love this man. His life alone is evidence of his innocence
His life history has no bearing on guilt or innocence. That's the same reason that US courts don't allow prior bad acts as evidence of guilt in criminal trials. Hovind could have spent his life curing disease in India, or spent it raping small children in Mongolia, neither matters as to his guilt or innocence on tax evasion charges.
Judges commonly use a person's prior record as proof of intent.
No, they don't. In fact they cannot use any prior record as proof of intent, the only time a persons prior record comes into play is in sentencing. It's high school level understanding of the law, and it leads me to conclude that you are A)Uneducated, B) Willfully ignorant in the matter, or C) Intentionally lying.
I ask that the judge look at his record and see if there is anything that would suggest this man would willingly break a law.
His record (At least the parts of it you happen to be refering to) have no bearing whatsoever on his guilt or innocence, Although his finacial records showed a pattern fiscal malfescence and intent to defraud. If judges were to judge based on your criteria then there would never be a single christian priest or preacher convicted of child molestation on the grounds that they must inherently be good people. You are ignoring the wealth of evidence that point to Hovinds guilt in this matter and asking that the courts do the same, thats not how US jurisprudence works, whether you like it or not.
Also there are countless men that have been convicted of much worse crimes and received a much lighter sentence
There are sentencing guidelines and other factors to take into account. Such as...
Did they cooperate with the investigating authorities?
Did they intentionally try to hamper and/or disrupt the investigation?
Did they willingly provide information that lead to prosecution of greater criminal enterprise?
Did the accused willingly provide restitution or show remorse for his crime?
Did they willingly involve others in crimes of which those actors were unaware of?
Will the accused likely return to criminal activity upon the end of his/her sentence?
And there are a host of other consideration that a judge must take into account in sentencing. In Hovind's case he did attempt to hamper the investigation, he involved his employee's in criminal activities which said employee's were unaware of, He intentionally attempted to avoid federal banking regulations, he showed no remorse for his criminality, instead he attempted to show that A) Income Taxes are illegal (They are not) B) That the was a far reaching conspiracy to silence him (There is not) C)That his position as a "man of god" exempts him from both taxation and prosecution (It does not).
This is ridiculous! Free Hovind! He is innocent.
Not according to the US federal court system. What you are arguing is that because he is a pastor that he should recieve special consideration in US courts. All citizens are equal under US law and Hovind's guilt was proved in open court (The fact that he made a mockery of those precedings notwithstanding.)
Petitions don't free people from their sentences, neither do websites, and certainly not special pleading arguments from willfully ignorant sycophantic creationist Hovind worshipers as yourself. You want to know what does? Proof of innocence... You don't have that, you don't even have anything close to that, all you have is "I think he's a good man so therefore he must be innocent because I say so.". You what that's called in a US court? Nothing, It's a shit argument, not worth the bytes you used to post it.