In regards to the whole appeal vs trial court thing this is something I should probably get a handle on ASAP so I can comment intelligently on it. But on the rest:
-It's common to stay a case with similar arguments. I get that people are suffering in the interim but this is not something Conroy came up with, so that part is sort of just ranting.
-IMO this should have never been a 'class action', this is a matter of constitutionality just like Parker, Hitzig, etc. But as for Turmel saying he's pretending 'you' have a stake, that's just a lie. In cases like this representative plaintiffs are used so the court doesn't have 10000 people in it. Everyone similarly situated has a 'stake', not just the 4 plaintiffs in this case. Turmel knows better.
-Ruling the 'left outs' were the only ones with standing to appeal is logical. If you are protected by the injunction, why would you appeal? That makes no sense. Again, this are representative plaintiffs, meaning if you fall into their circumstance you are represented. Turmel is skirting the line between misleading and outright lying here.
I have to again stress that interlocutory is not meant to address every need of the plaintiffs, but prevent irreprable harm as previously discussed with the 3-prong test. I really need to do some research on this whole trial vs appeal court stuff though as I have a suspicion Turmel isn't being truthful there either, hopefully within the next week.
Last comment is that I don't think there's a conspiracy, or 'backroom deals'. Some judges may be sympathetic to 'conservative' viewpoints, but we have a highly separated judiciary (thank goodness) in this country from the legislative branch. And right now Harper and judges aren't exactly BFF's.
..... he won't last long and neither will the others.