When equal but separate was overturned, there was little or no precedent to support this

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED When equal but separate was overturned, there was little or no precedent to support this even though constitutionally it would have been correct to overturn it. Yet the decision of the Supreme Court, ultimately by Justice Warren, was in favor of overturning it because it was wrongly addressed long enough, it was the obviously right thing to do, i.e., consistent with the spirit of the U. S. Constitution if not the practice of it due to slavery and visceral discrimination against blacks. 1-Hasn't the law of the public duty doctrine self-servingly existed long enough, especially when such as EMTs can commit atrocities even on purpose without concern about consequences because the employees of the DC government cover for zach other plus the law protects them in all that? ; : : [sn't the statute of limitations and requirements for complying with such, for instance, notifying the DC Government almos immediately after an incident and in a way requiring painstaking detail or a lawyer to figure out, unrealistic and catering to the needs of the employees and the agency? Especially if the harm done can take longer than a handful of months to get past and address the issue, and especially since the employees stonewall the harmed person so that they can't get anything done? How much is to be expected from a harmed person, who has to pull himself up by the bootstraps in order to address outrageous conduct, or else, his window to take action has lapsed? 2-In cases where a non-lawyer struggling to get some kind of recourse or justice in a situation that was harrowing and/or damaging, should a court require that non-lawyer to be a lawyer and be unable to understand the intent of the pleadings with common sense? Lawyers don't always take cases where justice needs to be done or phone calls need to be made, but frequently what they'll get the laffey matrix rates for or a nice settlement. If the remedy sought is not money, but that a particular employee be criminally prosecuted and/or fired, this alone is sufficient for most lawyers to decide to not take a case because there's no money in it and the plaintiff cannot, especially in an injured state, wind up on the street to insure justice? To have gone through an ordeal and then have DC OAG complain that the plaintiff attached proof instead of complying with Rule 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6) should be legally ridiculed as well as be overtly ridiculous. Should a pro se plaintiff that has endured difficulty already be dismissed for technicalities that are ridiculous in the eyes of a laic, for whom the laws should have been written. Proof and a simple explanation should be sufficient. 3-Shouldn't the statute of limitations begin running at the point a pro se litigant realizes that there was in fact a harm done . and all that consisted of? If harms done on record are not learned except for a good amount of time later, and the harm that was done consists of fraud, for instance, why would a pro se plaintiff be held to the date such fraud was committed rather than when she learned of it, and only because some other aspects that were the reason for the fraud or part of the fraud became self-evident earlier. Shouldn't the offenses learned of later have their own statute of limitations date based on whet the harmed person actually learned of it? 4-And if crimes committed are learned of at a later date, such as tampering with a 911 audio, should the statute of limitations run from the date the tampering comes to the light, which date may not be immediately because such audios are supposed to be sacred and yet upon ordering such an audio just to have a complete record one comes to learn that all sorts of protections were seen to by DC employees, including going as far as the tampering of a 911 audio, why would that crime not stand alone and require action, be prosecutable? And if not in a lawsuit, why wouldn't the agency as a matter of its own integrity insure an investigation and discipline t