There really isn't anything you can do to get the case sent elsewhere unless it is high profile enough. Frequently the lawyers in small towns all know each other. The best thing to do is to put those distractions to the side and focus on what defense will be presented to the jury
I doubt you can be charged with anything of all they found was some money. Hopefully you didn't describe what you were planning to do with the money. If the police seized the money it may be worth your while to challenge the seizure.
The prosecutor may have realized that the search or stop we're illegal and that it would be difficult to prove. Odds are, you won't hear anything further about this case and your problems are over with at least on this matter.
I'm a little unsure about the answer that was posted. You can't be charged with a felony "assault" if there was no harm to someone. The act of making verbal threats to a person, as you described in your question, may be a misdemeanor crime of disorderly conduct. That conduct is not a felony.
It's not a crime so I wouldn't list it. I wouldn't worry about other states either unless one of then asks for details on civil forfeitures. You could possibly get this expunged depending on the municipality because there is a case called Melody P.M. where the court of appeals said that municipal forfeitures can be expunged.
Sex with a person under the age of 16 can never be consensual. Consequently, it is a felony offense, regardless of whether the 15 year old was willing or not. If the defendant is prosecuted for this crime then there could surely be a "restraining order" (like a prohibition that, as a condition of probation, the 20 year old not have contact with the 15 year old until such time that the Department of Corrections approves). I'm not sure about how to answer whether you can "worm your way through"...
There is a split of opinion on what expungement truly means. However, when something is expunged it's off CCAP and no longer accessible to the public. I think the concept that an expunged "conviction" needs to be mentioned flies in the face of what expungement means and is supposed to achieve. If we're giving youthful offenders on lower level cases a second chance, why would we impose a rule that requires those same people to disclose that conviction? Plus, there is case law where witnesses at...