My point is that the prudent thing to do is use Rule 4.33 to ensure that the proposed course of study is acceptable to the bar and register as a law student.  I am an online law school grad and work in online education, students fail to realize that bar examiners are incredibly hostile to online education.  The Bar is not your friend and if a rule can be construed against you, it often is.  As for the California Bar being "liberal", it is different alright, but just as rule oriented as any other bar. 

This is an interesting plan:

Rule 4.30 Legal education in a foreign state or country
Persons who have studied law in a law school in a foreign state or country may qualify as general applicants provided that they
(A) have a first degree in law, acceptable to the Committee, from a law school in the foreign state or country and have completed a year of legal education at an
American Bar Association Approved Law School or a California accredited law school in areas of law prescribed by the Committee; or
(B) have a legal education from a law school located in a foreign state or country without a first degree in law, acceptable to the Committee, and
(1) have met the general education requirements;
(2) have studied law as permitted by these rules in a law school, in a law office or judge’s chambers, or by any combination of these methods (up to one year of legal education credit may be awarded for foreign law study completed); and
(3) have passed the First-Year Law Students' Examination in accordance with these rules and Committee policies.

Assuming you can convince the Bar examiners your online LLB qualifies at the very least you are looking at a year of law school in the US acceptable to the Examiners.  An online LLM degree may or may not satisfy the Bar Examiners.  The plan rests on the Bar examiners accepting the LLB which is at their discretion.  Somehow I think Cal Bar Examiners might balk at a foreign distance learning program.  You see, bar Examiners are gatekeepers, just because they can do something does not mean they will.

I would be concerned that if you are a US citizen or resident, the Cal Bar Examiners would view this plan as a dodge of their own distance learning regime and the FYLSE.
If this is uncharted territory, then this procedure is highly advised:

Rule 4.33 Evaluation of study completed or contemplated
An applicant may request that the Committee determine whether general or legal education contemplated or completed by the applicant meets the eligibility requirements of these rules for beginning the study of law, the First-Year Law Students’ Examination or the California Bar Examination. The request must be submitted on the required form with certified transcripts and the fee set forth in the Schedule of Charges and Deadlines.
10 of 25
A written response indicating whether or not the education is sufficient will be issued within sixty days of receipt of the request.

Carrier [sic] options for most online law school students involve things like:

1.  Telephone salesperson after failing to pass the FYLSE.

2.  Insurance or WestLaw@ salesperson after failing to pass the Cal Bar.

3.  Solo practioner by default after passing the Cal Bar.

A law school with no  one qualified to practice law associated wiht it, is violating the law of rational thought.

I agree - I went to an online California law school and then qualified as a solicitor via the QLTT based on my PQE  and passing three exams.  Unless one is a dual EU/US citizen, the training contract is not going to happen.