The BAR wants a person to sign as surety. At key points in a Court case, the BAR members want one to sign certain documents. Why? Because a signature is consent - it can be legally interpreted as agreement to be surety for an obligation, to perform, to waive other rights and more.
Does one have to sign? No. But in many cases, the BAR has designed a system so that if one does not sign, it is interpreted as dishonor, leaving them the ability to invoke their power of attorney to declare one delinquent, incompetent and send them to prison anyway.
This is why one may have heard of people who refused to sign the papers when entering prison and yet were treated worse than most serious criminals. Why? Because the system is designed at certain points where one MUST sign. So how does one overcome an unjust and unfair system that forces one to sign under duress, against their will and yet interprets such signatures as valid under Canon Law? The answer is making sure one's signature follows a clear mark of duress. Place “under duress” near each signature to invalidate the documents one is forced to sign.
“Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)
It should also be noted that Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.