself or herself from a case in which he or she was prejudiced or partial with respect to a particular claim or claimant, or had an interest in the matter pending for decision. In this instance, we will remand the case to another ALJ for a new hearing or revise the ALJ's decision pursuant to 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440.
--This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the page number listed below--
Notice of Social Security Ruling (SSR).
Citation: "78 FR 6168"
Document Number: "Docket No. SSA 2012-0071"
Federal Register Page Number: "6168"
"Notices"
Copyright:
(c) 2013 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc.