An Escort told me that it's o.k. to post detailed sexual services on the web sites and e-mails, but when you meet them you should not say anything about sex and just leave the money in envelope.  Anyone know if this makes any sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. It's not a crime to talk dirty over e-mail or over the phone. Heck, people pay for it and it's legal. When you meet someone, you're not paying for the sex. The payment is for her time, which is legal. You have not said aloud that the payment is for sex. The sex is entirely voluntary on her part and is given free. Furthermore, who is to say the money in the unmarked envelope is from you for her services? You could have accidentally left it behind or it might not be yours.

The escort you talked to is probably familiar with the law, so she doesn't get arrested, and given that she is not in jail, it's probably worked well for her.

Hopefully this escort is an attorney

I would not make such an assumption.  There is the offer of an illegal act itself (sex for money) and the thing called the "act in furtherance" (taking active steps to go through with that illegal act).  From what I have read, connecting those two gets you busted.  If that is true, then I see no reason why a law enforcement agency could not create a very explicit ad or website, tie it to a specific phone number, then record you saying "Hi, Andrea, I'm calling about your ad on Craigslist" (the ad that says "blow jobs for $100").  You show up and you get arrested, money or no money.

But I am not an attorney.  This is best answered by one.  And I'm sure that any attorney would advise you that police often take wide liberties with how they interpret "act in furtherance".  Just because it does not lead to a conviction does not mean you won't get arrested (and in big legal trouble).

and if she posts something explicit, and you later have a non-explicit conversation, ALL OF THAT might get in front of the jury which decides what the 2 of you were doing.

She's assuming that these "detailed sexual services" are not going to get into evidence, and my guess is, you wouldn't be in trouble if her site wasn't Exhibit A.

is the least of your worries. (It will probably be a few hundred dollars and court costs.)

Far more worrisome is the embarrasement, the hassle and expense of hiring a lawyer and going to court, and most of all, the possiblity of divorce or the payment to the meme-sahib to avoid divorce. (Remember Kobe Bryants $2 million dollar pink diamond purchase?)

Best advice, take special care to make sure that the provider you contact is not LE.

(still not a lawyer)

The "act in furtherance" language is particular to California. It's basically proof that an agreement to exchange sex for money was made. Note that making the agreement is in itself a crime, so that exchange of money isn't required. There was a case mentioned on this forum, Kim v. Superior Court, 136 Cal. App. 4th 937 (2006), in which the acts in furtherance were telling an office to undress. The case also gives other examples of acts in furtherance: driving around the block after a conversation with a suspected prostitute, undressing, and transfer of money. Given those examples, the example of showing up somewhere after answering an Internet ad would certainly seem an act in furtherance.

comments above.  Even if you are not in CA, the principles (which I try to explain) are pretty basic & universal, and I'd bet that other states get to about the same result.

It's like this, folks:  every time you think of a really good scam, and you think you're the first to think of it, or the only one who can figure it out, that's the time you need to think again.

"Given those examples, the example of showing up somewhere after answering an Internet ad would certainly seem an act in furtherance."

Now this is why I said the conviction might not be a sure thing, but it is probably enough to get you arrested.  I think if a man saw an explicit ad and simply showed-up (and was arrested), a halfway decent defense attorney could probably establish about a million credible pieces of "reasonable doubt".  For example, someone could see that explicit ad, tell his friend about it, and leave out the crucial details about payment and sex (stuff like that)...But I'm talking about avoiding the stuff that will get a cop to want to ARREST a guy, not the stuff that will lead to a likely conviction or dismissal.

How many times have you had an escort ask "Are you in any way a member of law enforcement?"...as if the reply of "no" is some kind of legal safety net for her?  (Hint: it isn't).  

My point being that there are a great many escorts out there who carry serious misconceptions (about legal topics) around with them.

Most of what the others have said is wrong.  They are talking about whether you could be convicted of prostitution or attempted prostitution based upon your ad, which you can't.  I don't think they have considered whether you can be convicted of solicitation, which is a distinct crime (even though it is covered by the same statute in California) and which does not involve any physical act.  

The "act in furtherence" language others have used would convert a solicitation case into one of attempted prostitution.  The fact that your ad wouldn't support an attempted prostitution charge is nice, but it doesn't mean you're home free.

I originally wrote two more paragraphs but decided not to post them, since they could have been construed as advice on how to avoid gettng into trouble for something other than the web page.  (No one should email me privately for this sort of guidance either.  I don't have VIP status so I won't receive your message, but even if I could read it I wouldn't give you a helpful answer.)

You have eloquently reminded me that I'm not an attorney, and should stop acting as such.  I guess I try to prevent people from making costly assumptions about legal consequences, as I've seen people arrested for merely showing up to locations after seeing an ad that was very specifically worded.  But things vary from state to state.  The best advice is to stick with the providers whom you'd consider to be quite reputable.

-ggl