Please share the best defense you've heard a John testify here. I'm sure there are some real smart ways to beat the system.

which usually means not doing your bidness near a Krispy Kreme or Dunkin' Donuts...

of getting "caught" than you are.  The provider would incriminate herself if she told the police anything about you!
That is why it's best not to state anything at all.

The best way to avoid being arrested is to not break the law in the first place.  The elements of a solicitation for prostitution violation require the offer of money for sex.   Never offer money or anything else of value for sex.  All the information about the provider’s rate and performance is contained within her TER review.  There is no need to discuss either subject with the provider.  When you arrive at her location, avoid the two forbidden subjects.  Begin with a nice conversation and evolve into the main event as naturally as you would with any other woman.  If she is LE, the whole thing would come to a screeching halt as soon as you became physical.  

As an extra measure of insurance, it is a good idea to have a small voice activated tape recorder in your pocket when you meet her.  The tape recorded conversation wherein you avoided the forbidden words would be invaluable if you were arrested.  

The number one rule if you are ever arrested for anything is to remain silent.  Be cooperative and provide you name, address, etc. when you are asked to do so.  However, when and if, you are admonished of your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, tell the officer you wish to remain silent.  Always be polite, but stand you ground.  After you are booked and released, contact a defense attorney.  Let the attorney take it from there.  Never attempt to work out a deal with either the police or a prosecutor on your own

I was thinking more along the lines of how to make the prosecution drop the charges with a "clever" motion. Any ideas?

You can't be serious.  A clever motion indeed.  Like fake left but go right Shaq?  Now I know why you got caught.

they love that

Hey Doc,

Isn't there a state and federal penal code section fot this violation?

It's not a violation if you are taping yourself.

The law in California prohibits tape recording a telephone conversation between two or more people, unless all parties know they are being taped recorded.  In regards to taping a conversation in person: The law prohibits secretly taping a conversation if the other party has a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Needless to say, there is a plethora of case law defining what reasonable expectation of privacy is.  However, the courts have ruled that a police officer, while on-duty, acting in an official capacity, has no reasonable expectation of privacy.  If the person you are recording is an undercover officer, then there is no violation of the law. The tape, barring extenuating circumstances, could be admitted as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings.  

It is an accepted and common practice for police officers to have voice activated tape recorders on their person, and tape record conversations they have with the public.  The officer is not required to tell the person their conversation is being recorded.  This type of recording is used primarily by the officer to defend against a false complaint filed by the citizen.  The tape recorded conversation is admissible as evidence if the officer files a lawsuit against the citizen for initiating a false complaint against the officer.

Vary good Dr. OBGYN in a past life I worked UCLE

regarding a legal issue.  I understand it is difficult to condense a complex set of answers into a couple of paragraphs, but I attempt to answers the questions as best I can in a way that can be easily understood.  

Read Maxblue’s response to the information I provided, and you can understand why the other attorneys are gone.  This is not a place for the exchange of legal opinions, advice, and clarification of issues, it’s a circus for one liners.  Why he posted such an insulting remark is beyond me.

I think maybe  the  question about dropping charges  , may actually merit more than was given credit  here for.  I mean what if  at very best LE have a weak or nothing case? Yet they are still bent on  trying to pursue it.

There was no agreement for  any act (sexual or otherwise)  for money , money was never  accepted even though it was offered, and every  verbal attempt that was  made by LE was circumvented verbally.

So with all of   this  being fact and contained in the audio recordings of  the sting , after  8 months and  4  court visits the case isnt thrown out , why is  that? I wish to add that LE discovery hasnt been submitted to the defense as of yet , and another  visit to court is scheduled? Is this some sort of legal  strategy? I am sure I dont know why  4 court visits for a first time offense charges  of a misdemeanor violation should  require  the man hours involved in pursuing something that no way could result in a conviction should it end up at a jury trial, since the bottom line is  that  no crime took place other than harrassment.  Did I mention that it took six seperate  occaisions  by phone  to finally get the  agreement to meet after  refusing over and over , which of course was a sting.
I guess the  question is  after how many failed attempts  by LE  to  get someone to agree to  meet with them, is  it  a violation of the providers rights as  some  form of  harrassment? Also what is  a threat  from LE  considered in terms of  a crime or violation of  a persons rights?  If  a sting takes place and  the  arresting officer  states that if the  arrestee  doesnt plead guilty that  the LE  will hunt them down, doesnt this seem  like its a violation of ones right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as opposed to the LE's opinion of  whos guilty and how they should proceed.  If someone could use something like phone records to prove that  LE purposely  drug their feet by not submitting discovery , so that they  could actively try to hunt someone down , would that be a pursuable  case? Maybe a civil rights  case?

I hope i manged to get my point and questions out  in a way  that  was understandable. Any  input would be welcomed.