Looking for opinions on this. I always ask every provider I contact for the first time the following question when scheduling.  

(still not a barrista)

an intentional conspiracy to commit an illegal act.  Plus, why would you ever use the word "fee"?  Why not some idiotic euphemism like "roses"?  I'm sure that any reasonable judge or jury that hears that you merely offered 800 roses for two hours of someone's time would conclude that nothing nasty was happening.

I see it differently. Yes I have knowledge of that law and would by that statement be looking to not violate it. A fee paid for time is not illegal here in AZ (with the exception of one city) so using that term to me doesn't denote any illegal intention. Of course that's just my opinion.  

s/he will burrow in on all the details especially why you felt you needed to confirm the fee was for time only to begin with. S/he will want to know what other services you were intentionally excluding by your statement. S/he will want to know why the provider's time only was worth the fee, and whether there is any well known market for similar time-only services. Just seems to me that the less said about any fee, donation, roses, honorarium, or move-in fee (ha ha) is the better. What I'm really driving at is that judges and prosecutors are not going to mince around playing word games in this type of case, and they are going to focus on the common sense interpretation of the totality of the facts. We should not delude ourselves that we can thread some magic word-needle that no one else ever thought of.

-- Modified on 12/26/2014 5:04:09 PM

While not an “affirmative defense”…sign…. it is evidence that no offer to exchange money for sex has been made. If the prior correspondence is also sex neutral and no contrary language or conduct occurs during the encounter, the DA would probably not prosecute this one as a solicitation.

...ask the questions and if you STFU and ask for a lawyer, they can only prosecute you with the evidence they have gathered themselves.  You have a First Amendment right not to help them prosecute you.

They may indeed decide to prosecute him but they also may decide there's not enough evidence and  go for lower-hanging fruit, like your example of idiots who talk to cops and prosecutors.

It is just not evidence of anything illegal per se.   Other statements or actions you do could be deemed to be illegal anyway, which would negate anything else you happened to say.    

Try learning how to at least spell the damn word correctly before attempting to give legal advice, and BAD legal advice at that.

You and your OP are TSTTT,  but I couldn't help but laugh at the irony of the fact that you can't even spell the word. Thanks for the laugh, but remember, we are laughing AT you, not with you. lmao

i googled... No luck.

The Canucks spell defense as defence.

It just seemed so ironic that I had to point it out.

but as you said, there is no shortage of morons who think that they can't outsmart LE by use of code words and LE checks. lol

Congratulations!  Conan welcomes you!

You must say that "I am exercising my 5th amendment right to remain silent." Keep saying it and "I want a lawyer" Just keeping silent without saying you are remaining silent and exercising your rights, can be viewed as guilt. This will not stop the cops from asking you more questions and trying to bait you into saying something. They CAN and WILL lie to you. The good cop/bad cop tactic is still used. Because it works. Open your mouth and I guarantee you will go to jail. The only chance you have is to exercise you right to remain silent. Cops don't care if you are innocent or guilty. To them, everyone is guilty and you are nothing more than paperwork and a possible overtime bump in their paycheck.