In a filing on Tuesday, US Attorney Billy J. Williams said prosecutors decided not to pursue charges against Santilli because of "this Court's pretrial evidentiary rulings excluding evidence against" him.

The charges were dismissed without prejudice, which means it is as though the action had never been filed.

"It's been our position since the beginning that Pete had innocent intentions here," Santilli's lawyer Tom Coan told KOIN 6 News. "He never encouraged anyone to go out and stay at the refuge."

The Las Vegas Review and Journal adds:

The dismissal came at the request of federal prosecutors in Portland who acknowledged in court papers that they no longer had enough evidence to pursue their case against conservative radio talk show host Pete Santilli. Prosecutors cited rulings that barred them from presenting some of their evidence.

"Based upon this Court's pretrial evidentiary rulings excluding evidence against Santilli (ECF No. 1171), the government has decided that the interests of justice do not support further pursuit of these charges against Santilli," wrote US Attorney Billy J. Williams.

Awww, their evidence wasn't admitted? Poor babies. Perhaps, they should try acknowledging who is actually committing the crimes on land that, according the Constitution, belongs to the people of the State of Oregon.

However, this does not mean that Santilli is completely off the hook just yet. He is being transported to Nevada where he is facing trumped up charges from the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege in Bunkerville, Nevada.

"He looks forward to focusing 100 percent of his time defending the charges here in Nevada," Santilli attorney Chris Rasmussen said Tuesday.

Ammon Bundy's former attorney Mike Arnold added that he believes the trial on what he refers to as "thought crimes" will be a long one.

"We don't have thought crimes in America. You need, typically, overt acts to accompany speech in order to make it past First Amendment muster," Arnold said. "In this case, the government is claiming that the possession of firearms on the property was such an overt act and the protesters are presumably going to say, 'you know, we have a right to open carry.'"