Two Reidsville City Employees Indicted on Forgery Charges
A Rockingham County grand jury has charged two City of Reidsville employees with common law forgery and common law uttering of forged paper. The case has not been decided.
More on this incident
A Rockingham County grand jury has returned a true bill of indictment charging 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 case is at the charging stage only. No court has decided it, neither man has been convicted of anything, and an indictment is an allegation. Both men are presumed innocent.
The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, the state agency that assists local police departments with criminal investigations, took part in the case at Reidsville's request. According to the bureau's account, as reported by wxii12.com, the Reidsville Police Department asked for its assistance in March to investigate allegations involving two City of Reidsville employees.
No additional details about the allegations were released.
As of the reporting on which this account is based, the matter remains unresolved: the charges are pending and no outcome has been reached.
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.