I suppose it's theoretically possible, but so are many other things. There is always some theoretically possible innocent explanation for any evidence in any case. No jury reviewing the type of evidence I described would have reasonable doubts based on your proposed argument. Trust me on this one.
Had a paranoid thought. What if LE captured your database and mistakenly came to the conclusion that these fantasy reviews being written were actually true and evidential in nature. Even though your review submittal page clearly states such reviews are fictional, I would hesitate to engage in such imaginative and fanciful writing if there's any chance such writings could be mistaken for the truth.
The statements made on this site are hearsay, but could be admitted against the authors if the posts can be traced to their authors. This means that a review can't be used as evidence against a lady, but it probably can against the reviewer if the D.A. can tie him to a user name. If they can do that it is more likely they would lean on the authors for evidence against the ladies or against the targets they most want: the agencies.
To tie user IDs to particular people the D.A. would have to subpoena TER's records and then go about tracing the user IDs to email addresses, which they would then have to trace to individuals. This is a lot of work for misdemeanor cases but it might happen.
The disclaimers will only go so far. Most jurors and judges probably won't believe the posts are fiction.
I can certainly be busted for performing an illegal act, but writing is not an illegal act. Do they bust authors of adult books? No.
In order to prosecute me for an illegal activity, I need to be caught in the committment of that activity. The beauty of this country is that I can write anything I want to express myself. Nobody can prosecute me for that.
Persecute? Yes. Prosecute? No.
Sorry, but you're wrong. It is true that the act of writing a review is not a crime (I never said it was), but the review itself is evidence that you committed a different crime. You can indeed be prosecuted for that one, and your writing can be used against you IF the prosecution can show that you are the author.
It is also not true that you "need to be caught in the committment of [illegal] activity" in order to be prosecuted. Scott Peterson is being prosecuted but he was not caught in the act of killing Laci. O.J. Simpson was prosecuted, and no one caught him killing either of his victims. There is no need for eyewitness testimony. All the prosecution needs is enough evidence to support a conviction, and something the defendant wrote in which he admits committing the crime is pretty good evidence.
It is true that, in California, police can only arrest someone for a misdemeanor if they catch him in the act. But people are prosecuted all the time for misdemeanors despite not being arrested. Being prosecuted begins either when the D.A. files a complaint (often called an "information" in California) or a grand jury hands down an indictment. D.A.s and grand juries can take these actions whether the defendant has been arrested or not.
Ah, but in all the court cases you mentioned there was sufficient PHYSICAL evidence to warrant a court case. That's the key. A review posted here is just words. Without physical evidence it would be hard to convince a judge to take this possible misdemeanor crime to trial.
TER reviews are probably not enough to convict us of a crime. Combined with other evidence such as a bust or cell phone activity could produce legal trouble. I think this is more of your wife hiring a private eye type evidence than real hardcore Vice cop activity.
But a PI would not have subpoena power and could not force TER to reveal the email addresses of its members. Presumably Staff would not cooperate with anyone who lacked a subpoena, so a PI would have a hard time tying a review to anyone in the real world. This assumes, of course, that the reviewer was careful to prevent his wife from finding his handle some other way.
The original question asked only whether a review could be used as evidence, and not whether a prosecution was likely if that was the only evidence available. I agree with you that such a case would probably not get to trial based solely upon a review on TER. But I think the prosecutors would be able to gather additional evidence in many instances. Such evidence might include cell phone records showing not only who the defendant called but approximately where he was at the time, or maybe email exchanges with the provider. There might also be footage from a surveillance camera confirming that he was in the building where the lady works. If he had told people where he was supposedly going, it might be easy to show that this was just a cover story. All of this evidence is circumstantial, but it would be enough to justify a trial and to support a conviction even if there were no eyewitnesses and no physical evidence of what went on behind closed doors.
This is just a completly uneducated idea, but what if you never say anything about payment in the reviews. It is not aginst the law to have sex with a woman then talk about it. I imagine Providers have SO how could someone prove you not if thier is no evidence of payment?
I doubt that any provider's SO has ever posted a review of their time together. The point of a review is to help others anticipate what their experience will be like, and this only works if clients are the ones who kiss and tell.
You're right that a review which says nothing about payment will offer less evidence but, like I said in another post, prosecutors whose only evidence is a review probably won't bring a case at all. Such a review combined with other evidence can still make for a pretty strong case.
As far as I know being a "sl*t" or sport "f*er" is not against the law... So theoretically if the money issue were aleviated from inclusion in the review, then it is possible that people just are reviewing the sport f*-ing that they do and are simply comparing notes for the next person who might want to engage in that sport with the reviewed or sport f*er.
I suppose it's theoretically possible, but so are many other things. There is always some theoretically possible innocent explanation for any evidence in any case. No jury reviewing the type of evidence I described would have reasonable doubts based on your proposed argument. Trust me on this one.
"mistakenly came to the conclusion that these fantasy reviews being written were actually true and evidential in nature."
I think you need to take a chill pill dude. Just enjoy yourself and have fun seeing the providers that we review on this site.
Dear "Super"9
Thanks so much for your insightful and cogent comments. It's such a pleasure to engage in scintillating dialogue with someone with your obvious "grasp" of the issues I was putting forth.
It's so refreshing to know that I'm amongst people like yourself who don't just think with their DICK! 
!
Dear SAM "U" RYE
You are welcome.