Two Reidsville City Employees Indicted on Forgery Charges
A Rockingham County grand jury charged Haywood Nebraska Cloud Jr. and Drew G. Bigelow with common law forgery and common law uttering of forged paper.
More on this incident
A Rockingham County grand jury has returned a true bill of indictment charging two City of Reidsville employees, Haywood Nebraska Cloud Jr., 54, and Drew G. Bigelow, 29, with common law forgery and common law uttering of forged paper, wxii12.com reported.
The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation — the state agency brought in to work the case — said the Reidsville Police Department requested its assistance in March to investigate allegations involving the two employees, according to wxii12.com. The bureau is the only investigating agency identified in the report.
No additional details concerning the allegations were released, wxii12.com reported.
The case is at the charging stage and nothing more. An indictment is a formal accusation, not a finding of guilt; the wxii12.com report records no plea, no trial and no outcome of any kind. The matter is therefore unresolved, and a reader coming to this account later should not read it as an account of how the case ended. Charges are allegations, the defendants are untried, and both Cloud and Bigelow are presumed innocent.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 20:56current
First published.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 20:49current
First published.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 21:03current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.