Once again, saying that impartiality happens does not mean that the system is designed this way. It's not. It is designed to force you, the plaintiff, to petition the same party that wronged you for restitution. Sometimes this happens; sometimes this doesn't. However, pointing to the fact that it happens does not negate the fact that you are still entirely at the mercy of the party that did the wrong.

I understand what you're saying that an individual agent, or even a particular branch, is not equivalent to every other branch or agent comprising the entity called government. However, in the same way an employee of a company is still a member of the party that is that company, those agents and divisions are members of the same party called government. If an employee of a bank defrauded you, would it be considered just and proper to be forced to arbitrate the dispute with the governing board of the bank? No, of course not. It would be a severe conflict of interest. And yet, when it comes to government, this fact is somehow glossed over and ignored.

The only change that would effectively render the situation justified is if a government allowed a plaintiff in cases of government misconduct to appeal to a third party as an arbitrator. Otherwise, there is no impartiality in the proceedings; there is, by virtue of the actors involved, a conflict of interest, and it renders any claim of impartiality moot.

My argument is that this method is immoral and cannot possibly result in justice except by coincidence. By design, it is unjust. So far you've yet to disprove this claim. As for what model I'd suggest? I don't care, so long as people respect the property and consent of others. Have whatever system makes you feel happy. Hell, if you want to have a huge central government, you can have that, too, so long as it's built upon the actual consent of everyone it attempts to enforce rules on and it doesn't attempt to use force to make people obey its edicts and take people's property that do not consent to its rule.