Kephart solicitor due diligence submitted, approved by the CCO, and archived — 2026-09-12

Two JotForm compliance-workflow emails on a Saturday: JT submitted the solicitor due-diligence write-up on Jessica B. Kephart for review at 5:25 PM ET, and the archived record came back 58 minutes later at 6:23 PM ET showing Brandon Drespling as the approving reviewer. This closes the assignment Brandon gave JT on 2026-09-09, eleven days before its 2026-09-23 target. Neither email carries any message written by a person; the substance is the review summary JT authored in the submission.

Summary

• JT submitted the Kephart solicitor due-diligence write-up through the JotForm compliance workflow at 5:25 PM ET, naming Brandon as the approver.
• The submission covers Jessica B. Kephart, referred by IAR Jim Peters, with the background reviewed at the beginning of July and the write-up completed 2026-09-12.
• Sources searched with no adverse result: FINRA BrokerCheck, SEC IAPD, EDGAR, NMLS Consumer Access (individual 2743922), OFAC, SAM.gov, the Colorado Judicial Branch docket, Colorado SOS lien and business records, the CBI sex-offender registry, and open-source media.
• Findings: she has never held a securities or advisory registration; she holds active Colorado and Tennessee MLO licenses with no regulatory actions; her identity is corroborated across six independent sources.
• Two in-house file items are noted for remediation and expressly do not reflect on the solicitor. The submission's verdict is "Cleared to continue."
• Brandon approved it the same evening; the archived record went to JT, Brandon, Derek, and the compliance mailbox, with the write-up and a record PDF attached.

Decisions

• Brandon Drespling, as CCO, approved the Kephart solicitor due-diligence submission and it was archived as a compliance record on 2026-09-12.

They asked me for

• Nothing raised.

I asked them for

• Brandon Drespling: review and approval of the submission, as its named approver. Granted the same evening.

Concerns and frustrations raised

• Nothing raised.

What they are focused on

• Brandon Drespling: clearing the compliance file on a solicitor who is already active on accounts.

Doable / not doable / needs a decision

• The Kephart due diligence → done and cleared. The wrinkle Brandon flagged on 2026-09-09, that she was active before the review, is addressed in the write-up rather than treated as a finding against her.
• The two in-house file items noted for remediation → needs a decision on who fixes them and by when; the submission records them but assigns no owner or date.

Action items

Mine

• Remediate the two in-house file items the submission notes — target not stated — (Notion: not pushed)

Theirs

• Nothing raised.

Suggestions for me

• The two in-house file items are the only live thread left from this submission. They were disclosed in an archived compliance record, so they now sit in the firm's own file with no owner named — worth putting a date on them with Brandon rather than leaving them in the write-up.
• Jim Peters appears here only as the referring IAR; nothing in the record asks anything of him.

Notable quotes

"Cleared to continue." — JT, submission review summary