warrant relief from judgment. In Pacific Far East, the law was clarified after judgment to show that the bankrupt had paid an erroneously high fee. The court relied on two factors to permit relief in the form of a partial refund. First, the parties could not appeal, so a post-judgment motion was the only means to obtain relief. Second, the judgment from which the movant sought relief had been based on a stipulation by the parties. Thus, the contract law principle of "mutual mistake” applied. Claimant in this case does not point to a similar legal or equitable reason to grant relief. 5 . One might argue that claimant should have brought this motion when the cases on which $405k relied were decided. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109
holding that  545 entitles the government to civil forfeiture of certain funds subject to the eighth amendment holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding eighth amendment applicable to civil forfeitures and cited as controlling in 405k holding that forfeitures may violate the eighth amendment excessive fines clause holding that the seventh circuit continues to adhere to the view that the eighth amendment does not apply to civil in rem actions